The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutSDR2010-00001 SDR2O1O - 00001 PITTMAN & BROOKS CPA' S ADDITION NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION (AMENDED) SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW(SDR) 2010-00001 PITTMAN & BROOKS ADDITION THIS DECISION IS BEING AMENDED AND REISSUED TO CORRECT CONDITION OF APPROVAL #10 AND THE FINDINGS IN SECTION E. IMPACT STUDY, TO REFLECT A REVISED UNMITIGATED IMPACT FIGURE. THE APPEAL PERIOD AND EFFECTIVE DATE HAVE ALSO BEEN EXTENDED ACCORDINGLY. 120 DAYS = 8/12/2010 SECTION I. APPLICATION SUMMARY FILE NAME: PITTMAN &BROOKS CPA'S CASE NOS.: Site Development Review(SDR) SDR2010-00001 Adjustment (VAR) VAR2010-00005 PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting Site Development Review to construct a 1,209 square foot second floor addition and elevator to an existing office building. In addition, the applicant is requesting an adjustment to the access and egress standards to account for two accesses on SW 72nd Avenue to the subject property spaced approximately 185 feet apart which is less than the required 600-foot separation for arterials. APPLICANT/ Randall C Brooks APPLICANT'S James Andrews OWNER: 15255 SW 72nd Avenue REP: Nicoli Engineering Tigard,OR 97224 PO Box 23784 Tigard, Oregon 97281 LOCATION: The property is located at 15255 SW 72nd Avenue in Tigard; Washington County Tax Map 2S112DB,Tax Lot 200. 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 CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.360, 18.370, 18.390, 18.530, 18.705, 18.725, 18.745, 18.755, 18.765, 18.780, 18.790, 18.795 and 18.810. NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR2010-00001 PITTMAN&BROOKS PAGE 1 OF 21 SECTION II. DECISION Notice is hereby given that the City of Tigard Community Development Director's designee has APPROVED the above request for Site Development Review and an Adjustment subject to certain conditions of approval. The findings and conclusions on which the decision is based are noted in Section VI. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF THE SITE PERMIT: Submit to the Planning Department(Gary Pagenstecher, 503-718-2434) for review and approval: 1. The applicant shall position fencing as directed by the project arborist and detailed on the tree preservation sheet 2.1. The applicant shall allow access by the City Arborist for the purpose of monitoring and inspection of the tree protection to verify that the tree protection measures are performing adequately. Failure to follow the plan, or maintain tree protection fencing in the designated locations shall be grounds for immediate suspension of work on the site until remediation measures and/or civil citations can be processed. 2. If work is required within an established tree protection zone, the project arborist shall prepare a proposal detailing the construction techniques to be employed and the likely impacts to the trees. The proposal shall be reviewed and approved by the City Arborist before proposed work can proceed within a tree protection zone. The City Arborist may require changes pnor to approval. The project arborist shall be on site while work is occurring within the tree protection zone and submit a s report certifying that the work occurred per the proposal and will not significantly impact thueTiTE and/or stability of the trees. This note shall be incluced on the Tree Protection Plan. 3. The applicant shall have an on-going responsibility to ensure that the Project Arborist has submitted written reports to the City Arborist, at least once every two weeks, as the Project Arborist monitors the construction activities from initial tree protection zone (TPZ) fencing installation through the building construction phases. The reports shall evaluate the condition and location of the tree protection fencing, determine if any changes occurred to the TPZ, and if any part of the Tree Protection Plan has been violated. If the amount of TPZ was reduced,then the Project Arborist shall certify that the construction activities did not adversely impact the overall, long-term health and stability of the tree(s). If the reports are not submitted to the City Arborist at the scheduled intervals, and if it appears the TPZ's or the Tree Protection Plan are not being followed by the contractor or a sub-contractor, the City can stop work on the project until an inspection can be done by the City Arborist and the Project Arborist. Prior to final inspection,the applicant shall submit a final report by the Project Arborist certifying the health of protected trees and that the street trees were properly planted per the approved street tree plan. Tree protection measures may be removed and final inspection authorized upon review and approval by the City Arborist. Submit to the Engineering Department(Gus Duenas, 503-718-2470) for review and approval: 4. Prior to issuance of a Site Permit, submit an erosion control plan to the Building Division (Mark VanDomelen, 503-718-2448). This plan shall conform to Clean Water Services Design and Construction Standards (Resolution and Order No. 07-20) Chapter 2. No work on-site shall commence until the erosion control permit is issued. 5. Prior to issuance of a Site Permit,the applicant shall provide a construction vehicle access and parking plan to the Development Engineer (Gus Duenas, 503-718-2470) for review and approval. The purpose of this plan is for parking and traffic control during the building construction work 6. Prior to issuance of the site permit,the applicant shall obtain concurrence from Tualatin Valley Fire & Rescue (TVF&R) that no fire protection system is required and that the existing hydrant location is satisfactory for fire protection of the structure. NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR2010-00001 PITIMAN,Sc BROOKS PAGE 2 OF 21 THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO A FINAL BUILDING INSPECTION: Submit to the Planning Department(Gary Pagenstecher, 503-718-2434) for review and approval: 7. Prior to final building inspection, the applicant/owner shall record deed restrictions to the effect that any existing tree greater than 6" diameter may be removed only if the tree dies or is hazardous according to a certified arborist. The deed restriction may be removed or will be considered invalid if all trees preserved in accordance with this decision should either die or be removed as hazardous trees. 8. Prior to final building inspection, the applicant shall call for a planning site inspection to ensure the proposed project is consistent with the approved plans. Submit to the Engineering Department(Gus Duenas, 503-718-2470) for review and approval: 9. Prior to Final Building Inspection,the applicant shall execute a "No Construction" easement over the lot frontage needed for future expansion of 72nd Avenue. The easement shall cover the area needed for expansion of right-of-way to 52 feet from centerline of existing right-of-way. 10. Prior to Final Building Inspection the applicant shall execute a Restrictive Covenant on City- furnished forms to be recorded by the applicant whereby they agree to complete or participate in the future improvements of SW 72nd Avenue adjacent to the subject property when any of the following events occur: A. when the improvements are part of a larger project to be financed or paid for by the formation of a Local Improvement District; B. when the improvements are part of a larger project to be financed or paid for in whole or in part bythe Cltyor other public agency, C when the improvements are part of a larger project to be constructed by a third party and involves the sharing of design and/or construction expenses by the third party owner(s) of property in addition to the subject property;or D. when construction of the improvements is deemed to be appropriate by the City Engineer in conjunction with construction of improvements by others adjacent to the subject site. The level of participation shall be no more than the project's estimated unmitigated impact of$30,000 $26 303 based on 2010 dollars and can be credited towards acquisition of right-of-way, or be applied to design and construction costs for the improvements. Any future participation shall use this amount as the present value with adjustments for inflation using the Engineering News Record construction cost index(currently 8676.68)to the time of participation. As an alternate to future participation,the applicant may elect to pay the x0,000 $26,303 to the City as their contribution to that future improvement. Any funds deposited with the City will be used to fund the improvements along the project frontage. 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 is a long (442 feet)_narrow (134 - 0 feet) triangular shaped parcel. The site was originally developed with the McHenry Office Building in 1978. A zone change from Light Industrial to Industrial Park was approved in 1991(ZON91-0009). Under SDR98-00026, the applicant received major modification approval for a 3,327 square foot addition to an existing office building.lhe addition included office space and a day care facility and approved a variance to the front yard setback standard (35 feet) to allow the addition to replicate the existing building's facade and to legalize the existing non-conforming setback(30 feet). NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR2010-00001 PITTMAN&BROOKS PAGE 3 OF 21 Vicinity Information The supject property is bounded by a railroad right-of-way to the west, SW 72nd Avenue at the intersection with Redwood Lane to the east, and an industnal property to the north. The property is bounded to the north and west by land zoned I-L and to the east by I-P. Site Information and Proposal Description: The applicant is requesting Site Development Review approval to construct a 1,209 square foot second floor addition and elevator to an existing office building. In addition, the applicant is requesting approval for an adjustment to the access and egress standards to account for two accesses to the subject property spaced approximately 185 feet apart which is less than the required 600-foot separation for artenals. SECTION IV. COMMENTS FROM PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 500 FEET On April 19, 2010, the City provided notice of the proposal and an opportunity to comment to property owners within 500 feet of the subject site, but did not receive any comments. The applicant held a properly noticed neighborhood meeting on January 4, 2010 to discuss the proposal with interested neighbors. No neighbors attended the meeting. SECTION V. SUMMARY OF APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA A. Zoning Districts 18.5 (Industrial Zoning Districts) B. Applicable Development Code Standards 18.370 Variances and Adjustments) 18.705 Access Egress and Circulation) 18.725 Environmental Performance Standards) 18.745 Landscapin and Screening) 18.755 Mixed Solidaste and Recyclable Storage) 18.765 Off-Street parking and loading requirements) 18.780 Signs 18.790 Tree Removal) 18.795 Visual Clearance) C. Specific DR Approval Cnteria 18.360 D. Street and Utility Improvement Standards 18.810 E. Impact Study 18.390 SECTION VI. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA A. ZONING DISTRICT Industrial Zoning District(18.530) Lists the description of the Industrial Zoning Districts. 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. The site is located in the Industrial Park District (I-P). The existing uses include office and commercial day care. The office use is proposed to be expanded by 1,200 square feet. Development Standards: Section 18.530.040.B States that Development standards in Industrial zoning districts are contained in Table 18.530.2 below: NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR2010-00001 PITIMAN&BROOKS PAGE 4 OF 21 TABLE 18.530.2 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS IN INDUSTRIAL ZONES STANDARD I-P Existing/Proposed Minimum Lot Size None 23,958 sq. ft. Minimum Lot Width 50 ft 67 ft Minimum Setbacks - Front yard 35 ft 28 ft - Side facing street on corner & through lots - NA - Side yard 0/50 ft. 48/213 ft - Rear yard 0/50 ft 4—32 ft -Distance between front of garage & property line - NA abutting a public or private street. Maximum Height 45 ft 22 ft Maximum Site Coverage [2] 75 % [5] 59.6 % Minimum Landscape Requirement 25 %[6] 40.4% [2] Includes all buildings and impervious surfaces. [5] Maximum site coverage may be increased to 80%if the provisions of Section 18.530.050.B are satisfied. [6] Except that a reduction to 20%of the site may be approved through the site development review process. As shown in the table above, the development standards for the I-P zone are met for the existing/proposed development with the exception of the front yard setback. However, the proposed development is not less conforming than the existing development approved through SDR98-00026,which included approval for the front yard setback variance for the day care portion of the building.The proposed development adds a second story over the previously approved footprint,consistent with the setback approved under SDR98-00026. Pursuant to Tigard Development Code (TDC) 18.530.050.C, the following standards shall apply for all commercial day care uses in industrial zones: 1. The Environmental Impact Assessment must document noise, visible emissions, vibration, odor, glare and heat from uses within one quarter mile. A plan and program for day care facilities to provide mitigation on-site for any of the above off-site impacts must be provided. Sound attenuation walls, screening, window covering, shades, and other such means are appropriate means of mitigation and may be attached as conditions of approval. 2. The State of Oregon Child Care Division Certification Section shall be notified of the proposed site plans prior to submitting an application to insure that the plans submitted generally address the permitting requirements. 3. Prior to occupancy of the proposed day care, evidence of certification through the State of Oregon Child Care Division shall be provided. The existing commercial day care center is allowed as a restricted use in the I-P zone, subject to an environmental impact statement in accordance with TDC 18.530.050.C.1, above and compliance with State of Oregon outdoor open space setbacks. The applicant has submitted the City's Certificate of Occupancy dated 11/04/1999 and the State of Oregon Employment Department Child Care Division Certificate of Approval to operate Darling Deductions Preschool effective May 7, 2009 through May 7, 2010. FINDING: Based on the analysis above,the Development Standards for the I-P zone have been met. NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR2010-00001 PITTMAN&BROOKS PAGE 5 OF 21 B. APPLICABLE DEVELOPMENT CODE STANDARDS Variances and Adjustments (18.370) The applicant is requesting an adjustment to the Access, Egress, and Circulation standards to account for two existing parking lot accesses to the subject property spaced approximately 185 feet apart which is less than the required 600-foot separation for arterials (Section 18.705.030.H.3). SW 72"d Avenue abuts the subject site on the east and is designated an arterial in the City's Transportation System Plan. The classification of SW 72nd Avenue has changed from a collector to an arterial since the existing development was approved. 18.370.020 Adjustments A. Purpose. The purpose of this section is to establish two classes of special variances: 1. "Development adjustments" which allow modest variation from required development standards within proscribed limits. Because such adjustments are granted using "clear and objective standards," these can be granted by means of a Type I procedure, as opposed to the more stringent standards of approval and procedure for variances. 2. "Special adjustments" which are variances from development standards which have their own approval criteria as opposed to the standard approval criteria for variances contained in Section 18.370.020.C. "Special adjustments"include adjustments to the Access,Egress,and Circulation standards as shown below. 5. Adjustment to access and egress standards (Chapter 18.705). a. In all zoning districts where access and egress drives cannot be readily designed to conform to Code standards within a particular parcel, access with an adjoining property shall be considered. If access in conjunction with another parcel cannot reasonably be achieved, the Director may grant an adjustment to the access requirements of Chapter 18.705 through a Type II procedure, as governed in Section 18.390.030, using approval criteria contained in Subsection 2b below. b. The Director may approve, approve with conditions, or deny a request for an adjustment from the access requirements contained in Chapter 18.705, based on the following criteria: (1) It is not possible to share access; (2) There are no other alternative access points on the street in question or from another street; (3) The access separation requirements cannot be met; (4) The request is the minimum adjustment required to provide adequate access; (5) The approved access or access approved with conditions will result in a safe access; and (6)The visual clearance requirements of Chapter 18.795 will be met. Given the triangular configuration of the subject parcel, shared access would only be possible with the property to the north. The adjacent property is developed with a building located approximately 50 feet to the north and is landscaped with grass and trees between the property line and the adjacent building. The adjacent building's parking is located to the north without access options to the subject property. No other streets abut the subject property. There are no alternative access points on SW 72"d Avenue. The access separation requirements cannot be met. The existing access was previously approved as a safe access. Visual clearance requirements are proposed to be maintained. The applicant states that "it is understood that when 72nd Avenue is constructed to the arterial standard, that the existing accesses will need to be re- evaluated." FINDING: Based on the analysis above, the variance to the minimum spacing standard of 600 feet along SW 72"d Avenue, an arterial,can be approved. 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. NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR2010.00001 PITTMAN&BROOKS PAGE 6 OF 21 As shown in the applicant's Site Plan (Sheet 2), the proposed development and the existing parking lot on the subject parcel is accessed by two 30-foot driveways connecting to SW 72nd Avenue. 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 18.705.030I 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 72nd Avenue, 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. 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 including end slopes1 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. These standards are met with the existing curb cuts. No new curb cuts are proposed. 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; 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; NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR2010-00001 PITTMAN&BROOKS PAGE 7 OF 21 Required walkways shall be paved with hard surfaced materials such as concrete, asphalt, stone, brick, etc. Walkways may be required to be lighted and/or signed as needed for safety purposes. Soft-surfaced public use pathways may be provided only if such pathways are provided in addition to required pathways. The existing pedestrian walkways as shown in the applicant's Site Plan (Sheet 2) meet the applicable walkway standards. Section 18.705.030.H.1 states that an access report shall be submitted with all new development proposals which verifies design of driveways and streets are safe by meeting adequate stacking needs, sight distance and deceleration standards as set by ODOT, Washington County, the City and AASHTO. The existing property has two access points to 72nd Avenue providing ingress and egress to two separate parking lots. There does not appear to be a realistic way to connect the two parking areas such that one access would be feasible. The applicant proposes to retain the two access points and not make any changes to the existing driveways. We concur with this roposal. As a result, an access spacing standard adjustment for access closer than 600 feet on an arterial is required as reviewed above and in the Variance and Adjustment section of this decision. Section 18.705.030.H.2 states that driveways shall not be permitted to be placed in the influence area of collector or arterial street intersections. Influence area of intersections is that area where queues of traffic commonly form on approach to an intersection. The minimum driveway setback from a collector or arterial street intersection shall be150 feet, measured from the right-of-way line of the intersecting street to the throat of the proposed driveway. The setback may be greater depending upon the influence area, as determined from City Engineer review of a traffic impact report submitted by the applicant's traffic engineer. In a case were 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 existing driveways approved through prior approval (SDR98-00026) are proposed to remain. Therefore, this standard has been met. Section 18.705.030.H.3 and 4 states that the minimum spacing of driveways and streets along a collector shall be 200 feet. The minimum spacing of driveways and streets along an arterial shall be 600 feet. The minimum spacing of local streets along a local street shall be 125 feet. Existing driveways are approximately 185 apart. SW 172nd Avenue is an arterial street. The applicant proposes to use the existing accesses. Therefore, the applicant requests an adjustment to allow for the existing driveways to be retained. The adjustment request is reviewed above in the Variance and Adjustment section of this decision and is approved. Minimum Access Requirements for Commercial and Industrial Use: Section 18.705.030.I 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 existing parking lots combined include 24 spaces. Therefore, each access must be 30-feet with 24 feet of pavement. As shown in the applicant's Site Plan (Sheet 2) the existing accesses are consistent with this standard. FINDING: Based on the analysis above, and approval of the requested Access and Egress "Special adjustment" for driveway spacing on an arterial reviewed in the Variance and Adjustment section of this decisions, the applicable Access, Egress and Circulation standards have been met. NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR2010-00001 PITTMAN&BROOKS PAGE 8 OF 21 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 ure 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 1,200 square foot second story addition and elevator for office use would not expect to produce any adverse impacts from noise, visible emission, vibrations, odors, glare and heat or insects and rodents. Therefore, each of the environmental performance standards above have 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). As shown in the applicant's Site Plan, the existing street trees meet the street tree standards. 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. Pursuant to Table 18.745.1, Buffer Matrix, no buffering and screening is required between the uses on the subject site and uses on adjacent parcels. Screening: Special Irovisions: Section 18.745.050.E requires the screening of parking and loading areas. Landscaped parking areas shall include special design features which effectively screen the parking lot areas from view. Planting materials to be installed should achieve a relative balance between low lying and vertical shrubbery and trees. Trees shall be planted in landscaped islands in all parking areas, and shall be equally distributed on the basis of one (1) tree for each seven (7) parking spaces m order to provide a canopy effect. The minimum dimension on the landscape islands sha be three (3) feet wide and the landscaping shall be protected from vehicular damage-by some form of wheel guard or curb. NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR2010-00001 PITI'MAN&BROOKS PAGE 9 OF 21 As show on the applicant's Site Plan (Sheet 2), the special screening provision for parking lots is met except for screening the parking lot from view from SW 72nd Avenue. To address this standard, the applicant has proposed additional landscaping (22 Rheingold plants divided between the two accesses, consistent with the special screening standards. 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; As show on the applicant's Site Plan (Sheet 2), the mixed waste facility is enclosed with a masonry structure, consistent with the screening of service facilities standards. FINDING: Based on the analysis above,the landscaping and screening standards have been met. 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. FINDING: Based on prior review and approval under SDR98-00026, and the limited scope of the proposed 1,200 square foot addition, the applicable Mixed Solid Waste/Recycling Storage Standards are satisfactorily met by the existing facilities as shown on the applicant's Site Plan (Sheet 2). 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 existing parking lots contain 7 spaces on the south and 16 spaces on the north for a total of 23 spaces. These parking areas are located adjacent to the existing building,consistent with the location standards. 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. 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 arking 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 require for that use in Section 18.765.060; 3) NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR2010-00001 PITTMAN&BROOKS PAGE 10 OF 21 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 existing and proposed development is a mixed-use project including office and day care. Total required spaces are twenty-three. According to the applicant's site Plan (Sheet 2), 23 spaces are provided, consistent with the mixed-use parking standards. 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 vanpool parking for employees, students and other regular visitors to the site. At least 5% of total- long-term parking spaces shall be reserved for carpool/vanpool use. Preferential parking for carpools/vanpools shall be closer to the main entrances of the building than any other employee or student parking except parking spaces designated for use by the disabled. Preferential carpool/vanpool spaces shall be fulFsized 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. Pursuant to the applicant's Site Plan (Sheet 2), the preferential long-term carpool/vanpool standards have been met. 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. Pursuant to the applicant's Site Plan (Sheet 2), the disabled-accessible parking standards have been met. 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. Pursuant to the applicant's Site Plan (Sheet 2), the access drives standards have been met. Pedestrian Access: Pedestrian access through parking lots shall be provided in accordance with Section 18.705.030.F. Where a parking area or other vehicle area has a drop-off grade separation, the property owner shall install a wall, railing, or other barrier which will prevent a slow-moving vehicle or driverless vehicle from escaping such area and which will prevent pedestrians from walking over drop-off edges. Pursuant to the applicant's Site Plan (Sheet 2), the pedestrian access standards have been met. NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR2010-00001 PITI'MAN&BROOKS PAGE 11 OF 21 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. Pursuant to the applicant's Site Plan (Sheet 2), the parking lot striping standards have been met. 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. Pursuant to the applicant's Site Plan (Sheet 2), the wheel stop standards have 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. Pursuant to the applicant's Site Plan (Sheet 2), the Space and Aisle Dimension standards have been met. 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. Pursuant to the applicant's Site Plan (Sheet 2), the parking design standards have been met. 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 2'/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 arking 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. Pursuant to the applicant's Site Plan (Sheet 2), the parking design standards have been met. 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 applicant's Site Plan shows four bicycle racks are provided to serve 8 bike spaces. Table 18.765.2 requires 2 spaces for day care classroom and 4 spaces for office (0.5/1,000 x 7.64 = 3.82). The existing bicycle parking meets the minimum bicycle parking standard. NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR2010-00001 PIITMAN&BROOKS PAGE 12 OF 21 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 applicant's Site Plan shows 24 spaces are provided but the notes call out 23 spaces, 7 in the south lot and 16 in the north lot. The narrative states 23 spaces are provided. Table 18.765.2, requires 21 spaces for office (2.7 x 7.64 = 20.62) and 2.0 spaces for day care (2.0 space/class room x 1 classroom = 2 spaces) for a total of 23 spaces.The existing parking meets the minimum off-street parking standard. 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 building area is 8,973 square feet, less than would require an off-street loading space. 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 are 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 protection of trees prepared by Phillip Hickey, Certified Arborist, including a Tree Preservation Site Plan (Sheet 2.1) and Arborist Report dated January 27, 2010. According to the applicant's tree inventory, 21 trees exist on the subject site, 5 of which are greater than 12 inches in diameter at breast height. All trees are proposed to be retained. Those trees in the vicinity of the work areas include tree protection measures. The Tree Preservation Site Plan includes applicable tree protection measures and has been signed-off by the project arborist. FINDING: Based on the analysis above, the tree removal standards have been met. To ensure the proposed development remains consistent with the applicable Tree Removal standards, the following conditions of approval will be applied. CONDITIONS: o The applicant shall position fencing as directed by the project arborist and detailed on the Tree Preservation Site Plan (Sheet 2.1). The applicant shall allow access by the City Arborist for the purpose of monitoring and inspection of the tree protection to verify that the tree protection measures are performing adequately. Failure to follow the plan, or maintain tree protection fencing in the designated locations shall be grounds for immediate suspension of work on the site until remediation measures and/or civil citations can be processed. NOTICE OF TYPE 1I DECISION SDR2010-00001 PITTMAN&BROOKS PAGE 13 OF 21 o If work is required within an established tree protection zone, the project arborist shall prepare a proposal detailing the construction techniques to be employed and the likely impacts to the trees. The proposal shall be reviewed and approved by the City Arborist before proposed work can proceed within a tree protection zone. The City Arborist may require changes prior to approval. The project arborist shall be on site while work is occurring within the tree protection zone and submit a summary report certifying that the work occurred per the proposal and will not significantly impact the health and/or stability of the trees. This note shall be included on the Tree Protection Plan. o The applicant shall have an on-going responsibility to ensure that the Project Arborist has submitted written reports to the City Arborist, at least once every two weeks, as the Project Arborist monitors the construction activities from initial tree protection zone (TPZ) fencing installation through the building construction phases. The reports shall evaluate the condition and location of the tree protection fencing, determine if any changes occurred to the TPZ, and if any part of the Tree Protection Plan has been violated. If the amount of TPZ was reduced, then the Project Arborist shall certify that the construction activities did not adversely impact the overall,long-term health and stability of the tree(s). If the reports are not submitted to the City Arborist at the scheduled intervals, and if it appears the TPZ's or the Tree Protection Plan are not being followed by the contractor or a sub-contractor, the City can stop work on the project until an inspection can be done by the City Arborist and the Project Arborist. Prior to final inspection, the applicant shall submit a final report by the Project Arborist certifying the health of protected trees and that the street trees were properly planted per the approved street tree plan. Tree protection measures may be removed and final inspection authorized upon review and approval by the City Arborist. o Prior to issuance final building inspection, the applicant/owner shall record deed restrictions to the effect that any existing tree greater than 6" diameter may be removed only if the tree dies or is hazardous according to a certified arborist. The deed restriction may be removed or will be considered invalid if all trees preserved in accordance with this decision should either die or be removed as hazardous trees. 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 provi ed 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 existing two accesses to the subject property, as shown on the applicant's Site Plan (Sheet 2) include the visual clearance triangles,consistent with this standard. C. SPECIFIC SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPROVAL STANDARDS (SECTION 18.360) 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: 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 xterior 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). NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR2010-00001 PITTMAN&BROOKS PAGE 14 OF 21 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 applicant's Site Plan (Sheet 2) shows that the existing parking lot is adequately illuminated. Therefore, 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. A bus line runs on SW 72"d Avenue,with bus stops within 500 feet of the subject site. The proposed 1,200 square foot expansion would not significantly contribute to additional need for transit. TriMet has not commented on the proposal.Therefore, this standard has been met. FINDING: Based on the analysis above, the specific standards of the Site Development Review Section have been met. D. 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 lanned as a portion of an existing street shall be dedicated and improved in accordance with the TDC. Minimum Rights-of-Way and Street Widths: Section 18.810.030E and Figure 18.810.1 require a 5-lane arterial to have right-of-way varying from 100 feet to 104 feet. Other improvements required include sidewalks, bike lanes, underground utilities, street lighting, storm drainage, planter strips and street trees. The Right-Of-Way (ROW) requirement for 72nd Avenue along the project frontage is 52 feet from centerline of ROW. Dedication of ROW along the frontage to meet that requirement is not justified by the proportionality analysis. The applicant proposes to provide a "No Construction" easement to ensure that no permanent structures are constructed within the area identified for future expansion of the roadway. This acceptable as a minimum requirement. However, in addition to that, an estimated $_39;990'in unmitigated _` impact remains to be considered. The applicant proposes a Non-Remonstrance agreement. That does not go far enough in that it is typically only utilIi7ed in the formation of Local Improvement Districts (LID's) and does not promise participation, only that the applicant would not remonstrate against formation of an LID. A restrictive covenant would allow that impact to be considered in any future street improvement along that frontage. NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR201O-00001 PI'ITMAN&BROOKS PAGE 15 OF 21 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 development code requires a 10-foot sidewalk and 5-foot planter strip exclusive of curb along the 72nd Avenue frontage. The existing sidewalk is not in the correct location for the ultimate section of this arterial. The standard is not met; however, this requirement to move the sidewalk back and create a new sidewalk and planting strip exceeds the impact of the proposed development. Construction of the improvements will not be required. 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. Sanitary sewer service is available on site. The building is served by the existing sewer line. 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 existing storm drainage system is to remain and will be utilized. 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 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). Existing storm drainage system is to remain. 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. NOTICE OF TYPE!!DECISION SDR2010-00001 PrITMAN&BROOKS PAGE 16 OF 21 • No bikeways, bike lanes, or pedestrian pathways are required as part of this project. There is a pedestrian connection from the building to the sidewalk along the frontage. There is no other requirement for the project. 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 underg�rround 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. There are existing overhead utility lines along the frontage of 72nd Avenue. However, the applicant already paid a fee-in-lieu of undergrounding (paid March �, 2003) when the street improvements were performed as part of the development conditions in 1998 (SDR98-00026). No undergrounding is required as part of this project. ADDITIONAL CITY AND/OR AGENCY CONCERNS WITH STREET AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENT STANDARDS: Traffic Study Findings: The proposed addition is not expected to generate much new traffic to the site. The applicant indicates that they do not anticipate any additional employees. However, even with the additional square footage taken into account under a worst case scenario, the incremental traffic generation should be minimal. Fire and Life Safety: Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue (TVF&R) is the service provider for fire and emergency services. Comments from TVF&R, if any, shall be incorporated into the project. Public Water System: The City of Tigard is the service provider for water in this area. The proposed facility is already served by an existing line and water meter at the frontage of the property. No additional water service is proposed. 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. NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR2010-00001 PITTMAN&BROOKS PAGE 17 OF 21 (For Private Facilities) 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. (For privately maintained Stormwater Management Units) There is no net increase in impervious surface. The roof drain from the proposed addition will be connected to the existing storm drain line on the site. Grading and Erosion Control: CWS Design and Construction Standards also regulate erosion control to reduce the amount of sediment and other pollutants reaching the public storm and surface water system resulting from development, construction, grading, excavating, clearing, and any other activity which accelerates erosion. Per CWS regulations, the applicant is required to submit an erosion control plan for City review and approval prior to issuance of City permits. The Federal Clean Water Act requires that a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) erosion control permit be issued for any development that will disturb one or more acre of land. Since this site is over five acres, the developer will be required to obtain an NPDES permit from the City prior to construction. This permit will be issued along with the site and/or building permit. An erosion control plan is required as part of the project submittals prior to issuance of any City permits on the project. This plan will be submitted to the Building Division as part of the Site Permit application. 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.). E. IMPACT STUDY (18.390) Section 18.390.040.B.2.e states that the applicant shall provide an impact study to quantify the effect of development on public facilities and services. For each public facility system and type of impact, the study shall propose improvements necessary to meet City standard, and to minimize the impact of the development on the public at large, public facilities systems, and affected private property users. The applicant has provided an impact study addressing the project's impacts on public systems. Staff concurs with the applicant's narrative findings that each of the system components will not adversely affect the existing public facilities and services. The applicant's narrative separately addresses the issue of dedication of real property which staff has responded to in the findings below. 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. NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR2010-00001 PITFMAN&BROOKS PAGE 18 OF 21 The Development Review Engineer's Pre-Application Conference Notes, dated November 4, 2009, state that approval of a development aelication for this site will require dedication of right-of-way to 52 feet from ROW centerline for SW TT22 Avenue. In addition, the Notes state that in the event a rough proportionality analysis determines that improvements to 72"d may not be proportional to the development proposed, the ROW dedication still needs to be made, but improvements to 72"d may be deferred via execution of a restrictive covenant whereby the developer commits to participate in future improvements under appropriate circumstances. The applicant's narrative addresses the issue of real property dedication on page 2 of 20,page 3 of 20, and in Exhibits A- Site Plan Existing Conditions, B-Site Plan with 52' R.O.W, and C-City of Tigard Rate Calculation Worksheet (2/10/10). The applicant does not concur with the Pre-App Notes' requirement for ROW dedication or half street improvements and provides a calculation showing that that the real property dedication is not roughly proportional to the projected impacts of the development ($9,099 unmitigated impact vs. $78,825 loss in real property value plus unspecified improvement costs). The applicant requests that the dedication and improvements instead be met with a "No Construction Easement" for 22 feet of their property (Site Plan,Sheet 2). Staff finds that the applicant's calculation is incorrect. The following addresses the applicant's calculation of Unmitigated Impact under the Transportation Development Tax (TDT) program provided in his February 11,2010 Application for Site Development Review: In calculating the Full Impact and the Unmitigated Impact of his project, the applicant used the figure of 32% as the TDT Recovery Rate. 32% is not the correct figure to use in calculating the Full Impact. 32%was the target recovery figure for the Traffic Impact Fee (TIF) program which was replaced July 1, 2009 with the TDT program. The target recovery figure for the TDT program is 28%. However, that target figure is not reached until 2012-13 when the recovery figure reaches 25.2% for the"General Office" category. As shown in the TDT Rate Step Analysis table, when the four-year phase-in and the current Discount Program are factored in the correct percentage for the `General Office"category for 2009-2010 is 12.3% and for 2010-2011 is 17.2%.As shown in the Pittman Brooks, Unmitigated Impact Analysis, the overall average recovery rate is 14%. Thus, for building permits issued by 6/30/10 the TDT charge is $4,282, the Full Impact is $31,813 $30,585 ($4,282 / .123 .14) and the Unmitigated Impact is $30,531 $26,303 ($31,813 $30,585 - $4,282.). For building permits issued on or after 7/1/10 the TDT charge is $6,342, the Full Impact is $36,872 $33,555($6,342 / .172 .189) and the Unmitigated Impact is$39339$27,213 ($36,872$33,555- $6,342.). [Copies of the above-mentioned Pittman-Brooks, Unmitigated Impact Analysis, Rate Step Analysis and of the City's April 19,2010 Updated Pre-App TDT Estimate are included in the land use file.] The City Development Review Engineer has provided findings with respect to both the dedication and improvements under the Streets and Utilities section of this decision, above. In summary, the City can accept, as a minimum requirement, a "No Construction Easement" to ensure that no permanent structures are constructed within the area identified for future expansion of SW 72nd Avenue. Construction of half street improvements will also not be required as they would not be roughly proportional. However, as shown above, an estimated X000 $26,303 in unmitigated impact remains to be considered. The applicant proposes a Non-Remonstrance agreement. That does not go far enough in that it is typically only utilized in the formation of Local Improvement Districts (LID's) and does not promise participation, only that the applicant would not remonstrate against formation of an LID. A restrictive covenant of proportional value ($30;000 $26,303) would allow that impact to be considered in any future street improvement along that frontage and has been required as a condition of approval. NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR2010-00001 PMNIAN&BROOKS PAGE 19 OF 21 SECTION VII. OTHER STAFF COMMENTS The City of Tigard Development Review Engineer has reviewed the proposal and provided comments that have been included in Sections 18.705 and 18.810 of this decision. The City of Tigard Arborist has reviewed the proposal and provided comments that have been incorporated in Sections 18.745 and 18.790 of this decision. The City of Tigard Police Department has reviewed the proposal and has no objection to it. City of Tigard Public Works Department has reviewed the proposal and has no comment. SECTION VIII. AGENCY COMMENTS Qwest Corporation has reviewed the proposal and has no objections to it. Tualatin Valley Water District has reviewed the proposal and has no objections to it. Clean Water Services has reviewed the proposal and states there are no concerns or objections. Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue endorses this proposal predicated on the following criteria and conditions of approval: 1) COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS - REQUIRED FIRE FLOW: The required fire flow for the building shall not exceed 3,000 gallons per minute (GPM) or the available GPM in the water delivery system at 20 psi, whichever is less as calculated using IFC, Appendix B. A worksheet for calculating the required fire flow is available from the Fire Marshal's Office. (IFC B105.2) The fire hydrant shown on the submitted drawings must be capable of supplying the required fire flow demand. Fire flow demand calculations must be submitted to and approved by this office prior to our endorsement of the issuance of any site development permits. A flow test of the hydrant may be necessary. 2) ACCESS AND FIRE FIGHTING WATER SUPPLY DURING CONSTRUCTION: Approved fire apparatus access roadways and fire fighting water supplies shall be installed and operational prior to any combustible construction or storage of combustible materials on the site. (IFC 1410.1 & 1412.1) 3) KNOX BOX: A Knox Box for access is required for this building. Please contact the Fire Marshal's Office for an order form and instructions regarding installation and placement. (IFC 506) NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR2010-00001 PITTMAN&BROOKS PAGE 20 OF 21 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 JUNE 18,2010 AND BECOMES EFFECTIVE ON JULY 3,2010 UNLESS AN APPEAL IS FILED. AAp eat: 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 JULY 2,2010. uestions: I you have any questions, please call the City of Tigard Planning Division, Tigard City Hall, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard,Tigard, Oregon at (503) 639-417 . June 18. 2010 PREPARED ary Pagenstecher DATE Associate Planner )41,1 June 18. 2010 APPROVED BY: Ron Bunch DATE Community Development Director I:\curpl n\wary\sdr\SDR2010-00001.dec.doc.dot NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR2010-00001 PITF'MAN&BROOKS PAGE 21 OF 21 1 ' VICINITY MAP ' ,y a. .._.._.�.__. ._._.__..__ .._. • SDR2010-00001 • s ii',L VAR2010-00005 _ I `' 0 w J ti',' '" PITTMAN & BROOKS CPA'S L1J CARDINAL LN`— OFFICE ADDITION } —•3 _• i',`I i h „,i '', Subject Site t'V REDWOOD :�� I I d I i I i .,!i 1 !i At3LF Lit Information on this ma is for general location iJ, only and should be verified with the Development `:, Services Division. i ' il • Scale 1:4,000-1 in=333 ft }; `i Map printed at 11:51 AM on 19-Apr-10 I DATA 16 DERNED FROM MULTIPLE SOURCES.THE CT'OF TIGARD MAKES NO WARRANTY,REPRESENTATION OR GUARANTEE AS 70 THE Ct9 - CONTENT,ACCURACY,TIMELINESS OR COMPLETENESS OF ANY OF THE l ( "� DATA PROVIDED HEREIN.THE CITY OF TIOARD SHALL ASSUME NO - l i F LIABILITY FOR ANY ERRORS,OMISSIONS,OR INACCURACIES M THE ' 4 INFORMATION PROVIDED REGARDLESS OF HON CAUSED. 0 Feet 500 ,Q� z�� /0141/00 'Ti o r23 www.tigardor.gov .4 1-1 I � 71C]AKD ' \ ( • :111 0: TIGARD Acap.p.rov_ed... .f I 'rnditionally Approved l V I &I IC011 F:ff only the wokls,§ •es cibe• in: . ',r IAMON,to A.0 V row AllOo 1.1 gmiT No. %. ..,,,,g, /-49,0,,,,io/ 9025 Ilt 4=St-hp(Ova WES Se Letter to:.--roll• 1 1 _.•-,---.1 RR Fa 55C:3]1,821/41,6 - ,1 . . . . 4,' •,--ires itT----% V" . P,: k 4-■ „. '',,,,4.,-,.7 11 ate: ,:v1.7flf..71:LL-7.11/16w-.1.114\1111,-,, 7-4/441:1Jra_ 77-'4.••••:••••11:ier/10:- : : : W.:. ''-. aMER-V - V tir NOT A'= •.. RON -54i4,. ..,..:,..,41 • . •-• . Ei k Ai , WM,7 valor • • I , V. -11 Iktd! . . emiwws...T 711.6 .••1 1 0.70.70.7 I /Ph SITE PLAN mow_t corn. ! ,,,. -, ._,. . . . . . • - . . .1p. r---NORTH I Mr i MM..MM..TO •*51--•-‘ 'Vnpig:-..• •- ' • " • - • • • • • . • LA.:0M. 2 MOH DM.L. ...-''' ...VW. .7.q.4.K"?.' .•...:•.•.•.•.•.•. . • ..f PO:-.L.':.•..MPEEN11...E.446 *.•.•:-.•.•:•.*: C:ii: PROPOSED SECOND ---.1V5--. • • - ire4 4MAMiliMiMr.-122Nril.11iar...... • • • • • - • - • el - , FLOOR ADDMON z...g toer ..AILE.,.?,, _...,---",„ .. ...*.• 2111:3 2.../...//,/,/•.: DUI • . . . • . • • •..: -;I •771 V.--0•:'W/././:,; .* .., , _-„.-gtogpr,,,E07,. , ---4;11144,-4. /')//4./..4 ..,..--.___ w,-1-, ,. ..raula.rntru.a.n.n.m.• / _,,,, • AO • allia,kr4 ---"--'----- ;11'..:'1;ts- 31;N:2/ 2 STCRY onwce . 0017.0 POLE '--:'-.--;•-r--. .*.ihr egfrritC: / //pF:2; .• .--- WI LR4t-Hr. WA'':' 2' 1•411. . , / :,..?. .......001..011 •r . .„._,,. ....r.- ,,,,,#,,,,g-Ami:.,, • , . „., kW= .- . - .i V: i --:-- AM / ,,,,,.. ORAN M. .1 ..---. ..\, . , :,dig 1;2 .-/- 00111.PAVED PARK.A.A. .... "" • AT IP,E2 UM,.SRP_IIPI....c • • •ill. !• ' - .PA.M.ISM. __ __---,..90, PROPOSED REV CM ..,... . .„.,. . .;,. . To'ilk4T :, 411, .- --i.„../.. . . . ____--,----- v."•: / an,.g ./- 1• ,.. / .. DEN01.7110 ./ . ...... 0,. ■••■ Lipp.■.- . . . . . . .37.?.ii,';'-• *;•:.:kaP. L'lif-OA. ••••••• ''''.-.• ' : ______. o'.• ) \W' ,- .._._._.j••-•--------- ...'.-•••••,:'••••:. - ..ri,.•,;--..--7-'7-7.--.-NrbroFIT'• iic ---,APIA' 01 • rt■-.•,•.^ 0,4 :...:: •........ ' will* • . • • ....e .-, ...enik.:_ Iliin..2L '•., • • - - L '''• •• • .• • ., -.../V--- -`''' • • t......_--; ..47••• • 1 M'''' L"fir"••-i•I•,,\.....,.. ::::••••••• -•'• ''• • • • - - •10, • • • t. . . . . . ..•• • •.••..• • - ' •V_d.A1P..,- • -..' 1,1 - -4A- 1.'ke;-•••••.' rAii,V k .43,zpvv. . ... iiiilb, p. •. . , .-.... • W.::• . -I 4 .0‘N:TX i:--P..;..,.• i ril s P ' li 44%, I'V,Ati■v •.:-4 1 lir 411P1• . . , •.....64 • _ _ . • • • . . • ,... ..._ t,„, ,,..e.„;.„....,,,..„..,...„,.: , .. . .....,.. _,,,,... : , • .. . .......,....„..„,,,,,:,..,..).„,,,,,,--,=..i'r:II 11171,,,r,i1N IPI. - letyr...,- ..- • •IMP ' L ' •.: 445%//11.5.. . . 'iik'""124 F. .T.... ini\ .,.. .. .. .. i,-- /AA\IsmomiwrailikwAri claw, ;14211,„ .,stitingimi ...,ig lis Lel i II PRO.F.Cf: 'Mt Mit .., •• _.- 7quis., rimroisrarrimprogillWillimillip -11111111W111 *tufo lz, Ailimains .. SECOND FLOOR EL Si. al OFFICE ADDMON 2 ='47:' 1 ....... ,-- 1 E......... ii, VW.FIRE WYO.. 11.70...ODENALK i .1671.MEET mow .41.010 Wr ..1115.AMR.. g FOR . IIIITTWAI AND SNOOKS.P.C. 1 r. SW 72r.d MOM •nowsra.aymemsa ream 2 15255 SW/MO 45044E 414,tot..two snoRice ov TOM.....1.0. i %ARO. OR 97224 k r-s•P101.... AIL SITE PLAN EUSTNG cowman wo PAGPOSED moomAnora ..• ■ SUMMIT Ham.csaRa4cw AMA 'as.anemia AP. MIFF t•.W FI,541-toto Ramo to mt • i sow• - A ------- _________- .._ cmeaft bow OF 11.17.-/ &. 6• .....1 OTT:0,040 PROJECT MEI-0MM DATA-WINO rROJECT OEVELCRIARNF DATA-PR:IPOWED 0/3412101.NOTES M.O.TO ETIGTHEFITTN5 =WO ow=Ans.COWL .....KTE ARCA IV.AP.TINS KT STE ARA 71 •M.fi.ACT ....PARK.SPACEIT Ev ADDOIMI-n MAC.510. 801 M1.1 OISTAMO FRCII AP ..D000.. v joyLaLos _hog J_ IMIY/All10 SY 0..PM PRE.047.1 *05740 5.44(040 P00....---....... S.D.F007... 4.14 M. 2•7101 ..... 7702.711041 TYPROW./ITERSITS. FROMM MM.A7...C..OR. 0.7.0.0. . 1.44 X. 4 ..... .................... .,....,........., NZZLE,r5.ER....07. ..V, .MM M...PLANTED M.1..O.ALL. C.T.M.. - RP. •M. P40,10,W.410/LOCK A.M.. ...... ....7.7 NM 1.171.TO OE roamrs.ao.•n•ww. 0014, 2-11-2010 -.- WIC.OF 0.M..1..CP EXIST•115 61.0. V.I. row- 4.6.6 Ttro.sr:Tocos/wawa* 1.1.01.1 WITONURING WAS Y..,01•111RYED MD .......MR CLEM...AO.to Soir Y.........OF OPE RAN 0.01......0 OW...............AM ........ ....a...sm. MM.Art. ...”341 SP. KU.ex.sIMG SITE.9....L.7 ADNE.•TO V. 0.......MC.TO.OF C.B. Orawn by. Jib, .c•A7•.• ../MO ft.:...... ...... nom rwwww•to SY O.. . ‘4c.m14 i r•a=oss7o::p:m::1:a4r7m'...• .1.::.::f:f.=N...o.w KA cIT,o5.nt1.-n..):...-7 ow:.1R I.w.aR:.r 1 c..•.rw'.e .M4 W. ARS•0. .CgMT...yyS. 4CY u•.4 YlMo R CMOg O•tRM P. .Oa.l 0 E.ITE0EN7S.S M OF fITAMiH 7M E fY..P...0..N.TTEM i1.l 6 CC.1 FW AO4.R Y 0S CM PTCTO IlOO C•O A.7S.T.O.k.O M.. O...LP AP0OHOMOM.OL L.OM 1PO1E.ID MA0AM.L1L. .' .. ODowmdinag d Na.: P01)v0E CAPLCAL....AA DIED R No_ 09-0512 0512 . 1 - .0/0.67 • o *sem neo. • INP•II/. EXCAVAT..FOR.ELEVATOR NO T. • ..-VEMTAT.1 ...• CO.....CP MP 1.7.•ORAIDO TO ID.T. • .... . ..... DIMam.EMS. ALL I.ANITTOCAPE Mr.WM..MC.0 1.1.0.MGM 0 VOW.2.7.4. 71.1E ME ADCS..DIPLII•MEG WIVE., CO..PL..,MI..FIROTECTED 0.0 .710 El....c.FOR'NE MARPON OF OE P.C.ML01.1 PROCESS V OUR. ........71.FMK.MX.AO......IlY 0.71.7070..1.0 LANDOCAPING OR it CA.17.771.0P4017 STA.A... LOOKAPED ITEM ARE 00711.2.7.Of C07.0.70171..1.REPLACE Ol...0 ITEM SITE PL AN 1045*072 DRAINA0*, TO MO.C.[MOO..MEMO 07.0170.7 EKISTDIG AIM PROPOSED PM ROOM OF......0 WOOD FLOOR PERM TO TRE M.a.OP[...70 .70.1.A.Da fLEVATOR mow..won L=DWArs WV. WALL Of 0.1ECIED TO Me 0.77.SICS. MEE A.MEXPEPIT,7REE Rotecoos nob SHEET . ORM..1.1.All NOTE0 beTTTS C.C.T.Cralt REFER TO ompopr MUM..OY....DO MALL CALL FOR 1.0CATE0 FIROR TO tXr...M1 ATT. APOCI0771.7URE 07.71..T....DATED JAHIART 2 . 11 MVO FOR 146 PFVJECT. • Er NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW(SDR) 2010-00001 PITTMAN &BROOKS ADDITION 120 DAYS = 8/12/2010 SECTION I. APPLICATION SUMMARY FILE NAME: PITTMAN &BROOKS CPA'S CASE NOS.: Site Development Review(SDR) SDR2010-00001 Adjustment(VAR) VAR2010-00005 PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting Site Development Review to construct a 1,209 square foot second floor addition and elevator to an existing office building . In addition, the applicant is requesting an adjustment to the access and egress standards to account for two accesses on SW 72nd Avenue to the subject property spaced approximately 185 feet apart which is less than the required 600-foot separation for arterials. APPLICANT/ Ranclall C Brooks APPLICANT'S James Andrews OWNER: 15255 SW 72nd Avenue REP: Nicoli Engineering Tigard,OR 97224 PO Box 23784 Tigard,Oregon 97281 LOCATION: The property is located at 15255 SW 72nd Avenue in Tigard; Washington County Tax Map 2S112DB,Tax Lot 200. 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 RE VIE W CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.360, 18.370, 18.390, 18.530, 18.705, 18.725, 18.745, 18.755, 18.765, 18.780, 18.790, 18.795 and 18.810. SECTION II. DECISION Notice is hereby given that the City of Tigard Community Development Director's designee has APPROVED the above request for Site Development Review and an Adjustment subject to certain conditions of approval. The findings and conclusions on which the decision is based are noted in Section VI. NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR2010.00001 PITIMAN&BROOKS PAGE 1 OF 21 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF THE SITE PERMIT: Submit to the Planning Department(Gary Pagenstecher, 503-718-2434) for review and approval: 1. The applicant shall position fencing as directed by the project arborist and detailed on the tree preservation sheet 2.1. The applicant shall allow access by the City Arborist for the purpose of monitoring and inspection of the tree protection to verify that the tree protection measures are performing adequately. Failure to follow the plan, or maintain tree protection fencing in the designated-locations shall be grounds for immediate suspension of work on the site until remediation measures and/or civil citations can be processed. 2. If work is required within an established tree protection zone, the project arborist shall prepare a proposal detailing the construction techniques to be employed and the likely impacts to the trees. The proposal shall be reviewed and approved by the City Arborist before proposed work can proceed within a tree protection zone. The City Arborist may require changes pnor to approval. The project arborist shall be on site while work is occurring within the tree protection zone and submit a s report certifying that the work occurred per the proposal and will not significantly impact the hu and/or stability of the trees. This note shall be included on the Tree Protection Plan. 3. The applicant shall have an on-going responsibility to ensure that the Project Arborist has submitted written reports to the City Arborist, at least once every two weeks, as the Project Arborist monitors the construction activities from initial tree protection zone (TPZ) fencing installation through the building construction phases. The reports shall evaluate the condition and location of the tree protection fencing, determine if any changes occurred to the TPZ, and if any part of the Tree Protection Plan has been violated. If the amount of TPZ was reduced,then the Project Arborist shall certify that the construction activities did not adversely impact the overall, long-term health and stability of the tree(s). If the reports are not submitted to the City Arborist at the scheduled intervals, and if it appears the TPZ's or the Tree Protection Plan are not being followed by the contractor or a sub-contractor, the City can stop work on the project until an inspection can be done by the City Arborist and the Project Arborist. Prior to final inspection,the applicant shall submit a final report by the Project Arborist certifying the health of protected trees and that the street trees were properly planted per the approved street tree plan. Tree protection measures may be removed and final inspection authorized upon review and approval by the City Arborist. Submit to the Engineering Department(Gus Duenas, 503-718-2470) for review and approval: 4. Prior to issuance of a Site Permit, submit an erosion control plan to the Building Division (Mark VanDomelen, 503-718-2448). This plan shall conform to Clean Water Services Design and Construction Standards (Resolution and Order No. 07-20) Chapter 2. No work on-site shall commence until the erosion control permit is issued. 5. Prior to issuance of a Site Permit,the applicant shall provide a construction vehicle access and parking plan to the Development Engineer (Gus Duenas, 503-718-2470) for review and approval. The purpose of this plan is for parking and traffic control during the building construction work 6. Prior to issuance of the site permit,the applicant shall obtain concurrence from Tualatin Valley Fire & Rescue (TVF&R) that no fire protection system is required and that the existing hydrant location is satisfactory for fire protection of the structure. THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO A FINAL BUILDING INSPECTION: Submit to the Planning Department(Gary Pagenstecher, 503-718-2434) for review and approval: NOTICE OF TYPE II DEQSION SDR2 0 1 0-0000 1 PITTMAN&BROOKS PAGE 2 OF 21 7. Prior to final building inspection,the applicant/owner shall record deed restrictions to the effect that any existing tree greater than 6" diameter may be removed only if the tree dies or is hazardous according to a certified arborist. The deed restriction may be removed or will be considered invalid if all trees preserved in accordance with this decision should either die or be removed as hazardous trees. 8. Prior to final building inspection, the applicant shall call for a planning site inspection to ensure the proposed project is consistent with the approved plans. Submit to the Engineering Department(Gus Duenas, 503-718-2470) for review and approval: 9. Prior to Final Building Inspection,the applicant shall execute a "No Construction" easement over the lot frontage needed for future expansion of 72nd Avenue. The easement shall cover the area needed for expansion of right-of-way to 52 feet from centerline of existing right-of-way. 10. Prior to Final Building Inspection the applicant shall execute a Restrictive Covenant on City- furnished forms to be recorded by the applicant whereby they agree to complete or participate in the future improvements of SW 72nd_Avenue adjacent to the subject property when any of the following events occur: A when the improvements are part of a larger project to be financed or paid for by the formation of a Local Improvement District; B. when the improvements are part of a larger project to be financed or paid for in whole or in part by the City or other public agency; C; when the improvements are part of a larger project to be constructed by a third party and involves the sharing of desrgn and/or construction expenses by the third party owner(s) of property in addition to the subject property;or D. when construction of the improvements is deemed to be appropriate by the City Engineer in conjunction with construction of improvements by others adjacent to the subject site. The level of participation shall be no more than the project's estimated unmitigated impact of$30,000 based on 201■ dollars and can be credited towards acquisition of right-of-way,or be applied to design and construction costs for the improvements. Any future participation shall use this amount as the present value with adjustments for inflation using the Engineering News Record construction cost index(currently 8676.68) to the time of participation. As an alternate to future participation,the applicant may elect to pay the $30,000 to the City as their contribution to that future improvement. Any funds deposited with the City will be used to fund the improvements along the project frontage. 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 is a long (442 feet)_ (134 - 0 feet) triangular shaped parcel. The site was originally developed with the McHe Office Building_in 1978. A zone change from Light Industrial to Industrial Park was approved in 1991(ZON91-0009). Under SDR98-00026, the applicant received major modification approval for a 3,327 square foot addition to an existing office building.-I'he addition included office space and a day care facility and approved a variance to the front yard setback standard (35 feet) to allow the addition to replicate the existing building's facade and to legalize the existing non-conforming setback(30 feet). Vicinity Information The subject property is bounded by a railroad right-of-way to the west,SW 72nd Avenue at the intersection with Redwood Lane to the east, and an industrial property to the north. The property is bounded to the north and west by land zoned I-L and to the east by I-P. NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR2010-00001 PITTMAN&BROOKS PAGE 3 OF 21 Site Information and Proposal Description: The applicant is requesting Site Development Review approval to construct a 1,209 square foot second floor addition and elevator to an existing office building. In addition, the applicant is requesting approval for an adjustment to the access and egress standards to account for two accesses to the subject property spaced approximately 185 feet apart which is less than the required 600-foot separation for artenals. SECTION IV. COMMENTS FROM PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 500 FEET On April 19, 2010, the City provided notice of the proposal and an opportunity to comment to property owners within 500 feet of the subject site, but did not receive any comments. The applicant held a properly noticed neighborhood meeting on January 4, 2010 to discuss the proposal with interested neighbors. No neighbors attended the meeting. SECTION V. SUMMARY OF APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA A. Zoning Districts 18.53 (Industrial Zoning Districts B. Applicable Development Code Standards 18.370 Variances and Adjustments) 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 SECTION VI. