The URL can be used to link to this page

City Council Packet - 10/24/1988 Revised 10/21/88 _ TIGARD CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC NOTICE: Anyone wishing to speak on an REGULAR MEETING AGENDA agenda item needs to sign on the appropriate BUSINESS AGENDA (CATV) sign.-up sheet(s) . If no sheet is available, OCTOBER 24, 1988, 6:30 P.M. ask to be recognized by the Chair at the start TIGARD CIVIC CENTER of that agenda item. Visitor's agenda items are 13125 SW MALL BLVD. asked to be to T_ minutes or less. Longer matters TIGARD, OREGON 97223 can be set for a future Agenda by contacting either the Mayor or City Administrator. 5:300 JOINT MEETING WITH 7"IGARD SCHOOL DISTRICT 7:00 o STUDY SESSION 0 9-1--1 Discussion (Update) o Agenda Review 7:30 1, BUSINESS MEETING, 1 . 1 Call To Order and Roll Call 1 .2 Pledge of Allegiance 1 .3 Call To Staff- and Council For Non--Agenda ]:terns 2. VISITOR'S AGENDA (2 Minutes or Less Per Issue, Please) 3 . PROCLAMATION: Medical Assistants' Day o Mayor Brian 4. OATH OF OFFICE - Police Officer Bette Carter o Mayor 5. CONSENT AGENDA: These items are considered to be. routine and may be enacted in one motion without separate discussion. Anyone may request that an item be removed by motion for discussion and separate action. Motion to: i. 5.1 Receive and File: Departmental Monthly Reports - September, 1988 o Community Development o Library o Police 5.2 Final Order - Site Development Review SUR 88-17, Planned Development PD 88-04, Variance V 88-27 Schuetz (CRH/Tod DeKanter) NPU N6 - Resolution No. 88- 5.3 74th Avenue Development Policy - Resolution No. 88- 6. PUBLIC HEARING - COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT CPA 88-03 ZONE CHANGE ZC 88-09 TIGARD SCHOOL DISTRICT 23J NPO # 6 For a Plan amendment from Institutional to Medium Density Residential and a zone amendment from R-4.5 (Residential, 4.5 units/acre) to R-12 (Residential, 12 c units/acre) for approximately 4 acres. Location: Between Tigard High School and Cook Park, east of 92nd Avenue (WCTM 2S1 14A, tax lot 100). o Public Hearing Opened o Declarations Or- Challenges e o Summation By Community Development Staff- E o Public Testimony: Proponents, Opponents, Cross Examination o Recommendation By Community Development Staff o Council Questions Or Comments o Public Hearing Closed o Consideration By Council: Direction to Staff- (Motion) for Final Order 3 €r COUNCIL AGENDA - OCTOBER 24, 1988 - PAGE 1 7. PUBLIC HEARING - COMPRHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT CPA 88-04 ZONE CHANGE ZC 88-10 MIELNIK NPO N 5 Request for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential and Zone Change from R-4.5 to R-7 for a 13.16 acres. Location: 15390 & 15420 SW 79th Ave. , 15685 & 15735 SW 76th Ave. ; 2S1 12CA, lots 700, 3500, 3600, 2S1 12CD 200 and 300 (no address) o Public Hearing Opened o Declarations Or Challenges o Summation By Community Development Staff o Public Testimony: Proponents, Opponents, Cross Examination o Recommendation By Community Development Staff o Council Questions Or Comments o Public Hearing Closed o Consideration By Council: Direction to Staff (Nation) for Final Order 8. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT CPA 88-05 ZONE CHANGE ZC 88-11 MORSE BROTHERS INC. NPO # 5 Request for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment from Light Industrial to Heavy Industrial and a Zone Change from I-L (Light Industrial) to I-H (Heavy Industrial) for 4.83 acres bounded on the west by Burlington Northern railroad tracts and on the east by the Southern Pacific tracks and located approximately 1,000 feet south of Bonita Road. (WCTM 2S1 12AC, lot 1000, 1100, 1400, and 1500) . o Public Hearing Opened o Declarations Or Challenges o Summation By Community Development Staff o Public Testimony: Proponents, Opponents, Cross Examination a Recommendation By Community Development Staff o Council Questions Or Comments o Public Hearing Closed o Consideration By Council: Direction to Staff (Motion) for Final Order 9. NON-AGENDA ITEMS: From Council and Staff 10. EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council will go into Executive Session under the provisions of ORS 192..660 (1) (d), (e), & (h) to discuss labor relations, real property transactions, and current and pending litigation issues. 11. ADJOURNMENT cw/7377D COUNCIL AGENDA - OCTOBER 24, 1988 - PAGE 2 AGENDA UPDATE Council Meeting of October 24, 1988 o JOINT MEETING WITH TIGARD SCHOOL DISTRICT Topics discussed: SRO, Growth & Planning (2nd High School); Street Bond Issue & How Affects District; Tigard/Beaverton District Boundaries; Annexation & How Affects School District; Recreation Programs/Swim Center Expansion (or 2nd Center possibility) o STUDY SESSION 0 9-1-1 Discussion (Update)- Discussion Postponed - Consensus for City Administrator & Fire Chief + Councilor Edwards & Member of Fire District Board meet to discuss prior to Council discussion. o Agenda Review .- Reminder - Boardsmanship Workshop-10/25/88 7-9:30 pm; Town Hall -- CCPTF with Transp. Com.-10/29/88-9 am-1 pm; Town Hall -- Sc requested floodplain policy discussion be scheduled on tent. agendas; Jo advised she would contact Ed re: Util & Franchise Com. & storm drainage issues; Com. Dev. Dir. advised City Engineer shall prepare report to Planning Com. on current storm drainage situation in City and invite cc to PC meeting. 1. BUSINESS MEETING: Call To Staff- and Council For Non-Agenda Items None 2. VISITOR'S AGENDA (2 Minutes or Less Per Issue, Please) Bill Monahan; re: Item 5.2 amendment (Proposal) 3. PROCLAMATION: Medical Assistants` Day 0 Jo/Sc UA 4. OATH OF OFFICE - Police Officer Bette Carter 5. CONSENT AGENDA: 5. 1 Receive and File: Departmental Monthly Reports - September, 1988 o Community Development o Library o Police 5.2 Final Order - Site Development Rpiriew SDR 88-17, Planned Development PD 88-04, Variance V 88-27 Schuetz (CBH/Tod DeKanter•) NPU #6 -- Resolution No. 88-101 - Amended Sc/Jo UA 5.3 74th Avenue Development Policy - Resolution No. 88-102 Motion to approve Consent Agenda: Jo/Sc UA 6. PUBLIC HEARING - COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT CPA 88-03 ZONE CHANGE ZC 88-09 TIGARD SCHOOL DISTRICT 23J NPO # 6 For a Plan amendment from Institutional to Medium Density Residential and a zone amendment from R-4.5 (Residential, 4.5 units/acre) to R-12 (Residential, 12 units/acre) for approximately 4 acres. Location: Between Tigard High School and Cook Park, east of 92nd Avenue (WCTM 2S1 14A, tax lot 100) . o Public Hearing Opened a Public Hearing Closed o Consideration By Council: Jo/Sc UA - Approved CPA & ZC; Staff to prepare Final Order for Council Consideration - 11/14/88 COUNCIL_ AGENDA - OCTOBER 24, 1988 - PAGE 1 i 7. PUBLIC HEARING — COMPRIiENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT CPA 88-04 ZONE CHANGE ZC 88-10 MIELNIK NPO # 5 Residential Request for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment from Low Density to Medium Density Residential and Zone Change from R-4.5 to R-7 for SW a 13 .16 acres. Location: 15390 &3h00203600SW 79 2S1th A 12CD 1200 5and13005 (no 76th Ave. ; 2S1 12CA, lots 700, address) Opened o Public Hearing p 0 Declarations Or ChallengesSc certainled c 1814 11/14/88t Of interest Sc/Jo UA — Set Over Hearing to Date 8. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT CPA 88--05 ZONE CHANGE ZC 88-11 MORSE BROTHERS INC. NPO # 5 to (Light Industrial) to I—H Request for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment from Light Industrial Heavy Industrial and a Zone Change from I—L nBurlington (Heavy Industrial) for 4.83 acres bounded t17 the West by tracks Southern , Northern railroad tracts and on the mast by and located approximately 1,000 feet south of Bonita Road. (WCTM 251 12AC, lot 1000, 1100, 1400, and 1500) . o public Hearing Opened o Public Hearing Closed pP lication for CPA & ' o Consideration By Council: Sc/Jo UA — Deny a Commission findings; saff directed to prepare t ZC; uphold Planning I final order for cc consideration — 11/14/88. 9. NON—AGENDA ITEMS: From Council and Staff None 10. EXECUTIVE SESSION: Cancelled 11. ADJOURNMENT: 10:07 p.m. cw/7377D COUNCIL AGENDA — OCTOBER 24, 1986 — PAGE 2 r: a T I G A R D C I T Y C 0 U N C I L F.. r: REGULAR MELTING MINUTES — OLfOBER 24, 1988, 1988 — 6:30 P.M. (� 1. ROLL CALL: Present: Mayor Tom Brian; Councilors: Jerry Edwards (left meeting at 6:55 PM), Valerie Johnson, and John Schwartz; City Staff: David Lehr, Chief of Police; Keith Liden, Senior Planner; Ed Murphy, Community Development Director; Tim Ramis, City Attorney (arrived at 7:30 PM); Pat Reilly, City Administrator; Catherine Wheatley, Deputy City Recorder; and Randy Wooley, City Engineer. 2. JOINT MEETING WITH TIGARD SCHOOL DISTRICT a. Members of the Tigard School District present were as follows: Dan Larsen, Board Chair; Dr. Russ Joki, Superintendent; Dr. Al Davidian, Assistant Superintendent; Pete Taylor, Assistant Superintendent; Larry Hibbard, Assistant Superintendent; School Board Members, Jack Clinton, Pat Biggs, and Mike Nelson; Rae Bowen, Recording Clerk and Secretary to the Superintendent; Susan Stark, Public Information Coordinator; and Frank Hodapp, Business •` Manager. is i'. b. School Resource Officer (SRO) s' Dr. Joki distributed information entitled "School Resource Officer (SRO) Survey. He reviewed the results of the survey t' noting there was overwhelming support for the SRO program. The program's emphasis was on prevention and had made an impact within the schools and the community. Chief- of Police noted that the program had enabled the Department and School District to resolve some community problems. Chief- distributed a memorandum with regard to SRO's time spentin t: investigation and numbers of arrests made. There was discussion on the program. Consensus was that the f; program was worthwhile. c. Planning — growth in district; update on task force concerning E second high school. Dr. Joki noted that Tigard School District experienced over four percent growth this year, and there was a need to move ahead with t, long—range planning. A study to determine if a second high :•; school should be built would begin on November 9. Part of the study would also review whether or not any changes should be made _ r to the Tigard High School (i.e, updating) . At this ti.mp, it would appear• that a north/south boundary delineating between Tualatin and Tigard cities would be the most logical. Dr. Joki 4 noted there was enthusiasm in Tualatin for a second high school. a Dr. Joki advised 30 people would be assigned to the second high school study task force. The study should be completed by May 4 and a recommendation made to the Board at that time. 6 Page 1 — COUNCIL MINUTES — OCTOBER 24, 1988 c t r: d. Beaverton/Tigard School District Boundaries There was discussion on the fact that there are residents within the Tigard city limits whose children attend school in the Beaverton School District. Residents in these areas have expressed concern and interest that their children be in the Tigard School District, The Tigard School District has advised the residents concerning the petition process to institute such a change; however, the Beaverton School District was adamantly opposed to a realignment of boundaries. e. Tigard Growth — Annexations, Urban Growth Boundary. Board member, Mike Nelson, asked about the urban growth boundary k and the effect the City policies would have on the Tigard School District. Mayor outlined several growth issues under study by the City. He E; advised that the Bull Mountain/Walnut area had been studied and f it would be feasible and cost effective for those citizens to annex to the City of Tigard. Mayor advised that if sewer and water services were available, those areas adjacent to Tigard and in the County were developing (not waiting for annexation to the City) . Therefore, their annexation to the City should not cause any extra impact on the schools. Mayor updated the Board on the current annexations . i Dr. Davidian noted that there was a significant increase in Metzger school enrollments. Mr. Dan Larsen advised there was not a lot of land available for schools as there had been in the past. He noted that the School District does have land near Beef Bend Road and in Tualatin. He said there was a need to look at the Scholls Ferry side of Bull Mountain because of the rapidly increasing population in this area. f. Bond Issue for Streets and impact on schools. City Engineer reviewed the major streets traffic safety t improvement bond which would appear on the November 8 ballot. He identified those roads scheduled for improvement near the different school facilities in Tigard. Discussion followed on r the various project. r g. General Discussion s F' Councilor Johnson noted she had received inquiries expressing interest in recreation programs throughout the City for non—sports activities as well as sporting activities. Dan Larsen S noted that the facilities are being used at a high rate during the summers because of recreations programs (i.e. , Little League, Babe Ruth, soccer) . He also noted that the swim center is an t. t Page 2 — COUNCIL MINUTES — OCTOBER 24, 1488 s area which could be improved and could easily be doubled, There had been discussion with regard to the District's need for a second swim center and enhancing the present swim center. h. Joint meeting with Tigard School District adjourned. (COUNCILOR EDWARDS LEFT THE MEETING AT 6:55 PM) COUNCIL MEETING RECESSED AT 6:55 PM. COUNCIL MEETING RECONVENED AT 7:10 PM. 3. STUDY SESSION a. 911 Discussion (update) — Council consensus was to postpone the 911 discussion until the City Administrator, Tualatin Rural Fire Protection District Chief, Floyd Pittard, Council Edwards, and a member of the Fire District Board met on several issues. Councilor Johnson asked that a process of action before turning to mediation be outlined in the agreement. b. Boardsmanship Meeting — Councilor Johnson noted there would be a Boar•dsm«nship Workshop on October 25, 1988, 7:00 to 9:30 p.m. in the Town Hall. C. City Center Plan Task Force and the Transportation Committee would be meeting on October 29, 1988, 9 a.m. to 1 p.m. , in the Town Hall. d. Floodplain Policy Discussion — Councilor Schwartz requested that a floodplain policy discussion be scheduled on the tentative agendas. He noted concern that the 100—year• floodplain status throughout the City should be reviewed to determine if changes have occurred. Discussion followed concerning the related issue of storm drainage. Community Development Director noted it may he advisable for the City Engineer to prepare a report to the Planning Commission on the storm drainage situation within the City. He suggested Council members could attend that Planning Commission meeting. At the last joint Council/Utilities and Franchise Committee meeting, the Committee chair suggested they review the storm drainage issue. Councilor Johnson said she would contact the Council liaison, Councilor Edwards, so he could advise the Utility & Franchise Committee to not begin working on the storm drainage project because the Planning Commission would begin the initial review. (CITY ATTORNEY ARRIVED AT 7:30 PM) f Page 3 — COUNCIL MINUTES — OCTOBER 24, 1988 e. Discussion on Agenda Item No. 7 -- Public Hearing - Comprehensive Plan Amendment for Mielnik. Councilor Schwartz rioted that he would declare a conflict of interest concerning the public hearing on this issue. He advised he lived in the area and felt he would not be able to render an impartial decision. In response to a question from the Mayor, City Attorney advised that without the participation of Councilor Schwartz there would be no quorum for this agenda item. City Attorney recommended that the Council open the public hearing and then make a formal motion to defer the public hearing to the November 14, 1988, Council meeting. f. Discussion on Agenda Item No. 8 -• Comprehensive Plan Amendment - Morse Brothers, Inc. Council and City Attorney discussed the hearing process. 9. By consensus it was determined that an Executive Session would not be necessary and it was cancelled. 4. MON-AGENDA ITEMS a. There were none. 5. VISITOR'S AGENDA a. William Monahan, Attorney at Law, 12290 SW Main Street, Tigard, Oregon, 97223, requested an amendment to the resolution as proposed in Consent Agenda Item No. 8.2. Mayor advised Mr. Monahan he could address this issue when the consent agenda was considered. 6. PROCLAMATION: Medical Assistants Week November• 7-11, 1988 has been designated as Medical Assistants Week with November 9 as Medical Assistants Day. Motion by Councilor Johnson, seconded by Councilor Schwartz, to proclaim November 7-11, 1988 as Medical Assistants Week. The motion was approved by a unanimous vote of Cr,,-ncil present, 7. OATH OF OFFICE Mayor Brian introduced police officer Betty Carter as the newest member of the Police Department. Mayor Brian administered the Oath of Office to Ms. Carter and welcomed her to the City of Tigard. 8. CONSENT AGENDA 8. 1 Receive and File: Departmental Monthly Reports September, 1988 o Community Development o Library o Police Page 4 COUNCIL MINUTES - OCTOBER 24, 1988 8.2 Final Order — Site Development Review SDR 88-17, Planned Development PD 88-04, Variance V 88-27 Schuetz (CBH/Tod DeKanter) NPO #6 — Resolution No. 88-101 8.3 74th Avenue Development Policy — Resolution No. 88-102 After discussion, there was a motion by Councilor Schwartz, seconded by Councilor Johnson, to amend the resolution as proposed in Agenda Item 8.2. William A. Monahan, Attorney at Law, submitted a written request dated October 24, 1988, to modify the condition to require submittal of a detailed plan to the Planning Commission. He proposed that Section 1, Item 1 be deleted and the following wording be inserted: 1. A grading plan for the developed portion of the site. Cross slopes in parking areas shall be reduced to approximately 6 percent, where possible. The motion was adopted by a unanimous vote of Council present. Motion by Councilor Johnson, seconded by Councilor Schwartz, to approve the Consent Agenda. The motion was approved by a unanimous vote of Council present. 9. PUBLIC HEARING — COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT CPA 88-03 ZONE CHANGE ZC 88-09 TIGARD SCHOOL DISTRICT 23J NPO # 6 Request for a Plan amendment from Institutional to Medium Density Residential and a zone amendment from R-4.5 (Residential, 4.5 F units/acre) to R-12 (Residential, 12 units/acre) for approximately 4 acres. Location: Between Tigard High School and Cook Park, east of 92nd Avenue (WCTM 2S1 14A, tax lot 100). a. Public Hearing Opened b. There were no declarations or challenges. C. Summation by Senior Planner Liden: On October 4, 1988, the Planning Commission reviewed a proposal to amend the Comprehensive Plan Map from Public Institution to Medium Density Residential and a Zone Change from R-4.5 (Residential, 4.5 units/acre) to R-12 (Residential, 12 units/acre) for approximately 4 acres located south of Tigard High School. The Commission concurred with the staff's recommendation on the proposal and also recommended approval. d. Public Testimony — there was none. e. Recommendation by Community Development staff: Approve the proposed amendment as recommended by both the Planning Commission and staff and adopt the staff report as findings supporting the approval. f. Public Hearing Closed Page 5 — COUNCIL MINUTES — OCTOBER 24, 1988 i f i g, Consideration by Council: Motion by Councilor Johnson, seconded by Councilor Schwartz, to approve Comprehensive Plan Amendment CPA 88-03 and Zone Change ZC 88-09 for the Tigard School District 23J, NPO #6; and direct staff to prepare a Final Order for consideration on November- 14, 1988. The motion was approved by unanimous vote of Council present. — COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT CPA 88-04 ZONE CHANGE 10. PUBLIC HEARING t ZC 88-10 MIELNIK NPO # 5 Request for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential and Zone Change from R-4.5 to R-7 for a 13.16 acres. Location: 15390 & 15420 SW 79th Ave. , 15685 & 15735 SW :. 76th Ave. ; 2S1 12CA, lots 700, 3500, 3600, 2S1 12CD 200 and 300 (no . address) i a. Public Hearing Opened b. Declarations Or Challenges: Councilor Schwartz declared a conflict of interest noting he lived in the area and felt he would not be able to render a fair and impartial judgment on this issue. C. Motion by Councilor Schwartz, seconded by Councilor Johnson, to set this hearing over to the date certain of November 14, 1988. `. d. The motion was approved by a unanimous vote of Council present. 11. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT CPA 88-05 ZONE CHANGE ZC 88-11 MORSE c BROTHERS INC. NPO # 5 Request for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment from Light Industrial to Heavy Industrial and a Zone Change from I—L (Light Industrial) to I—H (Heavy Industrial) for 4.83 acres bounded on the west by Burlington Northern railroad tracts and on the east by the Southern Pacific tracks and located approximately 1,000 feet south of Bonita Road. (WCTM 2S1 12AC, lot 1000, 1100, 1400, and 1500) . ' a. Public Hearing Opened r t i b. There were no declarations or challenges . o- C. Summation by Senior Planner Liden: On October 4, 1988, the Planning Commission reviewed a proposal to amend the ; Comprehensive Plan Map designation from Light Industrial to Heavy Industrial and zoning from —L (Light Industrial) to I—H (Heavy Industrial) for 5.36 acres located approximately 600 feet south � of Bonita Road in between the two railroad tracks. The Commission voted to recommend denial of the proposal based on findings that the application did riot satisfy the necessary criteria for plan amendment as described on Page 6 of the Commission's minute — Senior- Planner Liden advised the first step of this process was to review the Comp Plan and Zoning Designation but not to review the merits of a specific use. Should the Comp Plan and Zoning Designation be approved, the next step for the applicant would be to submit the proposed use to staff for Site Development Review. Page 6 — COUNCIL MINUTES — OCTOBER 24, 1980 Senior Planner Liden rioted staff recommendation had been in favor of the proposal because staff felt the request had met the Comp Plan criteria. The Planning Commission recommended denial finding that there had been no mistake or change in circumstances (Tigard Municipal Code 18.22.040) . They also found there was no evidence to support that the following Comprehensive Plan criteria were not met: (1) Prohibiting development with would cause a diminution in the existing quality of life for the residents of Tigard; and (7) Reducing the uncertainty of the development process. Senior Planner Liden noted Legal Counsel advised that the State planning goals should also be addressed. d. Public Testimony Mayor asked that testimony be presented in summary form noting that approximately 20 minutes per side would be allowed. PROPONENTS: o Paul Hribernick, 1200 Bank of California Tower, Portland, Oregon, 97205, advised he was legal counsel for the applicant. The following appeal issues were identified as: 1) "rher•e was a mistake in the Camp Plan; i .e. , there was not sufficient heavy industrial zones allowed; 2) City staff had agreed there was a mistake in the Comp Plan. 3) The scarcity of land available for heavy industrial use was inconsistent with State—wide Planning Goal 9. 4) Uses were being excluded because of the inavailability of heavy industrial zoned property. 5) A change in circumstances existed; i.e. , there was more growth in Tigard than had been anticipated. 6) With changing technology, asphalt and concrete plants were not incompatible with the surrounding zoning. 7) This use would meet all applicable criteria. Mr. Hribernick introduced Mr. Frank Morse (32260 Highway 34, Tangent, Oregon) and Ms. Lidwidn Rahman (David Evans and Associates, Inc. , 2626 SW Corbett Avenin, Portland, Oregon 97201--4802) . The applicants presented slides to illustrate how the proposed development would impact the area. The slides included several views of the property from different locations; the applicants noted that the poplar trees and the style of construction would not adversely impact the area. Page 7 — COUNCIL MINUTES — OCTOBER 24, 1988 Dan E. Mercier, 12195 SW Wildwood, Tigard, Oregon, noted he was in favor of the appellant's application. Mr. Mercer was the property owner of the proposed site. Among the points that Mr. Hr•ibernick noted was that this site met many of the locational cri.ter•ia; i .e. , natural buffers (topographic features), and the fact that the area was serviced by rail. Ms. Rahman advised she believed there was a mistake in the original zoning and because there was not enough heavy industrial zoned land in Tigard. She said this was inconsistent with State—wide Planning Goal #9. The applicants provided more articles of documentation which included pictures and the text of their slide show. These items have been filed with Council packet material. Applicants advised they would leave the 105 foot poplar trees and the spruce tree as depicted on their drawings. OPPONENTS: o Craig Hopkins, 7430 SW Varns, Tigard, Oregon (Chair of NPO #5), noted the applicants had presented their proposal to the NPO. After consideration, the NPO determined this would not be viewed as an asset to the community. He noted that the surrounding area was developed, with considerable investment by others, as an industrial park. The NPO would be opposed to the requested zone change. o Harry Saporta, 7745 SW Gentlewoods, Tigard, Oregon, noted he also represented NPO #5 and was adamantly opposed to heavy industrial use at this site. He said heavy industrial development would be inconsistent with the surrounding uses . o Michael Najewicz, 7961 SW Churchill Way, Tigard, Oregon, testified that inasmuch as this was a request for a zone change, there would be no assurances that the proposed use would be what would actually be built on the site. Therefore, he advised it would not be fair to consider• traffic information as presented as being specific to this site. He also rioted that he felt this would be a spot zone change and inconsistent with the development in the area. He said he did not think there had been a mistake in the original zoning designation. He said the staff review was inconsistent with the Comp Plan change policy because much of the staff's report was based on a site—specific use. o Cal Wooler•y, 14150 SW 150th Avenue, Tigard, Oregon, E r t Page 8 — COUNCIL. MINUTES — OCTOBER 24, 1988 r testified that he was on the CPO #4 Committee. As a representative of this Committee, he noted the heavy industrial use would riot be the best development for the community. He submitted pictures of existing facilities (Progress Quarry) noting the difficulties, dust and noise that the surrounding neighborhood had to contend with. He agreed this would be spot zoning and that technology was not being adequately utilized at other sites to mitigate impacts to surrounding areas. 0 Keith Robbins, 14625 SW Sunrise Lane, Tigard, Oregon, testified he doubted the accuracy of the tr•af-fic figures presented. He said heavy industrial zoning would be more detrimental than light industrial and noted the problems of a development on Scholls Ferry Road not far from his home. o Richard Buono, Pacific Realty (PacTrust), 111 SW 5th Avenue, Suite 2950, Portland, Oregon 97204, noted he would be concerned with asphalt or cement spills which inevitably take place with an operation of this kind. Mr. Bueno submitted photographs for Council review. He advised that PacTrust had developed 1,225,000 square feet of }wilding space over 82 acres of land in this area. Mr. Bueno also submitted the text of his testimony for the record; this document has been filed with the Council packet material. 0 Gregg Flint, 7745 Bond Street, Tigard, Oregon, testified he found it hard to believe an asphalt plant would not have bad odor. He noted the quality development in Tigard and advised that it did not appear to him that a mistake had been made during the planning process. o Jan T. Limpo, 15270 SW 79th Street, Tigard, Oregon, noted no one had addressed safety issues. He advised that impact to Durham Road would be great and cement trucks were very noisy. He said the quality of life was also an issue. 0 Toni and Penny Love, 8060 SW Churchill Court, Tigard, Oregon, 97224, deferred their time for testimony to the PacTrust representatives. 0 Charles Bowerman, 15505 SW Summerfield Lane, Tigard, Oregon, noted he was opposed to the change in zoning and land use. Ile advised that the cost to the community in quality of life and environment should be considered. He said that one instance of use tends to attract like uses and traffic problems would increase. o Leonard Harris, 14890 SW Sunrise Lane, Tigard, Oregon, 97224, testified the quality of life would be negatively affected and he was opposed to the applicant's request. Page 9 — COUNCIL MINUTES — OCTOBER 24, 1988 o Lloyd Schulze, 9965 SW McDonald, Tigard, Oregon, 97224, said this land use request was inadvisable noting potential increased problems with traffic and railroad track usage. Mr. Schulze advised he works in the area and through travel was difficult even now due to delays experienced with trains crossing roadways. o Dennis Worzriiak, 7495 SW Cherry, Tigard, Oregon, advised that there was no need to change the zoning and that he would not be in favor of this request. o Dave Larson, 0690 SW Bancroft, Portland, Oregon, advised that he would defer his testimony time to PacTrust representatives. o Leon Hartvickson, 111 SW 5th Avenue, Portland, Oregon, 97204, testified that he is an officer for PacTrust. He showed slides to illustrate why they anticipated that the proposed development would be highly visible and unsightly. He noted PacTrust had invested substantial is sums of money to create a strong economic center in the City of Tigard. He rioted that some businesses would be adversely affected (i.e. , computer operations) if exposed to large amounts of dust. He contended that open, exposed piles of material would be detrimental to their tenants; one tenant was holding back from leasing more space until the outcome of this request was known. o Mr. E. K. Cole (no address given), member of the Colony Creek Homeowners Association, advised that the Homeowners Association was against this proposed zoning change. He noted concern that a development of this type would decrease their property values. He advised that the t- homeowners had been attracted to the area because of the quality of development which had been done previously. a Steven L. Pfeiffer, Attorney for PacTrust, Suite 2300, Standard Insurance Center, 900 SW 5th Avenue, Portland, Oregon, 97204-1268, submitted to Council a letter dated October 24, 1988. Mr. Pfeiffer advised that the issue of t. compatibility had not been addressed thoroughly. He further testified that the mistake as referred to by the applicant and staff report did not reflect that it was a city-wide change or mistake but focused on this specific F; property. This would not be in keeping with Comprehensive Plan criteria for change. Y Mr. Pfeiffer advised there had been no discussion on the k worst-case situation with regard to traffic impacts which could occur. Mr. Pfeiffer reviewed several areas of the !: Comp Plan which he did not feel were addressed. fi t y Page 10 - COUNCIL MINUTES - OCTOBER 24, 1988 k k z REBUTTAL: PROPONENTS o Mr. Frank Morse advised there were some misunderstandings with regard to what was being proposed forthis development. He advised that the Progress Quarry was a long standing mining -- industrial operation and would not be the type of operation proposed for this area. He also noted that the spillage from cement trucks would be less likely to occur since trucks were being overloaded to travel the long distance to Tigard. lie also advised that s. cement trucks were no noisier than any other large truck. o Paul Hribernick commented on the landscaping noting that any poplars planted would grow approximately five feet a year and would act as a visible screening. He clarified that this was a request to change from an Light Industrial ;. (not Industrial Park) to Heavy Industrial. He reiterated that this was viewed as a mistake and change in F circumstance because of the high growth and subsequent need for this type of development for Tigard. He noted that this area was isolated from residential zones. He i asked for a favorable vote of Council . s e. Council comments and questions. Mayor Brian advised, with regard to the question as to whether or not this was a mistake and/or a change had occurred, no specific criteria had been identified. He said that growth rate may not, in and of itself, be a valid reason to say that a change in circumstance has occurred, f k. Councilor Johnson rioted she did not see the connection between residential growth and the need for changing areas from Light i Industrial to Heavy Industrial. Mr. Hribernick advised there was a need to diversify for a healthy economy. f. Public Hearing Closed. g. Staff Recommendations: { City Attorney advised that there had been reference to the spot; r' zoning issue; this was not a criteria in the Comprehensive Plan and there was no need to address this issue. Further, spot zoning was not prohibited by state law. t� Community Development Director noted three basic criteria: (1) Change in circumstance: Was Council persuaded there was a change in circumstance? (2) General policies and Comprehensive Plan: Did the elements exist to justify the change through other criteria. Community Development Director advised this would be a Council judgment call. This development may have the Page 11 — COUNCIL MINUTES — OCTOBER 24, 1988 a potential of attracting employment or the reverse, it could drive away employment because of adverse effects on surrounding properties. Community Development Director notod Council must determine if this had been a mistake in the Comprehensive Plan and advised it was not good economic policy to exclude a use. h. Consideration by Council Councilor Schwartz noted he did not feel this was a mistake in the Plan. When the Comprehensiva Plan review was done, Heavy Industrial area was limited because of the environment the planners wanted to promote for Tigard. tie said his recommendation would be to uphold the Planning Commission's findings and deny the zone change. Councilor Johnson rioted the applicants had provided much information based on their belief- that a mistake had been made in the Comp Plan. She advised, however•, she had riot been convinced that a mistake had been made. She also noted there was no one present: to testify in favor of the application other than the applicant and the property owner. Mayor Brian noted that Morse Brothers was a fine company and had been a strong contributor to the Oregon economy; however, the proposed site was not a good area for Heavy Industrial development. He advised that he did not feel a mistake had been made in the Comprehensive Plan process and advised he would also vote for denial of the application and to uphold the Planning Commission's findings . i . Motion by Councilor Schwartz, seconded by Councilor Johnson, to deny the applicant's proposal and uphold the Planning Commission's findings with staff to prepare a Final Order for• Council consideration on November 14, 1988. The motion was approved by a unanimous vote of Council present. City Attorney noted that the PacTrL(St legal counsel advised they would assist in preparing the Final Order. Pac Trust legal counsel agreed to submit a proposed Final Order within two weeks to staff. 12. ADJOURNMENT 10:07 PM Approved by the Tigard City Council on f oyem m 21 , 1988 Deputy Recorder — Cit of Tig d ATTEST: < cs,� Mayor — City of Tigard 7819D Page 12 — COUNCIL MINUTES — OCTOBER 24, 1988 TIMES PUBLISHING COMPANY legal P.O.BOX 370 PHONE(503)684.0360 Notice 7—&0 0 0 BEAVERTON,OREGON 97075 Legal Notice Advertising r PUBLIC HEARINGNOTICIr '} �' ` ' 'r' �tftJ coneidera+ iy the iga'�. ty Couue_ on odoberf24; • • ❑ Tearsheet Notice Q 1988;'at 7:30 PX at Ctid� Cenler;Town HaU Room;"13125 SW flail CT T Boulevard,Tigard,Orooil F1 rti Or information ma be obtained Prom the •CITY OF TIGARD ® AVE91988unityDevelopme�ntDirectoiorL'ityRecorderattbpsamelocatibnbr_ PO BOX 23397 Duplicate Affidavit �,i�,. air►c2hlttug 639.1171 Yarare invited to submit'wrItten tkst[msuy inivance ^A4n bf the:public ht'aring;wrIttea and oral testimony veill ti¢ consle'd of the •TIGARD, OR 97223 , € t;earLNg Fatiure;to raise an issue person'0,by letter preclud9s a pj;iW ani=taDlilrer to specify tie criterion from the Ordinance or.)len at which the comm�i►t is directed preeludes appeal baSe�on tliat'criteno¢ �41rgposaLs } subfectito the quasiudiclalgplan,aniendment crlteriagecified,b}'{tie.. Cbmpieheosive Flan 'like publlnliearIng wlll be conducted in accordance wjth}Tbe applicable Chapter 18.32 ofrthe Tigard Municlpa) Codexand any. AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION iulea6rocedure 0:'b' y the Council and available at CttyIatE�� 1 COMPREHENSIVE PIAN AMENDMENT CPA 88-03 ZONE STATE OF OREGON, CHANGC ZC )ss "88-0971GARD SCHOOLxDISTRICT 233 NP0 COUNTY OF WASHINGTON, ) _ U Reovmie;Iw-sPtlltauntldolnritil mfor ssnydt7 yPK4' i,ELAINE PETROGEORGE n a..mrerndm. ent. to Medium Density Residential and a oae amendment being first duly sworn, depose and say that I am the Advertising (Itesidentiio�. 5 units%acre),to 12I �Rt!.sldeptI�1;72;U"nits�ua�e); Director,or his principal cleric,of the IGARD TIMES t ;dor a�pmximately 4 acres Lacation"Be�ween Ttgard High Sc�nooh1111 stdpok a newspaper of general circuiat'on as defined in ORS 193.010 >iark,eilst of 92nd Avenue (uzgrM 2S1 1.4A,tax lot 100) .Staff ldent{flad; and 193.020; published at �i"LARD in the speclYic:repiew criteriaace Flan>polictes 2' af� i o e;that the X611,8�316'ii 1;712131,7 4F 81,�, pdf) 11(2jthe toeatlotF:at�ieria P{ �, G� A AS( Iorythe Medium?Density�Resideh al l?laagesignation a printed copy of which is hereto annexed, was published in the iCOMPREHENSIVE PI:t I+i ME h 'Ap88 4 ZO1 i ,Amir C; X833-30 MIEENiK5 . entire issue of said newspaper for ONE successive and r r �t Review P , - ominLssion's> coal>ileiidatIon fora Coinen�iVeY�lan= consecutive in the following issues: •Am�hdi t imm, ensity I,�esidentis!'th tedla ,,y�2essf� '�a1 aad Zoii �hange,ram -4 5(Rel idea '5.14M sj"a r tial ii 671a e�tor': '31B acres Ifoca i� b 7; d o OCTOBER 13, 1988 + _ ,,, , on 15390& 20SN79t � vz,, i� I�2�35�,SV16th; e,2S1 2CA,tas,late 70 ,30 ,3600, 5 12CDr200 nd 300'(no address) id tified cue {brie re¢A an' oiict �1}1 71 r.7 81 8 >3; `," + �)� ati �tea i for Me$iBittnslty'It �dentIaevelopment,{" � ` 16%!/+1/✓VCi�MPRE�.'NR'+�.�a:.: AMENDMENT.'CFA 88=05 Z NBA•CHANG C�. f" 88.11'MORSE BRA C`sNFU411 OCTOBER 14 1988 >It`evlevrpap "'> ` orits` e ' Subscribe d swo Q before me this � �:. � .,. Rum "d ` b i io I• ea Tntlush ,��5r38 €d N tori t y ington Nort ilroad tacks acrd on K e y,She. Notary Public for Oregon z CZouthren ,�a ita�! errand 1 appro>ttte1,000„fed BouYa�Ofc tionaFfzoa`;t h 151,12AC, lot1NDOi1D0, Oa�id1500 {ofr My Commission Expiresc 9/20/92 34 #1, e c ravlevrplte laipll` `ii4" � t2;::. l 41C, is 712�'�l 1 k l y h AFFIDAVIT ►ocatlonN cria-eriaFlor�h� '' Hyy,, t�e TIMES PUBLISHING COMPANY Legal P.O.BOX 370 PHONE(503)684.0360 Notice 7-6752 BEAVERTON,OREGON 97075 Legal Notice Advertising 'r '�' D *CITY OF TIGARD • ❑ Tearsheet Notice 19�� PO BOX 23397 y ❑ TIGARD, OR 97223 Duplicate Affidavit ..,BARD AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION STATE OF OREGON, ) 'g�' 7■�" y t` A y a ,,�� a' 71 t� was" COUNTY OF WASHINGTON, )ss. � �y7( (�� p I ET ASN PFTROGEOR=Fti Y 'k' 9f J ? �' F :YvyK-rt�4 x.P,ct v. w being first duly sworn, depose and say that I am the Advertising 9 The�foR,1 dg select'fl age items are published for�your in.orra8don.4E Director,or his principal clerk,of the TIGARD T IME S � F�ritte�inioszxtation df foil hpndas'niay< e.ol��►ed frp �the�Ctty� rrr a newspaper of general circulation as defined in ORS 193.010'der,�i$12� W<$a"!l i3 pd, d,Oregon 97223;o�by c1113�-4191, x~ and 193.020 published at TIGD in the rt,= ✓fir RR rs"F 'I"'NA. rx aforesaid county and state;that the � u T-Y COUNCIL}REGULAR MEETING-O TOBE�i 2 ;1888 SYNOPSIS fi �Y .39.2 Join Pfeeting Turd S oil I i:4 r � f 1M'Study Sermon '1 3U�,1►I Re Me4 mb a rioted copy of which is hereto ann x ,was published in the „ �3,�t TTG~p D; C CEN'I'E>;:,TO HAL, ? t p �NE s131 SWNALI; ULEViD,TIG entire issue of said newspaper for successive and ,, k � § j,4 t,;. ,� �, ,-, , - consecutive in the following issues: + JointlGleetlagit } dSt►ool DStrct } j Y • $c,Deaiinga�ti;jCorapeasivenme IIts'` s: 88Mone Change 88-08, gar school Dfstrict 237: OCT 20 1988 '� f gl " IIr f 1&CP&7 iie a. 41 oh1 iighlSInd Headoslrfat "i &x 3� < .-r SPS ExecptiV , �° r de �,te7p ►�i:do , � 6` rx.. �(e), Subs d;and sworn t efor®me this_ OCT. 21, 1988 {h);tbYdi�t Nbo_ lations;real propej)Y�ct�on and cu -"p�; _ '��gondi�glttigafloII�issueS this— Wary Public for Oregon -- .. `7 My Commission Expires:- 9120/92 AFFIDIAVI? ll" AGENDA ITEM N 2 - VISITOR'S AGENDA, DATE Oct. 24, 1988 i` (Limited to 2 minutes or less, please) Please sign on the appropriate sheet for listed agenda items. The Council wishes to hear from you on other issues not on the agenda, but asks that you � first try to resolve your concerns through staff. Please contact the City Administrator prior to the start of the meeting. Thank you. NAME 6 ADDRESS TOPIC STAFF CONTACTED { 5 y11 u w AY. . 2 Kr t 1. r.�Pn1 DATE October 24, 1988 I wish to testify before the Tigard City Council on the following item: (Please print the information) (� Item Description: PUBLIC HEARING - AGENDA ITEM NO. 6 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT CPA 88-03 ZONE CHANGE ZC 88-09 TIGARD SCHOOL DISTRICT 23J NPO #6 Proponent (For Issue) Opponent (Against Issue) Name, Address and Affiliation Name, Address and Affiliation f f f G E r. E K a i i t: t f �j tl� E DATE October 24, 1988 I wish to testify before the Tigard City Council on the following item: (Please print the information) Item Description: . PUBLIC HEARING - AGENDA ITEM NO. 7 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT CPA 88-04 ZONE CHANGE ZC 88-10 MIELNIK NPO #5 Proponent (For Issue) Opponent (Against Issue) Name, Address and Affiliation Name, Address and Affiliation 9-C.tv�'T- 2Y S po774< 5� GNFI� xS DATE October 24, 1988 I wish to testify before the Tigard City Council on the following item: (Please print the information) Item Description: .:; PUBL C.ryHEARING AGENDA`.ITEM>:;NO...B;„. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT CPA 88-05 ZONE CHANGE ZC 88-11 MORSE BROTHERS INC. NPO #5 Proponent (For Issue) Oppo (Against Issue) arae, Address and Affiliation Name, Address and AFfiliation +\Y? .131-11 /�/GI 269K\A '�Irkr51-;wlc-2 µay 32 zG o 41�34 Wo 14(5W l , l`iSS,�,Lv�tpwoov ltdyftytl� 01 � ?Kf SAY vz•c ILFTJ V/-VA3 �' /! 77 W-k ` -7 3� scU CJ&Vvt� �Y3R/.JS ow�Td � t 5 .s- /�g�70 .Slv ScIN�'�scG Gti I i -- (/"oRZnR k i i b2 Y pop-T'& LaJ 'wm of. �t�,n a zZlf c�� Q 972M v�, t-142-01 v19 J�vtd oLt- rn o-tuuUL Joint Meeting Tigard School District and Tigard City Council October 24, 1988 - 5:30 p.m. Agenda I. School Resource Officer II. Planning - Growth in District III. Update: Task Force about 2nd High School IV. Bond Issue for Streets and Impact on Schools a I E I j f f i( kI E t f 1 f .t . I TO: Honorable Mayor, CocitX�- Cit inistrator FROM: Chief of Police SUBJECT: SROs Time Spent in Investigation and Numbers of Arrests Made. Boring the Tigard School District academic ,year. September 1987 through June 1988, the SROs spent 341 hours conducting investigations of various criminal and juvenile status offenses in the District. This time accounted for about 90% of all responses for police action in the schools and for about 90% of all investigations conducted in the District. The SROs made 143 arrests during the school year. The following is a breakdown of arrests by catagory. Burglary 11 Theft 12 Theft by Deception 5 Assault G Harrassment 10 Arson 1 Reckless Burning 1 Sexual Abuse o Rape 2 Sodomy 2 Kidnap d Trespass 6 Truancy 41 Runaway p Arrest on Warrant 1 Menacing 1 Protective Custody 1 Reckless Driving 1 Minor in Possession of Alcohol 11 Minor in Possession of Drugs 17 In addition the SROs issued 5 traffic citations and wrote 26 Field Interrogation Reports. Many of the arrests made were of adaults with a student as the victim. C . SCHOOL RESOURCE OFFICER (SRO) SURVEY (" Strongly Dis- Strongly ITEM Agee Agree : Disagree IH F T HI F T. �H : F T ` �H F T vlsible0 1s.The SR@ 1 i29 i3 19 29 iq i5 ;g '4 4 - 0 0 5 10 q 4 3q 35.30 `b zo q S 5 known/students 13315 7 3o'z8 51 �6 ;9 i3 'S 13 ! y known/staff T �4i 26 26 10 12 2-i 1 o respected b resp y • � � t . students 5 ;3 8 32 '46: �`3 i7 �14 The SRO helpgde reduce drug use T q .5 5 7 9 4 31 35 46 22 q r7; 'lo 6 6 -r .S 5 8 35 �3'23 14 q o preventdrug use 6 3 �� 35 �i 13 ZS �S 8 I (. reduce student T $ 4 g 26: 16i 13 j !10 5 3_ �� ` 1 1 crime at school. 5 5 5 q4 61! iq a 11 3 8 4 prevent student i �O 2y. �l 2 U 4 0 0 crime at school. 5 3 31428:31 : 25 to.7 5 The SRO has: Improved image �S�+;z5; ,11 �- 4 0 a ' 1 0 0 police officers. 3y234g �3 17 is: iy 3 3 helped me obey/ �3 : 0 p uS 50 respect the law. 5 ,� 6 : . Improved law related educ. 'r 16�►6 lyd 3Z'16 Iq II l !0 The SRO should 5 :2314 . : '264 be continued. q;3lo � ;6 -' i The SRO is ` T x)6 31 : 3 c y.. ..__ .;2 1 . o o 'off worthwhile _..._. ,. ._ _.- _�._� Who will pay for these road improvements? 'he 10 year road bond would be financed through property taxes. Road projects would actually be constructed in the first three years of the bond, however, the,debt would be spread out over 10 years. In this way we can all enjoy improved roads in the next few years-, but as growth in the community continues new residents will also share in retiring the bond. Now much will this cost me? Based on an average $75,000 assessed value home, this will cost $63.75 per year, or $5.31 per month. Of course, this amount will vary depending on your assessed value. Over the life of the 10 year bond this amount will decrease as population in Tigard increases. Why not use existing funds to make these improvements? Every year some road 'improvements can be made from existing revenues. Following is a map which identifies projects which are now slated for completion very soon., STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS o Hall/Burnham intersection improvements (1990, (ALREADY FUNDED) State/City) o Hall/McDonald intersection improvements (1989, Intersection project State/City) aaasua project area o Ash St. at Cresmer Dr. (1988, City) o Hall/Pacific ' Hwy. intersection improvements (1989, State) e1 d'f T"11i1r o McDonald St. (Pacific Hwy. to 97th) shoulder improvements (1989, City/Grant) o Greenburg/Tiedeman signal (1988, City/Grant) o Greenbur•g/Center intersection improvements ascan .� a (1989, City) o Greenburg/Ash Creek Bridge widening (1988, City) o Pacific Hwy./Canterbury Ln. intersection = improvements (1989, State) o Dartmouth St. extension (69th to Pacific Hwy.) '� rw�• a �� (1989, City/LID) o Durham Rd. (Hall to Upper Boones Ferry) R ops she improvements (1989, State) a•a o.,".. o Durham/Hall turn lane (1988, City) o Scholls Ferry Rd. (Fanno Creek to Murray Blvd. +' (1990, State, MSTIP) o 135th (Scholls Ferry to Morning Hill) (1988, `' • City/LID) o No. Dakota St. (Fanno Creek to 114th) shoulder improvements (1989, City) o Hall/Scholls Ferry intersection improvements (1990, State/LID) o Hall (Greenbur•g to Locust) shoulder improvements (1989, State) o Hall/Oak turn lane (1991, State) o Hall/Pfaffle turn lane (1993, State) o Pfaffle Street (Hall to 78th) (1989, City) o Hall/Washington Dr. turn lane (1993, State) o Scholls Ferry Rd. (Fanno Creek to 217) (1990, State) Hall (Pacific to McDonald) shoulder improvements (1990, State) Why aren't Hwy. 99 or Hall Blvd. on the ROAD JURISDICTION priority list? State of Oregon Washington County Many streets in Tigard are not the City of Tigard responsibility of the City. The following map identifies what streets are Tigard's responsibility and what streets are the responsibility of the State and County. " s .� w 4� he City works closely with the State and County toward solutions to problems, however, the funds to make those improvements need to be approved by the .. .J State and County. If you have questions about any road information, please call our City Engineer, Randy Wooley, 639-4171. �v' WHAT IS THE "MAJOR STREETS TRAFFIC SAFETY IMPROVEMENT BOND"? Much has been said over the last few months about the major roads in Tigard. More than hearing about them, we all experience them daily: .o Crowded intersections .o Inadequate turn lanes so through traffic becomes blocked o Roads with severe dips (Durham, McDonald) which impairs visibility to a dangerous degree o Lack of safe places to walk and bicycle o Too many cars on the road to allow smooth traffic movement Following are frequently heard questions about our roads situation and what can be done about it. Why are our maior roads not able to serve us? Tigard has experienced more growth over the last decade than any other medium sized city in the state. That is because it's well located relative to Portland and I-5; it's attractive with hills, quality housing and lots of greenery and open space; and it's a good place to live and conduct business because of the low tax rate, quality of services and excellent schools. Because this growth has occurred rapidly, our road system has not been able to keep up with our needs. Many of our major roads were designed for about half the traffic they are now carrying. Most of our major roads do not allow for pedestrians or bikes to travel safely on either side. In addition, because of our hilly terrain many-roads have severe dips and bumps which inhibit sight distance and create very unsafe situations. As Tigard continues to grow, these problems will become more extreme unless something is t ;: done now. What is beinq done to improve our roads? The City is very concerned about these serious road issues. Four years ago the City Council established a citizen's committee to provide advice on improving our road system. This Transportation Advisory Committee has studied the issue, examined options, and concluded that major improvements are needed now in order to correct existing problems and provide into the future a road system that will move people safely and efficiently around and through our community. rhe Transportation Advisory Committee studied all the road needs, conducted a survey and held many public meetings, all of which resulted in a recommendation to City Council that a bond be put to the voters of Tigard to fund the 10 highest priority road improvements. What projects are proposed for funding? The following are the highest priority projects as recommended by the Transporation Advisory Committee. STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS B identifying letter m+aues project area A. Bonita Road B. Durham Road N aa� Taylors Fern C. Gaarde Street/Pacific Highway E D. Greenburg Road s ferry val r�i o9 E. Locust Street J ¢.,p F. Main Street _ Walnut N o G. McDonald Street F H. Walnut Street cooed C MoDonald E - tl M 1 G senile I. 69th Avenue/Pacific Highway — A J. 121st Avenue $eat Durham 8' s I MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON TO: City Administrator Respond By FROM: Chief of Police For Your Information DATE: October 11, 1988 __Sign and Return SUBJECT: 9-1-1 Cost of Services Agreement Negotiations The Cities of Tigard, Tualatin, King City, Sherwood, and Durham and other users receive basic 9-1-1 Primary Public Safety Answering Point answering service from the Tualatin River Fire Protection District. The cost of 9-1-1 systems is pain t-hough a telephone excise tax on the base rate for telephone subscribers. The State collects the tax as 9-1-1 revenue and distributes it to the cities and counties on a per capita basis. To this date, the cities receiving 9-1--1 services from the district have simply turned over their state collected revenues to the Fire District. The Council decided as a policy that the City should pay for 9-1-4 services on a cost of services basis. The Council directed staff to conduct a cost of services study. They further directed staff to invite the participation of the Fire District and the cities that receive dispatch services from the Tigard Police Dispatch Center in conducting the study. The cities and the Fire District agreed to jointly conduct the study. An RFP was drawn up and a vendor was chosen to conduct the study. Economic Resources, Inc. conducted the study and determined the cost per call, per year, projected over a ten year period. The Council then directed staff to enter into contract negotiations with the Fire District for a cost of services agreement. Those negotiations have occurred and have resulted in an agreement: in all areas except for a minimum guaranteed payment to the Fire District. The Fire District is insisting on a 90 percent payment of 9-4-1 revenues. It is the feeling of the City staff that such a guaranteed payment does riot represent a cost of service agr�-_emant. The cities have offered the equivalent of 70 percent of state collected and distributed 9-1-1 revenues as a minimum payment. Seventy percent for Tigard would be about $52,000, which would be the estimated cost of doing 9-1-1 primary PSAP service for ourselves and the contract cities. The staff= of the Fire District and the staffs other cities believe that any further negotiations by the staffS will not be fruitful and recommend that the Fire Board and each City Council meet to resolve the impasse. A copy of the rest of the tentatively agreed to agreement is attached. cn/7462D Attachment AGREEMENT- FOR 9-1-1 SERVICES THIS IN"T"ERGOVERNMENTAL COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT is made and entered into by and between the City of Tigard (Tigard), a municipal corporation of the State of- Oregon, and the Tualatin Rural Fire Protection District (the District), a municipal corporation of the State of Oregon. WHEREAS, Tigard and the District have completed a mutual Cost-of-Services Study for Basic 9-1-1 Services and a methodology for costing future services; WHEREAS, Tigard desires to contract with the District on a Cost-of-Services basis for the provision of 9-1-1 services; and I i WHEREAS, the District is agreeable to rendering such services on a Cost-of-Services basis per th►e terms and condi.?;ior►s h►ereir►af-ter set forth; and t WHEREAS, such contracts are authorized and provided for under ORS 190.010 et s seq. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of mutual promises and covenants herein i contained, it is mutually agreed as follows: 1.0 DUTIES OF THE DISTRICT- REGARDING 9-1-•1 CALLS 1.1 The District shall provide a 24 hour primary PSAP Basic 9-1-1 Center with sufficient labor and supervision to receive and transfer to the Tigard Police Dispatch Center 9•-1-1 calls requesting police services within the corporate limits of Tigard; and to receive and dispatch or• t transfer to an appropriate dispatch center for dispatch 9-1-1 calls requesting fire and medical services within the corporate limits of Tigard. 1.2 The District shall operate and maintain telephone and other equipment and supplies as may be necessary to provide primary 9--1-1 services to Tigard. j 1.3 The District shall promptly transfer to Tigard any and all 9-1-1 calls requesting police services; ar►d promptly dispatch or transfer to an appropriate dispatch center for dispatch any and all 9-1-1 calls requesting fire or medical services. 1.4 The District shall promptly conference call with Tigard 9-1-1 calls that require a mutual police and fire and/or medical response. E 1.5 The District shall maintain a log and report on a monthly basis: all 9-1-1 calls received; all "held" 9-1-1 calls (including mental health, poison center, etc. ); all 9-1-1 calls transferred to the Tigard Dispatch Center; and all 9-1-1 fire/EMS calls for the City of Tigard. t ► `t 1 - AGREEMENT FOR 9-1-1 SERVICES i i r 1 1.6 The District shall provide telephone lock and ring back capability for purposes of telephone trace to identify telephone numbers and addresses for emergency purposes when requested by the Tigard Dispatch Center. The District shall notify the City in the event of any planned configuration changes relative to GTE service for ringback and telephone locks. 1 1./ The District shall retain control of the rendition of 9--1-1 Primary i PSAP Services, the standards of performance, the discipline of 9-1-1 personnel, and other matters incident to 9-1-1 services. t 1.8 All persons employed in the performance of 9--1-1 Primary PSAP services and functions pursuant to this agreement shall be District employees. No person employed in the performance of 9--1-1 Primary PSAP Services shall have any Tigard salary, pension, or other status s or rights under the provisions of Tigard employment- practices or policies. 1.9 -Tigard shall not be responsible for any salaries, wages, or any other compensation due to injury or sickness of any District employee. s 2.0 DUTIES OF TIGARD REGARDING 9-1-1 CALLS 2.1 Tigard shall provide the District's 9-1-1 center with a description of the corporate boundaries of the City of Tigard and shall immediately advise the District's 9--1---1 center concerning any change in such boundaries. 2.2 Tigard shall provide aria maintain at its own expense :Adequate l telephone equipment to receive transferred 9--1-1 calls from the District's 9-1-1 canter to Tigard's Police Dispatch Center. t 2.3 Tigard shall provide and maintain at its own expense adequate telephone equipment on a seven digit telephone number for the handling of non—emergency telephone requests for police services directed to Tigard and to conduct normal business. 2.4 Tigard shall furnish and supply all labor, supervision, equipment, and supplies necessary to maintain and carry out the duties of Tigard as herein described. r t 2.5 Tigard shall maintain a log of all 9-1-1 calls received from the District at the Tigard Dispatch Center, detailing the city of origin of each 9--1-1 call and shall make the log available to the District r on a monthly basis. t t' E a. E t } 2 — AGREEMENT FOR 9-1-1 SERVICES i. 3.0 ADVISORY COMMITTEE 3. 1 An Intergovernmental Advisory Committee shall be established by the District with representatives from each jurisdiction receiving 9-1-1 f. service. `r i' This committee shall be responsible for assisting in the establishment and review of operating procedures relating to 9-1-1 service; establishing plans, addressing technical, operational, and f; financial concerns to promote the most cost effective service; and establishing public education programs for use of the 9-1-1 system; ; and approving recommendations for equipment upgrades, procedure (; changes or upgrades to the level of service. ' r. i. 4.0 DISPU('ES r' 4.1 Disputes or conflicts regarding the provision of 9-1-1 services which cannot be handled at the City Designee/9-1-1 Center Director level shall be resolved by mutual agreement of the Chiefs of the Tigard : Police Department and the Tualatin Rural Fire Protection District. ! k 4.2 Disputes or conflicts regarding the provisions of 9-1-1 services which cannot be resolved by mutual agreement of the Chiefs of the : Tigard Police Department and the Tualatin Rural Fire Protection District shall be submitted for mediation to a mutually agreed upon .'. neutral third party. The findings of the mediator shall be made public. r . 4.3 The cost of mediation shall be shared equally between the parties. 5.0 PAYMENT 5.1 The District will charge and Tigard will pay $5.47 for each 9-1-1 call transferred to Tigard Dispatch Center for police dispatch within E` the corporate limits of Tigard, for each 9-1-1 call dispatched by the '! District or transferred to an appropriate dis atch center for dispatch for fire or medical services within the corporate limits of Tigard; and for a proportional share of the total "held" calls based on the proportion of calls transferred to Tigard Dispatch for police calls within the corporate limits of Tigard and the calls dispatched " or transferred to another• agency for dispatch for fire or medical services within the corporate limits of Tigard compared to the total ' calls requiring dispatch by any PSAP served by the District's 9-1-1 Center. 5.2 In no case shall the quarterly cost for 9-1-1 services exceed the dollar amount of the quarterly 9-1-1 receipts of the state collected and distributed 9-1-1 funds distributed to the City. z- 5.3 Payment for this service will be made on a quarterly basis within 10 working days after the disbursement of state collected 9-1-1 funds and upon receipt by Tigard of the District's 9-1-1 log as described by 1.5 above for the quarter for which payment is to be made. The first payment is to be made at the end of the first quarter after the effective date of this agreement. The District shall not disrupt 9-1-1 service for Tigard's failure to pay without 30 days written notice. i 3 — AGREEMENT FOR 9-1-1 SERVICES fi 5.4 Any costs associated with the upgrade of equipment, changes in procedure or upgrades in level of service approved by the Advisory Committee shall be the responsibility of the governmental entities receiving the benefit. The share of costs shall be determined by the Advisory Board based on the total 9-•1-1 calls as determined in 5.1 of this agreement. 6.0 HOLD HARMLESS 6.1 The District hereby covenants and agrees to hold and save Tigard, its officers, employees, and agents harmless from all claims whatsoever that may arise against Tigard, its officers, employees, or agents by reason of any act of the District, its officers, employees, or agents in the perf-or•mance of the duties required by the terms of this agreement. 6.2 Tigard hereby covenants and agrees to hold and save the District, its officers, employees, and agents harmless from all claims whatsoever that may arise against the District, its officers, employees, or agents by reason of any act of Tigard, its officers, employees, or agents in the performance of the duties required by the terms of this agreement. 6.3 The District and Tigard mutually covenant and agree that neither party will insure the actions of the other, but rather each party will assume its own responsibility in connection with any claims made by a third party against the District and/or Tigard. 6.4 The District and Tigard agree that nothing contained in this agreement is intended to limit the remedy, if any, of either party against the other party, including claims under subrogation agreements with the party's insurance carrier• to recover for damages to property or injury to persons caused by a party's negligence. 7.0 EFFECTIVE DATE AND RIGHT TO TERMINATE 7.1 The District and Tigard agree that this agreement shall be effective for a period of 12 months, commencing at 12:01 a.m. on the first day of July 1988, and expiring at MIDNIGHT on the last day of June 1989. In the event that either party desires to renew this contract upon the expiration thereof, the party so desiring shall notify the other party at least one hundred and eighty (180) days prior to expiration of the agreement. Within ninety (90) days after• receipt of such notice, the parties shall review the compensation and any other provisions hereof, and agree to renew the agreement as it may be modified. If agreement cannot be reached, the contract will terminate as provided above. 7.2 This agreement may be terminated by either party without cause upon ninety (90) days prior written notice. 4 - AGREEMENT FOR 9-1-1 SERVICES t t "r 8.0 WHOLE AGREEMENT ' Other than as specifically described herein, this contract contains t 8.1 attics and supersedes any and all the entire agreement between the p pertaining 1' other agreements, written or oral, expressed or implied, p g to the subject matter hereof. is 6.2This contract is subject to all applicable public contracting laws, C ions of ' municipal finance, and constitutional and charter debt rcilistsubject the parties and of municipal corporations generally, to funds being appropriated thereof. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this agreement to be executed by the duly authorized officers on the dates hereinafter written. TUALATIN RURAL FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT CITY OF TIGFlRD i 1 r By: By: Larry Goff I Tom Brian Chairman Mayor, City of Tigard Date: Date: Attest: Attest: Loreen Wilson City Recorder Date: Approved as to form: Approved as to form: City Attorney Attorney, TRFPD (cn/5370D) 5 — AGREEMENT FOR 9-1-1 SERVICES CITY OF TIGARD OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY AGENDA OF: October• 24, 1988 DATE SUBMITTED: October 18, 1988 ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Proclamation — PREVIOUS ACTION: None Medical Assistants Week Medical L Assistants Day ^ !!PREPARED BY: Marcha K. Hunt DEPT HEAD OK CITY ADMIN OK / `REQUESTED BY: Clackamas Med. Assist. POLICY ISSUE November 7-11, 1988 is Medical Assistants Week; November 9 is Medical Assistants Day. Governor Goldschmidt has in the past and is scheduled this year to officially recognize these dates in the form of a proclamation. Tigard has been requested to also recognize these dates in the form of a proclamation. INFORMATION SUMMARY Medical assistants are the ones who assist physicians in their offices with patient care and administrative duties. Medical assistants are certified by attendance in community college programs followed by a national examination, or by independent study and experience followed by a national examination. Periodic revalidation is required to maintain certification. The American Association of Medical Assistants was founded in 1956. There are 7 county chapters in Oregon. The request for recognition has been presented by Juanita R. Laush, President of the Clackamas Chapter of Medical Assistants. Tigard has been recognized by the Clackamas Chapter because of its reputation for quality care in its numerous medical offices. _ ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED None. FISCAL IMPACT None known. SUGGESTED ACTION Approve proclamation and declare November 7-11, 1988 as MEDICAL ASSISTANTS WEEK; November 9, 1988 as MEDICAL ASSISTANTS DAY. mh7590D . I :i 'g j PROCLAMTION I ; MEDICAL ASSISTANTS WEEK I x 6 WHEREAS, medical assistants bring to their positions skill, dedication and loyalty; WHEREAS, medical assistants promote and maintain a i cooperative relationship between* themselves, their j. physician/employers and the patients they serve; is WHEREAS, medical assistants make a substantial E. contribution to the quality of health care in this country; f NOW,, THEREFORE, I, Tom Brian, Mayor of the City of 2 Tigard, do hereby proclaim the week of November 7-11, 1988 as , MEDICAL ASSISTANTS WEEK in the City of Tigard. c � Mayor, City of Tigard Attest: - ratlix 1.( y" tu)/LQa Deputy City Recorder _lam OATH OF OFFICE Do you, Bette Carter, solemnly swear that you will uphold and support the Constitution and laws of the United States of America and the State of Oregon and the Charter and ordinances of the City of Tigard. That you will faithfully, honestly, and impartially discharge the duties of office of Police Officer during your continuance therein to the best of your ability, so help you God. Do you further further affirm that you are riot now, nor have you ever been at any time, a member• of any organization advocating the overthrow of the United States Government. cw/7570D F `rte 1 1 ,k i it MEMORANDUM E CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON k t_ TO: Honorable Mayor, City Council and Library Board Respond By i, r FROM: Library Director —— For Your Information DATE: October 12, 1988 _Sign and Return SUBJECT: Monthly Report, September, 1988 t e'. 4` WCCLS: The County Board of Commissioners issued a new resolution and order establishing a new eleven person board that will be advisory to the County Board of Commissioners from the professional board of Washington County Cooperative Library Service (WCCLS) . Each contracting library will have one member and two members will be from the unincorporated area for a total of eleven persons. Each contractor is being asked for nominations to that position. As soon as there are six appointments, the board will begin meeting. County administration is still looking for a consultant to study the reimbursement formula for WCCLS. Candidates for coordinator's position are being selected and notified. The new levy committee report was presented at the last professional board meeting. It represents an upgrading of all F programs as well as full reimbursement to the contracting libraries. Discussion suggested that some of the programs could be better implemented in five years rather than during the proposed three years of the levy. This will receive further study and discussion before being sent to the various contracting units. LSCA Grant: The Library has submitted a grant to the State Library for federal funds through the LSCA program to set up a cooperative research service with the Tigard High School to include a full use of WILI and joint collection development. This will be a one—year demonstration. If successful, the program would be proposed for all county high schools. New Hours: The Library began its new open hours schedule on September 6, opening each evening Monday through Thursday until 9:00 P.M. On September 12 began the Monday schedule of open hours from 9:30 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. This has increased the Library's from 50.5 to 61 hours per week. Volunteers: E Thirty volunteers gave 398.75 hours; daily average 16.6 hours; 7 youth services volunteers gave 25 hours; three community service assignees worked 37.25 hours; Library Boare gave 14 hours. Honorable Mayor*, City Council and Library Board October* 12, 1988 Page 2 Youth Services: Traditionally, September is a non—programming month for the Library, in between the summer reading program which ended in August and the new programs which will begin in October. First meeting was held for the Young Adult Round Table (YART). They selected two projects. One is to assist at the children's Halloween party and to conduct a Young Adult/Children's book sale. Forty—three students have attended homework tours this month. Tigard High School has committed to having students perform at the children's Halloween party and during various Book Week events. Work Indicators: Sept. 1988 Sept. 1987 Sept. 1986 Adult Materials 10,023 8,620 6,722 Juvenile Materials 5,799 4,659 4,041 TOTAL 15,822 13,279 10,763 Days of Service 24 23.5 23 Average Daily Circulation 659 565 468 Hours of Service 243 219 212.5 Materials Circulated Per Hour 65 61 51 Increase in Circulation 19% 23% 34% Materials Added/Withdrawn 171/53 371/24 278/0 Borrowers Registered 317 338 339 Story Time (Number of Sessions)* N/A N/A N/A Toddler Time (Number of Sessions)* N/A N/A N/A Special Children' s Programs (Number of Sessions)* N/A N/A N/A Personal Computer Users 182 92 N/A Fines/Fees Collected $903.59 $490.72 $26.55 Gifts Received $11.72 $36.66 $5,106.61 *September is traditionally a non—program month. ke/7477D C CITY OF_TIGARD, OREGON s. COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY E; AGENDA OF: October_ 24, 1986 DATE SUBMITTED: October 13 1988 ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Community PREVIOUS ACTION: F Development - Monthly Report for PREPARED BY: Community Development September DEPT HEAD OK CITY�ADM OK _ ,� REQUESTED BY: ------_.._ -" —_ - ....:._..__POLICY ISSUE r. s. F` INFORMATION SUMMARY F' f t ' elopment Department Monthly Report for September Attached is the Community Dev s 1988. r: ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED s €`s r Receive and file. s; L1' kms'. FISCAL IMPACT y `—~ SUGGESTED ACTION f Receive and file. cn/7421D COMMUNII'Y DEVELOPMENT" DEPARTMENT E� Monthly Report — September, 1988 I. BOARDS AND COMMITTEES A. Parks and Recreation Board On September 19, 1988, the Parks and Recreation Board met with the City Council in a joint workshop. Topics of discussion included a review of the Parks Plan adopted in 1987 and a status report on the master planning effort- currently underway for the three city--wide parks. Park financing was also discussed in conjunction with the anticipated parks levy. In addition, the need for a .list of parks priority projects and how the list would be developed was discussed. Concensus was that the list of projects should be identified by early January. On September 2.0, 19881 the Park and Recreation Board reviewed the consultant's recommendations for• improvements to the three city—wide parks. There was consensus on the recommendations regarding Fanno Creek Park. An additional meeting was held on September 2.7, 1988 to reach an agreement: on the Master Plan concept for Summer•lake and Cook Parks. B. City Center Plan Task Force A contract was awarded on September 12, 1988 to Guthyrie/Shisarenko & Associates to prepare the design element of the City Canter Action Plan. On September 15, 1988, the City Center, Plan Task Force met in a joint session with the Transportation Advisory Committee to review concepts and alignment alternatives for access and circulation into and through the study area. On September 20, the Task Force met in a joint session with the Park Board to review alternative development concepts for Fanno Creek Park and with the design consultant to brainstorm goals and purposes for the design element of the City Center Action Plan. II. DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY A. Current Planning This section issued 11 administrative decisions including a Site Development Review approval for 69,650 square feet of office/light industrial space for Pac Trust on SW 72nd Avenue. In addition, seven hearing items were processed by the staff including three Comprehensive Plan Amendments/Zone Changes, one 72—lot subdivision (Lange Tree), a Sign Code Exception and two Conditional Use requests. Development: applications are still being reviewed at a consistent rate, although it is expected that new submittals will begin to x taper off by November-. " In order to implement the sign amortization program, the staff is presently meeting with business and property owners to bring the .f non-conforming signage into compliance. Many are applying for a Sign Code Exception or Variance to retain existing signs . The staff is handling four to six pre-•application meetings per week as well as sign-related phone calls. Fred Meyer has received a Sign Code Exception to replace the "monster•" with a 130 square foot sign. B. Building Permits September FY 88-89 FY 87-88 Single•-Family Permits 19 33 Multi-Family Permits 0 0 Commercial-Industrial Permits 24 22 Value of Single-Family 1,513,873 3, 173,553 Value of Commercial-Industrial 1,189,908 1,535,200 Value of other (alterations and misc. structures) 29,488 293,438 Total Valuation 2,733,269 5,025,391 The trend of lower numbers of housing starts continued through September•, in comparison to 1987--88 (19 for September 1988; 33 for September 1987) . Overall the valuation of construction for the first quarter of fiscal year 1988-89 exconds that of 1987-88 by $2.5 million ($15,814,301 vs. $13,205,550) . To date, there is over $10 million in valuation of projects submitted for plan review. C. Engineerinq Services Principal efforts this past month has been to review "revisions" to construction plans which were previously submitted for projects and that have received Planning Division approval, namely -- Brittany Square No. 4 Subdivision, Mapleleaf Street, Oregon Business Park III (the 72nd Avenue portion) and Tigard Park Subdivision. Preparation of construction documentation for some of the above projects was also initiated. Other efforts have been to monitor progress, perform administrative tasks and conduct field inspections for pubic improvement (street, sewer, subdivision) projects that are in the construction performance or maintenance assurance stage of the development cycle. Currently, there are thirty-three improvement projects in the construction performance stage, there are twenty improvement projects in the maintenance assurance stage and, also, there are fifty-five "open" Street Opening Permits. Projects that were completed include: Colony Creek No. 2, Colony CCreek No. 3, Colony Creek No. 4 Subdivsions and, also five Street Opening Permit projects. Three construction permits were issued, namely - Oregon Business Park :CII (Kahle Lane Street and Sewer Improvement, $8410.00 value); Oregon Business Park III (on-•site storm sewer improvement, $1,000.00 value) and Key Pacific (68th Avenue street- and 72nd is Avenue culvert improvements, $11,460.00 value. r III. OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE ( is A. Wastewater In the month of September, Wastewater crews built seven catch basins . They reshaped drainage ditches on North Dakota, and Greenburg, Tiedeman, 121st, Baylor between 72nd and 69th, 72nd from E' Baylor to Rock Creek, and Pine Street. They also cleaned all n. driveway culverts in those areas. Two crew members attended a wastewater collection workshop at Oregon State. B. Parks Two hundred and eighty-eight manhours were spent on turf- mowing. A storage shed was built at Cook Park. One hundred and eighty-eight hours of community service and 42 hours of Boy Scout Eagle projects were also contributed. . i Two employees attended a class on pesticides and each received their applicator's license. ► The Parks Crew Chief completed first aid and CPR training and h received an instructor's permit. C. Streets This summer' s traffic marking program was completed, which included . markings at major intersections and school crossing areas. Lane ; markings were contracted out to Washington County which covered f; approximately 4 miles. Roadside mowing was completed through the use of a rental mower. ' �s D. Shops ' Projects completed in September included preparation work for the Police Department mobile computer terminals and preventive { maintenance and repairs on street sweepers and dump trucks. E. Building Maintenance Twenty-eight Requests for Action (RFA) were completed for the month of September which included the following: moving office furniture j and boxes over to the Chamber of Commerce building, checking fire extinguishers at the Senior Center, running telephone cable for the Police Department, installing the bracing for a new antenna at the ! Police Department, installing computer cable at the Civic Center, and continued remodeling improvements to offices at the Operations Center. t i IV. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM A. Greenway/Tied eman intersection: Turn lane is completed and signals are installed. Signals should be in operation by the end of October. B. Durham/Hall turn lane: Complete except some cleanup. C. Ash/Cresmer improvement: Complete except cleanup. D. Pavement overlaps: Work scheduled for late October. E. Greenbury/Ash Creek bridge: Construction has begun F. 135th Avenue LID: Construction is on schedule. G. Dartmouth LID: Attorney's office is proceeding with right—of--way acquisition. H. Northeast Bull Mountain Transportation Study: County's work on traffic analysis was delayed slightly because a key staff member left. First meetings with the neighborhood now tentatively scheduled for November. I. 100th Avenue Storm Drain: Phase I project (south of Sattler) is completed. J. Hillview Street Storm Drainage: Construction began this week. K. Cascade Boulevard Storm Drainage_: Consultant study is completed, providing a drainage master plan for the sub—area and identifying appropriate phasing. Several small projects have been identified as first priority. Staff is working on acquiring easements. br/7421D Tu: Honorable Mavor. Co, il, L ty �, istrator FROM: Chief of Police URJEC T: September 1983 Monthly Report l.n September u1e police department started the implementation of the long awaited computerization or the department. '!he :1st or the mobile data computers has been installed in a police vehicle and it is anticipated that all the patrol units will have the computers ins~tatiled by the middle of November. Computer terminals have been placed in police department offices and report areas so that there is access to computers by everyone in the department. We have found that as offacers stax,t out. ny sending electronic mail that their fear of computers has been minimized and they are enjoying loggincT onto the system and usingit. Tney will find that the computers will afford them the opportunity to do their iohs even more efficiently and effectively as time gooes on. As an example this report is being processed by we on the computer in my office. The remodel of the records/dispatch area has been started. The new console is in the hands or Motorola and is ready to install as soon as the room remodels have been completed. The addition of the second console will provide the dispatch function with additional flexibility. One of the main benefits will be. the ability of one dispatcher dispatching an emergency on one frequency while another dispatcher continues to dispatch routine radio traffic on another frequency. fhe records section has added another records clerk. '!'his person is on a rehabilitation program operated by workmaris comp. Stle will be in the police department until June 1989 for training. She. has proved to be a capable employNe and will soon be working evening hours which will allow us to expand the open hours of the records section. The salary and benefits of the program are being -orae entirely by workmans comp at no cost to the city. My involvement continues with the planning for the IACP conference which begins Ocober 15 and continues through October GU. We are looking forward to a succesful conference. One of the major consequences of the conrerence is that durina the plann:Lng process many police personnel from around the state and particularly the metro area have come tocrether in an unprecedented wav to work together. We believe that the close cooperative relationships that have developed out of the planning process well carry over into the future. thereby enhancing interagency cooperation in the fight against crime. You will find attached three reports. one details training provided to department personnel since January 1. the second is a comparison of traffic citation rates and crime rates over a specified period of time. The third details activity of the SROs over the summer months. 4 MEMORANDUM CITY 01= TIGARD, OREGON TO: Honorable Mayor', Council, City Respond By Administrator For Your Information FROM: Chief of Police ----- DATE: October 10, 1988 ---- Sign and Return SUBJECT: Report on Police Department Training Received January 1, 1988 to Date The following list of training received by Police Department personnel is offered for your information: K-9 Working Seminar Shooting and Homicide Investigation Streetwise — Self Defense Forum Image and Communication Skills for Women Administration and Management of FTO Programs Legal Aspects of Police Pursuit Healthy Conflict Training Oregon Narcotics Enforcement Seminar Supervisors Role in the Field Training Program Field Officer in the F"CO Program BPST School Resource Officer Seminar Tactical Supervision of Critical Incidents Executive Development Seminar Managing the Controlled Informant Advanced Officer Survival and Patrol Tactics Communications Personnel Basic Course Auto Theft Course for the Patrol Officer Child Abuse Investigation for Patrol Identi--kit Training Course Radiological Monitoring Class Juvenile Justice Program The Property Evidence Function Advanced Accident Investigation Association of Records Managers Conference Juvenile Gangs Current Trends Basic Fraud Investigations Outlaw Motorcycle Gang Class Northwest Resource Officers Conference Law Enforcement Photography Health and Fitness Leadership for Criminal Justice Northwest Fire and Arson Seminar Honorable Mayor, Council and City Administrator October 10, 1988 j Page 3 t Organized Crime Conference CPR Training e. First Aide Training Hazardous Materials Training I. Child Pornography and Ritualistic Abuse Investigations Seminar Explosive Power Development Course (Defensive Tactics) Investigation of Methamphetamine Labs Officer Testimony Regarding DUII Basic Dispatching Techniques Hazardous Materials Relating to Drug Labs Training Basic Police Academy Health Promotions in Oregon Criminal Justice Undercover Investigations Seminar S` Y.: Advanced Homicide Investigation Seminar Northwest Check Investigators Association Training Seminar :. Street Gangs Seminar 4 In addition, the Tigard Police Department maintains a library of 17 training videos that are periodically reviewed at roll calls and other opportunities. We anticipate adding to the video library as it gives us a good trainingir medium, reaching a large audience at low cost. Many of the training classes listed were attended by more than one officer. Several of the training seminars offered to our officer's are sponsored by the t department. By sponsoring training seminars, we greatly reduce our costs , through tuition discounts or our officers attending completely free of charge. __' A further more detailed update on training will be presented with the annual report. I' ke/7464D 4' r. t, MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON i i TO: Honorable Mayor, City Council and City Administrator Respond By i i FROM: David C. Lehr, Chief of Police For Your Information DATE: October 21, 1988 Sign and Return i SUBJECT: High Visibility Patrol and Crime Statistics { The Tigard Police Department is constantly exploring different ways to provide j more effective and efficient service to the community. In late 1987, the patrol commander and the shift supervisors decided that a high visibility traffic enforcement and field contact program might serve as a deterrent to armed robbery and other crimes. the Patrol Division undertook a concerted [ effort to contact th, se persons committing traffic violations and issue traffic citations or warnings and contact those persons acting suspiciously and complete field contact reports. This effort started on October 1, 1987. The following information is presented to provide a statistical comparison of traffic enforcement rates and crime rates in Tigard and five surrounding t jurisdictions. These live jurisdictions out of seven queried chose to respond with data. The statistical data that f-olluws is for the periods of October 1986 through August 1987, and October 1987 through August 1 988. October 86/August 87 October 87/August 88 Traffic citations issued: Tigard 4637 9664 E, Beaverton 8536 8248 Lake Oswego 7126 6475 Milwaukie 4352 4784 . Forest Grove 1746 1733 Newberg 2078 2050 r Robberies reported: Tigard 24 18 F Beaverton 42 58 Lake Oswego 8 12 Milwaukie 19 21 k Forest Grove 4 12 Newberg 6 2 Memo to Mayor, Council, and City Administrator Page 2 October 21, 1988 Residential burglaries reported: Tigard 200 181 Beaverton 339 388 Lake Oswego 176 261 Milwaukie 242 214 Forest Grove 105 134 Newberg 85 61 Commercial Burglaries Reported: Tigard 162 110 Beaverton 180 150 Lake Oswego 55 70 Forest Grove 44 71 Newberg 39 55 On October 3, 1988, the Oregonian reported that the crime rate in the United States has increased by one percent in the first six months of 1988 compared to the first six months of 1987. The story further reported that violent crime, including armed robbery, increase five percent. Property crime increased one percent. In the west, violent crime increased four percent and property crime increased one percent. in the same time frame, Tigard was experiencing a reduction in crime rates. cs/7664D n S / V 10: Honorable May,--,r. C( nr_..�1 i�i::It. Adn,rn istrator n � FFdDM: Chief of Police SU&1EX,r: Summer, Walk & Tai k At the end of the school year. June 1988. I assigned the SROs, Officers Rick Peterson and Rick BcK)i..hby. to a walk and talk program over the summer months. 'Their mission was to personally contact as many households in the community as possible and talk about what the police department was doing about crime in the community, what the citizens concerns about police related matters in their- neiahborhoods were arid about neighborhood watch. officers Boothby and Peterson Knocked on 2023 doors. finding 820 residents at home to talk about neighborhood watch. They left. fliers describing neighborhood watch on the doors of those houses where no one was at home. Of the 820 residents contacted 125 expressed an interest in helping in getting a neighborhood watch program started in their neighborhoods. Those names have been referred to Crime Prevention Specialist Deb Watros for followup. Letters have been sent to all 125 persons interested in the program asking them to be patient until they are contacted to set a meeting date to start the organizing process. I anticipate that two organizational meetings a week will be held until we get through the list. Officers .Boothby and Peterson received many positive comments from residents about the walk and talk and neiahborhood watch programs. Officers Boothby and Petersons report is attached. 3 September 6, 1988 TO: Chief of Police David Lehr FROM: E. Boothby and Rick Peterson RE: Walk and Talk--Neighborhood Watch Officer Boothby and I put the fliers on 2023 homes. We talked with 820 residents about Neighborhood Watch. We are referring 125 contacts to Debra Watros. There are a lot of positive attitudes in our community. It would be profitable for us, including patrol, to continue to make periodic contacts in our neighborhoods. Hopefully, we could gain the trust and support from all of the people of Tigard. Following are statements that were made during our contacts with residents. Some are repeats from the first list. . We are glad to see uniforms walking the neighborhood. The kids get a good impression of the police. . It's great to see that a police department cares for the citizens in their city. It really shows the police support the residents. . I moved from Portland because of the problems of gangs, but the first week that we were here, my son was beat up by four other boys. This shows that things happen everywhere. The good thing about this was that Tigard Police were very good and arrested the group. TPD made a bad problem better. It's nice to see the police in the neighborhood. We support the police and the Neighborhood Watch program. We came from an area that had one a few years back. It works. We had a Neighborhood Watch a while ago, but no one really did anything with it. The program works if everyone works together. . We like the idea of the Neighborhood Watch, but we'll wait until the neighbors want to start it. . It's nice to see a marked car drive through the area. It's nice to see a "Walk and Talk" program. . The Tigard Police response time has been great! We've called several times and it's been only minutes, whereas, in Portland my friends say it's almost an hour, if at all, before the police arrive. . Neighborhood Watch sounds good! It must be important if the police are going door to door. We like the area and we have a small group that looks out for us. We should be more involved with this Neighborhood Watch. . We support Neighborhood Watch. , . Why should we get involved in Neighborhood Watch? We know our neighbors and we watch each other! (After explanation) Neighborhood Watch is more than just watching each other; we'll talk with our neighbors. . Tigard, is a growing city and we heard good things about it, so we moved from Portland to here. We haven't regretted it. . We have had a good response from the police when we called them. We had one officer with a poor attitude, but the others have been nice. As an apartment manager I am interested in doing a Neighborhood Watch if it is possible. . We lived in Tigard for over a year and we haven't needed to call the police, but we do see cars drive through the neighborhood. . Do we have a problem in the neighborhood and that's why the police are going door to door with Neighborhood Watch, or is this program going city-wide? . We are interested in Neighborhood Watch. We support the police. We are pleased with the officers we have talked with. We like Tigard. We appreciate the efforts of the police department. This door to door is a good idea. It gives us a chance to meet a couple of good officers. . It is nice to see blue uniforms in the neighborhood. . We have had a couple of meetings for Neighborhood Watch but that was it. We also ordered signs. Can you help us? We had meetings a few years ago and had signs put up, but they were stolen. We would like to get started again. . We need to support the police. A Neighborhood Watch would help. . We are glad you are here. . This is a good idea. Neighborhood Watch sounds good. . We watch out for each other here, but it would help to be more organized. . It's nice to see a uniformed officer in the area. It's nice to have an officer contact us before something happens. We moved out of southeast Portland to Tigard Police has a good reputation. Tigard one reason because of the police. . We support Tigard Police. . It's good to see the police department cares. . Thank you for walking through the neighborhood. My son likes police things. Thank you for letting him talk to an officer and sit in a real police car. . We were broken into when we lived in Portland. They took for ever to respond. We had a prowler awhile ago and we called. Tigard Police Department was there. We appreciate the response. Portland doesn't do this. It pays to live in a small community. . I appreciate your efforts. This door to door is a great idea. We need this program. You guys are great to do this. . You'd better believe it. I'm for Neighborhood Watch. You guys can't do it all. You need our support. . Be glad to help out. RP/jh.41 CITY OF TIGARD, -OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY AGENDA OF: October 24, 1988 DATE SUBMIT-(ED: October 17, 1988 ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: g_QH C21DRADY— PREVIOUS ACTION: Council Approval PD 88-04/V 88-27_..._. PREPARED BY: Keith Liden, Sr. Planner —DE:P:":r HEAD A D 0 CITY ADMEN 0 \Z-lr6 REQUESTED BY: POLICY ISSUE INFORMATION SUMMARY On October 10, 1988, the Council reviewed an appeal of a Planning Commission decision to approve the above application. The applicant appealed the decision because of the conditions imposed by the Commission. The Council upheld the decision, but modified several conditions of approval. The attached resolution reflects the changes desired by the Council. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 1. Adopt the attached resolution, 2. Adopt the attached resolution as modified by Council. FISCAL IMPACT SUGGESTED ACTION Adopt the attached resolution. cw/75810 WILLIAM A. MONAHAN ATTORNEY AT LAW 12290 S.W.MAIN STREET.SUITE 4A }\ TICARD,OREGON 97223 16031639.8900 October 24, 1988 Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Tigard 13125 S.W. Hall Blvd. Tigard, Oregon 97223 RE: CBH Appeal - PD 88-04, V 88-27 Final Order Dear Mayor and Members of the City Council: Item 5.2 on the Agenda calls for the adoption of the Final Order for the CBH Apartment complex. Upon review of the final order, the applicant wishes to raise a question concerning Condition No. 1 on page 1 of the proposed resolution. Upon consultation today with Senior Planner Keith Liden, the staff and I have agreed that the condition is one that staff originally intended to be applied to the approval of a detailed plan. The detail that is called for in this condition is more properly required after the upcoming Planning Commission review of a final grading plan. I request that the Council modify the condition to require submittal of a detailed plan to the Planning Commission which includes the following: DELETE 1. The proposed privately-operated and maintained parking lot and roadway plan-profile and cross section details. Cross slopes in parking areas shall be reduced to approximately 6 percent, where possible. ADD 1. A grading plan for the developed portion of the site. Cross slopes in parking areas shall be reduced to approximately 6 percent, where possible. Thank you for your consideration of our request. Sincerely, William A. Monahan CITY OF TIGARDI OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY AGENDA or: 10/24/88 DATE SUBMITTED: ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: 74th Avenue y PREVIOUS ACTION: Council discussion at Street Improvement Policies 10-17-88 workshop meeting PREPARED BY: Randall R. Woole DEPT HEAD OK CITY ADMIN OK REQUESTED BY: POLICY ISSUE Policy for street improvements as conditions of development on SW 74th Avenue between Bonita Road and Durham Road. =.-- INFORMATION SUMMARY On October• 17, 1980, the Council reviewed a staff recommendation regarding street improvement policy on SW 74th Avenue. The attached resolution adopts the policy as discussed. The resolution provides a guideline for• interpreting Tigard Municipal Code 18.164.030. IL does riot changes the Tigard Municipal Code requirements . Therefore, the Attorney advises that formal Planning Commission review is not required unless the Council wishes a recommendation from the Commission. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 1 . Adopt the resolution as prepared. 2. Amend the resolution. 3. Refer the matter to the Planning Commission for review. 4 . Take no action. FISCAL IMPACT None SUGGESTED ACTION Staff recommends adoption of the attached resolution. di/7647D MEMORANDUM '�• CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON l TO: Honorable Mayor & City Council Respond By FROM: Cathy Wheatley, Deputy Recordt X For Your Information DATE: October 14, 1988 Sign and Return SUBJECT: 74th Avenue Development Policy Resolution This item has been scheduled for discussion on October 17, 1988. If a policy decision is made at the October 17th meeting, staff will' prepare a resolution affirming Council's decision. This resolution will be submitted to Council for their packets prior to the meeting. cw/7560D CITY OF TIGARD,, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY AGENDA OF: October 24, 1988 DATE SUBMITTED: October 14 1988 ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: CPA 88-03-t— PREVIOUS ACTION: Reviewed by Planning ZC 88-09 (Tigard School District).. Commission on 10./4/88 PREPARED BY: Jerry Offer/ Assist Plnr DEPT HEAD 0 k�C�ITY ADMINREQUESTED BY: POLICY ISSUE INFORMATION SUMMARY On October 4, 1989, the Planning commission reviewed a proposal to amend the Comprehensive Plan Map from Public Institution to Medium Density Residential and a zone change from R-4.5 (Residential, 4.5 units/acre) to R-12 (Residential, 12 units/acre) for approximately 4 acres located south of Tigard High School. The Commission concurred with the staff's recommendation on the proposal and also recommends approval. The applicant's submittal, the Planning Division staff report, and the Planning Commission minutes are attached. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 1 . Approve as recommended by the Planning commission and Planning Division staff. 2. Deny the proposed amendment. FISCAL IMPACT SUGGESTED ACTION Approve the proposed amendment as recommended by both the Planning Commission and staff and adopt the staff report as findings Supporting the approval. br/7557D 'tl III • �i11� 11 11� SCHOOLmrA ql xyy, • ; Y :riLc �: •�+ s.■. Aoaa srAE r • r . J.•r ILA i Cd :i L' �swaL � : r +•'s-, &.a4 - " 1 � \ .�•�'� 1 1111:11 I I I 1' • •K I/ 1 11-•L1Yt.11Li+� t r—4. 1 1 a.r. ! � ♦aJ� n. � ��..LLIL • i � � tr. e ' WL ; N•Y y j _■ +v 'b� a■. •V:N of a l BJND -' �,I, tI. o au SfA�fEo r IGARD HIGH N we a sr SCHOOL USA S* —4.5 TREATMENT • `. PLANT \ ` oA sr^ `�•��r I t�_ - y. CAM OR.D GE 11W, I i • I 11r � • S�' -�� t11 .�ia�1 r i DU RHAM 1 • s.■. s •t _ —a F t?� L r�u ® COOK � 3 ` "/, �w�o■ PARK ,— • T s.i. a s --s ow cr 1 .c.r• or r,a••ol r n r r - e I I %• a■ END � •� (; i \ � <l 'l ■.E YAM TUALATIN COUNTRY 1 11 1J. .El. CLUB TU T'IN Lal. a[T ra AD. L. IIA1VArE) u � C B STAFF" REPORT" AGENDA ITEM 5.1 OCTOBER 4, 1908 - 7:30 P.M. I.IGARD PLANNING COMMISSION TIGARD CITY MALL -- TOWN HAI-L 13125 SW HALL BLVD. TIGARD, OREGON 9722.3 A. FACT'S 1. General Information CASE: Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA 08-•03) Zone Change (ZC 88--04) REQUEST: For a Comprehensive Plan Amendment from Institutional to Medium Density Residential and a Zone Change from R-4.5 (Residential, 4.5 units/acre) to R-12 (Residential, 12 units/acre) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Low Density Residential ZONING DESIGNATION: R-•4 .5 (Residential, 4.5 units/acres) APPLICANT: Tigard School District OWNER: Same 13137 Sw Pacific Highway Tigard, OR 97223 LOCATION: Between Tigard High School and Cook Park on the east side of 92nd Avenue. 2. Background Information i The City has reviewed several applications pertaining to the i• development of the Iiigh School, but no applications have been reviewed regarding this section of the property. Y. 3 . Vicinity Information The remainder of the Tigard High School property, which is also zoned R-4.5, lies to the north. Undeveloped property zoned R-12 is immediately east and south. Cook Park lies further south and southwest. I_arid zoned R-4.5 is situated immediately west (if 92nd Avenue, a minor collector, which abuts the northwestern boundary ; of the subject property. A small triangular, parcel zoned R-4.5 lies ' between the subject property and 92nd Avenue along most of the westerly t boundary (see attached map) . 4. Site Information and Proposal Description "fhe property is undeveloped and partially wooded. As indicated above, portions of the property include a drainageway, steep slopes, and 100 year. floodplain. The northern one third of the area to be rezoned Chas slopes that are generally less than 10 percent. STAFF i'2f=POC2T - CPA 0i3-•03/ZC 88---04 (T'IGARD SCIIQOf_ DISTRICT) - PAGE 1 E: 5. Agency grid IJ Comments The Engineering division has no objection to the request. The Division does note Lhat portions of the site include a drainageway, slopes in excess of 25 percent, and 100 year floodplain below art elevation of 126 feet. A Sensitive Lands permit will be r•equir•ed prior to developing the property. No other• comments were received. B. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The relevant appr•ova•l criteria in this case ar•e Comprehensive Plan Policies 2. 1.1, 3 . 1. 1, 3 .2. 1, 3.2.2, 3.4.2, 3 .5.3, 6.1.1, 6.3. 1, 6.6.1 7. 1 .2, 7.3.1, 7.4.4, 0.1 .1, and the locational criteria in Chapter• 12. Since our Comprehensive Plan has been acknowledged by L-he State, art analysis for the proposal's consistency with the 19 statewide land use planning goals is riot necessary. The Planning staff- concludes that the above criteria are satisfied based upon the following findings: 1 . Policy 2.1.1 is satisfied because the NPO has been informed and given an oppor•Lunity to comment and notice of the public hearing has been sent to surrounding property owners. 2. Policies 3. 1. 1, 3 .2. 1, and 3 .2.2, deal with City policy regarding land that is subject to development limitations. It appears that a significant portion of the property can be developed appr•opr•iately, however•, a final determination can only be made during the review of a specific proposal. At that Lime, these policies along with relevant Code requirements shall be applied. 3 . Policy 3.4.2 calls for• the protection of wildlife habitat areas. The southern section of the property is wooded and it contains a small wetland area. The protection of wildlife habitat, especially the wetland resource, must be addressed during the development of Lhe site. 4 . Policy 3.5.3 identifies the Tualatin River 100-year floodplain as a greenway. A condition of development approval will be dedication of the 100--year floodplain. 5. Policy 6.1 .1 is linked to State Goal No. 10 and the Metro dousing Rule which requires that Lhe average density allowed for• all undeveloped residential land in the City be a minimum of ten dwelling units per acre. The City' s plan as acknowledged by LCDC in 1904, inventoried 1,311 acres of developable residential land in the City. Zoning at that time provided for a housing opportunity of 13,110 units, just meeting the Metro (lousing Rule density statndar•d. Since than Lime, seven plain amendments occurred. Those redesignations provide_ a cur•r•ent inventory of 1,290 acres and a housing opportunity for• 13,000 units (10. 14 uniLs per• acre) . Approval of the proposed amendment would not affect the developable acreage of 1,290 and the housing opportunity would be incr•easod. The Metro Itousing Rule's minimum density requirement will continue to be met by the City if tate proposed amendment is approved. STAFF REPORT - CPA 00-03/7_C 00-.04 (TIGARD SCHOOL. DISTRICT) - PAGE 2 This calculation is based upon an approximate net acreage, after subtracting the floodplain area, of 3.19 and the difference between the possible units per• acre of- the R-4.5 and R-12 zones. The Code allows up to a 25 percent density transfer from the floodplain, but for• the purposes of this computation for• goal 10 compliance, it is not considered. This proposal will result in 23.9 additional units (R-4.5 -- 14.4 units, R--12 - 38.3 unit-s) . This in turn will create a total housing opportunity of 13,112 housing units with an average density of 10. 16 units per acre on the City' s available resideritiai land. 6. Policy 6.3.1 is satisfied because the -proposal will not affect the character• of existing neighborhoods. A1L-hough the land to be rezoned is within an "Established Area" including the Tigard High School property and the pr•oper•ties west of 92nd Avenue, it is riot adjacent to any established neighborhoods. Buffering from the lower• density development to the west- and northwest is provided primarily by 92nd Avenue and the remaining high school property. 7. Policy 6.6. 1, which r•equir•es buffering between different land use types, will be addressed in conjunction with a development application. 8. The Engineering Division has indicated that existing street, sewer, and utility facilities have the capacity for additional development. Therefore, policies 7.1.2, 7.3.1, and 7.4 .4 ar•e satisfied. 9. Policy 8. 1 . 1 is satisfied because this property has developed access to a minor• collector• and resulting traffic will riot be directed through existing neighborhoods. 10. The locational criteria are satisfied because the property is not committed to low density development and it abuts land zoned R-12 to the south and east. The site is presently vacant and has been designated on the "buildable lands inventory map" as buildable. The triangular• parcel to the west- has been found during a previous review of Kneeland Estates to be largely undevelopable and therefore this rezoning should riot significantly effect the development potential of this parcel. It appears that it would be best developed in conjunction with the subject property. The property has direct access to a minor collector street (SW 92nd Avenue) and indirect access to major collector (SW Durham Ruud) . The property does contain areas that are of limited value for• development, but these portions of the property can be largely :.+.voided. Adequate public/facilities and services are available with the exception of- bus service which only runs on Pacific Highway. Neighborhood commercial and office services are available near• Pacific Highway and the Ball Blvd./Durham Road intersection. STAFF REPORT -- CPA 88•-•03/ZC 88-04 (TIGARD SCHOOL DISTRICT) - PAGE 3 C. RECOMMENDA'I-ION Based upon the above findings and conclusions, the Planning staff recon onds Lhat the Planning Commission issue a recoulmenda t ion for• approval of CPA £3£3•-03 and ZC 09-09 to City Council. PREPARED BY: Keith Liden Senior Planner (ke/7250D) STArr REPORT - CPA 00-03/ZC. 00--04 (TIGARD SCHOOL DISTRICT) - PAGE 4 MEMORANDUM C1JY OF TIGARD, OREGON TO: Planning Commission FROM: Jerr•r Offer, Assistant Planner, DATE: October 4, 1988 SUBJECT: Metro Housing Rule Compliance The Metropolitan Housing Rule (OAR 660, Division 7) requires that the average density allowed for all undeveloped residential land within the City's original planning area be a minimum of ten dwelling units per, acre. Two plan amendment proposals before you tonight could positively affect the City's overall allowable density on lands that are classified by the Plan as buildable residential lands. The City's Plan, as acknowledged by LCOC in 1984, inventoried 1,311 acres of developable residential land in the City. Zoning at that time provided for- a housing opportunity of 13,110 units, just meeting the Metropolitan Housing Rule standard. Since that time, seven Plan amendments have been approved which have affected the inventory. -those r•edesignations provide a current inventory of 1,290 acres and a housing opportunity for 13,088 units (10. 14 units per acre) . Both proposals currently before the Commission would not. affect the amount of developable residential acreage of 1,290, but both would increase housing opportunity in ter-ins of potential dwelling units per- buildable acre in the City. The Tigard School District proposal would provide an opportunity for- an additional 24 dwelling units. The Mielnik proposal would provide an opportunity for an additional 39 dwelling units. The affect- of thr..sQ proposals on the housing opportunity index is as follows: 1. Approval of Tigard School District proposal Developable acres — 1,290 acres Potential dwelling units — 13,112 units Housing opportunity index -- 10. 16 units/acr-e 2. Approval of Mielnik proposal Developable acres ••- 1,290 acres Potential dwelling units - 13,12.1 dwelling unit,,,- Housing nitsHousing opportunity index 10. 17 units/acr-e 3 . AI:pr•oval of beth proposals UevF�li�paL�]e ac-r•es; 1 ,290 au res Potential Dwelling uni.t:s Housing opportunity index 1.0. .19 unit:t/nacre kce/7363D A.>.�. `. nc r(-1.%-4-4N I7 ST-ATE MENl' PRE-APPLICATION CHECKLIST The rezoning of described property clearly meets all or most of the Medium Density Zoning criteria. (R-12) POLICIES: 3.5.3 THE CITY SHALL DESIGNATE THE 100-YEAR FLOODPLAIN OF FANNO CREEK, IT'S TRIBUTARIES, AND THE TUALATIN RIVER AS GREENWAY, WHICH WILL BE THE BACKBONE OF THE OPEN-SPACE SYSTEM. This policy ensures continued open-space contingent to the "property" all along the South border. 6.1.1 THE CITY SHALL PROVIDE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR A DIVERSITY OF HOUSING DENSITIES AND RESIDENTIAL TYPES AT VARIOUS PRICE AND RENT LEVELS. This policy is met by the proposed density and layout (Garden Apartment). There are very few rental possibilities of this nature within the city boundaries. 6.6.1 THE CITY SHALL REQUIRE BUFFERING. This property is buffered by a road and wild area on the West, open area (planned softball and baseball complex) to the South, and High School Athletic Fields on the North. A farm abuts East boundary of the contin- gent R-12 property. C 7.1.2 THE CITY SHALL REQUIRE AS A PRE-CONDITION TO DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL THAT: a. DEVELOPMENT COINCIDE WITH THE AVAILABILITY OF ADEQUATE SERVICE CAPACITY INCLUDING: 1. PUBLIC WATER: This property is currently served by public water on 92nd which may need to be looped to 85th;right of ways for this potential requirement are in place. 2. PUBLIC SEWER (NEW DEVELOPMENT ON SEPTIC TANKS SHALL NOT BE ALLOW- ED WITHIN THE CITY); AND Sewer is provided to both properties and has been extended 30 feet into lowest area of site. 3. STORM DRAINAGE. Improved storm drainage plan has received verbal approval with the city, but remains under study with the Corp of Engineers and will necessitate approved engineering by Park and Engineering staff of Tigard. The adequacy of these and other services is apparently more than ample to support the planned development. s -1- 8.1.3 THE CITY SHALL( AS A PRECONDITION TO DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL THAT: a. DEVELOPMENT ABUT A PUBLICLY DEDICATED STREET OR HAVE ADEQUATE ACCESS r APPROVED BY THE APPROPRIATE APPROVAL AUTHORITY. l The property is contingent to 92nd Avenue. b. STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY BE DEDICATED WHERE THE STREET IS SUBSTANDARD IN ! is WIDTH. E N/A ' t c. THE DEVELOPER COMMIT TO THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE STREETS, CURBS AND SIDEWALKS TO CITY STANDARDS WITHIN THE DEVELOPMENT. This is an acceptable requirement to purchaser. d. INDIVIDUAL DEVELOPERS PARTICIPATE IN THE IMPROVEMENT OF EXISTING 'r. STREETS, CURBS AND SIDEWALKS TO THE EXTENT OF THE DEVELOPMENT'S IMPACTS. E N/A (Study may find otherwise) : e. STREET IMPROVEMENTS BE MADE AND STREET SIGNS OR SIGNALS BE PROVIDED WHEN THE DEVELOPMENT IS FOUND TO CREATE OR INTENSIFY A TRAFFIC HAZARD. N/A (Study may find otherwise) . 9.1.3 THE CITY SHALL ENCOURAGE LAND USE DEVELOPMENT WHICH EMPHASIZES SOUND ' F ENERGY CONSERVATION, DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION. Though the medium density housing units are not designed as yet, it be- hooves the developer to adhere as close as economically possible with this policy. He anticipates the owning and renting of these Garden Apartment units. 12.1.1 THE CITY SHALL PROVIDE FOR HOUSING DENSITIES IN ACCORDANCE WITH: b. THE APPLICABLE LOCATIONAL CRITERIA. LOCATIONAL CRITERIA Medium Density Residential (R-12) A. THE FOLLOWING FACTORS WILL BE THE DETERMINANTS OF THE AREAS DESIGNATED FOR MEDIUM DENSITY ON THE PLAN MAP: .1. AREAS WHICH ARE NOT COMMITTED TO LOW DENSITY DEVELOPMENT. • F. Subject piece currently public institutional. 2. AREAS WHICH HAVE DIRECT ACCESS FROM COLLECTOR OR ARTERIAL STREETS. Complies g 3. AREAS WHICH ARE NOT SUBJECT TO DEVELOPMENT LIMITATIONS SUCH AS TOPO- GRAPHY, FLOODING, POOR DRAINAGE. Complies - 2 - 4. AREAS WHERE TI}r EXISTING FACILITIES HAVE THE CF 'CITY FOR ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT. Complies 5. AREAS WITHIN ONE HALF OF A MILE OF PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION. Area is 1.2 males to S.W. Boones Ferry Road. 6. AREAS WHICH CAN BE BUFFERED FROM IOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AREAS IN ORDER TO MAXIMIZE THE PRIVACY OF ESTABLISHED LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AREAS. Complies B. THE FOLLOWING FACTORS WILL BE DETERMINANTS OF DENSITY RANGES ALLOWED THROUGH ZONING IN THE MEDIUM DENSITY PLANNED AREA. (R-12) 1. THE DENSITY OF DEVELOPMENT IN AREAS HISTORICALLY ZONED FOR MEDIUM DENSITY DEVELOPMENT. Adjacent 2. THE TOPOGRAPHY AND NATURAL FEATURES OF THE AREA AND THE DEGREE OF POSSIBLE BUFFERING FROM ESTABLISHED LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AREAS. Excellent Buffering 3. THE CAPACITY OF THE SERVICES. Ample 4. THE DISTANCE TO THE PUBLIC TRANSIT. 1.2 Miles to S.W. Boones Ferry Road. 5. THE DISTANCE TO NEIGHBORHOOD OR GENERAL COMMERCIAL CENTERS AND OFFICE BUSINESS CENTERS. Convenience Store - .59 Miles Office Business Center - Small - .72 Miles Office Business Center - Big - 1.2 Miles 6. THE DISTANCE FROM PUBLIC OPEN SPACE. Adjacent 3 - CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY AGENDA or: October 24, 1988 DATE SUBMITTED: October 14, 1988 ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: CPA 88-05 PREVIOUS ACTION: Reviewed by Planning ZC 88-11 (Morse Brothers) Commission on 10/4/88 &A lk ! PREPARED BY: Jerry Offer, Assist___ ss ist—p—inr-p�pm"Q DEPT HEAD OK N-CITY ADMIN 0K.-IlIP'll REQUESTED BY: POLICY ISSUE INFORMATION SUMMARY On October 4, 1988, the Planning Commission reviewed a proposal to amend the Comprehensive Plan Map designation from Light Industrial to Heavy Industrial and zoning from I-L (Light Industrial) to I-11 (Heavy Industrial) for 5.36 acres located approximately 600 feet south of Bonita Road and between the two railroad tracks. The Commission voted to recommend denial of the proposal based on findings that the application did satisfy the necessary criteria for a Plan Amendment as described on page 6 of the Commission's minutes. Attached is a copy of the applicants' submittal, the staff report recommending approval of the request, the Planning Commission minutes, transcript of Commission's deliberation, and letters of comment on the proposal. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 1. Deny as recommended by the Planning Commission. 2. Approve as recommended by the Planning Division staff. FISCAL IMPACT SUGGESTED ACTION Approve as recommended by the staff and direct staff to prepare a final order. br/7557D Ic --- ------------- STAFF REPORT AGENDA ITEM 5_3 OCTOBER 4, 1988 — 7:30 P.M. C TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION TIGARD CITY HALL — TOWN HALL 13125 SW HALT_ BLVD. TIGARD, OREGON 97223 A. FACTS 1 . General Information CASE: Comprehensive Plan Amendment CPA 88-05 Zone Change 88-11 REQUEST: A request for: 1) a Plan change from Light Industrial to Heavy Industrial, and 2) a zone change from I—L (Light Industrial) to I—H (Heavy Industrial) on a 5.36 acre site. APPLICANT: Morse Brothers, Inc. OWNER: Mercer Industries Steel 32260 Highway 34 Division Liquidating Trust Tangent, OR 97389 PO Box 10166 Portland, OR 97210 LOCATION: 14900 and 14980 SW 74th Avenue (WCTM 2S1 12AC, tax lots 1000, 1100, 1400, and 1500 and a 30 foot wide vacant public right—of--way immediately west of these parcels) . 2. Background Information Two prior land use applications regarding the subject site have been reviewed by the City of Tigard. The Planning Director approved a Site Development Review request for an office and warehouse business park in 1979 (SDR 44-79). A Site Development Review application for development of a manufacturing plant on the site was approved in 1981 (SDR 7A-81). Neither proposal was carried through. 3. Vicinity Information The 5.36 acre site is located approximately 600 feet south of SW Bonita Road, east of SW 74th Avenue and the Burlington Northern Railroad tracks, and west of the Southern Pacific Railroad tracks. A 30 foot wide vacant road right—of—way is located between the Burlington Northern Railroad tracks and the subject parcels and is included within the area subject to redesignation. C STAFF REPORT — CPA 88-05/7_C 88--11 (MORSE BROS. ) — PAGE 1 The subject site and adjacent- properties to the north, south, and east of the site are all designated by the Comprehensive Plan as Light Industrial and are zoned I—L. An automobile maintenance facility and C an industrial plastics manufacturer are located immediately north of the site. Warehouse, manufacturing, and construction related uses are located to the east of the site across the Southern Pacific tracks. Ball Creek crosses through these properties and along the northern border of the site on its course to Fanno Creek. A plumbing supply warehouse with access from Kable Lane is located south of the site. Further south are an assortment of industrial and limited commercial uses including the Oregon Business Park. West and southwest of the site across SW 74th Avenue, properties between the road and Fanno Creek are designated by the Plan as Light Industrial and are zoned I—P (Industrial Park) . Much of this area is currently vacant. However-, one construction storage yard and three occupied houses are located across SW 74th Avenue from the site. In addition, the Puget Corporation manufacturing plant is located northwest of these properties and other construction storage yards and other industrial uses are located further south. The closest residentially designated area is located approximately 600 feet west of the site across Fanno Creek. The Plan designates this area Medium Density Residential. The area is -zoned with a combination of the R-7 (7 units/acre) and R-12 (12 units/acre) zones. 4. Site Information and Proposal Description The site is relatively level with a slight slope to the north. The far northern portion of the site is wooded and slopes towards Ball Creek. The remainder of the parcel is covered by a variety of primarily deciduous trees, grasses, and blackberry bushes. The applicant requests that the flan be amended to redesignate the four parcels Heavy Industrial from the current Light Industrial designation. The applicant- also requests that the zoning for the parcels be changed from I—L (Light Industrial) to I—H (Heavy Industrial) . The stated intent of the proposed redesignation is to allow development of a concrete and asphalt manufacturing facility on the site. Such a use is classified by the Community Development Code as manufacturing of semi—finished products from raw materials. This use type is a permitted use in the I—H zone. This use type is not permitted in the I—L -zone. A proposal to develop a permitted use in the I—H zone requires administrative review of the site plan and on—site and off—site impacts of the use through the Site Development Review process. 5. Agency and NPO Comments The Engineering Division reviewed the proposed Plan/zoning amendment and provided the following comments: The proposed Plan/zone change from Light Industrial/I—L to Heavy Industrial/I—H does riot require a change to the functional classification of SW 74th Avenue as a local industrial C STAFF REPORT — CPA 88-05/ZC 88-11 (MORSE BROS. ) — PAGE 2 i street. Heavy industrial uses typically generate less traffic and heavier wheel loadings than light industrial uses. The heavier wheel loadings, as would be anticipated with a concrete and asphalt manufacturing facility, will require an increased thickness of the typical pavement section on SW 74th Avenue. SW 74th Avenue was improved to interim standards from Bonita Road past the site's frontage through a Local Improvement District. The portion of SW 74th Avenue south of the site to SW Durham Road is mostly a gravel street. Improvements to SW 74th Avenue would be required as a condition of approval of a Site Development 4 Review application for development of the site. Improvements may be required for the portion of SW 74th Avenue south of the site, especially if the restriction on through truck traffic on SW 4' Bonita Road is not amended. Bonita Road currently has a restriction on through truck traffic from SW 72nd Avenue to Hall Boulevard (TMC 10.16.051 •), therefore, truck traffic to the site would be required to access SW 74th Avenue from Durham Road unless the ordinance restricting through . traffic traffic on Bonita Road is amended by the City Council. E- As long as it is understood that substantial street improvements ' will be required as a condition of any industrial development of this site, the Engineering Division has no objection to the proposed Plan/zone change based on engineering considerations. The Building Division reviewed the proposal and offered no objections ' or comments. Washington County Fire District 01 commented that emergency access to the site is a concern because of the possibility of access to the site being blocked by railroad traffic. The Fire District requests that the applicants work with the District in addressing access concerns during site plan development. t. The Tigard Water District commented that it needed additional � information on the water supply needs of the likely use of the site is prior to committing itself to the sufficiency of the District's water supply to serve that use. A 12 inch water main does exist on SW 74th E Avenue next to the site. F` Northwest Natural Gas offered no objections to the proposal. NPO #5 reviewed the proposal and commented that they did not feel the r proposed use was compatible with other uses in the area. S A number of comment letters regarding the proposed use of the site have been received from neighboring property owners and businesses. Those letters are provided to the Commission along with this staff report and the applicant's submittal. F G t 7 STAFF REPORT — CPA 88--05/ZC 88-11 (MORSE BROS. ) — PAGE 3 e B. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The applicable criteria in this case are Tigard Comprehensive Plan ! policies 2. 1.1, 3.1 .1, 3. 1.2, 3.4.2, 4.3. 1, 5.1. 1, 6.6. 1, 7.1.2, 7.3.1, E 7.4.4, 7.6.1, 8.1.1, 8.1.3, 8.5.1, and 12.3.1 the locational criteria for the Heavy Industrial Plan designation. Since the City of Tigard's Comprehensive Plan has been acknowledged by the Oregon Land Conservation and Development Commission, an analysis of the proposed Plan amendment's consistency with the Statewide Planning Goals is not necessary. The Planning Division concludes that the applicable criteria are satisfied based upon the following findings: 1. The Comprehensive Plan provides that Quasi—Judicial changes to the Comprehensive Plan Map may be approved if it is found that: a. The change is consistent with applicable plan policies; b. A change in physical circumstances has occurred since the original designation; or C. A mistake was made in the original land use designation. With regard to the current proposal, these criteria are satisfied because: 1) the change is consistent with applicable plan policies as described in the paragraphs which follow, and 2) a mistake was made in Plan designations in that insufficient vacant developable land area was designated for heavy industrial uses to meet- foreseeable demands. The Comprehensive Plan designated approximately 50 acres for heavy industrial use, almost all of it presently developed. A great variety of industrial use types may be located in the City of Tigard only within the Heavy Industrial district. All manufacturing and processing from raw materials w .d all open—air storage and distribution uses are allowed only in the I—H zone. Because of the presence of the Burlington Northern and Southern Pacific Railroad lines running through the city, and also because of the City's location relative to major trucking routes, the City of Tigard is ideally situated to provide for the transportation needs of many heavy industrial uses. A mistake was therefore made in that the Plan did not recognize the City's advantageous situation in attracting and providing for heavy industrial development because of the City's unique transportation facilities and did not therefore provide for sufficient vacant developable appropriately designated land to meet foreseeable demands. Providing developable land for a variety of potential economic opportunities supports Plan policy ' 5.1.1 which seeks to diversify employment opportunities for i Tigard residents as described below. I 2. Policy 2.1. 1 is satisfied because NPO #5 has been informed of the proposal and given an opportunity to comment. In addition, notice of the public hearing and of the opportunity to comment- on the proposal has been sent to nearby property owners and has also been advertised in the local newspaper. STAFF REPORT — CPA 88-05/ZC 88-11 (MORSE BROS. ) — PAGE 4 3 . Policy 3.2.1 and 3.2.2 are satisfied because no portion of the site proposed for• redesignation and future development is within the 100—year floodplain as designated in the September 1, 1981, flood insurance study for the City of Tigard. Therefore no effect upon the 100—year flood elevation will result from future development on the site. 4. Policy 3.4.2 will be satisfied if the site plan for future development on the site avoids development of the northern portion of the site along Ball Creek and maintains or enhances the existing riparian vegetation in this area. The applicant's submittal indicates that it is their intention to leave the northern portion of the site as undisturbed open space so as to preserve riparian fish and wildlife habitat. 5. Policy 4.3.1 will be satisfied through requiring site and building construction plans to incorporate noise mitigating techniques for any future development of the site. The applicant has submitted a noise study of the anticipated impacts of an asphalt and concrete manufacturing plant which may be located on the site. The study concludes that Oregon Department of Environmental Quality and City of Tigard noise standards for that use could be met if: 1) state of the art asphalt plant burners are utilized in the plant design; 2) a barrier or acoustically treated enclosure is placed around the asphalt plant; 3) a barrier or enclosure is placed around the concrete batch plant; and 4) significant secondary noise sources on the site are treated acoustically to reduce the noise contributions. Site Development Review and Building Permit review processes will require that these or similar measures are utilized in site and plant design to reduce noise effects of any proposed use on the site. The site is not located within a noise congested area as identified by the Comprehensive Plan. 6. Policy 5.1. 1 is satisfied because redesignation of the site would allow development of an industrial use that otherwise probably would not locate in the City because of the absence of other suitable sites for this type of use. This will provide for diversification of economic opportunity through creation of additional employment opportunities within the City. 7. Policy 6.6. 1 will be satisfied through review of site plans for any proposed use of the site through the Site Development Review process to assure that Community Development Code standards for buffering and screening of service and storage areas are complied with. 8. Policy 7.1 .2, 7.3.1, 7.4.4, and 7.6.1 are satisfied because the Engineering Division and reviewing utility providers have indicated that existing sewer, water, road, and other utilities generally have adequate capacity to serve potential heavy industrial uses of the site. However, the sufficiency of these public utilities to serve a particular proposed use will need to be assured through the Site Development Review process prior to approval of that type of use for the site. STAFF REPORT — CPA 88-05/ZC 88-11 (MORSE BROS. ) — PAGE 5 9. Policy 8.1. 1 commits the City to plan for a safe and efficient street system that meets current needs and future anticipated growth and development. The applicant has submitted a traffic impact study which concludes that additional traffic that would be generated by use of the site for an asphalt and concrete manufacturing plant would not change the existing level of service at any of the four major intersections near the site or on SW 74th Avenue. This would also be expected from other permitted use in the I-H zone. In general, uses permitted in the I-H zone would be expected to generate fewer vehicle trips than uses permitted in the I-L zone according to the Institute of Traffic Engineers Trip Generation Manual. In addition, as the Engineering Division has noted, improvements to SW 74th Avenue would be required as a condition of approval for any development proposal on the site. Together these factors should act to support policy 8.1.1 through improving the quality of the streets in the area while not impacting the amount of traffic on these streets when compared to the traffic that could be generated from use of the site by many of the permitted uses in the current- I-L zone. 10. Policy 8. 1.3 will be satisfied upon construction of road improvements that w-ill be required as a condition of approval or- a Site Development Review request for any proposed development of the site. 11. Policy 8.5.1 will be satisfied because approval of the proposed Plan/zone amendment may facilitate development of a use which would rely on railroad freight service. Additional rail freight helps maintain the viability of these rail lines. 12. Policy 12.3.1, the locational criteria for the Heavy Industrial Plan designation, states that: A. Sites for heavy industrial development shall be: (1) Separated by topography established buffers, transportation or other non-residential land uses from residentially developed areas. (2) Located in areas having rail service, arterial or major collector access. C. The site shall be of the size and shape which will provide for the short and long range needs of the use. D. The land intended for development shall have an average site topography of less than six percent grade, or that it can be demonstrated that through engineering techniques all limitations to development and the provision of services can be mitigated. STAFF REPORT - CPA 88--05/ZC 88-•11 (MORSE BROS. ) -• PAGE 6 E. It shall be demonstrated that associated lights, noise and other external effects will not interfere with the activities and uses on surrounding properties. i F. All. other• applicable plan policies can be met. The proposal satisfies these criteria for the following reasons. The site is bordered by two major rail carrier lines. The site is bordered on the east by the Southern Pacific Railroad tracks and on the west by the Burlington Northern Railroad tracks. The site fronts on SW 74th Avenue, an industrial collector street, which connects with Bonita Road, a major collector street, and also with Durham Road, an arterial street. Both I-5 and Highway 217 can be accessed from the site without traveling through residential neighborhoods. The site is separated from the nearest residential area (600 feet to the west) by two transportation corridors (the Burlington Northern Railroad tracks and SW 74th Avenue) as well as a 600 foot wide strip of land which is zoned I—P for industrial park purposes. In addition, Fanno Creek and its associated riparian vegetation provide a topographic and vegetative buffer between the site and the residential uses to the west. The 5.36 acre site should be of a sufficient size to provide for the short—term and long—term needs of most heavy industrial uses. The site has an average grade of- less than six percent and should provide no technical limitations to development. All necessary services are available to the site. Specific public facility needs for a proposed use are reviewed through the Site Development Review process. In addition, external effects of a proposed use, such as noise, lights, odors, and specific traffic concerns are also reviewable only with an actual development proposal through the Site Development Review process. Other applicable plan policies have been demonstrated to be satisfied for this proposal in the preceding paragraphs. Because the locational criteria for Heavy Industrial designation are satisfied or may only be satisfied through review of an actual development proposal, it is therefore concluded that the present proposal satisfies Policy 12.3 . 