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA A. ZONING DISTRICT Industrial Zoning District(18.530) Lists the description of the Industrial Zoning Districts. The I-P zoning district provides appropriate locations for combining light manufacturing, office and small-scare 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. ., 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. The site is located in the Industrial Park District (I-P). The existing uses include office and commercial day care. The office use is proposed to be expanded by 1,200 square feet. Development Standards: Section 18.530.040.B States that Development standards in Industrial zoning districts are contained in Table 18.530.2 below: NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR2010-00001 PITIMAN&BROOKS PAGE 4 OF 21 TABLE 18.530.2 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS IN INDUSTRIAL ZONES STANDARD I-P Existing/Proposed Minimum Lot Size None 23,958 sq. ft. Minimum Lot Width 50 ft 67 ft Minimum Setbacks - Front yard 35 ft 28 ft - Side facing street on corner&through lots - NA - Side yard 0/50 ft. 48/213 ft - Rear yard 0/50 ft 4— 32 ft -Distance between front of garage & property line - NA abutting a public or private street. Maximum Height 45 ft 22 ft Maximum Site Coverage [2] 75 % [5] 59.6 % Minimum Landscape Requirement 25 %[6] 40.4% [2] Includes all buildings and impervious surfaces. [5] Maximum site coverage may be increased to 80%if the provisions of Section 18.530.050.B are satisfied. [6] Except that a reduction to 20%of the site may be approved through the site development review process. As shown in the table above, the development standards for the I-P zone are met for the existing/proposed development with the exception of the front yard setback. However, the proposed development is not less conforming than the existing development approved through SDR98-00026,which included approval for the front yard setback variance for the day care portion of the building.The proposed development adds a second story over the previously approved footprint,consistent with the setback approved under SDR98-00026. Pursuant to Tigard Development Code (TDC) 18.530.050.C, the following standards shall apply for all commercial day care uses in industrial zones: 1. The Environmental Impact Assessment must document noise, visible emissions, vibration, odor, glare and heat from uses within one quarter mile. A plan and program for day care facilities to provide mitigation on-site for any of the above off-site impacts must be provided. Sound attenuation walls, screening, window covering, shades, and other such means are appropriate means of mitigation and may be attached as conditions of approval. 2. The State of Oregon Child Care Division Certification Section shall be notified of the proposed site plans prior to submitting an application to insure that the plans submitted generally address the permitting requirements. 3. Prior to occupancy of the proposed day care, evidence of certification through the State of Oregon Child Care Division shall be provided. The existing commercial day care center is allowed as a restricted use in the I-P zone, subject to an environmental impact statement in accordance with TDC 18.530.050.C1 above and compliance with State of Oregon outdoor open space setbacks. The applicant has submitted the City's Certificate of Occupancy dated 11/04/1999 and the State of Oregon Employment Department Child Care Division Certificate of Approval to operate Darling Deductions-Preschool effective May 7,2009 through May 7,2010. FINDING: Based on the analysis above,the Development Standards for the I-P zone have been met. NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR2010-00001 PITTMAN&BROOKS PAGE 5 OF 21 B. APPLICABLE DEVELOPMENT CODE STANDARDS Variances and Adjustments (18.370) The applicant is requesting an adjustment to the Access,Egress, and Circulation standards to account for two existing parking lot accesses to the subject property spaced approximately 185 feet apart which is less than the required 600-foot separation for arterials (Section 18.705.030.H.3). SW 72nd Avenue abuts the subject site on the east and is designated an arterial in the City's Transportation System Plan. The classification of SW 72" Avenue has changed from a collector to an arterial since the existing development was approved. 18.370.020 Adjustments A. Purpose. The purpose of this section is to establish two classes of special variances: 1. "Development adjustments" which allow modest variation from required development standards within proscribed limits. Because such adjustments are granted using "clear and objective standards," these can be granted by means of a Type I procedure, as opposed to the more stringent standards of approval and procedure for variances. 2. "Special adjustments" which are variances from development standards which have their own approval criteria as opposed to the standard approval criteria for variances contained in Section 18.370.020.C. "Special adjustments" include adjustments to the Access,Egress,and Circulation standards as shown below. 5.Adjustment to access and egress standards (Chapter 18.705). a. In all zoning districts where access and egress drives cannot be readily designed to conform to Code standards within a particular parcel, access with an adjoining property shall be considered. If access in conjunction with another parcel cannot reasonably be achieved, the Director may grant an adjustment to the access requirements of Chapter 18.705 through a Type II procedure, as governed in Section 18.390.030, using approval criteria contained in Subsection 2b below. b. The Director may approve, approve with conditions, or deny a request for an adjustment from the access requirements contained in Chapter 18.705, based on the following criteria: 1 It is not possible to share access; 2 There are no other alternative access points on the street in question or from another street; 3 The access separation requirements cannot be met; 4 The request is the minimum adjustment required to provide adequate access; 5 The approved access or access approved with conditions will result in a safe access;and 6 The visual clearance requirements of Chapter 18.795 will be met. Given the triangular configuration of the subject parcel shared access would only be possible with the property to the north. The adjacent property is developed with a building located approximately 50 feet to the north and is landscaped with grass and trees between the property line and the adjacent building. The adjacent building's parking is located to the north without access options to the subject property. No other streets abut the subject property. There are no alternative access points on SW 72nd Avenue. The access separation requirements cannot be met. The existing access was previously approved as a safe access. Visual clearance requirements are proposed to be maintained. The applicant states that "it is understood 1 that when 72 Avenue is constructed to the arterial standard, that the existing accesses will need to be re- evaluated." FINDING: Based on the analysis above, the variance to the minimum spacing standard of 600 feet along SW 72nd Avenue, an arterial,can be approved. 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. NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR2010-00001 PITIMAN&BROOKS PAGE 6 OF 21 As shown in the applicant's Site Plan (Sheet 2),the proposed development and the existing parking lot on the subject parcel is accessed by two 30-foot driveways connecting to SW 72"d Avenue. 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 18.705.030I 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 72"d Avenue, 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. 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 including end slopes, and if more than one driveway is to be constructed to serve the same lot, the frontage s acing 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. These standards are met with the existing curb cuts.No new curb cuts are proposed. 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; 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; NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR2010.00001 PITTMAN&BROOKS PAGE 7 OF 21 • Required walkways shall be paved with hard surfaced materials such as concrete, asphalt, stone, brick, etc. Walkways may be required to be lighted and/or signed as needed for safety purposes. Soft-surfaced public use pathways may be provided only if such pathways are provided in addition to required pathways. The existing pedestrian walkways as shown in the applicant's Site Plan (Sheet 2) meet the applicable walkway standards. Section 18.705.030.H.1 states that an access report shall be submitted with all new development proposals which verifies design of driveways and streets are safe by meeting adequate stacking needs, sight distance and deceleration standards as set by ODOT, Washington County, the City and AASHTO. The existing property has two access points to 72nd Avenue providing ingress and egress to two separate parking lots.There toes not appear to be a realistic way to connect the two parking areas such that one access would be feasible. The applicant proposes to retain the two access points and not make any changes to the existing driveways. We concur with this proposal..As a result, an access spacing.standard adjustment for access closer than 600 feet on an arterial is required as reviewed above and in the Variance and Adjustment section of this decision. Section 18.705.030.H.2 states that driveways shall not be permitted to be placed in the influence area of collector or arterial street intersections. Influence area of intersections is that area where queues of traffic commonly form on approach to an intersection. The minimum driveway setback from a collector or arterial street intersection shall be150 feet, measured from the right-of-way line of the intersecting street to the throat of the proposed driveway., The setback may be greater depending upon the influence area, as determined from City Engineer review of a traffic impact report submitted by the applicant's traffic engineer. In a case where a project has less than 150 feet of street frontage, the applicant,must explore any option for shared access with the adjacent parcel. If shared access is not possible or practical, the driveway shall be placed as far from the intersection as possible. The existing driveways approved through prior approval (SDR98-00026) are proposed to remain. Therefore,this standard has been met. Section 18.705.030.H.3 and 4 states that the minimum spacing of driveways and streets along collector shall be 200 feet. The minimum spacing of driveways and streets along an arterial shall be 600 feet. The minimum spacing of local streets along a local street shall be 125 feet. Existing driveways are approximately 185 apart. SW 172nd Avenue is an arterial street. The applicant proposes to use the existing accesses. There}ore, the applicant requests an adjustment to allow for the existing driveways to be retained. The adjustment request is reviewed above in the Variance and Adjustment section of this decision and is approved. Minimum Access Requirements for Commercial and Industrial Use: Section 18.705.030.I 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 existing parking lots combined include 24 spaces. Therefore,each access must be 30-feet with 24 feet of pavement. As shown in the applicant's Site Plan (Sheet 2) the existing accesses are consistent with this standard. FINDING: Based on the analysis above, and approval of the requested Access and Egress "Special adjustment" for driveway spacing on an arterial reviewed in the Variance and Adjustment section of this decisions,the applicable Access,Egress and Circulation standards have been met. NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR2010-00001 PITI'MAN&BROOKS PAGE 8 OF 21 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 ure 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 propertyline 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 lote 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 permittedby 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 1,200 square foot second story addition and elevator for office use would not expect to produce any adverse impacts from noise, visible emission, vibrations, odors, glare and heat or insects and rodents. Therefore, each of the environmental performance standards above have 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). As shown in the applicant's Site Plan,the existing street trees meet the street tree standards. Buffering_ Screening: Section .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. Pursuant to Table 18.745.1, Buffer Matrix, no buffering and screening is required between the uses on the subject site and uses on adjacent parcels. Screening: Special Irovis ions: Section 18.745.050.E requires the screening of parking and loading areas. Landscaped parking areas shall include special design features w ch effectively,screen a parking lot areas from view. Planting matenals 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) parkin 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. NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR2010-00001 PITIMAN&BROOKS PAGE 9 OF 21 As show on the applicant's Site Plan (Sheet 2), the special screening provision for parking lots is met except for screening the parking lot from view from SW 72nd Avenue. To address this standard, the applicant has proposed additional landscaping (22 Rheingold plants divided between the two accesses, consistent with the special screening standards. 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; As show on the applicant's Site Plan (Sheet 2), the mixed waste facility is enclosed with a masonry structure,consistent with the screening of service facilities standards. FINDING: Based on the analysis above,the landscaping and screening standards have been met. 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. FINDING: Based on prior review and approval under SDR98-00026, and the limited scope of the Sproposed 1,200 square foot addition, the applicable Mixed Solid Waste/Recycling Storage tandards are satisfactorily met by the existing facilities as shown on the applicant's Site Plan (Sheet 2). 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. Ott-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 existing parking lots contain 7 spaces on the south and 16 spaces on the north for a total of 23 spaces. These parking areas are located adjacent to the existing building,consistent with the location standards. joint Parking: _joint 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 o not overlay, subject to the following: 1) The size of the joint_�pparking 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-13e 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. Parking in Mixed-Use Projects: In mixed-use projects the required minimum vehicle parking shall be determined using the following formula. 1) !'rimary use, i.e., that with the largest proportion of total floor area within the development,ment, at 100% o the minimum vehicle parking required for that use in Section 18.765.060;-2) Secondary use .e., that with the second rargest percentage of total floor area within the development, at 90% of i.e.,the vehicle parking required for that use in Section 18.765.060; 3) NOTICE OF TYPE H DECISION SDR2010-00001 PITTMAN&BROOKS PAGE 10 OF 21 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 existing and proposed development is a mixed-use project including office and day care. Total required spaces are twenty-three. According to the applicant's site Plan (Sheet 2), 23 spaces are provided, consistent with the mixed-use parking standards. 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 vanpool parking for employees, students and other regular visitors to the site. At least 5% of totar long-term parking spaces shall be reserved for carpool/vanpool use. Preferential parking for carpools/vanpools shall be closer to the main entrances of the building than any other employee or student parking except parkin spaces designated for use by the disabled. Preferential- ca ool/vanpool spaces shall be fullsized 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. Pursuant to the applicant's Site Plan (Sheet 2), the preferential long-term carpool/vanpool standards have been met. 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. Pursuant to the applicant's Site Plan (Sheet 2),the disabled-accessible parking standards have been met. 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 nght of-way will be required. Pursuant to the applicant's Site Plan (Sheet 2),the access drives standards have been met. Pedestrian Access: Pedestrian access through parking lots shall be provided in accordance with Section 18.705.030.F. Where a parking area or other vehicle area has a drop-off grade separation, the property owner shall install a wall, railing, or other barrier which will prevent a slow-moving vehicle or driverless vehicle from escaping such area and which will prevent pedestrians from walking over drop-off edges. Pursuant to the applicant's Site Plan (Sheet 2),the pedestrian access standards have been met. NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR2010-00001 PITITv1AN&BROOKS PAGE 11 OF 21 • 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. Pursuant to the applicant's Site Plan (Sheet 2),the parking lot striping standards have been met. 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. Pursuant to the applicant's Site Plan (Sheet 2),the wheel stop standards have 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. Pursuant to the applicant's Site Plan (Sheet 2),the Space and Aisle Dimension standards have been met. 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 i buildings and/or the street. When the bicycle parking area is not visible from the street, directional signs shall be used to located the arking 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. Pursuant to the applicant's Site Plan (Sheet 2),the parking design standards have been met. 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 deafly 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 Pursuant to the applicant's Site Plan (Sheet 2),the parking design standards have been met. 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 applicant's Site Plan shows four bicycle racks are provided to serve 8 bike spaces. Table 18.765.2 requires 2 spaces for day care classroom and 4 spaces for office (0.5/1,000 x 7.64 =3.82). The existing bicycle parking meets the minimum bicycle parking standard. NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR2010-00001 PITTMAN&BROOKS PAGE 12 OF 21 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 applicant's Site Plan shows 24 spaces are provided but the notes call out 23 spaces,7 in the south lot and 16 in the north lot. The narrative states 23 spaces are provided. Table 18.765.2, requires 21 spaces for office (2.7 x 7.64 =20.62) and 2.0 spaces for day care (2.0 space/class room x 1 classroom =2 spaces) for a total of 23 spaces.The existing parking meets the minimum Oft-street parking standard. 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 building area is 8,973 square feet, less than would require an off-street loading space. 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 are 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 protection of trees prepared by Phillip Hickey, Certified Arbonst, including a Tree Preservation Site Plan (Sheet 2.1) and Arborist Report dated January 27 2010. According to the applicant's tree inventory, 21 trees exist on the subject site 5 of which are greater than 12 inches in diameter at breast height. All trees are proposed to be retained. Those trees in the vicinity of the work areas include tree protection measures. Thep Tree Preservation Site Plan includes applicable tree protection measures and has been signed-off by the project arborist. FINDING: Based on the analysis above, the tree removal standards have been met. To ensure the proposed development remains consistent with the applicable Tree Removal standards, the following conditions of approval will be applied. CONDITIONS: o The applicant shall position fencing as directed by the project arborist and detailed on the Tree Preservation Site Plan (Sheet 2.1). The applicant shall allow access by the City Arborist for the purpose of monitoring and inspection of the tree protection to verify that the tree protection measures are performing adequately. Failure to follow the plan, or maintain tree protection fencing in the designated locations shall be grounds for immediate suspension of work on the site until remediation measures and/or civil citations can be processed. NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR2010-00001 PITTMAN&BROOKS PAGE 13 OF 21 o If work is required within an established tree protection zone, the project arborist shall prepare a proposal detailing the construction techniques to be employed and the likely impacts to the trees. The proposal shall be reviewed and approved by the City Arbonst before proposed work can proceed within a tree protection zone. The City Arborist may require changes prior to approval. The project arborist shall be on site while work is occurring within the tree protection zone and submit a summary report certifying that the work occurred per the proposal and will not significantly impact the health and/or stability of the trees. 'This note shall be included on the Tree Protection Plan. o The applicant shall have an on-going responsibility to ensure that the Project Arborist has submitted written reports to the City Arborist, at least once every two weeks, as the Project Arborist monitors the construction activities from initial tree protection zone (TPZ) fencing installation through the building construction phases. The reports shall evaluate the condition and location of the tree rotection fencing, determine if any changes occurred to the TPZ, and if any part of the Tree Protection Plan has been violated. If the amount of TPZ was reduced, then the Project Arborist shall certify that the construction activities did not adversely impact the overall,long-term health and stability of the tree(s). If the reports are not submitted to the City Arborist at the scheduled intervals, and if it appears the TPZ's or the Tree Protection Plan are not being followed by the contractor or a sub-contractor, the City can stop work on the project until an inspection can be done by the City Arborist and the Project Arborist. Prior to final inspection, the applicant shall submit a final report by the Project Arborist certifying the health of protected trees and that the street trees were properly fplanted per the approved street tree plan. Tree protection measures may be removed and inal inspection authorized upon review and approval by the City Arborist. o Prior to issuance final building inspection, the applicant/owner shall record deed restrictions to the effect that any existing tree greater than 6 diameter may be removed only if the tree dies or is hazardous according to a certified arborist. The deed restriction may be removed or will be considered invalid if all trees preserved in accordance with this decision should either die or be removed as hazardous trees. Visual Clearance Areas (18.795): Chapter 18.795 requires that a clear vision area shall be maintained on the comers of all property adjacent to intersecting right-of-ways or the intersection of a ublic street and a private driveway. A clear vision area shall-contain no vehicle hedge,_�pplanting, fence wall structure, or temporary or permanent obstruction exceeding_ (31 feet in height. The code provides that obstrucfions that may be located in this area shale 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 istance 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 existing two accesses to the,subject property, as shown on the applicant's Site Plan(Sheet 2) include the visual clearance triangles,consistent with this standard. C. SPECIFIC SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPROVAL STANDARDS(SECTION 18.360) 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: The roposal contains no elements related to the provisions of the following and are, therefore, found to be inapplicable as approval standards: 18.360.090.3 xterior 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). NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR2010.00001 PITIMAN&BROOKS PAGE 14 OF 21 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, Screenin and Compatibility. Between Adjoining Uses.; 18.360.090.12 Landscaping; 18.3360.090.13 (Parking 18.360.090.4 (Provision for the Disabled); an 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; • Intenor 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 shalrbe 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 parkingg,lots, stairs, ramps and abrupt grade changes. Fixtures s"hall be placed at a height so thatlrght patterns overlap at a height of seven feet, which is sufficient to illuminate a person. The applicant's Site Plan(Sheet 2) shows that the existing parking lot is adequately illuminated.Therefore,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. A bus line runs on SW 72"Avenue,with bus stops within 500 feet of the subject site. The proposed 1,200 square foot expansion would not significantly contribute to additional need for transit. TriMet has not commented on the proposal. Therefore,this standard has been met. FINDING: Based on the analysis above, the specific standards of the Site Development Review Section have been met. D. STREET AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS STANDARDS(SECTION 18.810): Chapter 18.810 provides construction standards for the implementation of public and private facilities and utilities such as streets, sewers,and drainage. The applicable standards are addressed below: Streets: Improvements: Section 18.810.030.A.1 states that streets within a development and streets adjacent shall be improved in accordance with the TDC standards. Section 18.810.030.A.2 states that any new street or additional street width planned as a portion of an existing street shall be dedicated and improved in accordance with the TDC:. Minimum Rights-of-Way and Street Widths: Section 18.810.030E and Figure 18.810.1 require a 5-lane arterial to have right-of-way varying from 100 feet to 104 feet. Other improvements required include sidewalks, bike lanes, underground utilities, street lighting, storm drainage, planter strips and street trees. The Right-Of-Way(ROVO requirement for 72nd Avenue along the project frontage is 52 feet from centerline of ROW Dedication of ROW along the frontage to meet that requirement is not justified by the proportionality analysis. The applicant proposes to provide a "No Construction" easement to ensure that no permanent structures are constructed within the area identified for future expansion of the roadway. This is acceptable as a minimum requirement. However, in addition to that, an estimated $30,000 in unmitigated impact remains to be considered. The applicant proposes a Non-Remonstrance agreement. That does not go far enough in that it is.typically only utilized in the formation of Local Improvement Districts (LID'S) and does not promise participation,only that the applicant would not remonstrate against formation of an LID. A restrictive covenant would allow that impact to be considered in any future street improvement along that frontage. NOTICE OF TYPE U DECISION SDR2010-00001 PITTMAN&BROOKS PAGE 15 OF 21 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 development code requires a 10-foot sidewalk and 5-foot planter strip exclusive of curb along the 72nd Avenue frontage. The existing sidewalk is not in the correct location for the ultimate section of this arterial. The standard is not met; however, this requirement to move the sidewalk back and create a new sidewalk and planting strip exceeds the impact of the proposed development. Construction of the improvements will not be required. 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. Sanitary sewer service is available on site. The building is served by the existing sewer line. 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 existing storm drainage system is to remain and will be utilized. 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). Existing storm drainage system is to remain. Bikeways and Pedestrian Pathways: Bikeway Extension: Section 18.810.110.A states that developments adjjoining 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. NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR2010.00001 PITrMAN&BROOKS PAGE 16 OF 21 No bikeways, bike lanes, or pedestrian pathways are required as part of this project. There is a pedestrian connection from the building to the sidewalk along the frontage. There is no other requirement for the project. 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 rn-lieu of under-grounding. There are existing overhead utility lines along the frontage of 72nd Avenue. However, the applicant already paid a fee-in-lieu of undergrounding. (paid March 5, 2003) when the street improvements were performed as part of the development conditions in 1998 (SDR98-00026). No undergrounding is required as part of this project. ADDITIONAL CITY AND/OR AGENCY CONCERNS WITH STREET AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENT STANDARDS: Traffic Study Findings: The proposed addition is not expected to generate much new traffic to the site. The applicant indicates that they do not anticipate any additional employees. However, even with the additional square footage taken into account under a worst case scenario,the incremental traffic generation should be minimal. Fire and Life Safety: Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue (TVF&R) is the service provider for fire and emergency services. Comments from TVF&R,if any, shall be incorporated into the project. Public Water System: The City of Tigard is the service provider for water in this area. The proposed facility is already served by an existing line and water meter at the frontage of the property. No additional water service is proposed. 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. NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR2010-00001 PITIMAN&BROOKS PAGE 17 OF 21 (For Private Facilities) 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 pnvate 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 wntten confirmation that the water quality facility is in compliance with the design and specifications. (For privately maintained Stormwater Management Units) There is no net increase in impervious surface. The roof drain from the proposed addition will be connected to the existing storm drain line on the site. Grading and Erosion Control: CWS Design and Construction Standards also regulate erosion control to reduce the amount of sediment and other pollutants reaching the public storm and surface water system resulting from development, construction, grading,excavating, clearing, and any other activity which accelerates erosion. Per CWS regulations, the applicant is required to submit an erosion control plan for City review and approval prior to issuance of City permits. The Federal Clean Water Act requires that a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) erosion control permit be issued for any development that will disturb one or more acre of land. Since this site is over five acres, the developer will be required to obtain an NPDES permit from the City prior to construction. This permit will be issued along with the site and/or building permit. An erosion control plan is required as part of the project submittals prior to issuance of any City permits on the project. This plan will be submitted to the Building Division as part of the Site Permit application. 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.). E. IMPACT STUDY(18.390) Section 18.390.040.B.2.e states that the applicant shall provide an impact study to quantify the effect of development on public facilities and services. For each public facility system and type of impact, the study shall propose improvements necessary to meet City standard, and to minimize the impact of the development on the public at large, public facilities systems, and affected private property users. The applicant has provided an impact study addressing the project's impacts on public systems. Staff concurs with the applicant's narrative findings that each of the system components will not adversely affect the existing public facilities and services. The applicant's narrative separately addresses the issue of dedication of realproperty which staff has responded to in the findings below. 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 authonty 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. NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR2010-00001 PITTMAN&BROOKS PAGE 18 OF 21 J + _ The Development Review Engineer's Pre-Application Conference Notes, dated November 4, 2009, state that approval of a development application for this site will require dedication of right-of-way to 52 feet from-OW centerline for SW 7 Avenue. In addition, the Notes state that in the event a rough proportionality analysis determines that improvements to 72nd may not be proportional to the development proposed, the ROW dedication still needs to be made, but improvements to 7rd may be deferred via execution of a restrictive covenant whereby the developer commits to participate in future improvements under appropriate circumstances. The applicant's narrative addresses the issue of real property dedication on page 2 of 20,page 3 of 20, and in Exhibits A- Site Plan Existing Conditions, B-Site Plan with 52' R.O.W, and GCity of Tigard Rate Calculation Worksheet (2/10/10Y. The applicant does not concur with the Pre-App Notes' requirement for ROW dedication or half street improvements and provides a calculation showing that that the real property dedication is not roughly proportional to the projected impacts of the development ($9,099 unmitigated impact vs. $78,825 loss in real property value plus unspecified improvement costs). The applicant requests that the dedication and improvements instead be met with a "No Construction Easement" for 22 feet of their property(Site Plan,Sheet 2). Staff finds that the applicant's calculation is incorrect. The following addresses the applicant's calculation of Unmitigated Impact under the Transportation Development Tax (TD ) program provided in his February 11,2010 Application for Site Development Review: In calculating the Full Impact and the Unmitigated Impact of his project, the applicant used the figure of 32% as the TDT Recovery Rate. 32% is not the correct figure to use in calculating the Full Impact. 32% was the target recovery figure for the Traffic Impact Fee (TIF) program which was replaced July 1,2009 with the TDT program. The target recovery figure for the TDT program is 28%. However, that target figure is not reached until 2012-13 when the recovery figure reaches 25.2% for the "General Office" category. As shown in the TDT Rate Step Analysis table, when the four-year phase-in and the current Discount Program are factored in the correct percentage for 2009-2010 is 12.3% and for 2010-2011 is 17.2%. Thus,for building permits issued by 6/30/10 the TDT charge is $4,282,the Full Impact is $34,813 ($4,282 / .123) and the Unmitigated Impact is $30,531 ($34,813 - $4,282.). For building permits issued on or after 7/1/10 the TDT charge is $6,342, the Full Impact is $36,872 ($6,342 / .172) and the Unmitigated Impact is $30,530 ($36,872 - $6,342.). [Copies of the above-mentioned Rate Step Analysis and of the City's April 19, 2010 Updated Pre-App TDT Estimate are included in the land use file.] The City Development Review Engineer has provided findings with respect to both the dedication and improvements under the Streets and Utilities section of this decision, above. In summary, the City can accept, as a minimum requirement, a "No Construction Easement" to ensure that no permanent structures are constructed within the area identified for future expansion of SW 72nd Avenue. Construction of half street improvements will also not be required as they would not be roughly proportional. However, as shown above, an estimated $30,000 in unmitigated impact remains to be considered. The applicant proposes a Non-Remonstrance agreement. That does not go far enough in that it is typically only unl»ed in the formation of Local Improvement Districts (LTD's) and does not promise participation, only that the applicant would not remonstrate against formation of an LID. A restrictive covenant of proportional value ($30,000) would allow that impact to be considered in any future street improvement along that frontage and has been required as a condition of approval. NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR2010-00001 PITTMAN&BROOKS PAGE 19 OF 21 SECTION VII. OTHER STAFF COMMENTS The City of Tigard Development Review Engineer has reviewed the proposal and provided comments that have been included in Sections 18.705 and 18.810 of this decision. The City of Tigard Arborist has reviewed the proposal and provided comments that have been incorporated in Sections 18.745 and 18.790 of this decision. The City of Tigard Police Department has reviewed the proposal and has no objection to it. City of Tigard Public Works Department has reviewed the proposal and has no comment. SECTION VIII. AGENCY COMMENTS Qwest Corporation has reviewed the proposal and has no objections to it. Tualatin Valley Water District has reviewed the proposal and has no objections to it. Clean Water Services has reviewed the proposal and states there are no concerns or objections. Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue endorses this proposal predicated on the following criteria and conditions of approval: 1) COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS - REQUIRED FIRE FLOW: The required fire flow for the building shall not exceed 3,000 gallons per minute (GP or the available GPM in the water delivery system at 20 psi, whichever is less as calculated using IFC, Appendix B. A worksheet for calculating the required fire flow is available from the Fire Marshal's Office. (IFC B105.2) The fire hydrant shown on the submitted drawings must be capable of supplying the required fire flow demand. Fire flow demand calculations must be submitted to and approved by this office prior to our endorsement of the issuance of any site development permits. A flow test of the hydrant may be necessary. 2) ACCESS AND FIRE FIGHTING WATER SUPPLY DURING CONSTRUCTION: Approved fire apparatus access roadways and fire fighting water supplies shall be installed and operational prior to any combustible construction or storage of combustible materials on the site. (IFC 1410.1 &1412.1) 3) KNOX BOX A Knox Box for access is required for this building. Please contact the Fire Marshal's Office for an order form and instructions regarding installation and placement. (IFC 506) NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR2010-00001 PITTMAN&BROOKS PAGE 20 OF 21 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 JUNE 4,2010 AND BECOMES EFFECTIVE ON JUNE 19,2010 UNLESS AN APPEAL IS FILED. clecision 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.G2. 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 JUNE 18,2010. uestionns: 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. „iv ., June 3,2010 PREPARED BY: fary P enstecher DATE Associate Planner June 3,2010 APPROVED BY: Ron Bunch DATE Community Development Director I:\curpin\gary\sdr\SDR2010-00001.dec.doc.dot NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR2010-00001 PITTMAN&BROOKS PAGE 21 OF 21 t i1 VICINITY MAP SDR2010-00001 VAR2010-00005 \ \ _ , PITTMAN & BROOKS CPA'S ,= r— _�I - OFFICE ADDITION 1% I\I\ _ 111 1 Subject Site II vp• is II ■ 1,._ __________j r- ' ` = ' � ti __.—Jr lL y_ V 1 1 -\ ,5 -,- - Information on this map is for general location ',- ! --i only and should be verified with the Development• Services Division. Scale 1:4,000-1 in=333 ft CITY Map printed at 11.51 AM on 19-Apr-10 OATS IS DERIVED FROM MULTIPLE SOURCES.THE CITY OF TIGARD MANES NO WARRANTY,REPRESENTATION OR GUARANTEE AS TO THE -7 CONTENT.ACCURACY TIMELINESS OR COMPLETENESS OF ANY OF THE -- DATA PROVIDED HEREIN THE CITY OF TIGARD SHALL ASSUME NO LIABILITY FOR ANY ERRORS,OMISSIONS,OR INACCURACIES IN THE ' INFORMATION PROVIDED REGARDLESS OF 110W CAUSED. Feet / gcalrrydofTigard 0 C0 TIGARMAPS 1T i�i(13 639-4171 3d �l►C www.tigard-or.gov / L , i I • • CITY OF TIGARD • ! Approved .f I § "I.mditionally Approved [ �/ ) F Ir only the wo •eso ibe. in: i\NIICO�� . an .. Era xM. "r-:9MlT N0. %�'_I/ --0r.ir i::;:::.;:,!et,::.. �.-- 9025 it t•••SI-rept Creek 97223 See Letter to.-R'6Il. . I ) :'I New -• CI Fa 501)6N-B% -1 �� \\1 El," �" , "_ �7 ark" maim ,. .� �I3ate: ail A►� ��V - `I/ . NOT >A TION New.*ATM MEd�� -�V�'� �a- 1. � '+o r.Ar.�c�' J A�NORTH PLAN FARM./COW Row II,t a a *P J! �M!'`, •s 111 ° `.Mir TO .�mao L i Y O{ T �-0_.--r. �� -_ - f , \`,`PROPOSED SECOND FLOOR ADRON -0 l;3`//fy 5E , j SP:ea�r� 1:1.-... •P[. . %f/ i r w ca r S: id /�/./.,..... A_ , p xaucsr:r ,%� •^ CAWING PAX V l" .YWCA i- • MIL i; l9narDy/e �•/ � 10�!'.!r ! i/�/'//://"./;',/ i / 00000(El RUN . , �� ' � i�� : w R R w p -. /� P? ° f/i /i PROPOSED ELEVATOR i q Ri ^° g P. 1.!" ' ' I !o�/ ` A .1 'i / .•'/I� .•p ..-:. „Alit. kii 7 tit .4 ° Aiott . .iL‘IVAI , . . ..‘15 l \,..1141., /li►\y_• a'G%/I1i►.'441 !/Lan," "'iii ,vi ft Lineemi� eit h a maw i ��k�Ii�1w. -��- �L- -mss- -.darrawloi_ Il se N! pi rot LrE SRO, O 001110007.0 'W.I . .• . .- p .0.1.PIPE NC.w ,..r>e...rL. I ,, STIEEET TREES I [xn44 APP W W ■ 'MUNI O BRO3. OKS.P.C.aOST> I R Tweao � A«nrO` I S255 55 72p A(EE rNTOAL TTeM,ACN E.*2211.AYBAE A AVWMIRAa 1 TIGARD. OR 97224 v-r � P-I II.L N.R I . ,\ E PLAN 0331•10 co09e.G.AD HOOPOES/I,O.iGA1 2M j . 5B-I-S-NORTH rE. Ak. a R MA ,I een .Aaa w ...u. 010. 3-12-00 KNOW RS SOT __.---_CP 6/5. ..--._. ._,._-_-.-.-_---_.-___-.._____.-. ._.__---__.-_-_- ----__-.--_--- krt+ PROJECT DEE,30PN3Ir DATA-MEMO PROJECT OEJELORA 4T DATA-PROPOSED COO&NDTO 6. PEE. ArrAC4E0 E,o».rrea. s SITE AREA 0.0 p.(O.6 AU SPE ARA M.o.coke•LC) REOISID PARCw S.a* -)>operas 0.. OTC PLAN CO..MCP APPRDKG o4CUexre Si.&4..Ori3 SwIPpD NY NP. WILOrYi iowPRMI A,,r.P. ➢rr 10 epA PREPARED OT D. 1.PM Pt... OM 02.04100•RPU�..1.,PER.* a AT urR.RCe>u NOTED. Exrrro UNA.P. Perara u.ArET MOW E,..kER.O.A.RCN PUEPeRD Arz O.�•I'I.A.NIm PIlr1 r 6.LLOM re.D Aeo.w,'gr ... ,P.. •Ae- .TOPR Rrw R.R,.ae„a SIR x >�aw i •lo.uc*.caw.cTwel,cvaaes,70 ER n.Pr..eD.r.PAAVAP «,x. Dole: I.I-2010 w..i''•r 14 1.444 Pa.Ren 1500LI ENGNEEPS..Iu.•..DULLY OOS PIVED i.e EA. 17 i.ul a NOla YTS...' TO Scale: 1'.I'-U• xeue..m.m •>w. .POI4 sm . NLDec AREA ,p NI!!O Ax•.erS w SCE MAN SPC>.,Arlw Ave SD NO MAN,.APE 5...c REND ER'>Tro SITE GENERALLY Ad..TO SIT[ DEL.40. TOP w CUM Crown by DA rwleam OA.ArRe .raa,u.rm.+us PPr A. E PREPARED Or orIERS i.e P5!>OOtD CAR Peq i.e D vAx POOL rem.. Checked by. PE 10• 00.01..Orz>. Pa'r'DE C.wrooLAR >rx.Ar.E.. �D. Job No- 09-0512 ENCT 5.4 PARKING SPACE!. .•P.eE> ,_•� ..a.r. IQEAe: DECKLE R.I.ew...�>-....BEN O. ,xls PLAN Nr .r.>m�N E0,5•.0 wTE PP �_aCISE Sr.: Ordering No, SITE D y'.7::"..:, CONOOTID*S ASP PI...0 ISIS M 60APENTS IEI LSSO..erAN, I eiallT.»'-sr mo recipe Aa sp. N�-' rcw Nom.Y�nw,c.rPC.a. Exc...a?M to N,AND T.TM ,r,-•.EyIIA'ril�W.i L coy op tour • .0'0 Gw1xAM rDr ROM DRY.TO MST. OOLONG 4!055 5.laver•Sr... 1TENa Ae!Apollo�Yt f.weS e.w,PRw 0(o CD.DU.555 055.ETC.SRL OBE PEPOTE,ED 0.0 A)De SOTW CE>PER TIE P OSS OS OCTMET CTIOS Prose...P crnen ® rAe..n THE P MIND APE/AS 050.wa Sr .RCTTOx OHMS OR In .rouoe LAOac.PED I REP CET Mo IIT SITE PLAN Row Rut Iow.flrrE. ro PE Tor r OWING AND PROPOSED AD PC.*OP.PROP...00 FLOOR RE ER To TPk MO b.w DAN!EP _ TR DEW,QITIOWEO L AMP IAOSCAPE 1171. tY1[C • SN ALL EE co kCrzD TO,R DOOR DoE, TREE ARESEIEN1/HEE PROIE000o rim S EET MANE.LS.A)IDrzO ASen CMIRACTOW MALL CALL TOR SOCA..PRIOR TO TO REPO.Pk M.e NAM.* Y n.MO OR T.a PInSCTANro•.err • REQUEST FOR COMMENTS Albert Shields From: Albert Shields Sent: Thursday, May 27, 2010 10:53 AM To: Gary Pagenstecher Cc: Gus Duenas; Ron Bunch Subject: TDT/Unmitigated Impact, Brooks & Pittman Office Addition, SDR2010-00001 . Attachments: TDT052710.pdf This addresses the applicant's calculation of Unmitigated Impact under the Transportation Development Tax (TDT) program in his 2/11/10 Application for Site Development Review. In calculating the Full Impact and the Unmitigated Impact of his project applicant used the figure of 32% as the TDT Recovery Rate. 32% is not the correct figure to use in calculating the Full Impact. 32% was the target recovery figure for the Traffic Impact Fee (TIE) program which was replaced 7/1/09 with the TDT program. The target recovery figure for the TDT program is 28%. However, that target figure is not reached until 2012- 13 when the recovery figure reaches 25.2%for the "General Office" category. As shown in the attached TDT Rate Step Analysis table, when the four-year phase-in and the current Discount Program are factored in the correct percentage for 2009-2010 is 12.3% and for 2010-2011 is 17.2%. Thus, for building permits issued by 6/30/10 the TDT charge is $4,282, the Full Impact is $34,813 ($4,282 / .123) and the Unmitigated Impact is $30,531 ($34,813 - $4,282.) For building permits issued on or after 7/1/10 the TDT charge is $6,342, the Full Impact is $36,872 ($6,342/ .172) and the Unmitigated Impact is $30,530 ($36,872 - $6,342.) Copies of the above-mentioned Rate Step Analysis and of our 4/19/10 Updated Pre-App TDT Estimate are attached. Please let me know if you have any questions. Albert Shields Permits/Projects Coordinator City of Tigard 7 4P/ .2- 7', cr— III 'I TDT—COUNTYWIDE TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT TAX };'_4(;' si: Rate Calculation Worksheet ,„,,,,,,.4,„ .„„�'.t .7,"t":''. t ux§Cl":a.:,.c._,i . :t..3s.a�:aoaL:..i/41'4.A2Kf`Kos. KArt.4∎Y, i_S1?9. 1Z-1,ie120:P.Ci f..W... ir.t.` ��*37: rGS.±'Wit:.I n∎+:. ODifira: NA APPLICANT � vv1<s DATE ,� !� MAILING ADDRESS l$ 5 , 5J1/ 72, 62 4 E PREPARED BY /91 CITY/ZIP/ PHONE 7)2_4,x'1 ae 9722,1/ 936,14— PLANS CHECK 2�9 D�33 TAX MAP# f T J -62 3 3 PROJECT TITLE //2. cD 00.2,ot7 0i2A'5 A?"-77�V7- SITUS#ADDRESS ,e/tp/G€ 4D. /T/p /r •p4T�. Op-zV/LP/Nt- 7E. /'T`..zesve_ FORMER.USE(S) ; 'ce/0o4f -rG/3o//0 r V I/4 -4130A/ USE CODE UNITS X RATE = AMOUNT DESCRIPTION,'NOTES X = EY1z . 'n'G- i sus 6.',A-A/L.,---- ,1105V X = Owe& lairitli/1/ 1.)A4_,11091 Arcrle . X = —/*osoco..sf% 1.es� 5 ��2L / X _- ja ,7 —, v�f TOTAL TDT,FORMER USE(S) PROPOSED USE(S) 'T///4 g — G 734,/0 VIA!' - /3D// USE CODE UNITS X RATE = AMOUNT DESCRIPTION/NOTES 1 c7 /.44,X/ 374_a = 1�Z �Z �/Z Q � .e+1� '9cG� tee je Cr, 32_ X = X = TOTAL TDT,PROPOSED USE(S) _// 2.8 2� `rte ; 34 2___ LESS TOTAL TDT,FORMER USE(S) .••• ' .--gTOT INCREASE/(DECREASE) 2°7e771-1. (INCREASE=TDT DUE) 3� O f I o 1L_2 ,4t7' /,2. 3 ! :Z o PAYMENT METHOD s CASH/CHECK NOTE] q, .__-. zOiO CREDIT c;#- ( -' Dic-A/ 3% i/OE BANCROFT AGREEMENT // ?.-)9 3 3, 2 ES S (PROMISSORY NOTE) 3, x DEFER TO OCCUPANCY ?� /� �� I/OFS/CD/FORMS/TOT Rate Catcutation Workeheet.tndd(Rev.4/22/09) TDT Rate Step Analysis )General Office Space (710) Net Adj x SDC-Elig. Cost = Need/Impact Trip Ends * per Trip End * per Unit 17.36 $1,560 $27,082 Original 2009-2013 Discount 2009-2013 Year Need Fee % Fee TIF 2008-09 $27,082 $3,026 11.2% -- -- TDT 2009-10 $28,706 $4,428 15.4% $3,542 12.3% 2010-11 $30,429 $5,829 19.2% $5,246 17,2% 2011-12 $32,255 $7,230 22.4% $6,869 21.3% " 2012-13 $34,190 $8,632 25.2% $8,632 25.2% * From TDT Methodology,Table 9. Fees from Table 11. ** 6% per year increase per TOT Methodology. MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON DATE: April 26, 2010 TO: Gary Pagenstecher, Associate Planner FROM: Gus Duenas, Development Engineer RE: SDR2010-00001 Pittman and Brooks CPA's Office Addition Access Management (Section 18.705.030.H) Section 18.705.030.H.1 states that an access report shall be submitted with all new development proposals which verifies design of driveways and streets are safe by meeting adequate stacking needs, sight distance and deceleration standards as set by ODOT, Washington County, the City and AASHTO. The existing property has two access points to 72"d Avenue providing ingress and egress to two separate parking lots. There does not appear to be a realistic way to connect the two parking areas such that one access would be feasible. The applicant proposes to retain the two access points and not make any changes to the existing driveways. We concur with this 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 depending upon the influence area, as determined from City Engineer review of a traffic impact report submitted by the applicant's traffic engineer. In a case where a project has less than 150 feet of street frontage, the applicant must explore any option for shared access with the adjacent parcel. If shared access is not possible or practical, the driveway shall be placed as far from the intersection as possible. Not applicable. Section 18.705.030.H.3 and 4 states that the minimum spacing of driveways and streets along a collector shall be 200 feet. The minimum spacing of driveways and streets along an arterial shall be 600 feet. The minimum spacing of local streets along a local street shall be 125 feet. ENGINEERING COMMENTS SDR2010-00001 Pittman and Brooks PAGE 1 Existing driveways are to be used. The applicant requests an adjustment to allow for the existing driveways to be retained and adequately supports the request. Street And Utility Improvements Standards (Section 18.810): Chapter 18.810 provides construction standards for the implementation of public and private facilities and utilities such as streets, sewers, and drainage. The applicable standards are addressed below: Streets: Improvements: Section 18.810.030.A.1 states that streets within a development and streets adjacent shall be improved in accordance with the TDC standards. Section 18.810.030.A.2 states that any new street or additional street width planned as a portion of an existing street shall be dedicated and improved in accordance with the TDC. Minimum Rights-of-Way and Street Widths: Section 18.810.030E and Figure 18.810.1 require a 5-lane arterial to have right-of-way varying from 100 feet to 104 feet. Other improvements required include sidewalks, bike lanes, underground utilities, street lighting, storm drainage, planter strips and street trees. The ROW requirement for 72nd Avenue along the project frontage is 52 feet from centerline of ROW. Dedication of ROW along the frontage to meet that requirement is not justified by the proportionality analysis.The applicant proposes to provide a "No Construction" easement to ensure that no permanent structures are constructed within the area identified for future expansion of the roadway. This is acceptable as a minimum requirement. However,in addition to that, an estimated$30,000 in unmitigated impact remains to be considered. The applicant proposes a Non-Remonstrance agreement. That does not go far enough in that it is typically only utilized in the formation of Local Improvement Districts (LID's) and does not promise participation, only that the applicant would not remonstrate against formation of an LID. A restrictive covenant would allow that impact to be considered in any future street improvement along that frontage. Future Street Plan and Extension of Streets: Section 18.810.030.F states that a future street plan shall be filed which shows the pattern of existing and proposed future streets from the boundaries of the proposed land division. This section also states that where it is necessary to give access or permit a satisfactory future division of adjoining land, streets shall be extended to the boundary lines of the tract to be developed and a barricade shall be constructed at the end of the street. These street stubs to adjoining properties are not considered to be cul-de-sacs since they are intended to continue as through streets at such time as the adjoining property is ENGINEERING COMMENTS SDR2010-00001 Pittman and Brooks PAGE 2 developed. A barricade shall be constructed at the end of the street by the property owners which shall not be removed until authorized by the City Engineer, the cost of which shall be included in the street construction cost. Temporary hammerhead turnouts or temporary cul-de-sac bulbs shall be constructed for stub streets in excess of 150 feet in length. There are no future streets or extensions of streets through this development. Street Alignment and Connections: Section 18.810.030.H.1 states that full street connections with spacing of no more than 530 feet between connections is required except where prevented by barriers such as topography, railroads, freeways, pre-existing developments, lease provisions, easements, covenants or other restrictions existing prior to May 1, 1995 which preclude street connections. A full street connection may also be exempted due to a regulated water feature if regulations would not permit construction. Section 18.810.030.H.2 states that all local, neighborhood routes and collector streets which abut a development site shall be extended within the site to provide through circulation when not precluded by environmental or topographical constraints, existing development patterns or strict adherence to other standards in this code. A street connection or extension is precluded when it is not possible to redesign, or reconfigure the street pattern to provide required extensions. Land is considered topographically constrained if the slope is greater than 15% for a distance of 250 feet or more. In the case of environmental or topographical constraints, the mere presence of a constraint is not sufficient to show that a street connection is not possible. The applicant must show why the constraint precludes some reasonable street connection. N/A Cul-de-sacs: 18.810.030.L states that a cul-de-sac shall be no more than 200 feet long, shall not provide access to greater than 20 dwelling units, and shall only be used when environmental or topographical constraints, existing development pattern, or strict adherence to other standards in this code preclude street extension and through circulation: • All cul-de-sacs shall terminate with a turnaround. Use of turnaround configurations other than circular, shall be approved by the City Engineer; and • The length of the cul-de-sac shall be measured from the centerline intersection point of the two streets to the radius point of the bulb, and • If a cul-de-sac is more than 300 feet long, a lighted direct pathway to an adjacent street may be required to be provided and dedicated to the City. ENGINEERING COMMENTS SDR2010-00001 Pittman and Brooks PAGE 3 N/A Grades and Curves: Section 18.810.030.N states that grades shall not exceed ten percent on arterials, 12% on collector streets, or 12% on any other street (except that local or residential access streets may have segments with grades up to 15% for distances of no greater than 250 feet). Centerline radii of curves shall be as determined by the City Engineer. N/A Access to Arterials and Major Collectors: Section 18.810.030.Q states that where a development abuts or is traversed by an existing or proposed arterial or major collector street, the development design shall provide adequate protection for residential properties and shall separate residential access and through traffic, or if separation is not feasible, the design shall minimize the traffic conflicts. The design shall include any of the following: • A parallel access street along the arterial or major collector; • Lots of suitable depth abutting the arterial or major collector to provide adequate buffering with frontage along another street; • Screen planting at the rear or side property line to be contained in a non-access reservation along the arterial or major collector; or • Other treatment suitable to meet the objectives of this subsection; • If a lot has access to two streets with different classifications, primary access should be from the lower classification street. The property is accessed via 72nd Avenue. Existing driveways will remain. Private Streets: Section 18.810.030.T states that design standards for private streets shall be established by the City Engineer. The City shall require legal assurances for the continued maintenance of private streets, such as a recorded maintenance agreement. Private streets serving more than six dwelling units are permitted only within planned developments, mobile home parks, and multi-family residential developments. N/A Block Designs - Section 18.810.040.A states that the length, width and shape of blocks shall be designed with due regard to providing adequate building sites for the use contemplated, consideration of needs for convenient access, circulation, control and safety of street traffic and recognition of limitations and opportunities of topography. ENGINEERING COMMENTS SDR2010-00001 Pittman and Brooks PAGE 4 Block Sizes: Section 18.810.040.B.1 states that the perimeter of blocks formed by streets shall not exceed 1,800 feet measured along the right-of- way line except: • Where street location is precluded by natural topography, wetlands or other bodies of water or, pre-existing development or; • For blocks adjacent to arterial streets, limited access highways, major collectors or railroads. • For non-residential blocks in which internal public circulation provides equivalent access. Section 18.810.040.B.2 also states that bicycle and pedestrian connections on public easements or right-of-ways shall be provided when full street connection is not possible. Spacing between connections shall be no more than 330 feet, except where precluded by environmental or topographical constraints, existing development patterns, or strict adherence to other standards in the code. Lots - Size and Shape: Section 18.810.060(A) prohibits lot depth from being more than 2.5 times the average lot width, unless the parcel is less than 1.5 times the minimum lot size of the applicable zoning district. Lot Frontage: Section 18.810.060(B) requires that lots have at least 25 feet of frontage on public or private streets, other than an alley. In the case of a land partition, 18.420.050.A.4.c applies, which requires a parcel to either have a minimum 15-foot frontage or a minimum 15-foot wide recorded access easement. In cases where the lot is for an attached single-family dwelling unit, the frontage shall be at least 15 feet. 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 development code requires a 10-foot sidewalk and 5-foot planter strip exclusive of curb along the 72nd Avenue frontage. The existing sidewalk is not in the correct location for the ultimate section of this arterial. The standard is not met;however, this requirement to move the sidewalk back and create a new sidewalk and planting strip exceeds the impact of the proposed development. Construction of the improvements will not be required. 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 ENGINEERING COMMENTS SDR2010-00001 Pittman and Brooks PAGE 5 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. Sanitary sewer service is available on site. The building is served by the existing sewer line. Storm Drainage: General Provisions: Section 18.810.100.A requires developers to make adequate provisions for storm water and flood water runoff. Accommodation of Upstream Drainage: Section 18.810.100.0 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 existing storm drainage system is to remain and will be utilized. Effect on Downstream Drainage: Section 18.810.100.D states that where it is anticipated by the City Engineer that the additional runoff resulting from the development will overload an existing drainage facility, the Director and Engineer shall withhold approval of the development until provisions have been made for improvement of the potential condition or until provisions have been made for storage of additional runoff caused by the development in accordance with the Design and Construction Standards for Sanitary and Surface Water Management (as adopted by Clean Water Services in 2000 and including any future revisions or amendments). In 1997, Clean Water Services (CWS) completed a basin study of Fanno Creek and adopted the Fanno Creek Watershed Management Plan. Section V of that plan includes a recommendation that local governments institute a stormwater detention/effective impervious area reduction program resulting in no net increase in storm peak flows up to the 25-year event. The City will require that all new developments resulting in an increase of impervious surfaces provide onsite detention facilities, unless the development is located adjacent to Fanno Creek. For those developments adjacent to Fanno Creek, the storm water runoff will be permitted to discharge without detention. ENGINEERING COMMENTS SDR2010-00001 Pittman and Brooks PAGE 6 Existing storm drainage system is to remain. 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. No bikeways, bike lanes, or pedestrian pathways are required as part of this project. There is a pedestrian connection from the building to the sidewalk along the frontage. There is no other requirement for the project. 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 ENGINEERING COMMENTS SDR2010-00001 Pittman and Brooks PAGE 7 right-of-way from the applicant's property shall pay a fee in-lieu of under- grounding. There are existing overhead utility lines along the frontage of 72nd Avenue. However, the applicant already paid a fee-in-lieu of undergrounding (paid March 5, 2003) when the street improvements were performed as part of the development conditions in 1998 (SDR98- 00026). No undergrounding is required as part of this project. ADDITIONAL CITY AND/OR AGENCY CONCERNS WITH STREET AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENT STANDARDS: Traffic Study Findings: The proposed addition is not expected to generate much new traffic to the site. The applicant indicates that they do not anticipate any additional employees. However,even with the additional square footage taken into account under a worst case scenario, the incremental traffic generation should be minimal. Fire and Life Safety: Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue (TVF&R) is the service provider for fire and emergency services. Comments from TVF&R,if any,need to be incorporated into the project. Public Water System: The City of Tigard is the service provider for water in this area. The proposed facility is already served by an existing line and water meter at the frontage of the property. No additional water service is proposed. 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. (For Private Facilities) 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 ENGINEERING COMMENTS SDR2010-00001 Pittman and Brooks PAGE 8 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. (For privately maintained Stormwater Management Units) There is no net increase in impervious surface. The roof dram from the proposed addition will be connected to the existing storm drain line on the site. Grading and Erosion Control: CWS Design and Construction Standards also regulate erosion control to reduce the amount of sediment and other pollutants reaching the public storm and surface water system resulting from development, construction, grading, excavating, clearing, and any other activity which accelerates erosion. Per CWS regulations, the applicant is required to submit an erosion control plan for City review and approval prior to issuance of City permits. The Federal Clean Water Act requires that a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) erosion control permit be issued for any development that will disturb one or more acre of land. Since this site is over five acres, the developer will be required to obtain an NPDES permit from the City prior to construction. This permit will be issued along with the site and/or building permit. (Grading plan for subdivisions) A final grading plan shall be submitted showing the existing and proposed contours. The plan shall detail the provisions for surface drainage of all lots, and show that they will be graded to insure that surface drainage is directed to the street or a public storm drainage system approved by the Engineering Department. For situations where the back portions of lots drain away from a street and toward adjacent lots, appropriate private storm drainage lines shall be provided to sufficiently contain and convey runoff from each lot. The applicant will also be required to provide a geotechnical report, per Appendix Chapter 33 of the UBC, for the proposed grading slope construction. The recommendations of the report will need to be incorporated into the final grading plan and a final construction supervision report must be filed with the Engineering Department prior to issuance of building permits. The design engineer shall also indicate, on the grading plan, which lots will have natural slopes between 10% and 20%, as well as lots that will have natural slopes in excess of 20%. This information will be necessary in ENGINEERING COMMENTS SDR2010-00001 Pittman and Brooks PAGE 9 determining if special grading inspections and/or permits will be necessary when the lots develop. An erosion control plan is required as part of the project submittals prior to issuance of any City permits on the project. This plan will be submitted to the Building Division as part of the Site Permit application. 