1. C. CONCLUSION The proposal to amend the Comprehensive Plan map from Light Industrial to Heavy Industrial and zoning from I—L to I—H satisfies all applicable Plan amendment criteria and Plan policies as described above. This analysis is based on an objective review of the criteria, policies, comments of public service providers, and relevant supporting materials. 'This analysis assumes no particular use permitted by the Heavy Industrial/I—H designation would be situated on the site if the proposed amendment is adopted. It is our opinion that all permitted use of the I—H zone would be appropriately located on this site based on the applicable criteria and also because of the desirability of railroad access for many of the heavy industrial uses. In general, heavy industrial uses have a greater interest in railroad accessibility that most light industrial uses. C. STAFF REPORT — CPA 88-05/'1_C 88-11 (MORSE BROS. ) — PAGE 7 It is important to note that compatibility between adjacent uses and a particular use that is anticipated to be proposed for the site is not a criterion applicable to the current request. This may tend to be lost due to the applicant's voluminous submittal which focuses on that particular use and also because of the comments of the NPO and neighboring property and business owners which also tend to focus on that particular use. Compatibility of a particular proposed industrial use with its neighboring properties is within the purview of the Site Development Review process which focuses on the site plan and the potential for off—site impacts of the proposed use. At issue in the current request is solely whether the applicable Plan amendment criteria and Plan policies are satisfied relative to this particular site. We conclude that those criteria and policies are satisfied. D. RECOMMENDATION The Planning Division recommends that the Planning Commission issue a favorable recommendation for CPA 88-05/ZC 88-11 to be submitted to the City Council. D _ PREPAR BY: erry fer AP "B�Y: Ke7twh7_Li den Flssis nt Planner Senior Planner dj/7199D STAFF REPORT — CPA 88-05/ZC 88-11 (MORSE BROS. ) — PAGE 8 f \ \\ I L C-�. C- G . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . c- P . . rgp . . . . . . . . . . . . . .K MLRN! Sf. M FOR ! ' INDUSTRIAL S. p- 7 I - H . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . SA/1D.YRY OTHER • STR PUB-INS TECH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I 12 SM LANDY.LRR' 8 j AJAP VLA fill A #4 � Ta* ' R'aiE$' A:STRIAL To y �1� '�D� STjQIAL 1 VI�fir` •. •�: - y � E� • KA•LE LN. .._ ._ O � � w. If 0091, ONE ,I son sm MEN town AP AIM TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING — OCTOBER 4, 1988 1. Vice President Fyre called the meeting to order at 7:45 PM. The meeting was held at the Tigard Civic Center — TOWN HALL CONFERENCE ROOM — 13125 SW Hall Blvd. , Tigard, Oregon. 2. ROLL CALL: Present: Vice President Fyre; Commissioners Barber, Rosborough, Peterson, Castile, Newton (arrived 7:50 PM), Moen (arrived 8:40 PM), and Leverett (arrived 8:50) . Staff: Senior Planner Keith Liden, and Secretary Diane Jelderks. 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Commissioner Peterson moved and Commissioner Barber seconded to approve minutes from September 20, 1988, as submitted. Motion carried by majority.. of Commissioners present. Commissioner Rosbor•ough abstained. 4. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMUNICATION There was no communication. 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS 5.1 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT CPA 88-03 ZONE CHANGE ZC 88-09 TIGARD SCHOOL DISTRICT 23J NPO # 6 For a Plan amendment from Institutional to Medium Density Residential and a zone amendment from R-4.5 (Residential, 4.5 units/acre) to R-12 (Residential, 12 units/acre) for approximately 4 acres. Location: Between Tigard High School and Cook Park, east of 92nd Avenue (WCTM 2S1 14A, tax lot 100) . COMMISSIONER NEWTON ARRIVED Senior Planner Liden reviewed the proposal and made staff's recommendation for approval. APPLICANT'S PRESENTATION o Larry Hibbard, Assistant Superintendent, Tigard School District, 13127 SW Pacific Highway explained that the request was being made because the School District has a buyer for the property contingent upon the rezoning of the property. PUBLIC TESTIMONY o No one appeared to speak. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES — OCTOBER 4, 1988 — PAGE 1 o Consensus of the Commission was for approval. # Commissioner Barber moved and Commissioner Peterson seconded to forward CPA 88-03 and ZC 88-09 to City Council with a recomoendation for approval. Motion carried unanimously by Commissioners present. 5.2 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT CPA 88-04 ZONE CHANGE ZC 88-10 MIELNIK NPO # 5 Request for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential and Zone Change from R-4.5 to R-7 for a 13.16 acres. Location: 15390 & 15420 SW 79th Ave. , 15685 & 15735 SW 76th Ave. ; 2S1 12CA, lots 700, 3500, 3600, 2S1 12CD 200 and 300 (no address) Senior Planner Liden reviewed the proposal and the history of the site. Staff recommended approval. Letters were submitted from Mr. & Mrs. John L. Hagy noting concerns; from Barbara Strickland and Mr. & Mrs. David Andersen requesting denial. Discussion followed regarding criteria, policies, and Durham School. APPLICANT'S PRESENTATION o Andy Kady, 797 (?) SW Churchill, applicant's son—in—law, explained that the Mielnik anticipated that the majority of the lots would be 7500 square feet, but they needed the R-7 zoning to allow them flexibility because of the topography of the area. Discussion followed regarding minimum lot size, average lot sizes, and property owners involved. o Bill McMonalge, Harris—McMonagle, 12555 SW Hall Blvd. , Engineer for the proposal reviewed the history (Partridge Hills Subdivision approval) and the need for the flexibility with the zone change. He explained that the problem with 79th is a pre—existing problem. Discussion followed regarding the density and lot sizes. PUBLIC TESTIMONY o Wendi Hawley, 14790 SW 79th, Tigard, 97224, explained that there are serious traffic problems in the area. She distributed a map and pictures of SW 79th showing problem of sight clearance. She stated she was not necessarily opposed only concerned with traffic safety issues. o Commissioner Castile stated that he works with Wendi and had informed her of the request as she is not a property owner within 250 feet. a Jan Limpo, 15270 SW 79th opposed the change. He stated he had not received a notice and is an adjoining property owner. He was concerned for safety issues on 79th. He suggested that stop signs be installed along 79th to discourage people from using 79th to avoid the Durham Rd. Hall Blvd. intersection. He had seen the previously approved subdivision and felt it was appropriate for the site. o Harry Sapporta, 15270 SW 79th read a letter of opposition into the record and submitted it with 37 signatures. REBUTTAL PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES — OCTOBER 4, 1988 — PAGE 2 o Bill McMonagle explained that the lots abutting the Gentlewood Subdivision would probably be 7500 square feet because of the topography of the land. lie stated they would be willing to sign a non—remonstrance for the improvements to SW 79th Avenue, other than that the only way to make improvements would be through a LID or a general obligation bond through the City. r PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED i o Discussion followed regarding stop signs and options available for changing the zoning, ie planned developed. i i o Majority of Commissioners were opposed to the change. Commissioner Rosborough favored the zone change. i * Commissioner Peterson moved and Commissioner Newton seconded to forward CPA 88-04 and ZC 88-10 to City Council with a recommendation for d@nial. �.. Motion carried' by majority of Commissioners present. Commissioner Rosborough voting no. RECESS 8:50 PM RECONVENE 9:05 PM s COMMISSIONER PETERSON LEFT 8:50 PM COMMISSIONERS MOEN AND LEVERETT JOINED THE PROCEEDINGS 9:05 PM s f 5.3 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT CPA 88-05 ZONE CHANGE ZC 88-11 MORSE BROTHERS INC. NPO # 5 Review Planning Commission's recommendation for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment from Light Industrial to Heavy Industrial and a Zone Change from I—L (Light Industrial) to I—H (Heavy Industrial) for 4.83 acres bounded on the west by Burlington Northern railroad tracts and on the east by the Southern Pacific tracks and located approximately 1,000 j feet south of Bonita Road. (WCTM 2S1 12AC, lot 1000, 1100, 1400, and 1500). o Senior Planner Liden explained that there were two separate proposal involved, one for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zone Change and the another for a Site Development Review. The Commission is reviewing only the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zone Change and the Site Development Review would follow if the Zone Change is granted. He reviewed the process and procedures for both types of application requests. He made staff's recommendation for approval. He reviewed a letter that was distributed to the Commissioners from Kruse Meadows Limited Partnership. Discussion followed regarding the process for Site Development Review and the criteria for changing the Comprehensive Plan. APPLICANT`S PRESENTATION t. o Paul Hribernick, Attorney, 1200 The Bank of California Tower, Portland, i 97205, stated that they meet all three of the criteria. He explained that they have a number of people who would be participating in their presentation. lie reviewed who would be speaking and what issues they k would be addressing. E: c e PLANNING CONM4ISSION MINUTES — OCTOBER 4, 1988 — PAGE 3 o Frank Morse, President, Morse Brothers Inc. , 32260 SW Hwy. 34, Tangent, OR 97389, passed out a brochure on their company. lie reviewed the need for aggregate resources and showed on a map mark exhibit "1" where existing areas where aggregate resources are available. He distributed a picture marked exhibit "2" of a dump train, which would be making their deliveries. lie distributed a picture marked exhibit "3" of an existing facility in Cartersville, Georgia. He addressed issues of landscaping, noise, sight, and smells. o Bob Monroe, President, Smith, Monroe, & Gray Engineering, 10700 SW Beaverton Hwy, Beaverton, 97005, reviewed the design of the plant and how the plant would be compatible to the area. o Dennis Flanagan, 630 Bluff Rd. , Marquette, Iowa, reviewed technological advancements available to the industry. He showed slide of technological advancements and various plants in operation. o Michael Feves, 4110 SW Jerald Ct. , Portland, Or. , 97201, addressed ground vibrations concerns explaining that they meet the Tigard Community Development Code requirements. o Tom Lancaster, Transportation Engineer, Union Station 5-206, 800 NW 6th Ave. , Portland, OR 97209, reviewed the traffic study that had been compiled, stating that there would not be an impact on any of the intersections. o Kerri Standlee, Daly/Standlee & Assoc, 1185 SW Ridgecrest 5-201, Beaverton, 97005, stated he had conducted a noise study and found with a barrier or enclosure that they would meet State and City of Tigard requirements. o Wally Hobson, 813 SW Alder, President Hobson & Associates, a Real Estate economist reviewed the availability of industrial land in the area, stating that the vacancies rate is running about 45 percent. He stated that with air, noise, and visual appearance mitigated that it makes this use marketable o Lidwien Rahman, David Evans and Associates, Inc. 2626 SW Corbett Ave. , Portland, 97201 reviewed the criteria explaining how they meet each criteria. They are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and meet section 12.3.1. , Locational Criteria as well as policy 5.1.1. Also, she added that light industrial uses have a higher traffic ,impact than heavy industrial uses. NPO COMMENTS o Craig Hopkins, NPO it 5 Chairman stated that the NPO unanimously opposed this change. They did not feel there was a mistake made and felt the use did not fit the area. PUBLIC TESTIMONY PROPONENTS o Mr. Dan Mercer, 12195 SW Wildwood, President Mercer Industries supported the proposed change. He felt that this is an usually unique site which Clends itself to heavy industrial uses. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES — OCTOBER 4, 1988 — PAGE 4 OPPONENTS o Steve Pfeiffer, 900 SW 5th, Portland, 97204, attorney representing Pacific Realty Associates submitted a letter in opposition and reviewed concerns addressed in the letter. o Harry Sapporta, 7745 SW Gentlewood Drive, reviewed and submitted a letter of opposition signed by 42 residents into the record. o Jan Limpo, 15270 SW 79th, opposed the change. He explained that his neighborhood looks across to the area being proposed for this change. He was concerned about truck noises and fumes. o Richard Buono, 111 SW 5th, Portland, 97204, representing Pacific Realty Associates opposed the request. He submitted a copy of his remarks. o Leon Hartvickson, 111 SW 5th, Portland, 97204, representing Pacific Realty opposed the requested zone change He presented slides of the area showing projects developed by Pacific Realty. He stated that their develops are 95 percent occupied. He expressed concerns regarding the traffic patterns... o Rich Basham, 5285 SW Meadow Rd. # 131, Lake Oswego, 97045, representing Spieker Partners, reviewed the sites they have developed. He stated they are also 95% occupied and he supported the previous testimony in opposition. o Steve Myers, 16075 SW Upper Boones Ferry Rd. , on behalf of Northwest Landscape Industries, opposed the request. Their concern was for the aesthetics value and consequences that would result with the change. He supported the previous testimony that there was not a mistake made and that the request did not meet the criteria. o Jeff Sackett, The Koll Company, 8205 SW Creekside Place, Beaverton, 97005, requested that the Planning Commission recommend denial to the City Council because the wide variety of heavy industrial uses which would be permitted outright with the zone change would be incompatible to the area. He submitted a letter in opposition. o Tom Wolterink, The Koll Company, stated he had reviewed the Morse Brothers proposal and saw numerous problems. He felt their landscaping would be insignificant and the use incompatible. REBUTTAL o Frank Morse stated that the train would stop traffic less time than a stop light. He challenged that with screening and buffering that their use would be incompatible. He felt their trucks would not be any worse than trucks from manufacturing plants. o Robert Price, David Evans & Associates, stated that their use will be compatible since this will be an enclosed operation. That this proposal is similar to one approved east of Cornelius Pass Road and they have had no problems. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES — OCTOBER 4, 1988 — PAGE 5 i t o Paul Hribernick stated that this will be an enclosed facility and with the advance technology it would make this use compatible; that light industrial uses would also have negative impacts; that Bonita Road between 74th and 72nd would be vacated to allow truck traffic; that they have addressed all the criteria. He asked that the Planning Commission forward a favorable recommendation to City Council based upon the findings submitted by the applicant. r PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED {' o Discussion followed regarding the property being developed only as proposed if the zone change is approved, applying a PD overlay, and possibility of changing the Code to allow this type of use as a f" conditional use in the light industrial zone. , o Consensus of Commission was for denial. * Commissioner Moen moved and Commissioner Rosborough seconded to forward `? CPA 88-05 and ZC 68—i1 to City Council with a recommendation for denial based on the 'findings that they did not meet the following criteria: 1) - The change is consistent with applicable plan policies; 2) A change in physical circumstances has occurred since the original n. Also, based on A mistake was made in the original land use designation. Also, volume II, page 1, of the Comprehensive Plan: 1. Prohibiting development i which would cause a diminution in the existing quality of life for the 7. Reducing the uncertainty of the development residents of Tigard; and nimously by Commissioners present. process. Motion passed una (. E 6. OTHER BUSINESS i l o There was no other Business �t 7. ADJOURNMENT 12:25 AM Diane M. Jelderks/, S critary I i ATTEST: Milt Fyre, Vice President i 1 I di/7396D ! II I PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES — OCTOBER 4, 1988 — PAGE 6 �. ANSCRIPT CPA 88-05 & ZC 88-11 MORSE BROTHERS MOEN, I would like to ask the staff just a couple of questions, I just wanted, this is regarding any options that may be available. I assume that this kind of plan is riot possible under any conditional use under the present zoning, is that correct. Okay. I guess the other question that I had is, is it, looking at the possibility for approval, is there, two things, one is it ; possible to create ar_one like this contingent on the parcel being developed �. as discussed, if not, having it revert back to the present zoning. LIDEN, I would have say without talking to our legal counsel I wouldn't be 4 comfortable with that idea. MOEN, Okay. If we were to approve this kind of thing could we put a PD overlay on it of some sorts so that we could insure that the Commission actually saw the LIDEN, Yes. s MOEN, Okay. So thats all the questions that I had. FYRE, To follow up on your questions, I guess it would be possible to have zone, an ordinance, a zone ordinance, and help me with this staff, change that would allow a modern plant like this as a conditional use in a light } industrial zone, it could be an amendment to the plan also. Is that correct? LIDEN, W we , y well couldour saying amend the Code to allow something like this as a conditional use. i C. ` FYRE, Yes. That would be another � LIDEN, That would be another avenue. FYRE, Okay. with that lets get along with business. Question. LEVERETT, . No. FYRE, Your pointing this direction. LEVERETT, Yes, start down there. FYRE, Start at this end. Okay, Commissioner Castile. CASTILE, And I ask you to start at the other end. I think its the right use for the property at the wrong location. I feel that the location or the area that is there, along I-5, is going to be some of our most valuable property that we have in Tigard. I feel like this is not a asset to that property. There may be a problem that there is not enough heavy industrial land, but I'm riot willing to commit this property and lower the value of the other properties in the area or--squelch the growth thats going on in there, because I'm really impressed with whats happening. FYRE, Commissioner Moen. TRANSCRIPT CPA 88-05 & ZC 88-11 MORSE_ BROTHERS PACE 1 MOEN, I guess I would ( Ke to start off with commending ,ne applicant and the homework that he has done. I can see how this piece of property is, you know, uniquely valuable to him and to what he is trying to do and I think that he has made a very good faith effort to try to accomplish the specifics. Fitting his specific use into this specific site. Saying that, I think we are here tonight to decide whether changing this to heavy industrial is appropriate. Looking at the criteria we have I would have to say that I don't feel that the applicant has demonstrated to me that, number one a mistake was made, or number- two, physical circumstances have occurred that would justify the change, or even that the change is consistent with applicable plan policies, there are many policies that it would be consistent to. I understand his argument about- heavy industrial, we may need some more heavy industrial, I question whether would should create an island of heavy industrial in an area that is already being developed in a light industrial manner. I think that we are doing a disservice to the people who are, have invested heavily in the area and are, you know, working towards that end. I, I agree with Commissioner Castile, you know, if we were starting with a fresh, if this was all green field and this was a spot on the map, what- I would have preferred to do, and maybe what we should have done years ago is make that whole area down along the railroad tracks heavy industrial, but we didn't, and its being developed with. What zoning is there for, in part, is to have, have a plan and make things consistent and I don't see that, changing this would be appropriate. FYRE, Commissioner Rosborough. ROSBOROUGH. I find myself in agreement with Commissioner Moen, particular with the situation of creating a pocket of a particular zone amidst of all of the light industrial. Also, I'm just not convinced that we have meet the same two criteria that Commissioner Moen mentioned on the physical circumstances of the property and that we have made a mistake. FYRE, Commissioner Barber. BARBER, I was also very impressed with the quantity of the paperwork that we were given to read. I agree with both Commissioners Moen, and Castile, and -.Rosborough. We also, or I should also consider the other pos-sible uses for that property if we were to change the zone on it, and I'm a little concerned about that. And as far as having an island of heavy industrial in the light industrial, that, it doesn't seem appropriate. I would deny it. FYRE, Commissioner Leverett. LEUERETY, I feel that the property is not, you know, the -zone change would not be compatible with the surrounding area. I think it would have a fairly severe impact on land values. The site, the way it sits, would be virtually impossible, no matter what the heavy industrial use would be, to screen it based on the, simply the topography of, 72nd is substantially above the site and, principally I would say, call it spot zoning and without elaborating on several other things that I think are, that doesn't work appropriate for this, for the zone change. I'm prepared to vote for denial. FYRE, Commissioner Newton. TRANSCRIPT CPA 88-05 & ZC 88-11 MORSE BROTHERS PAGE 2 NEWTON, I basically eL . what Commissioner Moen said (....,d I would elaborate ' and just real briefly to say that, in my mind the arguments that were made for 4 mistake and the change in physical cirumstances do not cut the mustard. I t_ don't think that we have a mistake with respect to this piece of property. I don't think that we have any change of physical circumstance with respect to this property. Both arguments made on those points were sort of global ' arguments and I think that the terms of those two items are site specific. With respect to a. the change is consistent with applicable plan policies. I think that it probably is consistent with applicable plan policies. As far as I can tell, however, the item says the Comprehensive Plan provides that this change may be approved if it is found that one of these things is met. It doesn't say that it is required to be approved. And so, even if one of them is met we have to make a policy determination, do we want to have this use in the area. I think that the thrust of one of the applicant, one of the applicants thrusts is, well this may be, under old technology an awful heavy qq industrial use, but really, we've cleaned it up so its kind of a light k industrial use. But, apparently they haven't been able to convenience their neighbors of that. So in view of that, and, I would vote no. MOEN, I find myself in agreement with a lot of the comments that have been made, I might add just a couple of things. One, under the policy, there is a policy that states, City of Tigard will prohibit development causing diminution in the existing quality of life for the residents, I think that this development does that. There is also another policy statement that says, we should reduce the uncertainty of the development process; by affectively spot zoning, we certainly send out a signal that were reducing the certainty of the process. Enough said. Do I hear a motion. MOEN, I' ll make a motion. c, FYRE, Commissioner Moen. MOEN, I would move that we deny, recommend denial to the; this is recommendation is it not? Recommend denial to the City Council of CPA 88-05, Zone Change 88-11 on the bases of the findings with respect to, on page four, we have three issues there. Item a, I would like to include those issues raised by Commissioner Fyre .just a few minutes ago. . Secretary, I didn't catch the policy number. V. x F� MOEN, He recommended, it was two policies. ►s FYRE, I' ll give them to you. F' MOEN, Item b, change in physical circumstances has occurred, I think that the main one brought up was a growth, the fact that we have grown quickly. I think thats a credit to our plan that we have grown quickly and I think that C City of Tigard is progressing fairly well. Item c, that mistake was made on the original land use designation, I guess I don't agree with that. So, Commissioner Fyre will add those. t FYRE, Those were taking out of volume II, Tigard Camp Plan, Findings and Policies, page one, number one and number seven. MOEN, Okay, thats my motion. TRANSCRIPT CPA 88-05 & ZC 88-11 MORSE BROTHERS PAGE 3 ROSBOROUGH, Second. �• FYRE, Do I hear a second. Its been moved and seconded to recommend denial to the City Council of this Comp Plan Amendment and Zone Change, all those in favor signify by saying I. Newton, Lever•ett, Barber, Rosborough, Moen, Fyr•e, and Castile, I. FYRE, All those opposed. (No response. ) FYRE, Motion carries. C TRANSCRIPT CPA 88-05 & ZC 88-11 MORSE BROTHERS PAGE 4 +- + + . i 1 `SE MEADOWS LIMITED PARTNERSHIP 6655 S.W. Hampton Street, Suite 200 Portland, Oregon 97223 (503) 620-4440 1 October 3, 1988 OCT 4 1988 City of Tigard CITY OF FiGAKD Planning commission PLANNING DEPT 13125 S.W. Hall P.O. Box 23397 Tigard, Oregon 97223 Re: File #CPA88-05 and ZC88-11 File Title: Morse Brothers, Inc. Attention: Craig Hopkins Chairperson Dear Mr. Hopkins: I am writing to you regarding the proposed asphalt batch plant location in Tigard south of Bonita Road near 72nd Avenue. We are most concerned about this potentially offensive use in this area where the development activity has been somewhat unstable in the past and is presently facing a bit of resurgence. We are the owners of a fifteen acre mixed-use project just North of Bonita on the other side of •Interstate 5, South of Meadows Road. The type of traffic that this use would place through our area is highly objectionable. Our project, Kruse Meadows, has a total buildable of 420,000 square feet which will be primarily office, retail and hotel and we feel could be adversely affected by this type of traffic through our neighborhood. I realize that these people have to be located someplace, but it seems that there are other sites in areas more predomitately heavy industrial in nature that they could locate in and have less of an adverse affect on the surrounding area. Kruse Meadows Limited Partnership is adamantly opposed to the requested comprehensive plan and zone changes and we highly recommend you reject this application. Very t•ru'iy yours, KRUSE MEADOWS LIMITED PARTNERSHIP 4 0 Howard S. Moore General Partner l HSM:bas DIST:C/S/ --,5'!55 •—�c �• s r~ + r Ij 518587 air - f F s I OF ,. LA _IAS fl ' --ti MIF- � ! EXHIBIT 5.3 r� I i ASPHALT PLANT Cartersville, Georgia Re: Attention to Aesthetics r EXHIBIT LL 0 0 1 r--�-nr i n T1% I r-(- n ni T-,%/ E X W J 1 IJGL IM V GJ DI-)LG T JONES &GREY , #J�[yys/}�� ATTORNEYS A7 LAW SUITE 2300 1° STANDARD INSURANCE CENTER 900 SW FIFTH AVENUE PORTLAND,OREGON 97204.1268 Telephone(503)224-3380 Telecopier(503)220-2480 Cable Lau-port Telex 703455 Writer's Direct Dial Number 294-9523 October 4, 1988 - Chairman Donald Moen and Members of the Commission Tigard City Hall 13125 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard, OR 97223 Re: Morse Brothers. Inc. - CPA 88-05/ZC 88-11 Dear Commissioners: This office represents Pacific Realty Associates, L.P. ("Pactrust") , which owns in excess of 1,225,000 square feet of light industrial and office development property in southwest Tigard. On behalf of Pactrust, I offer the following comments in opposition to the above-referenced request for a compre- hensive plan and zone change to Heavy Industrial and I-H. I ask that these written comments, together with my oral testimony, be made a part of the record at the Commission's hearing on this matter on October 4, 1988. As you can see from the attached letter to Mr. Murphy, Pactrust's interests would be substantially affected by any designation of the subject property for heavy industrial use. We believe that such action can only serve to halt the steady development of this area as a primary office and light industrial center. Fortunately, we also find the Morse proposal to be contrary to numerous comprehensive plan policies and various provisions of the Community Development Code ("Code") . These inconsistencies, coupled with the inadequate analysis presented by the applicant which has led, in turn, to a deficient staff report, require a Commission recommendation to the City Council of denial. As the Commission knows, any recommendation to approve a plan amendment and zone change must be supported by a factual PORTLAND. WASHINGTON COUNTY, or LLEVCE. SEATTLE. VANCOUVER. ST.LOUIS. WASHINGTON OREGON OREGON W'ASHI\GTO\ WASHINGTON WASHINGTON MISSOURI DISTRICT OF COLO MBIA -STOEL RIVES BOLEY )ONES&GREY Chairman Donald Moen October 4 , 1988 Page 2 demonstration of full compliance with all applicable j comprehensive plan policies and Code criteria. The applicant's submittal and the staffs' analysis fail to meet this burden in a t number of key respects. First, staff takes the erroneous position that the Statewide Planning Goals do not apply to the plan amendment request, and the applicant offers nothing more t than cursory conclusions regarding Goal compliance. For example, there is no analysis of the adverse effects of the I-H zone and any uses permitted thereunder to existing light ` industrial and office development in the area (Goal 9) , the } feasibility of compliance with all state and federal environ- mental permits or standards (Goal 6) or the negative implica- tions on transportation to, from and through the area (Goal 12) . Without such analysis and a staff recommendation on goal compli- ance, the Commission cannot complete its review and either must p remand the matter for additional information or recommend denial. See ORS 197. 175 (2) . Second, the staff offers no analysis or recommenda- ions regarding compliance with the criteria for quasi-judicial amendments of this type, as set forth in § 18.22.040 of the Code. The following criterion is particularly relevant to this E proposal due to the testimony and evidence of extraordinary impacts to existing and future commercial and light industrial development in the area and, therefore, to the community as a t whole: "A. A recommendation or decision to approve, approve with conditions or to deny an application for a quasi-judicial amendment shall be based on all the following standards: 1. The applicable comprehensive plan policies and map designations; and (a) The change will not adversely affect the health, safety and welfare of the community." Code § 18.22.040(A) . Further, this standard must be interpreted to preclude any adverse effects of any (type and cannot be balanced against any potential benefits of adding to the city's industrial land base. STOEL RIVES BOLEY JONES&C,REY Chairman Donald Moen October 4, 1988 Page 3 1000 Friends of Oregon v. LCDC, 91 Or App 138 (1988) . Based on the correspondence received by the Commission to date and on the testimony expected on the 4th, we believe that such a finding of no adverse impact on this unique commercial area cannot be made. Third, we respectfully disagree with staff's recommendation that compatibility between adjacent uses and any potential use in the I-H zone is not an applicable criterion at this stage of the proceedings. On the contrary, the following criterion for placement of the I-H designation, coupled with the analysis above, mandates that the "external effects" of any of the uses in the I-H zone shall not interfere with properties in the immediate area: "It [shall] be demonstrated that associated lights, noise and other external effects will not interfere with the activities and uses on surrounding properties." Comprehensive Plan Policy 12. 3. 1(e) . Once again, this binding criterion requires a finding of no potential interference of any magnitude, and it is not enough to suggest that some adverse effects, however minimal, are offset by benefits to the applicant or the community. Finally, we agree with the staff's apparent position that the Commission's determination must be based on a consideration of all permitted uses in the I-H zone and cannot be limited to the specific activities proposed by the applicant. However, the staff errs in concluding that the impacts of all such potential uses on the immediate area and on the community can be deferred to the Site Development Review stage. To support a finding of compliance with the two specific criteria noted above and all applicable comprehensive plan policies and Goal provisions, the Commission and Council must assume full development of the most intensive use permitted under the new designation. Policy 12.3, for example, expressly applies to the designation itself, not to the mere siting of a use permitted once the designation is in place. Consequently, the Commission must require such a "worst case" analysis by the applicant and STOEL RIVES QOLEY j0N ES C'1 GRE Y Chairman Donald Moan October 4, 1988 Page 4 the staff, and it must undertake its review of compliance with the applicable comprehensive plan and Code provisions in this context. This means, for example, that assessments of noise impacts, trip generation, storm water runoff and the like cannot be limited to the specific use proposed. In sum, we believe that additional analysis and factual support must be provided by the applicant and staff before the Commission can complete its consideration and make a recommendation to the Council on this matter. Moreover, we believe that such information, once available, will -nnfirm that the request for heavy industrial designation for this property is inconsistent with applicable comprehensive plan policies, Statewide Goals and quasi-judicial amendment criteria. If such information is not provided, the Commission has no choice but to forward a recommendation of denial and direct the staff to address any outstanding questions of industrial land supply during the upcoming periodic review process. Thank you for your consideration of these comments. j Very truly yours, :ate en L,rPfeiffer SLP.436:j-e F Enclosure I f F PACTRUST 111 S.W.i=ihJlAve..Suite 2950 Peohc Ra tty Aeeooeeee.I Po wft-4.Oregon 97204 803/224.6540 September 29, 1988 Edward J. Murphy, Director TigardiCty i tyeHal l velopment R��/`�1 P.O. Box 23397 J11 3 0 Tigard, OR 97223 Dear Mr. Murphy: 1988 Re: Proposed Zone Change This letter is being written to apprise you of PacTrust's strong objection to a proposed zone change. Our understanding is that Morse Bros., of Tangent, Oregon, is attempting to change the zoning from IL/Light Industrial to IH/Heavy Industrial on the site bounded by S.W. 74th and the Southern Pacific Railroad near Bonita Road in Tigard. It is our further understanding that this site is being proposed for an asphalt and concrete . batch plant and that this zone change request will be heard before the .Planning Commission on the evening of October 4, 1988. PacTrust owns in excess of 1,225,000 square feet of high quality industrial and office improvements on'approximately 82 acres of land. The near 100 businesses with over 2,500 employees are centered around the intersection of S.W. 72nd Avenue and S.W. Upper Boones Ferry Road. In addition, approximately 68,000 square feet of building construction will commence within the next month on approximately 5 acres of land at this intersection. PacTrust owns an additional approximate 38 acres in the same area which is ready for development into- high-quali-ty industrial and commercial buildings. These properties are all within one mile of the proposed batch plant site. The land held for development is within one-half mile of the site. PacTrust began its development of property in this area in 1972 and has continually worked to provide a high quality business environment. Our improvements have played, and will continue to play, a significant role in making this area a prime business location attracting major employers including local-, ,regional, and national firms to your city. We believe that the operation of an asphalt and concrete batch plant at this location will make it significantly more difficult to continue j attracting the kinds of business investments which make this area a uniquely successful business environment and which contribute to the economic prosperity of the region and, more significantly, the Tigard community. The proposed batch plant, if constructed, will include a series ofmajor activities and construction detrimental to PacTrust's interests and the i s E r Edward J. Murphy, Director Page 2 September 29, 1988 interests of other adjacent and proximate land owners. Our concerns are generally as follows: Visual : The proposed construction includes tower elements between 60 and 70 feet in height, stone aggregate piles to 37 feet in height, a drum mixer that will expel smoke and vapor; and general site activity of train and truck traffic, and conveyor systems of a heavy construction nature. We find these. elements and uses totally incompatible with PacTrust's existing and proposed developments and with the character of the neighborhood. Air Quality: Air quality will suffer substantially from smoke, vapor plume, surface and airborne dust, and asphalt odors. Noise: Noise in the immediate and proximate vicinity will be substantial from train operations, aggregate dumping, conveyor transport, aggregate placement in trucks, and truck movement. Traffic: Local traffic will be impacted by increased train activities on both Southern Pacific and Burlington lines and their street crossings and property entrances. Truck operations for concrete and asphalt deliveries and ingress to and egress from the site will be significant and will conflict with other area traffic at peak periods. S.W. Bonita and S.W. 72nd Avenue could receive the plant's major traffic movements on streets already congested at peak periods. Vehicle weight and materials fallout could substantially damage paved surfaces on major arteries and property entrances. Along with the significant negative impacts on the Tigard community, this use is in conflict with the comprehensive plan. It is our intention to strongly represent our position at the Planning Commission's hearing on October 4, 1988. We have, along with the City, exerted a major commitment to create a ` quality environment in this area. While we know Morse Bros. is a E respected business in our state, we strongly urge your denial of this r inappropriate zone change request. Thank you for your consideration and understanding. I Sincerely, PAC F FEALTY, SSOCIA/T�ES, L.P. Kenneth E. Grimes, A.I.A. Corporate Architect y EXHIBIT DENTLEWOODS SUBDTVXSION TIGARD, OREGON October 1988 We, the residents of the Gentlewoods Subdivision, strongly oppose the proposed zone change from light industrial to heavy industrial to accommodate the Morse Bros. batch plant. This opposition is based upon several points: A zone change is usually granted if there is an error to the comprehensive plan, or if the present use is not consistent with the surrounding area. we fail to see how any of" these criterion have been met. The surrounding area is presently being used for light industrial and industrial park purpose14,,,ZoT �Jace a parcel zoned heavy industrial among existing A parcels is clearly inconsistent. Additionally, the change may severely limit the current development plans for the area. It is our understanding that PacTrust either owns or has options to buy surrounding parcels. It would be unfortunate to discourage this high-tech type of development which would be .consistent with existing usage. Secondly, Morse Bros. alleges that proposed new technology will minimize noise and odor emissions. This technology has not been proven; there are Iia assurances that it will work. The Morse Bros. project should not be a testincLground at the expense of area residents. The livability of the area should not be at stake. Thirdly, the proposed development would greatly impact transportation in the area. By Morse Bros. ' own admission there would be two to four rail trips per day and 400 to 450 truck trips. With traffic backups occurring daily on Bonita and Durham Roads, additional rail trips coupled with heavy truck traffic would further exacerbate vehicle traffic problems currently being experienced in the area. For these reasons, we are adamantly opposed to the proposed zoning change. C MI Ci 1 Y11'. ULVU1SKSlbl�lC/LJ Li1tC 11V VYYVbl'11V1V 'lu: ZONE CHANGE FROM LIGHT INDUSTRIAL TO HEAVY INDUSTRIAL ADDRESS NAME c Af Is 1 y GI "J"CA-- ............. /029 30 w. 1-4,u r r►� AJ PO � �-- ._' ' ,wr: it1r: U1VLC.t(.71lalVC.L eitcC lrn VYYV.711'1V1V lU: ZONE CHANGE FROM LIGHT INDUSTRIAL TO HEAVY INDUSTRIAL NAME ADDRESS 771c 7M SCS/ - . �saoS Sw ell CA I Q_-r 116014A G 7 7 �- r � G w� JnC u1VLCK.�1blVCL ticc� A" urruailluiv lu: ZONE CHANGE FROM LIGHT INDUSTRIAL TO HEAVY INDUSTRIAL NAME ADDRESS E ` r a'r'il c35- Milli {3 6 �6►�lil r J 7 ixHIBIT 53 # 7 REMARKS OF RICHARD P. BUONO ON BEHALF OF PACIFIC REALTY ASSOCIATES, L.P. ("PACTRUST") REGARDING THE MORSE BROS., INC. APPLICATION FOR PLAN AND ZONE CHANGE (CPA 88-05 & ZC 88-11) OCTOBER 4, 1988 Since 1972, PacTrust has developed in excess of 1,225,000-, square feet of industrial and office buildings on more than 82 acres of land in the area centered around S.W. 72nd Avenue and S.W. Upper Boones Ferry Road. We have, in the past year, purchased 50 acres of land zoned Industrial Park and Light Industrial within less than one-half mile of the site of the proposed concrete and asphalt batch plant. The most recent acquisition is approximately 26 acres of land, zoned Industrial Park, portions of which lie within 500 feet of the subject site. Our average cost per square foot for the 50 acres acquired in this past year has been almost $4.00. These recent land acquisitions, which will be developed into high quality office and business parks, have been made based on our understanding of the current comprehensive plan designation and zoning in the area and would probably not have taken place had heavy industrial uses this close to these properties been deemed likely. Our commitment to quality development in this area has been based on our understanding that the City of Tigard also has a strong commitment to fostering a successful and enduring environment for the continuing growth of attractive business uses in this area, which are compatible with one another and with their residential neighbors. �- We are proud of being a part of the growth in this area from agriculture to manufacturing and distribution and now to the presently planned areas of large, high quality office and business parks. This trend towards higher quality uses and more cost-intensive development is driven by the increasing cost of property in the area which will be affected by the subject zone and plan change application. We are extremely concerned over the proposed change in the comprehensive plan and zone proposed by Morse Bros., Inc. It is our belief that such a change will allow uses which are incompatible with the present mix of businesses in the area. The proposed concrete and asphalt batch plant is, in our view, completely incompatible with the neighborhood. Many of the other uses which could take place on the property without further deliberation after rezoning, such as animal ( auctions, sales and rental of heavy equipment and farm equipment, storage of non-operating vehicles, explosive storage, scrap operations and recycling centers would also degrade the desirability of and value of this uniquely successful business area. The proposed plan and zone change, and the uses possible if these changes are made, will make it extremely difficult to continue to attract the businesses which are necessary for the industrial and office park projects planned for nearby parcels. Hotels, office buildings, medium and high technology assembly plants, research facilities and other such uses will not coexist well with a use such as that proposed by the applicant, Morse Bros., Inc. , or with other permitted uses in a heavy industrial zone. ® i We have, in a letter to Mr. Murphy, given specific comments relative to visual pollution, degradation of air quality, adverse noise impact and adverse traffic impact, if the Morse Bros., Inc. plant is built on this site. Our attorney is providing an assessment of what we feel are serious deficiencies in the present staff assessment of the Morse Bros., t` Inc. proposal . I will therefore not take up your time on those points except to call your attention to our September 29, 1988 letter. r We most strongly urge the Planning Commission to issue a t'. recommendation that the City Council deny CPA 88-05 and ZC 88-11. E: Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak. k<' i . } k- k�\ {YY Ni {[K tkt^. F: r� eF P f t h eCD A •r f. 6O m = M 7'M'�F�lBi . .a ----; --'--- -------I--:----__. _—_-_-----_ -. .� .,.,,,. rte^- p� .•. _ _'--"----- .. .'__------- OFFICE \ 1.»u TEL \��• Va I •,� AESTAURAN,J� l FLEX R i D , WH IFIESTA U$ANT 8 RETA14 (` ' t I FLEX R i D f.Tl �LlX R•6 D ' F i•.FLEX R&D i,l�... •\ � i 1• 1 1 I PACIFIC CORPORATE PARK. NORTH SCALE,• ~• owt.ca. TIGARD.OREGON PAGTRUST n.lr.l.lrrirc..,.L. WII..+1/Wy.W�r t EXHIBIT -5 3 -IA9 KOLL8205 S.W.Creekside Place Suite D Beaverton Oregon 97005 The Koll Company (503)626-3045 October 4, 1988 Mr. Ed Murphy - Director of Planning and Community Development CITY OF TIGARD 13125 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard, OR 97223 RE: Comprehensive Plan Amendment CPA 88-05 Zone Change 88-11 Dear Mr. Murphy: Subject plan amendment and zone change have been requested by Morse Bros. , Inc. to allow for construction of a concrete and asphalt batch plant at approximately 14900 SW 74th Avenue. We are holders of an option to purchase approximately 23 acres of nearby property south of Bonita Road between SW 72nd and Interstate 5. We have obtained Site Design Review approval for the first phase of our development which includes an office building and two multi-tenant industrial buildings. We believe that this neighborhood, because of its proximity to I-5 and other major transportation networks, is poised for redevelopment into significantly -higher and better uses than currently exist. We oppose the plan amendment and zone change and urge you and your staff to reverse your recommendation of approval. We believe that the proposed use of the site is inappropriate and incompatible with neighboring uses for several reasons. First, the appearance of the improvements and associated high piles of aggregate are unsightly. Second, the inevitable noise and dust ' resulting from concrete and asphalt batch plant operation are not conducive to high quality business park and office development. Third, the resulting train and heavy truck traffic will unnecessarily exacerbate existing traffic congestion on surrounding streets. We believe that the proposed use will be harmful to existing and proposed development in the area for the reasons cited, as well as from the negative image associated with such a heavy industrial use. It appears to us that the City of Tigard has Mr. Ed Murphy October 4, 1988 Page 2 the opportunity to encourage high quality development along its short stretch of I-5 frontage and that this proposal would significantly hamper those efforts. Sincerely yours, THE KOLL COMPANY . Thomas D. Wolterinkfrey M. Sackett Vice President Development Development Manager JMS/bn i i e INTRODUCTION ---------------------------- �. PURPOSE The Comprehensive Plan_r,,_ document through which the citizens of Tigard have made the basic choices on how land development and redevelopment should occur, and how it will be managed. After many years of segmented planning, the seven separate Neighborhood Planning Organization plans comprised the communities planning efforts, this Comprehensive Plan is intended to aggregate the community's planning efforts into one "Community Wide Comprehensive Plan" for the Tigard Urban Planning Area. 4 The purpose of the plan is to maintain and improve the existing q€ality of life for the residents by: 1• 43St ibiting .development which would cause a. diminution in the ex , ^ing-quality .of-`life.:for the residents of Tigard; 2• Protecting individuals from the negative impact of developing land _ which have natural hazards and are subiect to natural di, $S prs:`, 3. Identifying and protecting ---� resource lands from urban development encroachment; 4• Providing for the retention of natural and cultural resources which contribute to the livability of the community; 5• Providing adequate land to meet anticipated future demands for urban development in a logical and orderly manner; 6. Encouraging flexibility and innovation in development techniques to permit diversity within the community and to slow the increase in development costs; I' jQticxlag=:the ,uncertainty of the. development process; 8. Contributing to a healthy, stable and diversified economy within Tigard; 9. Providing for an orderly and timely arrangement and provision of public facilities and services to function is the framework for urban development; and 10. Facilitating citizen participation in all phases of the planning process. 1he Tigard Comprehensive Plan is the plan on which land #{{{ use will be made for the area within the Tigard Urban Planning Area duringsthesplanning 2 1 Period (1980-2000). In areas outside the Tigard city limits, Washington County retains legal jurisdiction Improvement projects. TheCiy , o �however, revie ser op and makes mentProposals re ommendations lon ` Proposals and projects inside the Urban Planning Area, and often coordinates with the County on related projects. f s -1- I ® `SE MEADOWS LIMITED PARTNERSHIP 6655 S.W. Hampton Street, Suite 200 Portland, Oregon 97223 (503) 620-4440 October 3, 1988 OCT 41988 City of Tigard CITY OF fIGAKD Planning commission PLANNING DEPT 13125 S.W. Hall P.O. Box 23397 Tigard, Oregon 97223 Re: File #CPA88-05 and ZC88-11 File Title: Morse Brothers, Inc. Attention: Craig Hopkins Chairperson Dear Mr. Hopkins: I am writing to you regarding the proposed asphalt batch plant location in Tigard south of Bonita Road near 72nd Avenue. We are most concerned about this potentially offensive use in this area where the development activity has been somewhat unstable in the past and is presently facing a bit of resurgence. We are the owners of a fifteen acre mixed-use project just North of Bonita on the other side of Interstate 5, South of Meadows Road. The type of traffic that this use would place through our area is highly objectionable. Our project, Kruse Meadows, has a total buildable of 420,000 square feet which will be primarily office, retail and hotel and we feel could be adversely affected by this type of traffic through our neighborhood. I realize that these people have to be located someplace, but it seems that there are other sites in areas more predomitately heavy industrial in nature that they could locate in and have less of an adverse affect on the surrounding area. Kruse Meadows Limited Partnership is adamantly opposed to the requested comprehensive plan and zone changes and we highly recommend you reject this application. Very truly yours, KRUSE MEADOWS LIMITED PARTNERSHIP 440 Howard S. Moore General Partner HSM:bas DIST:C/S/ ll ' Grocery Products Division Cmation 15800 S.W.Upper Boones Ferry Road Suite:200 Lake Oswego,Oregon 97035 F t R i 1219 i September 8, 1988 f Mr. Edward J. Murphy, Director Community Development Tigard City Hall PO box 23397 Tigard, OR 97223 Mr. Murphy: It has been brought to our attention the proposed zoning change regarding a construction materials handling facility. We understand that this involves "heavy" truck traffic, incremental train traffic, and excessive noise and pollution to the areas that immediately surround the proposed business site. - We strongly oppose this in that it is not compatible with the current "climate" in this area. R We are against any zoning change that would permit this type of F: activity in this area. Regards, St phen E. Phillips Regional Sales Manager Carnation Company SEN-pa E i 1 i ■ ■ 0 15770 S.W.Upper Boones Ferry Rd.,lake Oswego,OR 97035 ECEI VEd SEP � 6 198 September 15, 1988 Mr. Ed J. Murphy, Director Community Development Tigard City Hall P.O. Box 23397 Tigard, OR 97223 Dear Mr. Murphy: It has been brought to my attention that a concrete and asphalt plant is being proposed in the area of SW Bonita and 72nd Avenue. It is my opinion that this type of business is not appropriate for this area and will effect the neighboring businesses. Besides the continuous truck traffic caused by this business , _ it will also effect our environment and the attractiveness of this business area. I would appreciate your consideration regarding this matter. Sinc ely, Glen . ;a"4' District Manag A division of 11 ANDRE ' S AUTO BODY SHOP LTD. 15785 S.W. 72nd. 19$8 Tigard, OR. 97224 September, 12, 1988 Mr. Edward J. Murphy, Director Community Development Tigard City Hall P.O. Box 23397 Tigard, OR 97223 Dear Mr. Murphy : Re. : Proposed Batch Plant by Morse Bros. I have several real concerns with this proposal . First the increases to truck and train traffic would complicate an already difficult situation. Trains routinely cause lengthy delays of both 72nd and Carmen. Secondly ; we are here because it is a light industrial area. We expect similar types of businesses. It seems to be that the reason for zoning by area is to have a compatable neighborhood. The trend- in this area is away from light industrial area to office park. Now that the City has allowed Oregon Business Park to proliferate in the area I think good judgement would indicate that Tigard stick with the program even if this -means saying No to a worthy development such as this proposal. This would seem the only way to avoid a haphazard mix that is the reason zoning exists. Sincerely yours, Linda Nadeau, Secretary-Treasurer 5285 S.W.Meadows Road,Sv;eo-131 Lake Oswego.OR 8'U35 3� t P.O.Box St109 Portland,OR 97228-5909 503 684 4666•FAX: 503 684-4667 f*.... SPIEKER September 12, 1988 t(� . 1 Mr. Edward J. Murphy Director Community of Development Tigard City Hall P.O. Box 23397 Tigard, OR 23397 Re: Proposed Batch Plant by Morse Brothers Dear Mr. Murphy: It has been brought to our attention that there has been a proposed batch plant by Morse Brothers for handling large quantities of rock to include concrete batch and hot asphalt batch. We believe this heavy industrial type use is not consistent with the best use of the properties in this area. The traffic k,eing generated from this type of facility will be detrimental to the office production and light manufacturing that presently utilize .the immediate streets. In evaluation of this use and the present zone change, please consider the amount of effort that developers along 72nd and Upper Boones Ferry Road have extended to improve and upgrade the area from an industrial use to the office/commercial quality. Approving the batch plant at this location will be a step backwards for all of us. We look forward to you working with Morse Brothers to relocate them to an area that is more in line with the heavy industrial environment. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to give me a call. Sincerely, SPIE R PARTNERS Eddy P t nerr GROUP INTERNATIONAL INC. September 13, 1988 V, FQ T y1ft SEP 15 1988 Mr. Edward J. Murphy, Director Community Development CITY OF TIGARD Tigard City Hall PLANNING DEPT. P.O. Box 23397 , Tigard, OR 97223 Dear Mr. Murphy: It has been brought to our attention that a company by the name of Morse Bros., from the Corvallis area, is proposing to construct asphalt and concrete batch plants, which will manufacture, store and sell various aggregate materials on property located near our corporate headquarters. As one of the larger employers within the City of Tigard, AVIA would like to go on record as opposing e`forts by Morse Bros. to construct the proposed facility, and we will actively participate in efforts to ensure that any required approvals be denied. The City of Tigard has participated with private developers to significantly upgrade the overall area in which the facility is being proposed. Allowing construction of a large, heavy-industrial facility of the type proposed, appears to be a total contradiction of the City's, as well as the State's, economic development efforts. Such, a facility can do nothing but provide an adverse impact on the area. The specific concerns to us are numerous, and include probable dust, noise, odor, and especially traffic from the numerous large and slow-moving vehicles necessary to operate a facility of this type. There are more remote locations where such an operation can function very satisfactorily, and we do not wish to have them as neighbors. AVIA offers a very high quality product, and has deliberately located its headquarters and operations in an attractive and well-landscaped part of your city. This is important to us from the perception of our customers, as well as the attitude of our employees. We presently occupy in excess of 300,000 square feet of space, and employ approximately 300 people. We do not wish to consider the prospects of having to view the two proposed batch plant towers, experience the probable dust migration caused by the variable winds, smell the pervasive odor of the hot asphalt, listen to the grumbling of aggregate crushers or the additional trains needed to serve the proposed facility. Nor do we wish to deal with the traffic caused by the concrete and asphalt trucks, aggregate-hauling vehicles, cement and hot oil transport vehicles, or the additional train traffic on the Southern Pacific lines, if they choose to transport by that means. eVA M P.O Box 23309 Portland.OR 97223-0049 Phone(503)684-0490 GROUP INTERNATIONAL (- INC. September 13, 1988 Mr. Edward J. Murphy, Director, Community Development Page two I hope I have communicated the strength of AVIA's position. We would consider any action by the City of Tigard in support of this project to be, a giant step backward. Thank you for taking the time to understand our position on this matter. Sincerely, Dean W. Croft President ca R�ECEl VED S S NORITA CORPORATION 1988 September 16, 1988 Edward J. Murphy, Director Community Development Tigard City Hall P.O. Box 23397 ' Tigard, OR 97223 SUBJECT: Proposed Batch Plant by Morse Brothers Dear Mr. Murphy, As a lessee in the Oregon Business Park complex, we are in opposition to the proposed construction of a Batch Plant by Morse Brothers. After much surveying and researching, we decided to headquarter our office in this area because of the many positive aspects; natural surroundings, light industry, relatively low pollution levels, and easy access to freeways. The construction of such a ' plant would cause traffic congestion and an increase in the pollution level, two of the characteristics which were so appealing to us in our decision to locate in the Oregon Business Park. We hope that this letter will aid in your decision to reject the proposed plant. We have enjoyed the atmosphere of our setting and have received many compliments from our visitors. We would like to keep it that way. Sincerely, NORITA CORPORATION Fred Westerfield Director of Administration FW:mkh TB:mkh 7376 S.W. DURHAM ROAD o PORTLAND, OREGON 97224 PHONE(503) 684-9311 TELEFAX(503) 684-9201 NORTHWEST ® RTHWEST 15862 S.W.72nd Avenue Portland, Oregon J7224 P A I N C E N T E R [503]684-7246 A S S O C 1 A T E S R�cFI�F [ JOEL L.SERES.M0 September 9, 1988 40 Physician S SuT.eon , D Neurological Surgery J 1�AA DIRECTOR 8 RICHARD I.NEWMAN.M.D. Edward J. Murphy, Director Medical Psychologist CO-DIRECTOR Community Development Tigard City Hall Multidisciplinary Team: P.O. Box 23397 PHYSICIANS 6 SURGEONS Tigard Oregon 97223 ROBERT F.CORRIGAN.M.D. Orthopedic Surgery _ DWIGHT W.FREEMAN.M.D. Dear Mr.. Murphy: Orthopedic Surgery PSYCHOLOGISTS I am the Director of a multidisciplinary clinic at DONNA C.WICHER.Ph.D. the corner of Boones Ferry and 72nd. Since our move here in Medical Psychologist SHARON M.LABS.M.D. June we have been very pleased with the surroundings of the Neuropsychologist area. While there have been some difficulties with traffic, PAUL J.RETHINGER.M.D. Clinical Psychologist especially during the times traffic is halted for the passing MICHAEL BRENT.M.D. of trains, we feel the overall situation is quite tolerable. Counseling Psychologist The development of this area into the light industrial type of CONSULTANT PHYSICIAN business that are presently here, and the rather classy DAVID W.RICH.M.D. appearance to the development projects of PacTrust made this a Narology very attractive area for our move. CLINIC ADMINISTRATOR BARBARA A.BEACH.M.Ed. I have been told that there is a proposal for a materials handling facility construction by Morse Brothers near to our area. Not only would this increase the amount of heavy truck traffic substantially, but as I understand it would also increase the extent of rail activity. Since all the rail activity in this area does have a direct impact- on traffic, I am quite fearful that the total impact of the proposed Morse Brothers' plan will be extremely negative here. I can certainly understand the value of the property having two railroad lines immediately adjacent to it; however, I strongly urge you to consider the overall impact that such a plant would have in terms of traffic, noise, dust, and odor on the attractiveness of this area and its further development. • I would appreciate the opportunity of discussing this further with you before any further activity occurs in relation to the development of the proposed site. Sincerely, Joel L. Seres, M.D. C�Wr Director, Northwest Pain Center JLS:nda/d39A A Nationally Accredited Pain Center T' E Portland Sales District 15618 SW 72nd Avenue Robert G Davis Commercial Systems Group Portland OR 97224 District Manager The Trane Company P O Box 23579 Tigard OR 97223 503 620 8031 September 20, 1988 1988 Mr. Edward J. Murphy, Director Community Development Tigard City Hall P.O. Box 23397 Tigard, OR 97223 Dear Mr. Murphy: As an owner of a business located at 15618 S.W. 72nd Avenue, Tigard, Oregon, I am very much opposed to the proposed Morse Brothers asphalt and concrete batch plant to be located off of Kable Lane just north of Consolidated Supply in Tigard. We employ 26 people. Our business is the sale and service of Trane Commercial Air Conditioning Equipment. Our Parts Center sells to air conditioning service contractors who drive to our center to pick up parts. We located our business at the cur- rent address because we truly believed it was the best loca- tion for our customers and our employees. In June of 1986, we started looking for a new, larger office site. We looked at eight (8) sites. One in Tigard, one in Tualatin, and six in Beaverton. We choose the Tigard site after reviewing in depth all factors that would help our busi- ness to continue to grow. The present site in Tigard answers all of our concerns; a clean environment, moderate care and light truck traffic, low noise level, easy and quick access to I-5, and of course - a first rate office facility. The dev- elopment of this type of asphalt and concrete batch plant in our area would have a very negative affect on my ability to continue to grow and prosper in this office park area. At the present time, we are in the midst of combining our Residential and Light Commercial Sales Office with ours. This will result in an additional 3000 square feet of office and warehouse to our 6500 square feet of office, warehouse, and Parts Center. There will be more customers coming to our facility. We want them to have a minimum amount of traffic, easy and efficient access and egress, minimal dirt and dust, as well as low traffic noise level. We now have customers picking up our air conditioning equipment located at Lile Mr. Edward J. Murphy, Director Page 2 Warehouse and Distributing, 15705 S.W. 72nd Avenue, Tigard, as well as customers picking up air conditioning parts at our Trane Parts Center, 15618 S.W. 72nd Avenue, Tigard. Most important of all, we have key owners and developers that come to our facility for meetings and demonstrations. As President and Owner of the Trane Sales Service and Parts Company located at 15618 S.W. 72nd Avenue, I want you to know that we are very much opposed to the proposed location of Morse Brothers asphalt and concrete batch plant. It is certainly not in keeping with my plans, and I believe it would have a very negative affect on the Tigard Community Development plans. Thank you for your time and willingness to consider our point of view. We both want Tigard to grow, in the right way. Very. truly yours, Robert G. Davis President, Trane Oregon Service Co. District Manager, The Trane Company RGD/jh S t i i 3 C Y ry� Y September 19 , 1988 Mr. Edward J. Murphy, Director Community Development Tigard City Hall P.O. Box 23397 -Tigard, Oregon 97223 Re: Proposed Morse Brothers Batch Plant Dear Mr. Murphy: We are writing to express our vehement opposition to the proposed Morse Brothers Batch Plant to be located off Kable Lane in Tigard. As landowners in the immediate vicinity, we feel strongly that a zone change to permit that intended use would be very disruptive for this part of town. This type of use does not fit in with the current zoning, nor the nice high profile commercial developments now existing, under construction and soon to be built. This area is rapidly becoming Tigards largest and nicest "business campus" in which a batch plant certainly does not belong. We will be following this proposal closely to assure that a big mistake is not allowed to happen. Sincerely, -1 Richard D.6Akerman aures E. Wathey - 16075 S.W. Upper B`c'�ones Ferry Rd. Tigard, Oregon 97224-- E t RDA/JEW/ap j o SFP rE ,l MT. HOOD : CHEMICAL CORPORATION August 30, 1988 4444 N.W.Yeon Avenue Portland,Oregon 97210 F: f� City of Tigard 13125 S.W. Hall Blvd. P.O. Box 23397 Tigard, OR 97223 is Attention: Mr. Ed Murphy ` Community Development Director Dear Mr. Murphy: We are writing to object to the proposed zone changes to build a concrete and asphalt batch plant near S.W. 72nd and Bonita Rd. Mt. Hood Real Estate owns several properties in the immediate area. We invested in properties for long term growth and appreciation. The building and operation of a batch plant next 4 to and near many up-scale buildings and possible future sites we believe to be against the best interests of ourselves and other nearby property holders. A batch plant would create heavy traffic, noise, dust and generally an unsightly situation in an area that many are trying to upgrade for economic purposes and provide up-scale employment. e We do not feel that it will lend itself to any improvement in economic development of the area. In our opinion, the County would do well to reject any request for this change and allow the property to be developed for warehousing and light manufacturing. } Sincerely, MT. 6OD R7Fldman TATE Philip : President PBF:jf C L6 QS Telephone(503) 227-3505 / Oregon (800) 452-3502 / Washington, Idaho,Montana(800) 547-2594 WILAC MANAGEMENT CO. 6655 S.W. HAMPTON SUITE 200 PORTLAND, OREGON 97223 (503) 620-4440 P 1988 September 28, 1988 L, , ; jt I IUAKD PLANNING DEPT. City of Tigard, Oregon P.O. Box 23397 Tigard, Oregon 97223 Re: File No: CPA 88-05 & ZC 88-11 File Title: Morse Brothers, Inc. i Gentlemen: 1 We represent B&T Investment Company, the owners of the former Ace Electric Company building located at 14795 S.W. 72nd Avenue, Tigard. r Please be advised that we are firmly opposed to the requested comprehensive plan and zone changes. The proposed facility is close to the rear part of our property on S.W. 72nd. From E having been in the construction business for over four decades, we know that there will be considerable noise and dust generated by this type of a plant. Furthermore, the access proposed down Bonita and over Carmen to the freeways, running north and south, cannot help but be a deleterious effect on our property and the property of those people whom they would pass. It is our opinion that the property is properly zoned at this time and should remain light industrial. Very truly yours, WI NAGEMENT COMPAN R' ey Taylor art er i RRT:bas t DIST:Corres/S/Wilac/B&T/TMT encls. E i x i s: v it L. 10 7 5c Ali CA Oct 'ge 8 0 17 r. T A At .1 e., i� -se Q 4. L- /I er 0 I/. An ce ✓ r, e 711- r-p- 7 A� 1 CITY OF DURHAM P.O. Box 23483.Tigard. Oregon 97223 (503)(,39-6851 City Hall• 17160 S.W. Upper Boonex Ferry Rd. September 27, 1988 e ?9 X88 Edward J .Murphy, Director Community Development Tigard City Hall P.O. Box 23397 Tigard, Or 97223 Re: Proposed zone Change Re Morse Bros. Batch Plant Dear Mr Murphy; For the record, the citizens of Durham are vehemently opposed to a zone change from light to heavy industrial on S.W. 74th in Tigard. The zone change is evidently being requested in order to accomodate a Morse Brothers Batch Plant. In our opinion, it would be a travesty to allow that kind of heavy industrial activity in such close proximity to residential communities in Tigard, Lake Oswego, and Durham. We already have a traffic problem in the area. To allow a use that would generate a substantial increase in heavy truck traffic intb .and through the surrounding areas is just plain unacceptable to our community. We urge you to deny this request for a zone change. Sinc ly, Don tephens, May r DS:sjs C: Tom Brian, Mayor City of Tigard Lile �-"L northAmerican C September 28, 1988 Ed Murphy �8 Director Community Development City of Tigard P.O. Box 23397 Tigard, Oregon 97223 Subject: Morse Brothers Plant j i Dear Mr. Murphy: i Lile International Companies is strongly opposing the locating of Morse Brothers off of Kable Lane in Tigard. i i This area was originally intended as a Light Industrial area and not a Heavy Industrial area, which has been proposed. The Morse Brothers plant would not be compatible to the surrounding businesses and rather than maintain the environment, it would worsen it. One result could be traffic congestion in the surrounding area that would be detrimental to businesses in the local area, especially Lile International Companies which depends on the efficient flow of traffic. Lile International Companies has been located at 15605 S.W. 72nd Avenue, corner of Kable Lane in Tigard, for approximately 10 years. Over the years we have experienced major traffic problems from the train, local traffic, outside traffic from the expansion of 72nd Avenue, i plus, new traffic with the area growing as it is. j We believe the surrounding businesses would also suffer from the nusuance I of the odor, noise, poor visual impact due to dust and as an eyesore i to the neighborhood. We suggest that the Morse Brothers find a location that is compatible to the needs of their type of business or an area that would specifically meet their needs without interfering with other businesses. i Y ely, C. S ko ent i JS:aj ------ - - —---------- Corporate Headquarters 15605 S,utliv.est 72nd Avenue .Tigard, Oregon 97224-7989 • (503) 620-8480 r t ''' S.W.Fifth Ave., e 2950 RMVThusT Portland,Oregon97204 Pacific Realty Associates,L.P. 503/224.6540 September 29, 1988 Edward J. Murphy, Director Community Development R�f.g'/� V� Tigard City Hall � p P.O. Box 23397 Tigard, OR 97223 3 0 1988 Dear Mr. Murphy: Re: Proposed Zone Change This letter is being written to apprise you of PacTrust's strong objection to a proposed zone change. Our understanding is that Morse Bros. , of Tangent, Oregon, is attempting to change the zoning from IL/Light Industrial to IH/Heavy Industrial on the site bounded by S.W. 74th and the Southern Pacific Railroad near Bonita Road in Tigard. It is our further understanding that this site is being proposed for an asphalt and concrete batch plant and that this zone change request will be heard before the Planning Commission on the evening of October 4, 1988. i i PacTrust owns in excess of 1,225,000 square feet of high quality industrial and office improvements on approximately 82 acres of land. The near 100 businesses with over 2,500 employees are centered-around the F intersection of S.W. 72nd Avenue and S.W. Upper Boones Ferry Road. In addition, approximately 58,000 square feet of building construction will commence within the next month on approximately 5 acres of land at this intersection. PacTrust owns an additional approximate 38 acres in the same area which is ready for development into high quality industrial and commercial buildings. These properties are all within one mile of the proposed batch plant site. The land held for development is within one-half mile of the site. PacTrust began its development of property in this area in 1972 and has continually worked to provide a high quality business environment. Our improvements have played, and will continue to play, a significant role in making this area a prime business location attracting major employers including local , regional , and national firms to your city. We believe that the operation of an asphalt and concrete batch plant at this location will make it significantly more difficult to continue attracting the kinds of business investments which make this area a uniquely successful business environment and which contribute to the economic prosperity of the region and, more significantly, the Tigard community. �f The proposed batch plant, if constructed, will include a series of major activities and construction detrimental to PacTrust's interests and the z i Edward J. Murphy, Director Page 2 September 29, 1988 interests of other adjacent and proximate land owners. Our concerns are generally as follows: Visual : The proposed construction includes tower elements between 60 and 70 feet in height, stone aggregate piles to 37 feet in height, a drum mixer that will expel smoke and vapor; and general site activity of train and truck traffic, and conveyor systems of a heavy construction nature. We find these elements and uses totally incompatible with PacTrust's existing and proposed developments and with the character of the neighborhood. Air Quality: Air quality will suffer substantially from smoke, vapor plume, surface and airborne dust, and asphalt odors. Noise: Noise in the immediate and proximate vicinity will be substantial from train operations, aggregate dumping, conveyor transport, aggregate placement in trucks, and truck movement. Traffic: Local traffic will be impacted by increased train activities on both Southern Pacific and Burlington lines and their street crossings and property entrances. Truck operations for concrete and asphalt deliveries and ingress to and egress from the site will be significant and will conflict with other area traffic at peak periods. S.W. Bonita and S.W. 72nd Avenue could receive the plant's major traffic movements on streets already congested at peak periods. Vehicle weight and materials fallout could substantially damage paved surfaces on major arteries and property entrances. Along with the significant negative impacts on the Tigard community, this use is in conflict with the comprehensive plan. It is our intention to strongly represent our position at the Planning Commission's hearing on October 4, 1988. We have, along with the City, exerted a major commitment to create a quality environment in this area. While we know Morse Bros. is a respected business in our state, we strongly urge your denial of this inappropriate zone change request. Thank you for your consideration and understanding. Sincerely, PAC F FEALTY ASSOCIATES, L.P. ;Kenneth . .Grimes, A.I.A. Corporate Architect MEMORANDUM f" CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON F - TO: Honorable Mayor & City Council Respond By FROM: Cathy Wheatley, Deputy Recorder , For Your Information DATE: October 24, 1988 _Sign and Return SUBJECT: Public Hearing (CPA 88-05; ZC 88-11) — Morse Brothers Mrs. Mary Phyllis Baumer, 7978 S.W. Churchill Way, Tigard, called at 4: 10 p.m. today concerning the above—referenced item for tonight's meeting (Agenda Item No, 8) . Mrs. Baumer asked me to relay her concerns to Council for the public hearing: Mrs. Baumer was upset because she had not been notified of this public hearing far enough in advance so that she could attend the meeting. She is adamantly opposed to the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zone Chane request. She reported she feels that this was pushed through and was "under, the table" as far as notification is concerned. (Note: Mrs. Baumer was outside of the 250—foot notification area. ) Mrs. Baumer advised she checked with residents within a four--block radius from her house and those people were against heavy industrial use on this piece of property. Mrs. Baumer noted the proposed area was close to schools and neighborhoods and that pollutant controls are never good enough to be assured there is no health hazard. cc: Ed Murphy Keith Liden ��ilwE[wiw Lu �� •o9L aw+ gwwi v` N ••,\ ^ ��\` , i NocsE d A o /M S.W. ONITA 110. iK INES• E 5� FT OR; 57. '=t/ u - ^ MANCHA Q� NEIUN4 - \ • v•1TD S.w. ROSS .T S.M. OEryr Li G '�•N I i N]' J FO J _ •^.•.I r 1 �pp� '\ SVt, NAlLE LM. /•• G r 1 i HAMLET S. a 1 1I ►�� ST. ti' aw. M1L r 1 ti r AV'A IT s BJND ai. r I i R i 1 JANAM _ fV• ,n e� S�. afN:TFJRO-.T. ••\ / • • 12 r J � I' i I > 4 TIGARDLL HIGH t SCHOOL USA OREGON TREATMENT 1 �_� 6�� OREGON °a PLANT ;�� I i J 1 auslNEss e ' e.� A ,lb 4 8 MC) l I -F)KTI -HEK5 F L 1 p h . ........... .,. Mm-m _' lr � 3- NOTE: IF THIS MICROFILMED ' �� - 2 3 _- '4 DRAWING IS LESS CLEAR THAN ...s K. j THIS NOTICE.YT IS DUE TO M n„.- Sr*TY OF T!`ORIGINAL -. DRAWING --- sa - _ oFFE ez 82 ` 1�2 8z SZ 9z Cz zz iz oz 61 [(" SS 9ST Zi it of 93 --® 1 g— S d —E- -z i;,,u„ ML MM � - mARuA al Pill III! : v v �s i ("Nov's � ivy I Op. . ,off WA T 1 AVS _ Ot I s 3. 130 -- UTILITIC-S 7.1-2,47. 1 7 0 I J) —` = StTC-- "hVAe.-rC-lLlSTlCS6z--s. l) -- C-4vc Sac- C,OMMI -S51W V—Cto/lM5-A-MA- 1OA) KI I5-rA KC-- M- 0 ��IAN(,G IAV /1 J�Aa1 5 ( fig �_04®) .. tllq,tgn'PI��i Pryppl'pllPlq'IRnIInmim11P nqm 1 I l l IF tx IOEu 2 u 4 5 8 T 8 6 /0 It -1 w zfee- - _ ~OCOItl4�R lE OZ Q KR iERR1/�,' YIJAM AM CI- EI .11- 01-� a t-_e._S. ♦ L L 1 1 MLi®®ialGii - ,tea COP% A a SaiO3 MAP r�r:{�►a�r'a fr r3►f'r' ��_�f' +1�1R Y r r .� j i r : .._� r r i r-r i _ ml 1_�►a [o140 yj f 1 orf i'i'ft)ItoIllI(r4��ali�rrafr,r�arrO�Or r�r�rpr�t�c�I tit[IIIto14 PE1r NOTE: IF THIS MICROFILMEDdhik AM I' 6__.. 7 -- - - -- -__.._.. .8- � ... _-.��. _------�2 i DRAWING IS LESS CLc'AR THAN 1 _ THIS NOTICE, IT IS DUE TD �. THE QUALITY OF INE ORIGINAL DRAWING. , gz ea _._ _ _ _-- -,--------_------_.._ 4 -- ---_ , os �z sz sz �� .Ea zz ra oz sr of ca se it or s s- c s s e s- z _ r i f 'arr�irrrlun�uulrur{rr r + f MduLARM.", _ �'�,.:"r 5_CiTiO% A TLS RiW Wht 5 r� �T �A t i 3 ' t 1 _ t i 1 1 HAZELBRDOK ROAD i a sm WASCO WAY - FF PATH J � 3 3 m 2 N _ h u 15 I4fe�0 sc y y 14 13 3 y _ TU ALAT IN IRq.1'DI'DlnylDlnlDD Ilam nq'I'IDI Im II n IR n u I,In vl 1 nll IIP I � IPI 1lD,lnplgllqullnqRlinlpl .. _. I I 1..1 PI'1'm'Im I' P.I 19'1 I 'P 'n n I u i,pn vl III I lu In ° 2 E a 5 e 7 e 9 11 12 ; uw T [2 K SZ I II 01-C 9 l 94 _ --. _ o ,az,9E •Z R R-1E OL sl 91 t1--91-Si-♦ ct- EI- • c i Imo' I MARCH r Ic r BED 0 E:D :R000 AM �r r r i i i II r f I- MORSE IBROS . ZONE CHANGE REQUEST I i i l I. I MORSE BROTHERS - WHO ARE WE? • 47 Year Old Company • 500 Employees • Family Business • Diversified Materials and Construction and Services Company • Active in Tigard and Surrounding Communities • Well Capitalized, Financially Capable DOES TIGARD NEED THIS PROJECT? { • Rapid Growth * 1200 Dwelling Units Built in 3 Years * 1 Million Square Feet of Non-Residential Buildings * $15.3 Million in Street Improvements Needed • No Aggregate Source in Tigard • No Concrete or Asphalt Plants in Tigard i t `j HOW DOES CONCRETE AND ,ASPHALT GET TO TIGARD? 'i TRUCKS I oilj i THERE IS A BETTER WAY: RAIL • One 1500 Ton Train Replaces 1-1/2 Miles of Trucks • Four Trains per day Reduces Total Truck Traffic By 50 Per Cent • No Blocked Railroad Crossings. 840 Foot Long Train Fits Along Site • Less Congestion • More Efficient • Safer I ISSUE■ TRAFFIC ..,..<rv^c-�,r..-•-'..�....�.,Y.. .-...:w»,.,....�,rvi„crr..!r,�v�!csn.rn:*.e.q+�+r++ernrn.+-.�.,...evrra?c,-s.,.,«s,ac...,iro-�...t......r.-.:..,,..�...—.-...—, ..-.,..--._-..,- ..��..-,.. — _ _ _ MOM A.M. PEAK HOUR TRIPS i 72nd and Bonita Road: f Existing: 11365 Morse: 60 I - 72nd and Upper Eoones f=erry Road: Existing: 15530 Morse: 60 r P.M. PEAK HOUR TRIPS I 72nd and Bonita Load 1 Existing: 19365 Morse: 22 s i 72nd and Upper Boones Ferri► Road i Existing: 25194 1 Morse: 22 i 7-7 NO CHANGE IN EXISTING LEVELS OF SERVICE -1 3 AT ANY INTERSECTION T®m Lancaster, P.E., Traffic Engineer i `:�, .__.__.___...............,_,..,.,.•........._.,,.ter.,=.,,.�:.•.v.,,,=..:,n=_.;^ar ,..... ,.. _ '�"L�`c�a°m'. 1..:-�'T.:�.""..+•'... ..a .. _ .,--. .-........�__.___.__-_. .___ r� TRAFFIC APPROVED SINCE JULY, 1988 ..° OmIn s KOLL : 25972 A.D.T. i i i i 3 1 _ i CARMAN CENTER (PAC TRUST) 53667 A.D.T. SPIEKER PARTNERS No Traffic Report Submitted • 35 Loading Doors • 113 Parking Spaces 1 i I 77 i TOTAL AVERAGE DAILY TRIPS APPROVED SINCE JULY, 1988 81639 A.D.T. ( Not Including Spieker Trips) MORSE BROTHERS: 460 A.D.T. i DECISION CRITERIA • Mistake in Original Zoning • Change in Circumstances • Project Meets All Applicable Criteria mpg TRAFFIC GENERATION No Impact On Existing or Future Levels Of Service Tom Lancaster, P.E., Traffic Engineer SITE DEVELOPMENT The Site Presents No Technical Limitations To Development Bob Monroe, P.E. Site Design Engineer ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE • State Of The Art Technology Which Will Recycle Exhaust • Internal Burner System Is Clean And Quiet • No Smokestack - No Emissions - Zero Opacity • Odor And Smoke Are Eliminated • Water Is Recycled Manufacturer's Representative And Scott Freeburn, P.E. , Environmental Engi VIBRATION Reasonable Foundation Design Will Meet Tigard Code Standards Michael Feves, Ph.D., Geophysicist i NOISE • Site Generated Sound can be Limited and Controlled • Proposed Asphalt Burner Design Will Meet DEQ Night time Standards e DEQ Standards More Stringent Than Tigard Standards: All Standards Will Be Met. Kerrie Standlee, P.E., Acoustical Engineer ; ISSUE: VISUAL IMPACTS LIGHT INDUSTRIAL IS NOT ALWAYS BEAUTIFUL HEAVY INDUSTRIAL DOES NOT i HAVE TO BE UGLY i 1 t 1, CONCLUSIONS e Tigard Needs The Project • There Will Be No Adverse Traffic Impacts a There Will Be No Adverse Visual Impacts 1 �G I l C f C c � Half BD ROO [ell e� e r _ t .�?y'1 v.,,..+i.`Feiss,4w`>;i'��,,tt.��.•i Y s > ^' 554 �f 1r7y`tkj11N� t . a v 'zr4 r s$-°. J F + c�Yti'�''.�.�.rw1''�� v. •' + f T _ � Z iY 1 li xv 22222 to h f K a z r x 'r >, 5 rrt 3m r: 2- Mk L'ISM +, r^ t t ya��S�s'�';'�,•ri �!z''P �, M�,7a, i"# Y�y�!t 4�.9 C,•I��6 Mrd g"� - .14 9 i r' ?� S L � 4 —i y - n r - .., AMggregate, processed and delivered Our production personnel monitor the At Morse Bros.,qualitycontrol isajobthat's according to your specifications,at a computer-controlled batching that allows never finished.We are always re-evaluating, ( competitive price—that's what Morse Bros. us to prepare ready-mixed concrete to the fine-tuning and perfecting our equipment I built its success upon,and it's still the foun- most precise specifications.Experienced and our product,to provide you with the dation of everything we do. drivers in our fleet of radio-directed ready- best available aggregate,ready-mixed Our Material Supply Group draws raw mix trucks can deliver it to the job site concrete and asphaltic concrete. material from gravel and ouarry sites precisely on schedule.Whether the job is throughout the mid-Willamette Valley,pro- largeorsmall,timeliness is importanttoour Fducing aggregates of the highest quality. customers—and to us. Our people have combined their knowl- In addition to ready-mix concrete,Morse edge of aggregate with experience in Bros.also offers asphaltic concrete,fol- equipment manufacturing to design and lowing guidelines that assure quality build much of our oven machinery for crush- material and environmentally acceptable ing,washing and screening.This assures us production. of producing the aggregate that meets or exceeds specifications. t_ P P.F7!81 - I I1. r. w I-T f,r 1 iii IN 7 ; t orse Bros.began by producing the high-quality materials that became a part of Northwest building projects;later we became contractors as well. The Highway Construction Group of Morse Bros.is one of the industry leaders in the Northwest.As a major supplier of aggre- gate,we have widened our scope of cus- tomer services to include grading,paving c and underground utilities.We provide these services to both public and private projects. Our ability to provide our own top-qualitya material resources,to bring in an experi- enced crew that can complete the job quickly and efficiently,and to see that it's done right—these are the qualities that have built our reputation as one of the most accomplished highway construction con- tractors in the Northwest. ! h �\ WALI:OWA HIGHWAY Voted first place quabty award for asphalt paving constructionby the t Asphalt Paving Associat►on The T5'A mde reconstruction project was completed fou S4 Jrrijllion. i f 1 • i BURNT WOODS A$3 irillion project to straighten and widen - this portion of U S HighWar 40 «. f ..-was•completeda year a,head of .7 Y. , rte•: f ' y I `�JV T4s PQRTABLE,ASPHALT' Morse Bros.equipment materialperhour and produces, tons of mate a can follow.pawng crews to wrtually any job Site t v III i r i i Mr: i i ti r r •;�`�i2 .� i it j �� -7 :: ..� :.e-. ' .<.. ,..iF..i_, ,., .�:.�t i �-._,^:r_-,r r � �,�r�> .� < xi:° „ ,�.t5Y5.�•n ',r _y 7' For strength,versatility and cost- Prestressed concrete offers the advantages effectiveness,prestressed concrete is of durability,speed of on-site construction, the construction material of choice.Recog- fire resistance and low maintenance.Our ; nizing a need for this valuable building pre-cast systems can constitute not only component,we applied our years of the structural building system,but also its experience in concrete to the formation of exterior finish. our Prestressed Concrete Group. The formula for any successful construction We manufacture prestressed concrete project must include quality building prod- members for buildings,bridges,water ucts.Whatever your project—commercial tanks and other related structures.The buildings,parking structures or high-rise experienced personnel of our Prestressed housing complexes—the value of pre- Concrete Group operate manufacturing stressed concrete,combined with our plants in Portland and Harrisburg.Our regis- reputation for top-quality materials and tered engineers can also assist customers service,is unsurpassed. in selecting a structural design utilizing prestressed concrete construction. ! FEDERAL OFFICE BUILDING,EUGENI= A Precast r CQncreie Institute award winner for tligrnty, � a simpCitity and stab Ry. This project contains rr ' � frwre than 1500 pieces Of precast .� r T �� L u y •c MERLO ROAD OPERATNS.FACIIJTY BEAVERTON .Precastconcrete bf. Larying shades c,664fferdesign possibilities as well as structural - _ t FAIROAKS BRIDGE;:$UTHERLIN Winner of a a Precast Concrete Institute award for its eri- , hancerr}entoftllesllROundln ertvlronment �� y ` g in. iY -1x'S r'y ,�''f',i.C.iiw.,17''�L '''-F•'cyµ';r'ra .�.:, ties A <.` .iri II 4�^ 1 r C�Yi„'^�.,�Z �.•� 1,iP:Mg y.�(I,m S _f ` i f � � t ♦ .irY L .:• ._.. -.-.• _ fIM't`>, .moi g' Y'wK•h f7. k 7� r c r J a r s„ i✓ S. FOREST GROVE.NIGH SCHOOL TWo story high PROVIDENCE MEDICAL CENTER,PORTLAND Three new levels were sunscreen panels of precast concrete.stabilie interior added to an existing parking structure,showcasing th`e advantages >emperature end support structural(Dads of presttessed matenal.jp phased construction f • ® d -!IN� - 'i`u, - ?�i �.'•,. f�, SFS,q� r ... •f r �I I i I I it i • I _ T ti 7 ears of involvement in so many different The professionals of Morse Bros.Building facets of construction led Morse Bros. Construction Group have amassed a to form the Building Construction Group. portfolio of successfully completed proj- Our comprehensive service allows us to ects,ranging in scope from residential manage a project all the way from initial developments towatertanks and shopping design through financial packaging,site malls.As Butler Builders,we also construct development,sub-contracts,material pre-engineered metal buildings.In addition supply and on-site supervision,to the to new construction,our Group performs day when the tenant takes possession. historic restoration of existing structures. In addition,as project developers,our Whatever the building idea,from creating development team will joint-venture the blueprint to the deliveryof an occupied institutional-quality real estate projects. space,Morse Bros.has the resources and We have pre-development experience in the expertise to transform it into reality. successful concept,initiation,evaluation and commitment phases of property development. { � f - GOLD BEACH WATER TANK-This 15 r, millipri gal)on tank was constructed in' �. i f`our:-months using prestress'ooncrefe 7im4' - :components I;o allow for quick on=site - 1 ssetnby It comes:with a t7ve year: V1DEX CORp;;.CORVAL a quatity`o� s a guarantee;the longest in the industry 34,000 sq ft,:Class A precast concrete structure +�t ' w Tarrexceids that of,xhe building used as : . the design model, ;according to Paul Davie; president-of vadex,a producer of compute_.r `x` °; peripherals._^ 5 ry , v i- `� Yr 4': r r•s _ N TWO RIVERS MARKET,_,11LAW Morse Bros r ` won a national award for its renovation 44,000 sq ft histone structureJb'r retail and ` office space Built in thea890s,it's a downtown, - t F i ;� �• tis 11!>, 1,� �► vw IP 'NORTH POINT,ALBANY Morse Bros Neat 1 estate.dQveJopmeht,capa q ities are " Showcased in this 90-unittownhouse deyelpl5ment on 24 acres m:North Albany { y Ac s '�c n SSL:`* - 1 rtsi IRA PuTs 7 Y cma � r orse Bros.has taken its own best qual- In addition to mobile expandable units, " ! ities—the ability to move and expand the MOEX Corporation also constructs in useful new ways—and incorporated high-quality steel and aluminum framed them into a new manufacturing division,the relocatable modules.Once in place,they MOEX Corporation. can serve a variety of needs,such as tem- MOEXT"(short for MObile EXpandable) porary office space or,in medicine,as facilities allow our customers to take their diagnostic imaging facilities. business office,medical diagnostic facility At Morse Bros.,our motto has always been or workshop"on the road."A MOEX unit the same:"Building Strong Communities." may be mounted on a semitrailer or truck Our desire to provide ever-improved chassis and comes in lengths of 20 to 48 products and services has led Morse Bros. feet.Once on site,the MOEX facility along a path of diversification that began in expands hydraulically in minutes,tripling its material supply and is continuing even width and enabling any business to be truly today. mobile. f r- Corporate Administration Highway Construction Group E.Grant St. Tangent Division ' P.O. Box 7 32260 Hwy.34 Lebanon,OR 97355 Tangent,OR 97389 451-5141 928-64913 Delta Division Corporate Operations 1001 Division Ave. Operations Management Eugene,OR 97404 Fi) Central Maintenance,Purchasing 689-6600 32260 Hwy.34 Salem Division �? Tangent,OR 97389 9710 Wheatland Rd.N. ( } 928-6491 Salem,OR 97303 390-6955 Material Supply Group Harrisburg Sand and Gravel Prestressed Concrete Group 815 S.Third St. Harrisburg Division P.O. Box 205 P.O.Box 181 Harrisburg,OR 97446 Peoria Rd.&Hwy.99 995-6336 Harrisburg,OR 97446 995-6327 Builders Supply Portland Division 28602 Hwy.34 P.O.Box 68 P.O. Box 1126 16795 S.E.130th Corvallis,OR 97339 Clackamas,OR 97015 752-3428 655-5111 € Sweet Home Sand and Gravel Industrial Fabrication Group 2903 Green River Rd. Fabrication Division Sweet Home,OR 97386 P.O. Box 205 367-6174 365 N.Third St. C. Harrisburg,OR 97446 Albany Rock Products 995-8414 <^ 35973 Kennel Rd.S.E. MOEX Corporation Albany,OR 97321 2445 Pacific Blvd.S.W. 928-2547 Albany,OR 97321 929-2251 Delta Division 1001 Division Ave. Building Construction Group Eugene,OR 97404 Building Division 689-6600 32260 Hwy.34 Tangent,OR 97389 Lincoln Ready Mix 928-6491 625 Bay Blvd.N.W. P.O. Box 159 Toledo,OR 97391 336-5501 Salem Division 9710 Wheatland Rd. N. Salem,OR 97303 ,--� 390-6955 fNMORSE BROS., 0Y Building Strong Communities _ _ il- _,•.rr a_,.. .. .. ..... `"M�:.?'a.�m"--..^"�-ei^a',yRr SitFPT'fwr3=t: oTs 1P }ia I► t9 air 1� til 1•�j I j 77a t�1 1 [ t ►t a a a 1 r r R{� ita o1a rea i e'11ata o ►ti r tte o t �• s a � I _P. ( n q Lfi( [ -LTi ! ► Pili ids � � 1 p jet NOTE: LF THIS MICROFILMED 2 ,� _4 S - ? . .` 0 7 _�.. " DRAWING IS LESS CLEAR THAN �IIAW i THIS NOTICE. IT IS DUE TO I ' THE QUALITY OF THE ORIGINAL DRAWING. E 6z ea cz Sz sz IPz -Bz zz tz oz 61 of LI 8! Sf yi E1— zo_._Ii__Qk—6 g _ g 5..--_i --e—. _z 'allfNul�mleaduu6w Wuxi 0 _ -MARCA, _ � �_ A' X 3 3 + 1 F L f Toi ' p�..... ARE A M A P V I C I N I T Y M A P PROPOSED ASPHALT 8 READY 30Y PLANT n• IM51i E ENGINE MORSE BROTHERS C sv - _.. ._ .N-+xir+•e a..r _.-. M.*^a!'R^ "^o'-v.�-.fm'"i^x ,�x'i'nn:."vnYeM,e:_�±x�•x ^^Y q•�r^R a.x ..• - auvc..umu{ .. •-•:--_ .HY."_.:':. '. J ":.ry *.E�.?3 n+vTs (t}E��I}r`+!+(E(+1+►tB� �� 7 t -P � t � l `. 1 n��nPT�(m fm� e P,}_�RTrr�_f I�+i��z7'��'�'}rl+�{►++�>f,�+1+Pt}t��}i`,t�lfr+i0rrr�+}r�r}r,{r�r��}rj+N�+tr�+}►�ri►i►i+P►►+ _ _ _. '. DRAW IF LES CLEAR DRAWING IS LESS CLEAR THAN 1 THIS NOTICE. IT IS DUE TO l THE QUALITY OF THE ORIGINAL i .'.. _...... ___. . . _ .. DRAWING. �! oe sz ez a to sz bz sz az oa oz IN so L! sr si` bi -e1 ii—i! ®1 6 _®_ _._1 9 s..-- _c- "z_.. r 16 r -- -- i f9� ! ¢ _ _ .:.... i ----------------------------------------- F i s ///A��,, /" II , i grarc s..r Kw Vwx..r. awu WAa..ai�... j .F,a' a. } / '- ILII ftolft�LIAR WS' j • o�SOLF� =lT lAwrz sT0RAG. �'' \�. %, `\� //� • � •� (7GGRE Fj s fA .►— (e)W x ft STORAGE AREAS [.1 A— z O RAG LOADwG 1.OPGFp z RAP S REEK- n NRii RaE laoo id tIK STORAGE EA71 F7n�Y�,s�w.o.MXA7M sora TOM TOTAL sRAALE EACH � --_------_ -__ .—_ R.R 1RAfXS RAG SOUSE FLUY ENQOSED.SgMD msuLA7ED RAA CAR RML CA s 7 4 T H A V E N U E S NOT-AL CORSMC➢ON TO MEET STATE,LOCAL k FEDERAL I T E P L A N APfUCA&E RURJ MG CODES SCALE; 7'_3D'-0' 1' POM&va=t may ate[Kim s�r� MOURN EP1p�m ��m.rn,A:4,°;". Yoas)s 13xoa) ts G� �,� .. .o. ,a,:Jr-r:N+..., .c � .. -ls_ _.._.,_r:..., _ r_».�.-�'*,r ..•a -«=.�rx„ ... ....,Seer �c ;. _ Fr�"Fa�alt,ilr ili'ala i9_'d�E►r�i�iit ifi�lr►la 'jx� �"Bt'►s� fli (a i r t i".'... a:i_ _ ___ _ . �° � � � � � -� f-�)_ � t. ._� .f Wit] i [i'�►1 j�f� !�'tT�31i}ttF(►frjiii�ellyailialt�]t7,ala�alaiFlalal+ adE(ala¢Fia�FIF�aIFIs(rii;F�Fiie� y _ PATE: IF THIS MICROFILkED DRAWING IS LESS CLEAR THAN i THIS ND7Y..T.., IT IS DUE TO � l THE QUALITY OF THE ORIGINA! _ - ORAWIWG, _ OE 6Z 8Z 1Z SZ 52 >2 EZ ZZ f2 02 6t 81 LI _ 91 5'fT bl BI_—Zf 11 01 B g.. L 8 S— t•—9 Z .. I............................. i t< »il�uailua�uuluaalaaaaAaaa�aalwa�ti -. %MAFA —_---- -----9v z v T'A'. — _ c° t e F �- �`4 I -------- 1 '�-•T r X94• 11 `J i ---i-- i aw-c " — 1 w-O- M-o' !I SECTION MN I .L n PRDFOSW ASPHALT FDB BEADYIS -YP4N! �/INO tli� _ '�E> ®Idi?6E EKG CRAY . ..' q'��PS�lre"'-'. �•�c;"'�'+4:�;:�e�<.�'w'r'�ak�R.,rw.sn•y« �v. I_ toll111111 1 11T r jrTTT; ��IlT d ! I��tItI ? rl►!r � r••: �T _ ►tattl Ilt-rlr eh ata ell Ile qt llr etr rt tl! I ! 1:i�►1s _ ._... ._ __ NOTE: IF THIS MICROFILMED .- _ 7 8 ... ._.__. .S . . Q .. _ll 12 OWING IS LESS CLEAR THAN THIS NOTICE, IT IS WE TO TFE QUALITY OF THE ORIGINAL - DRawING. I C£�62 BZ `a 9Z SE >2 EZ ZZ rZ OZ 6t 111 U 91 Si -*1 £1 -ZI 11 O! 6 9- L 9---s'-is 'E Z - 1 � E NNIIMtI�l1ILO .77 "iNeIliN�llli�lllltllli�1111 _ _ f4, ! l�i 1990 MARCn "$ 4 Nil _ t E ,r .. _ -.::. :,.. . ,.., . . .n. _?. w •'$4<`n r�� .3�''>r�`�Si`1,sT t u 5•,.4,'':a�,.'� .., ..: y :',.,�» r:.T� ..�.v�`'� �.�9'S�S .- ;r• x Y rte'¢'-t 1`•., •, .- .- .. ..:, =; h., � � f , �Y E , t F i { 1 i f si—C SECTION F Md k PROPOS®�RLLT t READY—tmc PIANT , {� _ imRsen'enrefao ROE EINM � y w:gg-GRA -- f Y- {. #j t ! { 1.�1 J ®2 Li i �►T j l # F;)rf}pir�mjgt�l}IPPS rrL+ 1{� r1, Lo1#1 +#Ttr a#s�l#► +irk,{�0M#r�I,{Ll, ,l,� fill , , , r r L , , r ,►�r NOTE: IF THIS MICROFILMED ' _.— - T U DRAWING IS LESS CLEAR THAN _ 1THIS NOTICE. IT IS DUE TO - THE QUALITY OF THE ORIGINAL DRAWING. — -- OE Bz 8Z Zz Qa Sz >>Z 6a as la 6a 6i al z1 91 Sr 41 6! ZI 11 01- 6 a 'L 8 5- ti—E Z '�LlL(ILH{BII(ILI,{H!t(IIML{R , rIlits _ mARCHi a x ry u x G g I S . / 7 T l f k eT;1 Tys r.E r itr. k i 2.11E 7g LItt3 aI k=F 111LIF1Fs 61F{•'f.€1,1 �7 1.: f i kr` 7 1 131 11 ' ! 13 t 11 r t f SE9i�l/3it14 3 � 1 i 11 lel. 1 1 �j}k:pit� Jill" t I AADran ut-.* 11 If11iE1t [I ?°-= 1 111 � lrtE ! _ 1 ElEij1E1i�`� 1 I i•1 ii11kl II1I.� II ,r —.� i � Iiklliiililliille !'I`if liil►ielllji 1 j i i IIII'lii!iIIIII _ `` ��\ � �l� /�� /�,� �i� ,ji 1 �31i Il ( II 1. , lil�ljl Ilj lil II 11 I I� I�i I I.I�•k- . .1.1.1.1 RR IRMSfS — � 11i1j1 ii:k:i: RA0.CARS lilt — 7 4 T H A V E N U E LANDSCAPING & PAVING PLAN °�^�°AREA fes/////� ��%TOLOMSCAPED TAL PROPERTA��A� SCALE 1-_3W-0- ' PAVED AREA I-III- +ens'��"•m•.n v PHOPOSM ASPRAM t NEADY Ira PLANT a~° MOMII Endep GRAYRE .. tIN itt 1 . `_.� ill 1i 11 6 1 7.6 1 11 1 1 f 1.f 1 1 trr# 1 a. _l.t.l !. ►f� t s-11�t17�f1� [ Ill�;i T)T)l1i�f11)1, rt�t�l Tl1�T� 11111 : lEflli ilj dit 311 Jft t;z alt r;r 111 a;i lit 11� t;r tFr 1 e F 1 1p1 y __ (° r . NOTE: IF MICROFILMED LES . DRAWING IS LESS CLEAR THAN THIS IT IS ME To THE QUALITY•OF THEORIGINAL DRAWING.. 08 6Z 8Z cZ 8Z .SZ 4Z EZ Z2 la OZ 611 --.�—__—..___—_-.---_—_— 8 cl 91 s1 51 EI ZI 11 01 8 Q L 8 S-- E Z 13NI g a111Ludunlouthalleiub�xlxtdull�t M'FJ6 A gon atin- a. = r � t t AM DowCMLWWN z w i tr Omnc wwt To orrrm TO nc Maena mwtx5— rte CARS 7 4 T H A V E N U E D R A I N A G E P L A N Smmm-V SmffH YORSE BROTRERs �OaryYOE EN GRA � ;••a , -•_ �=s��- ��n ;_ ,.:, w,.-�,-�.��.,�,,�-�,.,�,�,.__, ,K.....��.�,,� ..h.� ([.BEewE¢D 8��8-88�.. m..,.. I�-� a..g_167_� . m r do U{11�ltts�slrfri�[�lY�a17[se�Ortr�sirttir tisTrit�tisls�a�ri=jstl[e#s�s►t y ==- NOTE: IF THIS NICROFILNED ... 9 _ DRAWING IS LESS CLE AR THAN _. 0 _ II________",r2IMAl J!P THIS NOTICE, IT IS DUE TO -� - THE QUALITY OF THE ORIGINAL fat EZ zZ la Oz 6P 81 Lt 91 SI" bl Er' zl ^1t OI 8 ®_. _t_9—s^ ti--s -z 1 fi - - 'anti11t1�1111fiN11�i81tNlrhruasasl — �!� ARC �� fi r' ... r_-:. .... - .: „ ,r•�..L.� �'. °c� 'moi,�,�'}T"�'_'F.,.�.. i* ^'.�. ^>:.'^ �,r�• 1a &. fj ob S Dm"`1HER S MAP ILL I It 11.JW2. i _ — _1+1j� lirlt( IE111a:1 r(�iil 1(1 r(r rel qt sil t(i m r!} ;rp 9. !mo1ipd"t1711_e.t1�tl1�►rt�latirtr�rgrl} ___ >..�.}....:--� __ . 1 NOTE: IF THISMICRDFILMED �' _ __.i. 2 3 '� ._. _.� _... ..s._ _. 7 _ B 9 _. 0 ... !I _-.._ EAN . DRAWING IS LESS CLEAR THAN - .. THIS NOTICE. IT IS DUE TO I, THE QUALITY OF THE ORIGINALr_ DRAWING. -et------ --._ - ---' — 1>z ez� sz 112 sz zz az oz sr ea , a ss sr—�a- ea za as oa- Is s s —_._.,..� z 1 e c t 'MPARCT- > I oil w3 TH � t l It I ..••.•+•�+ =spa`-" - ��r----�� ifF ja- ------------- ' • j' i <1 mamma.- I - -- �•'� I * .r.ter- , e Z T g i • � i� ? ♦ # _ - �'.+�N-.'ate _�_ <s :s _ r [ A i ► - !—P .. p .. .p= IGHT INDUSI,;U L 'V% !4 jr • j • _ S I I � ♦F : • Y }3: �ONSOLIOATFO BY9PLY CO. • • � (BYKOIur.yATE RIALS) • l� I , I rl -- 4 ! u SW I KABLE •� LANE I R— REBIOE x� I-•IY9 �,.,: ,,,Y �� MORSE BROTHERS — TIGARD SITE SCALE: oto DPNnD EVPdMara FLMOCIATES,r+L �I 0 r a +m vpo uo u MR0002 I•wp ..rvry ewm tee+ LaJ - _-,,+_I nll ilpRlwl I pl9nll'I I'RIR Intl I'I'IIIIVIIp nlpnl I'pllllpl III vin,ngnq 19 VIq IInlq 1pl'I 19n+ I'pYlnq nn I n.�I I NRI ul' III Ilnlll IRI I .._ _. - I 2 3 4 5 8 ] B B f0 I 12 �wrlxc or tR wiclxu OC 2 2 [2 92 L2 2 22 IZ 02 pl I I LI I 1 II 01---!._0 -_-9 L +•� :x�I�nlln��Ll��bn�6��uIId��Idln�Innlln�IlmllmI hd nl1lndlwW.1 IIIIIIuulmJnnI'd, unLminnllnl6ndmJuuLmhlnllnduulllWlln6ndnuluWmhnannL��l��III�IhIWwIIIwllwlmJuuLutluuLndllnhwlun MARCH 8 ,1990 �or -"- Pho�o � She EcAinc- i � Flin c� U �c STATEMENT OF STANDARDS, FACTS AND JUSTIFICATION IN SUPPORT OF THE REQUEST OF MORSE BROS . , INC. FOR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CHANGE AND ZONE CHANGE FROM I-L (LIGHT INDUSTRIAL) ZONE TO I=H (HEAVY INDUSTRIAL) ZONE AND APPROVAL OF HEAVY INDUSTRIAL USE IN HEAVY INDUSTRIAL ZONE, T2S, R1W, WILLAMETTE MERIDIAN, SW J, NE A, SECTION 12 TAX LOTS 1000, 1100, 1400 AND 1500, CITY OF TIGARD, WASHINGTON COUNTY, OREGON PART I . NATURE OF DEVELOPMENT A. Action Supported by Statement. This statement supports the approval of a Comprehensive Plan amendment, a Zone change and development request by Morse Bros. , Inc. The applicant seeks a change in the Tigard Comprehensive Plan and Tigard Community Development C Code zoning designations on the site from I-L (light industrial) I-H (heavy industrial) and to locate a heavy industrial use on the site. The request will permit applicant to establish a processing and manufacturing tacility which will create finished aggregate products (concrete and asphalt) from raw materials. Applicant intends to sell its finished manufactured aggregate products to industrial, commercial and residential users. B. Site Description. The proposed site is a generally triangularly shaped parcel located in the SW J, NE j , Section 12, T2S, R1W, Willamette Meridian, City of Tigard, Washington County, Oregon. 210351 The site is 5 .36 acres in size and consists of Tax Lots 1000, 1100, 1400 and 1500. The site is unique in that it is bounded on the west side by the Burlington Northern railroad and bounded on the east side by the Southern Pacific railroad. As described in Part I , Section C below, adjacency to active railroad lines is a critical element for the use proposed by applicant and will allow tremendous reductions in track traffic that would ordinarily be generated by such a use. The site is presently zoned for light industrial uses ( I-L) . Light industrial uses are located immediately to the north, south and east of the site. Across S. W. 74th Avenue and the Burlington Northern railroad tracks is property zoned industrial park ( I-P) . Industrial Park zoning is also found to the east of the pro- posed property between S . W. 72nd Avenue and Interstate 5 . Heavy industrial property ( I-H) is located to the north of the site across S . W. Bonita Road. Residential zones, including R-4.5(PD) , R-4.5, R-7 and R-12, are located farther to the west of the site and are separated from the site by Industrial Park zoning on the west side of S . W. 74th Avenue and by the Fanno Creek drainage. Uses in the area are primarily industrial in nature. An industrial plastics company and an automobile maintenance facility is located due north of the site. Light industrial uses (construction, warehouses and manufacturing) are located to the east of the property across the Southern Pacific -2- 210351 i i railroad line. Light industrial uses are located to the south of the site, including a building supply company. Vacant dwellings and vacant lots predominate in the industrial park zone to the west of the site across the Burlington Northern } f railroad and S . W. 74th Avenue. One small business and three 4 occupied dwellings are located across S. W. 74th Avenue from the site. The site is relatively level with a slight gentle slope to the north. The far northern portion of the property is wooded and slopes toward a watercourse known as "Ball Creek. " Applicant' s operations will not require the use of the extreme northern portion of the property near this watercourse. i C. Summary of Proposed Action. Applicant has proposed to construct a new concrete and asphalt manufacturing facility. Aggregate extraction for raw materials will not take place on the site nor will crushing activities take place on the site. To provide processed aggregates for its manufacturing use, applicant will rely on a long-term source farther south in the Willamette Valley. Processed aggregates will be transported to the site by railroad train. Processed aggregate materials will be unloaded from the train onto a mechanical conveyor belt system. This conveyor system will replenish eight raw materials storage areas (approximately 80 feet by 80 feet and 37 feet in height) on an as-needed basis. The conveyor system is designed to minimize the handling of raw -3- 210351 3-210351 C materials . The conveyor systems will also feed processed aggregates to the concrete batch plant and the asphalt batch plant. Applicant has proposed to use state-of-the-art equip- ment and design to eliminate adverse environmental impacts from its operation. The concrete and asphalt batch plants will be fully enclosed to eliminate sound, dust and other environmental problems . Finished materials manufactured at the facility will be transported by truck via adjacent streets, Interstate 5, and other multilaned highways . E' PART II . DOCUMENTS RELEVANT TO THE PROPOSED ACTION. We find the following documents in the record to be F: r. I significant: 1 . The acknowledged City of Tigard Comprehensive Plan; ` 2 . The acknowledged City of Tigard Community ` Development Code (Tigard Comprehensive Plan, Volume 3) ( "TCDC" ); 3 . Diagramatic Plans of Processing Plant and Facility and Evaluation Report prepared by Smith & Monroe & Gray Engineers, Inc.; f 4. Evaluation Report of Morse Bros. , Inc. , prepared E by Mr. Frank Morse, dated August 19, 1988; 5. Evaluation Report of David Evans & Associates, Inc . prepared by Land Use Planner Robert Price, dated August 1988; 6 . Noise Evaluation prepared by Daly-Standlee & Associates, Inc . by Kerrie G. Standlee, Registered Professional Engineer (Acoustical) , dated August 18, 1988; -4- 210351 7 . Traffic Evaluation Report prepared by Tom Lancaster, Registered Professional Engineer (Traffic) , dated August, 1988; 8. Vibration Analysis preparea by Geophysicist Dr. Michael Feves, dated August 16, 1988; 9. Airborne Particulate and Odor Analysis prepared by Registered Professional Engineer, Scott Freeburn; and 10. Other materials submitted by the applicant (and opponent) throughout this land use proceeding. PART III . GENERAL CONCLUSIONS APPLICABLE TO THE PROPOSED ACTION . Based on the project description set forth in the request by Morse Bros . , Inc. , the documents referred to in the Part II above and testimony at the hearing and considering facts relevant to the proposed action established in the documents in Part II above, we have reached the following general conclusions with respect to the proposed action: 1. The site for which applicant requests a Comprehensive Pian and zone change is uniquely suited to the type of use for which the applicant has proposed. Transportation of processed aggregates by rail will significantly reduce truck traffic which would be generated by a facility not served by rail. In addition, importation of the processed aggregate by rail eliminates the need to locate an aggregate extraction operation or aggregate crushing operation near the City of Tigard. 2. The applicant has proposed state-of-the-art technology and a carefully engineered site plan which will minimize negative environmental impacts and demonstrates the -5- 210351 applicant' s commitment to being a good neighbor to various uses presently located in the area and to future uses which could be located in the area under the present zoning. 3. The finished concrete and asphalt products which wiil be manufactured by the applicant at the site are necessary products for a strong and healthy economy in the City of Tigard and the surrounding community. Street construction and repair, home construction, commercial construction and industrial construction uses are dependent on the availability of high-quality concrete and asphalt products at a competitive price. The location of applicant' s proposed use on the site and the manner of operation of the proposed use ( rail transportation) insure that the finished products produced by ! the proposed use will be high-quality and competitively priced. f PART IV: APPLICABLE STANDARDS A. TIGARD COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. j Standard No. 1 . E i 1 .1 .1 The City shall ensure that: l i i "A. This Comprehensive Plan and all future j legislative changes are consistent with the Statewide Planning Goals adopted by the Land Conservation and Development Commission, the Regional Plan adopted by the Metropolitan Service District; "B. Any neighborhood planning organization plans and implementation measures adopted by the City of Tigard after the effective date of this Comprehensive Plan are designed. to be consistent with this Plan; and -6- 210351 6-210351 "C . The Tigard Comprehensive Plan and Community Development Code are kept current with the needs of the community. In order to do this: "1 . This Plan shall be reviewed and updated at least every five years. "1 .1 .2 The Comprehensive Pian and each of its elements shall be opened for amendments that consider compliance with the plans of the Metropolitan Service District (MSD) or its successor on an annual basis, and may be so amended or revised if deemed necessary by the City Council. Annual amendments and revision for compliance with the above regional goals, objectives and plans shall be consistent with any schedule for re-opening of local plans approved by the Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC) . "This provision is not to be construed as waiving any legal rights which the City may have to challenge the legality of a regional goal, objective, or plan provision. (Tigard Comprehensive Plan Policies 1 .1 .1 and 1 .1 .2 . ) We find that these Comprehensive Plan Policies will 'v provide that the Tigard Comprehensive Plan must be kept current F t with the needs of the community and, therefore, will be open for amendment as necessary. We find that applicant has pro- J' E- posed a Comprehensive Plan amendment and zoning change. We find that the implemented strategies for these two Comprehensive Plan Policies provide that quasi-judicial s changes, such as the one requested by the applicant, shall be provided as follows: "The Community Development Code ( "C.D.C. " ) shall provide quasi-judicial changes to the comprehensive Plan Map which may be initiated by affected parties on a semi-annual basis and approved by if the City Council finds: i "A. The changes consistent with the applicable plan policies; -7- 210351 i "B. Change of physical circumstances has occurred since the original designation; or "C. A mistake was made in the original land use designation. " We find that the implementing strategy quoted above provides an excellent guideline for interpreting when the j Comprehensive Plan change will be allowed under the City of f Tigard Comprehensive Plan. We find that the three findings suggested by these guidelines are listed in the alternative and that any applicant for a Comprehensive Plan change need meet only one of the three suggested findings. We find, as set forth in Parts III and IV of this Findings document, that the change proposed by the applicant is consistent with all the applicable Comprehensive Plan Policies of the City of Tigard. In addition, we conclude that the recent growth of the City of Tigard and the surrounding communities represents a physical y' change of circumstances which has occurred since the original designation of the property for which the applicant has requested a zone change. Based on these findings, we conclude L: that applicant is entitled to proceed with the Comprehensive r Plan change and that the provisions of this standard of the Comprehensive Plan Policies are met. Standard No. 2 . v "The City shall maintain an ongoing citizen involvement program and shall insure that citizens j will be provided an opportunity to be involved in all i phases of the planning process. " (Tigard Comprehensive Plan Policy 2 .1 .1 . ) `. 210351 "The opportunities for citizen involvement provided by the City shall be appropriate to the scale of the planning effort and shall involve a broad cross- section of the community: "A. Neighborhood planning organizations shall be the primary means for the carrying out the program; "B. Where appropriate, other involvement techniques will be used; (Tigard Plan Policy 2 .1 .2 . ) "The City shall insure that the information on land use planning issues is available and in understandable form for all interested citizens. " (Tigard Comprehensive Plan Policy 2 .1 .3 . ) We find that the City of Tigard has established citizen advisory committees which allow citizens' input into the planning process when a Comprehensive Plan or zoning change has been requested. We find tha.t the relevant citizen committee in this case is NPO-5 . We find that NPO-5 was sent a request for comment by the City of Tigard. In addition, we find that this application went through the standard notice process set forth in the TCDC. We find and conclude that each of these methods of notice and citizen involvement assured and provided the citizens of Tigard an opportunity to be involved in the planning process related to this project. Accordingly, we find that this standard is met. We find that involvement of the NPO-5 organization and the comprehensive public notice pro- vided opportunities for citizen involvement which were appropriate to the scale of a site specific Comprehensive Plan and zoning change. We further find that a broad section of the -9- 210351 community, including adjacent property owners, service providers and individual citizens were involved in the planning effort. We further find that the information provided in the notices and in the discussions of the project was not overly technical in nature and was in an understandable form for interested citizens. Accordingly, we find and conclude that the require- ments under this Standard have been met. Standard No. 3 . "3 .1 .1 . The City shall not allow development in areas having the following development limitations except where it can be shown that established proven engineering techniques related to a specific site plan will make the area suitable for the proposed development: "A. Areas having high seasonal table within 0-24 inches of the surface for three or more weeks in a year; "B. Areas having a severe soil erosion potential; "C. Areas subject to slumping, earth slides or movements; "D. Areas having slopes in excess of 25 percent; or "E. Areas having severe weak foundation soils. " (Tigard Comprehensive Plan Policy No. 3 .11 . ) The proposed site is not contained in any area designated by the City of Tigard as having physical limitations with regard to drainage, seasonal flooding or unstable ground. We find that the document "Soil Survey of Washington County, Oregon" (United States Department of Agricultural Soil Conservation Service) identifies the soil on the site as 22 -10- 210351 Huberly Silt Loam, 37 A. B, Quatama Loam and 21 Hillsboro series. We find that none of these soils on the site are prone to flooding and that the depth of the seasonal high-water table for Huberly and Hillsboro soils is over six feet and two to three feet for the Quatama soils. We find that the site slopes gently to the north and that no slope on the site exceeds 25 percent. We find that the applicant has proposed to pave por- tions of the property, landscape other portions, leave the north end of the property open and route drainage water in a manner that will prevent erosion. We further find that the gentle slopes of the area do not present severe soil erosion potential nor the possibility of slumping from slides or move- ment. Because of the types of soils present on the property and because of the gentle slope of the property, we find ana conclude that a survey specific soil P y or geologic study is not necessary because no potential hazards are evident at the site. We further find that the soil on the site does not present any technical limitations to development. For all these reasons, we conclude that this standard is met. Standard No. 4. "3 .2 .1. The City shall prohibit any land from alterations or development in the 100-year floodplain which would result in any rise in elevation of the 100-year floodplain. " (Tigard Comprehensive Plan 3 .2 .1 . ) We find from examination of the Federal Emergency Management Agency Map of the 100-year floodplain in the _11- 210351 I i i i ( vicinity of the site that no portion of the site is contained ` in any area inside the 100-year floodplain. Accordingly, we conclude that any land alteration or development on the site will not result in any rise in elevation of the 100-year floodplain. Standard No. 5 . "3.2 .2 . The City shall: "A. Prohibit land from alterations and development within the floodway,* except alterations may be allowed which preserve and enhance the function and maintenance of the zero-foot rise floodway; i and "B. Prohibit land form alterations or development in the floodplain* outside the zero-foot k rise floodway* except as follows: i. C e "1 . Land form alterations shall be allowed which preserve or enhance the function 4 of the zero-foot rise floodway.* "2 . Land form alterations and development V shall be allowed where both sides of the floodplain* are designated as either industrial or commercial on the Comprehensive Plan Map, and the factors r set forth in Policy 3 .2 .3 can be satisfied. "3. Land form alterations and development shall be allowed where one side of the floodplain* is planned for commercial i and industrial use subject to the following limitations: "(a) Land form alteration and developments on land designated on the Comprehensive Plan for commercial or industrial use; I i' -12- l 210351 i ' "(b) The applicant can show that the alterations or development into the floodplain* is reasonable and necessary to better the economy of the site; "(c) The factors set forth in Policy 3.2 .3 can be satisfied." (Tigard Comprehensive Plan 3 .2.2 . ) As set forth in our findings and conclusions with regard to Standard No. 3 above, we find that no portion of the site or any alteration or development which is requested to take place on the site will occur within any portion of the 100-year floodplain and will not result in any rise in elevation of the 100-year floodplain. We find that floodway and floodplain, as defined in the flood insurance study for the l I City of Tigard dated September 1 , 1981, is substantially i F similar to the Federal Emergency Management Agency' s definition of the 100-year floodplain. Accordingly, we find and conclude that because no portion of the development is contained in the f E 100-year floodplain or the zero-foot rise floodway, there will be r no effect from the proposed development associated with either of these two flood-related zones. We further find that the f development proposed for the site, because it will not affect F F the floodway or floodplain, will preserve the function of the zero-foot rise floodway and the flooaplain. We further find that land on all sides of the site is designated industrial in the Comprehensive Plan Map and that, as such, certain effects on z the floodplain and floodway could be allowed under the p y policies -13- 210351 r of the Tigard Comprehensive Plan. However, because we find that there will be no effect on the floodplain or zero-foot rise floodway, we conclude that the additional standards allowing development in certain cases in the floodplain or floodway do not apply to the present application. Similarly, we find that the standards set forth in Policy 3 .2 .3 of the Tigard Comprehensive Plan (related to land development within t i the 100--year floodplain and zero-foot rise floodway) have no application to the proposed use because the proposed use is above the 100-year floodplain and zero-foot rise floodway and presents no effect of any type on the floodplain or floodway. Accordingly, we conclude that Policy 3 .2 .3 of the Tigard Comprehensive Plan does not apply to this application, and sae further conclude that Policy 3 .2 .2 of the Tigard Comprehensive Plan is met by this application. Standard No. 6 . "3.3 .1 . The City of Tigard shall support the efforts of Washington County, Beaverton and the metropolitan service district to insure the f. availability of the rock mineral resources. " (Tigard Comprehensive Plan Policy 3 .3 .1 . ) We find that this policy is primarily directed toward the regulation of rock extraction. We find that the Washington Code permits the proposed use in an industrial zone through a Type III procedure (Washington County Community Development r, Code S 320-4.4) , and the Washington County Comprehensive Framework Pian for the urban area (Policy 7 ) discourages -14- 210351 extraction of aggregate resources in the urban area. We find that the Beaverton zoning Code permits concrete mixing and asphalt batch plants as a conditional use in light industrial zoning areas (Beaverton Zoning Code y 55.2 .C) . We find that the metropolitan service district has no specific policies or code provisions regarding aggregate processing or extraction. We find that the proposed use is not an extraction use but a manufacturing use which consumes processed aggregate. We find that this proposal is consistent with the practices of Beaverton and Washington County for the proposed use permitted in industrial zones upon public review. We further find that no other concrete and asphalt facility exists within the City of Tigard. We find that there is considerable growth in the City of Tigard including residential, commercial and other industrial growth. We find that this growth requires the ready availability of asphalt concrete products, such as those pro- duced by the applicant, and further find that such growth requires construction and maintenance of streets. We find, based on the population of the City of Tigard, that there is a demand for the products to be produced by the applicant at the site. We further find that the amount of land which will be used in this concrete and asphalt manufacturing facility is relatively small, 5 .36 acres, and can be kept small because the applicant' s sophisticated state-of-the-art facility will be importing processed aggregates (by railroad) that is extracted -15- 210351 from other sources. Accordingly, we find and conclude that the proposed operation, considering the growing demand for finished aggregate products in the area, is an extremely reasonable use in terms of amount of land in relationship to the demand for the resource that is present. For example, if the applicant were combining its proposed use with extraction and crushing of rock at the site, it would need not less than 25 acres to accomplish such a use. By importing the processed aggregates, applicant has not only minimized the amount of land necessary f t for rock processing, but it has also minimized the environmental impacts which would normally be associated with rock or gravel ; i extraction. We further find that if processed aggregates were f i not imported by rail, it is likely that the rock and gravel extraction would be located somewhere else in the Washington County, Beaverton or the metropolitan area and that by allowing this manufacturing facility which imports processed aggregates, we are supporting Washington County' s policy that extraction of raw aggregate resources should not occur in the urban area. For all these reasons, we conclude that this standard is met. l Standard No. 7 . "3.4.1 . The City shall designate the following as areas of significant environmental concern. "A. Significant wetlands; t "B. Areas having educational research values such as geologically and scientifically significant lands; and j s t -16- 210351 "C. Areas valued for the fragile character as habitats for plants, animals or aquatic life, or having endangered plant or animal species, or specific natural features, valued for the need to protectnatural areas." (Tigard Comprehensive Plan Policy 3 .4.1) . We find that at the time of the adoption of the Tigard Comprehensive Plan, the City designated all areas of significant environmental concern, including significant wetlands, areas having educational research value, such as geologically significant lanas and areas valued for their fragile character as habitats for plants ana animals or aquatic lite or having endangered plant or animal species or specific natural features or were needed to protect natural areas. We find that all these areas are designated on the City map entitled "Flood Plain and Wetlands" dated November 1983, and revised July 1984. We find that on this map, Fanno Creek is generally contained in an area designated as fioodplains and drainageways and is classified as significant wetland. We find that the water- course known as "Ball Creek, " to the north of applicant' s site, is designated "Drainage Ways & Wetlands, " not significant wetlands. We further find that vegetation on applicant' s lana is primarily scrub trees, grasses and berry brambles which are common to the Willamette Valley. For all these reasons, we find and conclude that the area in which applicant' s operation is proposed is not designated as an area of significant environmental concern and that designation is proper as no -17- 210351 significant wetlands, areas of educational research value nor Careas valued for their fragile character as habitat (plants or animals or aquatic life) are contained in the area. Accordingly, we conclude that because the application does not involve any of these types of areas or areas which should or could be designated as these types of areas, this standard is j met. t r Standard No. 8 . } r "3.4.2 . The City shall: . s "A. Protect fish and wildlife habitat along k stream corridors by managing the riparian habitat and controlling erosion and by requiring that areas of standing trees and natural vegetation along natural drainage courses and waterways be maintained to the maximum standard practical; "B. Require that development proposals in designated timbered or treed areas be reviewed through the planned development process to minimize the number of trees removed; and i "C. Require clustered type development in areas having important wildlife habitat value as delineated on the "Fish and Wildlife Habitat ; Map" on rile with the City." (Tigard Comprehensive Pian Policy 3 .4.2 .) We find that the proposed site and development is completely separated from the riparian habitat along Fanno Creek by the Burlington Northern railway and S . W. 74th Avenue 1 and an intervening Industrial Park Zone. We find that the pro- posed use will not affect any standing trees, natural vegeta- tion or other habitat along the Fanno Creek drainage. We -18- } t 210351 C � I' C f (� further find that the site is not contained in a designated timber or tree area. Accordingly, we find and conclude that planned development process review is not required. We further find that the City refers to the United States Fish and Wildlife Service habitat map for a determination of what areas are included as important wildlife habitat. We find that the watercourse known as "Ball Creek" is indicated as potential wildlife habitat by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service. We further find that this watercourse passes near the extreme northern portion of applicant' s site. We find that applicant' s development plan and site plan indicates that the is northern portion of the site, near the watercourse, will be left as undisturbed open space to preserve riparian values. We ?, i. further find that the gentle slope of the site together with applicant' splan to channel drainage water into a skimmer/ ¢> r; separator will control erosion and protect fish and wildlife ¢ values and habitat along the watercourse. Given the nature of t: F; the use proposed for the site and the physical attributes at the site, we conclude that preservation of the riparian area together with the designed features which control erosion and F the quality of runoff water maintain habitat in the area to the maximum extent practical. We further find that the applicant has concentrated its development in the southern portion of the c property away from the watercourse area. We find that this is 4 a functional equivalent of a cluster type development design to t -19- 210351 protect important wildlife habitat. For all these reasons, we conclude that this standard is met. Standard No. 9 . "3.5 .1 . The City shall encourage private enterprise and inner governmental agreements which will provide for open space, recreation lands, facilities, and preserve natural, scenic and historic areas in a manner consistent with the availability of resources. "3.5.2. The City shall coordinate with the school districts to development recreational facilities. "3 .5 .3 . The City shall designate the 100-year floodplain of Fanno Creek as tributaries, and the Tualatin River as Greenway, which will be the backbone of the open-space system. "3 .5.4. The City shall provide an interconnected pedestrian/bikepath throughout the City." (Tigard Comprehensive Plan Policies 3 .5.1 through 3.5 .4. ) These Comprehensive Plan Policies direct the City to encourage the establishment of open-space and recreational facilities with an emphasis on a Greenway along the Fanno Creek drainage. We find that the Fanno Creek drainage is separated from the proposed site by the Burlington Northern railroad line, S . W. 74th Avenue and intervening Industrial Park Land. We further find that the applicant' s proposed use is an industrial use and will not be open to the general public. Because of the industrial nature• of the use, we find that pedestrian/bikepaths along the applicant' s site as well as other recreational facilities would be inappropriate. We find that the watercourse known as "Ball Creek" is a tributary of -20- rr 210351 i f i i Fanno Creek. On the City of Tigard' s floodplain and wetlands map, the watercourse known as "Ball Creek" is indicated as "Drainage Ways & Wetlands" but not as significant wetlands. We find that access to the watercourse known as "Ball Creek" where I it passes through applicant' s site is limited in that the t Burlington Northern railroad line and S . W. 74th Avenue separate it from the main reach of Fanno Creek to the west. We s S' find that the only connection between the watercourse and Fanno Creek is an 48" x 64" culvert. Under these circumstances, we find that it is difficult for the watercourse to be used as part of a pedestrian or bikeway path, in fact, the watercourse ' cannot function as part of the Fanno Creek greenway. We 4<. further find that the applicant does not intend to develop the northernmost portion of its property which is generally along ? the watercourse. We find that this area will be left as open space to preserve natural watercourse values. We find that this is a valid manner in which a private enterprise may help to provide for open space and preserve natural lands. We further find that applicant' s preservation of the area along the watercourse is consistent with the City' s designation of Fanno Creek and its tributary as open-space greenway. For all ` these reasons, we conclude that this standard is met. Standard No. 10 . Tigard Comprehensive Plan Policies 3 .6.1, 3.6 .2 and 3 .7 .1 reser to classification standards for individual park -21- 210351 sites and historically significant structures, sites, objects and districts. We find that there are no established parks on the proposed site nor are there any identified structures, sites, objects or districts which are historically or culturally significant in the area. Accordingly, we find and conclude that