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.). Address Assignments: The City of Tigard is responsible for assigning addresses for parcels within the City of Tigard. An addressing fee in the amount of $50.00 per address shall be assessed. This fee shall be paid to the City prior to site permit. N/A Recommendations: THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF THE SITE PERMIT: Submit to the Building Division: Prior to issuance of a Site Permit, submit an erosion control plan to the Building Division. This plan shall conform to Clean Water Services Design and Construction Standards (Resolution and Order No. 07-20) Chapter 2. No work on-site shall commence until the erosion control permit are issued. Prior to issuance of a Site Permit, the applicant shall provide a construction vehide access and parking plan to the Development Engineer (Gus Duenas, 503-718-2470) for review and approval. The purpose of this plan is for parking and traffic control during the building construction work. Prior to issuance of the site permit, the applicant shall obtain concurrence from TVF&R that no fire protection system is required and that the existing hydrant location is satisfactory for fire protection of the structure. THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS: Submit to the Development Engineer (Gus Duenas, 639-4171, ext. 2470) for review and approval: ENGINEERING COMMENTS SDR2010-00001 Pittman and Brooks PAGE 10 ., r None for Development Engineering. The Building Permit application is handled by the Building Division. THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO A FINAL BUILDING INSPECTION: Submit to the Development Engineer (Gus Duenas, 503-718-2470) for review and approval: Prior to Final Building Inspection, the applicant shall execute a"No Construction" easement over the lot frontage needed for future expansion of 72"d Avenue. The easement shall cover the area needed for expansion of right-of-way to 52 feet from centerline of existing right-of- way. Prior to Final Building Inspection,the applicant shall execute a Restrictive Covenant on City- furnished forms to be recorded by the applicant whereby they agree to complete or participate in the future improvements of SW 72 11d Avenue adjacent to the subject property when any of the following events occur: A. when the improvements are part of a larger project to be financed or paid for by the formation of a Local Improvement District, B. when the improvements are part of a larger project to be financed or paid for in whole or in part by the City or other public agency, C. when the improvements are part of a larger project to be constructed by a third party and involves the sharing of design and/or construction expenses by the third party owner(s) of property in addition to the subject property, or D. when construction of the improvements is deemed to be appropriate by the City Engineer in conjunction with construction of improvements by others adjacent to the subject site. The level of participation shall be no more than the project's estimated unmitigated impact of $30,000 based on 2010 dollars and can be credited towards acquisition of right-of-way,or be applied to design and construction costs for the improvements.Any future participation shall use this amount as the present value with adjustments for inflation using the Engineering News Record construction cost index (currently 8676.68) to the time of participation. As an alternate to future participation,the applicant may elect to pay the$30,000 to the City as their contribution to that future improvement.Any funds deposited with the City will be used to fund the improvements along the project frontage. ENGINEERING COMMENTS SDR2010-00001 Pittman and Brooks PAGE 11 _ . City of Tigard TIGARD REQUEST FOR COMMENTS DATE: April 19.2010 TO: Todd Prager,City Arborist FROM: City of Tigard Planning Division STAFF CONTACT: Gary Pagenstecher.Associate Planner Phone: (503) 718-2434 Fax: (503) 718-2748 Email:garyp(utigard-or.gov SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (SDR) 2010-00001/ADJUSTMENT (VAR) 2010-00005 - PITTMAN & BROOKS CPA'S OFFICE ADDITION - REQUEST: The applicant is requesting Site Development Review approval to construct a 1,209 square foot second- floor addition and elevator to an existing office building. The applicant has also requested approval for a Special Adjustment to the access and egress standard in order to accommodate both parking lot accesses spaced closer than 600 feet on SW 72nd Avenue, an arterial street. LOCATION: 15255 SW 72"d Avenue; Washington County Tax Map 2S112DB, Tax Lot 200. 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, 18.370, 18.390, 18.520, 18.705, 18.725, 18.745, 18.755, 18.760, 18.765, 18.780, 18.790, 18.795 and 18.810. The Proposed Amendments are attached 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: MONDAY MAY 3,2010. 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. ,gyp PLEASE CHECK THE FOLLOWING ITEMS THAT APPLY: yI 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: b0,lei I-- one 41, =r �► Pr.�.� �r Name&Number of Person Commenting. Gary Pagenstecher From: Todd Prager Sent: Wednesday, May 26, 2010 3:45 PM To: Gary Pagenstecher Subject: RE: Pittman Brooks Attachments: Autozone, 4-6-10.docx CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Tree Protection Plan The applicant shall position fencing as directed by the project arborist and detailed on tree preservation sheet . The applicant shall allow access by the City Arborist for the purpose of monitoring and inspection of the tree protection to verify that the tree protection measures are performing adequately. Failure to follow the plan, or maintain tree protection fencing in the designated locations shall be grounds for immediate suspension of work on the site until remediation measures and/or civil citations can be processed. If work is required within an established tree protection zone, the project arborist shall prepare a proposal detailing the construction techniques to be employed and the likely impacts to the trees. The proposal shall be reviewed and approved by the City Arborist before proposed work can proceed within a tree protection zone. The City Arborist may require changes prior to approval. The project arborist shall be on site while work is occurring within the tree protection zone and submit a summary report certifying that the work occurred per the proposal and will not significantly impact the health and/or stability of the trees. This note shall be included on the Tree Protection Plan. The applicant shall have an on-going responsibility to ensure that the Project Arborist has submitted written reports to the City Arborist, at least once every two weeks, as the Project Arborist monitors the construction activities from initial tree protection zone (1'YZ) fencing installation through the building construction phases. The reports shall evaluate the condition and location of the tree protection fencing, determine if any changes occurred to the TPZ, and if any part of the Tree Protection Plan has been violated. If the amount of TPZ was reduced, then the Project Arborist shall certify that the construction activities did not adversely impact the overall, long-term health and stability of the tree(s). If the reports are not submitted to the City Arborist at the scheduled intervals, and if it appears the TPZ's or the Tree Protection Plan are not being followed by the contractor or a sub-contractor, the City can stop work on the project until an inspection can be done by the City Arborist and the Project Arborist. Prior to final inspection, the applicant shall submit a final report by the Project Arborist certifying the health of protected trees and that the street trees were properly planted per the approved street tree plan. Tree protection measures may be removed and final inspection authorized upon review and approval by the City Arborist. Deed Restriction Prior to issuance of any Certificates of Occupancy, the applicant/owner shall record deed restrictions to the effect that any existing tree greater than 6" diameter may be removed only if the tree dies or is hazardous according to a certified arborist. The deed restriction may be removed or will be considered 1 invalid if all trees preserved in ac. _dance with this decision should eith, ,ie or be removed as hazardous trees. From: Gary Pagenstecher Sent: Wednesday, May 26, 2010 3:11 PM To: Todd Prager Subject: Pittman Brooks Todd, Per your Comment sheet for this SDR I am asking for your boiler plate conditions. You may remember that of 21 trees inventoried on site all are proposed to be retained. Thanks, Gary DISCLAIMER. E-mails sent or received by City of Tigard employees are subject to public record laws. If requested, e-mail may be disclosed to another party unless exempt from disclosure under Oregon Public Records Law. E-mails are retained by the City of Tigard in compliance with the Oregon Administrative Rules"City General Records Retention Schedule." 2 Gary Pagenstecher From: Brian Rager Sent: Wednesday, April 21, 2010 1:26 PM To: Gary Pagenstecher Cc: Ted Kyle; Gus Duenas Subject: SDR 2010-00001, Pittman & Brooks CPA Addition Gary, I have flipped through the application materials and have no comments. Thanks, Brian D. Rager Assistant Public Works Director Public Works Department Direct: 503-718-2471 E-mail: brianr @tigard-or.gov Public Works: Taking Care of Our Community DISCLAIMER: E-mails sent or received by City of Tigard employees are subject to public record laws. If requested, e-mail may be disclosed to another party unless exempt from disclosure under Oregon Public Records Law. E-mails are retained by the City of Tigard in compliance with the Oregon Administrative Rules"City General Records Retention Schedule." 1 • City of Tigard TIGARD REQUEST FOR COMMENTS DATE: April 19.2010 TO: Jim Wolf Tigard Police Department Crime Prevention Officer FROM: City of Tigard Planning Division STAFF CONTACT: Gary Pagenstecher.Associate Planner Phone: (503) 718-2434 Fax: (503) 718-2748 Email:garyp@a,tigard-or.gov SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (SDR) 2010-00001/ADJUSTMENT (VAR) 2010-00005 - PITTMAN & BROOKS CPA'S OFFICE ADDITION - REQUEST: The applicant is requesting Site Development Review approval to construct a 1,209 square foot second- floor addition and elevator to an existing office building. The applicant has also requested approval for a Special Adjustment to the access and egress standard in order to accommodate both parking lot accesses spaced closer than 600 feet on SW 72nd Avenue, an arterial street. LOCATION: 15255 SW 72nd Avenue; Washington County Tax Map 2S112DB, Tax Lot 200. 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, 18.370, 18.390, 18.520, 18.705, 18.725, 18.745, 18.755, 18.760, 18.765, 18.780, 18.790, 18.795 and 18.810. The Proposed Amendments are attached 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: MONDAY MAY 3,2010. 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 YYIti 6() X 250 I i Tualatin Valley Fire & Rescue April 28, 2010 Gary Pagenstecher, Associate Planner City of Tigard Planning Division 13125 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard, OR 97223 Re: Pittman & Brooks CPA'S Office Addition Dear Gary, Thank you for the opportunity to review the proposed site plan surrounding the above named development project. Tualatin Valley Fire & Rescue endorses this proposal predicated on the following criteria and conditions of approval: 1) COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS - REQUIRED FIRE FLOW: The required fire flow for the building shall not exceed 3,000 gallons per minute (GPM) or the available GPM in the water delivery system at 20 psi, whichever is less as calculated using IFC, Appendix B. A worksheet for calculating the required fire flow is available from the Fire Marshal's Office. (IFC B105.2) The fire hydrant shown on the submitted drawings must be capable of supplying the required fire flow demand. Fire flow demand calculations must be submitted to and approved by this office prior to our endorsement of the issuance of any site development permits. A flow test of the hydrant may be necessary. 2) ACCESS AND FIRE FIGHTING WATER SUPPLY DURING CONSTRUCTION: Approved fire apparatus access roadways and fire fighting water supplies shall be installed and operational prior to any combustible construction or storage of combustible materials on the site. (IFC 1410.1 & 1412.1) 3) KNOX BOX: A Knox Box for access is required for this building. Please contact the Fire Marshal's Office for an order form and instructions regarding installation and placement. (IFC 506) We trust this letter will be helpful with the final design of this proposal insofar as fire apparatus access and firefighting water supplies are concerned. If there is anything about this letter you do not understand, disagree with, or wish to discuss further, please call me. Sincerely, Ja&t J . Dattig John K. Dalby, Deputy Fire Marshal II Tualatin Valley Fire & Rescue, North Division 14480 SW Jenkins Road Beaverton, OR 97005-1152 (503) 356-4723 North Division Office 14480 SW Jenkins Road, Beaverton,OR 97005 Phone: 503-356-4700 Fax: 503-644-2214 www.tvfr.com CleanWater Services Our commitment is dear. MEMORANDUM Date: April 26, 2010 To: Gary Pagenstecher, Associate Planner, City of Tigard From: Jackie Sue Humphrey,Water Services (the District) Subject: Pittman & Brooks CPA's Office Addition, SDR 2010-00001, 2S 112DB00200 Clean Water Services has no concerns or objections to this application request. As submitted, this application request will not require further review or the issuance of a Storm Water Connection Permit Authorization. 2550 SW Hillsboro Highway• Hillsboro, Oregon 97123 Phone: (503)681-3600• Fax:(503)681-3603 •www.CleanWaterServices.org 1' 04/30/2010 15• 14 FAX 5035910988 T '"D Engineering Z001/001 • City of Tigard r i.n tz a REQUEST FOR COMMENTS DATE: April V.2010 RECEIVED TO: ThalatiU Vall Wa tri APR 2 0 2010 TUALATIN VALLEY FROM: Ci ty of Tigar d Planning Division WATFIR DISTRICT STAFF CONTACT; Gary Pagenstecher•Associate_Plain Phone: (503) 718-2434 Fag: (503)718-2748 Rma;l:gMpatigillaitaCCE SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW(SDR)2010-00001/ADJUSTMENT('VAR)2010-00005 - PITTMAN & BROOKS CPA'S OFFICE ADDITION - REQUEST: The applicant is requesting Site Development Review approval to construct a 1,209 square foot second- floor addition and elevator to an existing office building. The applicant has also requested approval for a Special Adjustment to the access and egress standard in order to accommodate both parking lot accesses spaced closer than 600 feet on SW 72nd Avenue, an arterial street. LOCATION: 15255 SW 72°d Avenue; Washington County Tax Map 2S 112DB, Tax Lot 200. 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, 18.370, 18.390, 18.520, 18.705, 18.725, 18.745, 18.755, 18.760, 18.765, 18.780, 18.790, 18.795 and 18.810. The Proposed Amendments are attached 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, SEEEEMLEXat COMMENTS BACK BYLMONDALMMalia 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. ore •..7.+r,i..:;•i-e,K t.1-r:s^G�E!3Tx= ,e1 • 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: /70 , 5'3_ff�O ' ,j Of/ r ivp 3J-Z ? Gary Pagenstecher From: Meins, Alan [AIan.Meins©gwest.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 21, 2010 2:53 PM To: Gary Pagenstecher Cc: Smith, Lynn Subject: SDR 2010-00001NAR 2010-00005 PITTMAN & BROOKS CPA'S ADDITION Gary, The above referenced project has been reviewed and Qwest does not have any objections. Sincerely, QW//ESTj/�CORPORATION 7141/ //14///,/ Alan Meins Right-of-Way Agent 503-242-5517 This communication is the property of Qwest and may contain confidential or privileged information.Unauthorized use of this communication is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful.If you have received this communication in error.please immediately notify the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the communication and any attachments. 1 / III • a City of Tigard TIGARD REQUEST FOR COMMENTS DATE: April 19,2010 TO: PER ATTACHED FROM: City of Tigard Planning Division STAFF CONTACT: Gary Pagenstecher.Associate Planner Phone: (503) 718-2434 Fax: (503) 718-2748 Email:garypatigard-or.gov SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (SDR) 2010-00001/ADJUSTMENT (VAR) 2010-00005 - PITTMAN & BROOKS CPA'S OFFICE ADDITION - REQUEST: The applicant is requesting Site Development Review approval to construct a 1,209 square foot second- floor addition and elevator to an existing office building. The applicant has also requested approval for a Special Adjustment to the access and egress standard in order to accommodate both parking lot accesses spaced closer than 600 feet on SW 72nd Avenue, an arterial street. LOCATION: 15255 SW 72nd Avenue; Washington County Tax Map 2S112DB, Tax Lot 200. 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, 18.370, 18.390, 18.520, 18.705, 18.725, 18.745, 18.755, 18.760, 18.765, 18.780, 18.790, 18.795 and 18.810. The Proposed Amendments are attached 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: MONDAY MAY 3,2010. 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: 1 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 D REQUEST FOP COMMENTS �, / S r� TY OF TIGAR REQU .0 S NOTIFICk ,N LIST FOR LAND USE & COMMUNITY L _LQPMENT APPLICATIONS FILE NOS.: ` 2r9/0 -Valve)! FILE NAME: fj,,,s �&.1.1 CITY OFFICES 7 _C.D.ADMINISTRATION/Ron Bunch,CD Director X DEVELOPMENT SERVICES/Gus Duenas,Development Engineer XPUBLIC WORKS/Brian Rager,Assistant PW Director _C.D.ADMINISTRATION/Susan Hartnett,Asst.CD Director x DEVELOPMENT SERVICES/Todd Prager,Assoc.Planner/Arborist _PUBLIC WORKS/Steve Martin,Parks Manager _CITY ADMINISTRATION/Cathy Wheatley,City Recorder x BUILDING DIVISION/Mark Vandomelen,Building Official _PUBLIC WORKS/Ted Kyle,City Engineer _DEVELOPMENT SERVICES/Planning-Engineering Techs. POLICE DEPARTMENT/Jim Wolf,Crime Prevention Officer _HEARINGS OFFICER(+2 sets) _LONG RANGE PLANNING/Christine Damell,Code CompliancgSpecialist(DCA) PLANNING COMMISSION(+12 sets) X FILE/REFERENCE(+2 sets) SPECIAL DISTRICTS 3 TUAL.HILLS PARK&REC.DIST.*►TUALATIN VALLEY FIRE&RESCUE* $TUALATIN VALLEY WATER DISTRICT* )(CLEAN WATER SERVICES* Planning Manager North Division Administrative Office Development Services Department 15707 SW Walker Road John K.Dalby,Deputy Fire Marshall 1850 SW 170'"Avenue David Schweitzer/SWM Program Beaverton,OR 97006 14480 SW Jenkins Road Beaverton,OR 97006 2550 SW Hillsboro Highway Beaverton,OR 97005-1152 Hillsboro,OR 97123 LOCAL AND STATE JURISDICTIONS I CITY OF BEAVERTON * _ CITY OF TUALATIN * _OR.DEPT.OF FISH&WILDLIFE _OR.DIV.OF STATE LANDS _ Planning Manager Planning Manager Devin Simmons,Habitat Biologist Melinda Wood(WLUN Form Required) _ Steven Sparks,Den.Svcs.Manager 18880 SW Martinazzi Avenue North Willamette Watershed District 775 Summer Street NE,Suite 100 PO Box 4755 Tualatin,OR 97062 18330 NW Sauvie Island Road Salem,OR 97301-1279 Beaverton,OR 97076 Portland,OR 97231 _ 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 17160 SW Upper Boones Fry.Rd. _ Joanna Mensher,Data Resource Center(ZCA) _US ARMY CORPS.OF ENG. Durham,OR 97224 _ Paulette Allen,Growth Management Coordinator _OR.DEPT.OF LAND CONSERV.&DVLP. Kathryn Harris(Maps&CWS Letter Only) _ O.Gerald Uba,Ph.D.,(CPAIDCA'ZON) Mara UlIoa(Comp Plan Amendments 8 Measure 37) Routing CENWP-OP-G _CITY OF KING CITY* 635 Capitol Street NE,Suite 150 PO Box 2946 City Manager Salem,OR 97301-2540 Portland,OR 97208-2946 15300 SW 116th Avenue King City,OR 97224 WASHINGTON COUNTY _ OR.DEPT.OF ENERGY(Powedines 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 litA Naomi Vogel-Beattie(General Apps Lake Oswego,OR 97034 _Planning Division RCA)Ms 14 _ OR.DEPT.OF ENVIRON.QUALITY(DEQ) ODOT,REGION 1 * _Brent Curtis(CPA) _CITY OF PORTLAND (Notify for Wetlands and Potential Environmental Impacts) _Development Review Coordinator _Doria Mateja RCA)MS 14 Planning Bureau Director Regional Administrator _Carl Torland, Right-of-Way Section(vacations) _Sr.Cartographer(cpNaWMs,. 1900 SW 4th Avenue,Suite 4100 2020 SW Fourth Avenue,Suite 400 123 NW Flanders _Jim Nims,Slrveyor(ZCA)MS la Portland,OR 97201 Portland,OR 97201-4987 Portland,OR 97209-4037 _OR.PARKS&REC.DEPT. _WA.CO.CONSOL.COMM.AGNCY _ODOT,REGION 1 -DISTRICT 2A* _ODOT,RAIL DIVISION STATE HISTORIC Dave Austin(WCCCA)"911"jaonopw.Towers) Chad Gordon,Assistant Distnct Manager (Notify it ODOT R/R.Hwy.Crossing 0 OnrlyAccess to Lend) PRESERVATION OFFICE PO Box 6375 6000 SW Raab Road Dave Lanning,sr.Crossing Safety Specialist (Notify it Property Has HD Overlay) Beaverton,OR 97007-0375 Portland,OR 97221 555-13°i Street,NE,Suite 3 725 Sumner Street NE,Suite C Salem,OR 97301-4179 Salem,OR 97301 UTILITY PROVIDERS AND SPECIAL AGENCIES 5 _PORTLAND WESTERN R/R,BURLINGTON NORTHERN/SANTA FE R/R,OREGON ELECTRIC R/R(Buffington Northern/Santa Fe R/R Predecessor) Bruce Carswell,President&General Manager 200 Hawthorne Avenue SE,Suite C320 Salem,OR 97301-5294 _SOUTHERN PACIFIC TRANS.CO.R/R _METRO AREA COMMUNICATIONS X COMCAST CABLE CORP. _TRI-MET TRANSIT DVLPMT. Clifford C.Cabe,Construction Engineer Debra Palmer(Annexations Only) Gerald Backhaus is..Map tam,.coned) (If Project is Within Z 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 S_VERIZON QWEST COMMUNICATIONS Mike Hieb Svc.Design Consultant Scott Palmer,Engineering Coord. John Cousineau,OSP Network Lynn Smith,Eng.ROW Mgr. 9480 SW Boeckman Road 220 NW Second Avenue 4155 SW Cedar Hills Blvd. 8021 SW Capitol Hill Rd,Rm 110 Wilsonville,OR 97070 Portland,OR 97209-3991 Beaverton,OR 97005 Portland,OR 97219 _TIGARD/TUALATIN SCHOOL DIST.#23J_BEAVERTON SCHOOL DIST.#48 _COMCAST CABLE CORP. _COMCAST CABLE COMMUNIC. Teri Brady,Administrative Offices Jennifer Garland,Demographics Alex Silantiev ts..wok,Area Contact) Brian Every(MVS E.w na.m.w99w) 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 S00'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 List.doc (UPDATED: 8-Mar-10) (Also update:is\curpin\setup\labels\annexations\annexation_utifities and franchises.doc,mailing labels&auto text when updating this document) MAILING / NOTIFICATION RECORDS ErAFFIDAVIT OF MAILING I,Patricia L. Lunsford, being first duly sworn/affirm,on oath depose and say that I am a Planning Assistant for the City of Tigard, Washington County,Oregon and that I served the following: © NOTICE OF DECISION FOR SDR2010-00001/VAR2010-00005 - PITTMAN&B ROOKS CPA'S (File NoiNa ie Reference) ® AMENDED NOTICE ® 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 June 18,2010,and deposited in the United States Mail on June 18,2010,postage prepaid. I - � (Person that Pre. Cl Notice STATE OF OREGON County of Washington ss. City of Tigard Ttt Subscribed and sworn/affirmed before me on the U day of AIZOS ,2010. OFFICIAL SEAL SHIRLEY L TREAT NOTARY PUBLIC-OREGON Ave' • � COMMISSION NO.418777 A MY COMMISSION EXPIRES APRIL 25,2011 N ARY PUB OF OREGON My Commission Expires: grad, EXHIBIT A NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION (AMENDED) rl SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW(SDR) 2010-00001 p ! PITTMAN & BROOKS ADDITION THIS DECISION IS BEING AMENDED AND REISSUED TO CORRECT CONDITION OF APPROVAL #10 AND THE FINDINGS IN SECTION E. IMPACT STUDY, TO REFLECT A REVISED UNMITIGATED IMPACT FIGURE. THE APPEAL PERIOD AND EFFECTIVE DATE HAVE ALSO BEEN EXTENDED ACCORDINGLY. 120 DAYS = 8/12/2010 SECTION I. APPLICATION SUMMARY FILE NAME: PITTMAN &BROOKS CPA'S CASE NOS.: Site Development Review(SDR) SDR2010-00001 Adjustment (VAR) VAR2010-00005 PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting Site Development Review to construct a 1,209 square foot second floor addition and elevator to an existing office building. In addition, the applicant is requesting an adjustment to the access and egress standards to account for two accesses on SW 72nd Avenue to the subject property spaced approximately 185 feet apart which is less than the required 600-foot separation for arterials. APPLICANT/ Randall C Brooks APPLICANT'S James Andrews OWNER: 15255 SW 72nd Avenue REP: Nicoll Engineering Tigard,OR 97224 PO Box 23784 Tigard, Oregon 97281 LOCATION: The property is located at 15255 SW 72nd Avenue in Tigard; Washington County Tax Map 2S112DB,Tax Lot 200. 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 CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.360, 18.370, 18.390, 18.530, 18.705, 18.725, 18.745, 18.755, 18.765, 18.780, 18.790, 18.795 and 18.810. NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR2010-00001 PITIMAN&BROOKS PAGE 1 OF 21 SECTION II. DECISION Notice is hereby given that the City of Tigard Community Development Director's designee has APPROVED the above request for Site Development Review and an Adjustment subject to certain conditions of approval. The findings and conclusions on which the decision is based are noted in Section VI. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF THE SITE PERMIT: Submit to the Planning Department(Gary Pagenstec her, 503-718-2434) for review and approval: 1. The applicant shall position fencing as directed by the project arborist and detailed on the tree preservation sheet 2.1. The applicant shall allow access by the City Arborist for the purpose of monitoring and inspection of the tree protection to verify that the tree protection measures are performing adequately. Failure to follow the plan, or maintain tree protection fencing in the designated locations shall be grounds for immediate suspension of work on the site until remediation measures and/or civil citations can be processed. 2. If work is required within an established tree protection zone, the project arborist shall prepare a proposal detailing the construction techniques to be employed and the likely impacts to the trees. The proposal shall be reviewed and approved by the City Arborist before proposed work can proceed within a tree protection zone. The City Arborist may require changes pnor to approval. The project arborist shall be on site while work is occurring within the tree protection zone and submit a s report certifying that the work occurred per the proposal and will not significantly impact the hu and/or stability of the trees. This note shall be included on the Tree Protection Plan. 3. The applicant shall have an on-going responsibility to ensure that the Project Arborist has submitted written reports to the City Arborist, at least once every two weeks, as the Project Arborist monitors the construction activities from initial tree protection zone ('TPZ) fencing installation through the building construction phases. The reports shall evaluate the condition and location of the tree protection fencing, determine if any changes occurred to the TPZ, and if any part of the Tree Protection Plan has been violated. If the amount of TPZ was reduced,then the Project Arborist shall certify that the construction activities did not adversely impact the overall, long-term health and stability of the tree(s). If the reports are not submitted to the City Arborist at the scheduled intervals, and if it appears the TPZ's or the Tree Protection Plan are not being followed by the contractor or a sub-contractor, the City can stop work on the project until an inspection can be done by the City Arborist and the Project Arborist. Prior to final inspection,the applicant shall submit a final report by the Project Arborist certifying the health of protected trees and that the street trees were properly planted per the approved street tree plan. Tree protection measures may be removed and final inspection authorized upon review and approval by the City Arborist. Submit to the Engineering Department(Gus Duenas, 503-718-2470) for review and approval: 4. Prior to issuance of a Site Permit, submit an erosion control plan to the Building Division (Mark VanDomelen, 503-718-2448). This plan shall conform to Clean Water Services Design and Construction Standards (Resolution and Order No. 07-20) Chapter 2. No work on-site shall commence until the erosion control permit is issued. 5. Prior to issuance of a Site Permit,the applicant shall provide a construction vehicle access and parking plan to the Development Engineer (Gus Duenas, 503-718-2470) for review and approval. The purpose of this plan is for parking and traffic control during the building construction work. 6. Prior to issuance of the site permit,the applicant shall obtain concurrence from Tualatin Valley Fire & Rescue (TVF&R) that no fire protection system is required and that the existing hydrant location is satisfactory for fire protection of the structure. NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR2010-00001 PITIMAN&BROOKS PAGE 2 OF 21 THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO A FINAL BUILDING INSPECTION: Submit to the Planning Department(Gary Pagenstecher,503-718-2434) for review and approval: 7. Prior to final building inspection,the applicant/owner shall record deed restrictions to the effect that any existing tree greater than 6" diameter may be removed only if the tree dies or is hazardous according to a certified arborist. The deed restnction may be removed or will be considered invalid if all trees preserved in accordance with this decision should either die or be removed as hazardous trees. 8. Prior to final building inspection, the applicant shall call for a planning site inspection to ensure the proposed project is consistent with the approved plans. Submit to the Engineering Department(Gus Duenas, 503-718-2470) for review and approval: 9. Prior to Final Building Inspection,the applicant shall execute a "No Construction" easement over the lot frontage needed for future expansion of 72nd Avenue. The easement shall cover the area needed for expansion of right-of-way to 52 feet from centerline of existing right-of-way. 10. Prior to Final Building Inspection the applicant shall execute a Restrictive Covenant on City furnished forms to be recorded by the applicant whereby they agree to complete or participate in the future improvements of SW 72nd Avenue adjacent to the subject property when any of the following events occur: A. when the improvements are part of a larger project to be financed or paid for by the formation of a Local Improvement District; B. when the improvements are art of a larger project to be financed or paid for in whole or in part by the City or other public agency; C when the improvements are part of a larger project to be constructed by a third party and involves the sharing of design and/or construction expenses by the third party owner(s) of property in addition to the subject property;or D. when construction of the improvements is deemed to be appropriate by the City Engineer in conjunction with construction of improvements by others adjacent to the subject site. The level of participation shall be no more than the project's estimated unmitigated impact of$30,000 $26,303 based on 2010 dollars and can be credited towards acquisition of right-of-way, or be applied to design and construction costs for the improvements. Any future participation shall use this amount as the present value with adjustments for inflation using the Engineering News Record construction cost index(currently 8676.68) to the time of participation. As an alternate to future participation, the applicant may elect to pay the $305000 $26,303 to the City as their contribution to that future improvement. Any funds deposited with the City will be used to fund the improvements along the project frontage. 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 is a long (442 feet)..narrow (134 - 0 feet) triangular shaped parcel. The site was originally developed with the McHen Office Building in 1978. A zone change from Light Industrial to Industrial Park was approved in 1991(ZON91-0009). Under SDR98-00026, the applicant received major modification approval for a 3,327 square foot addition to an existing office building. The addition included office space and a day care facility and approved a variance to the front yard setback standard (35 feet) to allow the addition to replicate the existing building's facade and to legalize the existing non-conforming setback(30 feet). NOTICE.OF TYPE II DECISION SDR2010-00001 PITTMAN&BROOKS PAGE 3 OF 21 Vicinity Information The subject property is bounded by a railroad right-of-way to the west, SW 72nd Avenue at the intersection with Redwood Lane to the east, and an industrial property to the north. The property is bounded to the north and west by land zoned I-L and to the east by I-P. Site Information and Proposal Description: The applicant is requesting Site Development Review approval to construct a 1,209 square foot second floor addition and elevator to an existing office building. In addition, the applicant is requesting approval for an adjustment to the access and egress standards to account for two accesses to the subject property spaced approximately 185 feet apart which is less than the required 600-foot separation for artenals. SECTION IV. COMMENTS FROM PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 500 FEET On April 19, 2010, the City provided notice of the proposal and an opportunity to comment to property owners within 500 feet of the subject site, but did not receive any comments. The applicant held a properly noticed neighborhood meeting on January 4, 2010 to discuss the proposal with interested neighbors. No neighbors attended the meeting. SECTION V. SUMMARY OF APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA A. Zonin Districts 18.530 (Industrial Zoning Districts B. Applicable Development Code Standards 18.370 Variances and Adjustments) 18.705 Access Egress and Circulation) 18.725 Environmental Performance Standards) 18.745 Landscaping and Screening) 18.755 Mixed Solidaste and Recyclable Storage) 18.765 Off-Street parking and loading requirements) 18.780 Signs 18.790 Tree Removal) 18.795 Visual Clearance) C. Specific DR Approval Criteria 18.360 D. Street and Utility Improvement Standards 18.810 E. Impact Study 18.390 SECTION VI. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA A. ZONING DISTRICT Industrial Zoning District(18.530) Lists the description of the Industrial Zoning Districts. 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. The site is located in the Industrial Park District (I-P). The existing uses include office and commercial day care. The office use is proposed to be expanded by 1,200 square feet. Development Standards: Section 18.530.040.B States that Development standards in Industrial zoning districts are contained in Table 18.530.2 below: NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR2010-00001 PITIMAN&BROOKS PAGE 4 OF 21 TABLE 18.530.2 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS IN INDUSTRIAL ZONES STANDARD I-P Existing/Proposed Minimum Lot Size None 23,958 sq. ft. Minimum Lot Width 50 ft 67 ft Minimum Setbacks - Front yard 35 ft 28 ft - Side facing street on corner& through lots - NA - Side yard 0/50 ft. 48/213 ft - Rear yard 0/50 ft 4—32 ft -Distance between front of garage & property line - NA abutting a public or private street. Maximum Height 45 ft 22 ft Maximum Site Coverage [2] 75 % [5] 59.6 Minimum Landscape Requirement 25 %[6] 40.4% [2] Includes all buildings and impervious surfaces. [5] Maximum site coverage may be increased to 80%if the provisions of Section 18.530.050.B are satisfied. [6] Except that a reduction to 20%of the site may be approved through the site development review process. As shown in the table above, the development standards for the I-P zone are met for the existing/proposed development with the exception of the front yard setback. However, the proposed development is not less conforming than the existing development approved through SDR98-00026,which included approval for the front yard setback variance for the day care portion of the building. The proposed development adds a second story over the previously approved footprint,consistent with the setback approved under SDR98-00026. Pursuant to Tigard Development Code (TDC) 18.530.050.C, the following standards shall apply for all commercial day care uses in industrial zones: 1. The Environmental Impact Assessment must document noise, visible emissions, vibration, odor, glare and heat from uses within one quarter mile. A plan and program for day care facilities to provide mitigation on-site for any of the above off-site impacts must be provided. Sound attenuation walls, screening, window covering, shades, and other such means are appropriate means of mitigation and may be attached as conditions of approval. 2. The State of Oregon Child Care Division Certification Section shall be notified of the proposed site plans prior to submitting an application to insure that the plans submitted generally address the permitting requirements. 3. Prior to occupancy of the proposed day care, evidence of certification through the State of Oregon Child Care Division shall be provided. The existing commercial day care center is allowed as a restricted use in the I-P zone, subject to an environmental impact statement in accordance with TDC 18.530.050.C.1, above and compliance with State of Oregon outdoor open space setbacks. The applicant has submitted the City's Certificate of Occupancy dated 11/04/1999 and the State of Oregon Employment Department Child Care Division Certificate of Approval to operate Darling Deductions Preschool effective May 7, 2009 through May 7, 2010. FINDING: Based on the analysis above, the Development Standards for the I-P zone have been met. NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR2010-0(X)01 PITMAN&BROOKS PAGE 5 OF 21 B. APPLICABLE DEVELOPMENT CODE STANDARDS Variances and Adjustments (18.370) The applicant is requesting an adjustment to the Access, Egress, and Circulation standards to account for two existing parking lot accesses to the subject property spaced approximately 185 feet apart which is less than the required 600-foot separation for arterials (Section 18.705.030.H.3). SW 72nd Avenue abuts the subject site on the east and is designated an arterial in the City's Transportation System Plan. The classification of SW 72"d Avenue has changed from a collector to an arterial since the existing development was approved. 18.370.020 Adjustments A. Purpose. The purpose of this section is to establish two classes of special variances: 1. "Development adjustments" which allow modest variation from required development standards within proscribed limits. Because such adjustments are granted using "clear and objective standards," these can be granted by means of a Type I procedure, as opposed to the more stringent standards of approval and procedure for variances. 2. "Special adjustments" which are variances from development standards which have their own approval criteria as opposed to the standard approval criteria for variances contained in Section 18.370.020.C. "Special adjustments"include adjustments to the Access,Egress,and Circulation standards as shown below. 5. Adjustment to access and egress standards (Chapter 18.705). a. In all zoning districts where access and egress drives cannot be readily designed to conform to Code standards within a particular parcel, access with an adjoining property shall be considered. If access in conjunction with another parcel cannot reasonably be achieved, the Director may grant an adjustment to the access requirements of Chapter 18.705 through a Type II procedure, as governed in Section 18.390.030, using approval criteria contained in Subsection 2b below. b. The Director may approve, approve with conditions, or deny a request for an adjustment from the access requirements contained in Chapter 18.705,based on the following criteria: (1) It is not possible to share access; (2) There are no other alternative access points on the street in question or from another street; (3) The access separation requirements cannot be met; (4) The request is the minimum adjustment required to provide adequate access; (5) The approved access or access approved with conditions will result in a safe access; and (6) The visual clearance requirements of Chapter 18.795 will be met. Given the triangular configuration of the subject parcel, shared access would only be possible with the property to the north. The adjacent property is developed with a building located approximately 50 feet to the north and is landscaped with grass and trees between the property line and the adjacent building. The adjacent building's parking is located to the north without access options to the subject property. No other streets abut the subject property. There are no alternative access points on SW 72`1" Avenue. The access separation requirements cannot be met. The existing access was previously approved as a safe access. Visual clearance requirements are proposed to be maintained. The applicant states that "it is understood that when 72nd Avenue is constructed to the arterial standard, that the existing accesses will need to be re- evaluated." FINDING: Based on the analysis above, the variance to the minimum spacing standard of 600 feet along SW 72"d Avenue, an arterial, can be approved. 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. NOTICE OF"MI:11 DI.CISION SDR2010-00001 PITI'MAN&BROOKS PAGE':6 01;21 As shown in the applicant's Site Plan (Sheet 2), the proposed development and the existing parking lot on the subject parcel is accessed by two 30-foot driveways connecting to SW 72'd Avenue. 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 18.705.030I 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 72nd Avenue, 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. 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 including end slopes2 and if more than one driveway is to be constructed to serve the same lot, the frontage s acing 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. These standards are met with the existing curb cuts. No new curb cuts are proposed. 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; 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; NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR2010-00001 PrITMAN&BROOKS P.AG I,7 OF 21 Required walkways shall be paved with hard surfaced materials such as concrete, asphalt, stone, brick, etc. Walkways may be required to be lighted and/or signed as needed for safety purposes. Soft-surfaced public use pathways may be provided only if such pathways are provided in addition to required pathways. The existing pedestrian walkways as shown in the applicant's Site Plan (Sheet 2) meet the applicable walkway standards. Section 18.705.030.H.1 states that an access report shall be submitted with all new development proposals which verifies design of driveways and streets are safe by meeting adequate stacking needs, sight distance and deceleration standards as set by ODOT, Washington County, the City and AASHTO. The existing property has two access points to 72nd Avenue providing ingress and egress to two separate parking lots. There does not appear to be a realistic way to connect the two parking areas such that one access would be feasible. The applicant proposes to retain the two access points and not make any changes to the existing driveways. We concur with this proposal. As a result, an access spacing.standard adjustment for access closer than 600 feet on an arterial is required as reviewed above and in the Variance and Adjustment section of this decision. Section 18.705.030.H.2 states that driveways shall not be permitted to be placed in the influence area of collector or arterial street intersections. Influence area of intersections is that area where queues of traffic commonly form on approach to an intersection. The minimum driveway setback from a collector or arterial street intersection shall be150 feet, measured from the right-of-way line of the intersecting street to the throat of the proposed driveway. The setback may be greater depending upon the influence area, as determined from City Engineer review of a traffic impact report submitted by the applicant's traffic engineer. In a case were 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 existing driveways approved through prior approval (SDR98-00026) are proposed to remain. Therefore, this standard has been met. Section 18.705.030.H.3 and 4 states that the minimum spacing of driveways and streets along a collector shall be 200 feet. The minimum spacing of driveways and streets along an arterial shall be 600 feet. The minimum spacing of local streets along a local street shall be 125 feet. Existing driveways are approximately 185 apart. SW 172"d Avenue is an arterial street. The applicant proposes to use the existing accesses. Therefore, the applicant requests an adjustment to allow for the existing driveways to be retained. The adjustment request is reviewed above in the Variance and Adjustment section of this decision and is approved. Minimum Access Requirements for Commercial and Industrial Use: Section 18.705.030.I 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 existing parking lots combined include 24 spaces. Therefore, each access must be 30-feet with 24 feet of pavement. As shown in the applicant's Site Plan (Sheet 2) the existing accesses are consistent with this standard. FINDING: Based on the analysis above, and approval of the requested Access and Egress "Special adjustment" for driveway spacing on an arterial reviewed in the Variance and Adjustment section of this decisions, the applicable Access, Egress and Circulation standards have been met. NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR2010-00001 PIT MAN&BROOKS PAGE 8 OF 21 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 ure 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 1,200 square foot second story addition and elevator for office use would not expect to produce any adverse impacts from noise, visible emission, vibrations, odors, glare and heat or insects and rodents. Therefore, each of the environmental performance standards above have 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). As shown in the applicant's Site Plan, the existing street trees meet the street tree standards. Buffering and Screening: Section 113.745.080 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. Pursuant to Table 18.745.1, Buffer Matrix, no buffering and screening is required between the uses on the subject site and uses on adjacent parcels. Screening Special lrovisions: Section 18.745.050.E requires the screening of parking and loading areas. Landscaped parking areas shall include special design features which effectively screen the parking lot areas from view. Planting materials to be installed should achieve a relative balance between low lying and vertical shrubbery and trees. Trees shall be planted in landscaped islands in all parking areas, and shall be equally distributed on the basis of one (1) tree for each seven (7) parking spaces in order to provide a canopy effect. The minimum dimension on the landscape islands shall be three (3) feet wide and the landscaping shall be protected from vehicular damage by some form of wheel guard or curb. NO'ITC1.01.IYPI.11 I)1(ASTON SDR2111(I-(N1N)1 PI FI MAN&BROOKS P,\GI?9 OI.21 As show on the applicant's Site Plan (Sheet 2), the special screening provision for parking lots is met except for screening the parking lot from view from SW 72nd Avenue. To address this standard, the applicant has proposed additional landscaping (22 Rheingold plants divided between the two accesses, consistent with the special screening standards. 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; As show on the applicant's Site Plan (Sheet 2), the mixed waste facility is enclosed with a masonry structure, consistent with the screening of service facilities standards. FINDING: Based on the analysis above,the landscaping and screening standards have been met. 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. FINDING: Based on prior review and approval under SDR98-00026, and the limited scope of the proposed 1,200 square foot addition, the applicable Mixed Solid Waste/Recycling Storage Standards are satisfactorily met by the existing facilities as shown on the applicant's Site Plan (Sheet 2). 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 existing parking lots contain 7 spaces on the south and 16 spaces on the north for a total of 23 spaces. These parking areas are located adjacent to the existing building,consistent with the location standards. 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. Parking in Mixed-Use Projects: In mixed-use projects the required minimum vehicle parking shall be determined using the following formula. 1) Primary use, i.e., that with the largest proportion of total floor area within the development, at 100% of the minimum vehicle parking required for that use in Section 18.765.060;2)Secondary use, i.e., that with the second largest percentage of total floor area within the development, at 90% of the vehicle parking required for that use in Section 18.765.060; 3) NOTICE OF 1'YPF II DECISION SDR2010-00001 PITIMAN&BROOKS PAGE 10 OF 21 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 existing and proposed development is a mixed-use project including office and day care. Total required spaces are twenty-three. According to the applicant's site Plan (Sheet 2), 23 spaces are provided, consistent with the mixed-use parking standards. 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 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 carpools/vanpools shall be closer to the main entrances of the building than any other employee or student parking except parking spaces designated for use by the disabled. Preferential carpool/vanpool spaces shall be full-sized per requirements in Section 18.765.040N and shall be clearly designated for use only by carpools and vanpools between 7:00 AM and 5:30 PM Monday through Friday. Pursuant to the applicant's Site Plan (Sheet 2), the preferential long-term carpool/vanpool standards have been met. 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. Pursuant to the applicant's Site Plan (Sheet 2), the disabled-accessible parking standards have been met. 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. Pursuant to the applicant's Site Plan (Sheet 2), the access drives standards have been met. Pedestrian Access: Pedestrian access through parking lots shall be provided in accordance with Section 18.705.030.F. Where a parking area or other vehicle area has a drop-off grade separation, the property owner shall install a wall, railing, or other barrier which will prevent a slow-moving vehicle or driverless vehicle from escaping such area and which will prevent pedestrians from walking over drop-off edges. Pursuant to the applicant's Site Plan (Sheet 2), the pedestrian access standards have been met. NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SIR2010-00001 PITI"h1AN&BROOKS PAGE 11 OF 21 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. Pursuant to the applicant's Site Plan (Sheet 2), the parking lot striping standards have been met. 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. Pursuant to the applicant's Site Plan (Sheet 2), the wheel stop standards have 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. Pursuant to the applicant's Site Plan (Sheet 2), the Space and Aisle Dimension standards have been met. 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. Pursuant to the applicant's Site Plan (Sheet 2), the parking design standards have been met. 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. Pursuant to the applicant's Site Plan (Sheet 2), the parking design standards have been met. Minimum Bicycle Parking Requirements: The total number of required bicycle parking spaces for each use is specified in Table 18.765.2 in Section 18.765.070.1-1. In no case shall there be less than two bicycle parking spaces. The applicant's Site Plan shows four bicycle racks are provided to serve 8 bike spaces. Table 18.765.2 requires 2 spaces for day care classroom and 4 spaces for office (0.5/1,000 x 7.64 = 3.82). The existing bicycle parking meets the minimum bicycle parking standard. NOTICE OF TYPI?11 DECISION SDR2010-00(X)1 PITTN1AN&BROOKS PAGI;12 OF 21 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 applicant's Site Plan shows 24 spaces are provided but the notes call out 23 spaces, 7 in the south lot and 16 in the north lot. The narrative states 23 spaces are provided. Table 18.765.2, requires 21 spaces for office (2.7 x 7.64 = 20.62) and 2.0 spaces for day care (2.0 space/class room x 1 classroom = 2 spaces) for a total of 23 spaces.The existing parking meets the minimum off-street parking standard. 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 building area is 8,973 square feet, less than would require an off-street loading space. 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 are 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 protection of trees prepared by Phillip Hickey, Certified Arborist, including a Tree Preservation Site Plan (Sheet 2.1) and Arborist Report dated January 27, 2010. According to the applicant's tree inventory, 21 trees exist on the subject site, 5 of which are greater than 12 inches in diameter at breast height. All trees are proposed to be retained. Those trees in the vicinity of the work areas include tree protection measures. The Tree Preservation Site Plan includes applicable tree protection measures and has been signed-off by the project arborist. FINDING: Based on the analysis above, the tree removal standards have been met. To ensure the proposed development remains consistent with the applicable Tree Removal standards, the following conditions of approval will be applied. CONDITIONS: o The applicant shall position fencing as directed by the project arborist and detailed on the Tree Preservation Site Plan (Sheet 2.1). The applicant shall allow access by the City Arborist for the purpose of monitoring and inspection of the tree protection to verify that the tree protection measures are performing adequately. Failure to follow the plan, or maintain tree protection fencing in the designated locations shall be grounds for immediate suspension of work on the site until remediation measures and/or civil citations can be processed. NOTICE OF TYPE I1 IDECISION SIR2010-10101 PITMAN&BROOKS PAGE 13 OF 21 o If work is required within an established tree protection zone, the project arborist shall prepare a proposal detailing the construction techniques to be employed and the likely impacts to the trees. The proposal shall be reviewed and approved by the City Arborist before proposed work can proceed within a tree protection zone. The City Arborist may require changes prior to approval. The project arborist shall be on site while work is occurring within the tree protection zone and submit a summary report certifying that the work occurred per the proposal and will not significantly impact the health and/or stability of the trees. This note shall be included on the Tree Protection Plan. o The applicant shall have an on-going responsibility to ensure that the Project Arborist has submitted written reports to the City Arborist, at least once every two weeks, as the Project Arborist monitors the construction activities from initial tree protection zone (I1'Z) fencing installation through the building construction phases. The reports shall evaluate the condition and location of the tree protection fencing, determine if any changes occurred to the TPZ, and if any part of the Tree Protection Plan has been violated. If the amount of TPZ was reduced, then the Project Arborist shall certify that the construction activities did not adversely impact the overall,long-term health and stability of the tree(s). If the reports are not submitted to the City Arborist at the scheduled intervals, and if it appears the TPZ's or the Tree Protection Plan are not being followed by the contractor or a sub-contractor, the City can stop work on the project until an inspection can be done by the City Arborist and the Project Arborist. Prior to final inspection, the applicant shall submit a final report by the Project Arborist certifying the health of protected trees and that the street trees were properly planted per the approved street tree plan. Tree protection measures may be removed and final inspection authorized upon review and approval by the City Arborist. o Prior to issuance final building inspection, the applicant/owner shall record deed restrictions to the effect that any existing tree greater than 6" diameter may be removed only if the tree dies or is hazardous according to a certified arborist. The deed restriction may be removed or will be considered invalid if all trees preserved in accordance with this decision should either die or be removed as hazardous trees. 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 m height. The code provides that obstructions that may be located in this area shalrbe visually clear between three (3) and es' ht (8) feet in height (8) (trees may be placed within this area provided that all branches below eight(8) feet are removed). A visual clearance area is the triangular area formed 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 existing two accesses to the subject property,as shown on the applicant's Site Plan (Sheet 2) include the visual clearance triangles,consistent with this standard. C. SPECIFIC SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPROVAL STANDARDS (SECTION 18.360) 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: The roposal 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). NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR2010-(X)001 PITIMMAN&BROOKS PAGE 14 OF 21 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 thatlight patterns overlap at a height of seven feet, which is sufficient to illuminate a person. The applicant's Site Plan (Sheet 2) shows that the existing parking lot is adequately illuminated. Therefore,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. A bus line runs on SW 72nd Avenue,with bus stops within 500 feet of the subject site. The proposed 1,200 square foot expansion would not significantly contribute to additional need for transit. TriMet has not commented on the proposal. Therefore, this standard has been met. FINDING: Based on the analysis above, the specific standards of the Site Development Review Section have been met. D. 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 lanned as a portion of an existing street shall be dedicated and improved in accordance with the TDC. Minimum Rights-of-Way and Street Widths: Section 18.810.030E and Figure 18.810.1 require a 5-lane arterial to have right-of-way varying from 100 feet to 104 feet. Other improvements required include sidewalks, bike lanes, underground utilities, street lighting, storm drainage, planter strips and street trees. The Right-Of-Way (ROW) requirement for 72nd Avenue along the project frontage is 52 feet from centerline of ROW. Dedication of ROW along the frontage to meet that requirement is not justified by the proportionality analysis. The applicant proposes to provide a "No Construction" easement to ensure that no permanent structures are constructed within the area identified for future expansion of the roadway. This isle acceptable as a minimum requirement. However, in addition to that, an estimated $39;099/';in unmitigated impact remains to be considered. The applicant proposes a Non-Remonstrance agreement. That does not go far enough in that it is typically only utili7ed in the formation of Local Improvement Districts (LID's) and does not promise participation, only that the applicant would not remonstrate against formation of an LID. A restrictive covenant would allow that impact to be considered in any future street improvement along that frontage. NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR2010-00001 Pl ITNIAN&BROOKS PAGE 15 OF 21 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 development code requires a 10-foot sidewalk and 5-foot planter strip exclusive of curb along the 72nd Avenue frontage. The existing sidewalk is not in the correct location for the ultimate section of this arterial. The standard is not met; however, this requirement to move the sidewalk back and create a new sidewalk and planting strip exceeds the impact of the proposed development. Construction of the improvements will not be required. 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. Sanitary sewer service is available on site. The building is served by the existing sewer line. 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 existing storm drainage system is to remain and will be utilized. 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). Existing storm drainage system is to remain. 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. NOTICE OF l'11'1?II DI:CISION SDR2010-00001 PUT MAN&BROOKS AGI.:16 01,21 No bikeways, bike lanes, or pedestrian pathways are required as part of this project. There is a pedestrian connection from the building to the sidewalk along the frontage. There is no other requirement for the project. 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 unde ound services; C • 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. There are existing overhead utility lines along the frontage of 72nd Avenue. However, the applicant already paid a fee-in-lieu of undergrounding (paid March 5, 2003) when the street improvements were performed as part of the development conditions in 1998 (SDR98-00026). No undergrounding is required as part of this project. ADDITIONAL CITY AND/OR AGENCY CONCERNS WITH STREET AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENT STANDARDS: Traffic Study Findings: The proposed addition is not expected to generate much new traffic to the site. The applicant indicates that they do not anticipate any additional employees. However, even with the additional square footage taken into account under a worst case scenario, the incremental traffic generation should be minimal. Fire and Life Safety: Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue (TVF&R) is the service provider for fire and emergency services. Comments from TVF&R, if any, shall be incorporated into the project. Public Water System: The City of Tigard is the service provider for water in this area. The proposed facility is already served by an existing line and water meter at the frontage of the property. No additional water service is proposed. 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. NOTICE OF TYPE!!DECISION SDR2OIO-00001 PPI'I'MAN&BROOK PAGI?17 01.21 (For Private Facilities) 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. (For privately maintained Stormwater Management Units) There is no net increase in impervious surface. The roof drain from the proposed addition will be connected to the existing storm drain line on the site. Grading and Erosion Control: CWS Design and Construction Standards also regulate erosion control to reduce the amount of sediment and other pollutants reaching the public storm and surface water system resulting from development, construction, grading, excavating, clearing, and any other activity which accelerates erosion. Per CWS regulations, the applicant is required to submit an erosion control plan for City review and approval prior to issuance of City permits. The Federal Clean Water Act requires that a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) erosion control permit be issued for any development that will disturb one or more acre of land. Since this site is over five acres, the developer will be required to obtain an NPDES permit from the City prior to construction. This permit will be issued along with the site and/or building permit. An erosion control plan is required as part of the project submittals prior to issuance of any City permits on the project. This plan will be submitted to the Building Division as part of the Site Permit application. 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.). E. IMPACT STUDY (18.390) Section 18.390.040.B.2.e states that the applicant shall provide an impact study to quantify the effect of development on public facilities and services. For each public facility system and type of impact, the study shall propose improvements necessary to meet City standard, and to minimize the impact of the development on the public at large, public facilities systems, and affected private property users. The applicant has provided an impact study addressing the project's impacts on public systems. Staff concurs with the applicant's narrative findings that each of the system components will not adversely affect the existing public facilities and services. The applicant's narrative separately addresses the issue of dedication of real property which staff has responded to in the findings below. 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. No11(;I:01. PI?II DI:(:NON SDR211111-INNN)1 Pl'ITNI:AN&BROOKS P:AGI%18 OF 21 The Development Review Engineer's Pre-Application Conference Notes, dated November 4, 2009, state that a roval of a development application for this site will require dedication of right-of-way to 52 feet from ROW centerline for SW 72 d Avenue. In addition, the Notes state that in the event a rough proportionality analysis determines that improvements to 72nd may not be proportional to the development proposed, the ROW dedication still needs to be made, but improvements to 72 may be deferred via execution of a restrictive covenant whereby the developer commits to participate in future improvements under appropriate circumstances. The applicant's narrative addresses the issue of real property dedication on page 2 of 20,page 3 of 20, and in Exhibits A- Site Plan Existing Conditions, B-Site Plan with 52' R.O.W, and C-City of Tigard Rate Calculation Worksheet (2/10/10). The applicant does not concur with the Pre-App Notes' requirement for ROW dedication or half street improvements and provides a calculation showing that that the real property dedication is not roughly proportional to the projected impacts of the development ($9,099 unmitigated impact vs. $78,825 loss in real property value plus unspecified improvement costs). The applicant requests that the dedication and improvements instead be met with a "No Construction Easement" for 22 feet of their property (Site Plan, Sheet 2). Staff finds that the applicant's calculation is incorrect. The following addresses the applicant's calculation of Unmitigated Impact under the Transportation Development Tax can) program provided in his February 11,2010 Application for Site Development Review: In calculating the Full Impact and the Unmitigated Impact of his project, the applicant used the figure of 32%as the TDT Recovery Rate. 32% is not the correct figure to use in calculating the Full Impact. 32%was the target recovery figure for the Traffic Impact Fee (TIF) program which was replaced July 1,2009 with the TDT program. The target recovery figure for the TDT program is 28%. However, that target figure is not reached until 2012-13 when the recovery figure reaches 25.2% for the"General Office"category. As shown in the TDT Rate Step Analysis table, when the four-year phase-in and the current Discount Program are factored in the correct percentage for the `General Office"category for 2009-2010 is 12.3% and for 2010-2011 is 17.2%. As shown in the Pittman-Brooks, Unmitigated Impact Analysis, the overall average recovery rate is 14%. Thus, for building permits issued by 6/30/10 the TDT charge is $4,282, the Full Impact is $31,813 $30,585 ($4,282 / .123 .14) and the Unmitigated Impact is $30,531 $26,303 ($34,813 $30,585 - $4,282.). For building permits issued on or after 7/1/10 the TDT charge is $6,342, the Full Impact is 067872 $33,555($6,342 / 2-.181) and the Unmitigated Impact is$30,530$27,213 ($36,872$33,555- $6,342.). [Copies of the above-mentioned Pittman-Brooks, Unmitigated Impact Analysis, Rate Step Analysis and of the City's April 19,2010 Updated Pre-App TDT Estimate are included in the land use file.] The City Development Review Engineer has provided findings with respect to both the dedication and improvements under the Streets and Utilities section of this decision, above. In summary, the City can accept, as a minimum requirement, a "No Construction Easement" to ensure that no permanent structures are constructed within the area identified for future expansion of SW 72nd Avenue. Construction of half street improvements will also not be required as they would not be roughly proportional. However, as shown above, an estimated $30,000 $26,303 in unmitigated impact remains to be considered. The applicant proposes a Non-Remonstrance agreement. That does not go far enough in that it is typically only utilized in the formation of Local Improvement Districts (LTD's) and does not promise participation, only that the applicant would not remonstrate against formation of an LID. A restrictive covenant of proportional value (WOO $26,303) would allow that impact to be considered in any future street improvement along that frontage and has been required as a condition of approval. NOTICE OF TYPE H DECISION SDR2010-00001 PITMAN&BROOKS PAGE 19 OF 21 SECTION VII. OTHER STAFF COMMENTS The City of Tigard Development Review Engineer has reviewed the proposal and provided comments that have been included in Sections 18.705 and 18.810 of this decision. The City of Tigard Arborist has reviewed the proposal and provided comments that have been incorporated in Sections 18.745 and 18.790 of this decision. The City of Tigard Police Department has reviewed the proposal and has no objection to it. City of Tigard Public Works Department has reviewed the proposal and has no comment. SECTION VIII. AGENCY COMMENTS Qwest Corporation has reviewed the proposal and has no objections to it. Tualatin Valley Water District has reviewed the proposal and has no objections to it. Clean Water Services has reviewed the proposal and states there are no concerns or objections. Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue endorses this proposal predicated on the following criteria and conditions of approval: 1) COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS - REQUIRED FIRE FLOW: The required fire flow for the building shall not exceed 3,000 gallons per minute (GPM) or the available GPM in the water delivery system at 20 psi, whichever is less as calculated using IFC, Appendix B. A worksheet for calculating the required fire flow is available from the Fire Marshal's Office. (IFC B105.2) The fire hydrant shown on the submitted drawings must be capable of supplying the required fire flow demand. Fire flow demand calculations must be submitted to and approved by this office prior to our endorsement of the issuance of any site development permits. A flow test of the hydrant may be necessary. 2) ACCESS AND FIRE FIGHTING WATER SUPPLY DURING CONSTRUCTION: Approved fire apparatus access roadways and fire fighting water supplies shall be installed and operational prior to any combustible construction or storage of combustible materials on the site. (IFC 1410.1 & 1412.1) 3) KNOX BOX: A Knox Box for access is required for this building. Please contact the Fire Marshal's Office for an order form and instructions regarding installation and placement. (IFC 506) NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR201U-(0001 PIT 1∎L\N&BROOKS PAGE 20 OF 21 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 JUNE 18,2010 AND BECOMES EFFECTIVE ON JULY 3,2010 UNLESS AN APPEAL IS FILED. Areal: 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 JULY 2,2010. uestions: I you have any questions,please call the City of Tigard Planning Division,Tigard City Hall, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard,Tigard,Oregon at(503) 639-417 , v June 18.2010 PREPAREE : ary Pagenstecher DATE Associate Planner Aeel- June 18.2010 APPROVED BY: Ron Bunch DATE Community Development Director I:\unpin\gary\sdr\SDR2010-00001.dec.doc.dot NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR2010-00001 PITMAN&BROOKS PAGE 21 OF 21 I i > VICINITY MAP Y _a SDR2010-00001 VAR2010-00005,.....L PITTMAN &BROOKS CPA'S I.A1t()�N4L LN f OFFICE ADDITION _ _ IQ rei • Subject Site i RLDWO{'0 . 117 i s • fI . ....diiiiiiii I -i It A 8 L F LN Information on this map Is for general location LU' �— —m – only and should be verified with the Development 7! Services Division. Cr'' S Scale 1:4,000-1 in=333 ft Map punted at 11:91 AM on 19-Apr-10 4��`C� USES S DERNED .R PRESENTATION SOURCES.GUARANTEE 5 TIGARD TO MAKES IS WARRANTY.M MULTIPLE SUR GUARANTEE ASTOTHE -, ---(1 1 ' CONTENT,AOCURACY,TMIELINESS OR COWLETENESS OF NIT OF THE DATA PROVIDED HEREIN.NE CITY OF TIGARD SHALL ASSUME NO '�f LNdVTY FOR ANY ERRORS.OMISS1ONS,OR INACCURACIES IN THE („I\ INFORMATION PROVIDED REGARDLESS OF HOW CAUSED. V� I (tTj V City of 7lgard "��w��( 13125 SW Hall Bivd Feet Q� TIga3899-417123 �.IL Q fT� 50 0 500 >� wvrw.tigard-0r.gov TIGARD CITY OF TIGARD : Approved., •C I ii ..)nditionallyApproved C l NNicoli P F.,r only the works esbe in: r W _., tA'°ereeTo ELowp�^ F=9M1•T NO. J� ,. .• IDS SE Colo x-herd ONp1 vr2J �..� Se( Letter to:-'Poll. . [ I "�"1 'E` ws 60.145 Fee 684 ob .fires Alt-T. �N�L" � �\_ ' '� 1% . . . i = ,'►' l~ c ,�. ,:. - .ate: ��_ ,,,.�_ � � 1� ��►� mar , il� NOT . , Ex1STNG STREET i / `4E M. 1.1 ''r• IEYIEI®:E f lI eoP SITE PLAN rum.,coif. oR,.a..REE+ „'�,' \t„, '� i• POOP CONK,TO E>D•1M0 - �� WM,DRAM 1.•E �'. ' 1 AREA-M. : CIE":I ; _ n4f! G" FENCE Mt 70:.: :r,:LAii{zs.a,•i'° YIEllal..cll �/��`�-� PROPOSED SEGO -•.til. : • • ' I.r'f::c:•6:,c.mat �a is .ii•.. '%4&I FLOOR ADDRKIN l :% ' ii wt� " ...a,. , OTT PAN.PARKING AFLA / �iLK .vt'eassl �;ii i 7',aNt�•:/ RwSrw AAll • ,,-'7'".".. . �: EFir rAy!!%/ %`i: x shoo ocrxE _, // LAIIMCA'10 ..--- "�TeriT ATreA ANA 1 •t•w'.rP ,%�,./7 /,/ _! 6i I. I •„P _ r.MUU r.cu �AA°'�11 'G / I PROPOSED ELEVATOR a sT.e�«s+s J r«:m. . . ..,', .vim R '� Mil &or -'-` ,, '/:\ /___ -----____ ��, s t1.�'-rr�Ns.sltta�Fa�E6n>.11.LY. -� `�� __ _/ _._._ —. ?lit 3 r `yip,. -iG }}, �/``\`� _wii10 c ad-::: :7. i - ��p�� ■ - �h � •� ;\i.�e��!1 :�U_i�i►��y■ mss♦.�riie`�e�� ' v:�ie�� ri�e'�� e► ►�y'►�.® iiu� i�t E T: „.,s.-� i 1� a'�rian ®► -Not at pi al-�11d�/0�_ _ '�1®,�� SECOrD FLOOR Fla-M•cmr 1..e.- S wlelEaLn e><ulw.—.4.- VOWING PIPE urowll ERRING EIDE.wx I ® Exi•rw.T..ET... —I Exl•Tw..rwA01 22 JCR A!O Bpooi RD 3 ORAR•4.0 oepns-4D>l> i fyTOTAL w rlrw._ �' B.W.-. Arex1E ...Poe�•`••m T Tl110 krr Ir I N *4 NM.=A I i IS SEmR21Om24M[ „r I /,*Darr SITE PLAN EJD6IEID commas MO PACP0E®0*02F A100* N T• w I „r ,�E,,I WM.*E•IRAI00 AREA 1' VEUA.*441610 AREA NW I,r 12(0041. *1/04.4.AIM/ VIEW.O MAN=ANA _. -------3—N----- .�,�_—_-- j m FIR-EI• moos Ell a yEE Yr4.—'— — .._.._.. — — -- _______ . RLSEe uE V.r A. :VE.r.00 DOOPMS PROJECT O e..ceiBIT DATA-MAIM ITIOACT OIYSOrABR DATA-PROPOSED CIDER%NO1Tc9 6.. /OED To OGS®Np PHTEi NO EN'.RSS-00061. �Lr� 015700 ii A WM W.TOM Acl • ».w Sr.000 Act REOARED PAIKSC MACES P T —ll'PACTS% �EVES R Rr RTe mars.<MONO DDIPRER ELM V. WELDING FOOTIENT l V. /RAMS. PPONCE 00.0 AT ENIPAACTS AA 00T1t0. TO EOVRrw 0.0004 AREA. LAR.I V. r.L�ON aa.Aew : 1Ti M 0000 1....P*4 20 PERRNEi NnE el FLAWED IRO(E GALLON aN...e na• ii4siL N:u a r.e.R.s stew ROOM SaI.A, _ r°s•1°••, NYOwMi4Tbt MARTAE X Dots: 2-11-2010 Tq1 U.5 r. IIIC0.0•.0504(44.HA4.44.,CNERrt0 AND E0R.0t1NOEES ENI N THE GUAR VISION AMA TO Scald: C-I'-0- rAm^^�son Vr. wlL.r•Y1 4ELDw PAW V. w.i.w.a e r.e.ins 10.0 ASPECTS Cr 00 RAN NwuT1ON Ap SR IvMUID/TREPED ED NO ERA.KK.— w SITE OPERrLY ADIEREE To RTE DELOA T-r MAP(TOP OF C YEL Drown by LA PLAN PREPARED ST OIHER!MO P REEDNIED it=EA..a. ' ' i'' .o4I s y w root ro 1241 PDa PAPCw: Checked by Pb•x15Tw PAMNG SP•¢S ♦ 4S r r.an rr...wem cAi PIOND ! ERAL NOR? P0 05 01..0 *.54040E*0 GATED. Job No.: 09-0512 BICYCLE PAgCw SPACES. • rw'R N'�r' NOSH BICYCLE PARK.seA04—♦SPACE•gi. T1M5 RAN ECOIPOR47E5 torn EXISTING WE READ Y.MOA MO CA1•tl0.NIRCrNO. OrORin Ito.: 514 ow. .t w D y.0*S ..0 0001110E AO PIRG 0SWO 511E OP0V 2001*. tsco 10 SJO 6 T tELA0I AA AL RRIDAT•. 9 44L0w HEwINr ]6101•f.»'-r. A.Pm n� VAX, THE OET WE.UI•c RENO PROPOSED 13 IM RIOT Or TT RO. LSMfYAOE V ALLOYED so y.�_r...��!�_u VATCN FOR THE ELEVATOR MOM N-VE41TAlIO4 • a� 1 OATwC.c=r-m' CMICTICN CP IW DRUMS TO EJUST1. two • NM,I r Eu1DNG HEIDM i STORY•ll'-r• THERE AE£00111NAL SIw*•aNG PROPOSED COVEN..RRCE•,6�EE-(swoon,P'PICTClED 0Nw MANAGE STSTrn 0,um:aura AT 1W DWNM•ES FOR TIE IPANAOK CO M r 5TECrid PR lV,P.GNY. SUITE.M PAWN.APEAE AS RECWRED ELY .CISTR.CTCN WSTw LADK•PN.OR uTT 0r6 STANDAOS LAND D ITEM AM OT•ReP2D,1K ROGi RAH cc RC oR SKALA REPLACE DRIROED ITEM $RTE PLAN 10 13•E PC0PS Or M PROPCSED WO.Roar Mr.10 TTP•IO 0 Mc NMI CP ou7,000'OR�S EXISTNG AID PROPOSED TM MM ELEVATOR 7.1,•,.,4,ROOT LCME ITEtY ...L N BE - -- lED TOM METRO ETCER'I PEE ASSES:MEM I 00X.PPOTECT4.N RAN. SHEET DRANr LEES T.NOR ABOVE.045 cwrR.cTOR o 1ErolRr PREr•AR o Or MKS-RAD, 2 EXCA ACCH 1PC.ETES'nude r0 AIT0000,RESCCM/TAWS,CALL PIn:ECT. • • P . Randall C. Brooks SDR2010-00001/VAR2010-00005 ' 15255 SW 72nd Avenue PITTMAN &BROOKS CPA'S Tigard, OR 97224 EXHIBIT Brooks &Pittman Rentals 15255 SW 72nd Avenue Portland, OR 97224 Nicoli Engineering Attn:James Andrews PO Box 23784 Tigard, OR 97281 • ! AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING I,Patricia L. Lunsford, being first duly sworn/affirm,on oath depose and say that I am a Planning Assistant for the City of Tigard, Washington County,Oregon and that I served the following: {6cck Apryipmue Box(s)Below) © NOTICE OF DECISION FOR SDR2010-00001/VAR2010-00005- PITTMAN&B ROOKS CPA'S (File NoiNarre Reference) ® AMENDE D NOTICE 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 June 18,2010,and deposited in the United States Mail on June 18,2010,postage prepaid. (Person 157epare.T "ce) STATE OF OREGON County of Washington ss. City of Tigard Subscribed and sworn/affirmed before me on the 1 t day of /11t661 ,2010. OFFICIAL SEAL SHIRLEY L TREAT NOTARY PUBLIC-OREGON COMMISSION NO.418777 I i� 6ak� c 0 MY COMMISSION EXPIRES APRIL 25,2011 ,Q NO ARY PUB OF OREGON My Commission Expires: Ala-S/l/ EXHIBITA . NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION Irr SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW(SDR) 2010-00001 PITTMAN & BROOKS ADDITION THIS DECISION IS BEING AMENDED AND REISSUED TO CORRECT CONDITION OF APPROVAL #10 AND THE FINDINGS IN SECTION E. IMPACT STUDY, TO REFLECT A REVISED UNMITIGATED IMPACT FIGURE. THE APPEAL PERIOD AND EFFECTIVE DATE HAVE ALSO BEEN EXTENDED ACCORDINGLY. 120 DAYS = 8/12/2010 SECTION I. APPLICATION SUMMARY FILE NAME: PITTMAN &BROOKS CPA'S CASE NOS.: Site Development Review(SDR) SDR2010-00001 Adjustment ((VAR) VAR2010-00005 PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting Site Development Review to construct a 1,209 square foot second floor addition and elevator to an existing office building . In addition, the applicant is requesting an adjustment to the access and egress standards to account for two accesses on SW 72nd Avenue to the subject property spaced approximately 185 feet apart which is less than the required 600-foot separation for arterials. APPLICANT/ Randall C Brooks APPLICANT'S James Andrews OWNER: 15255 SW 72nd Avenue REP: Nicoli Engineering Tigard,OR 97224 PO Box 23784 Tigard, Oregon 97281 LOCATION: The property is located at 15255 SW 72nd Avenue in Tigard;Washington County Tax Map 2S112DB,Tax Lot 200. 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 CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.360, 18.370, 18.390, 18.530, 18.705, 18.725, 18.745, 18.755, 18.765, 18.780, 18.790, 18.795 and 18.810. SECTION II. DECISION Notice is hereby given that the City of Tigard Community Development Director's designee has 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 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 JUNE 18, 2010 AND BECOMES EFFECTIVE ON JULY 3, 2010 UNLESS AN APPEAL IS FILED. Apeal: The Director's Decision is final on the date that it is mailed. All persons entitled to notice or who are otherwise adversely affected or aggrieved by the decision 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 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 maybe adopted from time to time by the appellate body. THE DEADLINE FOR FILING AN APPEAL IS 5:00 PM ON JULY 2, 2010. estions: For er information please contact the Planning Division Staff Planner, Gary Pagenstecher at (503) 718-2434, Tigard City Hall, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard,Oregon 97223. _ II VICINITY MAP \IMO i BOR2010001 VAR20104Q-00056 r PITTNAN&BROOKS CPA'S r ` CARDINAL LN OFFICE ADDITION ill" Subject Site EMN iy D LN ail 0:7" Ai , aKABLE LN , «ry�rw w..�.i. w w..Wiww e.wn.dwn.w Feet Ir" H 6p 0 See j1 I w CITY OF TIOARD APPro‘ed I I 1 -•nditionlItYAPProred 1✓1 SNP '.r o IT NOw begin . ... See Utter to,- I I A 1 r Ora _- y 1cs1 [/411- r10. .r: . /' EgilL ' ''''a�.�"�: irl�e, dfeiro Gr/IVOINIMG/if\;B�i r/iAvAti�C,Ilk_\• .,J11 S_Nat ''6x/11,: =4'AI',AM BOB"l.'Ld i't� �— '-'7" ...._ - --=-;_-_ =rte. z--. =—-- :—;��=— • am. In: sl 2 • 2S112DB00200 2 112DB00300 BROOKS&PITTMAN RENTALS PA IC R TY ASSOCIATES EXH I B IT . 15255 SW 72ND AVE ATTN: IVEN PORTLAND,OR 97224 15 SW QUOIA PKWY#300 PORTLAND, R 97224 23112DB00100 12 •00161■ CORLISS-2 LLC PAC "ALTY ASSOCIATES PO BOX 23970 ATTN: 'VEN TIGARD,OR 97281 15 .0 SW . •UOIA PKWY#300 •RTLAND,OR 97224 2S112DC00100 2S112AC01800 PACIFIC REALTY ASSOCIATES PETROCARD SYSTEMS INC ATTN:N PIVEN 730 CENTRAL AVENUE SOUTH 15350 SW SEQUOIA PKWY#300 KENT,WA 98032 PORTLAND,OR 97224 2_ 12DD01801 2S112DB00400 PAC RE A TY ASSOCIATES TILLAMOOK LIGHT LLC ATTN: '. EN 1740 SW HAWTHORNE TER 153 0 W . •UOIA PKWY#300 PORTLAND,OR 97201 P�'TLAND,O' 97224 .112DA00700 2S112ACO2500 PA. IC RE A Y ASSOCIATES UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD CO ATTN: " EN PROPERTY TAX 153 : QUOTA PKWY#300 1400 DOUGLAS ST MS1640 '•RTLAND, •R 97224 OMAHA,NE 68179 2 112DA00601 • 12DB0090' PA. IC R •LTY ASSOCIATES UNI• PA IC RAILROAD CO ATTN: • "IVEN PROP •'YTAX 15 -4 S • EQUOIA PKWY#300 1400 IOU •'SST MS1640 •RTLAND, •R 97224 ' AHA,NE 6: 79 112DD01701 PA■ IC R TY ASSOCIATES ATTN: . 'IVEN 15 a S EQUOIA PKWY#300 •RTLAND, •R 97224 112AC0150► PA IC R- •LTY ASSOCIATES ATTN: •'IVEN 15 . SW ' QUOIA PKWY#300 '•RTLAND,OR 97224 12DA00800 PACI RE ASSOCIATES ATTN:N EN 1535 W S UOIA PKWY#300 RTLAND,OR 97224 112DB00401 PA C R • TY ASSOCIATES ATTN: ■'EVEN 153 SW •QUOIA PKWY#300 •RTLAND, •' 97224 Mildren Design Group Nathan and Ann Murdock Attn: Gene Mildren PO Box 231265 7650 SW Beveland Street, Suite 120 Tigard, OR 97281 Tigard, OR 97223 Sue Rorman Susan Beilke 11250 SW 82nd Avenue 11755 SW 114th Place Tigard, OR 97223 Tigard, OR 97223 Naomi Gallucci Dayle D. & Evelyn 0. Beach 11285 SW 78th Avenue 11530 SW 72nd Avenue Tigard, OR 97223 Tigard, OR 97223 Todd Harding and Blake Hering Jr. Norris Beggs & Simpson 121 SW Morrison, Suite 200 Portland, OR 97204 Brad Spring 7555 SW Spruce Street Tigard, OR 97223 Alexander Craghead 12205 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard, OR 97223-6210 Gretchen Buehner 13249 SW 136th Place Tigard, OR 97224 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: 28-Sep-09 • AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING I, Patricia L. Lunsford, being first dulysworn/affirm,on oath depose and say that I am a Planning Assistant for the City of Tigard, Washington County, Oregon and that I served the following: IOack Appny.We Box(s)Be.* © NOTICE OF DECISION FOR SDR2010-00001/VAR2010-00005- PITTMAN&BROOKS C'A'S (File No/Nurse Reference) AMENDED NOTICE 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 une s 10 and deposited in the Unite. .tes Mail on June 4,2010,postage prepaid. ` Id7Li Tar (Person that Prep. -: Notice) STATE OF OREGON County of Washington ss. City of Tigard • Subscribed and sworn/affirmed before me on the t day of Alla a ,2010. OFFICIAL SEAL ( SHIRLEY L TREAT 1, NOTARY PUBLIC-OREGON A 61",- �� COMMISSION NO.416177 NO ARY PUB C OF OREGON MY SON EXPIRES APRIL 25,2011 ��025 I l My Commission Expires: EXHIBIT I- NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION Eli ! SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW(SDR) 2010-00001 r PITTMAN & BROOKS ADDITION 120 DAYS = 8/12/2010 SECTION I. APPLICATION SUMMARY FILE NAME: PITTMAN &BROOKS CPA'S CASE NOS.: Site Development Review(SDR) SDR2010-00001 Adjustment(VAR ) VAR2010-00005 PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting Site Development Review to construct a 1,209 square foot second floor addition and elevator to an existing office building . In addition, the applicant is requesting an adjustment to the access and egress standards to account for two accesses on SW 72nd Avenue to the subject property spaced approximately 185 feet apart which is less than the required 600-foot separation for arterials. APPLICANT/ Randall C Brooks APPLICANT'S James Andrews OWNER: 15255 SW 72nd Avenue REP: Nicoli Engineering Tigard,OR 97224 PO Box 23784 Tigard, Oregon 97281 LOCATION: The property is located at 15255 SW 72nd Avenue in Tigard; Washington County Tax Map 2S112DB,Tax Lot 200. 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 CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.360, 18.370, 18.390, 18.530, 18.705, 18.725, 18.745, 18.755, 18.765, 18.780, 18.790, 18.795 and 18.810. SECTION II. DECISION Notice is hereby given that the City of Tigard Community Development Director's designee has APPROVED the above request for Site Development Review and an Adjustment subject to certain conditions of approval. The findings and conclusions on which the decision is based are noted in Section VI. NOTICE OF TYPE II DEQSION SDR2010-00001 PITTMAN&BROOKS PAGE 1 OF 21 _ v CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF THE SITE PERMIT: Submit to the Planning Department(Gary Pagenstecher,503-718-2434) for review and approval: 1. The applicant shall position fencing as directed by the project arborist and detailed on the tree preservation sheet 2.1. The applicant shall allow access by the City Arborist for the purpose of monitoring and inspection of the tree protection to verify that the tree protection measures are performing adequately. Failure to follow the plan, or maintain tree protection fencing in the designated locations shall be grounds for immediate suspension of work on the site until remediation measures and/or civil citations can be processed. 2. If work is required within an established tree protection zone, the project arborist shall prepare a proposal detailing the construction techniques to be employed and the likely impacts to the trees. The propposal shall be reviewed and approved by the City Arborist before proposed work can proceed within a tree protection zone. The City Arborist may require changes pnor to approval. The project arborist shall be on site while work is occurring within the tree protection zone and submit a s report certifying that the work occurred per the proposal and will not significantly impact the hu and/or stability of the trees. This note shall be included on the Tree Protection Plan. 3. The applicant shall have an on-going responsibility to ensure that the Project Arborist has submitted written reports to the City Arborist, at least once every two weeks, as the Project Arborist monitors the construction activities from initial tree protection zone (TPZ) fencing installation through the building construction phases. The reports shall evaluate the condition and location of the tree protection fencing, determine if any changes occurred to the TPZ, and if any part of the Tree Protection Plan has been violated.If the amount of TPZ was reduced,then the Project Arborist shall certify that the construction activities did not adversely impact the overall, long-term health and stability of the tree(s). If the reports are not submitted to the City Arborist at the scheduled intervals, and if it appears the TPZ's or the Tree Protection Plan are not being followed by the contractor or a sub-contractor, the City can stop work on the project until an inspection can be done by the City Arborist and the Project Arborist. Prior to final inspection,the applicant shall submit a final report by the Project Arborist certifying the health of protected trees and that the street trees were properly planted per the approved street tree plan. Tree protection measures may be removed and final inspection authorized upon review and approval by the City Arborist. Submit to the Engineering Department(Gus Duenas,503-718-2470) for review and approval: 4. Prior to issuance of a Site Permit, submit an erosion control plan to the Building Division (Mark VanDomelen, 503-718-2448). This plan shall conform to Clean Water Services Design and Construction Standards (Resolution and Order No. 07-20) Chapter 2. No work on-site shall commence until the erosion control permit is issued. 5. Prior to issuance of a Site Permit,the applicant shall provide a construction vehicle access and parking plan to the Development Engineer (Gus Duenas, 503-718-2470) for review and approval. The purpose of this plan is for parking and traffic control during the building construction work. 6. Prior to issuance of the site permit,the applicant shall obtain concurrence from Tualatin Valley Fire& Rescue (TVF&R) that no fire protection system is required and that the existing hydrant location is satisfactory for fire protection of the structure. THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO A FINAL BUILDING INSPECTION: Submit to the Planning Department(Gary Pagenstecher,503-718-2434) for review and approval: NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR2010-00001 PITIMAN&BROOKS PAGE 2 OF 21 7. Prior to final building inspection,the applicant/owner shall record deed restrictions to the effect that any existing tree greater than 6" diameter may be removed only if the tree dies or is hazardous according to a certified arborist. The deed restriction may be removed or will be considered invalid if all trees preserved in accordance with this decision should either die or be removed as hazardous trees. 8. Prior to final building inspection, the applicant shall call for a planning site inspection to ensure the proposed project is consistent with the approved plans. Submit to the Engineering Department(Gus Duenas,503-718-2470) for review and approval: 9. Prior to Final Building Inspection,the applicant shall execute a "No Construction" easement over the lot frontage needed for future expansion of 72nd Avenue. The easement shall cover the area needed for expansion of right-of-way to 52 feet from centerline of existing right-of-way. 10. Prior to Final Building Inspection, the applicant shall execute a Restrictive Covenant on City- furnished forms to be recorded by the applicant whereby they agree to complete or participate in the future improvements of SW 72nd Avenue adjacent to the subject property when any of the following events occur: A. when the improvements are part of a larger project to be financed or paid for by the formation of a Local Improvement District; B. when the improvements are part of a larger project to be financed or paid for in whole or in part by the City or other public agency; C. when the improvements are part of a larger project to be constructed by a third party and involves the sharing of design and/or construction expenses by the third party owner(s) of property in addition to the subject property,or D. when construction of the improvements is deemed to be appropriate by the City Engineer in conjunction with construction of improvements by others adjacent to the subject site. The level of participation shall be no more than the project's estimated unmitigated impact of$30,000 based on 2010 dollars and can be credited towards acquisition of right-of-way,or be applied to design and construction costs for the improvements. Any future participation shall use this amount as the present value with adjustments for inflation using the Engineering News Record construction cost index(currently 8676.68) to the time of participation. As an alternate to future participation, the applicant may elect to pay the $30,000 to the City as their contribution to that future improvement. Any funds deposited with the City will be used to fund the improvements along the project frontage. 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 is a lon ((442 feet)_narrow (134 - 0 feet) triangular shaped parcel. The site was originally developed with the IVIcHe my Office Buildmg_in 1978. A zone change from Light Industrial to Industrial Park was approved in 1991(ZON91-0009). Under SDR98-00026, the applicant received major modification approval for a 3,327 square foot addition to an existing office building.-The addition included office space and a day care facility and approved a variance to the front yard setback standard (35 feet) to allow the addition to replicate the existing building's facade and to legalize the existing non-conforming setback(30 feet). Vicinity Information The subject property is bounded by a railroad right-of-way to the west,SW 72nd Avenue at the intersection with Redwood Lane to the east, and an industrial property to the north. The property is bounded to the north and west by land zoned I-L and to the east by I-P. NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR2010.00001 PITTMAN&BROOKS PAGE 3 OF 21 Il • Site Information and Proposal Description: The applicant is requesting Site Development Review approval to construct a 1,209 square foot second floor addition and elevator to an existing office building. In addition, the applicant is requesting approval for an adjustment to the access and egress standards to account for two accesses to the subject property spaced approximately 185 feet apart which is less than the required 600-foot separation for arterials. SECTION IV. COMMENTS FROM PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 500 FEET On April 19, 2010, the City provided notice of the proposal and an opportunity to comment to property owners within 500 feet of the subject site, but did not receive any comments. The applicant held a properly noticed neighborhood meeting on January 4, 2010 to discuss the proposal with interested neighbors. No neighbors attended the meeting. SECTION V. SUMMARY OF APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA A. Zoning Districts 18.530 (Industrial Zoning Districts) B. Applicable Development Code Standards 18.370 Variances and Adjustments) 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 Cnteria 18.360 D. Street and Utility Improvement Standards 18.810 E. Impact Study 18.390 SECTION VI. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA A. ZONING DISTRICT Industrial Zoning District(18.530) Lists the description of the Industrial Zoning Districts. The I-P zoning district provides appropriate locations for combining light manufacturing, office and small-scare 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. The site is located in the Industrial Park District (I-P). The existing uses include office and commercial day care. The office use is proposed to be expanded by 1,200 square feet. Development Standards: Section 18.530.040.B States that Development standards in Industrial zoning districts are contained in Table 18.530.2 below: NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR2010-00001 PITIMAN&BROOKS PAGE 4 OF 21 • TABLE 18.530.2 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS IN INDUSTRIAL ZONES STANDARD I-P Existing/Proposed Minimum Lot Size None 23,958 sq. ft. Minimum Lot Width 50 ft 67 ft Minimum Setbacks - Front yard 35 ft 28 ft - Side facing street on corner&through lots - NA - Side yard 0/50 ft. 48/213 ft - Rear yard 0/50 ft 4 - 32 ft -Distance between front of garage & property line - NA abutting a public or private street. Maximum Height 45 ft 22 ft Maximum Site Coverage [2] 75 To [5] 59.6 To Minimum Landscape Requirement 25 %[6] 40.4% [2] Includes all buildings and impervious surfaces. [5] Maximum site coverage may be increased to 80% if the provisions of Section 18.530.050.B are satisfied. [6] Except that a reduction to 20%of the site may be approved through the site development review process. As shown in the table above, the development standards for the I-P zone are met for the existing/proposed development with the exception of the front yard setback However, the proposed development is not less conforming than the existing development approved through SDR98-00026,which included approval for the front yard setback variance for the day care portion of the building.The proposed development adds a second story over the previously approved footprint,consistent with the setback approved under SDR98-00026. Pursuant to Tigard Development Code (TDC) 18.530.050.C, the following standards shall apply for all commercial day care uses in industrial zones: 1. The Environmental Impact Assessment must document noise, visible emissions, vibration, odor, glare and heat from uses within one quarter mile. A plan and program for day care facilities to provide mitigation on-site for any of the above off-site impacts must be provided. Sound attenuation walls, screening, window covering, shades, and other such means are appropriate means of mitigation and may be attached as conditions of approval. 2. The State of Oregon Child Care Division Certification Section shall be notified of the proposed site plans prior to submitting an application to insure that the plans submitted generally address the permitting requirements. 3. Prior to occupancy of the proposed day care, evidence of certification through the State of Oregon Child Care Division shall be provided. The existing commercial day care center is allowed as a restricted use in the I-P zone, subject to an environmental impact statement in accordance with '1'DC 18.530.050.C.1 above and compliance with State of Oregon outdoor open space setbacks. The applicant has submitted the City's Certificate of Occupancy dated 11/04/1999 and the State of Oregon Employment Department Child Care Division Certificate of Approval to operate Darling Deductions-Preschool effective May 7,2009 through May 7,2010. FINDING: Based on the analysis above,the Development Standards for the I-P zone have been met. NOTICE OF TYPE II DEQSION SDR2010-00001 PITIMAN&BROOKS PAGE 5 OF 21 B. APPLICABLE DEVELOPMENT CODE STANDARDS Variances and Adjustments (18.370) The applicant is requesting an adjustment to the Access,Egress, and Circulation standards to account for two existing parking lot accesses to the subject property spaced approximately 185 feet apart which is less than the required 600-foot separation for arterials (Section 18.705.030.H.3). SW 72' Avenue abuts the subject site on the east and is designated an arterial in the City's Transportation System Plan. The classification of SW 72" Avenue has changed from a collector to an arterial since the existing development was approved. 18.370.020 Adjustments A. Purpose. The purpose of this section is to establish two classes of special variances: 1. "Development adjustments" which allow modest variation from required development standards within proscribed limits. Because such adjustments are granted using "clear and objective standards," these can be granted by means of a Type I procedure, as opposed to the more stringent standards of approval and procedure for variances. 2. "Special adjustments" which are variances from development standards which have their own approval criteria as opposed to the standard approval criteria for variances contained in Section 18.370.020.C. "Special adjustments" include adjustments to the Access,Egress,and Circulation standards as shown below. 5. Adjustment to access and egress standards (Chapter 18.705). a. In all zoning districts where access and egress drives cannot be readily designed to conform to Code standards within a particular parcel, access with an adjoining property shall be considered. If access in conjunction with another parcel cannot reasonably be achieved, the Director may grant an adjustment to the access requirements of Chapter 18.705 through a Type II procedure, as governed in Section 18.390.030, using approval criteria contained in Subsection 2b below. b. The Director may approve, approve with conditions, or deny a request for an adjustment from the access requirements contained in Chapter 18.705, based on the following criteria: 1) It is not possible to share access; 2 There are no other alternative access points on the street in question or from another street; 3 The access separation requirements cannot be met; 4 The request is the minimum adjustment required to provide adequate access; 5 The approved access or access approved with conditions will result in a safe access; and 6 The visual clearance requirements of Chapter 18.795 will be met. Given the triangular configuration of the subject parcel, shared access would only be possible with the property to the north. The adjacent property is developed with a building located approximately 50 feet to the north and is landscaped with grass and trees between the property line and the adjacent building. The adjacent building's parking is located to the north without access options to the subject property. No other streets abut the subject property. There are no alternative access points on SW 72' Avenue. The access separation requirements cannot be met. The existing access was previously approved as a safe access. Visual clearance requirements are proposed to be maintained. The applicant states that "it is understood that when 7211 Avenue is constructed to the arterial standard, that the existing accesses will need to be re- evaluated." FINDING: Based on the analysis above, the variance to the minimum spacing standard of 600 feet along SW 72°"Avenue, an arterial,can be approved. 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. NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR2010-00001 PITIMAN&BROOKS PAGE 6 OF 21 As shown in the applicant's Site Plan(Sheet 2),the proposed development and the existing parking lot on the subject parcel is accessed by two 30-foot driveways connecting to SW 72nd Avenue. 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 die 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 18.705.030I shall connect directly with a public or pnvate 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 72nd Avenue, 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 but to City configuration standards. 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 including 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. These standards are met with the existing curb cuts.No new curb cuts are proposed. 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; 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 avement 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; NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR2010-00001 PITTMAN&BROOKS PAGE 7 OF 21 Required walkways shall be paved with hard surfaced materials such as concrete, asphalt, stone, brick, etc. Walkways may be required to be lighted and/or signed as needed for safety purposes. Soft-surfaced public use pathways may be provided only if such pathways are provided in addition to required pathways. The existing pedestrian walkways as shown in the applicant's Site Plan (Sheet 2) meet the applicable walkway standards. Section 18.705.030.H.1 states that an access report shall be submitted with all new development proposals which verifies design of driveways and streets are safe by meeting adequate stacking needs, sight distance and deceleration standards as set by ODOT, Washington County, the City and AASHTO. The existing property has two access points to 72nd Avenue providing ingress and egress to two separate parking lots. ere coes not appear to be a realistic way to connect the two parking areas such that one access would be feasible. The applicant.proposes to retain the two access points and not make any changes to the existing driveways. We concur with this proposal. As a result, an access spacing.standard adjustment for access closer than 600 feet on an arterial is required as reviewed above and in the Variance and Adjustment section of this decision. Section 18.705.030.H.2 states that driveways shall not be permitted to be placed in the influence area of collector or arterial street intersections. Influence area of intersections is that area where queues of traffic commonly form on approach to an intersection. The minimum driveway setback from a collector or arterial street intersection shall be150 feet, measured from the right-of-way line of the intersecting street to the throat of the proposed driveway.. The setback may be greater depending upon the influence area, as determined from City Engineer review of a traffic impact report submitted by the applicant's traffic engineer. In a case were a project has less than 150 feet of street frontage, the applicant must explore any explore 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 existing driveways approved through prior approval (SDR98-00026) are proposed to remain. Therefore,this standard has been met. Section 18.705.030.H.3 and 4 states that the minimum spacing of driveways and streets along collector shall be 200 feet. The minimum spacing of driveways and streets along an arterial shall be 600 feet. The minimum spacing of local streets along a local street shall be 125 feet. Existing driveways are approximately 185 apart. SW 172` Avenue is an arterial street. The applicant proposes to use the existing accesses. There}ore, the applicant requests an adjustment to allow for the existing driveways to be retained. The adjustment request is reviewed above in the Variance and Adjustment section of this decision and is approved. Minimum Access Requirements for Commercial and Industrial Use: Section 18.705.030.I 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 existing parking lots combined include 24 spaces. Therefore,each access must be 30-feet with 24 feet of pavement. As shown in the applicant's Site Plan (Sheet 2) the existing accesses are consistent with this standard. FINDING: Based on the analysis above, and approval of the requested Access and Egress "Special adjustment" for dnveway spacing on an arterial reviewed in the Variance and Adjustment section of this decisions,the applicable Access, Egress and Circulation standards have been met. NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR2010-00001 PTI'IMAN&BROOKS PAGE 8 OF 21 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 istricts 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 ure 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 propertyline 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 1,200 square foot second story addition and elevator for office use would not expect to produce any adverse impacts from noise, visible emission, vibrations, odors, glare and heat or insects and rodents. Therefore, each of the environmental performance standards above have 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). As shown in the applicant's Site Plan,the existing street trees meet the street tree standards. Buffering and Screening: Section 18.745.080 states that no buffer is required between abutting ses 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. Pursuant to Table 18.745.1, Buffer Matrix, no buffering and screening is required between the uses on the subject site and uses on adjacent parcels. Screenin : Special Provisions: Section 18.745.050.E requires the screening of parking and loading areas. Landscaped parking areas shall include special design features which effectively screen the parking lot areas from view. Planting materials to be installed should achieve a relative balance between low lying and vertical shrubbery and trees. Trees shall be planted in landscaped islands in all parking areas, and shall be equally distributed on the basis of one (1) tree for each seven(7) parking.spaces in order to provide a canopy effect. The minimum dimension on the landscape islands shall be three (3) feet wide and the landscaping shall be protected from vehicular damage by some form of wheel guard or curb. NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR2010-00001 PITTMAN&BROOKS PAGE 9 OF 21 • As show on the applicant's Site Plan (Sheet 2), the special screening provision for parking lots is met except for screening the parking lot from view from SW 72`d Avenue. To address this standard, the applicant has proposed additional landscaping (22 Rheingold plants divided between the two accesses, consistent with the special screening standards. Screenin 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 ofa solid wood fence or masonry wall between five and eight feet in height. All refuse materials shall be contained within the screened area; As show on the applicant's Site Plan (Sheet 2), the mixed waste facility is enclosed with a masonry structure,consistent with the screening of service facilities standards. FINDING: Based on the analysis above,the landscaping and screening standards have been met. 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. FINDING: Based on prior review and approval under SDR98-00026, and the limited scope of the proposed 1,200 square foot addition, the applicable Mixed Solid Waste/Recycling Storage Standards are satisfactorily met by the existing facilities as shown on the applicant's Site Plan (Sheet 2). 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 g dwellings shall be located on the same lot with the dwellings. 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 existing parking lots contain 7 spaces on the south and 16 spaces on the north for a total of 23 spaces. These parking areas are located adjacent to the existing building,consistent with the location standards. 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 oint parking facility shall be at least as large as the number of vehicle parking spaces required by required 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. Parking in Mixed-Use Projects: In mixed-use projects the required minimum vehicle parking shall be determined using the following formula. 1) i rimary 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;7) Secondary use i.e., that with the second Largest percentage of total floor area within the development, at 90% of the vehicle parking required for that use in Section 18.765.060; 3) NOTICE OF TYPE H DECISION SDR2010-00001 PITIMAN&BROOKS PAGE 10 OF 21 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 existing and proposed development is a mixed-use project including office and day care. Total required spaces are twenty-three. According to the applicant's site Plan (Sheet 2), 23 spaces are provided, consistent with the mixed-use parking standards. 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 vanppool parking for employees, students and other regular visitors to the site. At least 5% of totar long-term parking spaces shall be reserved for carpool/vanpool use. Preferential parking for carpools/vanpools shall be closer to the main entrances of the building than any other employee or student parking except parking spaces designated for use by the disabled. Preferentitiai carpool/vanpool spaces shall be tulrsized 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. Pursuant to the applicant's Site Plan (Sheet 2), the preferential long-term carpool/vanpool standards have been met. 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. Pursuant to the applicant's Site Plan (Sheet 2),the disabled-accessible parking standards have been met. 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 andpenmmanently marked and defined through use of rails, fences, walls or other barriers or markers on fiontage 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 nght-of-way will be required. Pursuant to the applicant's Site Plan(Sheet 2),the access drives standards have been met. Pedestrian Access: Pedestrian access through parking lots shall be provided in accordance with Section 18.705.030.F. Where a parking area or other vehicle area has a drop-off grade separation, the property owner shall install a wall, railing, or other barrier which will prevent a slow-moving vehicle or driverless vehicle from escaping such area and which will prevent pedestrians from walking over drop-off edges. Pursuant to the applicant's Site Plan(Sheet 2),the pedestrian access standards have been met. NOTICE OF TYPE II DEQSION SDR2010-00001 PITIMAN&BROOKS PAGE 11 OF 21 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. Pursuant to the applicant's Site Plan(Sheet 2),the parking lot striping standards have been met. 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. Pursuant to the applicant's Site Plan (Sheet 2),the wheel stop standards have 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. Pursuant to the applicant's Site Plan (Sheet 2),the Space and Aisle Dimension standards have been met. 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 i 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 mufti-story residential building. Pursuant to the applicant's Site Plan(Sheet 2),the parking design standards have been met. 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 feet by six feet long, and when covered,with a vertical clearance of seven feet. An access aisle of at least five feet wide shad be provided and maintained beside or between each row of bicycle parking; each required bicycle 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 arking 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 Pursuant to the applicant's Site Plan (Sheet 2),the parking design standards have been met. 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 applicant's Site Plan shows four bicycle racks are provided to serve 8 bike spaces. Table 18.7652 requires 2 spaces for day care classroom and 4 spaces for office (0.5/1,000 x 7.64 =3.82). The existing bicycle parking meets the minimum bicycle parking standard. NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR2010.00001 PITIMAN&BROOKS PAGE 12 OF 21 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 applicant's Site Plan shows 24 spaces are provided but the notes call out 23 spaces,7 in the south lot and 16 in the north lot. The narrative states 23 spaces are provided. Table 18.765.2, requires 21 spaces for office (2.7 x 7.64 =20.62) and 2.0 spaces for day care (2.0 space/class room x 1 classroom =2 spaces) for a total of 23 spaces.The existing parking meets the minimum o f-street parking standard. 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 building area is 8,973 square feet, less than would require an off-street loading space. Therefore,this standard does not apply. FINDING: Based on the analysis above,the off-street parking and loading standards have been met. Si ns (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 are 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 abonst 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 tote 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 protection of trees prepared by Phillip Hickey, Certified Arbonst, including a Tree Preservation Site Plan (Sheet 2.1) and Aborist Report dated January 27 2010. According to the applicant's tree inventory,21 trees exist on the subject site 5 of which are greater than 12 inches in diameter at breast height. All trees are proposed to be retained. Those trees in the vicinity of the work areas include tree pprotection measures. Thep Tree Preservation Site Plan includes applicable tree protection measures and has been signed-off by the project arborist. FINDING: Based on the analysis above, the tree removal standards have been met. To ensure the proposed development remains consistent with the applicable Tree Removal standards, the following conditions of approval will be applied. CONDITIONS: o The applicant shall position fencing as directed by the project arborist and detailed on the Tree Preservation Site Plan (Sheet 2.1). The applicant shall allow access by the City Arborist for the purpose of monitoring and inspection of the tree protection to venfy that the tree protection measures are performing adequately. Failure to follow the plan, or maintain tree protection fencing in the designated locations shall be grounds for immediate suspension of work on the site until remediation measures and/or civil citations can be processed. NOTICE OF TYPE H DECISION SDR2010-00001 PI1TMAN&BROOKS PAGE 13 OF 21 o If work is required within an established tree protection zone, the project arborist shall prepare a proposal detailing the construction techniques to be employed and the likely impacts to the trees. The proposal shall be reviewed and approved by the City Arborist before proposed work can proceed within a tree protection zone. The City Arborist may require changes prior to approval. The project arborist shall be on site while work is occurring within the tree protection zone and submit a summary report certifying that the work occurred per the proposal and will not significantly impact the health�gr stability of the trees. This note shall be included on the Tree Protection Plan. o The applicant shall have an on-going responsibility to ensure that the Project Arborist has submitted written reports to the City Arborist, at least once every two weeks, as the Project Arborist monitors the construction activities from initial tree protection zone (TPZ) fencing installation through the building construction phases. The reports shall evaluate the condition and location of the tree protection fencing, determine if any changes occurred to the TPZ, and if any part of the Tree Protection Plan has been violated. If the amount of TPZ was reduced, then the Project Arborist shall certify that the construction activities did not adversely impact the overall,long-term health and stability of the tree(s). If the reports are not submitted to the City Arborist at the scheduled intervals, and if it appears the TPZ's or the Tree Protection Plan are not being followed by the contractor or a sub-contractor, the City can stop work on the project until an inspection can be done by the City Arborist and the Project Arborist. Prior to final inspection, the applicant shall submit a final report by the Project Arborist certifying the health of protected trees and that the street trees were properly planted per the approved street tree plan. Tree protection measures may be removed and final inspection authorized upon review and approval by the City Arborist. o Prior to issuance final building inspection, the applicant/owner shall record deed restrictions to the effect that any existing tree greater than 6 diameter may be removed only if the tree dies or is hazardous according to a certified arborist. The deed restriction may be removed or will be considered invalid trees preserved in accordance with this decision should either die or be removed as hazardous trees. 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 ight-of-ways or the intersection of a public street and a private driveway. A clear vision area shalFcontain no vehicle hedge,_planting,fence wall structure, or temporary or permanent obstruction exceedin three (3J feet in Freight. The code provides that obstructions that may be located in this area shale 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). visual clearance area is the triangular area formed by measuring a 30-foot ' tance 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 existing two accesses to the,subject property,as shown on the applicant's Site Plan(Sheet 2) include the visual clearance mangles,consistent with this standard. C. SPECIFIC SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPROVAL STANDARDS(SECTION 18.360) 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: The roposal 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: Mai-family or Group Living Uses); 18.360.090.6 Private Outdoor Areas: Multi-family Use); 18360.090.7 (Shared Outdoor Recreation Areas: Multi-family Use); 18.360.090.8 (100-year floodplain); and 18360.090.9 (Demarcation of Spaces). NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR2010-00001 PITTMAN&BROOKS PAGE 14 OF 21 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 Adjoining and d 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; • Intenor 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 die 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 parkin lots, stairs, ramps and abrupt grade changes. Fixtures shall be placed at a height so that-llight patterns overlap at a height of seven Feet, which is sufficient to illuminate a person. The applicant's Site Plan (Sheet 2) shows that the existing parking lot is adequately illuminated. Therefore,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. A bus line runs on SW 72nd Avenue,with bus stops within 500 feet of the subject site. The proposed 1,200 square foot expansion would not significantly contribute to additional need for transit. TriMet has not commented on the proposal. Therefore,this standard has been met. FINDING: Based on the analysis above, the specific standards of the Site Development Review Section have been met. D. 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 unproved in accordance with the TDC standards. Section 18.810.030.A.2 states that any new street or additional street width lanned as a portion of an existing street shall be dedicated and improved in accordance with the TDC. Minimum Rights-of-Way and Street Widths: Section 18.810.030E and Figure 18.810.1 require a 5-lane arterial to have right-of-way varying from 100 feet to 104 feet. Other improvements required include sidewalks, bike lanes, underground utilities, street lighting, storm drainage, planter strips and street trees. The Right-Of-Way(ROW) requirement for 72nd Avenue along the project frontage is 52 feet from centerline of ROW. Dedication of ROW along the frontage to meet that requirement is not justified by the proportionality analysis. The applicant proposes to provide a "No Construction" easement to ensure that no permanent structures are constructed within the area identified for future expansion of the roadway. This is acceptable as a minimum requirement. However, in addition to that, an estimated $30,000 in unmitigated impact remains to be considered. The applicant proposes a Non-Remonstrance agreement. That does not go far enough in that it is typically only utilized in the formation of Local Improvement Districts (LID'S) and does not promise participation,only that the applicant would not remonstrate against formation of an LID. A restrictive covenant would allow that impact to be considered in any future street improvement along that frontage. NOTICE OF TYPE II DEQSION SDR2010-00001 PITIMAN&BROOKS PAGE 15 OF 21 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 development code requires a 10-foot sidewalk and 5-foot planter strip exclusive of curb along the 72nd Avenue frontage. The existing sidewalk is not in the correct location for the ultimate section of this arterial. The standard is not met; however, this requirement to move the sidewalk back and create a new sidewalk and planting strip exceeds the impact of the proposed development. Construction of the improvements will not be required. 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. Sanitary sewer service is available on site. The building is served by the existing sewer line. 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 existing storm drainage system is to remain and will be utilized. 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 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). Existing storm drainage system is to remain. 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. NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR2010-00001 PITTMAN&BROOKS PAGE 16 OF 21 No bikeways, bike lanes, or pedestrian pathways are required as part of this project. There is a pedestrian connection from the building to the sidewalk along the frontage. There is no other requirement for the project. 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 unde round 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. There are existing overhead utility lines along the frontage of 72nd Avenue. However, the applicant already paid a fee-in-lieu of undergrounding. (paid March 5 2003) when the street improvements were performed as part of the development conditions in 1998 (S15R98-00026). No undergrounding is required as part of this project. ADDITIONAL CITY AND/OR AGENCY CONCERNS WITH STREET AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENT STANDARDS: Traffic Study Findings: The proposed addition is not expected to generate much new traffic to the site. The applicant indicates that they do not anticipate any additional employees. However, even with the additional square footage taken into account under a worst case scenario,the incremental traffic generation should be minimal. Fire and Life Safety: Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue (TVF&R) is the service provider for fire and emergency services. Comments from TVF&R,if any,shall be incorporated into the project. Public Water System: The City of Tigard is the service provider for water in this area. The proposed facility is already served by an existing line and water meter at the frontage of the property.No additional water service is proposed. 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. NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR2010-00001 PITTMAN&BROOKS PAGE 17 OF 21 (For Private Facilities) 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. (For privately maintained Stonnwater Management Units) There is no net increase in impervious surface. The roof drain from the proposed addition will be connected to the existing storm drain line on the site. Grading and Erosion Control: CWS Design and Construction Standards also regulate erosion control to reduce the amount of sediment and other pollutants reaching the public storm and surface water system resulting from development, construction, grading, excavating, clearing, and any other activity which accelerates erosion. Per CWS regulations, the applicant is required to submit an erosion control plan for City review and approval prior to issuance of City permits. The Federal Clean Water Act requires that a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) erosion control permit be issued for any development that will disturb one or more acre of land. Since this site is over five acres, the developer will be required to obtain an NPDES permit from the City prior to construction. This permit will be issued along with the site and/or building permit. An erosion control plan is required as part of the project submittals prior to issuance of any City permits on the project. This plan will be submitted to the Building Division as part of the Site Permit application. 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.). E. IMPACT STUDY(18.390) Section 18.390.040.B.2.e states that the applicant shall provide an impact study to quantify the effect of development on public facilities and services. For each public facility system and type of impact, the study shall propose improvements necessary to meet City standard, and to minimize the impact of the development on the public at large, public facilities systems, and affected private property users. The applicant has provided an impact study addressing the project's impacts on public systems. Staff concurs with the applicant's narrative findings that each of the system components will not adversely affect the existing public facilities and services. The applicant's narrative separately addresses the issue of dedication of rear property which staff has responded to in the findings below. 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. NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR2010-00001 PITI'MAN&BROOKS PAGE 18 OF 21 The Development Review Engineer's Pre-Application Conference Notes, dated November 4, 2009, state that approval of a development application for this site will require dedication of right-of-way to 52 feet from ROW centerline for SW 7T a Avenue. In addition, the Notes state that in the event a rough proportionality analysis determines that improvements to 72°` may not be proportional to the development proposed, the ROW dedication still needs to be made, but improvements to 72nd may be deferred via execution of a restrictive covenant whereby the developer commits to participate in future improvements under appropriate circumstances. The applicant's narrative addresses the issue of real property dedication on page 2 of 20, page 3 of 20, and in Exhibits A- Site Plan Existing Conditions, B-Site Plan with 52' R.O.W, and C-City of Tigard Rate Calculation Worksheet (2/10/10Y. The applicant does not concur with the Pre-App Notes' requirement for ROW dedication or half street improvements and provides a calculation showing that that the real property dedication is not roughly proportional to the projected impacts of the development ($9,099 unmitigated impact vs. $78,825 loss m real property value plus unspecified improvement costs)). The applicant requests that the dedication and improvements instead be met with a "No Construction Easement" for 22 feet of their property(Site Plan,Sheet 2). Staff finds that the applicant's calculation is incorrect. The following addresses the applicant's calculation of Unmitigated Impact under the Transportation Development Tax (TDT) program provided in his February 11,2010 Application for Site Development Review: In calculating the Full Impact and the Unmitigated Impact of his project, the applicant used the figure of 32% as the '1UT Recovery Rate. 32% is not the correct figure to use in calculating the Full Impact. 32% was the target recovery figure for the Traffic Impact Fee (TIF) program which was replaced July 1,2009 with the TDT program. The target recovery figure for the TDT program is 28%. However, that target figure is not reached until 2012-13 when the recovery figure reaches 25.2% for the "General Office" category. As shown in the TDT Rate Step Analysis table, when the four-year phase-in and the current Discount Program are factored in the correct percentage for 2009-2010 is 12.3% and for 2010-2011 is 17.2%. Thus,for building permits issued by 6/30/10 the TDT charge is $4,282,the Full Impact is $34,813 ($4,282 / .123) and the Unmitigated Impact is $30,531 ($34,813 - $4,282.). For building permits issued on or after 7/1/10 the TDT charge is $6,342,the Full Impact is $36,872 ($6,342 / .172) and the Unmitigated Impact is $30,530 ($36,872- $6,342.). [Copies of the above-mentioned Rate Step Analysis and of the City's April 19, 2010 Updated Pre-App TDT Estimate are included in the land use file.] The City Development Review Engineer has provided findings with respect to both the dedication and improvements under the Streets and Utilities section of this decision, above. In summary, the City can accept, as a minimum requirement, a "No Construction Easement" to ensure that no permanent structures are constructed within the area identified for future expansion of SW 72nd Avenue. Construction of half street improvements will also not be required as they would not be roughly proportional. However, as shown above, an estimated $30,000 in unmitigated impact remains to be considered. The applicant proposes a Non-Remonstrance agreement. That does not go far enough in that it is typically only utilized in the formation of Local Improvement Districts (LID's) and does not promise participation, only that the applicant would not remonstrate against formation of an LID. A restrictive covenant of proportional value ($30,000)would allow that impact to be considered in any future street improvement along that frontage and has been required as a condition of approval. NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR2010-00001 PITIMAN&BROOKS PAGE 19 OF 21 SECTION VII. OTHER STAFF COMMENTS The City of Tigard Development Review Engineer has reviewed the proposal and provided comments that have been included in Sections 18.705 and 18.810 of this decision. The City of Tigard Arborist has reviewed the proposal and provided comments that have been incorporated in Sections 18.745 and 18.790 of this decision. The City of Tigard Police Department has reviewed the proposal and has no objection to it. City of Tigard Public Works Department has reviewed the proposal and has no comment. SECTION VIII. AGENCY COMMENTS Qwest Corporation has reviewed the proposal and has no objections to it. Tualatin Valley Water District has reviewed the proposal and has no objections to it. Clean Water Services has reviewed the proposal and states there are no concerns or objections. Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue endorses this proposal predicated on the following criteria and conditions of approval: 1) COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS - REQUIRED FIRE FLOW: The required fire flow for the building shall not exceed 3,000 gallons per minute (GPM) or the available GPM in the water delivery system at 20 psi, whichever is less as calculated using IFC, Appendix B. A worksheet for calculating the required fire flow is available from the Fire Marshal's Office. (IFC B105.2) The fire hydrant shown on the submitted drawings must be capable of supplying the required fire flow demand. Fire flow demand calculations must be submitted to and approved by this office prior to our endorsement of the issuance of any site development permits. A flow test of the hydrant may be necessary. 2) ACCESS AND FIRE FIGHTING WATER SUPPLY DURING CONSTRUCTION: Approved fire apparatus access roadways and fire fighting water supplies shall be installed and operational prior to any combustible construction or storage of combustible materials on the site. (IFC 1410.1 & 1412.1) 3) KNOX BOX: A Knox Box for access is required for this building. Please contact the Fire Marshal's Office for an order form and instructions regarding installation and-placement. (IFC 506) NOTICE OF TYPE II DEQSION SDR2010-00001 PITIMAN&BROOKS PAGE 20 OF 21 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 JUNE 4,2010 AND BECOMES EFFECTIVE ON JUNE 19,2010 UNLESS AN APPEAL IS FILED. eal The decision of the Director (Type II Procedure) or Review Authority (T 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 a..