these policies do not apply, and we conclude that i this standard is met. Standard No. 11 . r "4.1 .1. The City shall: t • k' "A. Maintain and improve the quality of Tigard' s air quality and coordination with the jurisdictions and agencies to reduce air pollution within the Portland-Vancouver Air Quality Maintenance Area (AQMA) . "B. Where applicable, require a statement from the appropriate agency, that all applicable standards can be met prior to the approval ( of a land use proposal. F. "C. Apply the measures described in the DEQ E handbook for 'Environmental Quality Elements r' of Oregon Local Comprehensive Land Use ' Plans' to land use decisions having the potential to affect air quality. " (Tigard Comprehensive Plan Policy 4.1 .1 . ) We find that there are potential sources which might reduce the air quality associated with any heavy industrial use. However, we find that all the necessary steps have been taken by the applicant to reduce or eliminate air pollution and, therefore, maintain air quality standards. We find that applicant' s asphalt plant is a state-of-the-art plant which { -22- 210351 (� will recycle its own exhaust to reduce air pollution impacts. We further find that the manufacturer of the asphalt batch plant has indicated that it warrants the equipment to meet applicable DEQ and Federal air quality standards. We further find that the concrete batch plant is an enclosed facility with a bag house to reduce fugitive emissions. We find that appli- cant' s design for the conveyor system to transport processed aggregate material is sensitive to fugitive dust emissions as the height of the conveyors will be automatically controlled to reduce the distance which processed aggregates will fall and thereby reduce dust. We further find that any trucks used in the operation are regularly maintained so that emissions are reduced. Finally, we find that the applicant' s concept of transporting processed aggregates to the site by _rail greatly reduces the number of truck trips required and thereby reduces ` the amount of air pollution associated with the project. For all these reasons, we find that all necessary measures to maintain air quality have been taken. Accordingly, we conclude that this standard has been met. Standard No. 12 . "4.2 .1 . All development within the Tigard urban planning area shall comply with applicable Federal, State and regional water quality standards. i "4.2 .2 . The City shall recognize and assume its responsibility for operating, planning and regulating waste water systems as designated in MSD' s waste treatment management component and 208 CRAG Study. " (Tigard Comprehensive Plan Policies 4.2 .1-4.2 .2 . ) -23- 210351 i 1 f i 1 i . We find that the site is presently served by Unified Sewage Agency line. We further find that applicant proposes to recycle its wash water into the concrete mix water and thereby eliminating potential waste runoff. We further find that the ;II drainage program proposed by the applicant will separate E C surface water from process water to avoid contamination. We I. further find that all surface water on the property will drain f to a collector control ditch on the north of the property where i it will pass through an oil skimmer/separator before it is discharged into the adjacent drainageway. Based on all these t factors, we find and conclude that all applicable State, Federal and regional water quality standards and waste water C disposal standards will be met by the proposed application. CAccordingly, we conclude that this standard is met. Standard No. 13 . "4.3 .1 . The City shall: "A. Require development proposals located in a noise congested area or in a use which K creates noise in excess of the applicable standards to incorporate the following into the site plan: "l. Building placement on the site in an 4 area where the noise level will have a minimal impact; or r "2 . Landscaping or other techiniques to lessen noise impacts to levels C compatible with surrounding land uses. i "B. Coordinate with DEQ and its noise regulation 1 program and apply the DEQ land use compatibility program. i -24- 210351 S 1 I t i R "C . Where applicable, require a statement from the appropriate agency (prior to the approval of the land use proposal) that all applicable standards can be met." (Tigard Comprehensive Plan Policy 4.3 .1 . ) . We find that applicant' s site is not located in an identified noise congested area. We find that applicant has proposed a state-of-the-art asphalt batch plant in which the burn nozzles are actually located deep inside the mixing drum. We find that this design significantly reduces noise over the standard asphalt plant design, even those equipped with burner silencers. In addition, we find that applicant has proposed to enclose the asphalt batch plant and, in addition, will enclose the concrete batch plant. We further find that applicant' s design for the conveyor belts which handle the processed aggregates provide significant features which greatly reduce noise. We find that the conveyor belts will run on idler rollers and be powered by electric motors which provides the quietest aggregate handling system. We further find that all transfer points on the conveyor belts will have rubber coverings over the chutes. We further find that the conveyors feeding the live storage pile are of an automatic "stacking" type which raise and lower to keep the top of the conveyor close to the top of the aggregate pile so that rock is layered on the pile and not dropped. We find that this method will significantly reduce noise. We further find that the positioning of the aggregate piles and the height of the piles will provide a -25- f 210351 1, sound buffer. In addition, we find that applicant has voluntarily agreed to provide additional trees and ground cover which will provide some additional sound buffering value. Finally, and most importantly, we find, as set forth in the noise analysis of Professional Engineer Standlee, that the noise associated with all phases of applicant' s operation will not be in excess of the applicable standards under the City of Tigard Code or State DEQ regulations. For all these reasons, we conclude that this standard has been met. Standard No. 14 . "4.4.1 . The City shall maintain and improve, if possible, the current quality of Tigard' s land resources. "4.4 .2 . The City shall recognize MSD' s responsibility and authority to prepare an implement solid waste management. " (Tigard Comprehensive Plan Policies 4.4.1 and 4.4.2 . ) We find that these policies were primarily directed at the establishment of solid waste sites. We find that applicant has proposed a concrete and asphalt manufacturing facility and not a land fill, recycling center or other solid waste disposal project. Accordingly, we conclude that this standard is not applicable. Standard No. 15 . "5.1 .1. The City shall promote activities aimed at the diversification of economic opportunities available to Tigard residents with particular emphasis placed on growth of the local job market. " (Tigard Comprehensive Plan Policy 5 .1 .1 . ) We find that the only land in the City of Tigard zoned for heavy industrial development is a relatively small -26- 210351 parcel to the north of applicant' s site across S . W. Bonita Road. We find that land suitable for heavy industrial uses is necessary for diversification of economic opportunity in that it allows a greater range of potential uses and, therefore, a greater range of job opportunities for Tigard residents. We find that the proposed development will supply approximately eight jobs in the local economy. We find that these jobs would not otherwise be available and that there is no similar use presently operating within the City of Tigard. For all these reasons, we find and conclude that our approval of the applicant' s project promotes the diversification of economic opportunities that are available to Tigard residents and further conclude that this standard is met. Standard No. 16 . "5.1 .2 . The City shall work with Washington County and adjacent jurisdictions to develop an economic development plan incorporating the local development plan." (Tigard Comprehensive Plan Policy 5 .1 .2) We find that this standard requires the City of Tigard to take certain steps to promote an economic development. We further find that this is not an approval standard which the applicant must meet. Accordingly, we conclude that this stand and is not applicable to applicant' s request. -27- 210351 Standard No. 17 . "5.1 .3 . The City shall improve and enhance the portions of the central business district as the focal point for commercial, high-density residential, business, civic and professional activities creating a diversified and economically viable core area. ' i "5.1 .4. The City shall insure that new commercial and industrial development shall not encroach into residential areas that have not been designated for commercial or industrial uses." y (Tigard Comprehensive Plan Policies 5 .1 .3 and 5 .1.4. ) { i' We find that the applicant' s site is located outside i the zone designated in the Tigard comprehensive plan and zoning ;, maps as a central business district. We further find that the proposed site is a siginificant distance from the business district and, therefore, will have no effect on the City' s plans regarding the central business district. In addition, we ' rind that applicant' s site is presently zoned for light industrial uses and that applicant wishes to continue the IN industrial nature of the site, but requests a change in the ¢ zoning in order to allow heavy industrial uses. We find that t applicant' s site, and all the land surrounding it, has already been reserved for industrial uses and that the allowance of e applicant' s proposed use will not allow industrial development t to encroach into residential areas. Accordingly, we conclude that these policies are met. E I r -28- 210351 f Standard No. 18. �. "5.1 .5 . The City shall prohibit residential development in commercial and industrial districts except: complimentary residential development shall be permitted above the first floor in a central business district, and above the second floor in commercial professional districts ( the density of the residential development shall be determined in accordance with the R-40 districts) . " (Tigard Comprehensive Plan Policy 5 .1 .5 . ) We find that the applicant has proposed an industrial use and not a residential use; therefore, we conclude that this standard does not apply. Standard No. 19 . "5 .1 .6 . The City shall consider private financing by pri-ate developers in coordination with available bonding methods to provide public facilities to commercial and industrial land designated on the Comprehensive Plan Map. " (Tigard Comprehensive Plan Policy 5 .1 .6 . ) CWe find that this is not a mandatory approval standard but rather a directive to the City to consider private financing if necessary to provide public facilites on industrial land. We find that the applicant' s site is presently served by City water and the Unifiea Sewerage Agency and by City streets and that no additional private financing is needed to provide public facilities. Accordingly, we conclude that this standard does not apply to this application. Standard No. 20 . "6 .1 .1 . The City shall provide an opportunity for diversity of housing densities in residential types at various price and rent levels. -29- 210351 "6 .1 .2 . Subsidized housing units shall conform to all applicable development standards. . . . "6 .2 .1 . The City shall develop clear and concise development regulations and standards to facili- tate streamlining of development proposals and will eliminate unnecessary provisions which could increase housing costs without corresponding benefit. " (Tigard Comprehensive Plan Policies 6 .1 .1, 6.1 .l and 6 .2 .1 (summarized) . ) We find that these policies are directed toward housing densities and residential uses and not the industrial use proposed by the applicant. However, we note that concrete and asphalt products are necessary for the creation and construction of residential housing. As such, we find that the efficiencies of the applicant' s proposed project will provide a long-term available supply of competitively priced concrete and asphalt products which will be available for residential deve- lopment. Based on our findings above, we conclude that these policies do not apply to the present application, but that the present application generally supports these policies. Standard No. 21. "6.3 .1 . The City shall direct its land use actions toward the maintenance and improvement of established residential areas. . . . "6.3.2. In the Tigard Community Development Code, the City shall require a density transition whereby increased residential densities are adjacent to established areas. . . . -30- 210351 uses to the west are further buffered by the Burlington Northern railroad line, S . W. 74th Avenue, and industrial park land which lies to the west of the proposed site. Similarly, nonindustrial uses to the north, south and east are similarly separated from, and buffered by, intervening areas of industrial land. Accordingly, we conclude that this policy has been met. Standard No. 23 . "7 .1 .1 . The City shall: "A. Prepare and implement a capital improvements program in conjunction with Washington County and the applicable service district; "B. Work with the service districts to provide a coordinated system for providing services; "C. Provide urban services in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan to the extent of the City' s financial resources; "D. Use the capital improvements program as a means for providing orderly growth and efficient use of land; "E. Develop a Comprehensive Plan with consideration being given to the level and capacity of the existing services; and "F Adopt locational criteria as the basis for making decisions about the proper location for public facilities. "7 .1 .2 . The City shall require as a pre-condition to development approval that: "A. Development coincide with the availability of adequate service capacity including: "I . Public water; -33- 210351 r "2 . Public sewer (new development on septic tanks shall not be allowed within the City) ; and "3. Storm drainage. "B. The facilities are: "1 . Capable of adequately serving F intervening properties and the proposed development; and j r "2. Designed to City standards. "C. All new development utilities to be placed on the ground. " f (Tigard Comprehensive Plan Policy 7.1 .1 and 7 .1.2. ) We find that the guidelines set forth in Tigard Comprehensive Plan Policy 7 .1.1 have been followed and complied t within the City' s completion of its Comprehensive Plan and E; zoning maps. The zones have been established to provide coor- dinated, orderly growth and efficient use of land given the r level and capacity of existing services. With respect to the availability of specific public facilities and services, we find that public water is available at the site and is available in sufficient quality to meet the needs of the pro- posed use. We further find that public sewer line connection r' f: is available on the property, and the applicant will connect to that line to dispose any sewage which may occur on the property. We further find that an identified drainageway, the watercourse f referred to as "Ball Creek, " presently drains the property and is sufficient to continue in that function. We further find i -34- �. C 210351 a p: that the applicant' s installation of an oil skimmer/separator which will treat all drainage water prior to entering the watercourse will protect environmental values. We further find k the.t there are no intervening properties between applicant' s F x site and the proposed public facilities. In the event that the i, k Burlington Northern railroad would be deemed an intervening 4' property, we find that public facilities such as water and . E sewer are not necessary for a railroad track; therefore, no , public facilities are needed for that use. We further find (` that all new development utilities on the site will be placed underground and designed to City standards. For all these reasons, we conclude that all portions of this standard are met. Standard No. 24. "7 .2 .1 . The City shall require as a pre-condition to development that: "A. A site development study be submitted for development in areas subject to poor drainage, ground instability or flooding which shows that the development is safe or will not create adverse off-site impacts; "B. Natural drainage ways be maintained unless submitted studies show that alter- native drainage solutions can solve on-site drainage problems and will assure no adverse off-site impacts; "C. All drainage can be handled on-site or there is an alternative solution which will not increase the off-site impacts; "D. A 100-year floodplain elevation as established by the 1981 flood insurance study conducted by the U. S . Army Corps. of Engineers be protected; and -35- 210351 i "E. Erosion control techniques be included as part of the site development plan. 117.2 .2 . The City shall: "A. Include in its capital improvements program pians for solving drainage problems in the existing developed areas; "B. Recognize and assume its responsibility for operating, planning and regulating waste water systems as designed in the MSD waste water treatment management (208) plan; and "C. Apply all applicable Federal and State laws and regulations with respect to waste water. " (Tigard Comprehensive Plan Policy 7 .2 .1 and 7.2 .2 . ) We find that the applicant' s site is not subject to poor drainage, ground instability or flooding. We find that the site is outside the 100-year floodplain elevation established by the U. S. Army Corps . of Engineers and that because of the gentle slope of the property, erosion will not be a problem. We further find that the applicant has submitted a drainage pian which routes drainage to the north into an existing and identified drainageway. We find that this drainageway has ade- quately served the property in the past and will continue to do so in the future. We find that the applicant' s installation of an oil skimmer/separator which will filter all drainage water prior to entrance in the drainageway, will comply with all Federal and State waste water regulations. We further find that the applicant will connect with the existing Unified Sewerage Agency sewer line on the property. Finally, we find -36- 210351 that because the applicant has taken sufficient steps in solving all drainage problems, additional City capital improve- ments will not be necessary. For all these reasons, we find that these policies have been met. Standard No. 25 . "7 .3 .1 . The City of Tigard shall coordinate With the Tigard Water District and the Metzger Water District to provide a high standard of water service to meet future demands at all times. " (Tigard Comprehensive Plan Policy 7 .3 .1 . ) An existing 12-inch Tigard Water District main is located on S. W. 74th Avenue and is of adequate capacity to serve any industrial use. We find that the existing water line will provide a high standard of water service, and we conclude that this policy has been met. Standard No. 26 . "7.4.1 . The City shall: "A. Develop a Comprehensive Sewer Plan that identifies the present and future capacity needs for sewage system in the planning area, and problem routes of future trunklines. "B. Requires the future extensions of collector sewer lines shall be consistent with all City ordinances and agreements between the City of Tigard, Washington County and the Unified Sewerage Agency (USA) . "C. Adopt a clear and concise agreement with USA, implementing the City' s policies for extending the availability of sewer services and encouraging the phasing out of septic tanks. -37- 210351 "7 .4.2. The City shall require that areas determined by the Washington County Health Department or the State Department of Environmental Quality to have failing septic systems shall be connected to the sewer system. "7.4.3 . In the development of new sewer systems, priority shall: "A. First, be given to areas having health hazard problems which will be determined by DEQ; and "B. Second, be given to areas where cost- benefits are the greatest in terms of the number of potential connections. "7 .4.4. The City shall require that all new development oe connected to an approved sanitary sewerage system." (Tigard Comprehensive Plan Policies 7 .4.1-7.4.4. ) We find that the applicant' s site is served by an 8-inch sanitary sewerage line along S . W. 74th Avenue which has a connection to Tax Lot 1400. We find that this service line is capable of serving the sanitary sewerage needs of the pro- posed use. We find that the applicant has agreed to connect with this sewer .line as a condition of approval of its applica- tion. We find that the remainder of the requirements of these policies concerning sanitary sewerage lines are generally related to the establishment of additional sewerage lines and sewerage service to parts of the City of Tigard. Because the site is already served by the sanitary sewerage line, we find that it is not necessary to discuss the City' s Comprehensive Sewer Plan, extensions to that Sewer Plan or prior organization of the provision of sewerage services. For all these reasons, we conclude that these policies have been met. -38- 210351 Standard No. 27 . "7.5 .1 . The City shall coordinate expansion of police protection, service and facilities with the overall growth of the community. "7.5.2 . As part of the ongoing development review, the City shall: i "A. Require visible identification signs to assist emergency vehicles in locating the area with the problem; "B. Utilize defensible space concepts; and a "C. Require the Tigard Police Department to review development applications. " (Tigard Comprehensive Plan Policies 7 .5.1 and 7 .5 .2 . ) We find that the proposed site is within the City of r. Tigard, accessible by S . W. 74th Avenue and is presently within `s the operational service coverage of the Tigard Police Department. Because of the industrial nature of the use, we find that the entire site will be enclosed with a 6-foot cyclone fence, and es the gates will be locked when the plant is closed. We further find that signs will be present on the property to assist f emergency vehicles in "locating the area. For all these a r• reasons, we conclude that these policies have been met. Standard No. 28 . f "7.6 .1 . The City shall require as a pre-condition to development that: "A. The development be served by a water system having an adequate pressure for fire protection purposes; i -39- 210351 L C- i "B. The development shall not reduce the water pressure in the area below a level adequate for fire protection purposes; and "C. The applicable firs district review all applications." (Tigard Comprehensive Plan Policy 7 .6 .1 . ) We find that the applicant' s site is presently serves by the Tigard Fire Department. We further find that a 12-inch main line on S. W. 74th Avenue provides sufficient water for all uses on the property including fire protection uses. We further find that the proposed development will not reduce water pressure below a level adequate for fire protection. We further find that the Tigard Fire Department has reviewed the application_ and has made no adverse comment. For all these reasons, we conclude that this policy has been met. Standard No. 29 . ` "7 .7 .1 . Community land use planning shall be coordinated with private utility agencies to insure the availability of services when needed. " (Tigard Comprehensive Plan Policy 7 .7 .1 . ) We find that private utility services, which include telephone and electricity, are available to all surrounding properties and available to the applicant' s site. Accordingly, we conclude that provision of these utilities has been adequately coordinated and services will be av`ilable when needed. Accordingly, we conclude that this policy has been met. -40- 210351 Standard No. 30 . < "7 .8.1 . The City shall work closely with the school districts to assure the maximum community use of the school facilities for Tigard residents throug}i locational criteria and the provision of ' urban services. (Tigard Comprehensive Plan Policy 7 .8.1 . ) We find that the use proposed by the applicant is an industrial use which wil-1 not create additional need or demand for school services. Accordingly, we conclude that this policy is met. Standard No. 31 . "7.9 .1 . The City shall: "A. Encourage cooperation between local, State, Federal and private agencies in planning and providing for health and related social services; and "B. Provide the opportunity for the necessary health services to be provided within the City througli the provision of the Community Development Code. " (Tigard Comprehensive Plan Policy 7 .9 .1 . ) We find that the industrial use proposed by the applicant is not the type of use that will greatly increase the need for health services or related social services. In addi- tion, we find that health care services are available at St. Vincent Hospital and Meridian Park Hospital in the Tigard area. We find that the proposed use, with its eight employees, will not contribute to a greater need for health or related social services. Accordingly, we conclude that this standard is met. -41- 210351 Standard No. 32 . "7 .10 .1 . Local government administration facilities should remain centralized in the central business district. "7.11 .1 . The City shall where economically feasible provide for library services which meet the user demand of its residents." (Tigard Comprehensive Plan Policies 7 .10.1 and 7 .11 .1 ) i We find that the industrial use proposed by the t applicant will have no effect on City administration facilities nor the centralization in the central business district. We : t t further find that the use proposed by the applicant will not i. increase demand for library services. Accordingly, we find that these standards do not apply to the proposed application. r Standard No. 33 . : "7 .12 .1 . The City shall recognize the Metropolitan Service District (MSD) responsibility and authority to prepare and implement a solid waste management plan, F and will participate in these procedures as appropriate. "7 .12 .2 . The City shall provide the opportunity to establish a permanent full-line recycling center through the provisions of the Community Development ` Code. The location should be near the center of the community and should be open every day." (Tigard Comprehensive Plan Policies 7 .12 .1 and 7.12 .2. ) We find that applicant has not proposed a solid waste or recycling center. We further find that a minimal amount of trash will be generated by the proposed use, and this trash may be disposed of in existing solid waste facilities. Accordingly, we find that to the extent that these two policies are appli- cable to the proposed use they are met. i -42- 210351 i f Standard. No. 34. 118.1 .1 . The City shall plan for a safe and efficient street roadway system that meets current needs and anticipated future growth development. "8.1.2 . The City shall provide for efficient iaanagement of the transportation planning process within the City and the metropolitan area through cooperation with other Federal, State, regional and j local jurisdictions. " (Tigard Comprehensive Plan Policies 8.1 .1 and 8.1.2.) s c We find that the Tigard Community Development Code y9 18.108 and 18.164 constitute the City' s planning require- ments directed at providing a safe and efficient street roadwayp, F: system. We address the street standards of the Code below, and t incorporate by reference our analysis in Standard Nos . 118 through 140 below as though fully set forth herein. Based on our analysis of these standards, we conclude that the City has provided for an efficient management of a transportation system and has provided for safe and efficient street and roadway systems and further conclude that this standard is met. Standard No. 35 . "8.1 .3. The City shall require as a pre-condition .of development approval that: "a. Development abut a publicly dedicated street or have adequate access approved by the appropriate approval authority; { "b. Street right-of-way be dedicated where the street is substandard in width; "c. The developer commit to the construction of the streets, curbs and sidewalks to State standards within the development; -43- ! 210351 't "d . Individual developers participate in the improvement of the existing streets, curbs and sidewalks to the extent of the development' s impacts; "e. Street improvements be made and street signs or signals be provided when development is found to create or intensity a traffic hazard; "f . Transit stops, bus turnaround lanes and shelters be provided when the proposed use [is] of a type which generates transit riderships; "g. Parking spaces be set aside and marked for cars operated by disabled persons and that the spaces be located as close as possible to the entrance designed for disabled persons; and "h. Land be dedicated to implement the bicycle/pedestrian corridor in accordance with the adopted plan." (Tigard Comprehensive Plan Policy 8.1 .3 . ) We find that the applicant' s site will have access to C. S W. 74th Avenue by means of private crossings across the Burlington Northern railroad line. We find that Burlington Northern has indicated its consent to cooperate with the applicant in any installation of the necessary railroad crossings. We find that the paved surface of S. W. 74th Avenue is 24 feet wide and no additional right-of-way is needed. We further find that even in the event the street were substandard in width, the applicant could not provide any additional right- of-way as the land directly adjacent to S . W. 74th Avenue is owned by the Burlington Northern railway. We find that the applicant has proposed no public streets inside the development -44- 210351 but will instead have paved transit corridors which route delivery trucks to the appropriate loading areas. As there will be no public street created inside the development nor will the premises be open to the public: we find that curbs and sidewalks are not necessary. In addition, we find that the truck corridors in the enclosed development are designed to accommodate large industrial vehicles and therefore, access by emergency vehicles is assured. From the traffic analysis of Professional Engineer Tom Lancaster, we find that the applicant' s access is adequate and safe. We further find that applicant has agreed to install the appropriate private crossing signs at its access across the Burlington Northern railroad. We further find that the addition of a number of proposed trucks from the applicant' s property constitutes an ( extremely small portion of the existing traffic on roads in the area. We find that traffic generated by the applicant' s use will not create traffic delays nor impair service. We find that the presence of traffic from applicant' s proposed use does not alter any level of service which presently exists at intersections in the area. We further find that no signalization is warranted at the intersection of S . W. 74th Avenue and S. W. Bonita Road. We find that other intersections in the area ( i .e. , northbound Durham exit from Interstate 5 ) already exceed signalization warrants without applicant' s additional traffic. We find that applicant' :: additional traffic is an -45- r 210351 extremely small percentage of the total traffic using these intersections. We further find that these intersections are intended for signalization by the State of Oregon and have been placed onthe signalization list. We find that applicant' s site is not along any existing Tri-Met bus route. We find that the closest Tri-Met route passes on S. W. 72nd to the east of € applicant' s property. Accordingly, we conclude that bus f turn-out lanes and shelters are not appropriate at the applicant' s site. We find that applicant, in conformance with the parking requirements of the TCDC, has set forth the 4 appropriate number of automobile spaces on its property. We r find that applicant has agreed to comply with all further pp applicable criteria for disabled parking. We further find that S. W. 74th Avenue is not an identified bicycle/pedestrian corridor. We further find that this street is inappropriate for such a corridor because it provides access primarily to industrial uses. In addition, the Fanno Creek greenway which is intended to be the backbone of the City' s bicycle/pedestrian network, parallels S . W. 74th Avenue farther to the west. This greenway area is a much preferred location for a bicycle/ pedestrian corridor. We further find that in the event that the watercourse referred to as Ball Creek would be needed for bicycle or pedestrian access, the applicant has left the portion of the property adjacent to that watercourse in a natural state and suitable for bicycle/pedestrian development. -46- 210351 For all these reasons, we conclude that the applicant has C satisfactorily met all the preconditions to development set forth in this standard and we conclude that this standard is met. Standard No. 36 "8.2 .1 . The City shall coordinate with Tri-Met to provide for a public transit system within the planning area. . . . "8.2 .2. The City shall encourage the expansion and use of public transit. . . ." (Tigard Comprehensive Plan Policies 8 .2.1 and 8.2 .2 . ( summarized) . ) We find that these particular policies are not intended to be mandatory approval policies but, rather, guidelines which insure the consideration of public transportational alternatives. Because we find that applicant' s proposed operation will greatly reduce traffic and energy consumption because of its reliance on rail for the delivery of processed aggregates and because no public transportation is located directly along S . W. 74th Avenue, and because Tri-Met buses already serve the general area, we find that these guidelines, to the extent they would be deemed to apply to the applicant' s use, have been met. Standard No. 37 . "8.4 .1 . The City shall locate bicycle/pedestrian corridors in a manner which provides for pedestrian and bicycle users safe and convenient movement in all parts of the City, by developing the pathway system shown on the adopted pedestrian/bikeway plan." (Tigard Comprehensive Plan Policy 8.4.1 . ) We find that the City of Tigard has determined that bicycle/pedestrian corridors should generally follow the Fanno -47- 210351 Creek greenway to the west of the applicant' s site. We find that S W. 74th Avenue, because it provides access primarily to industrial uses in industrial zones, would not be an appropriate location for a bicycle/pedestrian corridor. We find this to be especially true when the Fanno Creek corridor which is located closely to the west. We find that in the event the City of Tigard were to decide to extend a bicycle/pedestrian corridor up the watercourse referred to as Bali Creek ( such extension would require an underpass under S. W. 74th Avenue as well as under the Burlington Northern railroad track) , the applicant has provided open space along the north end of its property where it abuts the watercourse which would facilitate the development of a bicycle/pedestrian corridor. However, we find that the industrial use proposed by the applicant, together with the other industrial uses along the watercourse, do not generally give rise to the need or desire to develop a bicycle/pedestrian corridor. Accordingly, we conclude that to the extent this policy is applicable, it is met. Standard No. 38 . "8.5 .1 . The City shall cooperate with the railroads in facilitating rail freight service to those commercial and industrial businesses within the City that depend on rail service. " (Tigard Comprehensive Pian Policy 8.5 .1 . ) We find that the unique aspect of the use proposed by the applicant is that processed aggregates will be brought -48- 210351 t { 1 r to the site by rail rather than by truck. As previously discussed, we find this will result in a substantial reduction of traffic as well as a conservation of energy. We find that the applicant' s site is ideal for such an operation because it is bounded on the west by the Burlington Northern line and is bounded on the east by the Southern Pacific line. We find that approval of the applicant' s request will promote the use of rail freight service and provide substantial benefits to the City in terms of reduced traffic, reduced energy consumption and finished aggregate products at a competitive price. We find, to the extent that this policy is applicable, that approval by the City of applicant' s use insures that this standard is met. Standard No. 39 . "9 .1 .1 . The City shall encourage a reduction in energy consumption by increased opportunities for conservation and the reduction of energy from alternative sources. "9 .1 .2 . The City shall establish a balanced and efficient transportation system which complements the land use pian and is designed to minimize energy impacts. "9.1 .3 . The City shall encourage land use development which emphasizes sound and energy conservation, design and construction. " (Tigard Comprehensive Plan Policies 9 .1 .1, 9.1 .2 and 9.1 .3 . ) As previously discussed, we find that the applicant' s conceptual design for this concrete and asphalt manufacturing facility emphasizes sound energy conservation and reduces -49- 210351 C energy consumption because processed aggregates will be brought to the site by rail rather than by individual trucks. In addition to providing energy efficiencies, we find that the project design presents significant advantages to the City of Tigard in the form of reduced truck traf=ic. We find that under this policy, the City must encourage land use development which emphasizes sound energy conservation policies. We find that in the City of Tigard, virtually no other parcel of land provides access for delivery on two opposing sides by two rail carriers, Burlington Northern and Southern Pacific. We find that to the north and west of the central business district of Tigard, there is a small crescent-shaped area which is surrounded on the east by the Southern Pacific track- and on C the west by the Burlington Northern tracks. However, we find that property is zoned for industrial park uses and is closely bordered on the northwest and southeast by existing residential development. We find that the site does not present the same locational advantages such as easy freeway access and surrounding industrial property that are presented by the applicant' s site. We .further find that the City is instructed to establish a balanced transportation system which we interpret to mean all forms of transportation including rail as well as truck transportation. Because of the energy and transportation advantages proposed by the applicant' s design, -50- 210351 C we find that approval of applicant' s request is in keeping with these policies, and we conclude that they are met. Standard No. 40. "10.1 . Annexation of land. "10.2 . Extension of Services outside the City limits. "10.3. Annexation of land outside the urban growth boundary. " (Tigard Comprehensive Plan Policies 10.1.1 and 10.1 .2; 10.2.1 through 10.2.3 and 10.3.1 through 10.3.2 (summarized) . ) We find that applicant' s request requires no annexation of land, no extension of services outside the City limits nor annexation of land outside the urban boundary. Accordingly, we conclude that these policies in the Tigard Comprehensive Plan are not applicable to the instant application. Standard No. 41 . C "Chapter 11 . Special areas of concern. " (Tigard Comprehensive Plan Policies 11 .1.1, 11 .2.1 through 11 .2 .3, 11 .3 .1 through 11 .3 .2, and 11 .4.1 through 11.4.2 (summarized) . ) We find that these plan policies regarding areas of special concern are not applicable to the instant request as they apply to areas in the City of Tigard other than the area where the applicant' s site is located. Accordingly, we conclude that these standards do not apply to the present application. Standard No. 42 . "11 .5 . Neighborhood Planning Organization #5. i i -51- 210351 i "11.5 .1 . The City shall require buffering and (- screening between residential areas and adjoining industrial areas as a pre-condition to development approval as follows: "A. Buildings on industrial lands shall be set back a distance of 50 feet from any property line which abuts a residentially planned area; f "B. The site plan shall provide for the least intensive proposed uses on the site in the E areas which abut an adjoining residential and planned area; and "C. Buffering and screening shall be provided within the 50-foot setback area as provided by the standards contained in Policy 6 .1 .1 . It is not the intent of this subsection to require the entire 50 feet to be landscaped provided the standards of 6 .1 .1 are met in which case a portion of the buffered area may be used for parking." (Tigard Comprehensive Plan Policy 11.5 .1. ) F_ As set forth on the existing Zoning Comprehensive Plan Map of the City of Tigard, we find that applicant' s proposed use is located on industrial land which does not abut any residentially planned area. All of the uses to the north, industrial or general south and east of the site are zonedg k 1 commercial. All property lying immediately to the west of the property along S. W. 74th Avenue is zoned for industrial park i uses. As no residentially planned area abuts or adjoins the property, we find and conclude that this policy does not apply to the present application. v E -52- I 210351- Standard No. 43 . "Cliapter 12 . Locational Criteria. "12.1 .1. The City shall provide for housing densities. . . . "12.2 .1 . The City shall. . .provide for commercial development. . . . " (Tigard Comprehensive Plan Policies 12 .1 .1 and 12.2 .1 (summarized) . ) We find that these two policies in the Comprehensive Plan provide locational criteria for residential uses and commercial uses . We further find that applicant' s use is an industrial use and is not a residential or commercial use. Accordingly, we conclude that these policies do not apply to the present application. Standard No. 44. "12 .3 .1 . The City shall require that: "A. Sites for heavy industrial development shall ; be: "(1) Separated by topography established buffers, transportation or other non-residential land uses from residentially developed areas. "(2) Located in areas having rail service, i arterial or major collector access. "C. The site shall be of the size and shape which will provide for the short and long range needs of the use. 1 "D. The land intended for development shall have j an average site topography of less than 1 six-percent grade, or that it can be demonstrated that through engineering ! F -53- 210351 . techniques all limitations to development and the provision of services can be mitigated. "E. It be demonstrated that associated lights, noise and other external effects will not interfere with the activities and uses on surrounding properties. "F All other applicable plan policies can be met." (Tigard Comprehensive Plan Policy 12 .3 .1 . ) We find that applicant' s site for the heavy industrial use it proposes is located in an area with direct access to rail service from not one, but two major rail carriers . The applicant' s site is directly bordered on the east by Southern t Pacific railway and directly bordered on the west by the Burlington Northern railway. We also find that the applicant' s I site for heavy industrial development is separated from the _ I only residential uses in the area ( to the west) by two transportation corridors (the Burlington Northern rail line and i S. W. 74th Avenue) as well as a large strip of land along Fanno i Creek which is zoned for industrial park purposes. We further i find that Fanno Creek drainage provides a topographic buffer between the applicant' s industrial use and the residential uses located farther to the west. We find, as demonstrated in the Evaluation Report from Morse Bros., Inc. and from the technical drawings prepared by Smith & Monroe & Gray Engineers, Inc. , j i that the size of the parcel (5 .36 acres) is sufficient to provide for both the short-term and lona-term needs of the use. -54- 210351 i E i We further find that the shape of the parcel loans itself to an efficient production layout whereby the most area intensive uses (processed aggregate storage locations) are located on the widest portion of the parcel, whereas the more compact manufacturing operations (asphalt batch plant and concrete batch plant) are located on the narrow portions of the property. We find, as is shown on the site plans, that there is adequate room for truck circulation on truck corridors to promote efficient loading and handling of material with the immediate needs of the use and the projected long-term needs of the use. We find that topography of the site has an average grade of less than six-percent. We further find that the site proposes no technical limitations to development. We find that access, drainage and public facilities are assured. We find that lights on the property will be directed toward the ground and that there will be no direct or sky-reflected glare which would be passed to other properties. To further insure that there will be no lighting effects on the properties, applicant has agreed to install significant vegetation buffers around the periphery of the site. We find that applicant has agreed to install state-of-the-art asphalt batch plant equipment and to enclose the asphalt batch plant and cement batch plant to reduce noise. We find, as set forth in the analysis of Professional Acoustical Engineer Standlee, that noise generated on the site will be within the applicable DEQ standards. _55- 210351 We also find this Notice will comply with City of ` Tigard standards and will not interfere with activities and uses on surrounding property. We find, as set forth in the report of Professional Engineer Freeburn, that oaor from the asphalt plant is unlikely and therefore, it will not interfere with adjacent activities and uses. We find that applicant' s concrete batch plant will meet DEQ standards with regard to dust and that enclosing the plant will help to further reduce any fugitive dust emissions and prevent interference with activities and uses on adjacent properties. We find, as set Forth in the vibration analysis of Dr. Michael Feves, that no vibration that is detectible without instrumentation will pass from the property given reasonable design considerations. We find that vibration will not interfere with activities and uses on surrounding properties. As set forth in the traffic report of Professional Engineer Tom Lancaster, we find that traffic generated by the proposed use will not affect the service i levels of the surrounding roads and intersections. For all F these reasons, we conclude that the external effects of the a plant will not interfere with the activities and uses of the surrounding properties. In addition, we find, as set forth in Parts III and IV of these Findings, that each and every Comprehensive Plan Policy and Community Development Code Policy i of the City of Tigard has been met by this application. i f -56- 210351 f : Accordingly, based on all these facts, we find and conclude that this policy has been met. Standard No. 45 . "12.4. Community Utilities and Facilities. "12.4.1 . The City shall provide for the location of community facilities. . . ." (Tigard Comprehensive Plan Policy 12 .4.1 (summarized) . ) We find that the use proposed by the applicant, a manufacturing facility for asphalt and concrete, is not a community facility as defined in the Comprehensive Plan; therefore, this standard does not apply to the proposed use. B. TIGARD COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE. Standard No. 46 . "18.22 .040. Quasi-judicial amendments and standards for making decisions . "A. A recommendation or decision to approve, approve with conditions or to deny an application for a quasi-judicial amendment shall be based on all of the following standards: "1 . The applicable comprehensive plan policies and map designations; and "(A) The change will not adversely affect the health, safety and welfare of the community. "2. The Statewide planning goals adopted under ORS 197 until acknowledgment of the Tigard Comprehensive Plan and Ordinances. "3 . The applicable standards of any provisions of this Code or other applicable implementing ordinance. -57- 210351 17 "4. Evidence of change in the neighborhood or community or a mistake or inconsistency in the Comprehensive Plan or Zoning Map as it relates to the property which is the subject of the development application." (Tigard Community Development Code ( "TCDC" ) 18.22 .040. ) We find, as set forth in Parts III and IV of the statement, that the applicable plan policies of the City of Tigard are met by the proposed application. We further find that the City of Tigard Comprehensive Plan and Community Development Code have been acknowledged by the Land Conservation and Development Commission, and the Statewide planning goals adopred under ORS Chapter 197 no longer apply. As set forth in Parts III and IV below, we find that the applicable standards of all provisions of the TCDC (or other applicable implementing ordinances) have been satisfied by this application. We adopt that analysis herein by reference. We further find that the application will meet all the environmental performance standards, all the industrial zoning standards, all the sensitive land standards, all setback and height limitation standards, all landscaping and screening standards, all off-street parking and loading standards, all access, egress and circulation standards, all street and utility standards and all other applicable standards set forth in the TCDC. Each of the standards is addressed with specificity below, and we adopt each of the discussions that -58- 210351 follow by reference. We further find that the applicant has proposed a fuel efficient and traffic minimizing primary industry for the City of Tigard which provides needed finished material to construct roads and houses in the Community. We further find that the proposed use will create new jobs and will not adversely impact adjoining uses in terms of noise, vibration, odor, dust, other emissions or traffic. As a result, we conclude that the proposed use will not adversely affect the health, safety and welfare of the community. Finally, we find that since the adoption of a Tigard Comprehensive Plan, the City of Tigard and the surrounding com- munity has undergone tremendous growth. In terms of population growth, the City of Tigard has grown considerably in the last 10 years. The community surrounding the City of Tigard also has experienced similar P growth. One result of this population growth is an increase in housing starts, commercial and industrial businesses and new streets and repairs to existing streets. We find that each of these uses requires aggregate-based materials such as concrete and asphalt to insure proper construction and maintenance. We find that the City of Tigard does not presently have an operating asphalt batch plant or concrete batch plant to supply these needed finished materials for future growth of the City. At present, these important building materials must come from plants and operations in the Portland metropolitan area. We find that _59- 210351 transportation of the materials, particularly concrete, can result in an inferior product due to unfavorable slump characteristics which are generated as concrete travels over greater distances by truck. We find that the sustained growth of the City of Tigard and the surrounding community requires an inexpensive and high-quality source for finished aggregate materials such as concrete and asphalt. We find that the continued and consistent growth of the City of Tigard and the surrounding community and the associated increase in need for finished aggregate products such as concrete and asphalt constitutes a change in the community which allows the City to consider a zone change for the purpose of establishing concrete and asphalt establishments within the City. We further find that continued growth is projected for the City of Tigard and that a concrete batch plant and asphalt plant are important uses in the City of Tigard to implement and assist that growth. For all these reasons, we conclude that the proposed applica- tion is in compliance with the applicable Comprehensive Plan policies and TCDC criteria and the requested change will not adversely affect the health, safety and welfare of the com- munity and that sufficient evidence of change in the community has been presented to allow us to consider this change. Accordingly, we conclude that this standard has been met. -60- 210351 Standard No. 47. "18.32 .040. Preapplication Conference Required. " (TCDC S 18.32 .040 (summarized) .) We find that applicant has completed the required preapplication conference in which the applicable Comprehensive Plan Policies, substantive and procedural ordinance provisions, technical data and other matters were discussed. Accordingly, we conclude that this standard is met. Standard No. 48. "18.32 .050. Application Submittal Requirement-- Refusal of an Application." (TCDC S 18.32 .050 (summarized) . ) ( We find that application was properly submitted on the form provided by the director and included all the necessary information and the appropriate fee. Accordingly, we conclude that the application was properly accepted, and the standards of this section are met. Standard No. 49. "18.42 .020. Listing of Use Classifications." "(d) Industrial Use Types. Industrial use types include the on-site production of goods by methods not commercial, agricultural or extractive in nature. 210351 " (2) Heavy industrial . Refers to the: "A. Manufacturing of Finished Products. Refers to the manufacturing, processing or assembling of semi-finished or finished products from raw materials. "B. Wholesaling, Storage and Distribution: Heavy Refers to open-air storage distribution and handling of materials and equipment. Typical uses include monument or stone yards, or grain elevators. (TCDC S 18.42 .020(4) (2) . ) We find that the use proposed by the applicant is a listed use which comes under the heavy industrial classification. We find that applicant will manufacture concrete and asphalt products, which we find to be semi-finished products, from processed aggregate materials which will be delivered to the site by rail. Accordingly, we conclude that the use proposed by the applicant is a heavy industrial one which consists of manufacturing the products as set forth in the TCDC S 18.42.020(d)(2 ) . As we conclude that the use proposed by the applicant is a specific, identified use in the TCDC we find and conclude that y 18.43 of the TCDC, dealing with unlisted uses, is not applicable. -62- 210351 Standard No. 50- 1118.70. I-L (Light Industrial) . i (TCDC Chapter* 18.70 (summarized) . ) We find that Chapter 18.70 of the TCDC provides procedures and standards to be used when evaluating light industrial uses. We find that the applicant in this matter has requested a its property from light industrial change in the zoning of (I-L) to heavy industrial ( I-H) . We further find that the type of use which is proposed by the applicant is a heavy industrial manufacturing use as identified in the previous standard. We r find that heavy industrial manufacturing uses must meet the the ;.cavy industrial portion of the TCDC standards set forth in !` F: rather than the light industrial portion of the Code. Accordingly, we conclude that the standards under this section s- of the TCDC (light industrial) do not apply to the present s, application. E' Standard No. 51 . t "18.72 . I-H (Heavy Industrial) . i 1118.72 .020. Procedures and Approval Process. "A. A use permitted outright, S 18.72 .030, is a use which requires no approval under the provisions of this Code. . . ." (TCDC S 18.72 .020 (summarized) . ) We find that the use proposed by the applicant is a permitted use classified under S 18.72.030 of the i TCDC as follows: -63- 210351 "(3 ) Industrial Use Types. "(A) Manufacturing of Products. "( i) From raw material. " As discussed in Standard No. 49 above, we find that the applicant will be manufacturing concrete and asphalt from processed aggregate transported to the site by rail. Accordingly, we find and conclude that the applicant' s proposed use falls squarely within the definition of a manufacturing industrial use set forth in § 18.72.030(3 )(A) of the TCDC. Under the Code, the use proposed by the applicant is an outright permitted use, and we find and conclude that no approval is necessary under the provisions in this Code. We will, nonetheless, discuss several standards under the Code as, although they do not need to be addressed for the use the applicant has proposed, they are relevant to the zone change proposed by the applicant. Standard No. 52 . "18.72 .050. Dimensional Requirements. Dimensional requirements in the I-H district are as follows: "(1 ) There are no minimum lot open requirements. 81(2 ) The average minimum lot width shall be 50 feet ." (TCDC y 18.72 .050(1 ) and (2) . ) We find that the applicant' s site is 5.89 acres in size and that there is no minimum lot area requirement in a heavy industrial zone. We further find that the minimum lot -64- 210351 width is 140 feet and the maximum lot width is 400 feet. We find and conclude that the average minimum lot width is in excess of 50 feet. Accordingly we conclude that this standard is met. Standard No. 52 . "18.72 .050. Dimensional Requirements . Dimensional requirements in the I-H district are as follows: "(3) Except as otherwise provided in Chapter 18.96 and S 18.100.130, the minimum setback requirements are as follows: "(A) The front yard setbacks shall be 30 feet. "(B) On corner lots and through lots, setbacks shall be 20 feet on any street facing a street, however, the / provisions of Chapter 18.96 (VISUAL CLEARANCE) must be satisfied. "(C) No side yard setbacks shall be required except 50 feet shall be required where the I-H zone abuts a residential zoning district. "(D) No rear yard setbacks shall be required except 50 feet shall be required where the I-H zone abuts a residential zoning district. "(E) All building separations must meet all Uniform Building Code requirements. " (TCDC S 18.72.050(3 ) . ) We find that Chapter 18.96 addresses an additional yard setback requirement and exception which applies on specific identified streets. We find that S . W. 74th Avenue, the -65- 210351 closest street to applicant' s project, is not an identified street in S 18.96; therefore, the requirements of that section do not apply. We find that S 18.100.130 involves landscaping and screening and that requirements to that section are separately addressed under Standards No. 69 through 77. We incorporate herein by reference the analysis of these Standards. We find that the TCDC defines front yard as: "A yard extending across the full width of the lot, the depth of which is the minimum horizontal distance between the front lot line and a line parallel thereto at the nearest point of the main building. " (TCDC S 18.26 .030 ( "Yard, Front") . ) We further find the front lot line is defined in the Code as follows: "In the case of an interior lot, a property line which abuts the street; and in the case of a corner lot, the shortest of the two property lines which abut the street; except where the narrowest side of the lot ` is a minimum of 75 feet there may be a choice of frontage. " (TCDC S 18.26.030 ( "Lot Line, Front") . ) We find that the applicant' s property is unique in that it does not have a front yard as defined in the TCDC. The north and south property lines of the lot do not abut a public street, and the east and west property lines are separated from the nearest public street by a railroad right-of-way (Southern Pacific and Burlington Northern, respectively) . Location of the applicant' s site, by definition, prevents the existence oz a front yard because such a yard must be established in -66- 210351 e- relationship to an adjacent street. There is no street which abuts applicant' s property on any side; therefore, a front yard, as defined in the TCDC, does not exist. Accordingly, we conclude that the setback standard for front yards does not apply to this application. Similarly, we find that applicant' s site contains no corner lots or through lots, as those terms are defined in the TCDC, because there is no street which abuts the property on any side. We find, therefore, that the setback standards for such lots do not apply. We find and note that no yard setbacks are required in heavy industrial zones for side yards and rear yards; therefore, we conclude that the applicant' s site plan meets these standards. We find that the Uniform Building Code provisions concerning building separation have been considered by applicant' s engineers and will be met at the project. For all these reasons, we conclude that each part of this standard has been met. Standard No. 54 . "13.72 .050. Dimensional Requirements. Dimensional requirements in the I-H district are as follows: "(4) Except as otherwise provided in Chapter 18.98 (BUILDING HEIGHT LIMITATIONS) , no building in the I-H zoning district shall exceed 45 feet in heighth." (TCDC S 18.72 .050(4) . ) -67- 210351 We find that applicant has proposed a principal building height of 55 feet for the project. We further find that typically, principal building heits for such projects are much higher (up to 75 feet) . We find that additional fixtures may be placed on top of the principal structure, but in no case will total structure height exceed 70 feet. . We find that applicant has use engineered its projects to limit the height of its facility and thereby reduce any visual effects to adjoining properties. We find Chapter 18.98 of the TCDC provides exceptions to the 45 foot height limitation in an I-H zone for projections on buildings not used for human ! ' habitation. We find that y 18.98.010 of the TCDC provides: "Projections such as chimneys, spires, domes, elevator shaft housings, towers, excluding TV j dish, aerials, flag poles and other similar objects not used for human occupancy, are not subject to the building height of this Code." We find that the only portions of the applicant' s project which exceed the height limitations set forth within an I-H zone are certain portions of the conveyor systems, the silos for the asphalt batch plant and the concrete batch plant. We find that these structures are not used for human occupancy and cannot be used for human occupancy. We further find that these projections are similar in nature to elevator shaft housings; chimneys and towers; therefore, we find and conclude that applicant' s proposes building height at the site meets the requirements of this standard as modified by the building -68- 210351 68-210351 _ further find that S 18.98.020, and its associated approval Cstandards, do not apply to this application because that standard and its associated approval criteria apply to buildings designed for human occupancy in a nonresidential zone. We find that applicant' s buildings which exceed 45 feet are not designed for human occupancy. Accordingly, we conclude that the applicable standard is 18.98.010 for the applicant' s project. Standard No. 55 . "18.72.050. Dimensional Requirements. Dimensional requirements in the I-H district are as follows: 11(5 ) The maximum site coverage shall be 85 percent including buildings and impervious surfaces. "(6) The minimum landscaping requirement shall be 15 percent." (TCDC g 18.72.050(5 ) and (6) .) We find that applicant' s site plan, prepared by Smith & Monroe & Gray Engineering, Inc. , indicates extensive buffering around the entire perimeter of the project. We further find that the area immediately adjacent to the office building and parking lot is landscaped. We further find that the northern portion of the lot along the watercourse referred to as Ball Creek will be left in a natural state and not disturbed by the applicant' s operation. We find that the entire lot area is 5.26 acres and the landscaped areas of the -69- 210351 property constitute approximately 17 percent of the property. We conclude that the site coverage, including the buildings and impervious surfaces, is less than 85 percent of the site area, and the landscaping is in excess of 15 percent of the land area of the site. Accordingly, we conclude that this standard is met. Standard No. 56 . "18.80. PLANNED DEVELOPMENT. " (TCDC Chapter 18.80 (summarized) . ) We find that the applicant has not proposed phased development nor has the applicant requested that a planned development overlay be established on its site. Accordingly, we conclude that provisions of this chapter of the TCDC concerning planned development do not apply to this application. Standard No. 57 . "18.82 . HISTORIC OVERLAY DISTRICT." (TCDC Chapter 18.82 (summarized) . ) We find that there is no identified historic overlay district on or near applicant' s site. We further find that there are no historic or cultural areas on the site or near the site. Accordingly, we conclude that the standards of this chapter do not apply to the instant application. Standard No. 58. "18 .84. SENSITIVE LANDS ." (TCDC Chapter 18.84 (summarized) . ) We find that sensitive lands are defined in the TCDC as lands potentially unsuitable for development because of -70- C 210351 their location within the 100-year floodplain, or within natural drainageways, or on steep slopes, or on unstable ground. We find that the general purpose of the sensitive land standards in the TCDC is to prevent all but limited forms development within these four particular areas. The purpose of the limited prohibition of development is to implement the Federal Emergency Management Agency' s flood insurance program, to protect floodway elevation areas and to help preserve natural sensitive land. We further find, under § 18.84.015, that certain uses are permitted outright in areas which might be described as sensitive land. We find that these uses include public and private conservation areas for open space. We find that the applicant' s site is not located near or within the 100-year floodplain. We find that the 100-year floodplain is located in the Fanno Creek drainage to the west and is separated from the applicant' s site by S . W. 74th Avenue and by the Burlington Northern rail line. We further find that there are no steep slopes or unstable ground on the applicant' s property. We find that the land is gently sloping (average slope o the property does not exceed six percent) and contains stable soil types which do not present any technical problems for development. We find that the City of Tigard Flood Plain and Wetlands Map ( revised July 1984) indicates that the watercourse referred to as "Ball Creek" is located near the northern portion of the applicant' s property. We find that on -71- 210351 this map, the watercourse is labeled as "Drainageways & Wetlands" which distinguishes it from "Floodplains & Drainageways" and "siginificant wetlands" which are located near Fanno Creek to the west of the project. We find that the TCDC distinguishes between significant wetlands and ordinary wetlands, such as those found in the watercourse, in its development restrictions. Section 18.84.010(c) of the TCDC requires that development of the property adjacent to significant wetlands must be under the planned development section of the TCDC and requires a 25 foot setback. We find that such restrictions would apply to any development in the identified significant wetland corridor along Fanno Creek. However, we find that the watercourse referred to as "Ball Creek" does not contain significant wetlands, and the restrictions described above do r not apply. We further find that the watercourse is a natural drainageway, but that the applicant has committed to placing no development in the northern portion of the property adjacent to this natural drainageway. We find that the applicant is using the northern portion of the property as open space, and no portion of its operation will be located within the natural drainageway. We find that under y 18.84.015 of the TCDC private areas ( such as the north portion of the applicant' s site) which are designated as conservation areas for open space are outright permitted uses under the sensitive lands criteria. We find and conclude that the applicant will not place any -72- 210351 development on the northern portion of its property which might be located within the natural drainageway and will preserve that area for open space. Accordingly, we conclude that the applicant, to the extent any of its operation would affect sensitive lands, has proposed an outright permitted use for this sensitive lands area. We further conclude that a sensitive lands permit and the sensitive lands approval standards are not applicable to the Morse Bros. project. We further find that applicant has proposed no land form alterations which in any way could affect floodplain storage function and/or maintenance of zero-foot floodway or could result in any narrowing of the floodway boundary. We further find that applicant has proposed no development within the 100-year floodplain or within any floodway area. We i further find that there are no slopes on applicant' s site which are 25 percent or greater in slope or that are located on unstable ground. We find that applicant' s site plan indicates that no site disturbances will occur on the site to an extent greater than actually required for the proposed uses. We find that the northern portion of the applicant' s lot will be left as open space and will not be disturbed as part of the operation. We find that the combination of the gentle slope of the ground, the applicant' s drainage plan and the applicant' s drainage water skimmer/separator will prevent any erosion, stream sedimentation, ground instability or other adverse -73- 210351 C . on-site or off-site effects to the property. We find that the soil types at the site do not have a wet/high-water table, compressible organic characteristics, high shrink-swell capability or shallow depth to bedrock. We further find that no drainageway will be replaced or impaired; therefore, the ability of any drainageway to accommodate maximum flow will not be altered. We find that applicant will not disturb the natural vegetation on the north portion of its property and that the applicant' s landscaping plans indicate that other areas of the property not actually used in the operations of the site (particularly the landscape buffer areas) will be replanted and landscaped. We find that this plan for landscaping will prevent erosion. We further find that all 5.36 acres of applicant' s site is needed for the proposed ( operation and that there will be no partitioning or subdivision of the site. For all these reasons, we conclude that the sensitive lands criteria do not apply to the proposed application, and, even if they were deemed to apply, the sensitive land permit would issue because all the appropriate criteria are met. Standard No. 59 . "18.90. ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE STANDARDS. "18.90 .010. Purpose. The purpose of this Chapter is to apply the Federal and State environ- mental laws, rules and regulations to development within the City of Tigard. -74- '110351 i "18.90.020. General Provisions. ( "(a) In addition to the regulations adopted herein, each use, activity, or operation within the City of Tigard shall comply with the applicable State and Federal standards pertaining to noise, odor, and discharge of matter into the atmosphere, ground, sewer systems, or streams ." (TCDC S 18.90.010-020. ) As more fully discussed below in Standard No. 61 , we find that applicant' s project will meet all the applicable noise standards set forth in the TCDC and State and Federal regulations. As more fully set forth in Standard Nos. 62 and F 63 below, we find that the applicant' s operation will meet all applicable odor standards and standards applicable to discharge of matter into the atmosphere. We specifically incorporate by . f. reference discussion contained in those three standards. We further find that the applicant will not discharge any matter into the ground. We further find that applicant will connect ' with the Unified Sewerage Agency' s sewer line on the property for all the domestic sewage waste produced on the property. We find that no other items will be placed in thepublic sewer system. We further find that applicant has proposed a comprehensive drainage plan which incorporates a skimmer/ separator which will filter all water before it is discharged into drainageways . We find that this drainage system will prevent any regulated matter from entering the streams. For all these reasons, we conclude that this standard is met. I -75- 210351 1 i i i i i i i I Standard No. 60. Cr 1118.90. ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE STANDARDS. I i f i 1118.90.020. General Provisions. "(b) Prior to issuance of a building permit, the Director may require submission of evidence demonstrating compliance with State, Federal and local environmental regulations and receipt of necessary permits. Air Contaminant Discharge Permits (ACDP) or Indirect Source Construction Permits ( ISCP) . " (TCDC S 18.90.020(b) . ) We find that, as more fully set discussed below in 4 4 that we have been provided Standard Nos . 61 through 6 with , 4 ( evidence from a Professional Acoustical Engineer, evidence from f a Registered Professional Engineer (odor and air quality) and a � 6 Vibration Analysis from a geophysisist. We find that the reports of these experts demonstrate that all State, Federal and local environmental regulations will be met by the proposed project. We further find that applicant has agreed to obtain all necessary environmental permits for the operation of its project. For all these reasons, we conclude that this standard is met. We further conclude that the applicant has acknowledged its continuing obligation to remain in compliance with State, Federal and local environmental regulations. Accordingly, we conclude that the standards set forth in TCDC 9 18.90.020(c) is also met by the proposed application. -76- 210351 .r f Standard No. 61 . `. "18.90. ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE STANDARDS. 1118.90.030. Noise. The following additional restrictions are incorporated with the State Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) standards for the purposes of City noise regulations: 11(1) For purposes of measuring permitted sound levels from noise generating sources under the provisions of DEQ rules, any point where a noise sensitive building could be constructed under the provisions of this Code shall apply as if such point contained a noise sensitive building. "(2 ) Within the Industrial Park ( IP) zoning district, each property or building under separate ownership from a noise generating source shall be considered a noise sensitive property under the provisions of DEQ rules with the exception that the allowable noise levels may be increased by 5 db. "(3 ) The construction, including excavation, demolition, alteration or repair except where a special permit has been issued by the Director under the provisions of 18.90.020 of any building, other than between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m. , which involves any loud, disturbing, or unnecessary noise in the City, shall be deemed disorderly conduct and therefore unlawful . " (TCDC § 18.090.030. ) We find that the applicant' s noise analysis prepared by Professional Engineer (Acoustical) Kerrie Standlee has carefully analyzed the noise attributes to the proposed use. We find, as concluded by Mr. Standlee, that the proposed application will meet all State, Federal and local noise -77- 210351 i ( standards. We further find that Mr. Standlee applied the noise sensitive building and industrial park district noise standards which have been made additional restrictions by the City of Tigard, above and beyond the State Department of Environmental Quality standards for noise regulations. We further find that construction activities which involve loud, disturbing or unnecessary noises will be conducted between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m. Based on these findings, we conclude that the noise standard in the TCDC is met. Standard No. 62 . "18.90. ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE STANDARDS . "18.90.040. Visible Emissions. Within the Commercial Zoning Districts and Industrial Park Zoning District, there shall be no use, operation, or activity which results in a stack or other point source emission, other than an emission from space heating or the emission of pure uncombined water ( steam) which is visible from a property line. DEQ rules for visible emissions (340-12-015 and 340-28-070) apply. " (TCDC S 18.90.040. ) We find, as stated in the analysis of Professional Engineer Scott Freeburn, that the applicant' s operations on the site meet all DEQ rules for visible emissions. We further find that the City of Tigard prevents visible emissions only in commercial and industrial park zoning districts. We find that applicant has petitioned to charge its district from light industrial to heavy industrial; therefore, the additional -78- 210351 prohibition against visible emissions contained in the TCDC does not apply for this application. For these reasons, we find that this standard is met. Standard No. 63 . "18.90. ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE STANDARDS. 1118.90.050. Vibration. No vibration other than that caused by highway vehicles, trains and aircraft shall be permitted in any given zoning district which is discernible without instruments at the property line of the use concerned. " (TCDC y 18.90 .050. ) We find, as stated in the vibration analysis of Dr. Michael Feves, that no vibration other than those caused by highway vehicles or trains on the site will be discernible without instruments at the property line given reasonable design restrictions. Accordingly, we conclude that this standard is met. Standard No. 64 . 1118.90. ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE STANDARDS . "18.90.060. Odors. The emission of odorous gases or otter matter in such quantities as to be readily detectible at any point beyond the property line of the use creating the odors' is prohibited. DEQ rules for odors (340-028-090) apply." (TCDC S 18.90.060. ) We find that the applicant has proposed to install an advanced air recycling system on its asphalt batch plant. We find that this is a state-of-the-art improvement that sends -79- 210351 fugitive emissions back into the combustion chamber of the asphalt burner and greatly reduces the possibility of odorous emissions. We find that the applicant' s agreement to use this technology significantly reduces emission of odorous gases generally associated with an asphalt batch plant. We find that the threshold for human detectibility differs from the standard proposed in the TCDC which requires that odors be "readily detectible" beyond the property line of the site. We find that the readily detectible standard provides the applicant with some leeway in the emission of odorous gases, especially considering that applicant' s property is bordered on the east and west by railroad lines which, in their normal operations, produce detectible diesel emissions. We find, as concluded by Engineer Freeburn, that the proposed use will not produce odorous gases in such quantities as to be readily detectible beyond the property line. Accordingly, we conclude that this standard is met. Standard No. 65 . "18.90. ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE STANDARDS. "18.90.070. Glare and Heat. No direct or sky-reflected glare, whether from floodlights or from high temperature processes, such as combustion or welding or otherwise, which is visible at the lot line shall be permitted; and "(1) There shall be no emission or transmission of heat or heated air which is discernible at the lot line of the source. _80- 210351 "(2 ) These regulations shall not apply to signs or floodlights in parking areas or construction equipment at the time of construction or excavation work otherwise permitted by this Code." (TCDC S 18.90.070. ) We find that all lighting on the site will be directed toward the ground in such a manner as to eliminate light spill from the site. We find that the asphalt batch plant is a ther- mal process but that the glare from such process contained in the burner unit and the heat from the process and heated air will be contained within the structure which encloses the batch plant. As such, we find and conclude that no heated air or heat from the project will be discernible at the property line. Accordingly, we conclude that this standard is met. Standard No. 66 . "16.90. ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE STANDARDS . "18.90.080. Insects and Rodents. All materials including wastes will 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." (TCDC S 18.090.080. ) We find that the "raw materials" used in the applicant' s manufacturing process are processed aggregates and binding materials and that none of these materials are the type that attract or aid insects or rodents. We further find that trash materials produced by the employees at the site will be stored in enclosed waste containers and will be disposed through -81- C 210351 regular trash pickup. We further find that asphalt process oil will be contained in modern enclosures and enclosed with spill barriers so that it cannot escape into the environment. For all these reasons, we find and conclude that this standard is met. Standard No. 67 . "18.92 . DENSITY COMPUTATIONS . "18.94. MANUFACTURE/MOBILE HOME REGULATIONS." * x � (TCDC Chapters 18.92 and 18.94. (summarized) . ) We find that these standards apply to residential developments or manufactured mobile home developments, neither of which is proposed by the applicant. Accordingly, we conclude that these standards do not apply to the proposed application. Standard No. 68. "18.96. ADDITIONAL YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENTS . 1118.98. BUILDING HEIGHT LIMITATION, EXCEPTIONS." (TCDC Chapters 18.96 and 18.98 (summarized) . ) We find, as set forth in Standard No. 52 above, that additional yard setback standards are not applicable to this request. Similarly, we have previously discussed the -82- 210351 application of the building height limitation and exception provisions in Standard No. 52 above. We incorporate those aiscussions herein by reference. Accordingly, we find and conclude that, to the extent these standards are applicable, they have been met. Standard No. 69 . "18.100. LANDSCAPING AND SCREENING. "18.100.010. Purpose. "18.100.015. Applicability—Approval Process. " (TCDC SS 18.100.010 and 18 .100.015. (summarized) . ) We find that the applicant has proposed an extensive landscaping buffer around the exterior of the proposed site. We find that the elements of this buffer include trees and other native plants which are designed to separate the applicant' s use from adjoining properties. We further find that the applicant has agreed to retain the northern portion of the property near the established watercourse as open space. We further find that the applicant has submitted a site plan which includes all landscaping elements as set forth in TCDC y 18.100.015. We find that the applicant' s landscaping plan is designed to buffer and screen its use from adjoining uses to mitigate noise and lack: of privacy as well as define and -83- 210351 (� articulate space and specific uses at the site. We find that the provisions of TCDC S 18.100.010 and .015 provide guidelines for landscaping and are not intended to be mandatory approval standards. Nonetheless, we find and conclude that the applicant has complied with the letter and spirit of these guidelines. Standard No. 70. "18.100. LANDSCAPING AND SCREENING "18.100.02U. General Provisions. " (TCDC g 18.100.020. ( summarized) . ) We find that this section of the TCDC provides additional guidelines for the installation, maintenance and control of landscape and vegetation at the applicant' s site. We find that applicant has greed to comply with the provisions of the TCDC on the installation, maintenance and control of landscape and vegetation. We further find that our approval is conditioned in that no certificate of occupancy will be issued until applicant has installed landscaping in accordance with the provisions of the TCDC. In addition, we find that the applicant has agreed to protect as open space the existing plant materials on the northern portion of the site. We find that existing vegetation in other portions of the site is essentially scrub trees, grasses and berry bushes native to the Willamette Valley. We find that the scope of the use proposed -84- 210351 by the applicant on the southern portion of the property is tsuch that it is impossible to save and protect existing plant material. We further find that applicant' s property does not abut a roadway; therefore, applicant cannot plant vegetation in public right-of-ways. For all these reasons, we find that the general provisions of this section are met by the applicant. Standard No. 71 . "18.100. LANDSCAPING AND SCREENING "18.100.030. Street Trees . "18.100.035. Location of Street Trees. "18.100.040. Cut and Fill Around Existing Trees. "18.100.050. Replacement of Existing Trees . "18.100.060. Exemptions." (TCDC S 18.100.030-18.100.060. ) We find that these provisions of the TCDC control installation and location of street trees, set standards for use of existing trees as street trees and provide for replacement of street trees. However, we find that under TCDC -85- 210351 18.100.060, the Director can grant exemptions from street tree requirements on a case-by-case basis. We find that exemptions shall be granted if: "3 . If there is not adequate space in which to plant street trees." (TCDC S 18.100.060(b) (3) . ) e We find that as a general matter, street trees are required when a development fronts a street for more than 100 feet in z t length. However, we find that the site plan proposed by the applicant provides for an intensive use of the site for an ongoing operation which will move in large amounts of processed aggregates manufacture concrete and asphalt and send the finished R product off-site to users of the product. As such, we find ,; that the site plan provides a maximum amount of operating room on a relatively small parcel ( 5 .36 acres) . We find that the E truck corridors on the property are near the outside boundaries C of the property to allow for maximum aggregate storage and the central placement of the asphalt batch plant and concrete batch plant. We find that the placement of these corridors near the edges of the property leaves only a minimum amount of space for landscaping buffers. We find that this minimum amount of space will be used by the applicant for visual buffers and will not allow room for placement of street trees. Given these factors, we find and conclude that there is not adequate space in which to plant street trees; therefore, an exemption from the street tree requirement is appropriate in this case. -86- 210351 c I i i i Standard No. 72 . "18.100. LANDSCAPING AND SCREENING 1118.1U0.070. Buffering, Screening--General- Uses Prohibited in Buffered Areas. 1118.100.080. Buffering/Screening Requirements. 1118.100.130. Buffer Matrix." (TCDC §S 18.100.070-080; 18.100.130. ) We find that these provisions of the TCDC set forth the general requirements for buffering and screening. We find that the amount of screening and buffering required for any particular use is controlled by the buffer matrix set forth in TCDC S 18 .100 .130 . We find that the applicant' s site is r industrial land which is surrounded on the north, south and c, P east by land that is zoned light industrial. We find that the ' buffer matrix set forth in TCDC 18.100.130 indicates that 4 there is no buffer required between a light industrial zone (I-L) and a heavy industrial zone ( I-H) . Accordingly, we find and conclude that no buffering is required on the north, south or east of the applicant' s site. However, we find that E the applicant has voluntarily agreed to place extensive planting of various native species which will provide a visual f screen for the properties located to the north, south and east i -87- 210351 C i f . i of the site. With respect to the buffering on the west boundary of the applicant' s site, we Lind from examination of the official zoning map that it is difficult to determine the location of the boundary line between applicant' s proposed heavy industrial zone and the existing industrial park zone to the west. We find that the boundary line between the two zones appears to follow the center line of the Burlington Northern railroad tracks immediately to the west of applicant' s property. In conformance with TCDC 5 18.40.030(a) (1) , we find that as the boundary between the zones appears to follow the center line of the railroad tracks, it shall be construed to follow such center lines. Accordingly, we find and conclude that a portion of the Burlington Northern ownership immediately to the west of applicant' s parcel is contained in the light l industrial zone; therefore, applicant' s property is bounded on all sides by industrial property. Accordingly, in conformance with the buffering matrix in TCDC S 18.100.130, we find and conclude that no buffering is required on the west of applicant' s property. Nonetheless, we find and conclude that applicant has proposed a buffer on the west side of the prop- erty. As with the other borders of the property, we find that the applicant has agreed to install the buffering in confor- mance with TCDC S§ 18.100.070-08U. We further find that applicant' s installation of a chain-link fence qualifies as screening as it will be used in conjunction with evergreen -88- / 210351 plant material that is the same height or taller than the fence. For all these reasons, we conclude that the screening and buttering requirements of this standard are met. Standard No. 73 . "i8.100. LANDSCAPING AND SCREENING "18.100.090. Setbacks for Fences or Walls." (TCDC S 18.100.690. ) We find that applicant has proposed a six-foot chain-link fence in conjunction with the voluntary vegetation buffers which applicant has agreed to install. We find that fences to the height of six feet are permitted outright in side yards and rear yards. We further find, as discussed in Standard No. 52 above, the unique location of applicant' s site (separated from public roads and located between existing railroad lines) leads to the conclusion that there are no yards, front, rear or side, present on the side as defined in the TCDC. As previously stated, we find that there is no setback requirement for applicant' s site because there is no front yard as defined in the TCDC. Accordingly, we find that TCDC S 18 .100 .090(b) (4 ) allows applicant to build a six-foot fence in the front of its lot on the property line as no setback is required. In addition, we find that the type of use proposed by the applicant should be separated from adjoining uses by protective fencing. We make this finding based on the -i39- C 210351 activity, types of materials present and types of equipment Cpresent on the site. We find that to prevent potential harm to people entering the property, a fence is necessary. Accordingly, we find under TCDC S 18.100.090(a) that applicant may construct a six-foot fence on its property line in the front of the property which abuts Burlington Northern railroad. For all these reasons, we conclude that the standards of this section are met. Standard No. 74. 11113.100. LANDSCAPING AND SCREENING 1118.100.100. Height Restrictions." (TCDC S 18.100.100 (summarized) . ) We find that applicant has proposed a six-foot high fence which is measured from the finished grade and conclude that this standard is met. Standard No. 75 . "18.100. LANDSCAPING AND SCREENING "18.100.110. Screening, Special Provisions. "(a) Screening of Parking and Loading Areas." TCDC j 18.100.100(a) (summarized) . ) We find that this application approval is conditioned on applicant' s providing of landscaped screening for its office parking area in accordance with TCDC 18.10U.110(a) . We find _90- 210351 and conclude that this condition assures that provisions of this standard will be met. Standard No. 76 . 1118.100 LANDSCAPING AND SCREENING "18.100.110. Screening, Special Provisions. "(b) Screening of Service Facilities." (TCDC S 18.100 .110(b) (summarized ) . ) We find that the refuse containers for the proposed use, together with gas meters and other service facilities will not be visible from public streets or from any residential area or public facility. Nonetheless, we find that the applicant has agreed to enclose such facilities with a wooden fence between five and eight feet in height. We further find that our approval of this project is conditioned on the installation of such a fence. Accordingly, we find and conclude that this standard is met. Standard No. 77. "18 .100. LANDSCAPING AND SCREENING "18 .100 .120. Revegetation." (TCDC S 18.100.120 (summarized) . ) We find that this section provides standards for revegetation for areas disturbed during development activities. _ol_ ( 210351 i i We find that applicant has agreed to install extensive Clandscaping on the periphery of its site and around the office complex and parking structure. We find that applicant will save sufficient topsoil for these purposes and that the i applicant will revegetate according to the provisions of the i TCDC to insure that landscaped areas are established with the k 4 proper vegetation. We have conditioned our approval of this r. project on revegetation in the appropriate manner. For all these reasons, we conclude that this standard has been met. f` Standard No. 78. "18.102 . VISUAL CLEARANCE AREAS . * * * F "18.102 .015 . Applicability. "(a) The provisions of this Chapter shall apply to all development including the construction of new structures, remodeling of existing structures (TCDC S 18.120.020) and to a change of use which increases the on-site parking or loading requirements or which changes the access requirements. "(b) Where the provisions of Chapter 18.120, Sight Development Review do not apply, the Director shall approve, approve with conditions or deny a plan submitted under the provisions of this Chapter. No notice is required. The decision may be appealed as provided 18.32 .310(a) . "(c) The applicant shall submit a site plan which includes: "(1 ) The location and height of all j hedges, trees, plantings, fences or wall structures within the vision f -92- r` i 210351 i. t i r: i i clearance areas as computed in 18.102.030, 18.102 .040 and 18.102.050. "(2) The location of all access points, parking and circulation areas, loading areas and pedestrian walkways within the vision clearance as computed in 18.102 .030, 18.102.040 and 18.102.050. " (TCDC S 18.102 .015. ) We find the provisions of subparagraph (a) and (b) above are conflicting in that subparagraph (b) proports to exempt projects from visual clearance area standards of this section if Sight Development Review is required. As discusses in Standard No. 96 below, we find that site development review is required for this project; therefore, we would normally conclude that visual area standards are not applicable. However, we note that TCDC S 18.120.180 (Site Development Review Chapter) requires findings with respect to visual clearance areas. Accordingly, we will address the visual clearance standards at this point in the findings and incorporate the findings by reference into our discussion of the site development review standards. We further find that applicant has submittea a site plan which includes location and height of all vegeta- tion and structures within the vision clearance areas ( if applicable) as computed in this chapter and which shows the locational access points, parking and circulation areas, loading areas and pedestrian walkways within the vision clearance area ( if applicable) as calculated under this chapter. Accordingly, we find that this standard is met. -93- 210351 Standard No. 79 . �~ "18.102 VISUAL CLEARANCE AREAS "18.102 .020. Visual Clearance-Required. "(a) Except within the CBD zoning district, a visual clearance area shall be maintained on the corners of all property adjacent to the intersection of two streets, a street and a railroad, or a driveway providing access to a public or private street. "(b) A clear vision area shall contain no vehicle, no hedge, planting, fence, wall, structure or temporary or permanent structure (except for an occasional utility pole or tree) exceeding three feet in heighth, 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 that all branches below eight feet are removed. " (TCDC 5 18.102 .020. ) C We find that there is no intersection of two streets on any corner of the applicant' s property. We Lind that accessways on the applicant' s property intersect the Burlington Northern railroad in two places: the southern end of the property and near the northern end of the property. However, we find that these accessways are not on the corners of applicant' s property, which we find to be a prerequisite condition to the application of the visual clearance standards. We find that both accessway intersections are substantially removed from the corner of the property (approximately 75 feet on the northern accessway and approximately 25 feet on the -94- 210351 southern accessway) and, accordingly, the visual clearance standards, as computed under either 18.102.030 or 18.102.040 or 18.102.050 of the TCDC, do not apply to this application because there is no corner intersection for which visual clearance must be maintained. Accordingly, we conclude that this standard does not apply to the proposed application. Notwithstanding the nonapplicability of the standard, we find that; as set forth in the report of Traffic Engineer Lancaster which we specifically adopt, the trucks entering and exiting through the accessways have an adequate line of sight in both directions along both the Burlington Northern railroad line and S. W. 74th Avenue. We find that there are no trees, vegetation, walls or other obstructions exceeding three feet in height which would interfere with the vision of a truck driver entering or exiting either accessway. For all these reasons, we conclude that this standard is met. Standard No. 80. "18.104. FUEL TANK INSTALLATIONS. "18.104.040. Requirements. "(a) All stationary containers, tanks, equipment and aparatus used or intended to be used for the storage, handling, use or sale of flammable or combustible liquids for fuels shall be of an improved type as per the Uniform Fire Code. -95- 210351 "(c) Installation of all fuel tanks with capacities greater than 60 U .S . gallons shall be prohibited above-ground in all districts. "(d) Specific concerns of all tank placement on a site with respect to topographical conditions, barricades, walls, building exits, proximity to buildings or adjacent properties, tank construction and storage for Class I, II, and III liquids shall be addressed prior to the time of building code approval and site development review (where applicable) , and shall conform to All requirements of the Uniform Fire Code and the applicable fire district. "(e) All underground fuel containers and above-ground stationary fuel storage tanks may be installed in all districts provided: "(1 ) All fuel tank installations must be reviewed and approved by the City Building Inspector. "(2 ) Application for the necessary permits from the City Building Inspector shall be accompanied by a signed approved document from the applicable fire district." (TCDC S 18.104.040. ) As set forth in the purpose section of Chapter 18.104 of the TCDC, we find that the purpose of this section is to regulate the installation of fuel tanks within the City of Tigard. From the definition section, TCDC 18.104.020, we find that fuel is intended to mean kerosene or any hydrocarbon oils such as gasoline, diesel fuel or home heating fuel which conforms to nationally recognized standards and has sufficient volatility or relatively low flash point. We find that as part -96- 210351 of the asphalt batch plant operation, applicant will store asphalt process oil in above-ground tanks to feed its asphalt burner. We find that this oil is not the fuel supply for the burner, but rather a process material that is added to raw aggregate in order to form asphalt. We find that asphalt process oil is a thick, slightly viscose, tar-like substance that must be heated in order to flow for use in the batch plant process. We find that asphalt process oil is essentially a nonvolatile substance and has a high flash point and does not present any similar characteristics with fuel oil such as kerosene, gasoline or diesel. In conformance with the TCDC' s requirement that words be given their ordinary meaning (TCDC 13.26 .010) , we find and conclude that asphalt process oil is not a "fuel" as that term is generally understood or as that term is defined under TCDC S 18.104.020. We further find that applicant' s containers for asphalt process oil will comply with the Uniform Fire Code. We find that applicant has proposed no residential or home-heating fuel storage containers on the site. We further find that the asphalt process oil tanks are contained in a concrete spill barrier in the central portion of the property and that concerns of tank placement, topographical conditions, containment wall proximity to process buildings and adjacent property have all been addressee in the applicant' s site plan and interpreted materials. Based on all these facts, we find that applicant' s installation of an above-ground -97- 210351 i asphalt process tank is not an installation of a fuel tank and that the above-ground installation is proper in this situation. We further find applicant agreed to underground placement of any fuel tanks which might be used on the site (greater than 60 gallons) and conlude that all the requirements of this section nave been met. Standard No. 90. "18.106. OFF-STREET PARKING AND LOADING REQUIREMENTS. "18.106 .010 . Purpose. "113.106.015 . Applicability." (TCDC y 18.106 .010-015 ( summarized) . ) As with our discussion of visual clearance areas in Standard No. 70 above, we find that there is an apparent exemp- tion in TCDC § 18.106 .015 from the parking and loading require- ment if Site Development Review is required. However, consistent with our conclusion regarding visual clearance areas, we find that S 18.120.180 of the Site Development Review incorporates the off-street parking and loading requirements. Accordingly, we will address the standards which are applicable to the requested use. We find that applicant has submitted the site plan which includes all of the necessary information required in TCDC S 18.106.015(c) . We also find that the dimensions of the parking spaces proposed by the applicant meet -98- 210351 t the dimension requirements set forth in TCDC y 18.106.020. We further find that the applicant has agreed to maintain the off-street parking and loading spaces and that the applicant has agreed that the designated parking and loading areas will remain available for exclusive use as parking and loading areas. We further find that the off-street parking, which will serve the applicant' s use, is located within 200 feet of the office building where the employees will be located. Accordingly, we find that the locational requirements of TCDC 9 18.106.020(h) are met. We find that the applicant has agreea that the parking spaces will be available for employee parking only and will not be used for the parking of trucks which are used as part of the concrete and- asphalt manufacturing process. Accordingly, we find that the provisions of TCDC S 18.106 .020 concerning availability of parking spaces are met. We find as set forth in Standard No. 75 above, that parking lot landscaping will be in accordance with the requirements of Chapter 18.100. We find that the site plan indicates that one parking spot of proper dimension will be available for handicapped parking. We further find that a bicycle rack space is provided near the applicant' s office. As more fully discussed in other portions of Part IV, we find that any illumination of the parking area will be directed away from adjacent residential districts . In addition, we find that applicant has agreed that parking will be available at the time of final building inspection. In _99- 21U351 addition, we find that applicant' s site plan properly indicates where off-streetparking and loading will be located on the site. Accordingly, we conclude that the provisions of TCDC y 18.106 .010 directed at off-street parking and loading have been met by the proposed use. Standard No. 82 . "18.106 . OFF-STREET PARKING AND LOADING REQUIREMENTS. 'i "18.106 .030. Minimum Off-Street Parking Requirements. f E: "(d) Industrial Uses. "(1 ) Use Space `i Manufacturing, One space per production processing employee of and assembling the largest shift" f-' (TCDC y 18.106 .030(d) . ) We find that the use proposed by applicant is a listed industrial manufacturing use and, therefore, conclude that the parking requirements for unlisted uses (TCDC 9 18.106 .020(c) ) do not apply to the proposed use. We further find that applicant will have approximately eight employees at its largest shift. We find from the applicant' s site design that 10 parking spots have been reserved in the parking area. Accordingly, we conclude that the appropriate number of parking spaces, as _100- 210351 i i i i required under the TCDC, have been provided at applicant' s site. Accordingly, we conclude that this standard has been met. Standard No. 83 . 1118.106 . OFF-STREET PARKING AND LOADING REQUIREMENTS. "18.1U6.050. Parking Dimension Standards. " (TCDC 9 18.106.050 ( summarized) . ) we find that the applicant' s parking spaces are accessible from S . W. 74th Avenue by means of the transit corridors on applicant' s property. We find that these transit corridors are 30 feet in width and are a paved surface of 24 feet. We find that no sidewalks are necessary because the transit corridors do not abut dedicated public streets with sidewalks. We find that the applicant has proposed 10 parallel (90 degree) parking spots which are nine feet in width with a channel width of nine feet and an aisle width of 24 feet and have nine feet of curb length per stall. We find that appli- cant' s site plan indicates that parking spaces will be clearly marked and will be improved with asphalt surfaces to City specifications. We find that applicant has proposed appropriate wheel stops and that drainage from the parking lot as a portion of applicant' s drainage plan that will prevent ponding. We find that parking lot lighting, as with all lighting on the property, will be directed toward the ground and away from residences and nearby public streets. We find _101- 210351 r that the applicant has agreed that all signs on the property will be placed in conformance with Chapter 18.114 of the TCDC. We further find that applicant has agreed to maintain the parking lot in good repair. Accordingly, we conclude that all the criteria of this standard have been met. Standard No. 84 . "18.106. OFF-STREET PARKING AND LOADING REQUIREMENTS . "18.106 .060. Reservoir Areas Required for Drive-In Uses . "18.106.070. Loading/Unloading Driveways Required On-Site." (TCDC §y 18.106 .060-070 (summarized) . ) We find that applicant has proposed no commercial drive-in uses which would require any type of reservoir area. i We find that the applicant' s design for loading the finished product onto trucks will allow trucks to drive into the loading area, but we find that there is sufficient space for numerous trucks on the transit corridors inside the property and so reservoirs for inbound vehicles are not a problem. Further, we find that no passenger loading or unloading will occur on the site. Accordingly, we find that the provisions of these standards are met. -102- 210351 Standard No. 85 . "18.106 . OFF-STREET PARKING AND LOADING REQUIREMENTS . "18.106.080. Off--Street Loading Spaces. "(a) Buildings or structures to be built or altered which receive and distribute materials or merchandise by truck shall provide and maintain oft-street loading and maneuvering space as follows: "(1) Every Commercial or Industrial having floor area of 10,000 square feet or more, shall have at least one off- street loading space on-site. i; "(2) One additional space shall be provided for each additional 20,000 square feet or major fraction thereof. " (TCDC y 18.106.080. ) f We find that at a maximum, there are five structures which could be considered to have floor area that will be part of the applicant' s project. These include an office building approximately 65 feet by 35 reet ( 1,950 square feet) , an enclosed asphalt plant approximately 45 by 90 feet (4,050 r square feet) , asphalt process oil enclosure approximately 85 by 35 feet (2,975 square feet) , an asphalt loading facility r approximately 35 by 75 feet (2,625 square feet) and a concrete loading facility approximately 75 by 25 feet ( 1,875 square feet) . We find that, at a maximum, the total square feet of floor area associated with applicant' s project would be approximately 13,500 square feet. Under the provisions of the -103- 210351 i 1 . i Code, we find that applicant is required to have one off-street loading space (TCDC S 18.106 .080(a) (1 ) ) . We find that applicant has provided for a minimum of two off-street loading spaces, one for the concrete batch plant and one for the asphalt loading facility. Accordingly, we find that this standard has been met. Standard No. 86 . "18.106. OFF-STREET PARKING AND LOADING REQUIREMENTS . "18.106 .090. Off-Street Loading Dimensions. "(a) Each loading berth shall be approved by the City Engineer; as to design and location; "(b) Each loading space shall have sufficient area for turning and maneuvering of vehicles on the site; and "(1) At a minimum, the maneuvering length shall not be less that twice the overall length of the longest vehicle using the facility site. "(c) Entrances and exits for loading areas shall be provided at locations approved by the City Engineer in accordance with Chapter 18.108. "(d) Screening for off-street loading facilities is required and shall be the same as screening for parking lots in accordance with Chapter 18.100. " (TCDC y 18.106.090. ) We find that as a condition of approval, we have required that the City Engineer approve the off-street loading facilities and entrances and exits which are part of the applicant' s site plan. We find that applicant has proposed a -104- 210351 t circular traffic flow on its property which will not require Cany trucks to maneuver for loading purposes. We find that trucks may drive through both the concrete and asphalt batch plant loading areas, and because such loading areas are an integral part of the traffic flow pattern on the site, the overall room available for vehicles to maneuver is more than twice the length of the longest vehicles (60 feet) . We further find that entrances and exits for loading areas are part of the continuous flow traffic design on the site and do not present any congestion problems normally associated with "back-up" loading facilities. We find that the loading areas are enclosed, 4 and as such, they are screened in accordance with the screening provisions of TCDC S 18.100. We. further find that landscaped buffer along the eastern and western borders of the site ( effectively screen loading areas from S . W. 74th Avenue ana S. W. 72nd Avenue, the only public right-of-ways in the area. For all these reasons, we find that this standard is met. Standard No. 87 . 1-18.108. ACCESS, EGRESS AND CIRCULATION. "18.108.02U. Applicability and General Provisions. "18.108.025. Applicability." (TCDC S 18.108.020-025 ( summarized) . ) We find that applicant has agreed to maintain access and egress to the site on a continuing basis. We further find -105- �_ 210351 that the applicant has presented access, egress and circulation plans as part of its site plan. We further find as discussed in relationship to the Visual Clearance Areas (TCDC S 18.102) and the Off-Street Parking and Loading requirements (TCDC y 18.106) that Access, Egress and Circulation standards appear to exclude these standards when site development review is required. However, we note that the approval standards under site development review (TCDC S 18.120.180) refer to the criteria of the access and egress standard. Accordingly, we will consider these standards at this point in the findings and incorporate our conclusion in the site development review findings. We find that applicant has submitted a site plan which includes all the requirements of TCDC S 18.108.025(c) . Accordingly, we conclude that this standard is met. Standard No. 88. "18.108. ACCESS, EGRESS AND CIRCULATION. "18.108.040. Public Street Access. "(a) All vehicular access and egress as required in Section 18.108.070 and 18.108.080 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. "(c) Vehicular access shall be provided to commercial or industrial uses, and shall be located to within 50 feet of the primary ground floor entrances. " (TCDC S 18.108.040. ) -106- 210351 CWe find that the vehicular access and egress at applicant' s site connects directly with S . W. 74th Avenue which is a public street in the City of Tigard. We find that appli- cant has agreed to maintain this access on a continuing basis. We further find that vehicular access to within 50 feet of the office building on the site which is the primary ground floor entrance for employees. We also find that vehicular access is provided to within 50 feet of each of the other buildings on the site. For all these reasons, we conclude that this standard is met. Standard No. 89 . "18.108. ACCESS, EGRESS AND CIRCULATION. "18.108.050. Required Walkway Locations. "(a) Walkways shall extend from the ground floor entrances or from the ground floor landing of stairs of all commercial and industrial uses, ramps or elevators to the streets which provide the required access and egress. . . ." (TCDC S 18.108.050. ) We find that applicant' s site plans indicate that walkways lead from the structures on the site to the transit corridors which provide access and egress to the site. Accordingly, we find and conclude that this standard is met. i i i i -107- 210351 I ( Standard No. 90. 1118.108. ACCESS, EGRESS AND CIRCULATION. "18.108.060. Inadequate or Hazardous Access. "(a) Applications for building permits shall be referred to the Commission for review when, in the opinion of the Director, the access proposed: "(1 ) Would cause or increase the existing hazardous traffic conditions; or "(2) Would provide inadequate access for emergency vehicles; or "(3 ) Would in any other way cause hazardous conditions to exist which would constitute a clear and present danger to the public health, safety and general welfare. "(b) Individual access to arterial or collector streets as designated in the Tigard ( Comprehensive Plan Map: transportation element, from single family dwellings and duplex lots established after the effective date of this Code is (sic) shall be discouraged. Direct access to major collector or arterial streets shall be con- sidered only if there is no alternative way to provide access to the site. "(1 ) In no case shall design of the service drive or drives require or facilitate the backward movement or other maneuvering of a vehicle within a street, other than an alley. "(2) Service drives from multi-family dwellings shall be fully improved with hard surface pavement with a minimum width of: "(A) When accommodating two-way traffic, 24 feet; or -108- 210351 C i ,I f �I i "(B) When accommodating one-way traffic, 15 feet. " (TCDC 3 18.108.060.) We find that the applicant has provided a comprehensive traffic analysis prepared by Professional Engineer Tom Lancaster which addresses traffic and access considerations which accompany the use proposed by the applicant. We find that the report is comprehensive, directly addresses the issues contained under this standard and is persuasive. Accordingly, we adopt the summary in the Lancaster Traffic Report. Specifically, we find and conclude that applicant' s proposed access will not cause hazardous traffic conditions nor will it increase existing hazardous conditions. This conclusion is based on our finding that applicant has obtained a private crossing agreement across the Burlington Northern lines and will install the appropriate stop signs at private crossings as required by the Public Utility Commission in its regulations at OAR 860-42-120. This conclusion is further based on the fact that a truck approaching either the entrance or exit at applicant' s site has clear site distance in both directions down the Burlington Northern railway line and S. W. 74th Avenue. We find that this clear vision will allow trucks to safely cross the railroad tracks and enter onto S . W. 74th Avenue. We further find that the circular traffic flow that is part of applicant' s site design allows large industrial trucks to reach relevant portions of the property. We find and _109- 210351 conclude that these trucks are similar in size and maneuverability to emergency vehicles, such as fire trucks; therefore, adequate access is provided for emergency vehicles. We do not find any other hazardous condition nor has any hazardous condition been identified which would constitute a clear and present danger to public health and safety and general welfare that is created as a result of applicant' s project. We find that S . W. 74th Avenue is not an arterial or a collector street; therefore, access as proposed by the applicant is appropriate. We further find that the applicant' s circular traffic flow design allows vehicles to maneuver on the site without backward movement or other maneuvering on z public street. We find that the applicant' s internal traffic corridor will have a paved surface that is 24 feet in width. For allIF { 4' C these reasons, we conclude that the provisions of this standard are met. f' Standard No. 91 . f "18.108. ACCESS, EGRESS AND CIRCULATION. L E * * f 1118.108.080. Minimum Requirements--Commercial and Industrial Uses. Vehicle access, egress and circulation for coi:me tial and industrial uses . shall not be less than the following: d s i 210351 ! I ! Required Minimum No. Minimum Minimum (� Parking of Driveways Access Payment Spaces Required Width 0-99 1 30 Feet 24 feet; Curbs required 5-foot sidewalk one side only when abutting dedicated streets with sidewalks. "Additional requirements may be placed as conditions of Site Design Review for truck traffic. " (TCDC S 18.108.080. ) We find that the applicant' s proposed operation will employ approximately eight people; therefore, eight parking spots are required in an industrial zone. Accordingly, we find a minimum number of access driveways required on the site is one. We further find that the minimum access width should be 30 feet with the minimum pavement width of 24 feet. We find that the applicant has proposed two separate driveways, one for entering vehicles and one for exiting vehicles. We find that the minimum access width is 30 feet and that applicant has pro- posed to make the minimum pavement width 24 feet. We further find that S. W. 74th Avenue does not have sidewalks; therefore, sidewalks are not required on the applicant' s driveway. Because of applicant' s circular traffic flow design and conscientious effort to provide excellent sight distance for entering and exiting trucks, we find that no additional -111- 210351 requirements need to be placed on the site as conditions of Site Design Review. For all these reasons, we conclude that the provisions of this standard have been met. Standard No. 92 . 1118.108. ACCESS, EGRESS AND CIRCULATION. 1,18.108.090. Width and Location of Curb Cuts." (TCDC S 18.108.090. ) We address this standard in relationship to street and utility improvement standard at Standard No. 125 below. We incorporate that analysis by reference herein and conclude that this standard is met. Standard No. 93 . "18.108. ACCESS, EGRESS AND CIRCULATION. "18.108.100. One-Way Vehicular Access Points. " (TCDC 5 18.1U8 .100. ) We find that applicant has proposed a one-way traffic circulation pattern on the site. We find that applicant' s parking area is served by a specific driveway which provides access from the parking area to the adjacent truck corridor. We find that the site plan indicates that entrance to the parking area will be from the south (closest to oncoming traffic) , and the exit from the parking area will be on the north side of the driveway ( farthest away from oncoming traffic) . Accordingly, we find that this standard is met. -112- 210351 is 'r i f'. Standard No. 94. ;. "18.108. ACCESS, EGRESS AND CIRCULATION. r "18.108.110. Planning Director' s Authority to Restrict Access--Appeal Provisions. i. "(a) In order to provide for increased f traffic movement on congested streets and to eliminate turning movement problems, the Director or designee may restrict the location of driveways on the street and require the location of driveways be placed on adjacent streets upon the finding that the proposed access would: "(1) Cause or increase existing hazardous traffic conditions; or "(2) Provide inadequate access for emergency vehicles; or "(3) Cause hazardous conditions to exist which would constitute a clear and present danger to the public health, (r safety and general welfare." (TCDC S 18.108.110. ) a We have previously found and concluded that there will be no creation or increase of hazardous traffic conditions by the proposed use, there is adequate access for emergency vehicles and the proposed use creates no hazardous conditions which constitute a clear and present danger to the public health, safety and general welfare. We further find that the amount of traffic generated by the proposed use will not create congested q F streets and will not create turning movement problems associated 3 with the applicant' s accessway. Accordingly, we find and conclude that there is no need for the Director to restrict the -113- 210351 location of the driveways on the site. Accordingly, we conclude that this standard is not applicable to the proposed application. Standard No. 95 . "18.114. SIGNS ." (TCDC § 18.114 .010-150 (summarized) . ) We find that the applicant has proposed to install appropriate signs for its industrial use. We find that applicant' s plans indicate a single wall sign and a single free-standing multi-faced sign will be requested. As a condition to our approval, we have required that prior to erecting and constructing its signs, applicant will obtain a sign permit under the provisions of TCDC S 18.114. The condition we have i assigned to this approval requires applicant' s signs to meet C. all applicable restrictions and criteria set forth in TCDC Chapter 18.114 which apply to signs in industrial areas. We find that applicant' s sign application, when it is received by the City, will be reviewed under the standards of Chapter 18.114 and will be approved or denied based on its conformance with those standards. We further find that this condition prohibits construction of a sign which does not meet the applicable standards. Accordingly, we find that the provisions of Chapter 18.114 of the TCDC are not applicable to the proposed use at this time, but they will be fully applied when applicant applies for a sign permit. -114- 210351 Standard No. 96 . C 1118.120. SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW. 1118.120.020. Applicability of Provision. "18.120.030. Administration and Approval Process. " (TCDC S 18.120.020-030 (summarized) . ) We find that the provisions for site development review are applicable to this application as it does not fall within one of the exceptions provided in TCDC S 18 .120.020. We find that applicant is the authorized agent of the owner of the property and that a preapplication conference has taken place as required by this section. Accordingly, we conclude that the standards of this section are met. {. Standard No. 97 . "18.120. SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW. "18.120.050. Phased Development." (TCDC S 18.120.050 (summarized) . ) We find that applicant has proposed to build its entire project at one time; therefore, we conclude that the phase development standards are not applicable. Standard No. 98. "1$.120. SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW. -115- 210351 "18.120.060. Bonding and Assurances." (TCDC S 18.120.060 (summarized) . ) We find that no public improvements are required as a condition of our approval; accordingly, no bond is necessary to assure completion of any public improvement. We further find that landscaping shall be installed prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit; therefore, no landscaping bond is required. Finally, we find that applicant has agreed to obtain a City of Tigard business license prior to initiating its business on the premises. Accordingly, we conclude that all these standards are met. Standard No. 99 . "18.120. SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW. "18.120.070. Major Modification to Approved Plans . "18.120.080. Minor Modification(s) of a Site Development Review." (TCDC § 18.120.070-080 ( summarized) . ) We find that this is applicant' s first application and that no major or minor modifications to the development plan have been proposed. Accordingly, we conclude that these standards do not apply. Standard No. 10U. "18.120. SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW. -116- C 210351 "18.120.090. Application Submission Requirement. "18.120.110. Site Conditions. "18.120.120. The Site Development Plan. "18.120.130. Grading Plan. "18.120.140. Architectural Drawings. "1$.120.150. Landscape Plan. "18.120.160. Sign Draw.ings." (TCDC S 18.120.090-160 (summarized) . ) We find that applicant has submitted site diagram drawings and the appropriate fee as required by these policies. We find that the applicant' s site data and narrative discusses site conditions, site plan, grading plan, landscape plan, sign plan and restrictions on the property. We further find that the submitted drawings, including the site development plan, grading plan, architectural drawings and landscape plan, meet the requirements of the sections of the TCDC in the terms of specificity of information and information provided. We further find that the final sign drawings and sign plans have not been submitted as the applicant will apply in the future -117- 210351 l for the sign permit from the City of Tigard. Accordingly, we conclude that all these standards are met. Standard No. 101 . "18.120. SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW. "18.120.170. Exceptions to Standards." (TCDC y 18.120.170 (summarized) . ) We find that the applicant has not requested any exception to the standards, and, as discussed in Parts III and IV of these Findings, all applicable standards have been met. Accordingly, we find that this section does not apply to the proposed application. Standard No. 102. "18.120. SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW. "18.120.180. Approval Standard. "(a) The Director shall make a finding with respect to each of the following criteria when approving, approving with conditions or denying an application: 11(1 ) The provisions of the following Chapters: "(A) Chapter 18.92, Density Computation. "(B) Chapter 18.144, Accessory Uses and Structures. "(C) Chapter 18.96, Additional Yard Area Requirements. -118- C 210351 "(D) Chapter 18.98, Building Height Limitation, Exceptions. "(E) Chapter 18.1U0, Landscaping and Screening. "(F) Chapter 18.102, Visual Clearance Areas. "(G) Chapter 18.106, Off-Site Parking and Loading. "(H) Chapter 18.108, Access and Egress. "(I) Chapter 18.114, Signs. " (TCDC y 18.120.180(x) . ) In Parts III and IV of these Findings, we have made findings related to each of the chapters listed below with the exception of Chapter 18.92, Density Computation. The Density Computation chapter of the TCDC relates only to determining the number of dwelling units that may be permitted on a given piece of property. As no dwellings are proposed by the applicant' s use, we conclude that the density computation standards are not applicable. Standards under Accessory Uses and Structures are not applicable as no sccess or use is proposed. As previously discussed, we have conditioned applicant' s approval on applying for a sign permit which will meet all the applicable standards in Chapter 18.114 of the TCDC. Accordingly, we find that the sign standards are not applicable at this time. The remainder of the standards in the chapters listed in 18.120.180(a) have been individually discussed in Parts III and IV of these Findings. We incorporate by reference each of those findings -119- 210351 and conclusions herein as though fully set forth. Accordingly, we conclude that this standard is met. Standard No. 103. "18.120. SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW. "1g.i2U.180. Approval Standards. "(a) The Director shall make a finding with respect to each of the following cri- teria when approving, approving with con- ditions or denying an application: "(2) Relationship to the Natural and Physical Environment: "(A) Buildings shall be: " (i) Located to preserve existing trees, topography and natural drainage; Located in areas not subject to ground slumping or sliding; "(iii) Located to provide adequate distance between adjoining buildings for adequate light, air circulation and fire fighting; and "(i.v) Oriented with con- sideration for sun and wind. "(B) Trees having 6" caliper or greater shall be preserved or replaced by new plantings. " (TCDC g 18.120.180(x) (2 ) . ) -120- 210351 We find that there few, if any, existing trees of significant size on the property. We find that the property is primarily covered with grasses and scrub vegetation. We find that the natural drainage in the area is generally to the north and that applicant' s plan will preserve the northern section of the property for drainage and open space purposes. Existing topography of the area is relatively flat and will be preserved as a flat area for industrial use. We find that the far northern portion of the section dips to the watercourse generally referred to as "Ball Creek" and that this general area of the property will be preserved for open space. We find that the site is not located in any area subject to ground slumping or sliding and the slopes are extremely gentle (less than six percent) in the area. We find that the structures located on the site are industrial structures which must be located in relatively close proximity in order to facilitate the manufacturing process to be carried on at the site. We find that there are open spaces between each of the major structures on the site. We further find that the office area is surrounded by a landscaped island which separates it from the concrete batch plant and the asphalt loading area. We find that these openings between buildings are large enough to allow truck traffic to pass through easily and efficiently. Accordingly, we conclude that there is adequate light and air circulation present on the site. We find that the area is -121- 210351 designed with the large truck traffic in mind and that adequate room for fire fighting equipment is available on the site. We find that the applicant' s storage piles are arranged in dual rows which allows the piles to screen each other from sun and wind. We find that this will assist in keeping the aggregate moistened to reduce dust problems. We find that there are no identified significant trees on the site. We further find that, as a necessary part of the industrial development on the site, all the vegetation on the southern portion of the property must be removed. However, we find that applicant has agreed to voluntarily plant new trees around the perimeter of the site to j i provide buffering and screening. We find that these new plantings are of greater quality than the existing scrub on the site. For all these reasons, we conclude that this standard has been met. Standard No. 104. "18.12U. SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW. "113.120.180. Approval Standards. "(a) The Director shall make a finding with respect to each of the following criteria when approving, approving with conditions or denying an application: "(3 ) Exterior Elevations. (TCDC S 120.180(a) (3 ) (summarized) . ) -122- 210351 We find that the standards set forth in this section related to exterior elevations are directed only to single- family attached and multiple-family structures. Applicant has proposed no such structures, and we have concluded that this standards does not apply to the present application. Standard No. 105 . "18.120. SITE DEVELOPMENT. "18.120.180. Approval Standards. "(a) The Director shall make a finding with respect to each of the following criteria when approving, approving with conditions or denying an application: "(4) Buffering, Screening and Compatibility between adjoining uses. " (TCDC y 18.120.180(x) (4) (summarized. ) We find that the standards set forth in this section and the factors that must be considered when weighing buffering and screening options are equivalent to the standards set forth in TCDC Chapter 18.100 pertaining to landscaping and screening. We find that the exact same factors which must be considered in establishing a buffer under these standards ( i .e. , purpose of the buffer, size of the buffer required to achieve the purpose, etc. ) are the exact same factors that were considered by the City of Tigard in establishing the buffer standards in Chapter 18.100 -123- 210351 and the buffering matrix located in the TCDC at § 18.100.130. We have previously addressed this buffering issue and incorporate the analysis of Standard No. 72 herein as though fully set forth. We find that the applicant has voluntarily agreed to install an extensive system of buffers around the periphery of its property. In addition, we find that the applicant has enclosed conveyor belts, the asphalt batch plant and the concrete batch plant to provide noise buffers to surrounding uses. We further find that the site is located in an area that is surrounded on all sides by light industrial zoning and that, generally, buffering between heavy industrial zones and light industrial zones is riot appropriate. We find that the type of use proposed by the applicant does nothing to change our conclusion that buffers are not mandatory between heavy industrial and light industrial zones. The buffers proposed by the applicant, including vegetation buffers and enclosed buildings, are designed to decrease noise levels, absorb air pollution, reduce dust, provide visual barriers and separate the applicant' s project from adjoining uses. We find that the size of the buffers is appropriate as all the major functioning components of the operation will be enclosed in buildings. We find that these enclosures provide bufferings in all direction as does the establishment of buffering around the entire periphery of the site. We further find that applicant has agreed to place appropriate wood fences around its mechanical -124- 210351 (� devices, such as air conditioning and trash collection facilities. We further fina that the applicant' s parking lot is separated by landscaping in conformance with the standards of the TCDC. For all these reasons, we conclude that the requirements imposed by this Standard regarding buttering, screening and compatibility are fully met by the proposed application. Standard No. 106. "18.120. SITE DEVELOPMENT. "18.120.180. Approval Standards. "(a) The Director shall made a finding with respect to each of the following criteria when approving, approving with conditions or denying an application: "(5) Privacy and Noise. "(A) Structures which provide residential dwelling units shall provide private outdoor areas for each ground floor i unit which is screened from view by adjoining units as provided in 6(A) ; f f "(B) The building shall be oriented in a manner which j protects private spaces on adjoining properties from view and noise; "(C) Residential buildings shall be ! located on the portion of the site having the lowest noise level; and -125- 210351 I i "(D) On-site uses which create noise, lights or glare shall be buffered from adjoining residential uses (Section 18.120.180(x) (4) . ) " (TCDC 9 18.120.180(a) (5) . ) We find that no structures are proposed on the site which include residential dwellings. We find that there are no residential uses that directly adjoin the property as the property is entirely surrounded by land zoned for light industrial uses. We find that there are residential uses across Fanno Creek to the west. We find that applicant has proposed vegetation buffers which will assist in buffering noise effects and will also buffer light and glare. In addition, we find that the applicant has constructed enclosures for each of its mechanical operations which buffer the noise ( transmitted to adjoining uses. We find that the primary adjoining properties consist of two railroad lines (Burlington Northern on the west and Southern Pacific on the east) as well as industrial property (light industrial) on the north and south. We find that "private outdoor areas" are areas such as patios or porches. We find that there are no private outdoor areas directly to the east or west on either of the railroad properties. We further find that there are no such areas adjoining the property on the north or the south. Further, we find that there are no such private uses on adjoining lots as that term is defined in TCDC § 18.26 .03U. Accordingly, we find that this standard is met. -126- 210351 Standard No. 107 . "18.120. SITE DEVEVJPMENT REVIEW- "18.120.180. Approval Standards.. "(a) The Director shall mace ra finding with respect to each of the .following criteria when Annrrywi•na_ anprov-ima with conditions -rr--• ---a+ or denying an appllcatioma "(8) Demarcation of Plablic, Semi-Public t` and Private Spaces---CT1me Prevention; r "(A) The- structures and site �. improvem-encs shall be designed so that puiblic areas such as t streets or publitc gathering � cpleces, semi-prblic areas and private -outdoor .areas are : clearly defined im order to establish persons having a ;; right to be in the space, in F order to provide for crime f prevention and to establish r` maantena=e responsibility. " . (TCDC We find that the applicant has proposed to surround its entire site with a six-toot dhaim-link tenceo In additi:=, we find that the sole access to theproperty will be two crossings of the Burlington Northern raaar¢ad which will be clearly signed as private crossings.. We f3mm(& and conclude that these are sufficiently defined borders and mmoti.ce to people that they have no right to be in the space. A=..ordingly, we conclude that this standard related to crime prevention is met. -127- 210351 i! i f Standard No. 108. "18.120. SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW. "18.120.180. Approval Standards. "(a) The director shall make a finding with respect to each of the following criteria when approving, approving with conditions or denying an applicati n: "(9) Crime Prevention and Safety. " (TCDC S 18.120.180(a) (9) (summarized) . ) We find that these standards are primarily directed at residential uses in that they refer to interior laundry areas, mailboxes and surveillance of crime by "occupants. " We find that the applicant has proposed to construct a six-foot ( chain-link fence around the periphery of its property and install sufficient lighting, directed at the ground, to allow industrial operations. We find that these provisions by the applicant are sufficient to support crime prevention and safety given the industrial nature of the proposed use. Accordingly, we conclude that the residential crime prevention standard as set forth in this section is not applicable to the proposed use, but the applicant has takers sufficient steps to prevent crime and to promote safety. Accordingly, we conclude that this standard is met. -128- 210351 E i i i Standard No. 109 . 