-al fee schedule and forms are available from the Planning Division of Tigard City Hall, 13125 SW Hall :oulevard,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 maybe adopted from time to time by the appellate body. THE DEADLINE FOR FILING AN APPEAL IS AT 5:00 PM ON JUNE 18,2010. estions: If you have any questions, please call the City of T:ard Planning Division, Tigard City Hall, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard,Tigard,Oregon at(503) 639-4171. " June 3.2010 PREPARED BY: a Penstecher DATE Associate Planner Vim' �/,4e' < une 3 2010 APPROVED BY: Ron Bunch J DATE Community Development Director I:\curpin\gary\sdr\SDR2010-00001.dec.doc.dot NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR2010-00001 PITTMAN&BROOKS PAGE 21 OF 21 VICINITY MAP rt-!:--- SDR2010-00001 - VAR2010-00005 t\,,„ "' PITTMAN & BROOKS CPA'S 1;\ > CARDINAL LN ' OFFICE ADDITION \ z rat- Subject Site \\1 0 RLUALUOD LN - 1 i \\ b.' 's 61` 1 ti ■ s I KABLE LN Information on this map is for general location only and should be verified with the Development Services Division. Scale 1:4,000-1 in=333 ft T Map punted at 11:b1 AM on 19-Apr-10 7 ' DATA IS DERIVED FROM MULTIPLE SOURCES.THE car OF TIGARD 11 1 e` MAKES NO YWRRANTY,REPRESENTATION OR GUARANTEE AS TO THE del LS CONTENT,ACCURACY,TIMELINESS OR COMPLETENESS OF ANY OF THE N DATA PROVIDED HEREIN.THE CITY OF TIGARD SHALL ASSUME NO 4 LIABILITY FOR ANY ERRORS,OMISSIONS,OR INACCURACIES ACCURACIES THE F� INFORMATION PROVIDED REGARDLESS OF HOW CAUSED. (�� Glty of I Igard • Feet 111K,...1 I TIGR0D qPS 13ig25 ORg7Blvd 0 50 0 M 53639-0171 t www.Ggardor.gov . I 61161. - I CITY OF TIGARD • x Approved ,[ i a -,nditionally Approved I ✓ I MNicoll Far only the wo �,c ea ibe, ,in�^: ,;,: , i etleTI .:LLD. �. p'_-9MIT NO. i �( i !NS LOtl.A,EPAa.F.1m .,.-. . •,Tarr 1r.D..... r�..�- See Letter to-4%11 f 1... _ 1% 41% _. - -,--• --04, "1%4 ` .c� is a Ste: �Fi�'ti��s ■ lipc„,. ___. ..4„ . ..,,,,,„,„....• •• • � . .�/ VIP' eO..o.1S •1 ElC EASerNGfPPEP Y.Ef ..r: IE....1 ,I SITE PLAN PARItL./CONT. r `�' .. � "`. Al Mil L ,�NOIiIH nMOP.=•OC..°r.TO ✓ '•p � ' �'•\I r 2DP�N J;Epp'�r1 �1 41 • __ •:. � • '=Fig; il4 �/� PROPOSED SECOND PENCE P AI7: i ,: .a ••I��IV „ FLOOR ADDITION �. i;•,f!i/� WY i•......,7itiJr 's;e:_':rolIn . ••▪ /, •Exror n r.wcer.SPA.* Al k _l _•-R,F:•r 1 rc�::c cnn rr•r 7_!•,,,4 - �- Ir>_....=.: ,fi i ,7-- ,, 24MORT OFFICE • exr1NG i�!'" 'll>'1•K:sin?v'i' //�,///I//////i 1 ,-..7% `\ i ___' coNa�rt a-- IVi i/ �:;'': wu.uaa I.P.n.n•, :� i,/% //;.; 'r rim.;, irr• i., .� i; LA,OICAPSD �- Av.....NG AP. ..,• :. ,.' _ 3 .�.....-�:�; �xaT�DP.�NG P.of �_,A1►''g=I;:./.i /,./! PROPOSED ELEVATOR •TSfT .DWNVOt J I. .• / I.. •/ , ../ -i•, u.w=o�oE�.wuac 4111% �. ..,`fit-4e_.e• /.., / - �� I _-. , _,\�°AO1i1� 1 •i Ellagaggir-. ,\ " � 'i ell r o w °7� iiii 'AA . ____1.......iv,„ 7,,,,, ...... . ... , , . . .• . • . • - • • t 4fir- . ....,,,,4-1 - • ilhl•••••••• • paiLit" i ■ . . . . . . . _• . . ....... 4.1 .:.i,,,. -. . 01%4 itt A4k4 ,/ iV . . . . .. . ..,... ri 2 ..... 'iIIt 4 :: U_iiitsigniiiiiiiiii s•areiiiklw amen ivt� . ▪ .�c,411t _-riYmax •ereiltozmaii®r � �1�r R CI — `�`� I �`��®1 ®1\117. ..WSJ . I. •:.,ER 'rub /O—I�n_a, I SECOND FLOOR .. -- — p OFFICE ADDfT10N P1.aPeaTT L... T•...acaD I 14x14,10 APPra�AC, 0 ExarNG PA.WC.. P.A.•o...' I n ex4TNG SSW TT.11 P.�.OLD i ex.TNG APP.. F FPTRAY11I MD 9ROO&P.C. I MDT.x, O.eYfG•N,sf-O0»f ..we.rie w.w. j R aw)--AVBIE ...we '..r...w Y '5255 sc 13U AWARE F O TOTAL We IMAM=i r1LLa...Nr I F'1.AKW me AMR° 1 ACM. Ce 91224 ,.... I ,.-a. /i■ SITE PLAN EASING COMMONS AND PROPOSED MODISCADD4 i wpm.a..PA.1c..nA 'C ...aL afla '1 A.., NORTH I.. .u•.L r...I....ca AREA - AN 3-12 Y SWAP.4s4.wa.w i m>-n-mlo �NY n --— _.._— --'-- 1•.11 a.w——..—_.—_---— — — ---- .._ C a LIM CP MI J &' 0'Ave.P.O.OPaAIDOS MARCY OlYaOPICf DATA-COMO PROJECT DlVdQIBR DATA-TPO® OBBIAL WOMB An.n®ro N0.aea PN1ET,.O PNe.N-Mwt Eq..UM AREA PSIS.P.PO.AC. Sot AP. MT.SP 4.AC, le....0 PARK W AMA..—n PACe1 O. PM PLAT.°OTANI,WTI APP.O.0 0c+w9+r4 P.1141 OOLONG POOTP1.- •a.OP WADNG M !CSRP SOT POP/P.l.14. PM PMP S WM. ,.••,1P. P.,.o.®e...rs '4 __ _ eP Pux,eO.PM .1..LM R.ra.eD MR ye •1=c1 ,� s uM ter. r TO Ye.ACOMACT OP WS D AT A.R...•.. •Ai r. wmP m... A.-eL.T elAevSwRU NN Id l.w..TO IE..... Dole 2-41-2010 ie.ro.a .... —„ DI..y..Ee.•we Y...L,0951MW.wD 0000 PnSS n.n...y105 ash TO SCOW. 1•.1-0" eraO POam •wT Oe..aee.i b SALONS eel N. ::::::`.'24""4"a:.r.a..o.� ASPECTS OP OM PLAN MC..YTOS 4O K rLwTAP®?I•NO fO.0 b.A•C•<f AM Paw EXIST.Art.O....1.T AO.{..TO an eelaw.-P Ron TOP CP CLAN. Drown by DA �. so,'O Y..r, R�PalA1.D err Ol...•40 Pq.O.SO µ.pO.40 vAN POOL PIMA. Chub*by PK Sxi1rNG PARK.P.P. • .ce1 PPra.m a.... . •.'Y O.,w�•a.e e..a.m L..T.AI NDres, MOODS CANAOCL.u.rOOL MONACA Aa NOM. deb No.: 09-0512• BICYCLE PA.cNG SPACe•. • Irtauue dcruE PAP..P.P.—.MACE.OA T. AN rte 10tH SASSING MR O WAN hf rOteL A..o cAI.•DU MARINO Dart*NY.: 910 P .ueT.w Pm.au , wa O ra•�a� 0.017114 NO..0120 PM PIPSOree. 141 TO SiAP mMdOAT APO...UDAr•. euLDNG 16600 L 4,090•].'-v. ��wPe. ....pa Y Pm Pee Mb PROPOND a T.. n Y CP TOMS.10)r0 LY.YAOe A.ALL... TN[ 11a.N.TM 1114.01.2 AND T. CITY O••a ,r.m P...CTYM O 1.tl ACCT DRAM TO 00NN1 A-atlttATCN WY. • 4101.1. O.AMM[1TATO, ALL LA...!Owe,OMMe..a aAD ea soo Amon. 2 wow•n•r. v1.AT.ADDIT. 02.1...411 MPG 1.040.140 0O.11411.114.0141.STD all!MOTE-C.0.0 • ® PPP T.MP..OP 1.C.ICTKNTIM 1.0...P.PAWS P OMP.VI. 51.05.1105.AS P 47APPO eT .151.LAPOSPAP.D OR CITY L4GC eD 1TOD u.peTalED.M moo.PAN MAW.. .avlow caol0MS 1+00IWS0 olrn.. 911E PLAN P.P00.f OP T1!.10140.0 WC.SLOOPS DOSING AID PROPOSED .0111.1 APO PAP PP CCN.CT0 TO T.MO. 110E LAOS T •721. •I 5 • OAew4.e LP.1 As NOTED AeD.e.DMTe.Acrole *"�exAxEfsSe2+r r..E 1I.DTEC+.u.^'" SHEET W ALL cALL PDe IOCAn.•PR D.TO 0' °.4105 .4 .,,Pr.a.T4s bECr 2 51 e p . Randall C. Brooks SDR2010-00001/VAR2010-00005 15255 SW 72nd Avenue PITTMAN &BROOKS CPA'S Tigard, OR 97224 EXHIBIT . Brooks &Pittman Rentals 15255 SW 72nd Avenue Portland, OR 97224 Nicoli Engineering Attn:James Andrews PO Box 23784 Tigard, OR 97281 . IMP AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING I, Patricia L. Lunsford,being first duly sworn/affirm,on oath depose and say that I am a Planning Assistant for the City of Tigard, Washington County,Oregon and that I served the following: (Check Ap ropiare Box(s)erbw) © NOTICE OF DECISION FOR SDR2010-00001/VAR2010-00005 - PITIMAN&BROOKS CPA'S (File No"Lune Reference) Ill AMENDED NOTICE ® 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 t.- .ttached list(s),marked Exhibit "B",and by reference made a part hereof, on .une 4 2010 and deposited in the United St.tes . I on June 4,2010,postage prepaid. di,./1:1;e2 92 'C.. i 6Z7 (Person that Pre d No : STATE OF OREGON County of Washington ss. City of Tigard Subscribed and sworn affirmed before me on the C 1 day of CPa�� ,2010. _- OFFICIAL SEAL '' :-,' SHIRLEY I.TREAT L NOTARY PUBUC-OREGON I O COMMISSION NO.416777 JL �1 M ' „�- MY COMMISSION EXPIRES APRIL 25,2011 �SN Q� �+`( � NOTARY PUB MC OF OREGON My Commission Expires: 44 64(( EXHIBIT A1, NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW(SDR) 2010-00001 PITTMAN &BROOKS ADDITION 120 DAYS = 8/12/2010 SECTION I. APPLICATION SUMMARY FILE NAME: PITTMAN &BROOKS C'A'S CASE NOS.: Site Development Review(SDR) SDR2010-00001 Adjustment(VAR) VAR2010-00005 PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting Site Development Review to construct a 1,209 square foot second floor addition and elevator to an existing office building . In addition, the applicant is requesting an adjustment to the access and egress standards to account for two accesses on SW 72nd Avenue to the subject property spaced approximately 185 feet apart which is less than the required 600-foot separation for arterials. APPLICANT/ Randall C Brooks APPLICANT'S James Andrews OWNER: 15255 SW 72nd Avenue REP: Nicoll Engineering Tigard,OR 97224 PO Box 23784 Tigard, Oregon 97281 LOCATION: The property is located at 15255 SW 72nd Avenue in Tigard;Washington County Tax Map 2S112DB,Tax Lot 200. 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 CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.360, 18.370, 18.390, 18.530, 18.705, 18.725, 18.745, 18.755, 18.765, 18.780, 18.790, 18.795 and 18.810. SECTION II. DECISION Notice is hereby given that the City of Tigard Community Development Director's designee has 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 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 JUNE 4, 2010 AND BECOMES EFFECTIVE ON JUNE 19, 2010 UNLESS AN APPEAL IS FILED. Appeaal-: The Director's Decision is final on the date that it is mailed. All persons entitled to notice or who are otherwise adversely affected or aggrieved by the decision 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 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 maybe adopted from time to time by the appellate body. THE DEADLINE FOR FILING AN APPEAL IS 5:00 PM ON JUNE 18, 2010. estions: For further information please contact the Planning Division Staff Planner, GaryPagenstecher at (503) 718-2434, Tigard City Hall, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard,Oregon 97223. Ir VICINITY MAP fI CARDINAL x I L N VVOR10, PfTT1AAR20N 0 0-006 i BROO KS CPA'0 OFFICE ADDITION C _ REDW Subject Site 4 OOD LN• ail . 4;4'4'1' . * IT II ' KA01E LN .Iwl�.... .11="11, QI . r..ra .mow w.w \ ...,...,...,,, �. _ III ag00eF� • av+i�i'sa...�, Feet QbaK `r MI CITY OF HOARD I Approved I I ,nditlon.11y Approved I✓I MO Fir oNy the w•�e„ •�":`�+`ii� ,.e� -: y'Z P_9MIT No See Letter tan • •I I ) -�1 E on 1/ �t11� /.r_i_ .r_d _op �_�l' r �:�■ ,Sh 0 1 -----_—„g .i., ..,....416., kki :. L--.,w 0:416, ... . ,.. . .,.......,:„. - _ .. 1 7.-;41, � �� •5 }p 1111 a'''' '�, �r lye: jai- w ,�� c % - 44t1.\uOB�Iin N.,ms id EY)ACi�LIA '' 4INWit `'SIL ._-._ Wi.�e.,®�f I•r O.'lJai,11 S I ''. ..�...�. 3 :"� .. I — +. -- ®....sex PLAN--®.<o , 'M..- — — w T ''!: �_- =- ._. ems - �rrr.-- 9QI n/.� 2S112DB00200 2 112DB00300 BROOKS&PITTMAN RENTALS PA IC R TY ASSOCIATES EXH I B IT 15255 SW 72ND AVE ATTN: IVEN PORTLAND,OR 97224 15 SW QUOIA PKWY#300 RTLAND, R 97224 2S112DB00100 12DD0161' CORLISS-2 LLC PAC ALTY ASSOCIATES PO BOX 23970 ATTN: 0 VEN TIGARD,OR 97281 15 .0 SW •UOIA PKWY#300 •RTLAND,OR 97224 2S112DC00100 2S112AC01800 PACIFIC REALTY ASSOCIATES PETROCARD SYSTEMS INC ATTN:N PIVEN 730 CENTRAL AVENUE SOUTH 15350 SW SEQUOIA PKWY#300 KENT,WA 98032 PORTLAND,OR 97224 2 12D001800 2S112D800400 PAC RE TY ASSOCIATES TILLAMOOK LIGHT LLC ATTN: EN 1740 SW HAWTHORNE TER 153 W UOIA PKWY#300 PORTLAND,OR 97201 P TLAND,0 97224 112DA00700 2S112ACO2500 PA IC RE Y ASSOCIATES UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD CO ATTN: EN PROPERTY TAX 153 QUOIA PKWY#300 1400 DOUGLAS ST MS1640 RTLAND, R 97224 OMAHA,NE 68179 2.112DA00601 12DB0090i PA. IC R.•LTY ASSOCIATES UNI• PA IC RAILROAD CO ATTN: • •IVEN PROP 'Y TAX 15 .0 S • EQUOIA PKWY#300 140► IOU -•SST MS1640 "•RTLAND, •R 97224 • AHA,NE .. 79 112DD0170Q, PA• IC R • TY ASSOCIATES ATTN: . 'IVEN 15 .0 S EQUOIA PKWY#300 •RTLAND, •R 97224 112AC01500 PA IC R• •LTY ASSOCIATES ATTN: '`••IVEN 15 d SW • QUOIA PKWY#300 .RTLAND,OR 97224 12DA00800 PACI RE ASSOCIATES ATTN:N EN 153 W S UOIA PKWY#300 TLAND,OR 97224 12DB00401 PA C R Y ASSOCIATES ATTN: ∎ iVEN 153 SW .QUOIA PKWY#300 •RTLAND, •" 97224 Nathan and Ann Murdock Mildren Design Group PO Box 231265 Attn: Gene Mildren Tigard, OR 97281 7650 SW Beveland Street, Suite 120 Tigard, OR 97223 Sue Rorman Susan Beilke 11250 SW 82nd Avenue 11755 SW 114th Place Tigard, OR 97223 Tigard, OR 97223 Naomi Gallucci Dayle D. & Evelyn 0. Beach 11285 SW 78th Avenue 11530 SW 72nd Avenue Tigard, OR 97223 Tigard, OR 97223 Todd Harding and Blake Hering Jr. Norris Beggs & Simpson 121 SW Morrison, Suite 200 Portland, OR 97204 Brad Spring 7555 SW Spruce Street Tigard, OR 97223 Alexander Crag head 12205 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard, OR 97223-6210 Gretchen Buehner 13249 SW 136th Place Tigard, OR 97224 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:lcurpin\setup\labels\CIT East.doc) UPDATED: 28-Sep-09 AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING I,Patricia L. Lunsford,being first duly sworn/affirm,on oath depose and say that I am a Planning Assistant for the City of Tigard,Washington County, Oregon and that I served the following: k Appmprute Box(s)Below) © NOTICE OF PENDING LAND USE DECISION FOR SDR2010-00001/VAR2010-00005 - PITTMAN&BROOKS CPA'S OFFICE ADDITION ❑ 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 19,2010,and deposited in the United States Mail on April 19,2010,postage prepaid. 6,dy (Person t . 'repared Notice) STATE OF OREGON County of Washington) ss. City of Tigard ) Subscribed and sworn/affirmed before me on the (I) day of M ,2010. OFFICIAL SEAL NOTARY PUB OF ORE GO;\T «i = SNIRLEY TREAT E '1 NOTARY PUBLIC-ORE7ON My Commission Expires: `r`2S COMMISSION NO.418777 MY COMMISSION EXPIRES APRIL 25,2011 • EXHIBIT A 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 USE APPLICATION SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW TIGARD DATE OF NOTICE: April 19, 2010 FILE NUMBERS: SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW(SDR) 2010-00001 (Type II Land Use Application) ADJUSTME NT(VAR) 2010-00005 FILE NAME: PITTMAN & BROOKS CPA'S OFFICE ADDITION APPLICANT/ Randall C Brooks APPLICANT'S Nicoli Engineering OWNER: 15255 SW 72nd Avenue REP.: Attn:James Andrews Tigard,OR 97224 PO Box 23784 Tigard,OR 97281 REQUEST: The applicant is requesting Site Development Review approval to construct a 1,209 square foot second-floor addition and elevator to an existing office building. The applicant has also requested approval for a Special Adjustment to the access and egress standard in order to accommodate both parking lot accesses spaced closer than 600 feet on SW 72nd Avenue,an arterial street. LOCATION: 15255 SW 72nd Avenue;Washington County Tax Map 2S112DB,Tax Lot 200. 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, 18.370, 18.390, 18.520, 18.705, 18.725, 18.745, 18.755, 18.760, 18.765, 18.780, 18.790, 18.795 and 18.810. 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 MAY 3, 2010. 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 bye-mail to garypatigard-or.gov. 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 MAY 17, 2010. IF YOU PROVIDE COMMENTS, YOU WILL BE MAILED A COPY OF THE FULL DECISION ONCE IT HAS BEEN RENDERED. • WRIT'±N COMMENTS WILL B� _OME A PART OF THE PERMANE_ _ 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 SUBMI'TT'ED WRITTEN COMMENTS OR WHO IS OTHERWISE ENTITLED TO NOTICE. THE DIRECT'OR'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 oae 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." II 1 `, VICINITY MAP -- SDR2010-0000'1 VAR2010-00005 . - I---� � ^` ^ % /W TTM b BROOKS CPA'S I lnarN rN 07 1- OFFICE ADDITION 1 - 1 �. ( 1 _.. ----! tlf , \ 1 Subject Site• I L- : 1 \\: i. 3 i , r 'fir: \ _ __, 7_, / ,_ IR ^._f ...∎ lo-_N s______, 1 �W F"' 1 'DO I 1 ' ''71i.-,VQ 4� f-...YOs i V 010,00005 SD�o1o.000&B�0pI�CP NS .1,ITZ1Ji� (b-. � ' BrOrjkS e Randall G. �� Avenv 25zd OR 9'7224 -tlga Rentals "brooks 8r,q i2 ' venue 1525`'SW 91224 130001a,OR Oeet s Nye°1i E es Aneva r�.tt"'1a� �g4 PO g°X 23 912g1 r-Vigatd,OR 2S112DB00200 2 112DB00300 BROOKS&PITTMAN RENTALS PA IC R TY ASSOCIATES 15255 SW 72ND AVE ATTN: IVEN PORTLAND,OR 97224 15 SW QUOIA PKWY#300 RTLAND, R 97224 2S112DB00100 12DD016s' CORLISS-2 LLC PAC •'ALTY ASSOCIATES PO BOX 23970 ATTN: •VEN TIGARD,OR 97281 15 .. SW .•UOIA PKWY#300 ••RTLAND,OR 97224 2S112DC00100 2S112AC01800 PACIFIC REALTY ASSOCIATES PETROCARD SYSTEMS INC ATTN:N PIVEN 730 CENTRAL AVENUE SOUTH 15350 SW SEQUOIA PKWY#300 KENT,WA 98032 PORTLAND,OR 97224 2. 12DD01801 2S112DB00400 PAC RE TY ASSOCIATES TILLAMOOK LIGHT LLC ATTN: •. EN 1740 SW HAWTHORNE TER 153 ► W . •UOIA PKWY#300 PORTLAND,OR 97201 P:•TLAND,O• 97224 --.1120A00700 2S112ACO2500 PA. IC RE: ASSOCIATES UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD CO ATTN: • EN PROPERTY TAX 153 QUOIA PKWY#300 1400 DOUGLAS ST MS1640 •RTLAND, •R 97224 OMAHA,NE 68179 .112DA00601 12DB00900 PA. IC R.•LTY ASSOCIATES UNI• PA IC RAILROAD CO ATTN: "IVEN PROP ••Y TAX 15 -d S EQUOIA PKWY#300 1404 IOU -•SST MS1640 "•RTLAND, •R 97224 • AHA,NE 6.179 112DD01701 PA• IC R • TY ASSOCIATES ATTN: • 'IVEN 15 s e S EQUOIA PKWY#300 • •RTLAND, •R 97224 112AC0150• PA IC R- •LTY ASSOCIATES ATTN: ••IVEN 15 o SW QUOIA PKWY#300 ••RTLAND,OR 97224 12DA00800 PACI RE ASSOCIATES ATTN:N EN 153 W S UOIA PKWY#300 TLAND,OR 97224 12DB00401 PA C R • Y ASSOCIATES ATTN: •"■ EN 153 . SW QUOIA PKWY#300 ••RTLAND, •' 97224 Nathan and Ann Murdock Mildren Design Group PO Box 231265 Attn: Gene Mildren Tigard, OR 97281 7650 SW Beveland Street, Suite 120 Tigard, OR 97223 Sue Rorman Susan Beilke 11250 SW 82nd Avenue 11755 SW 114th Place Tigard, OR 97223 Tigard, OR 97223 Naomi Gallucci Dayle D. & Evelyn 0. Beach 11285 SW 78th Avenue 11530 SW 72nd Avenue Tigard, OR 97223 Tigard, OR 97223 Todd Harding and Blake Hering Jr. Norris Beggs & Simpson 121 SW Morrison, Suite 200 Portland, OR 97204 Brad Spring 7555 SW Spruce Street Tigard, OR 97223 Alexander Craghead 12205 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard, OR 97223-6210 Gretchen Buehner 13249 SW 136th Place Tigard, OR 97224 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: 28-Sep-09 _/ _J I Area Notified (500 Ft) • } Y I a aNicoli Engineering, Inc. 1 L 2S112DB, 200 CARDINAL LN ) (15255 SW 72nd Ave.) ‘ 10,.._______. a..., 1 \ „lir ......0\ \\,,,.. , \ N. i ik.. , �\\, • __, _. \ ‘,.... \ \ •:•:•:::$ Subject Site \ ►.: \`, RFC \ 0 4' IN\ 1 \ t I Property owner information is valid for 3 months from the date printed on \\ this map. W \ � \ �� Map Printed.08-Apr-10 \ Information on this map is for general location only and should be verified with the Development Services Division. DATA IS DERIVED FROM MULTIPLE SOURCES.THE CITY OF TIGARD \ _ MAKES NOT WARRANTY,REPRESENTATION,OR GUARANTEE AS TO THE CONTENT,\://‘ TA PROVIDED HEREIN LITHE CITY OFOTIGARD SHALL ASSUMEFTHE LABILITY FOR ANY ERRORS OMISSIONS,OR INACCURACIES IN THE INFORMATION PROVIDED REGARDLESS OF HOW CAUSED. IN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT _.__.__ ; Cdy of Tigard 13125SWHall&W a 3-5 670 ' Tigard,OR 97223 n F•Mt 503639-4171 ' www.tigard-or.gov I \ . _ 2S112DB00200 2 112DB00300 BROOKS&PITTMAN RENTALS PA IC R TY ASSOCIATES 15255 SW 72ND AVE ATTN: IVEN PORTLAND,OR 97224 15 SW QUOIA PKWY#300 RTLAND, R 97224 2S112DB00100 12DD0160• CORLISS-2 LLC PAC • ALTY ASSOCIATES PO BOX 23970 ATTN: • •VEN TIGARD,OR 97281 15 .SW . •UOIA PKWY#300 •RTLAND,OR 97224 2S112DC00100 2S112AC01800 PACIFIC REALTY ASSOCIATES PETROCARD SYSTEMS INC ATTN:N PIVEN 730 CENTRAL AVENUE SOUTH 15350 SW SEQUOIA PKWY#300 KENT,WA 98032 PORTLAND,OR 97224 2 12DD01800 2S112DB00400 PAC RE TY ASSOCIATES TILLAMOOK LIGHT LLC ATTN: EN 1740 SW HAWTHORNE TER 153 W UOIA PKWY#300 PORTLAND,OR 97201 P TLAND,O 97224 112DA00700 2S112ACO2500 PA IC RE Y ASSOCIATES UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD CO ATTN: EN PROPERTY TAX 153 QUOIA PKWY#300 1400 DOUGLAS ST MS1640 RTLAND, R 97224 OMAHA,NE 68179 .112DA00600 12DB00900 PA. IC R.•LTY ASSOCIATES UNI• PA IC RAILROAD CO ATTN: ' •IVEN PROP ''Y TAX 15 .0 S EQUOIA PKWY#300 140• IOU -'SST MS1640 ••RTLAND, •R 97224 • AHA,NE 6. 79 ' 112DD01701 PA• IC R • TY ASSOCIATES ATTN: . 'IVEN 15 .• S EQUOIA PKWY#300 ••RTLAND, •R 97224 112AC01500 PA IC R. •LTY ASSOCIATES ATTN: ••IVEN 15 o SW QUOIA PKWY#300 •RTLAND,OR 97224 12DA00800 PACI RE ASSOCIATES ATTN:N EN 1535 W S UOIA PKWY#300 RTLAND,OR 97224 112DB00401 PA C R Y ASSOCIATES ATTN: ►'+VEN 153 . SW . QUOIA PKWY#300 •RTLAND, •' 97224 Nathan and Ann Murdock Mildren Design Group PO Box 231265 Attn: Gene Mildren Tigard, OR 97281 7650 SW Beveland Street, Suite 120 Tigard, OR 97223 Sue Rorman Susan Beilke 11250 SW 82nd Avenue 11755 SW 114th Place Tigard, OR 97223 Tigard, OR 97223 Naomi Gallucci Dayle D. & Evelyn 0. Beach 11285 SW 78th Avenue 11530 SW 72nd Avenue Tigard, OR 97223 Tigard, OR 97223 Todd Harding and Blake Hering Jr. Norris Beggs & Simpson 121 SW Morrison, Suite 200 Portland, OR 97204 Brad Spring 7555 SW Spruce Street Tigard, OR 97223 Alexander Craghead 12205 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard, OR 97223-6210 Gretchen Buehner 13249 SW 136th Place Tigard, OR 97224 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: 28-Sep-09 CITY OF TIGARD COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PLANNING DIVISION -a 13125 SW HALL BOULEVARD TIGARD,OREGON 97223 '"'°°"' PHONE: 503-639-4171 FAX 503-718-2748(Atm: Patty/Planning) EMAIL pa:i<raiord or.jap. REQUEST FOR 500-FOOT PROPERTY OWNER MAILING LIST 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: (If more than 1 tax lot or if the parcel has no address,you must separately identify each tax lot associated with the project.) Tax MAC': ZS 1 12b13 T/04 1„e: Y . Zoo Abotl:i��. 15 2S5 5.141 . 112.'a Ave. 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. IF YOU HAVE BEEN NOTIFIED BY PLANNING TO OBTAIN YOUR LABELS.PLEASE INDICATE BELOW THAT YOU NEED 2 SETS OF LABELS. ❑ Completeness Letter Received Indicating 2 Sets of Envelopes w/Affixed Address Labels Required The 2 final sets of labels need to be placed on envelopes (no self-adhesive envelopes please)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: 11`1 AND IMW e, PHONE: ( 6aO,)-(020 - ZD$Li NAME OF COMPANY: NiLoll 1.NGIHEE{ZiNG,, lNL FAX: ( )-( of - 3to3to EMAIL: JANppEI4c,G ICOUEACINEV la Nil .fah This request may be emailed,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 listed will be called to pick up their request that will be placed in"Will Call" by the company name(or by the contact person's last name if no company) at the Planning/Engineering Counter at the Permit Center. 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. -EXAMPLE- -COST FOR THIS REQUEST- 4 sheets of labels x$2/sheet=88.00 x 2 sets= $16.00 / sheet(s)of labels x$2/sheet= x z2 sets= n A.sheets of labels x$2/sheet for interested parties x 2 sets= $ 4.00 sheet(s)of labels x$2/sheet for interested parties=SdSC sets= G TE GENERATE—LIST = S .11 TOTAL = $31.00 TOTAL Pet Patty Lunsford From: Patty Lunsford Sent: Thursday, April 08, 2010 1:37 PM To: 'Jim Andrews' Subject: RE: Mailing List Request- SDR 2010-00001 Your request for mailing labels is ready to be picked up. The cost is $19.00. I will leave your labels in "will-call" under the name "Nicoli Engineering" at the planning/engineering counter in the permit center. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. Best regards, Patty Lunsford Planning Assistant City of Tigard /Current Planning 503.718.2438 /patty(altigard-or.gov Original Message From: Jim Andrews [mailto:jandrews @nicoliengineering.com] Sent: Thursday, April 08, 2010 10:29 AM To: Patty Lunsford Subject: Mailing List Request - SDR 2010-00001 Patty, We received our completeness letter from the city and need two (2) new sets of address labels. Our previously ordered labels are over 3 month old. Thanks Again, Jim Andrews Nicoli Engineering, Inc. Office: 503.620.2086 Fax: 503.684.3636 1 2S112DB00200 BROOKS&PITTMAN RENTALS 15255 PORTLAND,AN ,72ND AVE 1()°/PORTLAND,OR 97224 (SDKAOM �(/ 06/1114 Drab NicoIi i_ ngineering , PO Box 23784 Tigard, Oregon 97281 • Phone: (503) 620-2086 • Fax: (503) 684-3636 APPLICATION FOR SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW SDR 2010 - 00001 FOR: PITTMAN & BROOKS CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS 15255 SW 72nd AVENUE TI TAX MAP NO.: 97224 2S1�12DB � � © TAX LOT NO.: 200 APR 1 4 2010 CITY OF TIGARD TABLE OF CONTENTS r)L%NNINTENIG1;IEER!NG LAND USE PERMIT APPLICATION (COPY) LAND USE APPLICATION CHECK LIST PUBLIC FACILITY PLAN CHECKLIST • PRE—APPLICATION NOTES (COPY) PROPOSAL SUMMARY IMPACT STATEMENT PROJECT NARRATIVE NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING INFORMATION CWS SERVICE PROVIDER LETTER ARBORIST REPORT DAYCARE DOCUMENTS PREVIOUS FEE IN LIEU OF PAYMENT DOCUMENTS GRANTED DEED CLIENT : RANDALL BROOKS JOB NO.: 09-0512 PREPARED BY : JDA DATE : 2-11-2010 REVISED 3-13-2010 (18.370.010 & 18.810) PAGE 1 OF 76 9025 SW Center Street Tigard, OR 97223 _ www.nicoliengineering.com PRE-APR HELD BY: CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING DIVISMEwED LAND USE PERMIT APPLICATION: rLR 1- 22010 City of Tigani Permit Center 13125 SW Hall Blzd, Tigan4 OR 97223 Phone 503.639.4171 Fax: 503.598.1960 CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING/ENGINEERING File #i y©(_a0(v-ooa0l Other Case# - I Date d-(12-/10 By 5- 1 Receipt# 110843 Fee , 44"--61) 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) ❑Development Code Amendment(IV) ❑ Historic Overlay(II or III) j Site Development Review(II) ❑ Home Occupation(II) ❑ Subdivision (II or III) LOCATION WHERE PROPOSED ACTIVITY WILL OCCUR(Address if available) 1St 5 5 4.616 12.4e av 0• Ti exAtz.t' Op. 9722A. TAX MAPS&TAX LOT NOS. MAP NO. : 25II2DE, LaT No. : 200 TOTAL T'SIZE ZONING CLASSIFICATION Si 58 el.r. (6.55 AG) T-P SHOuevrZiAl. 171ME C. APPLICANT ?ANOALi- C. ibizoc •s MAILING ADDRESS/QTY/STATE/ZIP 15255 S. W. 721 Ave. PHONE NO. FAX NO 503 • (084-92.33 PRIMARY CONTACT PERSON PHONE NO. JIM Auet wy t I4«otst 5$641-10 t4Z71 5a3 • X20• SO bee PROPERTY OWNER/DEED HOLDER(Attach list it more than one) ING ADDRESS/CITY/STATE/ZIP 6AM E. A5 APPL1 cAt4T PHONE NO. FAX NO. "When the owner and the applicant are different people, the applicant must be the purchaser of record or a lessee in possession with written authorization from the owner or an agent of the owner. The owners 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) GONgrf ucr A I, 2.09 S.F. SSGONP irl ddtaPOD1 n GH gLEYATot. APPLICATIONS WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED WITHOUT ALL OF THE REQUIRED SUBMITTAL ELEMENTS AS DESCRIBED IN THE "BASIC SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS" INFORMATION SHEET. is\curpin\masters\land use applications\land use permit app.doc 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. o —! 1 — 2. 9/a er's Signature Date Owner's Signature Date Owner's Signature Date Owner's Signature Date Owner's Signature Date r—t? 2 • It • 1D ant/Agent/Representative's Signature Date Applicant/Agent/Representative's Signature Date IN CITY OF TIGARL RECEIPT p a 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard OR 97223 503.639.4171 TI.GARD Receipt Number: 176893 - 02/12/2010 CASE NO. FEE DESCRIPTION REVENUE ACCOUNT NUMBER PAID SDR2010-00001 SDR Under$1,000,000 1003100-43116 $3,873.00 SDR2010-00001 SDR Under$1,000,000- LRP 1003100-43117 $572.00 Total: $4,445.00 PAYMENT METHOD CHECK# CC AUTH.CODE ACCT ID CASHIER ID RECEIPT DATE RECEIPT AMT Check 015128 STREAT 02/12/2010 $4,445 00 Payor: Nicoli Engineering Total Payments: $4,445.00 Balance Due: $0.00 Page 1 of 1 !IIIOF TIGARL RECEIPT g . 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard OR 97223 503.639.4171 TIGARD Receipt Number: 177544 - 04/14/2010 CASE NO. FEE DESCRIPTION REVENUE ACCOUNT NUMBER PAID VAR2010-00005 50%Joint Application Fee 1003100-43116 $270.50 VAR2010-00005 50%Joint Application Fee-LRP 1003100-43117 $40.00 Total: $310.50 PAYMENT METHOD CHECK# CC AUTH.CODE ACCT ID CASHIER ID RECEIPT DATE RECEIPT AMT Check 015209 KPEERMAN 04/14/2010 $310.50 Payor: Nicoli Engineering, Inc. Total Payments: $310.50 Balance Due: $0.00 Page 1 of 1 CITY OF TIGARD Date: 2 2b i D LAND USE APPLICATIONS BASIC SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS Project: FtT1'MAt-1 ti.. F2 {Zb0�S APPLICATIONS WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED IN PARTIAL SUBMITTALS. ALL ITEMS MUST BE SUBMITTED AT ONE TIME. Include this fonn with submittal packet. The applicant must check the box next to the item verifying that the information is present. Staff will check off the items at intake. Three copies of all materials are required for the initial review process. The balance of the copies will be requested once your submittal is deemed complete. ➢ Each packet must be collated. 9 Plans are required to be a minimum of 24" x 36". ➢ Plans must be FOLDED, rolled plans are not accepted. Applicant Staff Documents, Copies and Fees Required Completed Master"Land Use Permit" Application with property owner's signature or name j of agent and letter of authorization Title transfer instrument or grant deed V _ Written summary of proposal Narrative demonstrating compliance with all applicable development standards and approval criteria(as specified in the Pre- Application Conference notes) Documentary evidence of Neighborhood Meeting:Neighborhood Meeting Affidavits of ✓ Posting&Mailing Notice,Minutes,Sign-in Sheets 14/011% ` I Service Provider Letter Impact Study per Section 18.390.040.B.2(e) V I Copy of the Pre-Application Conference notes �,. I Filing Fee (see fee schedule) y/ • Preliminary Sight Distance Certification ti/J6‘ Preliminary Storm Calculations v•"" Arborist Report 'Y h Traffic Report(if Required) Y Maps or Plans (Plans must be at least 24" x 36") V I Architectural Drawings (elevations &floor plans) V ' Existing Conditions Map Landscape Plan N % Preliminary Grading/Erosion Control Plan Preliminary Panition/Lot Line Adjustment Plan Preliminary Storm Drainage Plan 1�t/h Preliminary Utilities Plan Public Improvement/Streets Plan Site Development Plan Subdivision Preliminary Plat Map Wik Topography Map Tree Preservation/Mitigation Plan Vicinity Map > Once your application has been deemed complete you will be notified by the Planning Division in the form of a completeness letter indicating that you will need to provide the following: Two (2) sets of stamped,addressed# 10 envelopes for all owners of property within 500 feet of the subject property (the 2 sets must remain separated for the purpose of 2 mailings). Mailing envelopes shall be standard legal-size (# 10), addressed with 1" X 4" labels (please see envelope submittal requirements). Property owner mailing lists must be prepared by the City for a minimal fee(please see request for 500' property owner mailing list form). L\OJRPLN\Masters\Submittal Requirements aleck Lis t.doc (Updated:20 May-08) PUBLIC FACILITY PLAN Project: f l n.mimN ook5 COMPLETENESS CHECKLIST Date: 1. 11 '2011 GRADING ❑ Existing and proposed contours shown. N�a ❑ Are there grading impacts on adjacent parcels? IVA% ❑ Adjacent parcel grades shown. ❑ Geotech study submitted? I 1./P,. STREET ISSUES Right-of-way clearly shown. . ' Centerline of street(s) clearly shown. 1- ' Street name(s) shown. Existing/p a.pesed curb or edge of pavement shown. ❑ Street profiles shown. ./� ❑ Future Street Plan: Must show street profiles, topo / on adjacent parcel(s), etc. �A• ❑ Traffic Impact and/or Access Report ❑ Street grades compliant? IVA* Street/ROW widths dimensioned and appropriate? ❑ Private Streets? Less than 6 lots and width appropriate? ti/a. ❑ Other: <j E I MPAeT STAzt'S}gSN'r' SANITARY SEWER ISSUES © Existin•/;�;,-:_-i lines shown. © Stubs to adjacent parcels required/shown? pp. WATER ISSUES Existing/prg{>osetit lines w/ sizes noted? Existing/ esed fire hydrants shown? 4;afepesed meter location and size shown? v' Proposed fire protection system shown? STORM DRAINAGE AND WATER QUALITY ISSUES [ Existing*epesed lines shown? ❑ Preliminary sizing calcs for water quality/detention provided? Nd4 ❑ Water quality/detention facility shown on plans? N/,4„ ❑ Area for facility match requirements from calcs? N Ipr ❑ Facility shown outside any wetland buffer? t`Vie. ❑ Storm stubs to adjacent parcels required/shown? µ/P. The submittal is hereby deemed ❑ COMPLETE ❑ INCOMPLETE By: Date: REVISED 04/06104 TIfIQ Report .. J TICOR TITLE INSURANCE 91041873 ri' , Y;(�VN i IT Y I'� UflANOE STATUTORY WARRANTY DEED Washington County a } DONALD L. I AIN AND JOHN R. COC IRAI'I, AS 'ITFTIAI TS IN COMMON Grantor, conveys and warrants to RANDALL C. BROOKS AND RANDA K. PITTA'1AN Grantee, the following described real property free of encumbrances except as specifically set forth herein situated in 6,tASHTIv'GI'ON County, Oregon, to wit: SEE 'LEGAL DESCRIPTION' ATTACHED HERETO AND BY REFERENCE I'IADE A PART HEREOF. iTHIS INSTRUMENT WILL NOT ALLOW USE OF THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN THIS INSTRUMENT IN VIOLATION OF APPLI- CABLE LAND USE LAWS AND REGULATIONS. BEFORE SIGNING OR ACCEPTING THIS INSTRUMENT,THE PERSON ACQUIR- ING FEE TITLE TO THE PROPERTY SHOULD CHECK WITH THE APPROPRIATE CITY OR COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT .ce TO VERIFY APPROVED USES. The said property is free from encumbrances except STATUTORY POWERS OF THE UNIFIED V SEWERAGE AGENCY; RIGHTS OF THE PUBLIC IN STREETS, ROADS AND HIGHWAYS, EASEMENTS OF 'I RECORD; WAIVER OF REMONSTRANCES OF RECORD The true consideration for this conveyance is$ 234,000.00 r comply(Here tth the requirements of ORS 93.030) Dated this j$� day of J`�1 19q/ �rvttsk=j!' ,1� �� DONALD L. LAIN R. COC:HRAN State of,Oregon, County of U. ,•-�'l``r1lo n State of Oregon, County of h Iis•fotegojttg, instrument was acknowledgedfore me this The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this slay ,f,f'., , 19�_ by day of , 19 by ��'.,,f Ct k` i (_;-r .L(L (1 Ct.(1C1 C President and aC 10\''N 1 .,cCl.'C 1-1(c1.n Secretary of A >: •tom. a i" .%r^" a ;'{.+ ,.;.i corporation, , on behalf of the corporation. Notary Public for Oregon My commission expires:q _00-(13 Notary Public for Oregon My commission expires: WARRANTY DEED This Space Reserved for Recorder's Use DONALD L. LAIN JOHN R. COCHRAN GRAN I OR GR A\TEE RANDALL C. BROOKS RANDA K. PITIMAN Until a change is requested, all tax statements shall be sent to the following address: r�T-"' ,- ,:,t,l C;.,:. ,•f RANDALL C. BROOKS ' , "= ` REAL ;n-; , _�;,;'. ;:r.<:..i _�:? TAX !3` . '2 23 °° r9.2`9/ Escrow No. Title No. ,- " i Ea-. R;`,1D DATE 150962 34-150962 After recording return to: RANDALL C. BROOKS ;.,�-?,55-..,)4} 72 'L.0 /_ 2 P € - C0 A /e5 CITY OF TIGARD PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE NOTES ' ` g (Pre-Application Meeting Notes are Valid for Six (6) Months) T I G A R i PRE-APP.MTG.DATE: November 10,2009 STAFF AT PRE-APP.: GBP/ G'P •- NON-RESIDENTIAL APPLICANT: Randy Brooks AGENT: Jim Andrews, Nicoli Enq. Phone: (503) 684-9233 Phone: (503) 620-2086 PROPERTY LOCATION: ADDRESS/GENERAL LOCATION: 15255 SW 72nd Ave TAX MAP(S)/LOT#(S): 2S112DB-00200 NECESSARY APPLICATIONS: Major Modification of an approved plan: Site Development Review (SDR); Minimum Parking Adjustment, Type II Variance (VAR) to reduce required parking from 27 spaces to existing 23 spaces. PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION: Construction of a second floor office addition to an existing single-story building housing a daycare center; minimum parking adjustment for 4 (14.8%) additional required parking spaces. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION: Industrial Park ZONING MAP DESIGNATION: I-P ZONING DISTRICT DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS (Refer to Code Section 18.520 ) MINIMUM LOT SIZE: 0 sq. ft.Average Min.lot width: 50 ft. Max. building height: 45 ft. Setbacks: Front: 35 ft. Side: 0/50 ft. Rear:0/50 ft. Corner: 20 ft. from street. MAXIMUM SITE COVERAGE: 75%. Minimum landscaped or natural vegetation area: 25%. E NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING (Refer to the Neighborhood Meeting Handout)THE APPLICANT SHALL NOTIFY ALL PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 500 FEET, INI'ERES I'ED PARTIES, AND THE CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING DIVISION of their proposal. A minimum of two (2) weeks between the mailing date and the meeting date is required. Please review the Land Use Notification handout concerning site posting and the meeting notice. Meeting is to be held prior to submitting your application or the application will not be accepted. * NOTE: In order to also preliminarily address building code standards, a meeting with a Plans Examiner is encouraged prior to submittal of a land use application. ® 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. CITY OF TIGARD Pre-Application Conference Notes Page 1 of 8 NON-Residential Application/Planning Division Section • E 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 18.765) Minimum number of accesses: 1. Minimum access width: 24 feet. Minimum pavement width: 24 feet. All driveways and parking areas,except for some fleet storage parking areas,must be paved. Drive-in use queuing areas: N/A. ® WALKWAY REQUIREMENTS (Refer to Code Section 18.705.030) WALKWAYS SHALL EXPEND 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 18.730) ➢ STREETS:? feet from the centerline of Pacific Hwy. Check with ODOT. ➢ LOWER INTENSITY ZONES: feet,along the site's boundary. ➢ FLAG LOT n SPECIAL BUILDING HEIGHT PROVISIONS (Refer to Code Section 18.730.010.B.) BUILDING HEIGHT EXCEPTIONS -Buildings located in a non-residential zone may be built to a height of 75 feet provided that: N. A maximum building floor area to site area ratio (FAR) of 1.5 to 1 will exist; a. All actual building setbacks will be at least half(1/2) of the building's height; and 0. The structure will not abut a residential zoned district. ❑ BUFFERING AND SCREENING (Refer to Code Chapter 18.745) 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. 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: CITY OF TIGARD Pre-Application Conference Notes Page 2 of 8 NON-Residential Application/Planning Division Section El LANDSCAPING (Refer to Code Chapters 18.745,18.765 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 dear 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. Pride Disposal can be reached at (503) 625-6177. ® PARKING (Refer to Code Section 18.765.040) REQUIRED parking for this type of use: 2.7/ 1,000SF. 2.7 x 7.3 = 19.71, or 20 spaces required Parking SHOWN on preliminary plan(s): 23 spaces. SECONDARY USE REQUIRED parking: 2.0 spaces/classroom (1,209 sf. Commercial Daycare). Parking SHOWN on preliminary plan(s):?. NO MORE THAN 50% OF REQUIRED SPACES MAY BE DESIGNATED AND/OR DIMENSIONED AS COMPACT SPACES. PARKING STALLS shall be dimensioned as follows: • Standard parking space dimensions: 8 feet,6 inches x 18 feet,6 inches. • Compact parking space dimensions: 7 feet,6 inches x 16 feet,6 inches. Note: Parking space width includes the width of a stripe that separates the parking space from an adjoining space. Note: A maximum of three (3) feet of the vehicle overhang area in front of a wheel stop or curb can be included as part of required parking space depth. This area cannot be included as landscaping for meeting the minimum percentage requirements. HANDICAPPED PARKING: ► All parking areas shall PROVIDE APPROPRIATELY LOCATED AND DIMENSIONED DISABLED PERSON PARKING spaces. The minimum number of disabled person parking spaces to be provided, as well as the parking stall dimensions,is 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. ® BICYCLE RACKS (Refer to Code Section 18.765) 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. 1/1000 SF;Minimum of 2 spaces required. .5/1000 sf(office); 1.5/1000 sf(commercial daycare) CITY OF TIGARD Pre-Application Conference Notes Page 3 of 8 NON-Residential Application/Planning Division Section ❑ 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 18.775.080.C) When STEEP SLOPES exist, prior to issuance of a final order, a geotechnical report must be submitted which addresses the approval standards of the Tigard Community Development Code Section 18.775.080.C. The report shall be based upon field exploration and investigation and shall include specific recommendations for achieving the requirements of Section 18.775.080.C. CLEAN WATER SERVICES(CWS) BUFFER STANDARDS (Refer to CWS R&O 07-20/USA Regulations-Chapter 3) 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 07-20 SENSITIVE AREA DEFINITION SLOPE ADJACENT WIDTH OF VEGETATED TO SENSITIVE AREA4 CORRIDOR PER SIDES • Streams with intermittent flow draining: I 10 to<50 acres 15 feet I >50 to <100 acres 25 feet • Existing or created wetlands<0.5 acre 25 feet • Existing or created wetlands>0.5 acre <256/0 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. >250/0 I 10 to <50 acres 30 feet >50 to <100 acres 50 feet • Existing or created wetlands >25% Variable from 50-200 feet. Measure in 25- • Rivers,streams,and springs with year-round flow foot increments from the starting point to • Streams with intermittent flow draining>100 acres the top of ravine(break in<25%slope), • Natural lakes and ponds add 35 feet past the top of ravine6 4Starting point for measurement=edge of the defined channel(bankfiil flow)for streams/rivers,delineated wetland boundary,delineated spring boundary,and/or average high water for lakes or ponds,whichever offers greatest resource protection. Intermittent springs,located a minimum of 15 feet within the river/stream or wetland vegetated corridor,shall not serve as a starting point for measurement. 5Vegetated corridor averaging or reduction is allowed only when the vegetated corridor is certified to be in a marginal or degraded condition. 6The vegetated corridor extends 35 feet from the top of the ravine and sets the outer boundary of the vegetated corridor. The 35 feet may be reduced to 15 feet,if a stamped geotechnical report confirms slope stability shall be maintained with the reduced setback from the top of ravine. CITY OF TIGARD Pre application Conference Notes Page 4 of 8 NON-Residential Application/Planning Division Section Restrictions in the Vegetate 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 CWS R&O 07-20 sensitive area requirements. If there are no sensitive areas,CWS must still issue a letter stating a CWS Service Provider Letter is not required. ® SIGNS (Refer to Code Chapter 18.780) 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 18.790.030.0 and the "Tree Plan Requirements Handout" included in your pre-application conference packet) A TREE PLAN FOR THE PLANTING,REMOVAL AND PRO'T'ECTION 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. PRO'T'ECTION IS PREFERRED OVER REMOVAL WHEREVER POSSIBLE (Address all items in the City's Tree Plan Requirements Handout). 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. CITY OF TIGARD Pre-Application Conference Notes Page 5 of 8 NON-Residential Application/Planning Division Section E MITIGATION (Refer to Code Section 18.790.060.E.) 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. ► 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: I The number of replacement trees required shall be determined by dividing the estimated caliper size of the tree removed or damaged, by the caliper size of the largest reasonably available replacement trees. If this number of trees cannot be viably located on the subject property, the Director may require one (1) or more replacement trees to be planted on other property within the city,either public property or, with the consent of the owner,private property. ► The planting of a replacement tree shall take place in a manner reasonably calculated to allow growth to maturity. IN-LIEU OF TREE REPLACEMENT under Subsection D of this section, a party may,with the consent of the Director,elect to compensate the City for its costs in performing such tree replacement. ® CLEAR VISION AREA (Refer to Code Chapter 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. n ADDITIONAL LOT DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS (Refer to Code Section 18.810.060) 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 21/2 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) ® 18.760(Nonconforming Situations) ❑ 18.340(Directors Interpretation) ❑ 18.630(Washington Square Regional Center) ® 18.765(Off-Street Parking/Loading Requirements) ❑ 18.350(Planned Development) ❑ 18.640(Durham Quarry Design Standards) ❑ 18.775(Sensitive Lands Review) ® 18.360(Site Development Review) ® 18.705(Access/Egress/Circulation) ® 18.780(Signs) ® 18.370(Variances/Adjustments) ❑ 18.710(Accessory Residential Units) ❑ 18.785(Temporary Use Permits) ❑ 18.380(Zoning Map/text Amendments) ❑ 18.715(Density Computations) ® 18.790(Tree Removal) ❑ 18.385(Miscellaneous Permits) ❑ 18.720(Design Compatibility Standards) ❑ 18.795(Visual Clearance Areas) ® 18.390(Decision Making Procedures/Impact Study) ❑ 18.725(Environmental Performance Standards) ❑ 18.798(Wireless Communication Facilities) ❑ 18.410(Lot Line Adjustments) ❑ 18.730(Exceptions To Development Standards) ® 18.810(Street&Utility Improvement Standards) ❑ 18.420(Land Partitions) ❑ 18.740(Historic Overlay) n 18.430(Subdivisions) n 18.742(Home Occupation Permits) ❑ 18.510(Residential Zoning Districts) 18.745(Landscaping&Screening Standards) • 18.520(Commercial Zoning Districts) ❑ 18.750(Manufactured/Mobil Home Regulations) ❑ 18.530(Industrial Zoning Districts) 18.755(Mixed Solid Waste/Recyding Storage) CITY OF TIGARD Pre-Application Conference Notes Page 6 of 8 NON-Residential Application/Planning Division Section ADDITIONAL CONCERNS O. OMMENTS: Daycare uses in industrial zones require certain standards be met with respect to State of Oregon Certification and environmental impact assessment(Section18.530.050.C). Adjustments to minimum parking standards are allowed under Section 18.765.070.F.2 using the standards for adjustments in Section 18.370.020.C.7. 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 5:00 PM. Maps submitted with an application shall be folded IN ADVANCE to 81/2" x 11". One, 81/2" x 11" map of a proposed project shall be submitted for attachment to the staff report or administrative decision. Applications 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. 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 Hearings Officer. A basic flow chart which illustrates the review process is available from the Planning Division upon request. Land use applications requiring a public hearing must have notice posted on-site by the applicant no less than 10 days prior to the public hearing. This PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE AND THE NO"1'ES OF THE CONFERENCE ARE IN'T'ENDED 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). • CITY OF TIGARD Pre-Application Conference Notes Page 7 of 8 NON-Residential Application/Planning Division Section • 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: Gary Pagenstecher.Associate Planner mac- CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING DIVISION PHONE: 503-639-4171 FAX: 503-624-3681 DIRECT: 503-718-2434 EMAIL: gasp @tigard-or.gov TITLE 18 (CITY OF TIGARD'S COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE) INTERNET ADDRESS: www.tigard-or.gov H:\patty\masters\Pre-App Notes Commercial.doc Updated: 16-May-08 CITY OF TIGARD Pre-Application Conference Notes Page 8 of 8 NON-Residential Application/Planning Division Section PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE NOTES , y ENGINEERING SECTION < :TIGARD City of Tigard,Oregon C ommunity�Deve(opment Shaping Better Community PUBLIC FACILITIES Tax Map(s): 2511208 Lot 200 Tax Lot(s): Use Type: The extent of necessary public improvements and dedications which shall be required of the applicant will be recommended by City staff and subject to approval by the appropriate authority. There will be no final recommendation to the decision making authority on behalf of the City staff until all concerned commenting agencies, City staff and the public have had an opportunity to review and comment on the application. The following comments are a projection of public improvement related requirements that may be required as a condition of development approval for your proposed project. Right-of-way dedication: The City of Tigard requires that land area be dedicated to the public: (1.) To increase abutting public rights-of-way to the ultimate functional street classification right-of-way width as specified by the Community Development Code; or (2.) For the creation of new streets. Approval of a development application for this site will require right-of-way dedication for: X SW 72nd Avenue to 52 feet from ROW centerline of 72nd I I SW to feet from centerline of ROW (Neighborhood Route with bike lanes) SW to feet SW to feet Street improvements: N Half- street improvements will be necessary along SW 72nd Avenue, to include: ® 36 feet of pavement from ROW centerline ® concrete curb ® storm sewers and other underground utilities ® 10-foot concrete sidewalk ® street trees ® street signs, traffic control devices, streetlights and a two-year streetlight fee. CITY OF TIGARO Pre-Application Conference Notes Page 1 of 6 Engineering Department Section Other: 1. 5-for' planter strip exclusive of curb, OF ' 'ot curb,0.5 foot setback behind sidewalk, 6-foot bike , ,. Driveway separation along arte need to be 600 feet apart. One of the two driveways to the property must be removed. I street improvements will be necessary along SW , to include: I 1 feet of pavement concrete curb storm sewers and other underground utilities -foot concrete sidewalk street trees street signs, traffic control devices, streetlights and a two-year streetlight fee. Other: street improvements will be necessary along SW , to include: J feet of pavement concrete curb storm sewers and other underground utilities -foot concrete sidewalk I 1 street trees �l street signs, traffic control devices, streetlights and a two-year streetlight fee. Other: street improvements will be necessary along SW , to include: feet of pavement concrete curb storm sewers and other underground utilities -foot concrete sidewalk street trees street signs, traffic control devices, streetlights and a two-year streetlight fee. Other: 1 street improvements will be necessary along SW , to include: feet of pavement concrete curb storm sewers and other underground utilities -foot concrete sidewalk CITY OF TIGARD Pre-Application Conference Notes Page 2 016 Engineering Denar rnent Section street trees I street signs, traffic .,ontrol devices, streetlights and a two-year streetlight fee. Other: Agreement for Future Street Improvements: In some cases, where street improvements or other necessary public improvements are not currently practical, the improvements may be deferred. In such cases, a condition of development approval may be specified which requires the property owner(s) to provide a future improvement guarantee. The City Engineer will determine the form of this guarantee. The following street improvements may be eligible for such a future improvement guarantee: Street Improvements on 72nd. In the event a rough proportionality analysis determines that improvements to 72nd may not be proportional to the development proposed, the ROW dedication still needs to be made, but improvements to 72nd may be deferred via execution of a restrictive covenant whereby the developer commits to participate in future improvements under appropriate future circumstances. Overhead Utility Lines: >K1 Section 18.810.120 of the Tigard Municipal Code (TMC) requires all overhead utility lines adjacent to a development to be placed underground or, if approved by the City Engineer, a fee in-lieu of undergrounding can be paid. This requirement is valid even if the utility lines are on the opposite side of the street from the site. If the fee in-lieu is approved, it is equal to $ 35.00 per lineal foot of street frontage that contains the overhead lines. There are existing overhead utility lines which run adjacent to this site along SW 72nd Avenue. Prior to occupancy, the applicant shall either place these utilities underground, or pay the fee in-lieu described above. Sanitary Sewers: The nearest sanitary sewer line to this property is a(n) inch line which is located . The proposed development must be connected to a public sanitary sewer. It is the developer's responsibility to Water Supply: The City of Tigard (Phone:(503) 639-4171, attn: John Goodrich) provides public water service in the area of this site. This service provider should be contacted for information regarding water supply for your proposed development. Fire Protection: Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue District (South Division) [Contact: John Dalby, (503) 356-4723] provides fire protection services within the City of Tigard. The District should be contacted for information regarding the adequacy of circulation systems, the need for fire hydrants, or other questions related to fire protection. CITY OF TIGARD Pre-Application Conference Notes Page 3 of 6 Engineering Department Section If fire sprinklers are required - fire service line connection fee mur` he paid as part of the application. The fire service line plans wi, 2 reviewed by the City. Storm Sewer Improvements: All proposed development within the City shall be designed such that storm water runoff is conveyed to an approved public drainage system. The applicant will be required to submit a proposed storm drainage plan for the site, and may be required to prepare a sub-basin drainage analysis to ensure that the proposed system will accommodate runoff from upstream properties when fully developed. Storm Water Quality: The City has agreed to enforce Surface Water Management (SWM) regulations established by the Unified Sewerage Agency (USA) (Resolution and Order No. 00-7) which requires the construction of on-site water quality facilities. The facilities shall be designed to remove 65 percent of the phosphorus contained in 100 percent of the storm water runoff generated from impervious surfaces. The resolution contains a provision that would allow an applicant to pay a fee in-lieu of constructing an on-site facility provided specific criteria are met. The City will use discretion in determining whether or not the fee in- lieu will be offered. If the fee is allowed, it will be based upon the amount of impervious surfaces created; for every 2,640 square feet, or portion thereof. Please contact the Building Division for the current fee. Preliminary sizing calculations for any proposed water quality facility shall be submitted with the development application. It is anticipated that this project will require: Construction of an on-site water quality facility. I I Payment of the fee in-lieu. Other Comments: All proposed sanitary sewer and storm drainage systems shall be designed such that City maintenance vehicles will have unobstructed access to critical manholes in the systems. Maintenance access roadways may be required if existing or proposed facilities are not otherwise readily accessible. TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT TAX In 1990, Washington County adopted a county-wide Traffic Impact Fee (TIF) which was replaced in 2008 by a Transportation Development Tax (TDT) that became effective 7/1/09. The TDT program collects fees from new development based on the development's projected impact upon the City's transportation system. The applicant shall be required to pay a fee based upon the number of trips which are projected to result from the proposed development. The calculation of the TDT incorporates the proposed use of the land and the size of the project. The TDT is calculated, due, and payable at the time of building permit issuance. In limited circumstances payment of the TDT may be allowed to be deferred until the issuance of an occupancy permit. Deferral of payment until occupancy is permissible only when the TDT exceeds the TDT rate for a single-family home. Pay the TDT CITY OF TIGARD Pre-Application Conference Notes Page 4 of 6 Engineering Department Section PERMITS Public Facility Improvement (PFI) Permit: Any work within a public right-of-way in the City of Tigard requires a PFI permit from the Engineering Department. A PFI permit application is available at the Planning/Engineering counter in City Hall. For more extensive work such as street widening improvements, main utility line extensions or subdivision infrastructure, plans prepared by a registered professional engineer must be submitted for review and approval. The Engineering Department fee structure for this permit is considered a cost recovery system. A deposit is collected with the application, and the City will track its costs throughout the life of the permit, and will either refund any remaining portion of the deposit, or invoice the Permittee in cases where City costs exceeds the deposit amount. NOTE: Engineering Staff time will also be tracked for any final design-related assistance provided to a Permittee or their engineer prior to submittal of a PFI permit application. This time will be considered part of the administration of the eventual PFI permit. The Permittee will also be required to post a performance bond, or other such suitable security. Where professional engineered plans are required, the Permittee must execute a Developer/Engineer Agreement, which will obligate the design engineer to perform the primary inspection of the public improvement construction work. The PFI permit fee structure is as follows: NOTE: If an PFI Permit is required,the applicant must obtain that permit prior to release of any permits from the Building Division. Building Division Permits: The following is a brief overview of the type of permits issued by the Building Division. For a more detailed explanation of these permits, please contact the Development Services Counter at 503-639-4171, ext. 304. Site Improvement Permit (SIT). This permit is generally issued for all new commercial, industrial and multi-family projects. This permit will also be required for land partitions where lot grading and private utility work is required. This permit covers all on-site preparation, grading and utility work. Home builders will also be required to obtain a SIT permit for grading work in cases where the lot they are working on has slopes in excess of 20% and foundation excavation material is not to be hauled from the site. Building Permit (BUP). This permit covers only the construction of the building and is issued after, or concurrently with, the SIT permit. Master Permit (MST). This permit is issued for all single and multi-family buildings. It covers all work necessary for building construction, including sub-trades (excludes grading, etc.). This permit can not be issued in a subdivision until the public improvements are substantially complete and a mylar copy of the recorded plat has been returned by the applicant to the City. For a land partition, the applicant must obtain an Engineering Permit, if required, and return a mylar copy of the recorded plat to the City prior to issuance of this permit. CITY OF TIGARD Pre-Application Conference Notes Page 5 of 6 Engineering Department Section Other Permits. There are other special permits, -h as mechanical, electrical and plumbing that may a. be required. Contact the Devei lent Services Counter for more information. PREPARED BY: Q ' • 11/ 0 DEVPMENT ENGINEER DATt Phone: 1503)639-4171 Fax: 15031 624-0152 templatel Revised: September 2,2003 CITY OF TIGARO Pre-Application Conference Notes Page 6 of 6 Engineering Department Section City of Tigard, Oregon • 13125 SW Hall Blvd. • Tigard, OR 97223 • • Tuesday,November 10, 2009 TIGARD Randy Brooks 15255 SW 72nd Ave. Tigard, OR 97224 RE PRE2009-00033, Proposed Office Addition, Estimated Traffic &Parks SDCs. I apologize for not joining you, Gary Pagenstecher, et al, for this morning's Pre-Application Conference. I am enclosing a copy of my estimates for the Transportation Development Tax (WI) and Parks System Development Charges that will pertain to your project. My estimate shows two figures for the TDT, one for the "official" rate and a second for what was a proposed "discount" rate. We have just received confirmation this week that the County has approved the "discount" schedule so the highlighted $4,282 TDT rate will apply. 1DT fees become due and payable as of the date of building permit issuance and TDT rates increase every July 1st so this estimate is valid through 6/30/10. Parks SDC fees are similarly due and payable as of the date of building permit issuance and Parks rates increase every January 1st so the estimated $1,190 figure will be valid through 12/31/09. Please let m ow if you have any questions. e S '- ds Permits/Projects Coordinator 503-718-2426 cc: PRE2009-00033, Gus Duenas, Ga agenstecher. Phone: 503.639.4171 • Fax: 503.684.7297 • www.tigard-or.gov • TTY Relay: 503.684.2772 7e-' /i ,'cA77® at7- City of Tigard �=�i7i7'9/ .___ pp° TDT-COUNTYWIDE TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT TAX '' ;. Rate Calculation Worksheet l.,:Y APPLICANT TV)/ii-/VD- y a ee,C7/5 DATE ,V /2iI , Q9 MAILING ADDRESS /5-2.s-'5�5h/ .72 °`rdi' c__ PREPARED BY CITY/ ZIP / PHONE o fe 97.2 2,-,-/ �3 64 PLANS CHECK)oo9„ 33 TAX MAP# !�„` �" 929 PROJECT TITL _ ��Z�� CJ��v dvA j�jT�/`7'/4A� SITUS#ADDRESS /5-2_ 53 52 c ,[,V__ L i P /".7(fir FORMER USE(S) USE CODE UNITS X RATE = AMOUNT DESCRIPTION/NOTES X = VS 71'I6-1/t-5E5 OPX7 C� X = --77 .?Or'47 ,5E / 1?E-.c/ X = 14i 7i✓� . TOTAL TDT,FORMER USE(S) PROPOSED USE(S) USE CODE UNITS X RATE _ �J,I, DESCRIPTION/NOTES / ° /D /Z�7 X 1-i/-5/2-8 = 11: 3-575, /,2,01°1219A/e14/ 6 4bed9L 0#746 X = X = / ' /0 b(rq X f 3i, S-71,---_ )-�;z.8 2- '1-'leaP,5e]" 4 '/NCO -�� 6�i4 7f `� s'ec ray-A(e)r%E e v''' '''E17 ray I"G a TOTAL TDT,PROPOSED US$(S) -1 LESS TOTAL TDT,FORMER USE(S) - I3c/ 2 E_ ' /� TDT INCREASE/(DECREASE) �/5`� �' (INCREASE=TDT DUE) '--'°''� PAYMENT METHOD ,,, � /� CASH/CHECK r�6� J�/G� S•' 0-e/ -4..40A�� '° 31 /e� CREDIT l.20'7-7'-' 3.10 ^ '',2. eeS • BANCROFT AGREEMENT .3;,2 7 x i 6.°&-/ = 4 / PQ s (PROMISSORY NOTE) DEFER TO OCCUPANCY 1/OFS/CD/FORMS/TDT Rate Calculation Worksheet.indd(Rev.4/22/09) CITY OF TIGARD �� " COUNTYWIDE TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT TAX (TDT) NOTIFICATION OF FEE AND PAYMENT OPTIONS Please sign and return with Building Permit Application. This advises you that the TUT for this project is as shown below an. outlines the pay ent options that may be available to you. A copy of the fee calculation works'(et c. �r". --amount will increase on July 1 if payment is not received before then. T *- l si:r. and sub with your application for a building permit. / , City of Ti:. d Date: l Site Address: Project OD S- /r.„7, 0.Ar Land Use Case Name: OF-pi GE 7 v Ai"—or Permit#: w v f d O 3 Tax TDT Amount: Lot #: -2g/77- 3 0020[7 This constitutes my request to use the TDT payment option or combination of options I have selected below. [This selection can be changed up to the time a buildingpermit is issued.] I realize that TDT charges are due and payable at the time a building permit is issued unless those charges are Deferred or are financed through Installment Payments. [Please address questions about TDT or Deferral or Installment Payments to Albert Shields, Permit Coordinator, 503-718-2426.] ❑ Cash, Check, or Credit Card, payment due at building permit issuance. ❑ Deferral until Occupancy, payment due before issuance of an occu.. • • -unit. Payment of the TDT may be deferred until issuance of the occ •; cy permit if the TDT is greater than the amount for a sin.le famil residence currentl _ry n requesting this option I understand that any deferred TDT must be paid prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy and that the TDT will be recalculated at the time it is actually paid based on the TDT rates prevailing at that time. I further understand that l'DT rates may increase each July 1st and that such increases are not subject to appeal. ❑ Credit Voucher (for developer-built required public improvements, subject to approval, completion, and acceptance of creditable improvements.) PLEASE NOTE: TDT Credits must be redeemed at the time TDT Payment is due, either at the time the building permit is issued or,if payment is deferred,prior to issuance of an occupancy permit. If you expect to claim TDT Credits be sure the improvements,any creditable payments, and your claim for Credits are complete either before your building permit is to be issued or,if payment is deferred, before you request an occupancy permit. No refund of TDT Payments will be made if Credits are submitted more than 30 days after issuance of the relevant building or occupancy permit. ❑ "Bancroft" or Installment Payments (separate application required.) OWNER/APPLICANT OWNER/APPLICANT DATE: DATE: I:\CURPLN\Permit Coordinator\TDT Forms\TDT Payment Option Form 062209AMS TVAR Tualatin Valley Fire & Rescue Tualatin Valley Fire & Rescue Fire Marshal's Office ID- ?009 ZZ5 — 00 Z3 Date Project No. Project Name M1-,S ECQ^l D cti101 Oici- 'CC.— Assigned Planner 67' C 7 6C{4:0•41-6C-4-1 S6g, Tualatin Valley Fire & Rescue can endorse this proposal provided the following checked items are included in the ultimate design of the project. FIRE APPARATUS ACCESS ROAD DISTANCE FROM BUILDING AND TURNAROUNDS: Access roads shall be within 150 feet of all portions of the exterior wall of the first story of the building as measured by an approved route around the exterior of the building. An approved turnaround is required if the remaining distance to an approved intersecting roadway, as measured along the fire apparatus access road, is greater than 150 feet. (IFC 503.1.1) ❑ DEAD END ROADS: Dead end fire apparatus access roads in excess of 150 feet in length shall be provided with an approved turnaround. (IFC 503.2.5) ❑ FIRE APPARATUS ACCESS ROAD EXCEPTION FOR AUTOMATIC SPRINKLER PROTECTION: When buildings are completely protected with an approved automatic fire sprinkler system, the requirements for fire apparatus access may be modified as approved by the fire code official. (IFC 503.1.1) ❑ ADDITIONAL ACCESS ROADS— COMMERCIAL: Where buildings exceed 30 feet in height or three stories in height shall have at least two separate means of fire apparatus access. Buildings or facilities having a gross area of more than 62,000 square feet shall be provided with at least two separate means of fire apparatus access. Buildings up to 124,000 square feet provided with fire sprinklers may have a single access. (IFC D104) ❑ ADDITIONAL ACCESS ROADS —ONE-OR TWO-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL: Where there are more than 30 one- or two-family dwelling units, not less than two separate approved means of access shall be provided. Where there are more than 30 dwelling units and all are protected by approved residential sprinkler systems, a single access will be allowed. (IFC D107) ❑ ADDITIONAL ACCESS ROADS — MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL: Where there are more than 100 multiple-family dwelling units, not less than two separate approved means of access shall be provided. Projects up to 200 dwelling units that are protected by approved residential sprinkler systems may have a single access. Projects having more than 200 dwelling units shall have two separate approved means of access regardless of whether they are equipped with fire sprinkler systems. (IFC D106) ❑ AERIAL FIRE APPARATUS ACCESS: Buildings or portions of buildings or facilities exceeding 30 feet in height above the lowest level of fire department vehicle access shall be provided with approved fire apparatus access roads capable of accommodating fire department aerial apparatus. Overhead utility and power lines shall not be located within the aerial fire apparatus access roadway. Fire apparatus access roads shall have a minimum unobstructed width of 26 North Division Office 14480 SW Jenkins Road, Beaverton,OR 97005 Phone: 503-356-4700 Fax: 503-644-2214 www.tvfr.com • • Tualatin Valley Fire & Rescue feet in the immediate vicinity of any building or portion of building more than 30 feet in height. At least one of the required access routes meeting this condition shall be located within a minimum of 15 feet and a maximum of 30 feet from the building, and shall be positioned parallel to one entire side of the building. (IFC D105) ❑ REMOTENESS: Where two access roads are required, they shall be placed a distance apart equal to not less than one half of the length of the maximum overall diagonal dimension of the property or area to be served, measured in a straight line between accesses. (IFC D104.3) ❑ FIRE APPARATUS ACCESS ROAD WIDTH AND VERTICAL CLEARANCE: Fire apparatus access roads shall have an unobstructed width of not less than 20 feet(12 feet for up to two dwelling units and accessory buildings), and an unobstructed vertical clearance of not less than 13 feet 6 inches. Where fire apparatus roadways are less than 26 feet wide, "NO PARKING" signs shall be installed on both sides of the roadway and in turnarounds as needed. Where fire apparatus roadways are more than 26 feet wide but less than 32 feet wide, "NO PARKING" signs shall be installed on one side of the roadway and in turnarounds as needed. Where fire apparatus roadways are 32 feet wide or more, parking is not restricted. (IFC 503.2.1) The fire district does not endorse the design concept wherein twenty feet of unobstructed roadway with is not provided. ❑ FIRE APPARATUS ACCESS ROADS WITH FIRE HYDRANTS: Where a fire hydrant is located on a fire apparatus access road, the minimum road width shall be 26 feet. (IFC D103.1) ❑ TURNOUTS: When any fire apparatus access road exceeds 400 feet in length, turnouts 10 feet wide and 30 feet long shall be provided in addition to the required road width and shall be placed no more than 400 feet apart, unless otherwise approved by the fire code official. These distances may be adjusted based on visibility and light distances. (IFC 503.2.2) ❑ NO PARKING SIGNS: Where fire apparatus roadways are not of sufficient width to accommodate parked vehicles and 20 feet of unobstructed driving surface, "No Parking" signs shall be installed on one or both sides of the roadway and in turnarounds as needed. Roads 26 feet wide or less shall be posted on both sides as a fire lane. Roads more than 26 feet wide to 32 feet wide shall be posted on one side as a fire lane. Signs shall read "NO PARKING - FIRE LANE" and shall be installed with a clear space above grade level of 7 feet. Signs shall be 12 inches wide by 18 inches high and shall have red letters on a white reflective background. (IFC D103.6) ❑ SURFACE AND LOAD CAPACITIES: Fire apparatus access roads shall be of an all-weather surface that is easily distinguishable from the surrounding area and is capable of supporting not less than 12,500 pounds point load (wheel load)and 60,000 pounds live load (gross vehicle weight). You may need to provide documentation from a registered engineer that the design will be capable of supporting such loading. (IFC D102.1) ❑ BRIDGES: Where a bridge or an elevated surface is part of a fire apparatus access road,the bridge shall be constructed and maintained in accordance with AASHTO Standard Specification for Highway Bridges. Bridges and elevated surfaces shall be designed for a live load sufficient to carry the imposed loads of fire apparatus.Vehicle load limits shall be posted at both entrances to bridges when required by the fire code official. Where elevated surfaces designed for emergency vehicle use are adjacent to surfaces which are not designed for such use, approved barriers, approved signs or both shall be installed and maintained when required by the fire code official. (IFC 503.2.6) ❑ TURNING RADIUS: The inside turning radius and outside turning radius shall be not less than 28 feet and 48 feet respectively, measured from the same center point. (IFC 503.2.4 & D103.3) ❑ PAINTED CURBS: Where required, fire apparatus access roadway curbs shall be painted red and marked "NO PARKING FIRE LANE" at approved intervals. Lettering shall have a stroke of not less than one inch wide by six inches high. Lettering shall be white on red background. (IFC 503.3) ❑ GRADE: Fire apparatus access roadway grades shall not exceed 10 percent. Intersections and turnarounds shall be level (maximum 5%)with the exception of crowning for water run-off. When fire sprinklers are installed, a North Division Office 14480 SW Jenkins Road, Beaverton,OR 97005 Phone: 503-356-4700 Fax: 503-644-2214 www.tvfr.com TWAIR Tualatin Valley Fire & Rescue maximum grade of 15% may be allowed Adequacy of fire apparatus access shall be evaluated from the point beginning at the first due fire station to a point within 150 feet of all structures within the development. The approval of fire sprinklers as an alternate shall be accomplished in accordance with the provisions of ORS 455.610(5). (IFC 503.2.7 & D103.2) El GATES: Gates securing fire apparatus roads shall comply with all of the following: (IFC D103.5) • Minimum unobstructed width shall be 16 feet, or two 10 foot sections with a center post or island. • Gates serving one- or two-family dwellings shall be a minimum of 12 feet in width. • Gates shall be set back a minimum of 30 feet from the intersecting roadway. • Gates shall be of the swinging or sliding type • Manual operation shall be capable by one person • Electric gates shall be equipped with a means for operation by fire department personnel • Locking devices shall be approved. *COMM*COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS - REQUIRED FIRE FLOW: The required fire flow for the building shall not ERCIAL 3,000 gallons per minute (GPM) or the available GPM in the water delivery system at 20 psi, whichever is less as calculated using IFC, Appendix B. A worksheet for calculating the required fire flow is available from the Fire Marshal's Office. (IFC B105.2) ❑ SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS - REQUIRED FIRE FLOW: The minimum available fire flow for single family dwellings and duplexes served by a municipal water supply shall be 1,000 gallons per minute. If the structure(s) is (are) 3,600 square feet or larger, the required fire flow shall be determined according to IFC Appendix B. (IFC B105.1) ❑ RURAL BUILDINGS - REQUIRED FIRE FLOW: Required fire flow for rural and suburban areas in which adequate and reliable water supply systems do not exist may be calculated in accordance with National Fire Protection Association Standard 1142, 2001 Edition, when approved by the fire code official. Please contact the Fire Marshal's Office for special assistance and other requirements that may apply. (IFC B105.1.1) *IRE HYDRANTS— COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS: Where a portion of the building is more than 400 feet from hydrant on a fire apparatus access road, as measured in an approved route around the exterior of the building, on-site fire hydrants and mains shall be provided. This distance may be increased to 600 feet for buildings equipped throughout with an approved automatic sprinkler system. (IFC 508.5.1) ❑ FIRE HYDRANTS — ONE- AND TWO-FAMILY DWELLINGS &ACCESSORY STRUCTURES: Where a portion of a structure is more than 600 feet from a hydrant on a fire apparatus access road, as measured in an approved route around the exterior of the structure(s), on-site fire hydrants and mains shall be provided. (IFC 508.5.1) E HYDRANT NUMBER AND DISTRIBUTION: The minimum number and distribution of fire hydrants available c a building shall not be less than that listed in Appendix C, Table C 105.1. Considerations for placing fire hydrants may be as follows: • Existing hydrants in the area may be used to meet the required number of hydrants as approved. Hydrants that are up to 600 feet away from the nearest point of a subject building that is protected with fire sprinklers may contribute to the required number of hydrants. • Hydrants that are separated from the subject building by railroad tracks shall not contribute to the required number of hydrants unless approved by the fire code official. • Hydrants that are separated from the subject building by divided highways or freeways shall not contribute to the required number of hydrants. Heavily traveled collector streets only as approved by the fire code official. North Division Office 14480 SW Jenkins Road, Beaverton,OR 97005 Phone: 503-356-4700 Fax: 503-644-2214 www.tvfr.com 111VPAR Tualatin Valley Fire & Rescue • Hydrants that are accessible only by a bridge shall be acceptable to contribute to the required number of hydrants only if approved by the fire code official. ❑ FIRE HYDRANT DISTANCE FROM AN ACCESS ROAD: Fire hydrants shall be located not more than 15 feet from an approved fire apparatus access roadway. (IFC C102.1) ❑ REFLECTIVE HYDRANT MARKERS: Fire hydrant locations shall be identified by the installation of reflective markers. The markers shall be blue. They shall be located adjacent and to the side of the centerline of the access road way that the fire hydrant is located on. In case that there is no center line, then assume a centerline, and place the reflectors accordingly. (IFC 508.5.4) ❑ FIRE HYDRANT/FIRE DEPARTMENT CONNECTION: A fire hydrant shall be located within 100 feet of a fire department connection (FDC). Fire hydrants and FDC's shall be located on the same side of the fire apparatus access roadway. FDC's shall normally be remote except when approved by the fire code official. (IFC 912.2) ❑ACCESS AND FIRE FIGHTING WATER SUPPLY DURING CONSTRUCTION: Approved fire apparatus access roadways and fire fighting water supplies shall be installed and operational prior to any combustible construction or storage of combustible materials on the site. (IFC 1410.1 & 1412.1) ❑ KNOX BOX: A Knox Box for access is required for this building. Please contact the Fire Marshal's Office for an order form and instructions regarding installation and placement. (IFC 506) John K. Dalby, Deputy Fire Marshal II Tualatin Valley Fire& Rescue, North Division 14480 SW Jenkins Road Beaverton, OR 97005-1152 503-356-4700 North Division Office 14480 SW Jenkins Road,Beaverton,OR 97005 Phone: 503-356-4700 Fax: 503-644-2214 www.tvfr.com ■ NicoIi t- ngineerin g , Ir . PO Box 23784 Tigard,g rd, Oregon 97281 • Phone: (503) 620-2086 • Fax: (503) 684-3636 October 23, 2009 NEI#REG PRE-APPLICATION - PROJECT DESCRIPTION OCT 2 3 2009 Pittman & Brooks - Certified Public Accountants CITY OF TIGARD 15255 S.W. 72nd Avenue, Portland, Oregon 97224'1-ANNINGGIENGINEERING Pittman & Brooks is a professional accounting firm located on 72nd Avenue in Tigard, Oregon. They are proposing construction of an additional second floor office directly above and within the footprint of the existing single story portion of their building which houses a daycare center. The center was recently constructed (in approximately the year 2000) for their employees, especially during tax season. The new second floor office space will provide private office space for employees now sharing space. The addition is being proposed to alleviate current over-crowding, not specifically for new employees. As part of this application, the clients are also proposing installing an elevator, for the convenience of their employees, and to comply with current building code requirements. With the exception of the installing the elevator, the proposed addition will not require any site modification or improvements. The additional second floor office space requires Four (4) additional parking spaces. The applicant will be requesting an adjustment (a fourteen and eight tenths percent (14.8%) reduction) of the required parking spaces. STAFF QUESTIONS / ISSUES (Parking Adjustment & Applicant Procedure) PARKING ADJUSTMENT: As noted in the Project Description, the applicant will be requesting a reduction in the required number of vehicle parking spaces for the proposed building size. Please provide clarification of the appropriate path necessary to obtain the required reduction. Is Section 18.765.070.F.2 "Reductions in Minimum Required Vehicle Parking", the appropriate method to apply for this reduction, or is Section 18.370.020.C.7.a "Adjustments to Parking Standards" the appropriate path to take? APPLICANT PROCEDURE: It is the understanding of the applicant that this application will be addressed as a Major Modification and processed as a Type II Procedure. Please verify. X 12009U-090512 Pittman&Brooks-Addition to Office Buildingtl.etters1Projed Description for Ciy of Tigard.doc Page 1 of 1 9025 SW Center Street Tigard,Oregon 97281 www.nicoliengineering.com PRE-APPLICATION �.- � E11�ED CONFERENCE REQU City of Tigard Permit Center 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 972 f 2 3 2009 I I c_i ARA, Phone: 503.639.4171 Fax::503.598.1960 CITY OF TIGARD PLANMNG/ENOINEERtNG GENERAL INFORMATION Applicant: 12./16.t b`' tao 12.00 k e-7 FOR STAFF USE ONLY Address: 15 2 55 S.W. 1'L ti-°- Phone:105.684.9 233 City: 71 ts,AMA, / et) Zip: 9 2 24 Case No.: P((E? Dq' "°13 J t N t��D �p3•(P?,p'2.b Receipt No.: ('2 5 7 Contact Person: �W�J Phone: �,�,,, V',/ NlGOV► SN!41146.6 1144 NC,. Application Accepted By: S- 11249/ Property Owner/Deed Holder(s): Date: l Da3/09 ‘8,12.416 4 P 111 MAN V.ENTAlb "c' DATE OF PRE-APP.: HA/49 Address: 2.GJ 5 5.1.1. '72 Phone: O3'b84,4233 TIME OF PRE-APP.: q.00 City: Ti 1 t,/Mtn, d'IZ Zip: 417'V14 PRE-APP.HELD WITH: Rev.10/19/09 Property Address/Location(s): e\curpin\masters\land use applications\Pre-App Request App.doc ► 525 5.w. 12'"11 A.vE. Tt A I4J.a d R- 9122 }' 21.)D REQUIRED SUBMITTAL ELEMENTS Tax Map&Tax Lot#(s): S S 1 I'2. b8 L I°: (Note: applications will not be accepted T without the required submittal elements) Zoning: J+ r g Pre-Application Conf.Request Form Site Size: 0. 5 7 AG 1?-6 6 COPIES EACH OF THE FOLLOWING; © Brief Description of the Proposal and any PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE INFORMATION site-specific questions/issues that you would like to have staff research prior to the All of the information identified on this form are required to be submitted by meeting. the applicant and received by the Planning Division a minimum of one (1) RI' Site Plan. The site plan must show the week prior to officially scheduling a pre-application conference date/time to proposed lots and/or building layouts drawn allow staff ample time to prepare for the meeting. to scale. Also, show the location of the subject property in relation to the nearest A pre-application conference can usually be scheduled within 1-2 weeks of the streets;and the locations of driveways on the Planning Division's receipt of the request for either Tuesday or Thursday subject property and across the street. mornings. Pre-application conferences are one (1) hour long and are typically yr Vicinity Map. held between the hours of 9:00-11:00 AM. • The Proposed Uses. PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCES MUST BE SCHEDULED IN ❑ Topographic Information. Include Co tour PERSON AT THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COUNTER Lines if Possible.%WZ'p,Pu(,/1 FROM 8:00-4:00/MONDAY-FRIDAY. ❑ If the Pre-Application Conference is for a IF MORE THAN 4 PEOPLE ARE EXPECTED TO ATTEND THE MONOPOLE project, the applicant must PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE IN YOUR GROUP, PLEASE attach a copy of the letter and proof in the INFORM THE CITY IN ADVANCE SO THAT ALTERNATE ROOM form of an affidavit of mailing, that the ARRANGEMENTS CAN BE MADE TO ACCOMMODATE THE collocation protocol was completed (see GROUP. Section 18.798.080 of the Tigard Community Development Code). El Filing Fee$373.00 Tuesday October 2009 November 2009 December 2009 10 2 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 f 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 7 8 9 10 11 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 i3 14 15 16 17 18 ' 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 21 22 23 24 25 November 2009 2 26 27 28 29 30 31 22 30 28 29 30 31 Day 314,051 Left Week 46 Appointments 8 00 30 CR#1 9 00 Pre-App Randy Brooks 503-684-9233 15255 SW 72nd Ave Pittman&Brooks second floor office , ucul 1 0 00 Sandie Russo 503-848-2777 10895 SW 95th Ave 2-lot MLP CR-1 30 1 1 00t 30 12°° PM30 1 00 30 2 00 30 3 00 30 4 00 30 5 00 30 10/28/2009 9:46 AM 1/1 Network Services Thursday October 2009 November 2009 December 2009 1 2 3 4 5 6 O 5 1 2 3 2 3 4 5 6 :"7 8 9 10 9 10 11 12 13 14 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 t2 15 16 17 16 17 18 19 20 21 13 14 15 16 17 18 ' 19 20 21 22 23 24 z z 23 24 25 26 27 28 .. 20 21 22 23 24 25 2' November 2009 26 27 28 29 30 31 ' 30 %7 28 29 30 31 Day 309,056 Left Week 45 Appointments 8 0° 30 9 00'Pre-App Randy Brooks 503-684-9233 15255 SW 72nd Ave Pittman&Brooks second floor office CR#1 30 10 30 11 " 30 12°° PM 30 1 00 30 2 00 30 3 00 30 4 00 30 ,\ 5 00 30 10/23/2009 3:01 PM 1/1 Network Services _ NicoIi En jneering , Inc. ■ PO Box 23784 Tigard, Oregon 97281 • Phone: (503) 620-2086 • Fax: (503) 684-3636 LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL DATE 1b. 23,o°I JOBNel-6512 ATTENTION — 1v�.•• .-4.41..._.4,..� r _ ' .._■ • 170 40 - WE ARE SENDING YOU O Attached ❑ Under separate cover via The following item® ❑ Shop Drawings O Prints ❑ Plans 111 Samples ❑ Specifca6ons2 3 2009 ❑ Copy of Letter ❑ Change Order ❑ Other: CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING/ENGINEERING COPIES DATE NO. DESCRIPTION I ./ 1 5' - t 4 fl 41~1 _ (, lb. 215.6q 5 24 A 3(e ` _. I le, . 23.1 I 1 " '�..� - - ' '13 •°!' THESE ARE TRANSMITTED AS CHECKED BELOW: ❑ For approval ❑ Approved as submitted ❑ Resubmit _ Copies for approval ❑ For your use ❑ Approved as noted 1 ] Submit Copies for distribution ❑ As requested ❑ Returned for corrections ❑ Return Corrected prints Q'For review and comment ❑ Other: ❑ FOR BIDS DUE 20 ❑ Prints returned after loan to us REMARKS COPY TO SIGNED. _ _ CITY OF TIGARD RECEIPT V it . 13125 SW Hall Blvd..Tigard OR 97223 503.639.4171 TIGARD Receipt Number: 175760 - 10/23/2009 CASE NO. FEE DESCRIPTION REVENUE ACCOUNT NUMBER PAID PRE2009-00033 Pre-Application Conference 1003100-43116 $326.00 PRE2009-00033 Pre-Application Conference- LRP 1003100-43117 $47.00 Total: $373.00 PAYMENT METHOD CHECK# CC AUTH.CODE ACCT ID CASHIER ID RECEIPT DATE RECEIPT AMT Check 014967 STREAT 10/23/2009 $373.00 Payor: Nicoli Engineering Total Payments: $373.00 Balance Due: $0.00 Page 1 of 1 City of Tigard, Oregon • 13125 SW Hall Blvd. • Tigara, OR 97223 G15q ODO 3 Tuesday, November 10,2009 TIGARD Randy Brooks 15255 SW 72nd Ave. Tigard, OR 97224 RE PRE2009-00033, Proposed Office Addition, Estimated Traffic &Parks SDCs. I apologize for not joining you, Gary Pagenstecher, et al, for this morning's Pre-Application Conference. I am enclosing a copy of my estimates for the Transportation Development Tax (TDT) and Parks System Development Charges that will pertain to your project. My estimate shows two figures for the TDT, one for the "official" rate and a second for what was a proposed "discount" rate. We have just received confirmation this week that the County has approved the "discount" schedule so the highlighted $4,282 TL)T rate will apply. TDT fees become due and payable as of the date of building permit issuance and TDT rates increase every July 1st so this estimate is valid through 6/30/10. Parks SDC fees are similarly due and payable as of the date of building permit issuance and Parks rates increase every January 1st so the estimated $1,190 figure will be valid through 12/31/09. Please let m ow if you have any questions. e S •- ds Peimits/Projects Coordinator 503-718-2426 cc: PRE2009-00033, Gus Duenas, Gary-Pagenstecher. Phone: 503.639.4171 • Fax: 503.684.7297 • www.tigard-or.gov • TTY Relay: 503.684.2772 7'/ec &/C'A�o City of Tigard �'�i7h°�i IrTDT—COUNTYWIDE TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT TAX fr Rate Calculation Worksheet APPLICANT d��, © -avt2e,c25 DATE /v i 19 MAILING ADDRESS /5:2,63 5h/ .72 W A� PREPARED BY CITY/ ZIP / PHONE /76„,51../a. Oi '972Z,! �3_/ - PLANS CHECK )d9„� 3 TAX MAP# 7 �" 1923 PROJECT TITL SITUS#ADDRESS / 2 53 si-V 52 A ?V _- e L 7)--P;,- /77 d Ar FORMER USE(S) USE CODE UNITS X RATE = AMOUNT DESCRIPTION/NOTES x = EAos nAr Tries ®CSI x = -D9y69/te).. e.1/27/ avei4/4-Ar6e ., x = TOTAL TDT,FORMER USE(S) PROPOSED USE(S) USE CODE UNITS X RATE = AMOUNT DESCRIPTION/NOTES / /0 ///2D9x )- /-5/z8 = /4 35--3 , 2 2 d / 4 e4L fl,b-ie x = x = / ' 10� // el x/��3/ ‘-.7//—= 1-'7/Z 8 2- �. die se_ / i �7 i rE_ -/�O0141(7T,PROPOSED 7.3k17-AY07- VET.4Q40/�oYe.D ay t1/.5►LOO LESS TOTAL TDT, FORMER USE(S) - - ,-4 4, e �i / -- 63 2- TDT INCREASE/(DECREASE) %(:556- O (INCREASE=TDT DUE)-�2-- -- PAYMENT METHOD r6- s.,/S.' LOA 7c -- STy D yy 'e CREDIT » 7- 04Q = '...2 GE-5 . BANCROFT AGREEMENT .'3', 7 X . G0-.1 = )1;v4 / FQ 6 (PROMISSORY NOTE) DEFER TO OCCUPANCY I/OFS/CD/FORMS/TDT Rate Calculation Worksheet.indd(Rev.4/22/09) — / ,'2/C.9 77 AK- CITY OF TIGARD COUNTYWIDE TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT TAX (TDT) NOTIFICATION OF FEE AND PAYMENT OPTIONS Please sign and return with Building Permit Application. This advises you that the TDT for this project is as shown below an: outlines the say ent options that may be available to you. A copy of the fee calculation works i'et i c ,r: I' - amount will increase on July 1 if payment is not received before then. T % ' 1• sip ft and sub with your application for a building permit. ' City of Ti_. d Date: / ® Site Address: Project e S.-�/r ,�-+c Land Use Case �v9_ d� 3 Name: O F F/GE z.Dr 77 v iy or Permit#: � "'�� Tax TDT Amount: Lot #: 2cS/17--"B 002007 This constitutes my request to use the TUT payment option or combination of options I have selected below. [This selection can be changed up to the time a building permit is issued.] I realize that 1'UT charges are due and payable at the time a building permit is issued unless those charges are Deferred or are financed through Installment Payments. [Please address questions about IDT or Deferral or Installment Payments to Albert Shields, Permit Coordinator, 503-718-2426.] El Cash, Check, or Credit Card, payment due at building permit issuance. ,Q CP❑ 7 Deferral until Occupancy, payment due before issuance of an occu...• Payment of the'1"llT may be deferred until issuance of the occ •: cy permit if the TDT is greater than the amount for a sin.le famil residence currentl '; :r';' n requesting this option I understand that any deferred TDT must be paid prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy and that the TDT will be recalculated at the time it is actually paid based on the TDT rates prevailing at that time. I further understand that"1'UT rates may increase each July l5L and that such increases are not subject to appeal. ❑ Credit Voucher (for developer-built required public improvements, subject to approval, completion, and acceptance of creditable improvements.) PLEASE NOTE: TDT Credits must be redeemed at the time TDT Payment is due, either at the time the building permit is issued or,if payment is deferred,prior to issuance of an occupancy permit. If you expect to claim lUT Credits be sure the improvements,any creditable payments, and your claim for Credits are complete either before your building permit is to be issued or,if payment is deferred, before you request an occupancy permit. No refund of 1 DT Payments will be made if Credits are submitted more than 30 days after issuance of the relevant building or occupancy permit. ❑ "Bancroft" or Installment Payments (separate application required.) OWNER/APPLICANT OWNER/APPLICANT DATE: DATE: I:\CURPLN\Permit Coordinator\TDT Forms\TDT Payment Option Form 062209AMS //arra ve PROPOSAL SUMMARY February 11, 2010 NEI # 09-0512 PITTMAN & BROOKS, Certified Public Accountants Second Floor Addition & New Elevator Site Development Review Summary and Narrative Location: 15255 S.W. 72nd Avenue, Tigard, Oregon 97224 Tax Map/Lot No: 2S112DB-00200 Zoning Map Designation: I-P Comprehensive Plan Map Designation: Industrial Park Land Use Review: Type II Procedures: • Site Development Review, Major Modification 18.360.050 Estimated Project Cost: 1209 S.F. x $250/S.F. = $302,250 Elevator = $60,000 PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION: Pittman & Brooks is a professional accounting firm located on 72nd Avenue in Tigard, Oregon. They are proposing construction of an additional second floor office directly above and within the footprint of the existing single story portion of their building which houses a commercial daycare center. The center was granted Certificate of Occupancy on April 26, 2002. The new second floor office space will provide private office space for employees now sharing space. The addition is being proposed to alleviate current over-crowding, not for new employees. As part of this application, the clients are also proposing installing an elevator, at the main entry, for the convenience of their employees, and to comply with current building code requirements. With the exception of the minor excavation for the elevator, the proposed addition will not require any site modification or improvements. X:120091J-090512 Pittman&Brooks-Addition to Office Building1Application for Site Development Review 021110 doc Page 1 of 20 PROJECT NARRATIVE Approval Criteria: Type II Site Development Review, Major Modification Site Development Review Approval Criteria 18.360 — Site Development Review Variances and Adjustments: 18.370 — Variances and Adjustments Zoning District 18.530 — Commercial Zoning Districts Applicable Specific Development Standards 18.705 — Access, Egress and Circulation 18.745 — Landscaping and Screening 18.755 — Mixed Solid Waste and Recyclable Storage 18.760 — Nonconforming situations 18.765 — Off-street Parking and Loading Requirements 18.780 — Signs 18.790 — Tree Removal 18.795 — Visual Clearance Street and Utility Improvement Standards 18.810 — Street and Utility Improvement Standards TYPE II SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW, MAJOR MODIFICATION — APPROVAL CRITERIA: 18.360.090 APPROVAL CRITERIA 1. Compliance with all of the applicable requirements of this title including Chapter 18.810, Street and Utility Standards. Applicant Response: See response under Zoning District, Section 18.390.040, Impact Statement for Applicable Specific Development Standards and Street and Utility Improvement Standards. 2. Relationship to the natural and physical environment: X:120091,1-090512 Pittman&Brooks-Addition to Office Bwlding1Applicalion for Site Development Review 021110 doc Page 5 of 20 a) Buildings shall be: (1) Located to preserve existing trees, topography and natural drainage where possible upon existing site conditions. Applicant Response: The proposed project (second story addition) does not alter the existing building's relationship to the natural and physical environment. Refer to response under Section 18.790 Tree Removal for existing tree preservation response. (2) Located in areas not subject to ground slumping or sliding Applicant Response: Site is not located in a 100-year flood zone, nor does it have slopes greater than 25% and for over eighteen (18) years, the owner has been located here and has not had any issues with ground slump or sliding. Standard has been met. (3) Located to provide adequate distance between adjoining buildings for adequate light, air circulation, and fire-fighting; Applicant Response: Modifications to the distances between adjoining buildings will not change with the proposed development. Standard has been met. (4) Oriented with consideration for sun and wind. Applicant Response: Location of the building addition was limited due to the existing structure location. Project has a significant amount of window area for the proposed office, as well as skylights, to bring natural light into the building. Standard has been met. b. Trees shall be preserved to the extent possible. Replacement of trees is subject tot the requirements of Chapter 18.790, Tree Removal. Applicant Response: See Tree Survey Protection Plan and Report prepared by Halstead's Arboriculture Consultants, which is included in Project Documents. Refer to response under Section 18.790. 3. Exterior Elevations: a. Along the vertical face of single-family attached and multiple-family structures, offsets shall occur at a minimum of every thirty (30) feet by providing any two of the following: Applicant Response: Building is not single or multiple family structure. Standard does not apply. 4. Buffering, screening and compatibility between adjoining uses: a. Buffering shall be provided between different types of land uses, for example, between single-family and multiple-family residential, and residential and commercial uses, and X:120091J-090512 Pittman&Brooks-Addition to Office BuildingWpplication for Site Development Review 021110.doc Page 6 of 20 the following factors shall be considered in determining the adequacy of the type and extent of buffer. 1. The purpose of the buffer, for example, to decrease noise levels, absorb air pollution, filter dust, or to provide a visual barrier; 2. The size of the buffer required to achieve the purpose in terms of width and height: 3. The direction(s) from which buffering is needed; 4. The required density of the buffering; and 5. Whether the viewer is stationary or mobile. Applicant Response: All adjacent properties are zoned 1-P. This requirement is not applicable. See the included existing and proposed site plans as well as the discussion under Section 18.745. (b) Onsite screening from view from adjoining properties of such things as service areas, storage areas, parking lots, and mechanical devices on rooftops, i.e., air cooling and heating systems, shall be provided and the following factors will be considered in determining the adequacy of the type and extent of the screening: Applicant Response: The rooftop mechanical device will be screened by the roof parapet. See the included proposed site and landscape plans as well as the discussion under Section 18.745. 5. Privacy and noise: Multi-family or group living uses. 6. Private outdoor area: Multi-family use 7. Shared outdoor recreation areas: Multi-family use Applicant Response: Building is not single, or multiple-family structures. Standard does not apply. 8. Where landfill and/or development is allowed within and adjacent to the 100-year floodplain. Applicant Response: Site is not within or near the 100-year floodplain. Standard does not apply. 9. Demarcation of public, semi-public, and private spaces for crime prevention: a. The structures and site improvements shall be designed so that public areas such as streets or public gathering places, semi-public areas and private outdoor areas are clearly defined to establish persons having a right to be in the space, to provide for crime prevention and to establish maintenance responsibility; X:12009U-090512 Pittman 8 Brooks-Addition to Office Building1Application for Site Development Review 021110 doc Page 7 of 20 Applicant Response: There are no public or semi-public spaces being proposed with this project. There is an existing private patio to the west of the building, which is enclosed by a wall and visible from a majority of the west work area and west yards. See Site Plan. Standard has been met. 10. Crime prevention and safety: a. Windows shall be located so that areas vulnerable to crime can be surveyed by the occupants; b. Interior laundry and service areas shall be located in a way that they can be observed by others; c. Mail boxes shall be located in lighted areas having vehicular or pedestrian traffic; d. The exterior lighting levels shall be selected and the angles shall be oriented toward areas vulnerable to crime; and e. Light fixtures shall be provided in areas having heavy pedestrian or vehicular traffic and in potential dangerous areas such as parking lots, stairs, ramps, and abrupt grade changes. Fixtures shall be place d at a height so that light patterns overlap at a height of seven feet, which is sufficient to illuminate a person. Applicant Response: All exterior areas are visible from the first and second floor work areas. Existing exterior lighting in the parking lots will be maintained. See Site Plan for Parking Lot Lighting. Standard has been met. 11. Public Transit: a. Provisions within the plan shall be included for providing for transit of the development proposal is adjacent to or within 500 fee of existing or proposed transit route; b. The requirements for transit facilities shall be based on i. The location of other transit facilities in the area; and ii. The size and type of the proposal c. The following facilities may be required after City and Tri-Met review: i. Bus stop shelters; ii. Turnouts for buses; and iii. Connecting paths to shelters. Applicant Response: No additional street improvements are being proposed. No additional employees are being added to existing staff; therefore additional Public Transit would not be applicable. Standard has been met. 12. Landscaping: X:1200941-090512 Pittman 8,Brooks.Addition to Office Building.Application for Sae Development Review 021110 doc Page 8 of 20 *** These three (3) pagc how changes to Page No. 9 of the final Application for Site Development Review dated February 11, 2010 *** a. All landscaping shall be designed in accordance with the requirements set forth in Chapter 18.745. Applicant Response: See response under Section 18.745. 13 Drainage: All drainage plans shall be designed in accordance with the criteria in the adopted 1981 master drainage plan. Applicant Response: See response under Section 18.390.040 and Section 18.810 14 Provision for the disabled: All facilities for the disable shall be designed in accordance with the requirements set forth in ORS Chapter 447. Applicant Response: Existing site design provides for disabled parking. An elevator is being proposed for second floor access as required by the Oregon Structural Specialty Code. See included Site and Building Plans. Standard has been met. 15 All of the provisions and regulations of the underlying zone shall apply unless modified by other section or this title, e.g., Planned Developments, Chapter 18.350; or a variance or adjustment granted under Chapter 18.370. Applicant Response: See discussion under 18.530 Industrial Zoning Districts. 18.370.010 Variances and Adjustments A. Purpose. The purpose of this section is to provide standards for the granting of variances from the applicable zoning requirements of this title where it can be shown that, owing to special and unusual circumstances related to a specific property, the literal interpretation of the provisions of the applicable zone would cause an undue or unnecessary hardship, except that no use variances shall be granted. Applicant Response: A variance is being requested per TDC 18.370.20 Adjustments below. 18.370.020 Adjustments A. Purpose. The purpose of this section is to provide establish two classes of special variance. 1. "Development adjustments" which allow modest variation from required development standards within proscribed limits. Because such adjustments are granted using "clear and objective standards", these can be granted by means of Type I procedure, as opposed to the more stringent standards of approval and procedure for variances. 2. "Special adjustments" which are variances from development standards which have their own approval criteria as opposed to the standard approval criteria for variances contained in Section 18.370.020.C. Applicant Response: An Adjustment to Access & Egress Standards, per TDC Section 18.370.02005, is being requested. The Adjustment would allow the existing access to remain as previously constructed, not to construct a new access(s). Page No. 9-1 X.120091)-090512 Pittman 8 Brooks-Addition to Office Building\Site Development Review\Addendum P 9-1 Application for Site Dev Review 031210 doc 18.370.020 Special Adjustment C (5) Adjustments to Access and Egress Standards (Chapter 18.705) a. In all zoning districts where access and egress drives cannot be readily designed to conform to Code standards within a particular parcel, access with an adjoining property shall be considered. If access in conjunction with another parcel cannot reasonably be achieved, the Director may grant an adjustment to the access requirements of Chapter 18.705 through a Type II procedure, as governed in Section 18.390.030, using approval criteria contained in Subsection 2b below. b. The Director may approve, approve with conditions, or deny a request for an adjustment from the access requirements contained in Chapter 18.705, based on the following criteria: (1) it is not possible to share access; Applicant Response: The site is triangular in shape and bordered by a railroad to the West, 72nd Avenue to the East and one neighboring property to the North. The building on the neighboring parcel is located at the South end of the property with access and parking to the North. There is no paved connection from the southern parcel access to the project site. The West side of the neighboring building appears to be on, or very close to, the Railroad Right-of-Way and would not provide sufficient area for a connecting driveway. The unimproved area at the East side of the existing building will be eliminated when the additional Right-of Way and street improvements are imposed. Therefore, an access drive is not an option at this side of the building. Sharing access with this parcel is not an option. (2) There are no other alternative access points on the street in question or from another street; Applicant Response: 72nd Avenue is the only available street to provide access to the project site. Due to the triangular configuration of the site and location of the building on the site, the two existing accesses to the existing parking lots, as previously approved and constructed, is the only viable alternative. (3) The access separation requirements cannot be met; Applicant Response: The access separation of 600' cannot be met. The current access points are separated by approximately 187' (center to center). The northern parking lot access point cannot be relocated; there is not enough available property to relocate this access point. The existing southern access point is located to make the most efficient use of the southern parking lot. Even if this access were to be moved within the project site boundaries, Page 9-2 X:120091J-090512 Pittman&Brooks-Addition to Office Building\Sde Development Review\Addendum P 9-2 thru 9-3 App for Site Dev Review 031210 doc it would still be located a distance of less than 600' to the existing access point to the north. This option would still be in violation of the 600' standard, and would also remove several parking spaces, making the parking in violation of the city's minimum parking space requirements. (4) The request is the minimum adjustment required to provide access; Applicant Response: The adjustment will allow the building to operate as it has been for the last approximately ten (10) years, and as approved by the previous SDR 98-0026. Again, this adjustment is to allow the existing access to remain, not to construct new accesses. Due to the site configuration and existing building location, the connection of the two (2) parking lots within the site boundaries is not a viable option. (5) The approved access, or access approved with conditions, will result in a safe access: and Applicant Response: As noted above, the two (2) existing accesses have functioned safely. According to the owners, no traffic incidents have occurred from the use of the two access points, which are closer than the current 600' spacing requirement. (6) The visual clearance requirements of Chapter 18.795 will be met. Applicant Response: The visual clearance requirements are met with the existing two accesses. Please refer to Site Plan. In summary, we cannot find any alternative access points, whether shared or by relocating one of the existing access points, which would meet the 600' spacing requirement. It doesn't seem appropriate to close one of the driveways, especially after they were installed by the property owner, as previously approved by the City of Tigard. Nor does eliminating the use of eight (8) parking spaces, by closing the southern access point in order to comply with a recent reclassification of 72nd Avenue to an arterial classification, seem justifiable at this time. A visual inspection of 72nd Avenue reveals that a substantial number of the access points/driveways from 72nd Avenue are in violation of the 600' separation. It is understood that when 72nd Avenue is constructed to the "arterial" standard, that the existing accesses will need to be re-evaluated. Page 9-3 X12009 U-090512 Pittman 8 Brooks-Addition to Office Building\Site Development Review\Addendum P 9-2 thru 9-3 App for Site Dev Review 031210 doc 18.530 Industrial Zoning Districts 18.530.020 A. l-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. Applicant Response: Pittman & Brooks' use of this building, at this location, as an office space is allowed outright in the I-P zone. The commercial daycare center is allowed as a "Restricted Use" per Table 18.530.1, Footnote 9. This footnote requires an "Environmental Impact Statement" and complying with State of Oregon requirements. These documents are enclosed for review. Standard has been met. APPLICABLE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS 18.705 Access, Egress and Circulation 18.705.030 General Provisions A. Continuing obligation of the property owner B. Access plan requirements C. Joint Access D. Public Street Access E. Curb Cuts Applicant Response: The site is currently accessed from 72nd Avenue. There are two 24 Foot curb cuts along 72nd Avenue for access to the two separate parking lots. (Refer Site Plan). No additional access points are being proposed for the proposed development. Standard has been met. F. Required walkway location. Applicant Response: There are two existing concrete walkways from the building ground floor to the sidewalk along 72nd Avenue. (Refer to Site Plan). Standard has been met. G. Inadequate, or hazardous access. Applicant Response: Not applicable H. Access management. X:\200911-090512 Pittman 8 Brooks-Addition to Office Building'Application for Site Development Review 021110 doc Page 10 of 20 Applicant Response: Not applicable, driveways are existing and approved by prior application and approvals. No modifications to site access are being proposed with this application. I. Minimum access requirements for residential use. Applicant Response: Use is not residential. This standard does not apply. J. Minimum access requirements for commercial and industrial use Applicant Response: Per table 18.705.3 vehicular access/egress requirements for commercial and industrial uses where required parking is between 0 and 99 spaces is one (1) minimum driveway of minimum width of 30 feet (24 feet with curbs required). There are two (2) existing driveways with curb cuts used for access to the site, which meets these minimum requirements, please see included site plan. 18.745 Landscaping and Screening 18.745.020 Applicability A. Applicability. The provisions of this chapter shall apply to all development including the construction of new structures, remodeling of existing structures where the landscaping is nonconforming, and to change of use which results in the need for increased on-site parking or loading requirements or which changes the access requirements. Applicant Response: Remodeling and addition to existing structures are proposed. To the best of our knowledge, the existing landscaping is conforming. No new onsite parking or change in the existing landscaping is being proposed with this proposed project. B. When site development review does not apply. Applicant Response: Site development review does apply. This Standard does not apply. C. Site plan requirements. The applicant shall submit a site plan. The Director shall provide the applicant with detailed information about this submission requirement. Applicant Response: Proposed site plan has been included. Refer to Site Plan and Tree Protection Plan. 18.745.030 General Provisions. A. Obligation to Maintain, B. Pruning required, C. Installation requirements, D. Certificate of Occupancy X:120091.1-090512 Pittman&Brooks-Addition to Office Building\Application for Site Development Review 021110.doc Page 11 of 20 Applicant Response: The owner agrees to maintain all existing landscaping and screening in good conditions as outlined in this code which includes pruning and trimming so as to not interfere with public utilities, restrict pedestrian or vehicular access or produce a traffic hazard due to reduced visibility. E. Protecting of existing vegetation. Existing vegetation onsite shall be protected as much as possible during the construction process. Refer to Tree Protection Plan for required protective measures for existing trees. All landscaped areas, which may be disturbed by construction activities, will be replaced to match existing conditions. 1. The development shall provide methods for protection of existing vegetation to remain during the construction process; and 2. The plants to be saved shall be noted on the landscape plans. Applicant Response: The existing trees will be protected as noted on Tree Protection Plan and Report prepared by certified arborist. Existing vegetation / landscaped items (fences, plants, etc.) will be protected during the construction process. Any landscape items disturbed by the construction process will be replaced to match existing conditions. See General Note on Site Plan. F. Care of landscaping along public right-of-way. Applicant Response: The owner has and will continue to maintain the existing landscaping trees in the right-of-way of 72nd Avenue. Proposed construction activities should not impact landscaping along 72nd Avenue. 18.745.40 Street Trees A. Protection of existing vegetation. All development projects fronting on a public street, private street or private driveway more than 100 feet in length approved after the adoption of this title shall be required to plant street trees in accordance with the standards in Section 18.745.040.C. Applicant Response: Existing street trees are to remain along 72nd Avenue. See Site Plan and Tree Assessment and Protection Plan and Report prepared by Halstead's Arboriculture Consultants. 18.745.050 Buffering and Screening. A. General Provisions. 1. It is the intent that these requirements shall provide for privacy and protection and reduce or eliminate the adverse impacts of visual or noise pollution at a development site, without unduly interfering the view from neighboring properties or jeopardizing the safety of pedestrians and vehicles. 2. Buffering and screening is required to reduce the impacts on adjacent uses, which are of a different type in accordance with the matrices in this chapter. X:120091)-090512 Pittman P.Brooks-Addition to Office BuildingfApplication for Site Development Review 021110 doc Page 12 of 20 The owner of each proposed development is responsible for the installation and effective maintenance of buffering and screening. When different uses would be abutting one another except for the separation by a right-of-way, buffering, but not screening, shall be required as specified in the matrix; Applicant Response: Not applicable. Proposed project will not create any additional need for buffering and screening. B. Buffering and screening requirements, 1-9 C. Setbacks for fences or walls. D. Height restrictions. Applicant Response: The site is abutted by 72nd Avenue to the East and railroad tracks to the West. Neither of these adjacent uses requires buffering and/or screening. There is an existing structure to the North, which has as undeveloped area with trees and bushes abutting the applicant's north property line. There is an existing row of trees and along the north parking area, which abuts this common property line. No additional fences or walls are proposed. D. Screening: special provisions 1. Screening and landscaping of parking and loading areas: Applicant Response: No new parking areas are being proposed. The ends of the existing parking area which abut 72" Avenue are not currently screened. Additional shrubs have been added to these areas. Refer to Site Plan. 2. Screening of service facilities, and 4. Screening of refuse containers. Applicant Response: The existing trash and recycling refuse containers are screened by an existing 6' high brick enclosure with operable gates. No additional trash and recycling enclosures or service facilities are being proposed. 18.745.060 Re-vegetation A. When re-vegetation is required. Where natural vegetation has been removed through grading in areas not affected by the landscaping requirements and that are not to be occupied by structures, such areas are to be replanted as set forth in this section to prevent erosion after construction activities are completed. Applicant Response: No grading is proposed or required. This criterion does not apply. A note has been provided on the site plan that if any existing vegetation or site elements (fences, pavement, etc) are disturbed during the construction process; they are to be replaced to pre-construction conditions. Refer to Site Plan. X:\2009U-090512 Pittman 8 Brooks-Addition to Office Building.Apphcauon for Site Development Review 021110.doc Page 13 01 20 18.755 Mixed Solid Waste and Recyclable Storage. 18755.010 Purpose and Applicability A. Purpose: The purpose of this chapter is to ensure that certain new construction incorporates functional and adequate space for onsite storage and efficient collection of mixed solid waste and source-separated recyclable materials prior to pick-up and removal by haulers. B. Applicability: The mixed solid waste and source separated recyclable storage standards shall apply to new multi-unit residential buildings containing five or more units and non-residential construction that are subject to full site plan or design review; and are located within urban zones that allow, outright or by condition, for such uses. Applicant Response: The existing mixed solid waste and recycling storage area will not be disturbed or modified, due to the proposed development. Thus this criterion is met. 18.760 Nonconforming situations 18.760.010 Purpose A. Creation of nonconforming situations: Within the districts established by this title or amendments that may later be adopted, there may exist lots, structures, uses of land, and structures which were lawful before the effective date of the ordinance codified in this title, but which would be prohibited, regulated, or restricted under the terms of the ordinance codified in this title or future amendments. B. Purpose: It is the purpose and intent of this chapter to permit these nonconforming lots, structures, and uses to continue but to prohibit the enlargement, expansion, or extension of such uses. Single-family residences in the CBD Zone are exempt from this requirement. C. incompatibility with comprehensive plan: Nonconforming uses are incompatible with the comprehensive plan and with permitted uses in the zoning district involved. Applicant Response: The site is in the industrial park (IP) zone. The majority of the existing office building houses the accounting firm of Pittman & Brooks, which is an approved use for this zone, per TDC 18.530.020.A. The one-story portion of the existing building houses a commercial daycare center for the employees. A daycare center is allowed in the IP Zone as an allowed restricted use. The daycare center was approved with an earlier application (SDE 98-0026). The previous Certificate of Occupancy and State Certificate of Approval for this existing use has been attached for review. The proposed addition will not increase the size of the existing center. 18.765 Off-Street Parking and Loading Requirements X:12009Q-090512 Pittman 8 Brooks-Addition to Office Building\Application for Site Development Review 021110 doc Page 14 of 20 18.765.030 General Provisions A. Vehicle parking plan requirements B. Location of vehicle parking Applicant Response: Modifications to the existing parking configuration are not proposed with this proposed project. See site plan. C. Joint parking Applicant Response: Joint parking is not proposed; standard does not apply. D. Parking in mixed-use projects Applicant Response: The Pittman & Brooks project contains office contains office uses and an employee daycare center. The majority of the building use is for administrative offices and the secondary use is a daycare facility for employee children. The offices are primary use and the daycare center is categorized as a secondary use. See Cover Sheet and Site Plan for Parking Calculations. E. Visitor parking in multi-family residential developments Applicant Response: Residential use in not proposed; standard does not apply. F. Preferential long-term carpool/vanpool parking. Parking lots providing in excess of 20 long-term parking spaces shall provide preferential long-term carpool and vanpool parking for employees, students and other regular visitors to the site. At least 5% of total long-term parking spaces shall be reserved for carpool/vanpool use. Applicant Response: Based on 23 existing spaces provided onsite, 5% results in one (1) required carpool/vanpool space. This space is located south of the main entry of the building and shall be signed for carpool/vanpools between the hours of 7:00 am and 5:30 pm, Monday through Friday. See included proposed site plan. G. Disabled-accessible parking. Applicant Response: One (1) disabled parking space is required for the first twenty five (25) spaces according to the Building Code. Existing accessible parking space is provided south of the main entry of the building. See included proposed site plan. H. DEQ Indirect Source Construction Permit. All parking lots containing 250 spaces or parking structures containing two or more levels shall require review by the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality(DEQ) to: Applicant Response: The existing parking lot contains less than 250 spaces. No additional spaces are being proposed. Standard does not apply. X:12009U-090512 Pittman&Brooks-Addition to Office BuildinglApplicat,on for Site Development Review 021110 doc Page 15 of 20 18.765.040 General Design Standards A. Maintenance of parking areas. Applicant Response: Owner agrees to maintain and clean existing parking areas and keep them in good repair at all times. B. Access drives, with regard to access to public streets from off-street parking: 1-6 Applicant Response: No modifications to existing access drives from SW 72nd Avenue are being proposed. Standard does not apply. C. Loading/unloading driveways. Applicant Response: Standard is not applicable. D. Onsite vehicle stacking for drive-in use. Applicant Response: Drive-in services are not proposed, standard is not applicable. E. Curb cuts. Applicant Response: Existing curb cuts are to be utilized. No new curb cuts are proposed. Standard is not applicable. F. Pedestrian Access. Applicant Response: Most of the pedestrian access to the building is through the vehicle access driveway. The pedestrian crossing distance from the north parking lot to the building is less than 36 feet therefore; no physical separation is required, per 18.705.030, F, 3. Pedestrian access from the public right-of-way to the building's entry is provided by two (2) existing concrete sidewalks. See Site Plan. Standard is met. G. Parking lot landscaping. Applicant Response: The existing parking lot is landscaped. Refer to response comments under Chapter 18.745 H. Parking space surfacing. Applicant Response: Existing parking areas are paved. Standard is met. I. Parking lot striping. Applicant Response: Existing parking spaces are striped. See included proposed site plan. Standard is met. J. Wheel stops. X12009U-090512 Pittman 8 Brooks-Addition to Office Building1Application for Site Development Review 021110.doc Page 16 of 20 Applicant Response: The front three feet of the existing parking spaces have a concrete curb with landscaping behind. See included proposed site plan. Standard is met. K. Drainage. Applicant Response: Existing parking areas drain to existing catch basins. No modifications to the drainage patterns are proposed with the proposed project. See included Site Plan. L. Lighting. Applicant Response: Existing parking lots have pole lights. No new exterior lighting is being proposed. See Site Plan. This standard has been met. M. Signs. Applicant Response: No signs are proposed in the parking lot other than those marking required carpool/vanpool parking. N. Space and aisle dimensions. Applicant Response: No modifications to existing parking lot stall dimensions or aisles are being proposed. 18.765.050 Bicycle Parking Design Standards A. Location and access. Applicant Response: Bicycle parking has been provided within 50' of the building entrance to each building and is adjacent to the pedestrian walkway. See included site plan. B. Covered parking spaces. Applicant Response: Existing bicycle parking is close to each building entrance, but is not under cover and is not required to be. See Site Plan. C. Design requirements. 1-6 Applicant Response: Existing bike parking racks have been provided on the concrete slab adjacent to the walkway connecting the building. There are four (4) existing "U" shaped racks anchored to the concrete, which provide eight (8) bicycle parking spaces. D. Paving. X:120091J-090512 Pittman 8 Brooks-Addition to Office Building1Apptication for Site Development Review 021110.doc Page 17 of 20 Applicant Response: Bike parking has been provided on concrete pads as stated above. E. Minimum bicycle parking requirements. Applicant Response: There are four (4) racks, which provide eight (8) bicycle parking spaces. Four (4) spaces are required per Table 18.765.2. See Site Plan for location and Project Development Data. Standard has been met. 18.765.70 Minimum and Maximum Off-Street Parking Requirements H. Specific requirements -Table 18.765.2 Applicant Response: Vehicle parking requirements have been listed in the Project Development Data - Proposed Table on the included Proposed Site Plan Sheet. There are twenty-three (23) existing parking spaces onsite (including ADA). Based on gross office areas, including proposed addition, twenty (20) spaces are required. Two (2) spaces for the commercial daycare are also required, totaling twenty-two (22) required spaces. The number of existing spaces, twenty three (23), are in excess of the required parking spaces with the addition. Criteria has been met. 18.765.080 Off-Street Loading Requirements A. Off-street loading spaces. 1. A minimum of one loading space is required for buildings with 10,000 gross square feet or more. Applicant Response: The proposed building has a total of 8,508 S.F., which does not require an off-street loading space. 18.780 Signs No signs are proposed at this time. If it is decided to add a sign a separate permit application will be filed. 18.790 Tree Removal 18.790.30 Tree Plan Requirement A. Tree plan required. A tree plan for 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 subdivision, partition, site development review, planned development or conditional use is filed. Protection is preferred over removal wherever possible. X:12009U-090512 Pittman 8 Brooks-Addition to Office Building\Application for Site Development Review 021110 doc Page 18 of 20 **' These four(4)pages show changes to Page No.19 of the original Application for Site Development Review dated February 11, 2010 *** Applicant Response: A tree protection plan has been performed by a certified arborist. Refer to the included tree assessment / tree plan and report prepared by Halstead's Arboriculture Consultants. 18.795 Visual Clearance Areas 18.795.30 Visual Clearance Requirements A. Obstruction prohibited. A clear vision area shall contain no vehicle, hedge, planting, fence wall structure, or temporary or permanent obstruction (except for an occasional utility pole or tree), exceeding three feet in height, measured from the top of the curb, or where no curb exists, from the street center line grade, except that trees exceeding this height may be located in this area, provided all branches below eight feet are removed. Applicant Response: The existing visual clearance areas meeting the above requirements have been provided at the existing driveways onto 72nd Ave. Parking lot screening is being added as a requirement of Section 18.745.050E.1. The visual clearance requirements are noted in the General Notes on the included site plan. See site plan for required visual clearance areas. 18.810 Street and Utility Improvement Standards 18.810.030 Streets A (3) Improvements. No development shall occur unless the streets adjacent to the development meet the standards of this chapter, provided, however, that a development may be approved if the adjacent street does not meet the standards, but half-street improvements meeting the standards of this title are constructed adjacent to the development. Applicant Response: 72nd Avenue does not meet the recently imposed "arterial" street standards. Half-street improvements were constructed in approximately 1999, when the street was designated as a collector. The applicant has provided a rough proportionality analysis, which demonstrates that constructing the one-half street improvements required to meet the arterial designation standards are not proportional to the project's impact. A (5) If the City could and would otherwise require the applicant to provide street improvements, the City engineer may accept a future improvements guarantee in lieu of street improvements if one or more of the following conditions exist. Page 19-1 X:\2009W-090512 Pittman&Brooks-Addition to Office Building\Site Development ReviewlAddendum P 19-1 App for Site Dev Review 031210.doc Applicant Response: The applicants/owners would entertain the concept of a future improvements guarantee, but will require further clarification on what that guarantees. The applicants/owners have agreed to a non-remonstrative agreement for future improvements. See Response to Public Facility Plan Checklist, Item No. 1 a. A partial improvement is not feasible due to the inability to achieve proper design standards; Applicant Response: A partial improvement could be constructed which would achieve proper design standards. The issue is, as stated in the Impact Statement, that the required improvements are not proportional to the project's impact on public services. b. A partial improvement may create a potential safety hazard to motorists or pedestrians; Applicant Response: To widen 72nd Avenue to meet the required street section would create a serious safety hazard, especially to motorists. Constructing/providing an additional 16' of pavement for this small portion of 72nd Avenue would, at the least, create some confusion for southbound traffic. There would be a large transition from the additional 16' of pavement to the existing road edge near the existing railroad crossing. Additional safety measures would, most likely, be required at the railroad project. Employees and clients exiting the project site would be required to negotiate and additional 16' of road before merging onto, or across 72nd Avenue. This would be a safety issue for both access points, and especially dangerous for employees and clients using the North access. There would be a 16' long blend spot before they could get a clear view of the southbound oncoming traffic, which is approaching from an incline in the road, which adds to the safety issue. In many municipalities, this "checkerboard" type of street improvement is not considered desirable. Design Standards, Utilities, etc., may be modified after the "checkerboard" improvement is complete and because this "piecemeal" type of improvements presents potential life safety issues for the motorist. c. Due to the nature of existing development on adjacent properties, it is unlikely that street improvements would be extended in the foreseeable future and the improvement associated with the project under review does not, by itself, provide a significant improvement to street safety or capacity; Applicant Response: During the Pre-App, the question on when 72nd Avenue would be improved to the collector status was asked. No certain date was given. Given the current transportation needs, and planned improvements in Tigard, one cannot see improvements to 72nd Avenue occurring in the foreseeable future. Increasing the width of 72nd for this short section would not provide any improvements to street safety or capacity. On the contrary, as noted above, would cause a variety of safety hazards. No common good for the impacted property owners or the public would be gained by constructing the improvements to 74th Avenue at this time. Page 19-2 X:12009U-090512 Pittman&Brooks-Addition to Office Butlding\Site Development RevievAAddendum P 19-2 thru 19-4 App for Site Dev Rev 031210.doc d. The improvement would be a conflict with an adopted capital improvement plan; Applicant Response: Unknown. This is an issue to be determined by the City of Tigard. We would comment that with the traffic congestion in Tigard and further street improvements identified in the Downtown Improvement Plan and Urban Renewal, that 72nd Avenue would not be considered a critically needed improvement. e. The improvement is associated with an approved land partition on property zoned residential and the proposed land partition does not create any new streets; or Applicant Response: Not applicable. f. Additional planning work is required to define the appropriate design standards for the street and the application is for a project, which would contribute only a minor portion of the anticipated future traffic on the street. Applicant Response: 72nd Avenue has been designated as an arterial street and standards have been developed for this designation. It is assumed that some thought or planning by the City of Tigard would be required to insure that any improvements constructed now would be consistent with future improvements. As stated elsewhere, the proposed 1,209 S.F. addition is not being proposed for additional employees, but to provide private offices for existing employees. No additional office traffic will be created, nor will there be any additional contribution to the existing traffic on 72nd Avenue created by the proposed development. B. Creation of rights-of-way for streets and related purposes: Rights-of-Way shall be created through the approval of a final subdivision plat or major partition; however, the Council may approve the creation of a street by acceptance of a deed, provided that such street is deemed essential by the Council for the purpose of general traffic circulation. Applicant Response: This code section deals with the creation of Right-of-Ways for subdivisions or major partitions. Neither of these actions are part of this project. Therefore this standard is not applicable. E. Minimum rights-of-way and street widths: Unless otherwise indicated on an approved street plan, or as needed to continue an existing improved street, street right-of-way and roadway widths shall be not less than the minimum width Page 19-3 X.12009U-090512 Pittman 8 Brooks-Addition to Office BuildinglSite Development ReviewlAddendum P 19-2 Ihru 19-4 App to Site Dev Rev 031210.doc described below. Where a range is indicated, the width shall be determined by the decision-making authority based upon anticipated average daily traffic (ADT) on the new street segment. (The City Council may adopt by resolution, design standards for street construction and other public improvements. The design standards will provide guidance for determining improvement requirements within the specific ranges.) These are presented in Table 18.810.1. Applicant Response: The Street Right-of-Way width of 52' is required to meet the "arterial" street standard per the Pre-Application Conference notes. The applicant is not requesting clarification of the required Right-of-Way width, nor is there a range of width, which requires clarification. This standard is not applicable, Page 19-4 X:12009U-090512 Pittman&Brooks-Addition to Office BuildinglSite Development ReviewlAddendum P 19.2 thru 19.4 App for Site Dcv Rev 031210.doc • A —E Applicant Response: No new lots are being proposed. Standard is not applicable. 