1118.120. SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW. 1118.120.180. Approval_ Standards. "(a) The Director shall make a finding with respect to each of the following criteria when approving, approving with conditions or denying an application: f r i r "(10) Access and Circulation." (TCDC § 18.120.180(a) (10) (summarized) . ) We find that the access circulation standards set s forth in this section ( i .e. , allowable access points and r k emergency vehicle accommodation) have been fully discussed in Standard Nos. 87 through 94 above. We incorporate that discussion, including the findings and conclusions, as though fully set forth herein. We further find that there are no i bicycle ways as shown on applicant' s adopted plan. We find that the closest bicycle way shown on the Tigard Comprehensive I i Plan is in the Fanno Creek drainage several hundred feet to the west. Accordingly, we conclude that the pedestrian and bicycle provisions are not applicable. We further conclude that this 4 standard has been met. Standard No. 110. ' 18.120. SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW. -129- 210351 -_ .. ---- - - - -- "18.120.180. Approval Standards. "(a) The Director shall make a finding with respect to each of the following criteria when approving, approving with conditions or denying an application: "(11 ) Public Transit. " (TCDC S 18.120.180(a) (11 ) (summarized) . ) We find that the closest transit route to the proposed site is S . W. 72nd Avenue to the east. We find that no transit service is available on S . W. 74th Avenue which is the closest road to the applicant' s proposal. Because the development is not adjacent to any existent or proposed transit route, we conclude that transit considerations do not apply to this application. Standard No. 111 . C "18.120. SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW. "18.120.180. Approval Standards. "(a) The Director shall make a finding with respect to each of the following criteria when approving, approving with conditions or denying an application: "(12 ) Parking: "(A) All parking and loading areas shall be designed in accordance with the requirements set forth in Sections 18.106.050 and -130- 210351 18.106.090 Chapters 18.102 (VISUAL CLEARANCE) and 18.108 (ACCESS, EGRESS AND CIRCULATION) . " (TCDC S 18.120.180(x) (12) . ) We rind that the parking and loading requirements together with visual clearance and access, egress and cir- culation requirements have been previou3ly discussed in Part IV of these Findings. We adopt that discussion herein by reference, and based on that discussion, we conclude that the standard is met. Standard No. 112 . "18.120. SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW. "18.120.180. Approval Standards. "(a) The Director shall make a finding with respect to each of the following criteria when approving, approving with conditions or denying an application: "(13) Landscaping: "(A) All landscaping shall be designed in accordance with the requirements set forth in Section 18.100. "(C) Non-residential uses. A minimum of 15 percent of the gross site area shall be landscaped. " (TCDC S 18.120.180(a) (13) (summarized) . ) -131- 210351 C We find that landscaping considerations under Chapter 18.100 have been previously discussed in Part IN' i of these Findings. We further find that more than 15 percent of the gross site area will be landscaped. We adopt the pre- vious discussions of the landscaping issues by reference and conclude that this standard is met. Standard No. 113 . "18.120. SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW. "18.120.180. Approval Standards. "(a) The Director shall make a finding with respect to each of the following criteria when approving, approving with conditions or denying an application: ( "(14) Drainage: All drainage plans shall be designed in accordance with the criteria in the adopted 1981 Master Drainage Plan (see Chapter 18.110) . " (TCDC S 18.12U:180(a) (14) . ) We find that applicant' s drainage plan routes drainage water along transit corridors toward existing watercourse north of the project. We further find that prior to entering the watercourse, water will be processed through a separator/skimmer which will remove any fugitive materials. We find that the drainage plan proposed by the applicant is sufficient to prevent pooling and ponding on the site. We further find that the applicant' s preservation of the northern portion of the -132- 210351 property will protect the watercourse' s ability to accept drainage generated from the facility. For all these reasons, we conclude that this standard is met. Standard No. 114. "18.120. SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW. "18.120.180. Approval Standards. "(a) The Director shall make a finding with respect to each of the following criteria when approving, approving with conditions or denying an application: 11(15) Provision for the Handicapped: All facilities for the Handicapped shall be designed in accordance with the requirement set forth in ORS Chapter 487 .915-925 ." r (TCDC S 18.120.180(x) (15) . ) We find that the site is an industrial site not open to the general public, and, accordingly, a handicapped facility is not required under the ORS provisions cited in the code which applies only to public buildings. We find that the applicant has proposed a handicapped parking spot which will be constructed in accordance with the provisions of the TCDC Chapter 18.106. Accordingly, we conclude that this standard is met. Standard No. ii5 . "18.120. SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW. -133- 210351 18.120.180. Approval Standaras. "(a) The Director shall make a finding with respect to each of the following criteria when approving, approving with conditions or denying an application: "(16 ) Signs: All sign placement and construction shall be designed in accordance with the requ rpments set forth in Chapter 18.14 of this Code. " (TCDC 5 18.120.180(a) (16) . As previously discussed in Part IV, we find that our approval of this project is conditioned on applicant' s future application for a sign permit. We further find that the condition requires any sign permit application to meet all the standards of Chapter 18.114 of the TCDC. Accordingly, we conclude that if a sign is constructed on the site, it will be designed in accordance with the Code, and we conclude that this standard is met. "18.150. TREE REMOVAL." We find that a preliminary survey does not identify any trees on the site which are greater than six inches in diameter as measured four feet above the ground. During development, if any tree is found on the southern portion of the lot, we find that it must be removed in order for the site to accommodate the industrial use proposed. We find that as a condition of approval, we have required the applicant to obtain a tree removal permit prior to moving any such tree. Accordingly, we find that this standard is met. -134- 210351 (� Standard No. 118. ` "18.164. STREET AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENT STANDARDS. 1118.164.020. General Provisions. 1118.164.030. Streets. (TCDC S 18.164.020-030( summarized) . ) As set forth in the remainder of Part IV analyzing Chapter 18.164, Street and Utility Improvement Standards, we find that all construction on the site shall take place in accordance with the standards of the TCDC. We incorporate the analysis of each subsection of Chapter 18.164 herein by reference. We find that applicant' s improvement plan for the i site will commence with improving the site surface by grading. We find that after the surfaces are improved by grading, vehicle access will be allowed on the site. We find that access proposed development will be via private railroad crossings which provide appropriate access from S . W. 74th Avenue for the uses at the site. We find that the transit corridors on the project will be developed to a 30 foot width and a 24 foot paved surface as required under the provisions of TCDC 18.108.080) . We find that there are no streets adjacent to the proposed development; therefore, no street improvement is required under the Code. We find that no new -135- 210351 i 11 lim i�� is, i J 1111111 IN III 11� (� streets are necessary or planned as a result of the proposed activity. For all these reasons, we find and conclude that the standards of TCDC SS 18.164.020 and 18.164.030(a) are met by this application. Standard No. 119. '18.164. STREET AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENT STANDARDS . "18.164.030. Streets. "(b) Creation of Rights-of way for Streets and Related Purposes." (TCDC S 18.164.030(b)(summarized. ) We find that this standard revers to situations where a residential subdivision or industrial subdivision would create additional new lots, and the new rights-of-way or the new streets that would be necessary to reach those lots would be created as a result of a subdivision or partition. We find } that no new lots will be created by the proposed use, and we further find that no rights-of-way to gain access to this proposed use will be created through the approval of any final subdivision plat or a major partition. We further find that establishment of a public street is unnecessary for the proposed development as the applicant' s on-site transit corridor provides ample circulation for the private use proposed. We find that the proposed site does not abut any public road and is, in fact, separated from the closest public -136- 210351 E i i x r road, S . W. 74th Avenue, by the Burlington Northern railroad line. Accordingly,g y, we find that applicant has no control over rights-of-way on S . W. 74th Avenue, and the City cannot request any type of dedication related to that street. Accordingly, we conclude that the provisions of this standard, 18.164.030(b) , do not apply to the proposed application. Standard No. 120. "18.164. STREET AND UTILITY IMRPOVEMENT STANDARDS. "18.164.030. Streets. "(c) Creation of Access Easements . The approval authority may approve an access easement established by deed without full compliance with this Code provided such an easement is the only reason by which a lot large enough { to develop can develop. "(1) Access easements shall not exceed 100 feet unless approved by the Commission through the Planned Development Process . "(2 ) Access shall be in accordance with Section 18.108.070 and 18.108.080. " (TCDC S 18.164.030(c) . ) We find that the applicant will provide access to his site through a private crossing agreement with Burlington Northern railroad. We find that no deed is necessary to establish this access easement and that a contractual agreement between the railroad and the applicant is sufficient. We -137- 210351 further find that such a contractual agreement is not prohibited by this standard nor is a deeded access easement required by this standard. We find that the access easements cross only the Burlington Northern right-of-way and are significantly less than 100 feet in length. We find that the ® access established by the applicant meets the standards set forth in TCDC S 18.108.080 in that the accessways are 30 feet in width with a 24 foot paved surface. Based on these facts, we find and conclude that this standard is met. Standard No. 121 . "18.164. STREET AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENT STANDARDS . "18.164.030. Streets . "(d) Street Location, Width and Grade. "(e) Minimum Right-Of-Way and Street Widths. "( f) Future Extensions of Streets and Reserve Strips. "(g) Street Alignment." (TCDC S 18.164.U3U(d) through (g) (summarized) . ) We in that these street standards in Chapter 18.164 refer to the creation ( i .e. , location and installation) of new public streets in the City of Tigard. We find that these -138- 210351 standards set forth locational criteria and minimum right-of-way Cand street widths for such new streets that may be created as a result of development. In addition, we find that these standards control future extensions and alignments of new public streets that are created as a result of a given development. .7find +-rat the proposed use will create no new public Vve streets. We find that internal transit corridors not open to blished and private access easements the public will be esta across the Burlington Northern railroad will provide access to the site. We find that access from the site will be to an i. existing public street, S . W. 74th Avenue. Accordingly, we �. find and conclude that these standards directed toward the i creation of new public streets do not apply to the instant application. Standard No. 122 . "18.164. STREET AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENT STANDARDS . 1118.164.O3U. Streets. "(h) Intersection Angles." (TCDC y 18.164.03O(h) (summarized) . ) We find that this standard applies to an intersection that is created by the creation of new public streets as a result of development. As we have found and concluded in Standard No. 121 above, applicant has proposed to create no new public streets -139- 210351 and, therefore, will not create any intersection of public streets which require intersection angle standards to be applied. Accordingly, we conclude that this standard does not apply to the application. We note, however, that applicant' s private accessways intersect S . W 74th Avenue at a right angle and each have 25 feet of tangent adjacent to the intersection. ® t Standard No. 123 4 "18.164. STREET AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENT STANDARDS . . i. "18.164.030. Streets . i' "(i) Existing Rights-of-Way. Whenever existing rights-of-way adjacent to or within a tract are of less than standard width, additional right-of-way shall be provided at the time of subdivision or development. " (TCDC y 18.164.030( i ) . ) We find that there are no existing public street rights-of-way within the applicant' s site. We further find that there are no existing public street rights-of-way adjacent to the applicant' s site. We find that this is because of the unique location of the site between the Burlington Northern and the Southern Pacific railroad lines. Because there are no rights-of-way present, we find that the issue regarding the standard width of the right-of-way cannot and does not arise i with this application. We conclude that this standard does not apply to the present application. -140- ! 1 210351 I i s ti z i Standard No. 124. "18.164. STREET AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENT STANDARDS . * * * 1118.164.030. Streets. * * * "( j ) Half Street Improvements on Existing ® Rights-of-T.Iay . "(k) Culs-de-sac. * * * t "(1) Street Names. k' f "(m) Grades and Curves." (TCDC 18.164.030( j) ' through (m) (summarized) . ) r We find that no new public streets are being created r by the development; therefore, no new street names are necessary. C- We find that no cul-de-sac is proposed to be created as a result of this development. As set forth above in Part IV of f these findings, we find that no new public streets are being j created; therefore, grade and curve standards for new public i streets do not apply to the proposed application. We find that the application is not adjacent to any public street; therefore., no improvements are warranted by the application. Accordingly, we find that half street improvement standards do not apply to the proposed application. For all these reasons, we find and conclude that these portions of TCDC street standards do not apply to the proposed application. -141- 210351 f Standard No. 125 . "18.164. STREET AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENT STANDARDS. 1118.164.030. Streets. "(n) Curbs, Curb-Cuts, Ramps and Driveway RpprVa4aa 1.G- . tmrnr s IA . ltia _nantnI _ v We find that there is no existing sidewalk on S. W. 74th Avenue. We find that in conformance with TCDC i y 18.108.080, sidewalks are required only when abutting dedicated streets with sidewalks. We conclude that no sidewalks i j are planned and that an asphalt approach may be constructed with City Engineer approval. We find that the approval is conditioned on the asphalt driveway approach to the property being built to City standards. Based on these facts, we conclude that this Standard has been met. Standard No. 126 . "18.164. STREET AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENT STANDARDS . t k "18.640.030. Streets. i "(o) Streets Adjacent to Railroad Right-of-Way. Wherever the proposed development contains ! or is adjacent to a railroad right-of-way, provisions shall be made for a street J approximately parallel to and on each side j of such right-of-way at a distance suitable ! for the appropriate use of the land; and i -142- 220351 s "(1 ) The distance shall be determined with due consideration of cross streets or the minimum distance required to approach grades and to provide suf- ficient depth to allow screen planting along the railroad right-of- way in non-industrial areas. " (TCDC y 18.164.030(0) . ) We Lind that a public street runs parallel to and ®" west of the Burlington Northern and Southern Pacific railroad lines. We find that S . W. 72nd Avenue runs approximately parallel to and east of the Southern Pacific and Burlington Northern railroad lines. We find that this standard requires us to make provisions for a street to follow along a railroad right-of-way and allows us to determine at what distance the street should be located from the right-of-way. We find that in this particular instance unique circumstances dictate that the appropriate distance for streets on each side of the two railroad tracks at this particular site is the distance between S. W. 74th Avenue on the west and S . W. 72nd Avenue on the east. We find that applicant' s parcel is a triangularly shaped portion consisting of four tax lots in solitary ownership. We find that the Burlington Northern railroad and the Southern Pacific railroad come together a short distance to the north of applicant' s property. We rind that Tax Lot 400 to the north of applicant' s property is occupied by Harrington Industrial Plastics, Inc . and that Harrington Plastics has existing access to the north of its building. We find that Harrington -143- 220351 does not need existing access from the south. We find that to the south of applicant' s property is Consolidated Supply Company and a parcel of undeveloped light industrial land. We find that Consolidated Supply Company and the vacant land are presently served by existing access via S. W. Kable Lane to the east of the Burlington Northern line. We find that all of the parcels to the east of the Southern Pacific line have access via S . W. 72nd Avenue. In short, we find and conclude that no parcels need access via a public roadway running along either the eastern side of the Burlington Northern line or the western side of the Southern Pacific line as those two lines abut applicant' s property. All existing properties in the area have sufficient and adequate access provided by S . W. 74th Avenue, S . W. 72nd Avenue or S . W. Kable Lane. Accordingly, we find and conclude that S . W. 74th Avenue and S . W. 72nd Avenue are streets that are approximately parallel to the two railroad lines and provide access on either side of the two railroad lines. Accordingly, we conclude that this standard is met. Standard No. 127 . "18.164. STREET AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENT STANDARDS . "18.164.030. Streets. "(p) Access to Arterials. -144- 220351 "(q) Alleys (Public or Private) . "(r) Survey Monuments. "(s) Private Streets. " (TCDC S 18.164.030(p) through (s) (summarized) . ) ® V' find �� , 1 c-an ' s s.rte does ~ 1 t L1 a.aacty 4pp-�"..... ..o�. na/u a, any PI.ILl ll, street and that the closest public street, S . W. 74th Avenue, is not an arterial. Accordingly, we conclude that the standards set forth in the Access to Arterials section are not applicable to this proposed use. We find that an alley is a vehicular service access to the backside of a property and find that no alleys exist at the proposed site. Accordingly, we conclude that the alley standards do not apply to this application. We find that our approval is conditioned upon the applicant reestablishing any survey monument that might be displaced during the construction of its private accessways. Accordingly, we find that the survey monument standard is met by this application. Finally, we find that the Private Streets standard of TCDC S 18.164.030(s) applies only to planned developments and mobile home parks. Applicant has not proposed either of these two uses, and we conclude that this standard does not apply. -145- 220351 Standard No. 128. "18.164. STREET AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENT STANDARDS . 1118.164.030. Streets. "(t) Railroad Crossings . Where an adjacent development resul%s ii. a need to install or improve a railroad crossing, the cost for such improvements may be a condition of development approval or other equitable means of cost distribution shall be determined by the Public Works Director and appoved by the Commission. " (TCDC S 18.164.030(t) . ) We find that the applicant' s access to the site is by virtue of a private crossing agreement. We find that cost for the crossings will be allocated between the parties to that agreement in conformance with their contract and that the City of Tigard will have no expense related to the crossings. Accordingly, we determine that this standard is met. Standard No. 129 . "18.164. STREET AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENT STANDARDS. "18.164.030. Streets. "(u) Street Signs . "(v) Mailboxes . -146- 220351 "(w) Traffic Signals. "(x) Street Light Standards. "(y) Street Name Signs. "(z) Street Cross-Sections. " (TCDC S 18.164.030(u) through (z) (summarized) . ) We find that there are no new streets that will be created by the proposed application. We further find that applicant has agreed to bear the costs of any stop signs or street name signs that are required as a result of the develop- ment. Accordingly, we conclude that the street sign standard is met. We find that the mailbox standards refer only to joint mailboxes for residential developments. No residential development is proposed, and we conclude that this standard does not apply. With respect to the traffic signal standards, we find that there is no proposed street intersection related to the applicant' s use. We further find that the applicant' s traffic engineer has indicated that traffic signals are not necessary as a result of the traffic to be generated by the applicant' s use. Accordingly, we find and conclude that no traffic signals must be installed as a result of the development; therefore, the trafric signal standard is met. We find that applicant' s use does not create any new public street -147- 220351 or any intersection of public streets. We find that the applicant' s site will be lighted in accordance with the TCDC with internal lights. We find that applicant' s development does not abut S . W. 74th Avenue; therefore, applicant has no responsibility to install street lights along that public street. Accordingly, We conclude that the street light standard is met. We find that no new public streets will be created; therefore, the street name sign standard is not applicable to this application. Finally, we find that all applicant' s internal transit development is in the form of truck corridors ana accesssways on applicant' s property. We find that the street cross section standards are design standards i i for public streets. Accordingly, we find that these standards ' are not applicable to the proposed use. Standard No. 130 . "18.164. STREET AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENT STANDARDS . "18.164.040. Blocks. " (TCDC S 18.164.040(summarized) . ) We find that this standard is designed to guide the creation of street grids by setting- standards for block design ?; when new streets are created as a result of residential or com- mercial development. We find that no streets or grid design is possible given the particular use applicant has proposed. We further find that no public streets will be created by -148- 220351 i i 1 ! I applicant' s proposed use and that the presence of railroad tracks on either side of applicant' s property prevents the presence of City blocks. For all these reasons, we conclude that this standard does not apply. Standard No. 131 . "18.164 STREET AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENT STANDARDS . "18.164.050. Easements. "(a) Easements. Easements for sewers, drainage, water mains, electric lines, or other public utilities shall be either dedicated or provided for in the deed restrictions; and "(1 ) Where a development is traversed by a watercourse, or drainage way, there shall be provided a storm water ease- ment or drainage right-of-way con- ' forming substantially with the lines of the watercourse, and such further width management purposes (sic) . "(b) Utility Easements. A property owner proposing a development shall make arrangements with the City, the applicable district and each utility franchise for the provision and dedication of utility ease- ments necessary to provide full services to the development. "(1 ) The City' s standard width for s public main line utility easements i shall be 15 feet unless otherwise specified by the utility company, applicable district, or City i Engineer. "(2) where feasible utility easements shall be all on one lot. " (TCDC S 18.164.050. ) -149- 220351 149-220351 F { E We find that the property is served by Unified Sewerage Agency sewers, Tigard Water District water mains and other utilities . We find that the applicant has committed that it will dedicate the necessary easements for all the utilities on the property. We find that the watercourse commonly referred to as "Ball Creek" is present on or adjacent to the very northern portion of applicant' s property. We find that the applicant has voluntarily designed its facility so that the space near the watercourse will be left as open space. We find that applicant has indicated its willingness to dedicate a drainage right-of-way, if necessary. We find that as part of the applicant' s operation, it will make necessary arrangements with the applicable utility providers to obtain necessary utilities. We further find that applicant has agreed to dedicate utility easements, if necessary. We find that because the applicant' s site consists of four tax lots, it may not be feasible for all utility easements to be located on one lot. We find that applicant has agreed to develop easements on one lot if possible, but we find that, under the TCDC, it is not mandatory that utilities be on one lot. Accordingly, we find that applicant' s best efforts to locate the easements on the lot meets this standard. For all these reasons, we conclude that the provisions of this standard are met. -150- 220351 Standard No. 132 . "18.164. STREET AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENT STANDARDS. "18.164.060. Lots. "18.164.070. Sidewalks." (TCDC SS 18.164.060- (summarized) . ) We find that the provisions of these standards related to lot shapes and sizes and sidewalk installation and maintenance are intended to apply only when new lots are being created or new streets are being constructed which require the installation of sidewalks. We find that the lot shape, size, frontage and other restrictions can logically apply only when new lots are being created from a larger parcel. (. We Lind that the applicant site is an existing parcel and that the applicant cannot feasibly control the shape, size or frontage of that lot because the applicant is not creating a new lot. We further find that under dimensional requirements of the industrial zone (TCDC S 18.72.050) , there is no minimum lot area requirement, and applicant has met the average minimum lot width. Accordingly, we find and conclude that the provisions of the TCDC S 18.164.060 do not apply to this application but would be met in the event they were deemed to apply. Similarly, we find that sidewalk requirements come into play only where new street construction requires that sidewalks -151- 220351 be built. We find that under the Access, Egress and Circulation standards found in TCDC S 18.108.080, sidewalks are required in an industrial zone (where less than 100 parking spots are required) only when abutting dedicated streets with sidewalks. We find that applicant is not proposing any new public streets, and applicant' s accessways are accessing S. W. 74th Avenue which does not have sidewalks. We further find that applicant' s property is not adjacent to S. W. 74th Avenue, and as previously stated, we find and conclude that under the TCDC, applicant has no responsibility to improve nonadjacent streets. For all these reasons, we find that the provisions of TCDC S 18.164.070 (sidewalks standards) do not apply to the instant application. ( Standard No. 133 . "18.164. STREET AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENT STANDARDS . "18.164.080. Public Use Areas." (TCDC S 18.164.080 (summarized) . ) We find that these standards are implicated only when a proposed park shown on a City development plan is located in an intended subdivision or when a site has the necessary d _racto,- extent and location to be suitable for development as a park or public use. We find that no subdivision is proposed by the applicant. We further find that no portion of the applicant' s property is shown on any City plan as a -152- 220351 potential park or playground area. We further find that the surrounding industrial uses and the proximity to both the Burlington Northern railroad track and the Southern Pacific railroad track at the extreme northern portion of the applicant' s property is not suited by character, extent or location for development as a park. Accordingly, we find and conclude that this standard does not apply to the proposed use. Standard No. 134 . "18.164. STREET AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENT STANDARDS . "18.164.090. Sanitary Sewers. "(a) Sewers-Required. Sanitary sewers shall be installed to serve each new development and to connect developments to existing mains in accordance with the pro- visions set forth in Standard Specification Manual and the adopted policies of the Comprehensive Plan. "(b) Sewer Plan Approval . The Public Works Director shall approve all sanitary sewer plans and proposed systems prior to assurance of development permits involving sewer service. "(c) Oversizing. The proposed sewer systems shall include a consideration of additional development within the area as projected by the Comprehensive Plan. "(d) Permits Denied. Development permits may be t-r•.te by the Commission or Hearings Officer where inefficiency exists in the sewer system portion thereof which cannot be rectified within the development and which if not rectified will result in a threat to public health, safety, surcharging of existing mains, or violations of State or Federal standards pertaining to operation of a sewage treatment system. " (TCDC g 18.164.090. ) -153- 220351 We find that an existing sanitary sewerage line is present at the applicant' s site. We find that the applicant has proposed to place only human sewage waste in the sewer line. We find that the actual use of the sewer line on the applicant' s site will be limited to the eight employees who will be working on the site. We further find that applicant has proposed no additional development on the site which could increase demand on the sewage system. Accordingly, we conclude that additional development is not a factor when considering sewage hookup at the site. We find that the sewer line serving the proposed site is a standard Unified Sewerage Agency line and that there are no deficiencies or problems with the line and that the agency has indicated the sewerage service is adequate. Accordingly, we conclude that there is no threat to public ( health or safety and no threat of surcharging existing mains or violation of State or Federal standards . We further find that we have conditioned this approval on the Public Works Director' s approval of all final sanitary sewer plans and that such approval must be obtained prior to the issuance of the occupancy permit on the property. For all these reasons, we conclude that the provisions of this standard are met. -154- 220351 Standard No. 135 . "18.164. STREET AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENT STANDARDS. "18.164.100. Storm Drainage. "(a) Storm Drainage-General Provisions. The Director and Public Works Director shall issue a development permit only where adequate provisions for storm and flood water run-off have been made; and "(1) Storm water drainage systems shall be separate and independent from any sanitary sewerage system. "(2) Where possible, inlets shall be provided so that surface water is not carried across any intersection or allowed to flood any street. "(3) Surface water drainage patterns shall be shown on every development proposal plan. "(b) Easements. Where a subdivision is traversed by a watercourse, drainageway, channel or stream, there shall be provided a storm water easement or drainge right-of- way conforming substantially with the lines of such watercourse and such further width as will be adequate for conveyance and maintenance. "(c) Accommodation of Upstream Drainage. A culvert or other drainage facility shall., and in each case be large enough to, accom- modate potential run-off from its entire upstream drainage area, whether inside or outside development; and "(i) The Public Works Director shall determine the necessary size of the facility based on the provisions of the 1981 MASTER DRAINAGE PLAN. -155- 220351 "(d) Effect on Downstream Drainage. Where it is anticipated by the Public Works Director that the additional run-off resulting from the development will overload an existing drainage facility, the Director shall withhold approval of the development until provisions have been made for improvement of said potential condition or until provision have ( sic) been made for storage of additional run-off caused by the development in accordance with the 1981 MASTER DRAINAGE PLAN." (TCDC S 18.164.100. ) We find that a watercourse referred to as "Ball Creek" is located adjacent to and slightly north of the very northern end of applicant' s property. We find that applicant has agreed to preserve the extreme northern end of the property as open space and further find that applicant indicated its willingness to execute a drainage right-of-way, if necessary, conforming to the lines of the watercourse. We further find that we have conditioned our approval of this project upon the dedication by the applicant of a drainage right-of-way, if necessary. We find that the applicant has proposed measures which will run the drainage water north to the existing watercourse and keep that drainage water independent of the sanitary sewer system. We find that no drainage water will be carried across any intersection or public street. We further find that surface water drainage patterns are shown on the applicant' s site plan. We find that there is an existing 48" x 64" culvert on the watercourse passing under the Burlington Northern railroad line to the north and west of applicant' s -156- 220351 site. We find that in the past this culvert has been large enough to accommodate the entire upstream drainage served by the watercourse. We further find that natural drainage on applicant' s site in the past has been primarily into this watercourse. We find that any additional drainage water placed in the watercourse by the applicant will not exceed the capacity of the 48" x 64" culvert. We further find that the natural drainage on the site is primarily to the north to the watercourse and any drainage from the site would eventually run into Fanno Creek. We find that some additional runoff resulting from the development could be directed to the water course, but that this runoff would not be great enought to overload the existing drainage facilities in the area or have negative effects on downstream drainage. For all these reasons, we find that the provisions of this standard are met. Standard No. 136 . "18.164. STREET AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENT STANDARDS . "18.164.110. Bikeways." (TCDC S 18.164.110 (summarized) . ) We find that the development does not adjoin any proposed bikeway identified in the pedestrian/bikeway plan. Accordingly, we conclude that the provisions of these standards are not applicable to the proposed development. -157- 220351 C Standard No. 136 . "18.164. STREET AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENT STANDARDS. 1118.164.120. Utilities. "(a) Underground Utilities. All utility lines including, but 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 "(1) The subdivider shall make all necessary arrangements with the serving utility to provide the underground services. t: "(2) The City reserves the right to . approve location of all surface- mounted utilities. "(3) All underground utilities, including sanitary sewers and storms drains, installed in streets by the subdivider shall be constructed prior to servicing of the streets. "(4) Stubs for service connections shall be long enough to avoid disturbing the street improvements when service F' connections are made. "(b) Information on Development Plans. The applicant for a subdivision will show % on the development plan or in the explanatory information, easements for all underground utility facilities; and -158- 220351 "(1 ) Plans showing the location of all underground facilities described herein shall be submitted to the Public Works Director for review and approval . "(2) Care shall be taken in all cases to insure that above-ground equipment does not obstruct vision clearance areas for vehicular trarfic ." (TCDC S 18.164.120. ) We find that applicant has agreed to place all of its utilities underground and that we have conditioned this approval on the installation of underground utilities in conformance with the TCDC. We find that the remainder of the provisions in this standard are primarily directed at "the subdivider" or "subdivisions. " Applicant is not a subdivider nor is it proposing a subdivision as its use. Accordingly, we conclude that these standards do not apply. Nonetheless, we i find that the applicant has made all the necessary arrangements to provide underground service of utilities. We further find that as no new public streets are contemplated by the proposed use, there will be no difficulty in installing underground utilities prior to construction of streets nor will there be any difficulty caused by street interruption because of the length of service stub connections. We further Lind that the applicant' s plan and explanatory information show all the necessary information concerning underground facilities. Finally, we find, consistent with our previous findings in Part IV above, that vision clearance areas are not applicable -159- 220351 i at the proposed site. For all these reasons, we conclude that to the extent any provisions of this standard apply to the proposed application, they are met . Standard No. 138. 1118.164. STREET AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENT STANDARDS . 1118.164.130. Cash or Bond Required. 1118.164.140. Monuments ." (TCDC S 18.164.130-140(summarized) . ) We find that these provisions are addressed to, and apply to, "the subdivider. " We find that applicant has not proposed any subdivision and is not a subdivider. Accordingly, we conclude that these provisions are not applicable to the proposed use. Standard No. 139 . "18.164. STREET AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENT STANDARDS . 1118.164.150. Installation-Prerequisite-Permit Fee. 1118.164.160. Installation-Confirmation Requirea. (TCDC :§ 18.164.150-160(summarized) . ) We find that these standards are directed at "land division improvements" and "subdivision improvements. " We find that applicant has proposed neither type of improvement. -160- 220351 C Accordingly, we conclude that these standards do 'no't apply ''to the proposed application. Nonetheless, we find •ghat appllM&MIDt has agreed to obtain all necessary approvals and pay -all necessary permit fees. Standard No. 140. "18.164. STREET AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENT STANDARDS. "18.164.170. Plan Checking Required. "18.164.180. Notice to City Required. "18.164.190. City Inspection Required. "18.164.200. Engineer Certification Required." (TCDC S 18.164.170-200(summarized ) . ) We find that each of these requirements has been addressed in our approval with an affirmative condition requiring the applicant to submit the proper number of checked plans, to provide the City with appropriate notice prior to work, to obtain the appropriate City inspection and to provide the appropriate engineer's certification. Accordingly, we conclude that this standard has been met by the proposed application. C. -161- 220351 092688 t PART V. STATEWIDE PLANNING GOAL I A. Goals Not Applicable. Because the proposed project requires a change to the City of Tigard's Comprehensive Plan, the Statewide Planning Goals must be addressed. Because of the location of the project, we find that certain Statewide Goals are not applicable. We find that the project is located inside the City of Tigard, inside the urban growth boundary and on land that is presently zoned industrial. In addition, we find that the amount of land is small, bordered by railroad tracks on two sides, surrounded on all sides by industrial development and is not suitable for agricultural or forest uses. Accordingly, we find and conclude that Statewide Goal No. 3 (Agricultural Lands) , Statewide Goal No. 4 (Forest Lands) and Statewide Goal No. 14 (Urbanization) are not applicable. We find that the project is not located in area designated as part of the Willamette River Greenway and is more than 60 miles from the Oregon Coast. Accordingly, we find and conclude that Statewide Planning Goals No. 15 (Willamette River Greenway) , No. 16 (Estuarine Resources) , No. 17 (Coastal Shorelands) , No. 18 (Beaches and Dunes) and No. 19 (Ocean Resources) do not apply to the proposed project. f I i -162- 220351 092688 B. Applicable Goals. Goal No. 1. CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT. "To develop a citizen involvement program that insures the opportunity for citizens to be involved in all phases of the planning process." We find that the City provided public notice of the project and has involved a neighborhood planning organization (NPO #5) in the planning process. In addition, we find that public hearings were held both before the City of Tigard Planning Commission and the Tigard City Council. Public comment and discussion was heard at each of these meetings. Additional findings with regard to citizen involvement are set forth in Part IV, Standard No. 2 above. We incorporate those findings, analyses and conclusions by reference herein. Based on all these reasons, we conclude that this Statewide Planning Goal is met. Goal No. 2. LAND USE PLANNING. "To establish a land use planning process and policy framework as a basis for all decisions and actions related to use of land and to assure an adequate factual basis for such decisions and actions." We find that the Tigard Comprehensive Plan and the Tigard Community Development Code establish a land use planning process and a policy framework on which all decisions and actions related to land use in the City of Tigard are based. We find that the applicant has submitted extensive materials explaining the nature and impacts of its project. We further -163- 220351 092688 find that public hearings were held which assured adequate comments from persons in opposition to the project as well as persons in favor of the project. We find that these comments, in their entirety, provided an adequate factual base for our decision. Accordingly, we find and conclude that Statewide Goal No. 2, Land Use Planning, has been met. Goal No. 5. OPEN SPACES, SCENIC AND HISTORIC AREAS, AND NATURAL RESOURCES. "To conserve open space and protect natural and scenic resources ." We find that the City of Tigard, through the Tigard Comprehensive Plan, has made policy choices regarding open space, scenic and historic areas and natural resources. We find that the proposed project does not lie in area identified as open space, scenic or historic area or natural resources except that the extreme northern portion of the property borders a watercourse referred to as "Ball Creek." We find that the applicant has agreed to preserve the area immediately adjacent to this watercourse in its natural state. We further find that additional considerations concerning open space, scenic and historic areas and natural resources are contained in Part IV, Standard Nos. 6 through 10 above. li- incorporate the findings, analyses and conclusions in those standards herein. We find and conclude that the proposed change from light industrial to heavy industrial at this site will n,-)- adversely affect prior -164- 220351 092688 policy choices made by the City of Tigard concerning open space, scenic and historic areas or natural resources. Accordingly, we find and conclude that the Tigard Comprehensive Plan and CDC will continue to conserve these resources and conclude that this Goal is met . Goal No. 6. AIR, WATER AND LAND RESOURCES QUALITY. "To maintain and improve the quality of the air, water and land resources of the State." Our findings, analyses and conclusions directed to the provisions of--the -Tigard Comprehensive Plan which relate to air, water and land resources quality are directly applicable to consideration of this Statewide Planning Goal. Accordingly, we incorporate Part IV, Standard Nos. 11 through 14 above by reference herein. In addition, we find that the applicant has proposed a state-of-the-art asphalt plant which will serve to protect the air resource quality in the area. In addition, we find that the facility design will reduce dust because crusher operations will not be located at the site and because adjustable height aggregate-stacking conveyors will be used to reduce the distance that raw material will fall into the storage piles. We find that applicant's trucks are regularly maintained to comply with DEQ standards. We find that sewage hookups will be used for human waste on the site and that surface water will be run through a separator/skimmer prior to joining drainage watercourses. We find that applicant has -165- 220351 092688 voluntarily agreed to a perimeter buffer system which will protect and separate adjoining land uses. We find that no such vegetation or buffers presently exist in the area. We further find that runoff from the site is presently untreated when running into the adjoining drainage watercourses . We further find that the applicant's proposal to bring in processed aggregates by train eliminates numerous truck trips and contributes to improved air quality. For all these reasons, we find and conclude that the air, water and land resources quality of the State will be maintained and improved by the proposed development. Goal No. 7. AREAS SUBJECT TO NATURAL DISASTERS AND HAZARDS. "To protect life and property from natural disasters and hazards." We find that Part IV, Standard Nos. 3 through 5 discuss natural disasters and hazards such as floods and soil instability. We incorporate those findings, analysis and conclusions herein by reference. We further find that the slopes at the proposed site are gentle and the site is outside the 100-year floodplain as shown on the Federal Emergency Management Agency map. We find and conclude that because the j proposed site does not have any areas of identified soil instability; is outside the appropriate floodplain and does not exhibit any other natural hazards, the improvement of the -166- 220351 092688 4 development in this area appropriately protects life and property from natural disasters and hazards. Accordingly, we conclude that this standard is met. Goal No. 8. RECREATIONAL NEEDS. "To satisfy the recreational needs of the citizens of the State and visitors and, where appropriate, to provide for the siting of necessary recreational facilities including destination resorts ." We find that the City of Tigard is an urban area and generally provides for the recreational needs of the citizens through city parks . We further find that the findings, analyses and conclusions in Part IV, Standard Nos. 9 and 10 discuss this Goal, and we incorporate the discussion in those ,r standards herein by reference. We further find that the t., industrial area and, as such, is proposed use is in an existing generally inappropriate for a park or recreational use. We further find that the applicant will preserve the extreme northern portion of the site in its natural state but that this area is isolated by the main Fanno Creek greenway area by a 48" X 64" culvert which passes under the Burlington Northern railroad line and S. W. 74th Avenue. Based on all these facts, we find and conclude that the project site is not an appropriate area for recreational needs, and we conclude that this standard has been met. -167- 220351 092688 Goal No. 9. ECONOMY OF THE STATE. "To diversify and improve the economy of the State." We incorporate by reference herein Part IV, Standard No. 15 above. We find that the City of Tigard has a relatively small amount of land zoned for heavy industrial uses. We find that additional heavy industrial land would promote diversification of economic opportunity in that it would allow for a greater range of potential uses. We find that the proposal will supply approximately eight jobs. For all these reasons, we find and conclude that the proposed project will diversify and improve the economy of the State. Goal No. 10. HOUSING. "To provide for the housing needs of citizens of the State." We find that this Goal has only peripheral application to the project in that the project does not directly propose to create or destroy housing units . Nonetheless, we find that products to be manufactured at the applicant's site, including concrete and asphalt, are necessary to the construction of houses. We find that approval of the proposed application will provide a competitive source of high-quality products which may be used in the housing industry. For this reason, we find that to the extent this Goal is applicable, it is met. 1. -168- 220351 092688 Goal No. 11. PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES. "To plan and develop' a timely, orderly and efficient arrangement of public facilities and services to serve as a framework for urban and rural development." We find that the property is presently served by the Municipal Water and Sewerage service providers. We further find that this site has muncipal police and fire protection. We further find that the site is uniquely located between two major rail lines and near Interstate 5, the major transportation artery in the State. We find that the site is within the city limits of Tigard. We find that the findings, analyses and conclusions of Part IV, Standard Nos. 23, 25 through 36 and 38 have applicability to this Goal. We incorporate the findings, analyses and conclusions of those standards herein by reference. We find and conclude that the public facilities and services are presently available and support the requested development. Accordingly, we conclude that this Goal is met. Goal No. 12. TRANSPORATION. "To provide and encourage a safe, convenient and economic transportation system." We incorporate by reference herein our findings, analyses and conclusions in Part IV, Standard Nos. 36 through 38. We find that the applicant's use of a train to deliver processed aggregates significantly reduces the amount of -169- 220351 092688 traffic which would normally accompany the use of the type proposed. We find that the use of one train replaces approximately 60 truck and trailers which would be required to make a total of approximately 120 entrances and exits on the site to deliver an equivalent amount of processed aggregate. We further find that the project proposed by the applicant will reduce traffic and that reduced traffic will promote safety. We further find that the train delivering processed aggregates is more fuel efficient than the equivalent number of trucks, and, therefore, a more economic transportation system will be used. We further find that the applicant's site is extremely close to Interstate 5 and Highway 217, major transportation arteries in the area. We find that there will be convenient access to these major transportation arteries to deliver the products manufactured at the site to various locations in the Tigard and Washington County area. For all these reasons, we find and conclude that the proposed project will provide and encourage a safe, convenient and economic transportation system. Goal No. 13. ENERGY CONSERVATION. "To conserve energy." We incorporate by reference the findings, analyses and conclusions set forth in Part IV, Standard No. 39 above. We further find that applicant's use of rail to deliver processed aggregates promotes a significant energy savings over delivery of the same materials by truck. For all these -170- 220351 092688 reasons, we conclude that the proposed project is designed to conserve energy and that this standard is met. We find that these standards, and no others, are the standards that are applicable to the proposed site. As discussed in Parts III, IV and V above, we find and conclude to the extent that it applies, that each of these standards, f G has been met by the proposed application. i -171- 220351 092688 t P.2 r MRso02 MORSE BROT8ER8, INC. TIGARD COFiPRE33NSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT t AND ZONE CHANGE APPLICATION PLANNING ANALYSIS and factual data has been prepared for information The following olicies of the Community of the Tigard Comprehensive the purpose of addressing p Development Code. Plan and Criteria citizen Involvement NPO--S is the appropriate citizen involvement organization for the site area. NPO-5 ca e .sts of seven members, with a decision- making quorum of five. Meetings are hCity Hallevery a WTheenext of the month at 7:30 p.m. , in the Tigardapplicant is September 21, 1988 - Any PP meeting will be held on SeP resentation in support of an free to appear and make a p application. NPO response is usually in the form of a reply o the City's "Request for Comments". Flood Plain Considerations Tax FEMA map is included as Exhibit I. Ball Creek traversing Lot 1000 is not designated as a floodplain. Na portion of Tax 1400 or 1500 is designated by any agency or Lots 1100, jurisdiction as a floodplain. PlanninX Considerations for Ad'oin'n Jurisdictions a. ) Washington County its the proposed The Washington County Cade permin the ocedure, prov Industrial Zone through a type III pr from a iuse ded the site and not in an is located more than 6001 Code Section residential 3201414) �rie The Washington S Industrial Park. County Comprehensive Framework Plan ate theUrban Area, the urbanPolicy area. discourages extraction of agg g Plan (for the Rural Areal Goal 7 of the Rural/Natural Resources resources. encourages the extraction and utilization of aggregate 1 DAVID MM ANDASSOCLkM,NC ENGINEERS.SURVL'YMS,PLkNNERS,I;yrDSCAPE ARCHrrECTS OFFICES IN GREG()V,;j,�KL\(3TUN k`D cAUf0R\R 2626 SA CORHLI kYEN;E POa•rLtiw,URECON 97201.4802 _ ten')1•212 440 NY/:1121')'):.9^.M - - - Hut. 1'_+ `66 15.S5 DRVIL1,Evf4ris. P.c The general soil association in this vicinity is known as the Woodburn-Quatama-Willamette Association, consisting of very deep, moderately well-drained, nearly level to moderately steep. i of stability According to the Tigard Comprehensivethearce site eisucoveredument with (Volume 1) , Diagram II on page 1-29, Willamette silt (page 1-30, 31) . k The USDA SCS "Soil Survey of Washington County" , in describing various characteristics of the site area he site. NTable No apparent Site Development, identifies the soils on the technical limitations exist for the site resulting from soil types, as determined by engineering analysis by David Evans and , Associates, Inc. and Smith & Monroe & Gray, Engineers. . i Services and Utilities { a) Water s—ez vice According to Bob Santee of the Tigard Water District, there is f a 12" main in S.W. 74th Avenue, with adequate capacity to serve any industrial use. A copy of the map was not available. The r City of Tigard will forward this submittal to the Water District, at which time a determination will be made a to the type and location of water service to be provided to the site. There will be hook-up charges ell as a to help payharge per linear foot f or the water main itself f frontage along 74th Avenue The Tualatin Rural Fire District will determine the need for any additional fire hydrants, sprinkler system, etc. Ron Tobias, Deputy Fire Marshall of the consolidated Fire & Rescue Fire Marshall 's office (of which the Tualatin Rural Fire District is a part) hesulas tested the f ire flow at the hydrant ts for hydrant #352 B/71 (on S.W. 74th closest to the site. R Avenue south of Bonita Road) are as follows: Gallons per minute: 2,122 Static pressure: 212 pounds Residual pressure: 108 pounds KTOT readings: 78 and 42 x 4 DAVID EVANS ANDASSOCIATES,INC. ENGINEERS.SURVEYORS,PL&NNERS,L1N[)gG1PE ARCHITE(:I:S rt IF � 19 '88 1:3S DAVID,EVk1'=. P'� hydrant at 72nd and Bonita (# 352 B/16) registered Another fire er minute. This flow is more than adequate to 1,693 gallons p meet our projected need at the site. b) gni ar Sewer Se ice utilities engineer, According to Greg Berry, City of Tigard 639- h service to 4171, there is an 8" line along to Tax l.otn14o0 1tThis service the site in the form of an 8 pipe Exhibit 5) and as line is identified as no. 660 on the map ( Develo ment built" drawings can be obtained from the Community P Public Works Department. This service to designm must for ensu a ethat use (toilet, sink in office) . connection can be made to this service. Storm DrainaSe Exhic) Drainage is Topographic maps l Creek at included as northern bend of the site. At generally to Bal but will be redirected to present, some drainage is to the 1 skimmer, and a collection ditch Ball Creek. Settling ponds, meetingDEQ south of the creek will ensure a clean discharge, standards. There are two culverts passing under S.W. 74th Avenue and the Burlington Northern Railroad right-of-way: 5401 south ofBBonitanita RRoad;412"Xto018" 2000' south All services are adequate to propserverties. All the new utilities osed lwill nbe There are no intervening proP�r appropriate placed underground.sitelnal review, after design lapproval ofl be thezone change- City staff during Si te C aracteristia Maps have been prepared showing locatoo the=siteas Adseparate (and their classifications) adjace pattern, vicinity map illustrates the general maps areaattached astransportation parof the including the freeway. These application submitted. Both rail lines serving the site, Southern pacific on the east and Burlington Northern on the west, are ite Ve lines and may be utilized by Morse Brothers to serve the s 5 E DAVID EvANS AND ASKkIATFS,INC ENGIA'EERS,SL'RVEYORS,PIANN£RS,mNDSCAPE ARCIIITECCS 3 E G F STT EVPNS. P. 1 ! 1,536 D".�L.