18.810.070 Sidewalk A — G Applicant Response: The existing sidewalks were installed as required per previous land use action SDR 98-0026 and constructed per Engineering Permit No. ENG1999- 00051. This standard is not applicable. 18.810.080 Public Use Access A — B • Applicant Response: This standard is not applicable. 18.810.090 Sanitary Sewer A — D Applicant Response: The existing sanitary sewer is to remain. This standard does not apply. 18.810.100 Storm Drainage A —D Applicant Response: The existing storm drainage system is to remain. This standard does not apply. 18.810.110 Bikeways and Pedestrian Pathways. A — C Applicant Response: During previous land use and right-of-way improvements, as noted above, no requirement for additional bikeways or pedestrian pathways was required. X:120091.1-090512 Pittman&Brooks-Addition to Office Building'Application for Site Development Review 021110.doc Page 20 of 20 A CITY 0. TIGARD CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES PERMIT#: BUP1999-00323 4.,1,01111 j'l DATE ISSUED: 11/04/1999 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639-4171 PARCEL: 2 S 112 D 6-00200 ZONING: I-P JURISDICTION: TIG SITE ADDRESS: 15255 SW 72ND AVE SUBDIVISION: FANNO CREEK ACRE TRACTS 'BLOCK: LOT:045 CLASS OF WORK: ADD TYPE OF USE: COM TYPE OF CONSTR: 5N OCCUPANCY GRP: B OCCUPANCY LOAD: 72 TENANT NAME: REMARKS: Building addition for daycare and office. Office addition is 2257 sq ft and the daycare is 1070 sq ft.----TIF DEFERRED Split phase occupancy approved. THIS CERTIFICAT OF OCCUPANCY I FOR PHASE#1 DAYCARE ONLY Owner: BROOKS & PITTMAN RENTALS 15255 SW 72ND AVE TIGARD, OR 97223 Phone: 684-9233 Contractor: OWNER PAUL AUGUSTYN FACILITIES SPECIALIST Phone: 503-306-1292 Reg #: This Certificate issued 04/26/2002 grants occupancy of the above referenced building or portion there•f and confirms that the building has been inspected for compliance with the State of Ores •n Specialty Codes for the group, occupa y, and use nderwhich the referenced • rmit was issued. : , , / BUILDING PE•' OR BUILDING FICIAL POST IN CONSPICUOUS PLACE co F o� OREGON v `r'r ;d EMPLOYMENT _ r . _** DEPARTMENT l., *`=' t* O CHILD CARE DIVISION : 'y;..��,.. .•,i:�: z y *. *** -•' Be it known that: 1859 Randa K Brooks is hereby granted a Certificate of Approval .to operate: Darling Deductions Preschool 15255 SW 72nd Ave Portland, OR 97224 The Child Care Division has conducted a review and found this facility and its operation to be in compliance with the laws of the State of Oregon and applicable administrative rules. Hours of Operation: 7:00 AM - 6:00 PM Provider Number: CC052379 Age Range: 1.6 Months through 12 Years Maximum Number: 14 Ratio Group: 3A Days of Operation: Monday: X Thursday:X Saturday: X Tuesday: X Friday: X Sunday: Wednesday: X This certificate is effective: May 07, 2009 through May 07, 2010 Exceptions: Conditions: Special Conditions: Questions or complaints regarding this facility should be directed to: Child Care Division _i? Linette Swanson 7995 SW Mokawk St Tualatin,OR 97062 (503)612•4244 Tom L.Olsen,Administrator Employment Department-Child Care Division Original-Operator This certificate is not transferable BL [NESS LICENSE REC_ _PT CITY OF TIGARD TLGARD 13125 SW HALL BLVD. • TIGARD, OR • 97223 • (503) 639-4171 TYPE OF BUSINESS: ACCOUNTING AUDITING & RECEIPT NO: 000000003811 BOOKKEEPING EXPIRES: 12/31/2010 BUSINESS NAME: PITTMAN & BROOKS CPA'S PC BUSINESS PHONE: (503)684-9233 BUSINESS ADDRESS: 15255 SW 72ND AVE DARLING DEDUCTIONS TIGARD, OR 97224 THIS RECIEPT MUST BE POSTED IN A CONSPICUOUS PLACE AT THE BUSINESS ADDRESS AND IS NOT TRANSFERABLE If you have any questions about your Business License Receipt or doing business in Tigard, please contact the Business License Specialist at (503) 639-4171 x2487. NOTE: The Tigard Municipal Code 7.24.120(4) has imposed reasonable restrictions on "Door- To-Door" solicitation and canvassing, commercial and noncommercial within the city limits of Tigard. The Tigard Municipal Code 7.52.080(a) restricts the selling of goods or services in any City parks. A Business License Receipt does not imply City approval or endorsement to operate the business or the location of the business. PITTMAN & BROOKS CPA'S PC DARLING DEDUCTIONS 15255 SW 72ND AVE TIGARD, OR 97224 Pittman & Brooks,P.C. Certified Public Accountants Randa K. Brooks,CPA Randall C. Brooks,CPA Elizabeth A.Cornell,CPA Nina J.Martin,CPA Kristine L.Loucks,CPA Cassandra E. Leach,CPA Wm.Lance Siebler,CPA Katherine M.Belden,CPA Amber J.Burket Susan E. Holmes,CPA March 5, 2003 Mr. Sherman Casper- City of Tigard 13125 S.W. Hall Boulevard Tigard, Oregon 97223 Re: Pittman &Brooks,P.C. Dear Sherman: Enclosed please find the following signed original documents necessary to request a temporary occupancy inspection of our new office and lobby addition at 15255 S.W. 72nd Avenue, Portland, Oregon. $-° Check number 4088 payable to the City of Tigard in the amount of$11,550, representing the in lieu of undergrounding fee. • Completed Installment Payment Application and Disclosure Statement related to the traffic impact fee. • Completed Performance Bond and the related Landscaping Compliance Agreement. After you have had a chance to review these documents, please notify me so I can request my final inspection. In the meantime, please call if you have any questions or need additional information. Thanks, Randall C. Brooks it 1,0 'pittman-Li,imss.coin • RCB/jm • Enclosures \NSERVERIK\P-B-DATA\CLrENTS\PANDALL\COT TEMP OCCUPANCY.DOC 15255 S.W.72nd Avenue•Portland,Oregon 97224•503.684.9233•Fax 503.684.6459 4088 PITTMAN & BROOKS, P.C. CENTENNIAL BANK 15255 SW 72ND AVE BEAVERTON.OR Q7cr 6 PORTLAND,OR 97224 PH(503)684-9233 2/7/2003 PAY TO THE ORDER OF CITY OF TIGARD,OR $ "11,550.00 Eleven Thousand Five Hundred Fifty and 00/100**************************************************************************** DOLLARS CITY OF TIGARD,OR MEMO ✓ ~� AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE PITTMAN&BROOKS,P.C. 4088 CITY OF TIGARD,OR 2/7/2003 Date Type Reference Original Amt. Balance Due Discount Payment 02/07/2003 Bill 11,550.00 11,550.00 11,550.00 Check Amount 11,550.00 Cash-Checking Centennia 11,550.00 ILvvipac± +-0,,tE_ VVV\t IMPACT STATEMENT Decision Making Procedures 18.390 — Decision Making Procedures 18.390.040.A.e — Include an Impact Study. ZONING DISTRICTS: 18.390.040 Type 11 Procedures B2.e Include an impact study. 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. In situations where the Community Development Code requires the dedication of real property interests, the applicant shall either specifically concur with the dedication requirements, or provide evidence, which supports the conclusion that the real property dedication requirement is not roughly proportional to the projected impacts of the development. Dedication of Real Property: As noted in the following Impact Statement response below, the proposed development will not have an effect on the current public facilities and services. The Pre-Application Engineering Conference notes are requiring that the existing 30 feet of Right-of-Way (Per ENG 1999-00026) be increased to 52 feet. In addition to the Right-of-Way increase, a half-street improvement is also being required. This improvement consists of 36 feet of new pavement, 6' curb, 5' landscape strip and a 10' sidewalk. These improvements would locate the back of the new 10' sidewalk 6 inches from the new Right-of-Way line and approximately 6'-4" to the face of the existing building. Refer to Exhibit A, Existing Conditions and Exhibit B, showing the proposed 52' Right-of-Way for the projected impacts to the development and site. The applicants do not concur with the required 52' Right-of-Way (22' or 7,637 S.F.) or the Street and Right-of-Way improvements as outlined in the Pre-Application Conference engineering notes. The Transportation Development Tax (TDT) for a 1,209 S.F. office has been calculated at $4,282. Per the A-Boy Expansion / Dolan II / Resolution 95-61, the taxes are expected to capture 32% of the traffic impact of the new development. X120091J-090512 Pittman&Brooks-Addition to Office Building1Appfication for Site Development Review 021110.doc Page 2 of 20 The following Exhibit "A" shows the existing conditions; and Exhibit "B" describes the impact the City-required conditions would place on the project / property. Exhibit "C" is the City's Rate Calculation Worksheet establishing the estimated TDT fee. • 100% of full impact = $13,381 ($4,282 TDT / .32 = $13,381.25) • Unmitigated impact = $9,099 ($13,381 full impact - $4,282 TDT = $9,099) The applicant is being required to provide an additional 22 feet of right-of-way (7,637 S.F. / 31.8% of site). Based solely on the land value, as noted below, the impact of the required right-of-way dedication is not roughly proportional to the unmitigated impact. • Property value = $247,880 (2009 Washington County Property Tax Assessment) • Real property loss due to 22' right-of-way = 7,637 S.F. (31.8%). • Dollar value of 22' right-of-way = $78,825 ($247,880 Property value loss x 31.8% loss of real property = 78,825.84) At a minimum, the owners are being required to dedicate real property at a cost of $78,825 for an unmitigated impact cost of $9,099. The proportionality study above does not include the actual construction cost for the initial construction of previous improvements completed around the year 2000 (as required by the City) or the cost of the new 1/2 street improvement, curb, 5' landscape strip, 10'-0" wide sidewalk, etc. A very conservative cost estimate would put these improvements at a minimum of several hundreds of thousands of dollars. Nor does the study include what the loss of approximately 1/3 of their real property and its impact on the overall devaluation of the remaining site and business, which would occur if the required Right-of-Way and improvements were constructed. The applicants are requesting that the additional 22' Right-of-Way and 'A Street Improvement, together with the associated improvements, i.e. sidewalks, curbs, etc., not be a requirement placed on this application and offer the following suggestion. Applicants are willing to provide a "No Construction Easement" for 22 feet of their property. This easement would insure that no future construction would occur within this area, which would impede any future improvements to 72nd Avenue. X;l200g1.1-090512 Pittman 8 Brooks-Addition to Office BuildinglApplication for Site Development Review 021110 doc Page 3 of 20 / I . ,------ i I ...-------- I EXISTING PARKING ..-------. —. ..... CITY PROPOSED ....-""" EXISTING 2 STORY STRUCTURE I(C4 52'-0" R.O.W. ....-------. EXISTING 1 STORY STRUCTURE I rn ......""°:.‘.. , . ::::.n:i:,::L__ ,.:,- , r . ''''''''''''.:-.''''.{ ■ . ..: 4% a. .r4 OA ." ■Ar V% OA id.. tA grA wii■ .W.1/1Mt.... W..-ri,■.„ Wir vim-. lifig -, — V2iCA■litillitf —-TAN 1, WM' linsi -wzglagisionsoragmenak,.,:.-..;..;..:i.:47;,...:.,.r ....,---20'-0"± OF EXISTING PAVEMENT EXISTING 301-0" CITY ROW. EXISTING STREET TREES (FROM ENG1e90-00026) EXISTING R.O.W. LANDSCAPING. EXISTING 6,' SIDEWALK AND CURB. SITE PLAN EXISTING i" = 40' EXHIBIT A PROJECT DEVELOPMENT DATA- R.O.W. INCREASE TOTAL AREA REMOVED FROM SITE 1,631 S.F. (.115 AC / 31.5% OF SITE) NEW PAVEMENT / (E)LANDSCAPED AREA = 2414 SF. NEW ROW.5 FT. LANDSCAPED STRIP = I,W1 SF. NEW 10 FT. SIDEWALK = 3,2 SS SF. ADDITIONAL 05 FT. R.O.W. • 151 S.F. TOTAL AREA OF IMPROVEMENTS 3,464 SF, / REMOVED FROM EXISTING R.O.W.: ,---------- / (E)SIDEWALK AND CURB = 1,93S SF. / I _1 I q (E) LANDSCAPED AREA = 1,526 SF. / I p ■6'-4"t TO FACE OF / t= u. EXISTING BUILDING 02:1',1 _ 1 m EXISTING PARKING / I t 011 TO BE ABANDONED —- EXIS11NG 2 STORY STRUCTURE EXISTING 1 STORY STRUCTURE i - CITY PROPOSED 1 p 52'-011 RO.W. / 1--- , r �— I N �` -__ _7_. . a .T.s-s---- .-. .\--77- --;w—a-r.. -.77-7 r-7>c>— cr.:- -fir7.-77,t' ?—,•--7,..r r..- a i-�rr�:.� \ I. - :1� r .. - I• I 0- W -' T 6 R.O.W. " OF O.W. FROM BACK >q in .4 SIDEWALK TO R.O.W. LINE 151SF. — — — — — — — — — — — f— / -- 1st S.W. 12nd AVE. -- -- -- -- __ — -- NEW 10' SIDEWALK (3,299 SF) 16'-0"t ADDITIONAL NEW 5' LANDSCAPE STRIP A.G. PAVEMENT AND STREET TREES (1,16-I sF.) • APPROACH TO BE CLOSE NEW CURB CITY PROPOSED 52'-0" R.O.W. NEW PAVEMENT(2,414 SF.) SITEPLAN WITH 52' R.O.W. CURE EXISTING TO BE REMOVED E 1" = 40' EXHIBIT B City of Tigard EXHIBIT C " I"DT—COUNTYWIDE TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT TAX lt t �Q-_ Rate Calculation Worksheet !Sakba"2S"x2:°+:......:L;:'L::+.=i"eC.TdY;_l:isi:lw�:3a:.. ...._fistsit.M.4!111227-;511:ri.:.'Wri.Vi_aill:Lath Si:cal'ai ri:*1.gfik1:.'1Wa-ViC T.i::1u22.L7x: TIZ 1:42:4 APPLICANT #--.1 M DATE Z MAILING ADDRESS rr PREPARED Y jeej-7 CITY/ZIP/PHONE PLANS CHECK# TAX MAP# PROJECT TITLE SITUS#ADDRESS / �2�� ' 'z" 4 v� 'Z>At 7 o zV/4 'I/f G- 7die/1 FORMER USE(S) ' °i o9 - x/30 /c5 7/ /d -G 30/r/ J f U#E CODE UNITS X RATE AMOUNT DESCRIPTION/NOTES • • X A X = X X TOTAL TDT,FORMER USE(S) PROPOSED U,SE(S) USE CODE UNITS X RATE = AMOUNT ESCRIPTION'NOTES 2�q ,,j/ r� «o q �ef��.�r_ "5.2.-4/a X X _ X = L TOTAL TDT,PROPOSED USE(S) --7&,2)5?Z Cpl 3-7 LESS TOTAL TOT,FORMER USE(S) —r TDT INCREASE/(DECREASE) (INCREASE=TDT DUE) X f 3 /1-- PAYMENT METHOD ,4 CASH/CHECK N '�s�2l/s_�' v !!� r 3Void€8- CREDIT 21,9 ':-'__Tf'O = 3• J g'S � �e� BANCROFT AGREEMENT • ,7 '/ (PROMISSORX NOTE) 1N/h&f�M i`� / D — /011V DEFER TO OCCUPANCY V� t/OFS/CD/FORMSITDT Rate Caiculallon Worksheet.indd(Rev.4/22/09) Transportation System Including Bikeways: The site borders on SW 72nd Avenue. There are existing bus stops on SW 72nd Avenue, approximately 400 feet south and approximately 500 feet north of the subject property. The proposed addition is being constructed to provide more floor space for the existing employees. No new employees will be hired with the proposed addition. No additional impacts to the existing transportation system will be developed by this application. The Drainage System: The current drainage system will be utilized with the proposed addition. The second floor addition will be constructed within the footprint of the existing commercial daycare facility. Therefore no new impervious surfaces will be created with the second floor addition. The elevation penthouse (70 S.F.) will drain onto the existing roof and the elevator mechanical room roof (50 S.F.) will connect to the existing storm drain line. Refer to Site Plan. The Parks System: The existing and proposed uses are commercial office in nature and their impact on parks will be minimal to non-existent. Employees and clients are more likely to use /frequent parks near their own residences than their office. Further, no new employees are being hired. The Water System: The site is currently served by Tigard Water Service. The proposed addition does not provide any additional uses or facilities, which will produce additional water needs. Therefore, the project will not impact the current water supply system. The Sewer System: No additional uses are being proposed which would impact the existing sewer system. The Noise Impacts of the Development: All activities from the proposed project will occur inside the addition. There will be no additional noise impact. Dedication of Property: Per the Pre-Application Conference notes, additional Right-of- Way will be required along 72nd Avenue. The existing Right-of-Way is 30' and a 54' - 0" Right-of-Way from the centerline of 72nd Avenue is required. Refer to comments at beginning of this section. Public Utilities: The owners under-grounded the utilities when the previous 1/2 street improvements were performed (ENG 1990-00026). At that time the owners also paid an Underground Fee of $11,500 in lieu of under-grounding. See attached letter together with copy of check. Clean Water Services: Application was made to Clean Water Services for a "Sensitive Area Pre-Screening Site Assessment." Pre-Screening Assessments determine that the project will not significantly impact the existing or potentially sensitive areas near the site. Refer to Service Provider Letter enclosed with submittal documents. X:N200941-090512 Pittman 8 Brooks-Addition to Office Building\Application for Site Development Review 021110 doc Page 4 of 20 ,'V€ hborhood /'fie ef 1 � /Voice AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING/POSTING NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING NOTICE IMPORTANT NOTICE: THE APPLICANT IS REQUIRED TO MAIL THE CITY OF TIGARD A COPY OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING NOTICE THAT PERTAINS TO THIS AFFIDAVIT AT THE SAME TIME PROPERTY OWNERS ARE MAILED NOTICE,TO THE ADDRESS BELOW: City of Tigard Planning Division 13125 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard, OR 97223-8189 IN ADDITION,THE APPLICANT SHALL SUBMIT THIS AFFIDAVIT &COPIES OF ALL NOTICES AT THE TIME OF APPLICATION. MAILING: I, t 1 t-% , .4O - -t4', ,being duly sworn,depose and say that on the (I day of 20 O ,I caused to have mailed to each of the persons on the attached list,a notice of a meeting to discuss a proposed development at (or near) 15 255 5.1.a, 12'111' s ,a copy of which notice so mailed is attached hereto and made a part of hereof. I further state that said notices were enclosed in envelopes plainly addressed to said persons and were deposited on the date indicated above in the United States Post Office located at 'T16%.4,11.0 btiz, with postage prepaid thereon. Signature (In the presence of a Notary Public) POSTING: I, 3 1 M A4 1,2-*-l4 S ,do affirm that I am(represent) the party initiating interest in a proposed land use application for P1 Tr 1 . /31zebk affecting the land located at(state the approximate location(s) IF no address(s) and all tax lot(s) currently registered) 15 2 5 ', 5 W, 72"42. A V E ,and did on the 12 day of Dez.e}-0$E ,2061_ personally post notice indicating that the site maybe proposed for a land use application,and the time, date and place of a neighborhood meeting to discuss the proposal. The sign was posted at P124,4)T OF P✓l1.1,L I N -t 61 1222. (state location you posted notice on property) mature (In the presence of a Notary Public) (THIS SECTION FOR A STATE OF OREGON,NOTARY PUBLIC TO COMPLETE/NOTARIZE) STATE OF OKEc ' 43 ) County of U),Kliti vbTO,u ) ss. Subscribed and sworn/affirmed before me on the //a day of. i , 20/0 t= DOROTHY FFENE HEJON LEWI$ +1 �t N OTARY PUBLIC-OREGON !) ∎'�. COMMISSION N0.437221 �� G MY COMPASSION DOMES MARCH 6,2013 O •TARY P . :LIC 0' 0'. GON y Commission Expires: 3. 6, 0201..3 is\eurpin\masters\neighborhood meetings\affidavit of mailing-posting neighborhood meecing.doc Page 5 Nicoli Engineering , Inc. ■ PO Box 23784 Tigard, Oregon 97281 • Phone: (503) 620-2086 • Fax: (503) 684-3636 December 11, 2009 Re: Pittman & Brooks, Certified Public Accountants Building Addition and New Elevator 15255 S.W. 72nd Avenue Portland, OR 97224 Dear Property Owner: This office is representing the property owners above. You are cordially invited to attend a meeting on Monday, January 4, 2010 at 5:30 PM at the office of Nicoli Engineering, Inc., 9025 SW Center Street Tigard, Oregon 97223. The meeting will be held to discuss a proposed building addition located at 15525 SW 72nd Ave. Tigard, Oregon. The proposed project consists of a Second Story Office Addition located above an existing one-story daycare facility and a new elevator adjacent to the main entrance. The purpose of this informational meeting is to provide a means for the applicant and surrounding property owners to meet and discuss and identify any issues regarding this proposal. Please note that these are preliminary plans, which may be altered prior to the submittal to the City of Tigard. You will find enclosed photocopies of information from the City of Tigard. If you have any questions, please feel free to call me at 503.620.2086. Sincerely, �- eww.r-a1yJ ,44v, Jim Andrews, President JDA:dhI enc X.1200941-090512 Pittman 8 Brooks-Addition to Office BuildinglLetterslNeighborhood Meeting Notification 121109.doc Page 1 of 1 9025 SW Center Street Tigard, OR 97223 — www.nicoliengineering.com m ' I �� \ ( . 0 08 Area Notified (500 Ft) co Do 0 - Lake Oswego I l'. I t . a 1 rer, _ 1 < , , MIN� Nicoli Engineering, Inc. a 1 1 2S112DB,200 IMO VI •lI1Ii (15255 SW 72nd Avenue) .: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::\ r.- '''.'.'.:.::::::::::::::::::::::::::iii::.. • Ilia MIMI It: �"Oe! 1 Prir4 +41**.■ :::• .:•:•:•:•:•:•:•::::::.:.:.:.:.:.:.::, el 1 ••• •......... ....... ... ••••••• ........ ••.• ..................... .:.::::. .......:::::::.:.:.:.:.:::::::\ , . 1‘4‘ :::..::::::::::„.•` 1 • Subject Site • , • :::; 1 Property owner information is valid Ill man ;.; ■ / for 3 months from the date printed on 1 , this map. timer, t i Kid'r wv11 EN IN �` 1111 1 MINIM ±i�ji_ `T�:}:: • , -.� Map Printed 11/20/2009 ``1 VII S III "III Information on this map is for general iocatr n only and should be verged with the Development 1 II •. II Services Division.L I DATA IS DERIVED FROM AilliTPLESOURCES THE UTYOFTeARO • :' 1 .., ■. LBABNFOR IDN PROVIDE pISSONS OR INACCUG Lii ! T r reD s o i/ A 1,0 Feet / —� ��\ N I X507 paid-1710, a "!�- / I .■ .Y.w.Rpare«.qoY TIUARD NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING SIGN-IN SHEET PITTMAN AND BROOKS, P.C. CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS 15255 SW 72ND AVENUE TIGARD, OR 97224 NAME / COMPANY ADDRESS PHONE / E-MAIL J 1t-1 s1..uc,12-eki . 962.9 3.w, cF tern V. ST. col), 4.2.a. 2664,, T-16/A-12-c. CP- 972-1... J.t'•Mp1Z4.13 e /llcou N41KE )?-1N61 . fib, Box 23181 TIciAtzb /7281, t4, e_4:41.'44114a " NicoIi ENGINEERING, INC. 9025 SW Center Street - PO Box 23784 Tigard, Oregon 97281 Phone: (503) 620-2088 • Fax: (503) 684-3636 • Nathan and Ann Murdock Mildren Design Group PO Box 231265 Attn: Gene Mildren. Tigard, OR 97281 7650 SW Beveland Street, Suite 120 Tigard, OR 97223 Sue Rorman Susan Beilke 11250 SW 82nd Avenue 11755 SW 114th Place Tigard, OR 97223 Tigard, OR 97223 Naomi Gallucci Dayle D. & Evelyn 0. Beach 11285 SW 78th Avenue 11530 SW 72nd Avenue Tigard, OR 97223 Tigard, OR 97223 Todd Harding and Blake Hering Jr. Norris Beggs & Simpson 121 SW Morrison, Suite 200 Portland, OR 97204 Brad Spring 7555 SW Spruce Street Tigard, OR 97223 Alexander Craghead 12205 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard, OR 97223-6210 Gretchen Buehner 13249 SW 136th Place Tigard, OR 97224 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:\curoln\setuo\labels\CIT Fast.docl 11PDATFDT 2R-Sen-09 c1Ieavi Woter er v ■ ces .....______ .,,,,.,.(.;lciar)\\-a�1-cr Service~ DEC 0 8 2009 •li.r. .1:,i, r111.i,1 n :-I.. I CWS Flle Number Sensitive Area Pre-Screening !,Gi -00 Z3 2.g.g'-----SitR es r!lent f� Jurisdiction: C,tTY e, f "T"c/.mAitb Property Information: (example 1S234A801400) Owner Information:TaxlotID(s): '.Si12b2, 00'260 Name: r.AN Y g.S Company: 'PtT1'MAt44 � kS G. p, A..,., Address: 15 2'55 S. . "'I V° rAvM • Site Address: 15265 5. w. 72 ANS. T(I'a1k - 1 Dt2 12.24 T160.1E.b ©Z. 9121. 4 Phone/Fax: D3.(ea ► X223' Nearest Cross Street: C,Avtat"'(A l� L.rJW ae• E-mail: W 4O'�'S P ITTMA Z O * r C' 1 I� 7.`f 124". Development Activity: C eck all that apply Applicant Information: Addition to Single Family Residence (rooms, deck, garage) ❑ Name: j11.4 ANDti: 146 Lct Line Adjustment ❑ Minor Land Partition ❑ Company: tA1G V.1.1G1t►lt~s?...tc4.61 r tIt•�G. Residential Condominium ❑ Commercial Condominium ❑ Address: ?of?. $OX 237 e4 Residential Subdivision ❑ Commercial Subdivision ❑ TlGAlZDI-61' 9'72-9 1 Single Lot Commercial ❑ Multi Lot Commercial ❑ Phone/Fax: 514,62A Zi)1:4 / 50�.t'0214.3G se. Other E-mail:112Db 8.r. SubND 1"rWDl2. dt=plLE JA+NPSLIZ4t�s ed Rieztd �6.11.4EEQl1.1.Of DITiO4#.M-eV...TOR , GOM Will the project involve any off-site work: YES❑ NO Unknown ❑ Location and description of off-site work: Additional comments or information that may be needed to understand your project: NU.-e D'QL44, This application does NOT replace the need for Grading and Erosion Control Permits,Connection Permits,Building Permits,Site Development Permits,DEQ 1200-C Permit or other permits as issued by the Department of Environmental Quality,Department of State Lands and/or Department of the Army COE. All required permits and approvals must be obtained and completed under applicable local,state,and federal law. By signing this form,the Owner or Owner's authorized agent or representative,acknowledges and agrees that employees of Clean Water Services have authority to enter the project site at all reasonable times for the purpose of inspecting project site conditions and gathering information related to the project site. I certify that I am familiar with the information contained in this document,and to the best of my knowledge and belief,this information is true,complete,and accurate. Print/Type Name: J 1M A t 2-� -W GJ Print/Type Title: • Signature,, �VY1�d� • r Date: 12.. 7.Dl 'N1 FOR DISTRICT USE ONLY i ❑ Sensitive areas potentially exist on site or within 200'of the site. THE APPLICANT MUST PERFORM A SITE ASSESSMENT PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A SERVICE PROVIDER LETTER. If Sensitive Areas exist on the site or within 200 feet on adjacent properties, a Natural Resources Assessment Report may also be required. 'Based on review of the submitted materials and best available information Sensitive areas do not appear to exist on site or within 200'of the site This Sensitive Area Pre-Screening Site Assessment does NOT eliminate the need to evaluate and protect water quality sensitive areas if they are subsequently discovered. This document will serve as your Service Provider letter as required by Resolution and Order 07-20,Section 3.02.1. All required permits and approvals must be obtained and completed under applicable local,State, and federal law. ° impact on review of the submitted materials and best available informetior�'-?ne above referenced—project will not significantly i pact the existing or potentially sensitive area(s)found near the site.This Sensitive Area Pre-Screening Site Assessment does NOT eliminate the need to evaluate and protect additional water quality sensitive areas if they are subsequently discovered. This document will serve as your Service Provider letter as required by Resolution and Order 07-20, Section 3.02.1. All required permits and approvals must be obtained and completed under applicable local,state, and federal law. ❑ This Service Pro ider Letter is not va 'd unles CWS approved site plan(s)are attached. ❑ The propose,, ity does not --t th- de in'Ion of de -lopment or the lot was platted after 9/9/95 ORS 92.040( ). NO SITE ASSESSME' 1 •R SERVICE °•SVISER L TTE- IS; CURED. 1 ) dl i Reviews. B A I P , • Date: (Lf° D / 2550 SW Hillsboro Highway•Hitlsf r•,Oregon 97123 Phone: (503)681-5100.Fax: (5.3) .61-4439•www.cleanwarorservises.org R.h..d M.y C.2001 . 1 .::fib# 0:4 fag T ;1,:, (01 i'd 41 I gu i X Y j , li 1 11 11 Mi 1 III li Iiii 11 ": ii ii 1 flit • . . . il i is 1 li 41 1 ill Il 1 ! !i! !1 ii!1, 1 t " . tit ttt ! b`�Ij IR Iii t !Iiii ;JI1 I I {i E I1 . 8i ! r„ ,,,rte'”' ... i 5 1 1 1 011 g AIIk . tl' 1 , 1 ............:....%•,..::::.....,:t.:J". i iii i I i MV " ' ■ S ..1.'.'.•.'...','... .•i'; li I I! 6. =`: if• . ii .•.• I. . <. . " : . :Y. 1 s1 al- '.. . ((,) ^ J '\I-' y 'i'i ] .rte 2511'DEJ:01 •0 \l. a "e. 319 165 2511 0G00401 .3. a` ,,e :1" is • r,12S1120500100 2S112DB00100\l''7'' a }- .�4-).) .;; .1\ M'PJ '15175 0 . _ .,∎w ' L R<iy L `J• t I. 2S112DA00800- 'i 104,T c 15055 c f 1 I ` 77334 i I t - f I 111 . !� - t-< 1 'i, A 1 I ■ 254120130'i,'1 _ � 1 •,~ 251 08'3000 15255 7-------", 0 co 1-° I N • ' ' `' .\\. 251120 5110140 1 73`, . t 2;:.5:t � 1 2S112DB00300 1' . t 7257 • .1 T v 'r ..4-,----co. j I • r % 'r.r .i 120A007�' -x .- .� 1 \_ 1s 1 N 15115 i °a.. , >a Lei V,f 1 tr3 1' I S * r r c) •' II`",;^:11 111§/,'I M .14 ,. - „ iii , } - ., 4421 {"'i, + �.: •' O ' -r-i � .:. [' ■ Nw : ; [.,"-- i 1.\\ - _ ulk . 1.‘ , ,....1 z Irtir, et ,,, ,,-- 1_:.• 1,611, , _ ., ,..; , . ti 1.1-' -1.i. ., , ,... , „7.1...r1 T-r-zee_. aSSSS PM e_ V1+ HALSTEAD'S ai ARBORICULTURE CONSULTA TITS www.haisteadsar' .r.cQm January 27. 2010 fiok z? 4 Nicoli Engineering, Inc. Attn: Jim Andrews • y. 9025 SE Center Street Tigard, OR 97223 ,+► Reference: Tree Assessment/Tree Protection Plan for Development Project Location: Pittman and Brooks, PC — 15255 SW 72'd Avenue, Tigard Subject: Tree Assessment Report With your approval, I have inspected the trees and proposed site plan for the Pittman 11 and Brooks Second Floor Office Addition project located at 15255 SW 72nd Avenue, Tigard, Oregon. The purpose of this inspection was to perform an inventory of all trees on site, complete •101/4.••, a Visual Tree Assessment of the trees for their health and structural conditions, asiL - evaluate the preservation potential of the trees with regard to construction activities, and V `• provide tree protection guidelines for trees that are recommended for preservation. This study was completed in accordance with the City of Tigard's Development Code — Chapter 18.790, which describes tree plan requirements, incentives for tree retention It, and mitigation procedures, tree preservation and removal regulations, and tree replacement as a requirement for land development construction. TREE ASSESSMENT I have individually inspected, tagged, and numbered all trees on-site using R47301 through R47321 series tree tags and have identified the location of these trees on the included Tree Location Map found at the end of this document. For the purposes of this report, only the last two digits of the tags will be used to reference and identify the inspected trees. i 3f The first numbered tree is located in the northeast corner of the project and tree numbering continues in sequential order toward the south ending with the last tree located near the southeast corner of the project site. For each tree inspected, I have included detailed information regarding individual species identification, tree measurements, and health and structural conditions as listed within the "Individual Tree Information Sheets" also found at the end of this document. • Page 2 January 27, 2010 Reference: Tree Assessment/Tree Protection Plan for Development Project Location: Pittman and Brooks, PC — 15255 SW 72`"'Avenue, Tigard Subject: Tree Assessment Report Visual Tree Assessment tree inspection criteria included: tree species identification and tree measurements, canopy structure and development, storm damage impacts, insect and disease problems, root crown and root system development, and overall structural integrity and tree health. In addition, the tree trunk diameters were also measured at ground level (DGL) in order to provide a more accurate reflection of tree trunk sizes where construction excavation occurs. Inspection Results: There are a total of twenty-one (21)trees that have been identified and inventoried in accordance\kith the City of Tigard's Development Code. -Sixteen (16) of the total trees on-site are located within project boundaries and have trunk diameters of six inches and larger, but less than twelve inches in diameter measured at 4.5 feet above ground level (DBH). These trees are identified as Existing Trees— Smaller than 12"Trunk Diameter and can be exempt from mitigation calculations (if desired) within the Tree Plan Requirement, Chapter 18, Section 790.030. All sixteen (16) trees in this category are in average health, structurally stable, and recommended for preservation. -Five (5) of the total trees on-site are located within project boundaries and have trunk diameters of twelve inches and larger. These trees are identified as Existing Trees— 12" Trunk Diameter and Larger. All five (5) trees in this category are also in average health, structurally stable, and recommended for preservation. -It should be noted that I did not observe any trees on adjacent neighboring properties that will be significantly impacted by construction activities. Existing Trees — Smaller Than 12" Trunk Diameter: All of the following trees have trunk diameters of six inches and larger, but less than twelve inches in diameter measured at 4.5 feet above ground level. These trees are required to be identified within the Tree Plan Requirement, but are not required to be part of the mitigation per city ordinance. Existing trees < 12" trunk diameter are listed as follows: Tree Numbers: 01, 02, 03, 04, 05, 07, 09, 10, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18, 19, 20, and 21. All sixteen of these trees are in average health and structure, and recommended for preservation. Page 3 January 27, 2010 Reference: Tree Assessment/Tree Protection Plan for Development Project Location: Pittman and Brooks, PC — 15255 SW 72nd Avenue, Tigard Subject: Tree Assessment Report Existing Trees—12" Trunk Diameter and Larger: All of the following trees have trunk diameters of twelve inches and larger and are recommended for preservation. These trees are in average health and are structurally stable. All of these trees have the ability to survive construction trauma provided their root zones are protected and they receive professional pruning and therapeutic care before, during, and after all construction project activities have been completed. Trees>_ 12"trunk diameter are listed as follows: • Tree Number: 06, 08, 11, 12, and 17. If any trees identified within this report are selected for preservation, they will need to be protected from construction damage as outlined in the attached Tree Protection Guidelines found at the end of this report. The remainder of this page intentionally left blank Page 4 January 27, 2010 Reference: Tree Assessment /Tree Protection Plan for Development Project Location: Pittman and Brooks, PC — 15255 SW 72nd Avenue, Tigard Subject: Tree Assessment Report Tree Inventory: The table below summarizes my finding and recommendations. Tree Common DBH DBH 1: Preservation Tree # Name Species (in) 12 Value Recommend Protection inches Zone' 01 red maple Acer rubrum 7 No Medium Preserve 10 02 red maple Acer rubrum 8 No Medium Preserve 10 03 red maple Acer rubrum 7 No Medium Preserve 10 04 red maple Acer rubrum 7 No Medium Preserve 10 05 red maple Acer rubrum 8 No Medium Preserve 10 06 red maple Acer rubrum 12 Yes Medium Preserve 12 07 red maple Acer rubrum 8 No Medium Preserve 10 08 red maple Acer rubrum 14 Yes Medium Preserve 12 09 columnar red Acer rubrum'Columnare' 6 No Medium Preserve 10 maple 10 columnar red Acer rubrum'Columnare' 6 No Medium Preserve 10 • maple 11 ash Fraxinus spp. 13 Yes High Preserve 12 12 ash Fraxinus spp. 13 Yes High Preserve 12 13 columnar red Acer rubrum'Columnare' 7 No Medium Preserve 10 maple 14 columnar red Acer rubrum'Columnare' 7 No Medium Preserve 10 maple 15 red maple Acer rubrum 10 No Medium Preserve 10 16 red maple Acer rubrum 8 No Medium Preserve 10 17 red maple Acer rubrum 12 Yes Medium Preserve 10 18 red maple Acer rubrum 8 No Medium Preserve 10 19 red maple Acer rubrum 11 No Medium Preserve 10 20 red maple Acer rubrum 10 No Medium Preserve 10 21 red maple Acer rubrum 10 No Medium Preserve 10 Total DBH?12 inches 64 Preservation Value Key: Recommended DBH(in) Low-Poor specimen,caution if retained. for Preservation 64 Medium-Common species,minimal character, Recommended% 100% can be retained. DBH-Diameter at breast height(4.5ft above ground level) High-Good character tree,preserve if possible. 'Tree Protection Zone(TPZ)is measured in feet of radius Special-Unique species,specimen tree. Preservation from the trunk of the tree. strongly recommended. Page 5 January 27, 2010 Reference: Tree Assessment/Tree Protection Plan for Development Project Location: Pittman and Brooks, PC — 15255 SW 72nd Avenue, Tigard Subject: Tree Assessment Report TREE PROTECTION GUIDELINES Pre-Construction Tree Preservation Meeting: Before any construction activities begin, a pre-construction tree preservation conference will be held on site with the general contractor in charge of project, the Project Consulting Arborist and those official representatives who have interest in the trees. The purpose of the on site meeting will be to introduce all parties involved to the specifications and sensitivity needed in the protection of the preserved trees, their environment, and their root zone areas. Preparation/Tree Protection Fencing: Before any construction or excavation work begins on-site, it is vital that a "Tree Protection Zone" be created to protect and safeguard the root systems of all preserved trees within fifty feet of any construction/work area. The Tree Protection Zone (TPZ) is established by having the Project Consulting Arborist install tree protection fencing around the perimeter of the preserved tree's critical root zone, which is identified within the above Tree Inventory Table as a distance in feet of radius from the tree trunk. If the tree's critical root zone already encompasses an existing building or hardscape feature, the tree protection fencing will then be installed along the hardscape edge to protect the preserved trees. The tree protection fencing will help to ensure that the tree root systems are not accidentally compacted or damaged from construction personnel, equipment, and machinery. The type of fencing required must be five (5) foot tall, galvanized steel chain-link fencing securely anchored to the ground using two (2) inch diameter galvanized steel posts, driven into the ground to a depth of at least two (2) feet, and spaced every six (6) to eight (8)feet on center forming a protective line around the preserved trees. Once the approved location of the fence has been established, it cannot be adjusted, moved, or removed without the consent and supervision of the Project Consulting Arborist. Tree Protection Zone Reporting: Once the Tree Protection Zone has been created and construction permits have been issued, the City of Tigard requires that bi-monthly reports be submitted to the City Forester regarding construction activities near the TPZ. The reporting process is initiated by having the Project Consulting Arborist perform twice per month inspections on-site to ensure the tree protection fencing has not be damaged, adjusted, or removed without permission and the preserved trees have not been adversely impacted by construction activities. The Project Consulting Arborist will then prepare a written report of the findings and will deliver the report to the City as required. Twice per month reporting will need to continue throughout the entirety of the project until the City issues Page 6 January 27, 2010 Reference: Tree Assessment/Tree Protection Plan for Development Project Location: Pittman and Brooks, PC— 15255 SW 72nd Avenue, Tigard Subject: Tree Assessment Report occupancy permits in the final phases of construction and the preserved trees are no longer at risk from construction damage. Construction Activities Within Tree Protection Zones: Before any construction work is completed within an established Tree Protection Zone, the Project Consulting Arborist is required to submit to the City Forester, a proposal detailing the needed construction activities and likely impacts to the preserved trees. The City Forester shall then review the proposal and if approved, the work can proceed as planned. The City Forester may also require changes to described work prior•to the approval of the submitted proposal-. Once the work is approved,the Project Consulting Arborist is required to be present on- site while the work is occurring within the Tree Protection Zone. Once the construction activities have been completed,the Project Consulting Arborist is required to submit a • summary report certifying that the work occurred per the proposal and the work did not significantly impact the health or structural stability of the preserved trees. Tree Removals: Trees that are structurally unsound, unhealthy, and removed within the preservation areas will need to be removed under the direct supervision of the Project Consulting Arborist. Tree removal will be done in such a way so as not to damage the preserved trees and their root zones. Removal of these trees may require climbing the trees and taking them down in small pieces. Stumps from removed trees,which are less than fifteen (15)feet from a preserved tree,will need to be ground-out using a stump grinder. Therapeutic Care: Therapeutic care is described as those treatments that are needed to increase the preserved trees chances for survival. Treatments can include watering, therapeutic fertilization, soil aeration, mulching, and soil pH adjustments in order to provide the highest level of care from construction trauma. Treatments are based on individual tree needs, their root zones, and structural conditions and health. Factors will be taken into consideration, such as the tree species, soil composition and compaction, season in which construction is done, percentage of root zone affected by construction, losses of surrounding native plantings and changes in surface and sub-surface water. Page 7 January 27, 2010 Reference: Tree Assessment/Tree Protection Plan for Development Project Location: Pittman and Brooks, PC— 15255 SW 72nd Avenue, Tigard Subject: Tree Assessment Report ASSUMPTIONS & LIMITING CONDITIONS 1. Any legal description provided to the consultant is assumed to be correct. Any titles and'ownerships to any property are assumed to be good and marketable. No responsibility is assumed for matters legal in character. Any and all property is evaluated as though free and clear, under responsible ownership and competent management. 2. Care has been taken to obtain all information from reliable sources. All data has been verified insofar as possible; however, the consultant can neither guarantee nor be responsible for the accuracy of information provided by others, especially regarding property line determinations and project boundaries. 3. The consultant shall not be required to give testimony or attend court by reason of this report unless subsequent contractual arrangements are made, including payment of an additional fee for such services. 4. Loss or alteration of any part of this report invalidates the entire report. 5. 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 the prior expressed written or verbal consent of the consultant. 6. Neither all nor any 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 value conclusions, identity of the consultant,or any reference to any professional society or institute or to any initialed designation conferred upon the consultant as stated in his qualifications. 7. This report and values expressed herein represent the opinion of the consultant, and the consultant's fee is in no way contingent upon the reporting of a specified value, a stipulated results, the occurrence of a subsequent event, nor upon any finding to be reported. 8. Sketches, diagrams, graphs, and photographs in this report, being intended as visual aids, are not necessarily to scale and should not be construed as engineering or architectural reports or surveys. 9. Unless expressed otherwise: (1) information contained in this report covers only those items that were examined and reflects the condition of those items at the time of inspection; and (2) the inspection is limited to visual examination of accessible items without dissection, excavation, probing, or coring. There is no warranty or guarantee, expressed or implied, that problems or deficiencies of the plants or property in question may not arise in the future. Page 8 January 27, 2010 Reference: Tree Assessment/Tree Protection Plan for Development Project Location: Pittman and Brooks, PC- 15255 SW 72'd Avenue, Tigard Subject: Tree Assessment Report CERTIFICATION OF PERFORMANCE I, Philp C. Hickey, certify: • I have personally inspected the trees and property referred to in this report and have stated my findings accurately. The extent of the evaluation is stated in the attached report. • I have no current or prospective interest in the vegetation or the property that is the subject of this report and have no personal interest or bias with respect to the parties involved. • The analysis, opinions, and conclusions were developed and this report has been prepared according to commonly accepted arboricultural practices. • No one provided significant professional assistance to me, except as indicated within the report. • My compensation is not contingent upon the reporting of a predetermined conclusion that favors the cause of the client or any other party nor upon the results of the assessment, the attainment of stipulated results, or the occurrence of any subsequent events. I further certify that I am a member in good standing of the International Society of Arboriculture and the American Society of Consulting Arborists. I have been involved in the field of Arboriculture and the care and study of trees for a period of more than 15 years. Signed. I _) C- � • Date: l Z 7 if I .Clare*, Philip C. Hickey l aN;. , Project Consulting Arborist '' r` ISA Board Certified Master Arborist PN-16048 ISA Member/ ISA-PNW Member/ASCA Member --. . Individual Tree Information Sheet Project Pittman and Brooks — 15255 SW 72nd Avenue, Tigard Inspection Date 1/25/10 Tree Number 01 Common Name red maple Preservation Value Medium DBH 7 IN DGL 1.5 FT Height 30 FT Canopy Spread 25 FT RATING: Health 70 % Structure 60 % (0-40% Poor/ 50-70% Average ! 80%+ Good) Comments: Tree canopy has moderate deadwood and storm damage. Sun scald visible on various locations along SW side of trunk - bark exfoliating in areas. Bark inclusion defects found between codominant stems - moderate. Minor surface and girdling roots. Annual shoot growth 4 inches. Tree needs structural pruning, deadwood removed, and therapeutically fertilized if preserved. Tree Number 02 Common Name red maple Preservation Value Medium DBH 8 IN DGL 1.5 FT Height 35 FT Canopy Spread 25 FT RATING: Health 70 % Structure 60 % (0-40% Poor/ 50-70% Average/ 80%+ Good) Comments: Same as Tree#01 Tree Number 03 Common Name red maple Preservation Value Medium DBH 7 IN DGL 1.5 FT Height 30 FT Canopy Spread 25 FT RATING: Health 70 % Structure 60 % (0-40% Poor/ 50-70% Average / 80%+ Good) Comments: Same as Tree #01 Tree Number 04 Common Name red maple Preservation Value Medium DBH 7 IN DGL 1.5 FT Height 30 FT Canopy Spread 25 FT RATING: Health 70 % Structure 60 % (0-40% Poor/ 50-70% Average / 80%+ Good) Comments: Same as Tree #01 Individual Tree Information Sheet Project Pittman and Brooks - 15255 SW 72nd Avenue, Tigard Inspection Date 1/25/10 Tree Number 05 Common Name red maple Preservation Value Medium DBH 8 IN DGL 1.5 FT Height 35 FT Canopy Spread 25 FT RATING: Health 70 % Structure 60 % (0-40% Poor/ 50-70% Average / 80%+ Good) Comments: Same as Tree #01 Tree Number 06 Common Name red maple Preservation Value Medium DBH 12 IN DGL 2.5 FT Height 35 FT Canopy Spread 30 FT RATING: Health 70 % Structure 50 % (0-40% Poor/ 50-70%Average / 80%+ Good) Comments: Same as Tree#01. Severe bark inclusion defect needs cabled if preserved. Tree Number 07 Common Name red maple Preservation Value Medium DBH 8 IN DGL 1.5 FT Height 30 FT Canopy Spread 25 FT RATING: Health 70 % Structure 60 % (0-40% Poor/ 50-70% Average / 80%+ Good) Comments: Same as Tree#01 Tree Number 08 Common Name red maple Preservation Value Medium DBH 14 IN DGL 3 FT Height 35 FT Canopy Spread 30 FT RATING: Health 70 % Structure 50 % (0-40% Poor/ 50-70% Average / 80%+ Good) Comments: Same as Tree#01. Severe bark inclusion defect needs cabled if preserved. Individual Tree Information Sheet Project Pittman and Brooks — 15255 SW 72nd Avenue, Tigard Inspection Date 1/25/10 Tree Number 09 Common Name columnar red maple Preservation Value Medium DBH 6 IN DGL 1.5 FT Height 40 FT Canopy Spread 20 FT RATING: Health 70 % Structure 50 % (0-40% Poor/ 50-70% Average / 80%+ Good) Comments: Same as Tree #01. Severe bark inclusion defect needs cabled if preserved. Tree Number 10 Common Name columnar red maple Preservation Value Medium DBH 6 IN DGL 1.5 FT Height 40 FT Canopy Spread 20 FT • -• RATING: Health 70 % Structure 50 % (0-40% Poor/ 50-70%Average / 80%+ Good) Comments: Same as Tree#01. Severe bark inclusion defect needs cabled if preserved. Tree Number 11 Common Name ash Preservation Value High DBH 13 IN DGL 2 FT Height 40 FT Canopy Spread 30 FT RATING: Health 70 % Structure 60 % (0-40% Poor/ 50-70% Average / 80%+ Good) Comments: Same as Tree #01. Tree limbs growing towards building that need pruned back for building clearance. Tree Number 12 Common Name ash Preservation Value High DBH 13 IN DGL 2 FT Height 40 FT Canopy Spread 30 FT RATING: Health 70 % Structure 60 % (0-40% Poor/ 50-70%Average / 80%+ Good) • Comments: Same as Tree #11. Individual Tree Information Sheet Project Pittman and Brooks — 15255 SW 72nd Avenue, Tigard Inspection Date 1/25/10 Tree Number 13 Common Name columnar red maple Preservation Value Medium DBH 7 IN DGL 1.5 FT Height 40 FT Canopy Spread 20 FT RATING: Health 70 % Structure 50 % (0-40% Poor 150-70% Average / 80%+ Good) Comments: Same as Tree #01. Severe bark inclusion defect needs cabled if preserved. Tree Number 14 Common Name columnar red maple Preservation Value Medium DBH 7 IN DGL 1.5 FT Height 40 FT Canopy Spread 20 FT • RATING: Health 70 % Structure 50 % (0-40% Poor/ 50-70%Average/ 80%+ Good) Comments: Same as Tree #01. Severe bark inclusion defect needs cabled if preserved. Tree Number 15 Common Name red maple Preservation Value Medium DBH 10 IN DGL 3 FT Height 35 FT Canopy Spread 25 FT RATING: Health 70 % Structure 60 % (0-40% Poor/ 50-70% Average / 80%+ Good) Comments: Same as Tree #01 Tree Number 16 Common Name red maple Preservation Value Medium DBH 8 IN DGL 2 FT Height 30 FT Canopy Spread 25 FT RATING: Health 70 % Structure 60 % (0-40% Poor/ 50-70% Average / 80%+ Good) Comments: Same as Tree #01 Individual Tree Information Sheet Project Pittman and Brooks — 15255 SW 72nd Avenue, Tigard Inspection Date 1/25/10 Tree Number 17 Common Name red maple Preservation Value Medium DBH 12 IN DGL 3 FT Height 35 FT Canopy Spread 25 FT RATING: Health 70 % Structure 60 % (0-40% Poor/ 50-70% Average / 80%+ Good) Comments: Same as Tree #01 Tree Number 18 Common Name red maple Preservation Value Medium DBH 8 IN DGL 2.5 FT Height 30 FT Canopy Spread 25 FT • RATING: Health 70 % Structure 60 % (0-40% Poor! 50-70% Average / 80%+ Good) Comments: Same as Tree#01 Tree Number 19 Common Name red maple Preservation Value Medium DBH 11 IN DGL 2.5 FT Height 30 FT Canopy Spread 25 FT RATING: Health 70 % Structure 60 % (0-40% Poor/ 50-70% Average / 80%+ Good) Comments: Same as Tree #01 Tree Number 20 Common Name red maple Preservation Value Medium DBH 10 IN DGL 2.5 FT Height 30 FT Canopy Spread 25 FT RATING: Health 70 % Structure 60 % (0-40% Poor/ 50-70% Average / 80%+ Good) Comments: Same as Tree#01 Individual Tree Information Sheet Project Pittman and Brooks — 15255 SW 72nd Avenue, Tigard Inspection Date 1/25/10 Tree Number 21 Common Name red maple Preservation Value Medium DBH, 10 IN DGL 2.5 FT Height 30 FT Canopy Spread 25 FT RATING: Health 70 % Structure 60 % (0-40% Poor/ 50-70% Average / 80%+ Good) Comments: Same as Tree #01 Tree Number Common Name Value DBH IN DGL FT Height FT Canopy Spread FT RATING: Health_% Structure_% (0-40% Poor/ 50-70% Average / 80%+ Good) Comments: Tree Number Common Name Value DBH IN DGL FT Height FT Canopy Spread FT RATING: Health _% Structure_% (0-40% Poor/ 50-70% Average / 80%+ Good) Comments: Tree Number_ Common Name Value DBH IN DGL FT Height FT Canopy Spread FT RATING: Health_% Structure_% (0-40% Poor/ 50-70% Average / 80%+ Good) Comments: . .. ' 1 litr.L.-Tf,I rem* /00-ur q...:crave et&e•ed■moie 1 KZ,I:-N...!r. .'.. .ed 11...4..e.. r i A 1 1'Rea.4,4,.. \ ill,e red quoit. i I 1 • t irrxi-14-red vac* k p,,, , leg 1 .10001 \ :ei ......__:. -1 ' • .4----1 .... 4 ,.. 4 \- . . ....,i Als);... • ' • -r.----',1,1111. iiilitA. *lifilVVF ..."-• sm. , ; 1\ iilta'• Cowcralt Ole :mni Milareil . ,•,'.;;;%-711 ..'.'''.' Mk 11/11 - • • . • . . - - s • - • - • - i .1 - MOLL i COME g ...se AM..re Y.4 ANY^444,■lm i wa.g....ue • • • - • • • . '111 a . . ''.."---tr• „,,,,,.., 1 . . _ • . - - . . - - • -1 . . . . . . . . . . . r17,101611h ,'1( ,: 1.okin.•rwa.ram ,.Triirjra4iiign, ,.,lriat-Algal • • ',A...i[F,:it.ir'S IiiiFitt!I I:4 tl,:,j16., • - -1 ''llifillt1.11 , II wow GPI= . I I, .'.." (A\\ lillir[i N.,P, • ;,>• ''''''' ,.7..."... --- .:...grillit,i i •I ___,....•;, ,./. le\---1, .,....... li 00 44alatiptia, 0 .::: '' ' ..,-,...: ...--- ,....DMA! ' I . '.. - . . Ware1,1■7 WWWWWW1 KA 4,41flieN 4414: 0- 1-.1'1 ..,1 for& i . 1 1 71 • I - J....:17,21447/%:.... . •'. *:•44:0.ii 1 •• • .• • '• • ■ ovs.,90.•/ .,.Aor 1 . . , • . . . • . _--- . . . ........ ..........3.,.. . • • • • . . . ....... . • . • - - • . • • • • • -46 •...7,-idE.. -c.-4,4i '- . . • • • • . . . _ . . . . . • - • . , . . . . . . . . • ..•......• . .1 • • 1. •-,,- . - - ...• - - jp.- - olv.1,,,,„srairro,,o,v,-. illab, . .. 1 - --* *.L'.. '\,- I . _*:......,* Ili Fi,4, xx. . . ,• , . r : '4 .- a r%=-',L, ,1 r>,,:,-.--4•1., , .•.....".1:•• ... 11'sh . " 4r. I Er/1r 111141 -10,-;:.:4-::;-7:1..)rr,fi.`---.,;-Jrv.41-'4:4>7-,' t-4-3.116" --- ...,-.1**,-.'re - i 7-''. ' ' • • „A Jeles, .• •,',:',7,-..,-, L'iatAi,41:aliat.1.,tfi.7$1:i-,:,;:,.. ' • ' • - atiitEtff.41-- . ' -'4',Lit. .... . Wit-W.-$%%% i"--Wit,7'''-13,-V.4 I fi. kV.'g•••*- -, .. _:_.:_..,- • • ' 4 4-V• •6 ii i i i,gig.* it.61 I'M MUM' . / ......,....,,..--.., •,.......•_:,,_ ' Isigniwz . WI '- MI I i 411,13'64' Xr-e• w-r / k Nee.Clieuwar AMA two.auer.1,4 r"001211r422r..r1s,..• .' • ,...r :,. c4., /100 04.."1",,Mar. riValr mionswiLinatA. we..ei...emeX NU MILK 01.2./aer ; X 151r rad male TREE C -._ Santa CCICMCmlIl/110 MICP011111,irarr•AliCell ,•., LOCATIONMAP PKLIEGT DATA-Iteltrlea Per1.190T MilLOPIdliff DATA-PverONED calenAL 1•3170 Ceeno Pan.mt.. Icior U. 1144.900 MO. 5.094 1.r. ■=.:=CIL :kia'ir II=1.1.1=.• : kV:. WM R.MforeD M.reread,00.4.2 •••••••2 WY WHETS MT MOW.LMO V'./ Conditions as of _____ Twow. •••■•M elMdf PIMM.M41.1. 1.11.1111014,11.111.2.N Pr.01947,lir January 25, 2010 ...44M ww. -flat smalaMM mill Mime 5 Waft"am Owl • U"wr WSW ilm.MOM M-MALY MAY,WO MPIrr AMA.,r"1.2 1.9.•1.4. ;Gr.limmil1M01 ■ 1.■•WS...... MOW w VMS LA MP.04KMMOM MAX WIMALLY MOM./MI '0WW:21 AVCOTJ Or TIC 1.4..M.f•MOYAMM ma awcIMM M•M/M 7WWW112 1/2 s.ani eVe.edo PMIMO wACD I A/swot -5 WACO O.. raw r...e 9•2<1•0•41.••C•ell7•0 9•E 14.•mrf.r0 irr 071.0.0.2.11.1.•Kra• Inspection Completed by ...,....woogi lima. • ALLAIA-LAAA• mow.ammo..emit - MO we MALY.11•00 II reg.• Holsteod's Arboriculture 11011M IIMM 1MM W. . CM to I. Au 1,144MCMC IIIMI(042M_I.,IMCM10=MA Miran Mee itala•••••• • us. '''''''!‘"c.'L'22. 2.01..•=a1.C1. Consultants, Inc. exam9 Lowesure.01 1.....ro,l0 Ma Mr M..121.Mt 0.9.9M•...RM.( • HI OAT a I........:14"' ta..115 3.•IC 1.90tal Co•Conanil .r.Oter 111...111111-4 CoarIK.,917131 19'MI ree0 Till 0 ONWARD 1- a..am.AMP Sm Owl .1-We IM 1,101WJMI 111MS. t 0•4•90.•2•94-0040.1.4 3p•cle. I..,9.....moo MUM,11.40.2 MIXON 1•020 -•x.20 O.. Intir:LrakroUll= rill110216;1 ii='"' .....,...,ae.6, ft.2....4154..•••It O. Mare.MOM 2 11/t.•2S-rf. 10......•.....Mb..•••1....m. LAND USE PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION TIGARD 120 DAYS = 8/12/2010 FILE NOS.: SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (SDR) 2010-00001 ADJUSTMENT (VAR) 2010-00005 FILE TITLE: PITTMAN & BROOKS CPA'S APPLICANT/ Randall C.Brooks APPLICANT'S Nicoli Engineering OWNER: 15255 SW 72"d Avenue REP.: Attn:James Andrews Tigard, OR 97224 PO Box 23784 Tigard,OR 97281 REQUEST: The applicant is requesting Site Development Review approval to construct a 1,209 square foot second-floor addition and elevator to an existing office building. The applicant has also requested approval for a Special Adjustment to the access and egress standard in order to accommodate both parking lot accesses spaced closer than 600 feet on SW 72nd Avenue, an arterial street. LOCATION: 15255 SW 72"d Avenue;Washington County Tax Map 2S112DB,Tax Lot 200. 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, 18.370, 18.390, 18.520, 18.705, 18.725, 18.745, 18.755, 18.760, 18.765, 18.780, 18.790, 18.795 and 18.810. DECISION MAKING BODY BELOW: ❑ TYPE I ® TYPE II ❑ TYPE III ❑ TYPE IV COMMENTS WERE SENT: APRIL 19.2010 COMMENTS ARE DUE: MAY 3, 2010 ❑HEARINGS OFFICER (MON.) DATE OF HEARING: TIME: 7:00 PM ❑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: MAY 17, 2010 COMPONENTS RELATED TO THE PROJECT AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING IN THE PLANNING DIVISION ® VICINITY MAP ❑ DRAINAGE PLAN ® IMPACT STUDY ® SITE PLAN ❑ STORM WATER ANALYSIS ❑ TRAFFIC STUDY • NARRATIVE 0 TREE PLAN ® OTHER: MISCELLANEOUS STAFF CONTACT: Gary Pagenstecher,Associate Planner (503) 718-2434 City of Tigard, Oregon 13125 SW Hall Blvd. • Tiga>w, OR 97223 N TIGARD April 19, 2010 Randall C. Brooks 15255 SW 72nd Avenue Tigard, OR 97224 RE: Completeness Review- Pitman & Brooks, Case File No. SDR2010-00001 Dear Mr. Brooks: The City received your additional supplemental application materials for Site Development Review (SDR2010-00001) on April 14, 2010 to construct a 1,209 square foot second floor addition and elevator to an existing office building located at 15255 SW 72nd Avenue in Tigard. Staff has completed a preliminary review of these additional materials and has determined that the application can be deemed complete. Staff will now initiate the formal review period which should run approximately six weeks. If you have any questions regarding this letter or your application, please don't hesitate to contact me at 503-718-2434. Sincerely, Ge44-7). Gary Pagenstecher Associate Planner C: SDR2010-00001 Land Use File Phone: 503.639.4171 • Fax: 503.684.7297 • www.tigard-or.gov • TTY Relay: 503.684.2772 INcoli En , sneering , Inc. PO Box 23784 Tigard, Oregon 97281 • Phone: (503) 620-2086 • Fax: (503) 684-3636 DATE F •I,4I to I JOB NO. o°�-os LETTER OF TRANSMJj t tENTION APR 1 4 2010 RE ..b. (1 t:1014"y15rs" TO 609 11Z:\``A. CITY C� WAR r`r,u : , ice' P .... FLAW"' RING s h e • 1. Lo • 0000 1 WE ARE SENDING YOU ❑ Attached ❑ Under separate cover via The following items: ❑ Shop Drawings ❑ Prints ❑ Plans I 1 Samples L 1 Specifications ❑ Copy of Letter ❑ Change Order ❑ Other: COPIES DATE NO. DESCRIPTION 1 1- . 13. 1 a 1 1.-ezt, i 2- „----• 1°1 .e , .- ___ 1 ' 0P - JL.-a IY--.II OVA 11 2 . 1 • 0 1 I %t x t 1 A_: 1 _ - ' '-,wa-X,C:Q 3 , 13 do L. 3 2. i1.01 4 24 A 3C - -.z.Q 3 • i2" 1 b 13 2- 1% •0°1 • It x 11 `t " C..3 I 2 (1 . 01 w $ /2& it l _ 4. 13.2010 I ch. J2. b1520 a k.a. . "... ..- THESE ARE TRANSMITTED AS CHECKED BELOW: B For approval ❑ Approved as submitted ❑ Resubmit Copies for approval ❑ For your use ❑ Approved as noted ❑ Submit Copies for distribution ❑ As requested ❑ Returned for corrections ❑ Return Corrected prints ❑ For review and comment ❑ Other: ❑ FOR BIDS DUE 20 I i Prints returned after loan to us REMARKS COPY TO - SIGNE • Nicoli Lngineering , Ii c. PO Box 23784 Tigard, Oregon 97281 • Phone: (503) 620-2086 • Fax: (503) 684-3636 April 13, 2010 NEI# 09-0512 City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd Tigard, OR 97223 RECEIVED Attn: Gary Pagenstecher, Associate Planner APR 1 4 2010 CITY OF TIGARD Re: Completeness Review PLANNING/ENGINEERING Pittman & Brooks Case File No. SDR2010-00001 The following is in response to your letter of April 5, 2010. We have followed the outline of your letter for the purpose of a clear response. Public Facilities Plan Checklist: Regarding the rationale for requiring a restrictive covenant and not allowing a non- remonstrative agreement, we have the following comments: Although a non-remonstrative agreement is typically used with the formation of a Limited Improvement District, it is not exclusively used for this purpose. On a very similar project in Tualatin, Oregon, our client was required to sign a non- remonstrative agreement for additional Right-of-Way and street widening, even thought the property was already in an Limited Improvement District. Later, the additional Right-of-Way was obtained and the street widened using this instrument. It would appear that a non-remonstrative agreement has been successfully used in similar situations, and is not exclusively used in forming a Limited Improvement District and we believe it is applicable to this project. Please reconsider the Owners' request to use a Non-Remonstrative Agreement vs. the Restrictive Covenant. Adjustment Fee: An Adjustment fee of Three Hundred Ten Dollars & Fifty Cents ($310.50) has been enclosed. Envelopes with Postage: • No. 10 envelopes addressed with labels obtained from the City of Tigard on April 8, 2010. X:120091J-090512 Pittman&Brooks-Addition to Office Building\Letters\Cover Letter City of Tualatin 041310 doc Page 1 of 2 9025 SW Center Street Tigard,OR 97223 — www.nicoliengineering.com Number of Application Copies: • Application copies together with a CD, which includes a copy of the drawings and the narrative. If you need any additional information please contact me at your earliest convenience. Regards, Jim Andrews JDA:dhl enc X:120091.1-090512 Pittman 8 Brooks-Addition to Office Building\Letters\Cover Letter City of Tualatin 041310 doc Page 2 of 2 City of Tigard, Oregon 13125 SW Hall Blvd. • Tiga;w, OR 97223 IN . . A TIGARD April 5, 2010 Randall C. Brooks 15255 SW 72nd Avenue Tigard,OR 97224 RE: Completeness Review- Pitman & Brooks, Case File No. SDR2010-00001 Dear Mr. Brooks: The City received your supplemental application materials for Site Development Review (SDR2010-00001) on March 16, 2010 to construct a 1,209 square foot second floor addition and elevator to an existing office building located at 15255 SW 72nd Avenue in Tigard. Staff has completed a preliminary review of these additional materials and has determined that additional information is required before the application can be deemed complete. Please submit the following additional items: Public Facility Plan Checklist: Thank you for your response to the items raised on this checklist in you supplemental materials. I have included the Development Review Engineer's rational for requiring a restrictive covenant in this case, which addresses the amount of the financial obligation and the conditions under which it may be exercised. The restrictive covenant is likely to made a condition of approval in the decision. Adjustment Fee. You provided a revised narrative for an adjustment (11)C18.370.030.C.5) for the access and egress standard in TDC18.705.030.H.3 to accommodate both parking lot accesses spaced closer than 600 feet on SW 72nd, an arterial. However, the adjustment must be accompanied by a fee in the amount of$310.50 ($621 x .5 for concurrent applications). Envelopes with Postage. Please supply two sets of pre-addressed (no return address), stamped (not metered), #10 size envelopes for notice of development review and subsequent notice of decision. Addresses must have been obtained from the City within the previous three months from the date of application completeness. Contact Patty Lunsford, Planning Secretary, 503-718-2438. V Number of Application Copies. Please submit ten (11) full sets of your application materials. Each set shall be bound and an exact duplicate of all information pertaining to the application, narrative, forms,letters, studies,plans, etc. (plan sets may be printed at 11"x 17" size, if legible, as long as you include 3 copies of large set plans). In addition, submit five (5)L „ 7 reduced plan sets only (if legible), one (1) reduced set of plans at 8`e/2" x 11" required for to�`` c*L" i -I our records, and a CD including a complete set of application materials. Phone: 503.639.4171 • Fax: 503.684.7297 • www.tigard-or.gov • TTY Relay: 503.684.2772 Once this additional information is submitted, staff will review the additional materials to determine if the application is complete. 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: SDR2010-00001 Land Use File 2 PUBLIC FACILITY PLAN Project: DR2010 Pittman-Brooksl COMPLETENESS CHECKLIST Date: April 1, 2010 GRADING ❑ Existing and proposed contours shown. N/A ❑ Are there grading impacts on adjacent parcels? N/A ❑ Adjacent parcel grades shown. N/A ❑ Geotech study submitted? N/A 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 N/A 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: Restrictive Covenant 1. The unmitigated impact is approximately $30,00011$4,282/0.123)x$4,282j.Although this is insufficient for ROW dedication and construction of improvements, it is still an amount that should be considered for any future improvements to 72nd Avenue. The "No Construction Easement"proposal is acceptable, but a non-remonstrance agreement does not go far enough in that it typically can be applied only in formation of a local improvement district and does not take into account other ways the street may be widened(i.e., future City project, other development adjacent to the site,etc.) A restrictive covenant would allow participation in several scenarios for street widening that do not rely on an LID. The unmigated impact can be used as partial credit for the ROW taking to widen 72nd Avenue, for example. A restrictive covenant allows that impact to be considered in any future street improvements along that frontage.The restrictive covenant is the appropriate instrument in this situation. SANITARY SEWER ISSUES _ ❑ Existing/proposed lines shown. ❑ Stubs to adjacent parcels required/shown? N/A REVISED: 04/01/10 WATER ISSUES ❑ ` Existing/proposed lines w/ sizes noted? ❑ Existing/proposed fire hydrants shown? ❑ Proposed meter location and size shown? ❑ Proposed fire protection system shown? STORM DRAINAGE AND WATER QUALITY ISSUES ❑ Existing/proposed lines shown? ❑ Preliminary sizing calcs for water quality/detention provided? ❑ Water quality/detention facility shown on plans? ❑ Area for facility match requirements from calcs? ❑ Facility shown outside any wetland buffer? ❑ Storm stubs to adjacent parcels required/shown? The submittal is hereby deemed 111 COMPLETE ® INCOMPLETE By: Q t J R Date: April 1, 2010 REVISED: 04/01/10 _ NicoIi Enneering , Inc. PO Box 23784 Tigard, Oregon 97281 • Phone: (503) 620-2086 • Fax: (503) 684-3636 LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL DATE lie 1 b JOB NO.b$-O 0 ATT NTION n RE(JEIV • * ' & ' ._ (,q i TO �' 'C 0 - • . , ' , -S 0- 2010••0000 - 1 MAR 1 6 2011 CITY OF TIGA- D PLANNING/ENGINE' - WE ARE SENDING YOU a Attached ❑ Under separate cover via The following items: ❑ Shop Drawings ❑ Prints El Plans ❑ Samples ❑ Specifications ❑ Copy of Letter ❑ Change Order ❑ Other: COPIES DATE NO. DESCRIPTION 1 3•I2 • ID 11 '2x11 14. . lft Lit. Z' • 1 I' 10 51/2x11 t4• 1 ___ _ _ .. c 1. • • • • .._.___: 3't2'10 `esitc.d, 9-li °I-2 1- 3 I 2. 11. 10 4 61/2x. 11 t c w L t ZAA-e 544,z444 1 $.a 1 v.63 0 eenA ota-F s•12•t 0 rtj .Y 1"1.1 19-2' 11-3 11 -4 S 3 • 12 . 10 1 S4 A.3(f ,t 2. 1 ) Ast0/004 c. -4" '1944..Th c t �•ri 7.244-4,1 THESE ARE TRANSMITTED AS CHECKED BELOW: I r approval ❑ Approved as submitted ❑ Resubmit Copies for approval ❑ For your use ❑ Approved as noted ❑ Submit --_ Copies for distribution ❑ As requested ❑ Returned for corrections ❑ Return Corrected prints ❑ For review and comment ❑ Other: ❑ FOR BIDS DUE 20 ❑ Prints returned after loan to us REMARKS COPY TO SIGNED: � Ibt,4.vl, NicoIi c-ng i neeri ng , Irc. 1 • PO Box 23784 Tigard, Oregon 97281 Phone: (503) 620 2086 • Fax: (503) 684-3636 RECEIVED March 12, 2010 MAR 1 6 2010 NEI # 09-0512 City of Tigard, Oregon CITY OF TIGARD 13125 SW Hall Blvd PLANNING/ENGINEERINCi Tigard, OR 97223 Attn: Gary Pagenstecher, Associate Planner Re: Completeness Review — Pittman & Brooks, Case File No. SDR2010-00001 Mr. Pagenstecher: The following responses are to the comments in the City of Tigard Completeness Review Letter, dated March 2, 2010 for SDR2010-00001 . Our responses correspond to the order in which the review comments were presented in the completeness review letter. Off-Street Parking and Loading (18.765): We have reviewed our calculations, as submitted, which were used to determine the number of required parking spaces. It is understood that the deletion of the stairs and open lobby of the second floor area is being questioned. Although we are not in agreement that the stairs and the second floor open area should be counted again and included in the second floor area we have, however, included the stairs in the second floor calculations below. We have not included the second floor open lobby area per discussion below. It should also be noted that there are 8 existing parking spaced at the south lot, not the 7 spaces as noted. This provides 24 existing spaces onsite. Our calculations for determining the required parking spaces are as follows: Offices Existing Ground Floor Offices = 3,387.0 S.F. Existing Second Floor Offices = 3,048.7 S.F. (excludes 338.3 S.F. open area above First-Floor Lobby) Proposed Second Floor Office = 1 ,209.0 S.F. 7,644.7 S.F. 7,644.7 S.F. / 1 ,000 = 7.64 7.64 x 2.7 (from Table 18.765) = 20.6 = 21 spaces required for office areas. X.120091J-090512 Pittman 8 Brooks-Addition to Office Building\Site Development Review\Cover Letter Completeness Review 031210 doc Page 1 of 4 9025 SW Center Street Tigard, OR 97223 — www.nicoliengineering.com As mentioned above, the second floor area of the lobby below was not calculated in the floor area for the second floor square footage. Chapter 18.120.030.74 of the Tigard Development Code describes how the floor area is to be calculated. It specifically states that "floors" are calculated from the exterior walls and under a roof. Logically. if there is not a "floor" within this defined area one would not count this non-area as gross square feet. Since the objective of using the floor area is for determining the required parking, which has its basis in the occupant load of a particular building, including non-occupiable areas does not appear to meet the intent of the code. Further, this code section allows the exclusion of vents, shafts, courts (spaces that do not have a "floor" at a particular level). It should be noted that the deletion of non-existent floor area from the floor area calculations has been used for other municipalities. We believe deleting this non-existent floor area from our parking calculations is within the intent of the Tigard Development Code. Commercial Daycare The existing daycare area has one (1) classroom and an infant area which is used for changing diapers and other operations required for infants. Chapter 18.120 of the Tigard Development Code does not have a definition of a "classroom" listed, but as noted in 18.120.010A, "commonly accepted dictionary meanings are used unless specifically defined in this chapter". Webster's Dictionary defines a classroom as "a place where classes meet". The infant changing area does not meet this definition and therefore it has not been used in the determination of the required parking for the commercial daycare portion of the project. Two (2) parking spaces required per classroom = two (2) spaces required. (See Table 18.765.2) Therefore, there are at total of twenty-three (23) spaces required, with twenty- four (24) being provided. If you are in agreement with our method of calculating the required parking spaces, upon your approval, we will modify our documents as deemed necessary. Arborist Comments: We have provided an additional 24 x 36 site plan (Sheet 2.1), which includes the items requested by the City Arborist. See attached Sheet 2.1, dated 3/12/2010. X:120091.1-090512 Pittman 8 Brooks-Addition to Office Building\Site Development ReviewtCover Letter Completeness Review 031210 doc Page 2 of 4 Public Facility Plan Checklist: The following responses are to the Public Facilities Plan Completeness Checklist. Our numbered responses correspond to the Checklist numbers. 1. The owner/applicant's concur that the impact of the proposed 1209 S.F. addition is not sufficient to require Right-of-Way dedication and construction of the improvements and appreciate the acceptance of the concept of the No Construction Easement. There is concern from the applicants/property owners about agreeing to execute a Restrictive Covenant to financially participate in the future improvements to 72nd Avenue. At this time financial obligation has not been determined, nor to their knowledge, has the exact time of the improvements of 72nd been scheduled. The owners believe that the Restrictive Covenant requirement, whatever the financial impact may be is not proportional to the request to construct a 1,209 S.F. addition: and it is not equitable that they would be required to participate financially at this time while other properties are not. The owners/applicants have already incurred substantial cost for improving 72nd Avenue with A.C., Curb & Sidewalk, Street Trees and Landscaping, as required when they constructed their previous addition. The owners/applicants are concerned with the future impacts that their property and business would endure when 72nd Avenue is constructed to meet the arterial standards. Not only would they lose one-third of their useable property, they would also lose parking spaces (especially if the access to the southern parking lot will be required to be closed), which will have a substantial impact on their business and they would also lose the required landscaping which they have previously installed. It is understood that 72nd Avenue will be improved in the future. The applicants/owners would like to suggest and would agree to execute a Non-Remonstrative Agreement for future improvements or the formation of a Limited Improvement District for 72nd Avenue. We believe this would be an equitable solution to the possible need of a restrictive covenant and request that this option be considered. 2. The Closure Requirement for two existing driveways has been addressed in the attached Adjustment Request found in the previously submitted Revised Project Narrative, Section 18.370.010, Variance & Adjustments X12009\J-090512 Pittman&Brooks-Addition to Office Building Site Development Review\Cover Letter Completeness Review 031210 doc Page 3 of 4 by Nicoli Engineering, Inc. Pages 9.1 through 9.3, which you will find enclosed. 3. The Tigard Development Code Standards 18.810.030A (3 & 5), B and E have been added to the previously submitted Narrative by Nicoli Engineering, Inc. Pages 19.1 — 19.4, which you will find enclosed. If you have any questions or required additional information, please notify this office. Respectfully Submitted, Jim Andrews, President. JDA/dhl cc: Randy Brooks enc X:\2009U-090512 Pittman 8 Brooks-Addition to Office Building\Site Development Review\Cover Letter Completeness Review 031210.doc Page 4 of 4 - *** This page shows c. jes to Page No. 9 of the original Appli an for Site Development Review dated February 11, 2010 *** .11 f.. 1111 r��r!lli�:t(Ii r'. ✓rJri: f=°�pr!ift��' !trirasr � :�!i!Irt J.7 45. r,l t./.!t;/Li.1! .p _1 f 1;..1.::i10 `J. I,rJ✓: i�/1lf r�/Jv' '_.: _�1 :!j. Ad i!.111l .147. Aniplic:.irrt fi :�!�irl i .;i.iurl �I!.' ��': ir!1ft �1f!J'/irl , i I!Jf r�t�!l!�i :�a �:tf�.1f1!f. r\fl r :1f1!J ftrJlrJri i :r� for r::!Iuirlrl: rij !f•i ' OFJy_J(I flr'1r:!'JCrll iri r.'i�t�!f if id'.iJJ:.:'J 7. it./!,l 1!I r`: '.1?J'!i n!li i fJ��l !j!.i ifi�l::r of?1 r'; !,ll!J iff�.ltf?!:lY: .li ..� w►I.l j+l.l : i 1iii.,c d';;.;/by 1.6:1, Y'L1;/J::!J.r�:-T ::;!r'.,"111: tit::. Cii:1 j.:Lr 1;3.".P;0; r a �: l;�.t,..1 .,r a_•�C::,!lJr;;l�C ter.:/;dc:..�Lt,3::r ,,li.r..!..r l .�/ tur1rJsr 1;1;:;i0 lr1d't :�r�_l{ �rartirt�J �t i!rlr.'C�. 18.370.010 Variances and Adjustments A. Purpose. The purpose of this section is to provide standards for the granting of variances from the applicable zoning requirements of this title where it can be shown that, owing to special and unusual circumstances related to a specific property, the literal interpretation of the provisions of the applicable zone would cause an undue or unnecessary hardship, except that no use variances shall be granted. Applicant Response: A variance is being requested per TDC 18.370.20 Adjustments below. 18.370.020 Adjustments A. Purpose. The purpose of this section is to provide establish two classes of special variance. 1. "Development adjustments" which allow modest variation from required development standards within proscribed limits. Because such adjustments are granted using "clear and objective standards", these can be granted by means of Type I procedure, as opposed to the more stringent standards of approval and procedure for variances. 2. "Special adjustments" which are variances from development standards which have their own approval criteria as opposed to the standard approval criteria for variances contained in Section 18.370.020.C. Applicant Response: An Adjustment to Access & Egress Standards, per TDC Section 18.370.02005, is being requested. The Adjustment would allow the existing access to remain as previously constructed, not to construct a new access(s). Page No. 9-1 X:12009\J-090512 Pittman 8 Brooks-Addition to Office Building\Site Development ReviewlAddendum P 9.1 Application for Site Dev Review 031210.doc 18.370.020 Special Adjustment C (5) Adjustments to Access and Egress Standards (Chapter 18.705) a. In all zoning districts where access and egress drives cannot be readily designed to conform to Code standards within a particular parcel, access with an adjoining property shall be considered. If access in conjunction with another parcel cannot reasonably be achieved, the Director may grant an adjustment to the access requirements of Chapter 18.705 through a Type ll procedure, as governed in Section 18.390.030, using approval criteria contained in Subsection 2b below. b. The Director may approve, approve with conditions, or deny a request for an adjustment from the access requirements contained in Chapter 18.705, based on the following criteria: (1) it is not possible to share access; Applicant Response: The site is triangular in shape and bordered by a railroad to the West, 72nd Avenue to the East and one neighboring property to the North. The building on the neighboring parcel is located at the South end of the property with access and parking to the North. There is no paved connection from the southern parcel access to the project site. The West side of the neighboring building appears to be on, or very close to, the Railroad Right-of-Way and would not provide sufficient area for a connecting driveway. The unimproved area at the East side of the existing building will be eliminated when the additional Right-of Way and street improvements are imposed. Therefore, an access drive is not an option at this side of the building. Sharing access with this parcel is not an option. (2) There are no other alternative access points on the street in question or from another street; Applicant Response: 72nd Avenue is the only available street to provide access to the project site. Due to the triangular configuration of the site and location of the building on the site, the two existing accesses to the existing parking lots, as previously approved and constructed, is the only viable alternative. (3) The access separation requirements cannot be met; Applicant Response: The access separation of 600' cannot be met. The current access points are separated by approximately 187' (center to center). The northern parking lot access point cannot be relocated; there is not enough available property to relocate this access point. The existing southern access point is located to make the most efficient use of the southern parking lot. Even if this access were to be moved within the project site boundaries, Page 9-2 X.\2009\J-090512 Pittman&Brooks-Addition to Office Building\Site Development Review\Addendum P 9-2 thru 9-3 App for Site Dev Review 031210.doc it would still be located a distance of less than 600' to the existing access point to the north. This option would still be in violation of the 600' standard, and would also remove several parking spaces, making the parking in violation of the city's minimum parking space requirements. (4) The request is the minimum adjustment required to provide access; Applicant Response: The adjustment will allow the building to operate as it has been for the last approximately ten (10) years, and as approved by the previous SDR 98-0026. Again, this adjustment is to allow the existing access to remain, not to construct new accesses. Due to the site configuration and existing building location, the connection of the two (2) parking lots within the site boundaries is not a viable option. (5) The approved access, or access approved with conditions, will result in a safe access; and Applicant Response: As noted above, the two (2) existing accesses have functioned safely. According to the owners, no traffic incidents have occurred from the use of the two access points, which are closer than the current 600' spacing requirement. (6) The visual clearance requirements of Chapter 18.795 will be met. Applicant Response: The visual clearance requirements are met with the existing two accesses. Please refer to Site Plan. In summary, we cannot find any alternative access points, whether shared or by relocating one of the existing access points, which would meet the 600' spacing requirement. It doesn't seem appropriate to close one of the driveways, especially after they were installed by the property owner, as previously approved by the City of Tigard. Nor does eliminating the use of eight (8) parking spaces, by closing the southern access point in order to comply with a recent reclassification of 72nd Avenue to an arterial classification, seem justifiable at this time. A visual inspection of 72nd Avenue reveals that a substantial number of the access points/driveways from 72nd Avenue are in violation of the 600' separation. It is understood that when 72nd Avenue is constructed to the "arterial" standard, that the existing accesses will need to be re-evaluated. Page 9-3 X12009 U-090512 Pittman 8 Brooks-Addition to Office Building\Site Development Review\Addendum P 9-2 thru 9-3 App for Site Dev Review 031210 doc *** This page shows changes to Page No.19 of the original Application for Site Development Review dated February 11, 2010 *" by Fierio I ;Al Ej.11):;.2#1.) 11:V.L1.1 ,4. 1:;1'....h.4;.it:a. A /e0 riii pc.r..ry fratit;:.:trs;t LiSI;CM ii%,faiit, Utz: cA..fir, ho ',LCD ft!,11/ u, . !it ..reJ wiy Pff....).;i;to...,A Ltlitti;/);.S3 .41;4' 72hu P.Jrkir,0 crerIirJ iz; fut.itlii-affiiali.E.; pLin. pLIri Icr N.:quit:41 i N. JJ. 18.810 Street and Utility Improvement Standards 18.810.030 Streets A (3) Improvements. No development shall occur unless the streets adjacent to the development meet the standards of this chapter, provided, however, that a development may be approved if the adjacent street does not meet the standards, but half-street improvements meeting the standards of this title are constructed adjacent to the development. Applicant Response: 72nd Avenue does not meet the recently imposed "arterial" street standards. Half-street improvements were constructed in approximately 1999, when the street was designated as a collector. The applicant has provided a rough proportionality analysis, which demonstrates that constructing the one-half street improvements required to meet the arterial designation standards are not proportional to the project's impact. A (5) If the City could and would otherwise require the applicant to provide street improvements, the City engineer may accept a future improvements guarantee in lieu of street improvements if one or more of the following conditions exist. Page 19-1 X:k20091J-090512 Pittman&Brooks-Addition to Office Building\Site Development RevievAAddendum P 19-1 App for Site Dev Review 031210.doc Applicant Response: The applicants/owners would entertain the concept of a future improvements guarantee, but will require further clarification on what that guarantees. The applicants/owners have agreed to a non-remonstrative agreement for future improvements. See Response to Public Facility Plan Checklist, Item No. 1 a. A partial improvement is not feasible due to the inability to achieve proper design standards; Applicant Response: A partial improvement could be constructed which would achieve proper design standards. The issue is, as stated in the Impact Statement, that the required improvements are not proportional to the project's impact on public services. b. A partial improvement may create a potential safety hazard to motorists or pedestrians; Applicant Response: To widen 72nd Avenue to meet the required street section would create a serious safety hazard, especially to motorists. Constructing/providing an additional 16' of pavement for this small portion of 72nd Avenue would, at the least, create some confusion for southbound traffic. There would be a large transition from the additional 16' of pavement to the existing road edge near the existing railroad crossing. Additional safety measures would, most likely, be required at the railroad project. Employees and clients exiting the project site would be required to negotiate and additional 16' of road before merging onto, or across 72nd Avenue. This would be a safety issue for both access points, and especially dangerous for employees and clients using the North access. There would be a 16' long blend spot before they could get a clear view of the southbound oncoming traffic, which is approaching from an incline in the road, which adds to the safety issue. In many municipalities, this "checkerboard" type of street improvement is not considered desirable. Design Standards, Utilities, etc., may be modified after the "checkerboard" improvement is complete and because this "piecemeal" type of improvements presents potential life safety issues for the motorist. c. Due to the nature of existing development on adjacent properties, it is unlikely that street improvements would be extended in the foreseeable future and the improvement associated with the project under review does not, by itself, provide a significant improvement to street safety or capacity; Applicant Response: During the Pre-App, the question on when 72nd Avenue would be improved to the collector status was asked. No certain date was given. Given the current transportation needs, and planned improvements in Tigard, one cannot see improvements to 72nd Avenue occurring in the foreseeable future. Increasing the width of 72nd for this short section would not provide any improvements to street safety or capacity. On the contrary, as noted above, would cause a variety of safety hazards. No common good for the impacted property owners or the public would be gained by constructing the improvements to 74th Avenue at this time. Page 19-2 X:12009\J-090512 Pittman 8 Brooks-Addition to Office Building\Site Development Review\Addendum P 19-2 thru 19-4 App for Site[ley Rev 031210.doc d. The improvement would be a conflict with an adopted capital improvement plan; Applicant Response: Unknown. This is an issue to be determined by the City of Tigard. We would comment that with the traffic congestion in Tigard and further street improvements identified in the Downtown Improvement Plan and Urban Renewal, that 72nd Avenue would not be considered a critically needed improvement. e. The improvement is associated with an approved land partition on property zoned residential and the proposed land partition does not create any new streets; or Applicant Response: Not applicable. f. Additional planning work is required to define the appropriate design standards for the street and the application is for a project, which would contribute only a minor portion of the anticipated future traffic on the street. Applicant Response: 72nd Avenue has been designated as an arterial street and standards have been developed for this designation. It is assumed that some thought or planning by the City of Tigard would be required to insure that any improvements constructed now would be consistent with future improvements. As stated elsewhere, the proposed 1 ,209 S.F. addition is not being proposed for additional employees, but to provide private offices for existing employees. No additional office traffic will be created, nor will there be any additional contribution to the existing traffic on 72nd Avenue created by the proposed development. B. Creation of rights-of-way for streets and related purposes: Rights-of-Way shall be created through the approval of a final subdivision plat or major partition; however, the Council may approve the creation of a street by acceptance of a deed, provided that such street is deemed essential by the Council for the purpose of general traffic circulation. Applicant Response: This code section deals with the creation of Right-of-Ways for subdivisions or major partitions. Neither of these actions are part of this project. Therefore this standard is not applicable. E. Minimum rights-of-way and street widths: Unless otherwise indicated on an approved street plan, or as needed to continue an existing improved street, street right-of-way and roadway widths shall be not less than the minimum width Page 19-3 X.\2009U-090512 Pittman 8 Brooks-Addition to Office Building\Site Development Review\Addendum P 19-2 thru 19-4 App for Site Dev Rev 031210.doc described below. Where a range is indicated, the width shall be determined by the decision-making authority based upon anticipated average daily traffic (ADT) on the new street segment. (The City Council may adopt by resolution, design standards for street construction and other public improvements. The design standards will provide guidance for determining improvement requirements within the specific ranges.) These are presented in Table 18.810.1. Applicant Response: The Street Right-of-Way width of 52' is required to meet the "arterial" street standard per the Pre-Application Conference notes. The applicant is not requesting clarification of the required Right-of-Way width, nor is there a range of width, which requires clarification. This standard is not applicable, Page 19-4 X:12009U-090512 Pittman E.Brooks-Addition to Office Building\Site Development Review\Addendum P 19-2 thru 19-4 App for Site Dev Rev 031210 doc _ Nicoli En ) neering , Inc. PO Box 23784 Tigard, Oregon 97281 • Phone: (503) 620-2086 • Fax: (503) 684-3636 DATE �'A • �O JOB NO. b� �Z LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL 4 ATTENTION TO 6 (- GF 1i 6►A41?-b RE r 61,12- 5c.tP:IM t rr/-\i.,• WE ARE SENDING YOU ❑ Attached ❑ Under separate cover via The following items: ❑ Shop Drawings ❑ Prints ❑ Plans ❑ Samples ❑ Specifications ❑ Copy of Letter ❑ Change Order ❑ Other: COPIES DATE NO. DESCRIPTION 1 2.11 . 10 •1 1 S1/2.x II GjuB►yliTrAi, 12ePD* T 3 2• L1,• la 5 2.4.Lace 6aerfirrAc, 17124414wNGtev 1 2 . 12. 10 1 CPU cAtic l•i FE- . CH ee- +'UI5 I'Lb *4445== THESE ARE TRANSMITTED AS CHECKED BELOW: M For approval ❑ Approved as submitted ❑ Resubmit Copies for approval ❑ For your use ❑ Approved as noted ❑ Submit Copies for distribution ❑ As requested ❑ Returned for corrections ❑ Return Corrected prints ❑ For review and comment ❑ Other: ❑ FOR BIDS DUE 20 ❑ Prints returned after loan to us REMARKS lr /- COPY TO �°.� V' ` : SIGN -./:24"a -.. City of Tigard, Oregon 13125 SW Hall Blvd. • Tig4. , OR 97223 II • TIGARD March 2,2010 Randall C. Brooks 15255 SW 72nd Avenue Tigard, OR 97224 RE:Completeness Review- Pitman & Brooks, Case File No. SDR2010-00001 Dear Mr. Brooks: The City received your application for Site Development Review (SDR2010-00001) on February 12, 2010 to construct a 1,209 square foot second floor addition and elevator to an existing office building located at 15255 SW 72nd Avenue in Tigard. Staff has completed a preliminary review of the submittal materials and has determined that additional information is required before the application can be deemed substantively complete. Please submit the following additional information: Off Street Parking and Loading (18.765): Your narrative and plan set indicate there are 23 existing parking spaces and that only 22 are required. However, by our calculation, 26 spaces are required. Please provide a detailed parking calculation based on the definition of"floor area" in TDC 18.120.030.74, parking in mixed use projects in TDC 18765.030.D, and the minimum parking requirements in Table 18.765.2. If the minimum parking cannot be met, then you will need to apply for an adjustment to the minimum parking standards as outlined in the Pre-Application Notes. Arborist Comments: Please review the enclosed City Arborist comments on tree preservation and revise your application accordingly. Any questions regarding these issues should be directed to Todd Prager, City Arborist (503-718-2700). Public Facility Plan Checklist: Please address the street, water, and storm drainage issues identified in the enclosed Public Facilities Completeness Checklist and revise your application accordingly. Any questions regarding these issues should be directed to Gus Duenas, Development Review Engineer (503-718-2470). In particular, an adjustment (TDC18.370.030.C.5) for the access and egress standard in TDC18.705.030.H.3 will need to be applied for to accommodate both parking lot accesses spaced closer than 600 feet on SW 72nd, an arterial. Once this additional information is submitted, staff will review the additional materials to determine if the application is substantively complete. If you have any questions regarding this letter or your application,please don't hesitate to contact me at 503-718-2434. Phone: 503.639.4171 • Fax: 503.684.7297 • www.tigard-or.gov • TTY Relay: 503.684.2772 Sincerely, Gary Pagenstecher Associate Planner Ends: Public Facilities Checklist Arborist Completeness List C: SDR2010-00001 Land Use File 2 PUBLIC FACILITY PLAN Project: JR2010 Pittman-Brooks/ COMPLETENESS CHECKLIST Date: February 17, 2010 GRADING ❑ Existing and proposed contours shown. N/A ❑ Are there grading impacts on adjacent parcels? N/A ❑ Adjacent parcel grades shown. N/A ❑ Geotech study submitted? _ N/A 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 N/A 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: 1. The TDT recovery rate averages 28% upon full implementation. The rates are phased in over a 3-year period and have had a 20% discount applied for Fy 2009-10. The true recovery rate for this year up till June 30`r' is about 12.3%. Unmitigated impact is approximately$$30,00011$4,282/0.128) $4,282]. This, while higher, is still insufficient for ROW dedication and construction of improvements. The "No Construction Easement"proposal is acceptable.There may also be a need to execute a restrictive covenant for the properly owners to participate in future improvements to 72nd Avenue. 2. The two existing driveways are less than 600 feet apart. The code requires spacing of 600 feet between driveways on arterials. The applicant needs to address this issue satisfactorily by fully justifying why both driveways should remain, otherwise, one driveway has to be removed. While the drivways may have met the spacing standards for a collector, 72"d Avenue is now an arterial with more stringent standards. An adjustment may be necessary to retain the two driveways. 3. The applicant did not adequately address 18.810.030A (3 and 5), B and E.The standards are applicable because standards in 1999 are significantly different from those that REVISED: 02/17/10 - currently ap, 7 Avenue was upgraded from collector to arterial status in the TSP update of 2002. Arterials are wider and have wider sidewalks with planter strips. All the current standards are applicable. 4. The utilities were not undergrounded on 72nd Avenue at the time the original building was built. However, the applicant did pay a fee-in-lieu of undergrounding at that time. There is no requirement for undergrounding with this proposal. SANITARY SEWER ISSUES ® Existing/proposed lines shown. ❑ Stubs to adjacent parcels required/shown? N/A WATER ISSUES ® Existing/proposed lines w/ sizes noted? ® Existing/proposed fire hydrants shown? ® Proposed meter location and size shown? Existing meter ® Proposed fire protection system shown? Existing fire hydrants. No other fire protection measures shown. STORM DRAINAGE AND WATER QUALITY ISSUES ® Existing/proposed lines shown? Proposal is to tie in roof drains from the 2"d story to the existing storm drainage system. ❑ Preliminary sizing calcs for water quality/detention provided? ❑ Water quality/detention facility shown on plans? ❑ Area for facility match requirements from calcs? ❑ Facility shown outside any wetland buffer? ❑ Storm stubs to adjacent parcels required/shown? The submittal is hereby deemed ❑ COMPLETE ® INCOMPLETE By: Q P- Date: February 17, 2010 REVISED: 02/17/10 Pittman-Brooks Office Addition Completeness Item _Met Not Met N/A Comments 18.360.090.A.2.a.(1) X Buildings shall be located to preserve existing trees... I8.360.090.A.2.b X Trees shall be preserved to the extent possible... 18.745.020: X Applicability 18.745.030: X General Provisions 18.745.040: X Street Trees 18.745.050: X Buffering and Screening 18.745.060: X Re-vegetation 18.790.030: X -Trees to be preserved need to be Tree Plan identified on the site plan with driplines Requirement and tree protection fencing dimensions shown to scale. -The tree preservations notes on the project arborist's report dated 1/27/2010 need to be included on the tree preservation site plan. -The tree preservation site plan needs to identify construction staging and access locations. -The project arborist needs to provide a signature of approval on the tree preservation site plan when complete. 18.790.050: X Permit Applicability Todd Prager City Arborist February 19, 2010 p,,, —L—JL JXQH ° L ©© © i © �' Q D) D) L J- !!!igmA•Dram 17273 Moe(a '5911 6,2‘ TIGARD OREGON DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS ABBREVIATIONS SITE INFORMATION PROJECT INFORMATION 1.....:islets I .DATA ALCANCrL CALM. MO. MAAEMR Ql.. acNw Drormet, 1-r r•D'°'wL�uac' sE MAL MEAN •• ses EN no..w CL IENi/OU.NER RANDALL r RAND!BROOKS MwL sate Mb.STDA .N. •TAO MOAN I CODE STAT*awtD eMMD..c,r�no® �A waw PLOWS lens Mprrr.LL Leon cE ER2pRD.- 'W'Aa2t b�4 Ter n M MEND.wlao�emv Ala MAMMA PM MAN A4M AWMM IMO MMALL.IfW MA MAR aNR:!TAN LOT.MO most•LOT ma - - w ref]ACRES, AgwAM A ML MIL 212•1131A Mir ADpI NE W as M. w. 5JA�r me SE T mR~� CONTRACTOR: INDETER-I NED n KV. DELO.. N?L 'MANN. EpAND -- —I,tM ORMEAL PANIC, CBI CLNAIT rata MO,TO ACALL SCSI,AAD Mtt. CNR. CERAMIC MC.. DWI1IR !MAIM PAlNO—_ --SE MACES ON COME iMPIROvED AT 263.Rey-NS, n ENGINEER: NICOLI ENGINEERING,INC. ...,..NNW EN—WA ma CMLL MASCRSRT PLASTIC LAMSET! ..D PAMIRS--- -—L MAMA AREA 003.3.WPM C..R•160.06.LOT* CO. CLEAN OW R.T. PD. LT MOM ORATOR sttam PEAR,ARD .l.wr. a xE I,E M•LA« Cpr a:RORn MOANED m•rAL ONTMIAOE PRIMA —SEA SEA C.T. TEE ROL ATA' BUILDING INFORMATION An AMMAN LEADER OP LN AT VIEW IRESDAND ON CORM MAMAS MOW - •Pt A n. NILE..CO.. Amer ARE O M•TMCTwAL MECULT.DOM DA COW APO. AEL prom MAXEY,VA COMM. IAN NA+MeNLCOM nD^le^ATM .. AROMA RCETINENA—ETM AP.M.AR a WEAR., PROJECT DESCRIPTION SOLID COIN EA EEO+GMs. Mom .w.ONS M.--AAAM MAMA LAN.CAMPAN AM WM MOP INV AND MOM MAIM . A.A.R[Alllm RA.KW le.PI!✓M—2e wa,.en ern net ¢e r°1TC Nm �M M ANN N E.ec�OAT�o w�K MAMA le uEi OvER ATIAOMO ma NON ADDITION •05asT DDAr4- EL WLSC,RICA at a eta�<w ••..R••<..o.«. POE CALCULATIONS Eel EMI'S. >OR. eTEEL OM AMANNON RN. L. eLecntic wil I.A2R ,coo..NEAR A..�vas ms REND A MOORED CAE TO NEE GRAvEN AT_ WO. WOONETIC INCONC MEAL ADATICES 'PO LATERAL LOAFS MMV•-l..av P.D. MOOR ORAN TLl T AL B LLDEN MN., M n a Nom, UWE., TEN L TTFlCJ ./NC LTRCIAML 6,611111 Vo O RAMIED,v-EN COnsl.AN.NW accuseu,ca.PIAC. NNE.066 CAMEO WALD UNLESS mOTED oCOM C,. .vRCeSefYNN.CRICE "E RRO„SOO.w .rCATIC• ARE RECLINED PLASM FLOOR POOL VDT. Tpl PRE APRNCLER OvVENI RS .OL. WADI CP STVD vIC. TREAT D°"°E"' .E, APPLICATION INFORMATION .■.v. .ALV.MIIm w000 dTt. M•RM wr. ilewn i nix. eT MELICAM6OOVE0Ta� NAT Ewe AP.uCATION SELL ROUE IMCCEMIED I•A.e NORKORTM. ELI. TABLE OF CONTENTS ML MOM 13 ARR.Pave...Emit R ,pnr.@R3 ,ACrb1t SECOND FLOOR mssiOO APR WARM "° OFFICE AMMON ao MOP..NM PLAN ANO LORI ET..a.ER.O PER,,..Dt ISM-EE.m Alf." -SONG,G,APO`RRAroEED FLOOR.LANE NEW ELEVATOR e e><ro,Ma mo MwRDeEO E,<oM.eeE,bM. 1-a+ PRIYAN AND BROOKS-P.C. 15255 S.72110 MtNUE SITE MAP VICINITY MAP TMABO, CR 97224 SUBMITTALS: • NOm ;o-ie-E na \i % „_ , In.senut m, -mR 305 RR sort ° r.. si 1 _ . - Oote 2-11-2010 fa ADCd ONO -� ° �' a T y LI ST .�-4- 0Md.: r NTS eu { Pam b .OA i q'�' - "�` Ch.MYed by PN �j 3�•!i y1 A—.x...1. � 1 V t` Job Ne.: 09-0512 r{i ,' ^ `, 'dl' •i \'� ;---- 11 1 \�` ' (Mowing No.: COVER `_PROPOSED i ..:L E< r- EN191N0➢Me sroRr I ELEVATOR `- .j - � I.1 BITE i ve aPAEBIt RECEIVED A ti 1.,.,,,,.'''.'''s,• REVIEW 3UBA.rTAL ._ y .. 1, COVER SEET SHEET APR 1 4 2010 10,6 CITY OF TIGARD PLAN t!fr /rN GINEERINiG • 1 i \Nicoll .r' LW OW a DAr we D• . •IMO/N RNI•1001 �� ICI.Se OAbr A-IIgv4 Oeg1 97115 ��- . Fox Art- I% 1, Ot4.---„,, ,goor4 • •-..iimi„.i.iiiisimi ,t, Ar4.7% wii exrTw.TlsrTls! 'r''r/� 1 T I .......... /∎ „ 317E PLAN maw_2 cow. 3 rDR --^r~, Il \� p( °° "• °,,, - : _4 fir MA..MOTION [ .To,pYN 1.•e /'.:iiiiii-.1 tik•i ..i. ._Jm PROPOSED SECOPD / ■ FLOOR ADDITION •1ynl77, ;�/;/,, ,q g�an1'e'f,a Y46't'D eF>. / _,T 4131 -+'eyP'•' rr Cd1l fi nave:,rawaa AMA 110115 i'ii e� Ii•' •yFT9Fi 11�� : • r ewna ARMO eras �,,,,7 .77E ..i.rsFk 7_�/ pp .r.TwM ,i^""""'!� -';',L J1X 'n• flt �;Y//��/�"�/ leranorstcE • '- O re°'� .1f''`,'L' ' . tsi&'aisi.../;y/• ROM VT°wTECIOACAL ROOM ITICCO MOTO 12:vow,2.,IJR1Sil in �.,,,� /�- ,- . ,. �.�rBe* gw..DTs.J. /' NlR•Tw rwvm.A7.1AreA ,w m•" i' 0.07.0 rAw..o 0.100 +A'y_'�t;�e..e?:.��/f j�j' PF10P08®ELEVATOR 7-,7,12.17, Lorne _ I raw.•rm..�.7i1`1:/•,...„,..y,„:7',/,/,7;:/. ul.o.•islaN.a. I •._` pralA-Igo � .,.�. t [� ;;;.;;, j •i�.!''.'. /� �� 'r.::%; ;i.1/ ii'/,,5,.. :.�i.: .LDn°"aeareDi.:w+ ?\� . %LI%1;,,.':.".: :.41 4W ,N,f1/ if AMOY' •..� %/ii\ •.a>.::..:, .440 .::Wir' 33'� rill\ 0 I,. � �F -+AST' w V♦ ' _.'WVW . ""�N' - ,. ASS► 7W19� • ��I .. 1 ► .A �!!� 10��lEE s1FFICE FLOOR rwaxe.r*1..e-• U r.1rAaD _1 c.I.rNO.Irnnr § P S to RIO WORM, BROOM e�o.wtiK .c.,.o 3030'm. n�qy ar•Tw rw•..er FOR PRiWN MO ir00KA PG 3 OR.ea3e arrows-00573 ■ acp r.0 A ....-.- w 0403 I 5155 Se 1211D A E AL MOLTTO PEWIT �, MU TOTAL N 1 &W.7206 AYB3.lE r.31rDf�2LM I IICARO. 0R 97224 via are 300.1 'y 5c-r NORTH SITE PLAN East9ic cai.m..Nn rraro9®99oos9cAluw 3r-s 5a-s SMIRKS CLAMMY= l 7710.1•1.CLAM..AREA r•W v.. ..,.u...._NA anal.Cilaa..a Ma i i 211 113_710 wars M TO MU _. -4.m ur Ara-..-.._.___---_.____..-_-..-.-._ __-_.-._-..-..-___..___ ..__—.__-..-._-..-_-..-..-..-___Y.. OMAR AM na.1 COCOATe PRNECf OCYRORMIIOATA-IMMO PROJECT 0lVIRLIR IR DATA-91OOfID OB18W.MOM A' ATTAaeD TO 100.1170171710 resent NO EPOOT-06.31. .x00.0 env Mu 3563.N rOM ACT •TT•AMA 73}••N.raw ACT reausn. T -0•ACM PLAN 01TAMO PRO T A77rn..O OCOALTNA _sm.,. Me7Ap0 NT OMARAL/1•I.e522r NT NAM CLLArlS a 42b. A fla. T .}..N. 1011.000 PMI..M AM V. E .17.00,0E. wMe. PROMO MAN AT wAntaAwee AA i+OTaa exl.rw e11.Dw 3.063. IAaA.I N. ,ens ewAA. �i ri.' WM s.TO••PLATED PROM 3 CALLON ...0....a.. .c0. T SAVA TO VERA ACrtMO�CRDT w bITe ==10....2.....uw.. AAL •AIR O. ..Arn.e.0,0 raw/0031 MOwuTON NM.......•TOMtM o MA 2-11-2070 roar .w w. �. NO TOM ORA M OF O 1AAMA TO kale I•.1•-0• VOWED.....3.A...e .2040/ emcees ArOL A.YI N. w.....0 a.r O.u.r.s 1RAe Mc11 a Nre�17L.N A.M.O OTT E4Gt06e r7 p.MNA1C.O.AM Rom by .EA AND Et roure.1.1.1110 30 AO 'GN:.. ..re..reo•T O.e eS MO 7re>1.It0 earePOOL AV V.ROM rAwc.m GeAN bg. a ••c.es arm. .woo.>rsv...ors FlOVR cAw Oo.... ow.rr1AM a HOMO AEb NO.: ON-0612 03▪0701.0 AA..07.1006. • 001.0 Tar •a�w ,Q _.Mace.r� T W PLAN ATE!exm+FOAM Nn I A ro!MO.IM OCI IN .PRO rAOatl UTOEIn NO.: 91E eicTCle PAWN. T C Aro!MO T IMO.INN.nw0 9 .. •r...=p...� ... v®¢ •a .04 ON,set r?2020 .re.'sOO5. T roLY00tl[441..109m .Avow Hon 3 srD.r.a-r. „em.o. + M AaT sae mDwc eew r+d.oeeD�.M 0703 o eMAvANON MR M MA'AM!4O M p_v1•ITAnC. ..a � +Y.:i2�.w cW�cTgx w rem ROM pus TO MOM - ATr PRAIA.•T•TeM ALL Ewox re 170060 re.Aw•.010 o MUMS MONT 7.TAR•52.44 Mre AM Ammar.0301.•w rRa aeD COMM,e190e1.100 LILL D.nnreCTTO ou¢.io 07 TM ENTRARCA POR M KAMM A M CUMTR¢TON A.T2••0.10 2E1 SCREAM,TIC PA IRSas•w 1eg1Ae0 W CR 1T1NCTiW exIOTw LM[XCArw pE LA2oY<KO:MA Are 010 1111.5.0.TO 1,crr SIZE PLAN r4s.RAN DIUwM � �TSM E%ISTNS AM PROPOSED !!Cl?o ROOM M O.OienAmlO M ONALL ROOM M MOvATC24 MCPIANIC.L 13'!1.7. LAroecwe TOO. 1 ;e COMOCTIO TO M 0.137.HA., /TOE ASOE•SHOO/TREE ITOTEOT4T1 ri.. SHEET MARACA ...A•.101.0 MD...CORMACTCw occAV CALL R. 0.060 To A oe re.Tor PRO-OCT .DAreo...we 2 • • L • ,� ` 4E. \NIco11 _ 9025 St Q.51.-IgL Oela 9222) .� 4'0 Rom I. ; 1 AL.. .nlcx e..»r.>y,2 rear • 1 712.•AMY 7..a of„�P.aTECTIGN 1717e 107HO.EO•o FORGw'nur �` ��1 iil�lo ACCYCES,TRIMS MALL SE .� .. ai 201001 aacE _i• a`• . `,, I sonr DAYCARE i ��r/I/►/{�� % rl 'T��1��//�,�� re..r.. _i' .. A:J nwr nom. toe co ! I CONSTRUCTION 114„''i -�' CONSTRUCTION °1"" ^P ;1 12 STAGING AAREA ,1i �_ --% �A�ONO/Vi�EA� 1 . von iiw_al•en s.on -r =° . . MO 0.11/1AL GLEAMY..AREA • • •\__ ��' !1�" •ti1\ / w s,G�� / AP i �i� iii�o�r .j _� ,iwri : �.7%4v� . ;1 117 • .41..r4 riiiit∎ . - . . 1/114:1. -• ,-\/i -_ -!Gia11►�\w • •:"W 110 �f{ss� �11/s�' _ - rasr _ _ _ -f6msr . eds�. �MIMI . `11osr. F. . _ -'WI• MEM Pw,[anE PM.a Aeon w Wan.aoemeax Ex»rw PAN.0wu.,LourE react u R0011111•0 005*.0 TO KEEP•CLEAT. of^•..K[Peru-,.n. JAW 72nd AVERSE III• N.NORTH TREE PRESERVATION SITE PLAN WEE PROTECTOR GIUDIELRE9 raeP»ocucad man Almoa»1 REPO711 OBIEUL TOMES PROECT P op 6 .211 2.2010 a -g2tgkn.P,.SEE•_aGn e.a. SECOND FLOOR D....,I.m+P4.. :a"'Am , WPM TO REPORT PPCPA»eo..,»en..•. :.awe •1uad.PC Ptuu S72"....ra.e .,, d wm»°n andBow.PC-teas sw rrAm...02.P"w 211,IVO'IrwE r'�i.e PROJECT. CARP AA»r.wr FOR ADDITION 551Aims Tres.•wxmwe..pn spgm. Tye....Report 2 ,.L ACNACo.,TIME•»o,ECy.aa auwnnes• PITTMAN APO BROOK%P.C. MANE ISM 1.0.0012.0 C•1111410.PAbE FOR TREEPRO7PdrI0N0uIDEUNp * . MS° 15255 SW 1290 MHOS 6 _ ion.* r.'•m.nnaucoenr phases malty.pea.. eMALI READ 12.12L AMORIST IICAEO, ON 92221 P»cen.wcmn rm Pma..an.. 1 70 11116.17100111.10•Y An +.ran..0.a.a^aa 1em a•....n...m. C«»e,.e.n.�.a.ow.a•I'M P...Zen.: MIMEO STA sueurrus BP.any construction„o0nel 007•.70..3004005 .±e inn..,r•s.m...t•coy.aa,Ann an..w.n.0 rn..ri»vnn zone. ®3-12-2017 vsa.s PIA 032 cn aPame . . ^... 5mss Esme a.»010050er0 a e»ar...a....7..s... li»e-02 be N.on elle.'°°„""" e"a..5..nod.rms..mod..v»w•.wa.a M•p.m.I... Q OJE ST 007 FOLLOWS.WE �«a Srrm.5..e.u•02.r 0.0..o.eaa 1.Cr F.TM Met.,.071.27.0.A.1..........n7. a MALL ST .�.••»540017.7.......n+ .m ro1017 F1 Fenster a»n.a...,0.e.»P...e 1 • wadi/mans .nO.ECrw.l Pecw TO POLL. P....�.i2..Pm*0.420.20, a»0..01.w0m.2.me em.4S a Earatl n..... 00700 rie ..16110 N.•d•.••5 wmo Me im P.a•Om 22..Ono to .2017.•17...a.....a new e.o-rm eon e.......,.caee c..a.'A�me. meo ACT Pa. 2020.2200!.200 end..020.0 the�p.a.w.00 P..P,.2 .`•.a`w.lM.....v..e..e..on..a m•5000.0.000.ework 00 a ACCeese.n.macs-woo -- °I°ewornImaaaaea..mro.a.memo.IS 220.177.215 w•r..rme,m..r.^Paw...»0y do.P...,...... ale..by nme.F0..110.Q213601112000111..0.4•1"0:.0 0,05• •.. ..7.P.Peomed m..w..tool.......•.,1.n..... r».P.e..a. Po n.a».*Pyr.a..aaa.w■v aa»a bra ea 120.4.• Date. 3-12-2010 WI.5 remdma 0,00 mrm2.w..0..s.me.m..55.0001Nm. wlmnry 0.200 010*0.e..a...e.n.n.Pmw..m kale,eten W.0 won e.•nrw So.Min ..o...7..a PU.oa o» a..ata.armama..m..a.mad wawa a n2.7..o.mteamt. °E LA300C"'. moor..ow,M oon aawae len.5..0 5.u...•••••...0. EME!E Oran by P2 smerm ad nt.m•eeea•ny norm.0*ram.hem ran...en P•.mnme. BE PROTECTED MOP. Gawked by PN nr,.an e.annwna way e.ma ammo.a on..r•.am ,mi2.,°.01PROCESS PP».n rn type 050 nopue n...be e..III..». 0.euma•n.a•re.dOi,000. .24...20. .1.11.n Moen ..A'aITEMS APE S01SNIREE m,I4 Job No.: OP-0512 woc.2.400 am e.r....20^,5 •20...1 9.r.p.AVnwwN Y..m nmem 20201•.X.mn Mean awards as*es as adwstMN am 7.i 7.a.202020120 oMa..d.o.won. OSlwa a owe..e em.r nma a r o.»aacm am•m.o.. ORWAL I¢me E01•1ameo1 Ae,ug No.: 9TJAE e.e..n.I.•.a^a me.011.120......0 00•....t a"?0 707 Omen.TIN I..on.enaama.a•000*.0a...wM.»pre . votem m• raa.a».7..n: ,a,,.E 2017 .202017»21.202017 .••weed.0.a m.fe.r.1.bed.M. .e.1....•I be say..rm....or iw.C.PE maw ° .m.•.a.Mm e.m...and*so a•.Paaa�m....a... r^a...a m••ae.aa.a..®..10..•.an n2..aaaao•.to a...•.mos amao v am...710..0.. ........5.....17 rm P.pa.am Zan S.M.: allure...n,21.0..5...m w a.m.a 7.a.a Pau... lo..a.a.am Ma a.aMnm.aaa mrLeey a n'ioM1°o...w.. 0.011N...7.am.n.a..a.ca SITE PLAN Pon..aa».o ».oneni.n.now.rv2 r.».m...v P®oa 0.N..°F"....°m"...702e..14050 2 TREE PROTECTION PLAN ean,n^..5 d�tOE 2020..••••00....P.3.57100 m mm..n.».mo.avr...m•.05,7000 7*•don 0.•.420.mea..a me..a.ma P...0.0 zone M..by an»wd,a».•a..or..r5...w.MX, m.,oar.000aae.°maw. arma.eml own•ev.0.1.0.ar •...n•Aw.wawwaa.w SHEET .0w.tin oa.n.n..It o.7.t.r.,.m Come-.A e...aam..»»m»pPI m0010 o•ad.0 Maar.nm an•CR..a..a rwm ...a....M O1.0...a.a,a7...•nme.ra a loo.coo•c corm 2. • . , . .`in!„ \Nicoll I1• ___ __ -1 :� T,■■ 962551 Colo A-INA CNN WII3 Row for rie.A,w,ea r,i LOOM Roc...R.v.,cw ...o.. L .. it RORWORGOI.ORRIM GROW)FLOOR RAN noon PUN - — r 11111 r,',r 111111111 - ,. '' 111111 �°�11111�llllt� 111111111, 9yg1.^' �'� I�iN,1�!!;:�I I m r,R9 IXY w.cw .esnxe - or,Q, Li___ r•1 ill _ �__Y__--_ J -S.—1---- IAN:: . ';� ,i PORT 'k. __ ,___ OFFICE OM. I PR. 9aa J IMMI 9!0010 99L011 Rd99 AREA OF WOFK If—, '---' AIL r9ow.99 ELEVATOR PLANS PROPOSED /k GROUND FLOOR PLAN EOSINS I o v - \ i \i r 1 0 ® - .''n'.°�WOK ..,. J ...... W.. MP. r.. '— � ■1!lIIIII�s �!!!!! !! !111� 1 N c� «. 111111 c � k. 1100 ! f ao" `M '1,154:3'4.4,Q. r `k rt r.:1 a'_ owe �.� WW1. - ilMi OP WOW SECOND FLOOR ROV NORTH SECOND FLOOR PLAN 1�ro® p ,p„TM SECOND FLOOR PLAN EN371913 a. ,n,,,N,„b BROOKS Pc OFFICE MOUE wo out.nos NM RN xLIRMIRO oMwr♦ .am u..,w u- 15259 A9 17ND 224 CGRTRenw *OR w / - tor.Le ROW,r>,cm ._ M.IA71 OR 9n2s RATIRI . AFEA OF 9N7 I A WOO T��......, \ / ..� '' t I 1=I IN pli, WAG ,IVi..17r.4;!.....t.r&,i'. .— S Ti:, 10^5 i 2-i 1-20 r — E cIN # $ mbr roA' bX 1 p Y , D 3 -.'iI ,)r y. Fk o*o e. Job N a: ON -0512 Y■ t 5 Draping Na: D9G 1 • m,,,14 §d a4 .T..1 X FLOOR PLANS /ilk ROOF PLAN ___PADF0SID did ROOF PLAN . AEI \i 9Y.1-., yr NORTH ..� 3 t_ . • ~�a \Hicoli 7110.1\ I j—��..aw�KOir !WS S/Conte St,No '97721 1 1 Roe RI S 620-79!6 I I fa6lF16E I I I I w tLLj : ® ® . S, • -----N- C r coma MO anCC MAMA. -4 • NOT 1744,,N.6 1.01.0.1>r..0 I.Aa.....,srtt I NEW WEST ELEVATION EAST.. re! _ . .,n reMAlwr., -— r9 MI.AMER L n,MLa HOAR -1 1. - _ wexnrrtl, r'XOCEMETIZ:.'CI Hi Ste! r..ew I!I!I __. ___ .! [:I!_.'S! NmR.n-ov. iii 11111 __ __ "„.'ue.o SOUTH ELEVATION ME MO — •• o,�..m.reo.,w reM.rww....oe MM. WEST ELEVATION eNOrOSEo I•W-ru o".a To NW r...,.r t m waa re: .00,. Rl6.•..Ip rya MLA aua.c- �� '' �� - �+e.,o uwn \ tir IralA-.�r�eao - - -- -- _ - o.um. w,..w r -- Mill- _ rp n2.r..r.r I ,�aYt 0, .rr.cr: rraw oae era I i • r - v.p.ECt �� w.rw R..e e +— — — — — — — — .!�.•_L+Ce, �i SECOND BOOR ADDMON� m OFFICE N 1_, - o 0o a I-_ - I,O S,PO. AT.I.1 a W 4 — _ —_--_ R.�•+' !"'` __r. ._—__- 15255 SW 22Np AYLIAIC SOUTH ELEVATION — — 0CAA0. C. 9222. sslnuS AO=TAM. EAST ELEVATION I'J0111OS o ..!-r o. o.an a aloe-.I V*) i .11.r Nlw P.P.P..,us arou -,-- u %\ Dolt 2-17-2010 tea m.uw ro - � q --_ Drown by tro'.1 G Checked by P.t 9 .eo....r.s. .-.__ - J aE r..Me Da..)No.. 0.G w. — 09-0 . ...... : _ II II -1IE'ttldi: .:1-__--...„1„1.11,-,_ 0 ..___ _.:_iiii If g'-3,--. G .. R..e•r ELEVATIONS Mi.I x RMOOOM MO.COW./.w+ SHEET EAST ELEVATION nlp.o® !Q W%.n.row,o..w o.uc • I.-- • kV 1. I11 - 1 I I /UL Sl Catty SI.-r9rd((.Crap 9m3 ±-1 '� II ! ' ' ' ' I t 1 I 1 J —F---{--+--1-- �— — fir i �° .,�Fw t! I t la .r.Nrs rrreAr o•,u.r Derr r Li O TYPICAL EAST/WEST SECTION EXBT9J0 O TYPICAL NORTH/SOUTH SECTION omrn !raft .r iiu�iOlgr \ i2 �.-.. I —T —JFldr5K e e SECTION KEY PLAN VORT MICE - MACK rrrmlWK- SECOND FLOOR MEW ROOF OFFICE AMNION ftlt Y Inr- Pff1A/M1 MD ff100K$P.C. w .muawe ROCK.] - eu I i. wraer 15255 Sr]2ND 001001 MI NM Meta R.vrews I: o n cC ex.>r i M.Nm. OR 97719 pEYT1NS O MINI »rte 1 p r..o tio<w.�asT Im,oro �fwe row IMAM. t e,e MIC.aN 77011r ew COMMICTON cowCE 7-11/140vIE 417.11,• o b IIIIIIIIIi1IIiIIIllflliFllltll1IZl f . ' 0-01...... .i__– - -- IWWS.- _------ tee. °`A I Dote. 2-11-2010 EMMG Scar 1/9.1•-0. al noon bp: .d t I ONfken b¢ PN bb No. 09-0517 fi ho..�q No.: SECPOIS .re.., en+Ce�E. cITOO� rMY1Na MYCAM LAY Nr.e•Ilr t-• SECTIONS O NEW EAST/WEST SECTION PRCwo®® O NEW NORTH/SOUTH SECTION PNOror£o SHEET 5 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 USE APPLICATION SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW TIGARD DATE OF NOTICE: April 19, 2010 FILE NUMBERS: SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW(SDR) 2010-00001 (Type II Land Use Application) ADJUSTMENT(VAR) 2010-00005 FILE NAME: PITTMAN & BROOKS CPA'S OFFICE ADDITION APPLICANT/ Randall C Brooks APPLICANT'S Nicoli Engineering OWNER: 15255 SW 72nd Avenue REP.: Attn:James Andrews Tigard,OR 97224 PO Box 23784 Tigard,OR 97281 REQUEST: The applicant is requesting Site Development Review approval to construct a 1,209 square foot second-floor addition and elevator to an existing office building. The applicant has also requested approval for a Special Adjustment to the access and egress standard in order to accommodate both parking lot accesses spaced closer than 600 feet on SW 72nd Avenue,an arterial street. LOCATION: 15255 SW 72nd Avenue;Washington County Tax Map 2S112DB,Tax Lot 200. 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, 18.370, 18.390, 18.520, 18.705, 18.725, 18.745, 18.755, 18.760, 18.765, 18.780, 18.790, 18.795 and 18.810. 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 MAY 3, 2010. 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 garypna.tigard-or.gov. 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 MAY 17, 2010. IF YOU PROVIDE COMMENTS, YOU WILL BE MAILED A COPY OF THE FULL DECISION ONCE IT HAS BEEN RENDERED. WRI"1"1"EN COMMENTS WILL BI ME A PART OF THE PERMANET PUBLIC RECORD AND SHALL CONTAIN THE FOLLOWING INFC.,L'.MATION: • 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 FAd1S 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." 51, \ ! _ ,- VICINITY MAP --�I 1 f. - a SD R2010-00001 VAR2010-00005 ----1I \ ME " PITTMAN b BROOKS CPA'S lnknlNNur`-__ OFFICE ADDITION _._--.... ii, " FLT ,,..'r 1y i � , i \\\\ Subject Site H ,1 ,I ( I I I ,..QA, \ I k ...,,,,...).0 `r . \. ___--- ( / ''' L- ) / eal==..E....v•74.a.==. -, ' , i' ....i : ,.c,,,C.9 ... .....,1,7..."•,:e.';..,.,-.•t '' 1 x,, tnf / / Q V 4°0�PS u�SACIN' C •00 1 ( ` j A¢"ld 1 A A''+','1,�' Gary Pagenstecher From: Gus Duenas Sent: Monday, April 19, 2010 9:19 AM To: 'Jim Andrews' Cc: randy @pittman-brooks.com; Gary Pagenstecher; Susan Hartnett Subject: RE: Pittman and Brooks SDR2010-00001 Attachments: Agustin P Duenas P E .vcf; image001.jpg Mr. Andrews, In response to your questions, the Pauly Rogers project was processed as a minor modification. The requirements for a minor mod are limited. The Leif's project is basically a tenant improvement with no expansion. The Pittman and Brooks application was deemed a major modification and processed as an SDR subject to a wide variety of requirements in accordance with the development code. Agustin P. Duenas,P.E. - , City of Tigard III = Development Engineer (503) 718-2470 _. TIGARD (503)969-4188'. gus`iagard-or,gov 13125 S'%'...*Hall Boulevard Tigard, Oregon 97223 www.tioard-or.aov Original Message From: Jim Andrews [mailto:jandrews @nicoliengineering.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 2010 11:33 AM To: Gus Duenas Cc: randy @pittman-brooks.com Subject: Pittman and Brooks SDR2010-00001 Mr. Duenas, P.E. The owners of the project noted above have asked me some questions pertaining to the Restrictive Covenant (R.C. ) and associated impact fee. I am not able to answer their questions and ask for your assistance. Their questions are as follows: 1) . Pauly Rodgers P.C. just completed an addition to their building on 72nd. Did they sign a R.C. and pay for future street improvements? 2) . Lief's Auto just started working out of the old FedEx building. Did the sign a R.C. and pay for future street improvements? 3) . What requirements have been placed other nearby projects with respect to the requirements being placed on their project. The owners are curious how the R.C. and associated cost impacts are being addressed with respect to other business' s on 72nd. I know this will require additional work on your part, but I believe the questions are relevant with respect to the amount of money ($30,000) they are being asked to pay for their request to add 1,209 s.f. to their existing building. 1 We have addressed the use of a Non-Remonstrance vs. Restrictive Covenant in our cover letter which has been attached to our current Compliance submittal which will be submitted today. Thank you -for assistance. Jim Andrews Nicoli Engineering, Inc. Office: 503.620.2086 Fax: 503.684.3636 DISCLAIMER: E-mails sent or received by City of Tigard employees are subject to public record laws. If requested, e-mail may be disclosed to another party unless exempt from disclosure under Oregon Public Records Law. E-mails are retained by the City of Tigard in compliance with the Oregon Administrative Rules"City General Records Retention Schedule." 2 Gary Pagenstecher From: Jim Andrews [jandrews©nicoliengineering.com] Sent: Friday, May 28, 2010 11:31 AM To: Gary Pagenstecher Subject: Pittman and Brooks SDR 2010 - 00001 Gary, let me know if this works and if you need anything else. FYI, I got a call from an attorney inquiring about the restrictive covenant requirement. Dot you Is and cross you T's. If you could give me a heads-up a couple days before you issue the final so I can get my permit doc' s finalized. Thanks, and have a good weekend. Jim Andrews Site Area Breakdown Site Area= 23,958 s.f. * IMPERVIOUS AREAS *= 14,287 s.f. (59.6%) Building Footprint = 4,716 s.f. (19.7%) South Parking= 2,839 s.f. (11.8%) North Parking Lot= 4,639 s.f. (19.4%) Sidewalks, Patio, Play Area= 2,093 s.f. (8.7%) * LANDSCAPED AREA*= 9,671 s.f. (40.4%) _(100%)_ Jim Andrews Nicoli Engineering, Inc. Office: 503.620.2086 Fax: 503.684.3636 1 NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION r SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW(SDR) 2010-00001 PITTMAN & BROOKS ADDITION ' 120 DAYS = 8/12/2010 SECTION I. APPLICATION SUMMARY FILE NAME: PITTMAN &BROOKS CPA'S CASE NOS.: Site Development Review(SDR) SDR2010-00001 Adjustment(VAR) VAR2010-00005 PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting Site Development Review to construct a 1,209 square foot second floor addition and elevator to an existing office building . In addition, the applicant is requesting an adjustment to the access and egress standards to account for two accesses on SW 72°d Avenue to the subject property spaced approximately 185 feet apart which is less than the required 600-foot separation for arterials. APPLICANT/ Randall C Brooks APPLICANT'S James Andrews OWNER: 15255 SW 72nd Avenue REP: Nicoll Engineering Tigard,OR 97224 PO Box 23784 Tigard, Oregon 97281 LOCATION: The property is located at 15255 SW 72nd Avenue in Tigard;Washington County Tax Map 2S112DB,Tax Lot 200. 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 CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.360, 18.370, 18.390, 18.530, 18.705, 18.725, 18.745, 18.755, 18.765, 18.780, 18.790, 18.795 and 18.810. SECTION II. DECISION Notice is hereby given that the City of Tigard Community Development Director's designee has 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 (25G) per page,or the current rate charged for copies at the time of the request. SECTION III. PROCEDURE AND APPEAL INFORMATION Notice: Notice 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 JUNE 4, 2010 AND BECOMES EFFECTIVE ON JUNE 19, 2010 UNLESS AN APPEAL IS FILED. Appeal: The Director's Decision is final on the date that it is mailed. All persons entitled to notice or who are otherwise adversely affected or aggrieved by the decision 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 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 maybe adopted from time to time by the appellate body. THE DEADLINE FOR FILING AN APPEAL IS 5:00 PM ON JUNE 18, 2010. estions: For urt er information please contact the Planning Division Staff Planner, Gary Pagenstecher at (503) 718-2434, Tigard City Hall, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard,Tigard, Oregon 97223. 1 VICINITY MAP VAR2010410006 \ 0 PITTMAN i MOCKS CPA•/ •�' CARDINAL IN OFFICE ADDITION :aA, \V\ subject sire Ma 1 1 ��., �.. ` '• REDWOOD Lei f .^'f'.• I I � . —� IW&F LN 11 ,l ' wr+.. .n..r.n S:2 P.,0 Feet ,f‘t 0140 lilt 111 e gm CITY OF TIGARD I Approved 1 1 1 .�itionely Approved I✓1 F ar only tM w•• t,,,,, �: INNI s-=••mss= F_9MIT NO 1.l ' rp VA a See Leder lo; ( 1 ��11/ro•!-{r' t`•- Nq AP %1V1......._iiiP �:iNI.L fie .V a 1, ''''e"" �'d _ _ . lc__SITE PLAN....Arm 1 NS-- xa c E g rr ►"A id / i ..g_7->"---- -.1: / //ist ., %4 ill —, ,, er-4 �• �L SIOHYI 1 i 71 Vs;�ii c,ilk,,, 11ovki71 A��a A It C►� 41 it r '641 7:®S�r�llflj • ilL��rE�%Direil11. rraiikilk l�ii1.J1l0��MMiw _ --1�,�,,,alE PLAN..__ �._. ..avocjilid m-§r __ r r. _ ,r,�,.,r,,..- Mill�, �+„w gtyyslame+rr� s.. mar- . .... a — mamma ��_. __ . _nsr- 7:-. • 12 ELEMine .,.. .r.�� - • Pittman-Brooks, Unmitigated Impact Analysis. Unmitigated Impact at FY2009-10 & FY2010-11 Recovery Rates Land Use TDT Charge Specific Land Use Recovery Rate Overall Average Recovery Rate Overall Rate Recovery Rate Unmitigated Impact Recovery Rate Unmitigated Impact Over(Under)Charge FY2009-10 Gen Office $4,282.00 12.3% $30,531.01 14.0% $26,303.71 -$4,227.29 FY2010-11 Gen Office $6,342.00 17.2% $30,530.09 18.9% $27,213.56 -$3,316.54 F Y2 - r 0 /2/01/ 776-4- d-- / 4zr2 -7---D ' 1;e9'e9. er ey/.,..T --77- r<7?- FE 52-€7y F y2D,2_r -5 i 1 �►ee�i 2 r7o `/o O / / 1 ,2703 , A67-044 /5 pU�TIP P/ 2-OUr- e7 �-5e- c t2 .3 � 3 / j,-- e_ v NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION Irr! SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW(SDR) 2010-00001 PITTMAN & BROOKS ADDITION THIS DECISION IS BEING AMENDED AND REISSUED TO CORRECT CONDITION OF APPROVAL #10 AND THE FINDINGS IN SECTION E. IMPACT STUDY, TO REFLECT A REVISED UNMITIGATED IMPACT FIGURE. THE APPEAL PERIOD AND EFFECTIVE DATE HAVE ALSO BEEN EXTENDED ACCORDINGLY. 120 DAYS = 8/12/2010 SECTION I. APPLICATION SUMMARY FILE NAME: PITTMAN &BROOKS CPA'S CASE NOS.: Site Development Review(SDR) SDR2010-00001 Adjustment (VAR) VAR2010-00005 PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting Site Development Review to construct a 1,209 square foot second floor addition and elevator to an existing office building . In addition, the applicant is requesting an adjustment to the access and egress standards to account for two accesses on SW 72`' Avenue to the subject property spaced approximately 185 feet apart which is less than the required 600-foot separation for arterials. APPLICANT/ Randall C.Brooks APPLICANT'S James Andrews OWNER 15255 SW 72nd Avenue REP: Nicoll Engineering Tigard,OR 97224 PO Box 23784 Tigard, Oregon 97281 LOCATION: The property is located at 15255 SW 72nd Avenue in Tigard;Washington County Tax Map 2S112DB, Tax Lot 200. 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 CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.360, 18.370, 18.390, 18.530, 18.705, 18.725, 18.745, 18.755, 18.765, 18.780, 18.790, 18.795 and 18.810. SECTION II. DECISION Notice is hereby given that the City of Tigard Community Development Director's designee has 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 (25G) per page,or the current rate charged for copies at the time of the request. SECTION III. PROCEDURE AND APPEAL INFORMATION Notice: Notice 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 JUNE 18, 2010 AND BECOMES EFFECTIVE ON JULY 3, 2010 UNLESS AN APPEAL IS FILED. Appe—al: The Director's Decision is final on the date that it is mailed. All persons entitled to notice or who are otherwise adversely affected or aggrieved by the decision 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 wluch.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 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 maybe adopted from time to time by the appellate body. THE DEADLINE FOR FILING AN APPEAL IS 5:00 PM ON JULY 2, 2010. estions: For further information please contact the Planning Division Staff Planner, Gary Pagenstecher at (503) 718-2434, Tigard City Hall, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard,Tigard, Oregon 97223. -''_ i VICINITY MAP - r o . .,,;.� S SOR2810O8881 VAR201000006 M`� r PRTMAN&BROOKE CPA'S �__ *:�':� CARDINAL LN OFFICE AOORION sDeJ«L site i\,,,,,,,, REDWOOD LN _ ' KABLE IN 1 • .«w • «.�Yr Y�µwrrMwYjr IT 1 °i� r..r...s..«wv.w . /L i o-0 c) 1 1 i F�P ay c�.::7.x .:re 9 WS is 0 F.t 600 J71Sa ' 1000,CITY OF TIGARD 'mdY.Wy AFpovW I✓1 Fxony0. '"''w"'''''! MA OA Sue Loa I I , 0-.. E,:;∎Iftl 9t Vii∎ s �l �� zi.: �_ /aimIiw.iiNi y�i\I ,,, tl> ®..,.WE PL.N.,..try , �� 4 1 4 / .4% �,.r'� �� f t •! Aliblii -q*A i► 11,41 P1/;I , i/:, re�, C0.41 llr/fl I'll./11e\�;01010l1Cbr!!!i I��G/i!\� Ii W 1J1 0611112.INATI nN=MirLilij'! "'• += � s�3r �°..m.m.e : •.ter. �ypPaaesmrm — -- .A.-- —.n/T • ,raffle r— . : woe.uar � fit=— 1Q Albert Shields From: Phil Hickey [ph @halsteadsarbor.comj Sent: Monday, November 15, 2010 12:23 PM To: Todd Prager; Albert Shields Cc: Rebecca Winn; Randy Brooks - Subject: 11/15/10 TPZ Report- Pittman and Brooks Project Reference: Required Site Inspection & TPZ Report Location: Pittman and Brooks Project - 15255 SW 72nd Avenue, Tigard Subject: November 2010 - 2nd Period TPZ Reporting Developer/Builder: O'Brien Constructors LLC Contact: Rebecca Winn (971) 221-5106 Todd, The Tree Protection Zones have been inspected on 11/15/10 and the tree protection fencing is intact for the preserved trees as required. Reporting Activity: Only regular and ongoing landscape maintenance/leaf collection has occurred within the TPZ as the project site is an operating business. No construction impacts to the root systems of the preserved trees have been observed. The preserved trees continue to appear healthy and stable. Thank you, Phil Hickey Project Consulting Arborist ISA Board Certified Master Arborist PN-1604B Halstead's Arboriculture Consultants, Inc. P.O. Box 1182 Tualatin, OR 97062 TEL (503) 245-1383 FAX (503) 691-6539 1 Albert Shields From: Phil Hickey [ph @halsteadsarbor.com] Sent: Friday, October 29, 2010 12:12 PM To: Todd Prager; Albert Shields Cc: Rebecca Winn; Randy Brooks Subject: 11/1/10 TPZ Report- Pittman and Brooks Project Reference: Required Site Inspection & TPZ Report Location: Pittman and Brooks Project- 15255 SW 72nd Avenue,Tigard Subject: November 2010 - 1st Period TPZ Reporting Developer/Builder: O'Brien Constructors LLC Contact: Rebecca Winn(971) 221-5106 Todd, The Tree Protection Zones have been inspected on 10/29/10 and the tree protection fencing is intact for the preserved trees as required. Reporting Activity: Only regular and ongoing landscape maintenance/lawn mowing has occurred within the TPZ as the project site is an operating business. No construction impacts to the root systems of the preserved trees have been observed. The preserved trees continue to appear healthy and stable. Thank you, Phil Hickey Project Consulting Arborist ISA Board Certified Master Arborist PN-1604B Halstead's Arboriculture Consultants, Inc. P.O. Box 1182 Tualatin, OR 97062 TEL (503)245-1383 FAX(503) 691-6539 1 Albert Shields From: Phil Hickey [ph @halsteadsarbor.com] Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2010 10:20 AM To: Todd Prager; Albert Shields Cc: Rebecca Winn; Randy Brooks Subject: 10/15/10 TPZ Report- Pittman and Brooks Project Reference: Required Site Inspection& TPZ Report Location: Pittman and Brooks Project - 15255 SW 72nd Avenue, Tigard Subject: October 2010 - 2nd Period TPZ Reporting Developer/Builder: O'Brien Constructors LLC Contact: Rebecca Winn (971) 221-5106 Todd, The Tree Protection Zones have been inspected on 10/14/10 and the tree protection fencing is intact for the preserved trees as required. Reporting Activity: Only regular and ongoing landscape maintenance/lawn mowing has occurred within the TPZ as the project site is an operating business. No construction impacts to the root systems of the preserved trees have been observed. The preserved trees continue to appear healthy and stable. Thank you, Phil Hickey Project Consulting Arborist ISA Board Certified Master Arborist PN-1604B Halstead's Arboriculture Consultants, Inc. P.O. Box 1182 Tualatin, OR 97062 TEL (503) 245-1383 FAX (503) 691-6539 Albert Shields From: Phil Hickey [ph @halsteadsarbor.com] Sent: Friday, October 01, 2010 12:50 PM To: Todd Prager; Albert Shields Cc: Rebecca Winn; Randy Brooks Subject: 10/1/10 TPZ Report- Pittman and Brooks Project Reference: Required Site Inspection & TPZ Report Location: Pittman and Brooks Project - 15255 SW 72nd Avenue,Tigard Subject: October 2010 - 1st Period TPZ Reporting Developer/Builder: O'Brien Constructors LLC Contact: Rebecca Winn (971) 221-5106 Todd, The Tree Protection Zones have been inspected on 10/1/10 and the tree protection fencing is intact for the preserved trees as required. Reporting Activity: Only regular and ongoing landscape maintenance/lawn mowing has occurred within the TPZ as the project site is an operating business. No construction impacts to the root systems of the preserved trees have been observed. The preserved trees continue to appear healthy and stable. Thank you, Phil Hickey Project Consulting Arborist ISA Board Certified Master Arborist PN-1604B Halstead's Arboriculture Consultants, Inc. P.O. Box 1182 Tualatin, OR 97062 TEL (503) 245-1383 FAX (503) 691-6539 i Albert Shields From: Phil Hickey [ph @halsteadsarbor.com] Sent: Friday, September 1 7, 2010 1 :08 PM To: Todd Prager; Albert Shields Cc: Rebecca Winn; Randy Brooks Subject: Tree Protection Fencing - Pittman & Brooks Project Hello Todd, The tree protection fencing for the Pittman & Brooks Construction Project in Tigard has been installed according to the Tree Protection Plan map and is ready for service. The fencing is the 6 foot tall, chain link type with steel posts anchored in the approved locations as required. I will be completing the twice per month TPZ inspections and sending you the email reports on the 1st and 15th of every month as required. Please consider this email as the first TPZ report. The construction contact for the project is Rebecca Winn with O'Brien Constructors, LLC @ (503) 241-2875. If you have any questions, please contact me at your convenience. Thank you, Phil Hickey Project Consulting Arborist ISA Board Certified Master Arborist PN-1604B Halstead's Arboriculture Consultants, Inc. P.O. Box 1182 Tualatin, OR 97062 TEL (503) 245-1383 FAX (503) 691-6539 1