� P, . t h of the site and overlaying an aerial photograp h water The attached map, adjacent land uses, topography, surroundings, show adz barriers from adjacent uses are f features, etc. In essence, Vegetative the railroad tracks and topography. provided by will be maintained to the north. buffers and Ball Creek and Surrounding properties have been �nadjacentd lands usesicated are none f the map.To the south and east, j but the zoning is Light industrial and residential. To the west is a mixture of residential or sale" residential land uses, dwellings are currently f some of the existing in addition, Fanno Conversion to non-residential uses is likely. lain and vegetation provide an f Creek and associated floodp Zoned and developed area excellent barrier from the residentially further west. and is included as an A Wind Rose is available for the area, r attachment. ' i Water Oua ity the proposed operation. Water i No wastewater will be generated by ed into settling ponds and used in processing will be discharg recycled in the' concrete mixing process. Surface runoff will be directed towards the north end of the site, into a collection ditch south of Ball creek and from there into the creek. Some i draining to grading will take place to redirect waterit, etc. from the water the south. A skimmer will remove any increased E ht before it enters the ditch. There will This slightlynincree ed the amount of runoff into Bal] Creek. amount will not adversely tensa f the creek.or the ability of the culverts to convey the waters E Transportation S.W. 74th Avenue is classified as a local industrial street, for I which the standard width of paving is 40 feet. Existing paving is 24 feet. 74th Avenue only, via two private Access to the site is from on Northern rail line. No public access crossings of the Burling roved ublic street is located on or € to the site exists and no imp p After directly adjacent to the siteli htafcommercial• vehicles Comp rise mostly of automobiles and g on the site and in review of the traffic and facilities existing the area, no significant traffic or transportation problems are anticipated. 6 LWID EVANS ANDA.SSSOCLUES,INC. _ ENNGINEM,sURYTYORS,PLINNERS,LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS AUG 1z 'Eco 15:36 DAVID,EVANS. F•8 site Plan RequireReolilTre V_menz ared by Smith & Monroe & Gray, Engineers. Site plan has been prep of the Code. This includes items (1) and (2) of 18.100.015 (C) Item (3) does not apply- DEA (see Existing plant materials have been inventoried by separates attached listing) . The topography of the site, clearly P the lowlying creek from the remainder of the site to the south• p an AC ow ed ement: measures The City of Tigard Comp thhensive pimplementinglan and Land conservation and Dvelopment C, were acknowledged by Qe�)R Commission in September, 1985. �a u at'on Growth Source: The Regional Factb000k, and (Demographic, Employment, Land Development Trends, Portland Metropolitan Area, 1980-1986, published by Metro, June, 1988. Tigard is located in Planning District 12 (see attached Exhibit) �. Following is an excerpt from Table 7, Population and Households. po u ation 1980 1986 Change 29,240 33,526 4,286 = 14.7% District 12 270,000 24 ,417 = 9.9% Washington Co. 245,583 49,105 = 4.0% Portland region 1,241,895 1,291,000 The Tigard area has grown even more `a si the g an Washington County as a whole. Washington County growing of the region's increase. population county, receiving half forecasts prepared by Metro in 1988 show a continuation of these trends. 10-83 a 2005 83-2005 change 310196 47,280 16,084 = 52.0% District 12 257,401 409,277 151,876 = 59.0% Washington Co. 1 739 572 481,071 = 38.0% Portland region 1,258,501 r 7 DAVID EVANSr.NDASS0 ATES,INC. ENGINEUS,SUR%TYU>ZS,PLANNERS,IANDSCAPEARCHITECfti r i nVW 17 'dd LJ•J7 DAV'ID,EVANS. P.9 Source: "A 2005 Population and Employment Forecast for the Portland Metropolitan Area," Metro, 1988 The demand for aggregate materials is influenced not only by population growth, but also by construction and employment trends. Enclosed are excerpts of a study conducted by Economic Development Services of Vancouver, Washington for Bend Aggregate and Paving. The study utilized a formula developed by Professor Maresh at Oregon State University to forecast demand (per capita usage) for aggregate materials. Construction trends in the Tigard area show a fast growth, consistent with the fast population growth. Table 1, Residential Building Permit Activity New Construction of Housing 1980-1985 Stock, 1980 District 12 1,518 11.8% Washington County 12,380 11.8% Portland Region 36,542 7.2% Storm Drainage and Wastewater Management Site development plans prepared by Smith & Monroe, and Gray, Engineers, show that the natural drainageway will be maintained. There will be a slight increase in runoff due to a decrease in impermeable surface. The quality of any runoff waters will meet all DEQ standards, and the quantity can be easily handled by Ball Creek and the 4811 x 60" culvert under S.W. 74th Avenue which connects Ball creek to Fanno Creek. No floodplain has been identified at this site. Oregon Department of F3,sh and Wildlife Conversations with personnel of ODFW indicate that the applicant's plan to preserve the area adjacent to the watercourse (Ball Creek) is adequate. see attached letter. ZoniLig No zoning overlays apply to this site, according to the City of Tigard zoning map. Public Facilities and services 8 DAVID MNS AND ASSC.)CIATFS,11v`C. ENGINEERS,SURVEYORS,PL'LNNERS,L1.N(VSC APE ARC,RI1EM 15.37 DAVID.EVAHS. P.10 1 Public Transit Tri-Met operates bus line 38, Boones Ferry, along S.W. 72nd Avenue, between Tualatin and downtown Portland. This line operates only at peak times (6-9 a.m. and 3-6 p.m. ) with a frequency of approximately 30 minutes. Bus 78 serves S.W. 72nd Avenue at S.W. Hunziker Street, and operates all day. No change in service is anticipated in either line. Pedestrian/Bike patois The "Tigard Area Pedestrian/Bike Path Map" identifies S.W. Bonita Road as a planned element of the local Tigard pedestrian/bike --� path system. The map does not identify S.W. 74th Avenue as an element of the system or a future pedestrian/bike path. 9 t DAVID EVANSANDASSOCIAM,M. ENGINEERS,SURVEYORS,NL�,NNERS,LLNDSCA'EARCHITEM P.11/ 37A CjU:,TAMA LOAM .0-396 SLOre ►.- �,�.20 M �s�oao �o P �oP� oP� 1 C p ��" AQ �O�' •• G�' 5pO O PQ P� � 14 COVE CLAY 21A HILSBORO LOAM 0-3% SLOPE 0 C^ W Q. O -i • o M 0 NOTE: SOIL BOUNDARIES a ARE APPROXIMATr. O • e • 1 ALOHA SILT LOAM 43 WAPATO ,oma.,•,., T_ Mill WEI 011. `R- r •i S :t .' ^A ._ •'�- s' ,,� ,1•° f� >7 Suer.-': .�. . ,�� AL • - r ws.:-,'1 vhf•-..- '' �' � ..+ -14 �:�I .. ' AREA Ar - <. Ile `4 .' .. r.• pap? z4 �. _,� , ti.-,... .-- STF1AM GpF1 ',' ;•rti n .c- _ - _ 1 I;�ir'�.� � 'f••�`^s- - - '+� '�-d x+•yr L. �.i 1:r '•:� Qr � '�f'' �iia moi. —_' —�! ci• :: •y -•+" ,\, ' �, SI:,`� •.� _� ice» '•yE,..a'R.y `��'..��►�x�� y��K .fir ';'� w��` '�� 't�Y' a' �''-"�vt=�•_ �G �'.!•-..iii - ��_,�. � .tom w. �%. :d p.•�:+•t � _""' AREA; ��+► t• �► ,i -- !' �•' 'r moi,. �-'��►s.r.. j.,!K s ' � ?>,�-" S�-. �•y �. �T<' �^ _ f• .�'^� � � � - "�. •'-ate y.. �•iL t -�� -a.r�: ..,� :*+'ate.- ra�:�T!'-•' `7 �i C'�';. .. t" �._, AA -•.�• '-_ ` i_ ,•, �: . _ _ =A.bt-x ,f y>A Ilk N o-, .. ." ~ •:1-'�+- ISI ,a,A. :1 s-,g~,' -� �•�i1 �� ) � t�� Y.:. -(• "'"`'-'>: '''.3t � �y?!.r�� , ori* - .• ��.a .. '"w' � ..yah_ •_ �. M +: f��4��• :S + � _4 Y �tl r: fy� - -• fir.aR3...r�J„ - Jar a�9 •� -teal � �� ,� li'o.' �,frr[► �t �.•s.'�. .y'" �.� 1• "1 � •'� 7C"y-.Ff'�'j Av JT c 1,4.E •a. �� 'r •�_++ •� Hwr Will 20 a d•+'Arcnue+ I `i . 18' % ; Remainder of '..,� ryL• ' �'� I _, _, Remainder of MultnomAh lounty �,,,5'• ��' .f.. 17 0 Washingtr. County P, n ver o _ \ •t, va dou f rsr st i. rt�t.P`ArN 'o I 1'(1 Ilk— .. o �'t _ -T \ IJ ` \ tNilll► •» ~� A t 'i NOnn NaNi�illind CdlneY i d i mummonu • PIArns• •'� 7 4•. A,rP0,1 .)Vo•I� Ipy ; o .• ? +, •JueAPol si fcI► U: S, 'wc.. t .qf rNGSWOPIN� % �`� '; t• W 'tiy ,r"r �< -1 Ertl►t \..; y fNr w 0r(rAo t • \\� 1 i I ''IJ+ Hatr• .I Fal-moo Wood Ttotll 1' O 5 [a Village 1 • Ni �� PN!_ nL �� •, i� O O— N,,N•�.! —1: SIA/tA sl..+• P 1ForBst P'=••- Portland I I : -';born eascu g t -prove T-1 ..oineliusGres�ian� r —fes • . 9tl VO r la •i1 • ��fr•fA/IN V 11 HW .. .� 1 •'M.li'ir 3 `• 2 1 f 'J --.L Al,nlr.rnn "r•`u~(,.. �•`'�r WOODSIO a �l - •'--IJ'•-' Onr ,O o ti,.7• w t!� ,r9 ' t ° MULIN01'Ton CO + + I�PJI� �I — CLEKIMAS7ti f t l W ' l i � \ .• Scou .r t Happy o •7r t i✓ Q rocP+• a -- Valley ' .., Vln Ilwaukie . /°ummptm Ar t QQ . a Tlgar �r ria„ f7Nr5AE.N i n V `�, I nn+ p'' PQ Lake o o� -_\ rfwr t17 l : r� Ftemainddb'of DUP ,.. / Oswego �r Washb1P. County' :,_„u.� uI. c�..•Q -- r0. JCI c 'errwruJll. 1� riyKing. UV COY- #A. . IA,A •I Q ”. Gladslonb I .r.r.•,..... 'x ' tualatlni rer Imc ,�a5r7titi� °a ' 11 West tog" * ole \ Linn 1 bre o • ` G•N. O •, 9 nerwood 11.012. - >' i 6. J //tr+Ni' i.tl•r•�, nor •ue.r 4 Remainder of ' I' Clackamas COU61 • 1lV.l� rrlle ..1 0 } Pu Onrm Growth Allocation Workshop 20 DISTRICTS `t1 ortland Metro Area: •. , 1 , O 'a ti•� ^ M Sx !v /1,000 a V�� ,y+ , r 4`•��1 r� SW. CR VMNS ST. �' 1 O la�~.►696 s.w. avl 1• a1lIW MNI j 7 v~ / OP y='/. HIS y dM►wY �i; �p L /7,100 CMPARY .1;v�. SV 5 w CODEw00D ST. L W. 5T. RE W ST. ! M.v u ,}• NILLr Kw CT. v G b 'DONALD / STa1i •� -♦ r• 1 /4AoJ u12S %0 / . sw 5N ELROSE ON/ REEK CT ra u.oRNM u. . JANCTEN ELA EST R. } FA o Y� v* W. NTARIIREW IANC j 3o OREEI( / t t C > w TER AOC sT. i.w IXCE ST. s.w. 3']11 s /I,Ioo 8 PDT. st PCMRROOR SL _ a : j �.• �l IYSL+ZZGILJ STR i ; ► 1 a SW. 3 PIMEBROO ' � e , .0 % Li•�l. UR00 T�. < ' c* I I y- NLAMTNCNA cfr Ii SATTLER C * ,T 90VIfw �N RO55 5T. _ tt i 1 S � G NABIE ST. ALK DRIVE+a 7 � 3 WAowD •w�j w /BAoJ f''MARTi 1: /i•rtj o M x.coowr;'' 1' / ypt! v CL ./ ANA WAT yTLVA P R F R MT n RCM Oo .� - . nMOLAr ROAo. I iL n,000 a ! may a N► NI WAr 'P% <<SNAWNEC �+, s.w. ELLMAN LAME�• • O ! �► 2 EPETERs no.. r .Is nl! AHtD N,OMD chkO= No /•,.s. {2 • �- � � -^_ :.�... �: xhibW �• _ .., -- � AAAA_ q ,12. ;:G: 12 Ile Nl, LEI (;711 �. --- `;•;%'Mrs � f ` � "�_{:T::`—��: --- r� r. Ll 1 i-- 1 - _ !I _•_ L - --- .111 {_��• � �; _ � f.:,:=-` � - � I i � — 1•Mefi'' I --_I �e.w 1 �� '�—.- __ •/� \ ! : S / Si E" i . I _ _Y��•�:"r�i' ``'. !/^•aALEAll 7�,, OCANURN PLACE ME C. oft I II a Ed 12 +o '� 1 I rr�rjl LL: cLo OppET1 71 - - - o12 !-- - � (� � w0lEr0 IiREEi mill III I . •� - �`..._l—J � t: i�:�. � hip �V: i.` .�- �� ' ► - 1 '�� i•�-'ice-•�;:w b .. -_ .:J�.- •fir%. 4 yyr�s; M J TTTT fir. •lbs I t - ., f:," •_l` '. r. � , `t� .. -ter__ r •�Y.r gar r��. :�1►..�••_�+,,. ' .: 2�A •�=v "• ,• .f� ,y•,�Y�--1. �� '�,� .`• �. -jar •' y°`.t'•.�.' �j.•� 'b. ,� . I•�►40' -36 OL d te eo ve Jb- rr 'ti.� ��'✓`.-.a, ,,.'�}� .i moi• < .:�'. ,os "::e r ,:,�i".ia:"�wy�i-. � '71"'. l`� :7� •r � - �•a moi-. al[ ,. a�•a•+ a fT � TO MAINTAIN THE OREGON WAY OF LIFE AND TO PROTECT OUR ENVIRONMENT OREGONIANS INSIST ON THE CONSTRUCTION OF 1. SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANTS 2. SEWER SYSTEMS 3. HOSPITALS 4. PUBLIC BUILDINGS 5. PAVED CITY STREETS 6. SAFE BRIDGES 7. HIGHWAYS AND JOGGING TRAILS IN ORDER FOR INDUSTRY TO PROVIDE THESE THEY NEED TO OPERATE ( & DREDGES 9. ROCK QUARRIES 10. ROCK CRUSHERS 11. ASPHALT PLANTS 12. READY MIX PLANTS 13. AND MAINTAIN PROCESSING AREAS THE SECOND USE OF THESE RESOURCE SITES CAN BE A BENEFIT TO THE OREGON WAY OF LIFE 14. FISH AND GAME REARING POND-STAYTON-FORMERLY A GRAVEL PIT-6,000,000 SALMON REARED EACH YEAR. 15. CASCADE PARK-SALEM-FORMERLY A GRAVEL PIT-OVER 50.000 VISITATIONS ANNUALLY 16. BUTCHART GARDENS-VICTORIA-FORMERLY A ROCK QUARRY-OVER 500,000 VISITATIONS ANNUALLY. AGGREGATE RESOURCES ARE NON RENEWABLE SITE SPECIFIC SELF CONSUMING 77777 M W�':;m R 0- 1 2 .. .,.. _ -" t P+'� t •.' _.�. -#� _. �yy�^ice: - a A 3 4 OREGON'S FUTURE AGGREGATE RESOURCES In Perspective The aggregate resource industry of Oregon in- and have an initial high cost of stripping, crushing, cludes the extraction of sand and gravel and the and processing. In order to remain economically quarrying of crushed stone for multiple uses. Both viable, only a small increase in hauling costs can operations are industrial by nature in that heavy be tolerated. The material cost per ton increases machinery is used, processing occurs, and ship- every mile that it is transported from a supply ment by truck, rail or barge is required. The in- source. Consequently, the aggregate deposit dustry's importance is reflected in the fact that in nearest the construction site, is the most Oregon for the year 1979 sand, gravel and stone economical. Not only is aggregate resource extrac- accounted for 62% of the total value of mineral tion non-renewable, site specific, and self- products extracted in the state. consuming, but it also requires a nearby market Aggregate, which refers to both sand, gravel, and in order to be an economical product to the con- quarry rock, is a natural resource resulting from sumer, meaning you and the public. geological forces and is generally located along The economic and natural limitations imposed on river beds and valleys and in hills and ridges. As the aggregate resource industry are further com- such, the aggregate resource industry differs in a pounded by a complex set of additional circum- very important way from other industries: it is stances. Urbanization is permanently sealing away self-consuming, non-renewable and site- valuable aggregate deposits while concurrently specific. Sand and gravel or quarry rock can only demanding more aggregate material to sustain be found where nature placed it and, once a development.2 Land use regulations and environ V"„ r?onlotod. the operation is ter- mental controls are inhibiting the harvest of large fill R 5 6 C x."�c..[v. v 7 8 renewable resource that other natural resources by weight in tons; sand and gravel and concrete, enjoy. by volume in cubic yards. However, the volumetric PLANNING in of a cubic yard of aggregate can vary in weight significantly among sources.Therefore, a With the exception of a few counties in Oregon, conversion factor is employed that compensates there are presently no policies or plans that for the difference between yards and tons. specifically address the issues concerning To build an average 1,500-square foot housing aggregate extraction. Comprehensive plans should unit, single family or apartment, requires ap- include guide-lines for protecting sand and gravel proximately 146 cubic yards of aggregate. Of that resources and quarries as well as methods for in- total, about 41 cubic yards is used for the ton- suring forever compatible land uses and mining crete foundation. The remainder is used in the operations. More equitable and realistic garage, patio, driveway, sidewalk and one-half of management of what is an essential product in the the street leading to the house.3 construction industry is needed. For every housing unit that is built, a secondary USE market is generated to service the needs of the oc- gregate is used in a number of important cupants. Streets, sewers, water treatment plants .educts. Sand and gravel are combined with and recreation facilities are made primarily of Portland cement and water to make concrete. aggregate products. Sewers, for example, are 90% Aggregate is combined with asphalt to make concrete pipe and a water treatment plant typically asphaltic concrete. Concrete is a major construc- contains 5,000 yards of concrete. tion material in use today; asphaltic concrete is Asphalt paving also requires large amounts of rock used to make our essential network of roads and material. 16,000 tons of aggregate are used to r � I•�K.' � -.��a�l"��+ ti��`tet''~-'i � yI(,•-W+� Y%� 9 10 .:rp.r.�•( e::r .. •. � '"*'�►� ."'k�ji��y �+Atm` ...L" �: �Nr 11 12.. Oregon consumes 75% of the total quarry rock FUTURE RESPONSIBILITY produced and 50% of the sand and gravel.' The aggregate resource industry understands the PUBLIC NEED environmental concerns of the public and has The construction of public buildings such as made significant efforts to improve operational schools, churches, hospitals, libraries and methods as well as to provide useful contributions municipal buildings also accompany residential to community development programs through development and, normally, are built using even reclamation plans. New technologies in extraction greater amounts of aggregate. Industrial and and processing have been adopted that comply commercial structures such as office buildings, with the regulations of the Department of En- factories, stores, restaurants and theatres are vironmental Quality. Master plans are now predominantly constructed with aggregate prepared and approved by the Department of material. Geology and Mineral Industries before a site is ap- In Oregon both the population and the economy proved. The plans provide productive uses of have been growing rapidly. In the Willamette property following a mining operation and often Valley the compound annual growth rate of em- include unique recreational features such as lakes ployment has been about 4 per cent since 1970.5 and wildlife habitats. Since passage of the Mined Construction activity has expanded accordingly Land Reclamation Program in 1969, 414 reclamation plans have been approved in Oregon ant the accompanying demand for rock materials G as of January, 1980.8 risen steadily. Over$180 million in annual payroll is supported directly by the aggregate industry Aggregate extraction is temporary in nature and in which, in turn, supplies between 12 and 15 tons most cases affects only the subsurface of the land. .It 13' 14 177 : 7777777777; 1. 15 16 and gravel will be depleted by the year 1991 unless regulatory and legislative changes occur.' It is im- portant to affirm that for the aggregate resource industry and for the livelihood of the state as a whole, true conservation "means the wise use of the earth and its resources"(Gifford Pinchot). SOURCES 1. "Oregon Geology",March, 1980,monthly newsletter published by the State of Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries. 2. For example,the former site of Hub City Concrete in Albany,Oregon. 3. From a testimony presented by Randall S.Hledik before the Mining and Mineral Resources Subcommittee of the Legislative Committee on Trade and Economic Development on August 5, 1980 4. "Analysis and Forecasts of the Demand for Rock Materials in Oregon", 1979,Special Paper 5 published by the State of Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries. 5. Same as above. 6. As reported for policy year 1977-1978 by the National Council on Compensation Insurance. 7. Letter dated September 25,1979 from Standley L.Ausmus of the Department of Geology and Mineral Industries to Art Heizenrader of OCAPA. 8. "Oregon Geology",March,1980. 9. Bonneville Lock Renlacement.Economic Annenrlix.Spind ind Grpival.A.n;Ilvcic Dr?f+ Y. t' i; ti i t} 1 P r`� E' F �i INFORMATION For further information about Oregon's Future Aggregate Resources (FAR), contact: Oregon Concrete and Aggregate Producers Assn., Inc. 7160 S.W. Haaelfern Road P.O. Box 1006 ` Tualatin OR 97062 .a (503) 620-4405 Asphalt Pavement Association of Oregon t 3747 Market Street,N.E. Salem, Oregon 97301 (503) 363-3858 MRS002 EXISTING VEGETATION AREA 'A' Blackberries (dominant plant present) Bigleaf Maple--Acet Macrophyllum Willow trees--Salix spp. AREA 'B' Douglas Spiraea Red Alder Bigleaf Maple Lady Fern Reed Canary Grass Willow Oregon Ash Touch-Me-Not Purple Loosestrife Sedge AREA 'C' Hawthorn Bigleaf Maple Red Alder Filbert Sword Fern AREA 'D' Hawthorn Filbert Blackberry Black Locust English Laurel Cherry Plum Scotch Broom Horsetail Lombardy Poplars Silver Maple Spirea Douglas Fir European Birch Boxwood Sitka Spruce Canadian Thistle a. j. BR-- ;` JH f : RW GA Staff Review zu— R C J0 _L�1.�---- DS C CITY OF TIGARD COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PRE—APPLICATION CHECKLIST i Date i 1. APPLICANT i 2. PROPERTY LOCATION i Address A/0 Tax Map/Tax Lot fS9� 3. PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION/NECESSARY APPLICATIONS) i 4. USE Existing ly Adjacent Property ' i ( north �-- f e south • f east - - west 5. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION 6. ZONING DESIGNATION -� 7. NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING ORGANIZATION N0. . CHAIRPERSON 8. CODE REQUIREMENTS • i Minimum lot size/width F: corner side rear Setbacks: front _ . areas • Special setbacks: streets established - - -lower intensity zones wetlands '4flag lot accessory structures zero lot line 'haximum lot coverage S " Maximum building height flag lot other ht limits Special height .:_. _ calculation Density t� Density transition % of lot area minimum � Landscaping: U Street Trees Buffer Areas Parking Areas J3 t� Visual clearance -71 3, Parking and loading Access and circulation Signsecific items) 9. OTHER CONSIDERATIONS (See application X25% slope checklist for specific — � i floodplain e`" drainageway Sensitive lands: Wetlands `/X� r Open.-space Historic overlay Street improvements/connections/bikeways Right-of-way dedication Sanitary Sewer improvement Storm Sewer improvements '- Improvement Agreement - Permit; Bonds; Fees — - f 10. PROCEDURE Administrative staff review Public Hearing/Hearings Officer Public Hearing/Planning Commission decision or Public Hearing shall occur The _ Administrative lete application is filed. A approximately 30 days after a comp QUGAYccod 9v� r CAn .d0-day appeal Period follows all decisions. Mvo .AAOT 0�2- M c9 i (0573P/0022P) s `f ra .1 s s� ,-.. ^°'a..^�—�--a-,a.� •�_:_--., ... .` ,.,M. ,.;:.- .: ::, .,, wR?{'^ M'sz- s .\:Y4t-?r�a '��^.T•�'»— +A�fwuaews?�g. �y. .�. I ... ,� I ! I � I T. �.J`�l.. 1 } I � i � 1'pl.rtT{l�td��{�T(� {�!��flfir(ai��rFrl{di�iil{Ir��t�lr6r(+Pyla},ial,ti},lelrl,ai`�rt,}alol►ii(,t,lrfr}qtr;►ta — NOTE: IF THIS NICROFILNED f Y DRAWING IS LESS CLEAR THAN �i .- _._.. —. g �- .. { ..—._.-____.�Z THIS NOTICE. IT IS DUE TO - • THE QUALITY OF THE ORIGINAL i �r - DRAWING. —--------- � i g 8Z 1Z 8Z SZ OZ 9;! ZZ !Z 02 6t 81 LI 91-5f ��._.El al It Ot Nil J. _ n_ __ if J z � 9ag � 3 L ai s F 7 t v t_t7G#rt CQccA f g S-W. 130MTA RD �.A # IfE a to Q ff L7 ti . x E s f kiPr ff sw KABLE ST I County ,x ! tCLUDEo 6til� CD E � � i y F JQQ�� t l 1AAf 1ti'ANo. -1100 a F P / i R i .r _._ . . - �.'':tv3."".�;�":,:�=',.s F,rw yw�'a._a,.r.e: , •'Ft'..,_ .u�.vl.fro..., .,;H,,. .1 1 f 1 I f/ i 7 7 - -,-.... _... :. t i,�.t_t f.�T[ ►1,(I�}jrjr(r ._..�m�l�}[f,l 1 7�r r_ .(TTI(t l�ljl f,rII,T `lII,1 IIT silo tfT?TI tiTl(f tft I{t: ft 1 1 a tt1 s a J:1 !.F 1 � r� �' [ � � ,-1� ,f , r f ,_i ,f , ► 4' NOTE:..IF THIS MICROFILMED I I! ..-_...._..f .. . 2 8 9 VD DRAWING IS LESS CLEAR THAN +� THIS NOTICE, IT IS DUE TO THE QUALITY OF THE ORIGINAL 8Z LZ 92 SZ 72 fZ ZZ -61-6a ' ..DRAMINA 0e rz Oz sr ei Li sl -s� #k -_el zr- ri Y1lIIEIEEIiIEIIUI I�III[IttNfN MARC � - _; ---.�� , . __ _ i= 19 9 767 FSR 39 - 60/ `. 5-97 a t . L r : _ 1 }TA•�a i � — 51i • �. Ate., Li!¢ Y �`.QiT- e*iTii 19 kt r :;u • v ._—.� _ ...- ._ PUMP m _...._.... _ o o -- W } -- i - ,� r s 0 - 1 y . _.. o I \� ,t GA ��1� n JJ �� •^ J �i .1 t 5anifarqwo w" iA S�W..� kABLE LM.\ . c� 609 i 1 _ .... : . .__: _ _ i ,:.�.� +et r`2^-''- ,,;.,;... ., -.4�w:-, ..rf-, ^c. ..; .�,M1:.'. ,,:;, �.. - Ade IMP .- ,:_...- ,s t {+ti3, .�.a"" ='" :.,.-_,, rxan_.re .✓_�...:;._4Tum .--ew i .rG -y°?'•,7Ya,•' .wiy,- e.<, 1 _ - .... . j►P�111�1l1 T(Tff( r0i�li t7t�'ci1 f1T�Tj F11 IST ..0 Ill ljt 111 {p"7(i IIl bl{ 11{ C1{ 'm'�1�1' � � fi � _� ,� . � , ( 1 � I �I � 1tl � iiltl � # , NOTE: IF THIS MICROFILMED - .. 9 .- 0 -. ' DRAWING IS LESS CLEAR THAN - - THIS NOTICE. IT IS DIE TO THE QUALITY OF TFE ORIGINAL DRAWING. OE 6Z�8Z LZ 9z Sw s•Z EZ ZZ IZ OZ 61 81 LI 91 'Sf it EI -ZI 11 OI 6 Q L 9 __ _ tCmdou�{nt6mZnN �. MARCH -- — a —_ ---- y , 8 199 : :•; r , 111111 o ° i � `io'Z 72 ;1 r p Ir-.. X";. } • — �} S 15.4.t i Y } t r Aa 3 BR. a T a £ £ S t i x }: X 14 8.8 C R o.SIGNAL i 7 Jf BR. BR. i� 0 X ( $R. .iX. 141.0 ,� 1 160.4 x ID 1 fl! co x 146.9 I l ; , --- B R. pp ILJ x ` ! RR.SIGNAL Q C:-,' D EXhil* © 0 BR x Glty 0� Tigbt HR. Topogvrap ic., V00 4102. 3 © X 149.3 I 1 ..X a BR. x 147.Z u .;k -,""�v^.. .d"3._:.h.;..+.xn, f..w -},.-..•:F4•-'.».t.....c?1�4� t..'. i T4K:. _ i, _ i' .Imp►+I+fi1(1 1111/(I Y t{E7 ��ill TT.1F7 t(, '-[ I 1 .1'1 f 1 1 #f 7 T 1 i-. - _ .. _ _ --_ lob?f�'l' `##f}lt��)��T��f(1�1111�(111�1it �f��+Ni11+1��+�t111111�+vj1 jl _ .. y NOTE: IF THIS MICROFILMED I � .._ ,..... 2 3 4 _ _ _5 - 6 7 ... .8 .... . - 9 �O- DRAWING IS LESSCLEAR THAN yy THIS NOTICE. IT IS DUE TD t THE QUALITY OF TIE ORIGINAL ORA6IING. 06 6Z 9Z 12 92 9Z fZ EZ ZZ IZ OZ 6t 91 11 91 9fT it EI ZI 11 07 Q 9_. ._1 ._ 9 _S_y___6 Z. - id11�Nt1}tlliltlltillitillll - -- -' __ - I' MARCH' i dFA r. xI4a z- x s, 21 ot Vs i :/ 1 tS. i s •ice' � � :.:. 1 ///S Fz� S� i E � / t E � I♦ r� f \ ,6�s � � DR. ( /) 3 N X! v X I —% 156.81 L _ 140.5', 142 1 _ 145.7 _ \ %/— 160.4 —— + ` x 150.03 Gi4y of Tiqand TOS. rAphic; wp. Pin 452 N 1 tG DD' S0 �L n.. ,n •1 q Y v 1 , it rjT I{r I{Ilr{r�rir I{r Ipflpr Ipl{i{I fpTiTil If117 lit 1 1 7 1 1 9 1 1 qr t f� i T I{i C fif 1 1 r r r 1]Ir r� rir r r lilt a T T r 1 r ►r r f r pair _ (m_9._hp- i { i 7 i i ! I I I t t � lf t � � .� 1 � Ip !1 _ I i �l �lTi i tjp p i NOTE.....IF THIS MICROFILMED ? 3 6 --. _ 5 .. - s 7 .8 _ .._ - 9 !] DRAWING IS LESS CLEAR THAN THIS NOTICE. IT IS DUE TO .. THE QUALITY OF THE ORIGINAL _ - 1 - .._..-.. 0£ 6Z 8z Lz 9z sZ—f7- Sz zz Iz Oz et 91 LI- 91 Sf{ 41 EI— zl II 01 B _ _8_ �, _ S__;__-e i 1 _. _" enllbNirnllunhw6rugxrlMrdN -r MARCH `S 19901 {4 +} f � • i t f t i FLOOD PLAIN AND k WETLANDS f f � I Mw Flood Plains & Drainageways t Drainageways & Wetlands Significant Wetlands NOVEMBER . 1983 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON t t • t � � 1 r r � t I r • 1p • � —•I st�CE ^� •.-�i:: fel h-- ._ _ - --� , r. .� Ili - \\� �• \ t 12 LJ f•: i r POL.RG S w•� '�v�� i .- off �' I ; II J b� � ,! { •-�� \ I 'I • • '•t' r OORMuRM 11 12 DIAGRAM V 1 p _ kC'1 '� •rye�I ;� 1��r�y A. +"�ct-�' sem' I �--�'�*'• .�. �!�� j© �1 = ��} 1 �:+ill '• � �' j•J� 22. DL rA-- Nrpf del �� i?a { J, IL V•• .F.r •••� I •fir .:" . c2 is _ ti .k• �,'�-.' r ��, �!._ —" fix- �r� �.- n.�y` s �� :C its • ,\ `i �'��. `� 'iP— o 1 It rri RJ� •� � A-=tir .T •� �y l��ws 7 W r- O0 C+ - — •• 44 z a a 3 ' w . 4 cc w A o -- n - H `t I {� x 1 41 RIP, , •fr �' •�, �;'� �y ;;SRI. -�' �1� `t I i7 , rT t3 . t -�. Y lilt.'rte. .:, }t!-)'-� i :�';_. ., �•':.}•' '�h . c: A �t � � �q/ e' ._� rt;.:- • t e r.+ e . 3%'�<L7lj1C ti—tiL_-<yj s, 4�; x,� �• � .'moo• �r' " `t7 1�� .'. t Sol milt wo •�w1 '8�,�•. TJjY .'' �"J-rt _ �T !1.^ � y,- , i'ii�� .}rel. ' ':/� l.' • .... MIN . �� ..F�S - � �::�t�: �� • '�"�': -a�7<', R• IFS. s >r�-• t_t.Y � .C � r L..'-,.� � � L •,y��.:_1J.,•S _ tib l _4 r - - _ . ' � • _:• s�:s- ::r—.-a•�.=�.�3"�F"re,r,-.x+�!� _-•�*'^_-_ - �s�41i �'Ls�®�a�.w�- �'�F Q �' .sac - —�}•�s_�"' .�^- �_� -4r. t -,s. •� � z'' y"�+r�' 'yam YLs �V�fi �Y•��'r..l� , -,.w'niA -• i�.L'Y.i .c.•', � - •'i .. "C'.a1 I�7' .� -� - f w •-+•1n - ....�•'�•'••'sf..•�•'••vWw.�,l,�,>7'/..�...aYN Is�•.�>- �• - >+ w�C R�s; �•t•;f.: �:T.. YR>'J, ap7►�. Y�4•rw ,ri. .S'..e. 'F�� .#'. t �.�w�'A^ r'�'7 � „'Sl�`"� '-�Ad'�J 'a .T '�`F .rr'�"f3+.ak r 'L`y�. �• .','r +L •.. .. 3 'J�v' `�."'-b}�•{,:C�iGwf ;3G.cY,',�Y, �� '-L$:i6i•^ -� '49�!: '"�S`�u'.. 7".i�'.'_3C' A Tys ..•!,. r t:'��GY.:;L+'•:w ,a1"�.�.' ' ,-'x�`•Ir.'?Ltdh�' F. �i^ Y {.a �T j ..*T. eYL• cm v, _y iWjpl.!S � • '3-�.`4�..��a�.•w.�. •fr�t`t'�' '{,.a!: a a.�„'t.`�'1 :'fj .-#�Xt i .P '.... �'•4 7t ;'• c.• '��' ?�� e � t-t�`r f � r,rte+�•'°✓T �. r �.t.�f F 1 �ya.a�. s� _. .�ap�.'_ �{ .'rt yam' -J' . �. �� `7. y}z .✓` COMPREI-9EN51®/E PLAN. , ,hob;.� wT .,.w <tea. v ••re.Y+�;. -_r it ?•.T"� +."y-sy�- :e t-+. '�. i. �-`'.. i L��ti ..'^L �. �,< L i .•1 +� Y,Y, Yr..q^... J ,:r_.�` � �SKX - S - j '_ .t .✓,-'3 i,.tiep..• ,a„'>: '1,. t: ..�<G...-.,� }4 �J. J u.�t v� �. t.: x rs. r..a+ moils- M "r Y rar � a � S: � �"i�' �� I t : - � .. L.j _ -�G -Li.•art"_ -✓ t'-r+3�yk''�,�� de s3 r. � :-�....... - �.:..4• -t' =-•'' �.�.r CAS >#f:r L'T�'e 3- Ir r o `crr yc W NSF MTON COI M O _ .- c ART1�Nf APP " .r.._. _. I A VEIOPMENT D�� EP 150 NoRTm FIRST HLLSSORO.OREGON 97123 648-8781 >� +3} •� .R !FJ, r ( � r_ L '`'c r fit,,, a -1.- t � .•;' t-� a.4 `^��..'3:�..fr':,is.:.:p'rt}�r��'."y�•y�.1'd.'•61r• y.,Y r �Jj�'R�: OTICE .s. "�OWI. ',b F.' - do _�'• _,� WO ✓3u;,• -.�_:�. .c.�+t> ^•rF4� - --DUKE TYP£.'.Y*e id#:�' ,.., .):..;: 1 ..•.e'1ar� COMMUNITY v.w a si!• '= - ,`�. A• :.- % y ii`�•I ' = - .# �� a ,fir , y"' .:�..J�,t�j-`c.€ ._ate ',�F.a�►•�►. - � e•.� � .Jc``� .�r it yy t� i�-M 4' � 'V�J ,� �Ar��_. __;��,'�h�.: ,yt,Y;a,- T.�•�^ � -`�((��>yy,,�_ ( ..�. � tt %t��yyjj�,�� . .! ale 3'q'•(� !t__ _y,�' �3�. ��i 1Yi.r,-.' ":�Y,; � s xsy y e a + •'S _ j�'' � yy 'K'T t `• �{��yp��9(s_.t�s+ i> �,��. a_-yrs+- ,�.. V'� '•.f.'.$Fi�Y,.l�Ci:3�s�yf�i�..,a i��•'+F: -l`'i�". g •.. 's. - - s. -r 1 ' .�n_5'..c-•-•F sear-i �1 •;` { -; n M .. W1 � ,t,� �. •�' t �.r-'•.. ,.,_ r =ice.sy.�•:,s�.a,` •w'�� _Tti `�.�.�•z' L U- iVO *.' Myy" OMMUNITY- DE!/ELOPMENT C®D ; - ADOPTED DECEMBER 27, "1983 o ORDINANCE NO. 279 REVISED MAY 21, 1985,• ORDINANCE .NO. 293 REVISED SEPTEMBER 9,;1986 a' ORDINANCE NO308 > %�` a .te• � '1 'w � �."-• -t.� �� - r�nv�i-:'Y.1i5�'-� lc^a'3 kti •" - +v - .-xAis�'Y�.�...j'F'll��..;�# � i i- .. �f'fi��+�:t 4'a •c~' { .�:V .. --•.k i.aw` �:-.�`�a J .�+F yila.- ItJ 'ih• - A tib. �rr>` b"a.:i6Hsal'`.i2e#�'K i'aE-gin✓>�tra._e' uix III-69 R. Radio, televion and other transmitters or related towers - Section 430-109 S. Veterinary or dog and cat hospital , kennels or boarding places 320-3.11 Stockpiling of aggregate, sand and gravel for road main- tenance purposes - Section 430-132 320-4 Uses Which May be Permitted Through •a Type III Procedure The following uses may be.,permitted subject to the applicable standards as set forth in,-Article IV and as may be further con- ditioned by the Review Authority. 320-4.1 Amusement Park - Section 430-11 320-4.2 Race track (auto, motorcycle, horse or dog) - Section 430-107 320-4.3 Stadiums, arenas and exhibition halls when developed through a Planned Development 320-4.4 The following uses may be allowed provided they are located no less than six-hundred (600) feet from any residential district, and not located in an industrial park: (A) Aggregate products: (1) Concrete mixing plant; manufacture of concrete products; crusher, stone, or rock; manufacture of cement (2) Lime, gypsum or plaster of paris; (3) Manufacture of brick, clay products, tile or terra cotta; (4) Manufacture of concrete products entirely within an enclosed building; (5) Stone, marble, and granite monument works. (B) Manufacture of: (1) Acid; (2) Ammonia; 12/8/86 f f i III-70 (3) Anti-knock compounds for gasoline; (4) Asbestos products; (5) Asphalt; (6) Cable and transmission; (7) Candles; (8) Cans; (9) Carborundum; (10) Cellulose and cellulose products; (11) Guns; (12) Insecticide and fungicide; (13) Linseed oil , turpentine, lacquer or varnish; (14) Manufacture and storage of explosives; r - (15) Paint shellac; t (16) Paper and paper by-products; (17) Phenol or phenol products; (18) Roofing paper, shingles. (C) Processing and storage: (1) Animal or boneblack processing; (2) Brewery, distillery, or winery; (3) Distillation of bones; (4) Fat rendering; (5) Grain elevator and flour milling; (6) Junk, rags, paper, or metal salvage; (7) Junk yards or wrecking yards - Section 430-15; (8) Petroleum storage, major and/or refining; 12/8/86 III-71 (9) Incineration or reduction of garbage, offal , dead animals or refuse; (10) Rolling, drawing, or alloying ferrous and non- ferrous metals; (11) Rubber, treatment or reclaiming plant; (12) Sawmills, lumber mills, planing mills, and molding plants; (13) Slaughter house. 1'- 320-4.5 Solid Waste Transfer Station - Section 430-129. t 320-5 Prohibited Uses 320-5.1 Structures or uses of land not specifically authorized by this District unless the structure or use has substantially similar use and impact characteristics to a use listed, as determined through the provisions of { Section 202-2.2. (cet as k, 320-5.2 The-use of a and obile home Temporary Uses. provided n Sections i � 32 3. 320-5.3 New dwellings except as provided in this District. 320-5.4 Commercial or retail uses except as specifically pro- t' vided in this District. 320-5.5 The location of places of public assembly or day care in i roach zones. Location of these facilities airport app June, 1983) airport shall be avoided in any existing year 2000 LDN fifty-five (55) contour. 320-6 D;wtensi onal Requirements 320-6.1 Dimensional requirements for uses allowed through a Type II procedure: A. Lot area: The minimum lot area shall be one (1) acre. B. Yard requirements: The minimum yard requirements shall be: (1) Forty (40) foot front yard; i 12/8/86 i i 3.2.7 Land Resources IT IS THE POLICY OF WASHINGTON COUNTY TO PROHIBIT NEW* MINERAL RESOURCE EXTRACTION OPERATIONS AND EXPANSION* OF EXISTING OPERATIONS WITHIN THE URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY UNLESS IT IS DEMONSTRATED THERE ARE NO ECONOMICALLY FEASIBLE ALTERNATIVE SITES OUTSIDE THE URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY. THE IMPACTS OF EXISTING MINERAL RESOURCE EXTRACTION INDUSTRIES ON ADJACENT LAND USES SHALL BE MINIMIZED, AND ALL MINERAL RESOURCE EXTRACTION SITES WILL BE RECLAIMED WHEN EXHAUSTED. Implementing Strategies The County will : a. Utilize the Mineral and Aggregate Overlay District to protect identified mineral and aggregate resource sites and to reduce potential impacts of s resource extraction on adjacent uses; b. Protect existing mineral and aggregate resource extraction sites located in the Industrial (IND) Land Use District. In determining whether existing sites should be expanded or new sites established, consideration shall be given to population growth, area or regional needs, proximity to the utili- zation area, fluctuations in the construction industry, and the quality and quantity of mineral and aggregate resources available at other identified sites; *The terms new or expansion in reference to mineral resource activities relate to undertaking such activities on tax lots where such uses have not occurred _ or been permitted previously. i s F 3.2.8 C. Require applications for expansion of existing or establishment of new mineral and aggregate resource extraction operations to identify all uses, including farm and forest uses, dwelling units, and significant natural and cultural resources which may be adversely affected; i d. Require new or expanded mineral and aggregate extraction operations to develop programs based on economic, social , environmental and energy con- sequences analysis, that will minimize any negative affects that expansion of existing or establishment of new mineral and aggregate extraction activi- ties may have on surrounding affected uses; _ F . e. Require that all mineral and aggregate sites be reclaimed to a state allowing redevelopment of the site in accordance with the Plan; f. Request the Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries to conduct F r- (by January 1, 1985) a joint study with the County concerning optimal long- .. I' term aggregate resource supply areas; g. Identify, with the assistance of quarry operators and CPOs, appropriate locations for new rock quarry areas outside the Urban Growth Boundary and develop standards and regulations to govern location and operation of new rock quarries. If adequate locations are not available outside the UGB, existing quarries within the UGB will be permitted to expand while mini- mizing impacts on neighboring uses. This work will be performed subsequent to the joint study with the Department of Geology and Mineral Industries; and h. Prohibit the extraction of sand and gravel from the limited number of urban stream beds to protect fish and wildlife habitats and to prevent soil ero- sion and water pollution. i 0.2.9 Summary Findings and Conclusions I Rock material resources are necessary for the construction industry. However, i rock quarries can cause major adverse impacts on the major use of urban land - dwellings. Extension of residential uses to areas within the regional Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) will create increasing conflict with existing rock quarries both inside and adjacent to the UGB. Other sites for long-term produc- tion may be available beyond the urban area, but have not yet been investigated. t C r _.-w��.l-�+s.w..sj»:osy.;tir_ r:w+ri_C'f�r�+•,t +.3►c&7"'�SCtw'�,. ��"�L^ 3''�3'L +1a — .. :, �^" "x'..+.�rm t�r.� 7-S 1.MF��4i�r:+.SiJ�'.�ii9'1tvsU�' ^��'''.��jj��t9°Afa?•`G Ye.nS.'•s3�. -%Yµ_•YL7.'nE,�j.►.�!Y^^T'rF"'i'�+' �„p. �.�./1 �..��—a ��.,� !'a:'� Fu: a. f _�. .._ � ��v��c.t: .�....0 sL•'f+. _ ..-.YWIv ...��+c•ssow.t. .'� -.�. ri'w A • •,�K i Development Code ®f the City ®fBeaverton * . ::. � .,zf Effective Date October 20, •1978 C"of Beaverton .. N.I. �" ,• ... .\ - 1�:� '<Y; i t _ y.. ...w ._ w a3t J..ti.•iY-. b•1�e.14y+ :'.lam �.. .ta�"(:'n UPDATED THROUGH ORDINANCE NO. C. Public service or utility uses other than those providing on premise services to individuals or the general public. D. Research laboratory. IL E. Public parks parkways, recreational facilities, trails and related facilities. F. Administrative, educational and other related activities and facilities subordinate to a permitted use on the same premises as the principal use. G. Cold storage plants. H. Heavy equipment sales, including incidental service and repair. I. Fuel oil distributors. J. Printing, publishing and book binding. K. Retail or combination retail/wholesale lumber and/or building materials yard. L. Storage or sale yard for contractors equipment, house moving, delivery vehicles, transit storage, trucking terminal and use equipment in operable condition. M. Storage yard for building materials. N. Trailer, recreational vehicle or boat storage. 0. Accessory structures and uses to a particular permitted use. P. Railroad tracks and facilities such as switching yards, spur or holding tracks, freight depots but not within 200 feet of a residential zone. Q. • Auto, truck and trailer rental. R. Mini storage. S. Nursery, daycare facilities. (See also Special Regulations chapter) T. Vehicle repair shops, entirely within enclosed building. 55.2 Conditional Uses, Allowable by Conditional Use Permit. A. Heliport. (See also Special Regulations, Aircraft Landing Facilities) B. Facilities Relating to utility distribution such as substations, water towers, pump stations and other transmission lines. C. Concrete mixing and asphalt batch plants. D. Trailer sales or repair. E. Restaurants, except drive-in restaurants (windows) and take out restaurants serving larger market areas. F. Salvage yards and recycling centers. G. Office uses as principal uses up to 15 percent of the total land area of an "LI" District. These uses shall be of the same type as listed in Section 54.2 and area limitations shall be calculated according to Section °A 56.15C. H. Surface parking lot or parking structure as a principal use. (See also Special Regulations chapter, Park In Ride Facilities) I. Motor Freight Terminal. J. Vehicle Storage Yards (ORD 3314, April 1983). K. Solid Waste Transfer Station (ORD 3499) Section 56. Site Development Requirements." 56.1 Land Area Standards CI LI IP e A. Minimum lot area None None Nate B. w nimum area for new zoning district (acres) 25 None None j I In instances involving annexation, the Planning Director may authorize a minimum district area of less than 25 acres when it is determined that abutting -land outside the City has a similar land use designation and ' that the area will develop as an employment center. For requests involving zone amendments, Council may approve a minimum district area of less than 25 acres when a similar determination is made. However, ' for purposes of determining the applicable Development Control Area, only that land area actually within the City shall be considered. (3475) 56.2 Minimum lot dimensions G f� I A. Width None None None B. Depth None None None 1 56.3 Minimum yard setbacks i A. Front 35 ft. 35 ft. 35 ft. B. Side 10 ft. 10 ft. 10 ft. C. Rear None None None r" 7.40.010--7.40.020 ARTICLE II. PUBLIC HEALTH NUISANCES 7.40.040 Nuisances affecting the public health. ARTICLE III. NUISANCES AFFECTING PUBLIC SAFETY 7.40.050 Noxious vegetation. 7.40.060 Trees. 7.40.070 Streets and sidewalks. 7.40.080 Vehicles not to drotenance,material on streets. 7.40.090 Greenway m 7.40.100 Open storage of junk. 7.40.110 Attractive nuisances. 7.40.120 Scattering ARTICLE IV. NUISANCES AFFECTING THE PUBLIC PEACE 7.40.130 Noise--Definitions. .. 7.40.140 Motor vehicle noises. arty. 7.40.150 Noise emanating from certain prop 7.40.160 Allowable noise limits. 7.40.170 Noise--Exemptions to restrictions. 7.40.180 Jake brakes prohibited. 7.40.190 Sound-amplifying equipment restrictions. 7.40.200 Violation--Penalty. ARTICLE V. EVENTS USING AMPLIFIED SOUND 7.40.210 Permits required for certain events. ARTICLE VI. VIOLATION--PENALTY for chapter violations. 7.40.220 Penalty ARTICLE I. GENERAL PROVISIONS his 7.40.010 Short title. The ordinance codified andin may chapter shall be known as tas 'thisachapterordnceiis nan`eOrd• 86-20 also be referred to herein g4(Exhibit C(1) ) , 1986) . 7.40.020 Definitions. As used in thisochapter: sible (a) Responsible party�� the he p or remedying a nuisance, which includes: for curing or the owner' s man- (1) The owner of the property, ro arty on ager or agent or other person in control of the p P behalf of the owner; in the property, including (2) The person occupy gerson having possession; bailee, lessee, tenant or other p 84 (Tigard 8/15/86) 7.40.060 abatement, he shall cause to be posted upon the property liable for the abatement of such nuisance, a notice in legible characters directing the removal of such nuisance, which notice shall be substantially in the following form: I 4-1 (Tigard 9/81) 1 7.40.030--7.40.040 (3) The person who is alleged to have committed the acts or omissions, created or allowed the condition to exist, or placed the object or allowed the object to exist on the property. (Ord. 86-20 54(Exhibit.C(2) ) , 1986) . 7.40.030 Nuisances designated--Class 1 infraction. (a) The acts, omissions, conditions or objects specifically enumerated in this chapter are hereby declared to be a public nuisance. (b) In addition to the nuisances specifically enumer- ated within this chapter, every other thing, substance or act which is determined by the council to be offensive, in- jurious or detrimental to the public health, safety or wel- fare of the city is declared to be a nuisance. (c) All nuisances shall constitute a Class 1 civil infraction and shall be processed according to the procedures established in Chapter 1.16 of this code, Civil Infractions. (Ord. 86-20 54 (Exhibit C(3) ) , 1986) . ARTICLE II. PUBLIC HEALTH NUISANCES 7_.40.040 Nuisances affecting the public health. No person shall cause or permit a nuisance affecting the public health. The following are nuisances affecting the public health: ;. (a) Privies. An open vault or privy constructed and maintained within the city, except those constructed or maintained in connection with construction projects in ac- cordance with the State Health Division regulations; (b) Debris. Accumulations of debris, rubbish, manure and other refuse that affect the health of surrounding per- sons; (c) Stagnant Water. Stagnant water which affords a breeding place for mosquitoes and other insect pests; (d) Water Pollution. Pollution of a body of water, well, spring, stream or drainage ditch by sewage, industrial wastes, or other substances placed in or near the water in a manner that will cause harmful material to pollute the water; (e) Odor. Any animal, substance or condition on the premises that is in such a state or condition as to cause an offensive odor detectable at a property line, or that is in an insanitary condition; (.f) Surface Drainage. Drainage of liquid wastes from private premises; (g) Cesspools. Cesspools or septic tanks that are in an unsanitary condi ion or which cause an offensive odor; (h) Animals. Animals, including livestock or buildings for the purpose of maintaining livestock or animals, main- tained in such places or in such a manner that they are offensive or annoying to the residents within the immediate vicinity, or maintaining the premises in such a manner as to 85 (Tigard 8/15/86) I 7.40.050 be a breeding place or likely breeding place for rodents, flies and other -este; ' (i) Remov4l of Carcasses. An animal carcass permitted to remain on public property or to be exposed on public property for a period of time longer than is necessary to remove or dispose of the carcass. (j) Maintenance on Private Property of a Dangerous Building. A "dangerous building" is one or more of the following: (1) A structure that, for the want of proper repairs or by reason of age and dilapidated condition, by reason of poorly installed electrical wiring or equipment, defective chimney, defective gas connection, defective heating apparatus, or for any other cause or reason, is especially liable to fire, and that is so situated or occupied as to endanger any other building or property or human life; (b) A structure containing combustible or explosive material, rubbish, rags, waste, oils, gasoline or flammable substance of any kind, especially liable to cause fire or danger to. the safety of the building, premises, or to human life; (c) A structure that is kept or maintained or is in a filthy or unsanitary condition, especially liable to cause the spread of contagious or infectious disease or diseases; (d) A structure in such weak or weakened condition, or dilapidated or deteriorated condition as to endanger any person or property by reason of probability of partial or entire collapse. (Ord. 86-39 51 (Exhibit A) , 1986; Ord. 86-20 54 (Exhibit C(4) ) , 1986) . ARTICLE III. NUISANCES AFFECTING PUBLIC SAFETY 7.40.050 Noxious vegetation. (a) The term "noxious vegetation"does not include vegetation that constitutes an agricultural crop, unless that vegetation is a health hazard, a fire hazard or a traffic hazard, and it is vegetation within the meaning of subsection (b) of this section. (b) The term "noxious vegetation" includes: (1) Weeds more than ten inches high; (2) Grass more than ten inches high and not within the exception stated in subsection (a) of this section; (3) Poison oak, poison ivy, or similar vegetation; (4) Dead trees, dead bushes, stumps and any other thing likely to cause fire; (5) Blackberry bushes that extend into a public thoroughfare or across a property line; (6) Vegetation that is a health hazard; (7) Vegetation that is a health hazard because it impairs the view of a public thoroughfare or otherwise makes use of the thoroughfare hazardous. 86 (Tigard 11/15/86) 7.40.060 j (b) No owner or responsible party shall allow noxious vegetation to be on the property or in the right-of-way of a public thoroughfare abutting on the property. The owner or responsible party shall cut down or destroy grass, shrubbery, brush, bushes, weeds or other noxious vegetation as often as needed to prevent them from becoming unsightly or, in the case of weeds or other noxious vegetation, from maturing or from going to seed. (Ord. 86-20 54(Exhibit C(5) (1) ) , 1986) . 7.40.060 Trees. (a) No owner or responsible party shall permit tree branches or bushes on the property to ex- tend into a public street or public sidewalk in a manner which interferes with street or sidewalk traffic. It shall be the duty of an owner or responsible party to keep all tree branches or bushes on the premises which adjoin the public street or public sidewalk, including the adjoining parking strip, trimmed to a height of not less than eight feet above the sidewalk and not less than ten feet above the street. (b) No owner or responsible party shall allow to stand any dead or decaying tree that is in danger of falling or otherwise constitutes a hazard to the public or to persons or property on or near the property. (Ord. 86-20 §4 (Exhibit , C (5) (2) (a) and (b) ) , 1986) . 86-1 (Tigard 11/15/86) 7.40.070--7:40'.100 7_40.070 Streets and sidewalks. The owner or respon- sible party shall keep a public street and/or sidewalk abut- ting their property free from earth, rock and other debris and other objects that may obstruct or render the street or sidewalk unsafe for its intended use. (Ord. 86-20 S4 (Exhibit C.(5) (2) (c) ) , 1986) . 7 40 080 Vehicles not to drop material on streets. The owner or operator of any vehicle engaged in the transpor- tation of excavation or construction materials shall be responsible for keeping the public streets and sidewalks free from such materials, including but not limited to, earth, rock and other debris that may obstruct or render the street or sidewalk unsafe for its intended use. (Ord. 86-20 54 (Exhibit C (5) (2) (d) ) , 1986) . 7 40 090 Greenway maintenance. (a) The owner or re- sponsible party shall be responsible for the maintenance of the property, subject to an easement to the city or to the public for greenway purposes. Except as otherwise provided by this section and Sections 7.40.050 through 7.40.120, the standards for maintenance shall be as follows: (1) The land shall remain in its natural topographic condition. No private structures, culverts, excavations or fills shall be constructed within the easement area unless authorized by the city engineer based on a finding of need in order to protect the property or the public health, safety or welfare. (2) No tree over five feet in height shall be re- moved unless authorized by the planning director based on a finding that the tree constitutes a nuisance or a hazard. (3) Grass shall be kept cut to a height not exceed- ing ten inches, except when some natural condition prevents cutting. (b) In situations where the approval authority estab- lishes different standards or additional standards, the standards shall be in writing and shall be recorded. No person shall be found in violation of this section of the code unless the person has been given actual or constructive notice of the standards prior to the time the violation occurred. (Ord. 86-20 54 (Exhibit C(5) (3) ) , 1986) . 7 40 100 Open storage of junk. No person or respon- sible party shall deposit, store, maintain or keep on any real property, except in a fully enclosed storage facility, building or garbage receptacle, any of the following: (a) An icebox or refrigerator, or similar container, which seals essentially airtight, without first removing the door; (b) Inoperable, partially dismantled automobiles, trucks, bus, trailer or other vehicle equipment or parts thereof in a state of disrepair, for more than ten days as 87 (Tigard 8/15/86) 7.40.110--7.40:140 to any one automobile, truck, bus, trailer or piece of ve- hicular equipment; (c) Used or dismantled household appliances, furniture, other discards or junk, for more than five days. (Ord. 86-20 54 (Exhibit C(5).(4) ) , 1986) . 7.40.110 Attractive nuisances. (a) No owner or re- sponsible party shall permit on the property: (1) Unguarded machinery, equipment or other devices which are attractive, dangerous, and accessible to children; (2) Lumber,* logs, building material or piling placed or stored in a manner so as to be attractive, dangerous, and accessible to children; (3) An open pit, quarry, cistern, or other excava- tion without safeguards or barriers to prevent such places from being used by children; or (4) An exposed foundation or portion of foundation, any residue, debris or other building or structural remains, for more than thirty days after the destruction, demolition or removal of any building or portion of the building. (b) This section shall not apply to authorized con- struction projects with reasonable safeguards to prevent injury or death to playing children. (Ord. 86-20 54 (Exhibit C(5) (5) ) , 1986) . 7.40.120 Scattering rubbish. No person shall deposit upon public or private property any kind of rubbish, trash, debris, refuse, or any substance that would mar the appear- ance, create a stench or fire hazard, detract from the clean- liness or safety of the property, or would be likely to injure a person, animal, or vehicle traveling upon a public way. (Ord. 86-20 54 (Exhibit C(5) (6) ) , 1986) . ARTICLE IV. NUISANCES AFFECTING THE PUBLIC PEACE 7 .40.130 Noise--Definitions. For purposes of this section and Sections 7. 40.130 through 7.40.200, the following mean: (a) "Ambient noise" means the all-encompassing noise associated with a given environment, being usually a com- posite of sounds from many sources, near and far. (b) "Noise-sensitive property" means real property on which people normally sleep and, in addition, schools, churches, hospitals and public libraries. (Ord. 86-20 §4 (Exhibit C(6) (1) (a) ) , 1986) . 7.40.140 Motor vehicle noises. No person shall operate a motor vehicle in such a manner or at such a location as to cause the noise created by the vehicle to cause the ambient noise level at the nearest noise-sensitive property to ex- ceed the levels specified in Section 7.40.160, as measured 87-1 (Tigard 8/15/86) 7.40.150--7..4.0..180 at a point located twenty-five feet from the noise-sensitive structure toward the noise source. (Ord. 86-20 54 (Exhibit C (6) (1) (b) ) , 1986) . 7 40.150 Noise emanating from certain property. Except as may be expressly allowed pursuant to the provisions of Section 7.40.220, no person shall cause or permit noise to emanate from the property under his or her control so as to cause the ambient noise level at the nearest noise-sensitive property to exceed the levels set forth in Section 7.40. 160, as measured at a point located twenty-five feet from the noise-sensitive structure toward the noise source. (Ord. 86-20 §4 (Exhibit C (6) (1) (c) ) , 1986) . 7.40. 160 Allowable noise limits. Allowable noise limits are as follows: j Time Maximum Noise Level, DBA 7:00 a.m. -- 10:00 p.m. 60 10:00 p.m. -- 7:00 a.m. 55 (Ord. 86-20 §4 (Exhibit C(6) (1) (d) ) , 1986) . 7. 40.170 Noise--Exemptions to restrictions. The re- strictions imposed by Sections 7.40. 140 through 7.40. 160 of this chapter shall not apply to the following: (a) Emergency equipment not operating on a regular or scheduled basis; (b) Noise emanating from the Pacific Highway, Highway I-217 and Highway I-5; (c) Sounds originating on construction sites and rea- sonably necessary to the accomplishment of work in progress; provided, however, that no construction work may be carried on between the hours of nine p.m. and seven a.m. , except for bona fide emergencies where the public health or safety is threatened or which a special permit, granted by the city council, has been first obtained. Any such special permit may be granted by the city council only after first having held a hearing and having otherwise followed the administra- tive procedures contained in Chapter 18 .32 of this code; (d) Emergency repair equipment not operated on a regu- lar or scheduled basis; (e) Lawn, garden or household equipment associated with the normal repair, upkeep or maintenance of property. (Ord. 86-20 §4 (Exhibit C (6) (1) (e) ) , 1986) . 7. 40 . 180 Jake brakes prohibited. No person shall operate within the city limits of the city of Tigard a motor vehicle exhaust-braking system commonly known as a "jake brake." For the purposes of this section, the exceptions set forth in Section 7.40. 170 shall not apply, and this 87-2 (Tigard 1/15/87) 7.40.190--7.40:210 section shall be read as an absolute prohibition of the operation of such motor vehicle braking systems within the city of Tigard. (Ord. 86-20 §4 (Exhibit C(6) (1) (f) ) , 1986) . 7 40 190 Sound-amplifying equipment restrictions. No person shall cause or permit noise to emanate from sound- amplifying equipment under their control so as to cause the ambient noise level to exceed sixty DBA at any distance one hundred feet or more from the sources between the hours of seven a.m. and ten p.m. , and fifty-five DBA one hundred feet from the source between the hours of ten p.m. and seven a.m. (Ord. 86-20 54 (Exhibit C(6) (1) (g) ) , 1986) . 7.40.200 Violation--Penalty. Failure to abate the nuisance within the time allowed for abatement shall consti- tute a Class 1 civil infraction which shall be processed according to the procedures established in Chapter 1. 16 of this code, Civil Infractions. (b) Each violation of a separate provision of Sections 7.40.130 through 7.40.200 shall constitute a separate in- fraction, and each day that a violation of such sections is committed or permitted to continue shall constitute a sep- arate violation. (c) A finding of a violation of Sections 7.40 .130 through 7.40.200 and imposition of a civil penalty shall not relieve the responsible party of the duty to abate the vio- lation, except where the city has acted to abate the nuisance. In such a situation, the responsible party shall be liable for the costs pursuant to Section 1.16.340 of the civil in- fractions ordinance codified in Chapter 1.16 of this code. (d) If a provision of Sections 7.40.130 through 7.40- . 200 is violated by a firm or corporation, the officer or officers, or person or persons responsible for the violation shall be subject to the penalties imposed by this section. (Ord. 86-20 54 (Exhibit C(6) (1) (h) ) , 1986) . ARTICLE V. EVENTS. USING AMPLIFIED SOUND ? 40 210 Permits required for certain events. (a) The use of amplified voice and music at levels which would otherwise exceed those permissible under Sections 7.40.130 through 7 .40.200 may be allowed upon application to the city administrator. Application for an amplified sound permit shall be made to the city administrator on forms prepared by the city. The applicant shall identify the date, location and time of the event for which the permit is sought, and shall provide an estimate of the duration of the event. (b) In the case of a series of similar events (for example, a season's high school football games) , to be -con- ducted at the same location, the city administrator may, in his discretion, issue the permit in a form extending to cover 87-3 (Tigard 8/15/86) 7.40;:.220 the entire series. In that event, the permit shall be sub- ject to the administrator's withdrawal at any time. (c) The city administrator shall grant a permit in any instance in which the event and its accompanying noise will not, in his judgment, interfere unreasonably with the peace of those likely to be affected by the noise. In making this judgment, he shall take into account the nature of the sur- rounding properties and the benefit to the community of the event for which the application is made. (d) The city administrator may submit any question arising with respect to this section to the city council, and if any member of the city council requests its submission to the council, any such question shall be heard by the council. In either event, the decision of the city council shall be final. (e) No permit authorized by this section shall give the applicant the right to cause or permit sound to emanate from the property on which the event is held so as to cause the ambient noise level at the nearest noise-sensitive property to exceed fifty-five DBA afterthehour of eleven p.m. (Ord. 86-20 §4 (Exhibit C(4) (7) ) , ARTICLE VI. VIOLATION--PENALTY 7.410.220 Penalty for chapter violations. (a) A vio- lation of this chapter shall constitute a Class 1 civil infraction, which shall be processed according to the proce- dures established in the civil infractions ordinance, set out at Chapter 1.16 of this code. Notice to abate the nui- sance shall be a prior contract. (b) Each violation of a separate provision of this chapter shall constitute a separate interaction, and each day that a violation of this chapter is committed or permitted to continue shall constitute a separate infraction. (c) A finding of a violation of this chapter shall not relieve the responsible party of the duty to abate the vio- lation. The penalties imposed by 'this section are in addi- tion to and not in lieu of any remedies available to the city. (d) If a provision of this chapter is violated by a firm or corporation, the officer or officers, or person or persons responsible for the violation shall be subject to the penalties imposed by this chapter. (Ord. 86-20 54 (Exhibit C(8) ) , 1986) . 87-4 (Tigard 8/15/86) 15 04. 080 Driveway approaches and curb cuts. (a) The permit provided in this chapter authorizes relocation of any municipal facility, including any within the limits of a curb return which may be encroached upon or allowed, providing that the applicant first notifies the appropriate authority, obtains the appropriate authorization and bears the cost of the relocation of the municipal facility. (b) 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. (c) No portion of any driveway approach, including the end slopes, shall be located closer than thirty feet to an intersecting street right-of-way line. (d) 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. (e) Each residential driveway shall be not more than 15. 04 . 090--15 .04 .120 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. (f) Joint access driveways shall conform to the ' appropriate width standard for commercial or residential- type usage. (Ord. 74-14 98, 1974) . 15. 04.090 Areas of limited street improvements. (a) Where standard gutter and curbs have been installed but where concrete sidewalks have not been installed, the appli- cant shall be required to construct the driveway approach from curb lire to the applicant 's premises. The cost shall be borne by the applicant. (b) Where standard gutter and curbs have not been in- stalled, the driveway approach may be constructed of the same material used for surfacing the driveway. The applicant shall improve that portion between the property line and existing pavement in such a manner as to not impede surface drainage along the street. The cost of that portion of the improvement, between the property line and existing pavement, shall be borne by the applicant. (Ord. 74-14 §9 , 1974) , 15. 04 . 100 Abandoned driveway approaches. In the event a person, firm or corporation makes an application to re- locate a driveway approach and abandons an existing drive- way approach, the applicant shall remove the existing drive- way and replace the curb to a standard curb section at his own expense. (Ord . 74-14 §10 , 1974) . i 15 .04 .110 Sufficient larking required. No permit for the construction of driveway approaches to public or private property shall be issued unless sufficient parking area is provided on the property served , entirely within the property lines in accordance with city ordinances. (Ord. 74-14 §11 , 1974) . p t TIGARD.NRE 8/18/88 Page 1 NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDING PERMITS FOR CITY OF TIGARD Compiled by the METRO Data Resource Center Cate: 08/18/1988 Page: 1 MO/YR JURISDICTION PERMIT NO. TYPE OF STRUCTURE VALUE ON PERMIT ADDRESS SOFT STRUCT. COUNTY: WASHINGTON CENSUS TRACT: 305. 10/87 TIGARD 6961 RETAIL $2,783,000.00 9009 SW HALL #1100 106000 CENSUS TRACT TOTAL: $2,783,000.00 106000 CENSUS TRACT: 307. 3/85 TIGARD 5249 INDUSTRIAL $530,000.00 7495 sw tech center dr 32884 3/85 TIGARD 5250 INDUSTRIAL $530,000.00 7405 sw tech center dr 32884 7/85 TIGARD 5488 COMMERICAL/OFFI $1,850,000.00 12770 sw 68 56000 11/85 TIGARD 5674 COMMERICAL/OFFI $389,000.00 7105 sw hampton 6870 1/86 TIGARD COMMERICAL/OFFI $261,000.00 7340 sw hinziker 7800 7/87 TIGARD 6867 OTHER/TRI-MET, $450,000.00 8960 COMMERCIAL 0 8/87 TIGARD 6882 OTHER/TREATER $300,000.00 11626 SW PACIFIC HWY 0 10/87 TIGARD 7000 OTHER $1,400,000.00 11626 SW PACIFIC HWY 36500 FNSUS TRACT TOTAL: $7,773,000.00 296958 CENSUS TRACT: 308. 4/85 TIGARD 5325 COMMERICAL/OFFI $371,000.00 12950 sw pacific hwy 17800 4/85 TIGARD 5313 INDUSTRIAL $21,000.00 12805 sw 77 3960 7/85 TIGARD 5490 COMMERICAL/OFFI $125,000.00 15785 sw 72 ave 9076 9/85 TIGARD 5581 COMMERICAL/OFFI $650,000.00 14255 sw pacific hwy 32871 10/85 TIGARD 5628 COMMERICAL/OFFI $363,000.00 7300 sw durham rd 21362 10/85 TIGARD 5642 COMMERICAL/OFFI $172,000.00 14600 sw 72 14000 10/85 TIGARD 5629 COMMERICAL/OFFI $816,000.00 16320 sw upper bf rd 48035 12/85 TIGARD 5738 COMMERICAL/OFFI $50,000.00 9855 sw walnut pL 2616 1/86 TIGARD COMMERICAL/OFFI $9,700.00 16648 sw 72nd 0 6/87 TIGARD 6790 OTHER/CHURCH $147,000.00 13145 SW HALL BLVD 0 11/87 TIGARD 7128 IND/OFF-WARE $418,360.00 16200 SW PACIFIC HWY 2800 12/87 TIGARD 870066 RETAIL $1,000,000.00 13500 SW PACIFIC HWY 41618 6/88 TIGARD 880877 DAY CARE CTR $260,000.00 16200 SW PACIFIC HWY 6746 7/88 TIGARD 880724 WAREHOUSE/OFFIC $1,210,000.00 7342 SW KABLE LN 96000 7/88 TIGARD 880831 OPERATIONS CTR $1,100,000.00 8777 SW BURNHAM ST 18400 CENSUS TRACT TOTAL: $7,619,310.00 343092 CENSUS TRACT: 309. 3/86 TIGARD COMMERICAL/OFFI $360,000.00 10925 geenburg 17375 6/87 TIGARD 6816 INDUST/WAREHOUS $200,000.00 10855 SW CASCADE BLVD 0 -7 TIGARD 6823 -0- $127,479.00 8925 SW GREENBURG 0 CENSUS TRACT TOTAL: $691,979.00 17591 TIGARD.NRE 8/18/88 Page 2 Date: 08;18/1988 Page: 2 i MO/YR JURISDICTION PERMIT NO. TYPE OF STRUCTURE VALUE ON PERMIT ADDRESS SOFT STRUCT. 1 i f i CENSUS TRACT: 319.01 r f 7/86 TIGARD COMMERICAL/OFFI $136,000.00 15700 pac. hwy. #2 13600 CENSUS TRACT TOTAL: $940,000.00 45816 CENSUS TRACT: 319.02 i. i 11/85 TIGARD 5702 COMMERICAL/OFFI $157,000.00 13035 sw pacific hwy 6000 2/86 TIGARD COMMERICAL/OFFI $610,000.00 nimbus & schoLls ferry rd 22775 3/87 TIGARD 6476 OTHER/STORAGE $1,350,000.00 13473 SW PACIFIC HWY 0 4/87 TIGARD 6703 OTHER/DAY CARE $222,000.00 13855 SW PACIFIC HWY 0 5/87 TIGARD 6752 OTHER/CHURCH $60,000.00 11075 SW GAARDE ST 0 sm 9/87 TIGARD 6965 INDUSTRIAL $78,000.00 10505 SW TIGARD ST 4640 11/87 TIGARD 7125 PUBLIC/SCHOOL $2,500,000.00 12325 SW KATHERINE 35000 i r CENSUS TRACT TOTAL: $7,384,340.00 189142 CENSUS TRACT: 320. 10/87 TIGARD 7038 INDUSTRIAL $486,000.00 16101 SW 72ND 22112 11/87 TIGARD 8722 IND/OFF/WAREHOU $168,750.00 15750 SW UP BOONES FERRY 11250 CENSUS TRACT TOTAL: $654,750.00 33362 CENSUS TRACT: 321.01 7/88 TIGARD 881164 GAS STATION $285,000.00 16200 SW PACIFIC HWY 3074 CENSUS TRACT TOTAL: $285,000.00 3074 COUNTY TOTAL: $28,131,379.00 1035035 i Y 1 i t i f i 1 f TIGARD.RES 8/18/88 • RESIDENTIAL BUILDING PERMITS FOR TIGARD Compiled by the METRO Data Resource Center DATE: 08/18/1988 PAGE: 1 rr O/YR JURISDICTION PERMIT# TYPE VALUE ----ADDRESS------ -UNITS- ---- ------------ ------- ---- ------------ 1/86 s 13579 sw ashbury 1 1/86 s 8769 sw hamlet st 1 1/86 s 11744 sw swendon 1 1/86 s 15780 sw 87th ave 1 1/86 s 10740 sw 127th ct 1 1/86 s 15755 sw 87th ave 1 1/86 s 10732 sw 127th ct i 1/86 s 11140 sw 124th pl 1 1/86 s 10705 sw 127th ct 1 1/86 s 10690 sw 127th ct 1 1/86 s 9420 sw millen dr 1 1/86 s 10729 sw swendon 1 1/86 s 12215 sw 128th av 1 1/86 s 15682 sw 87th ave 1 1/86 s 8602 sw avon st. 1 1/86 s 15675 sw 87th ave 1 1/86s 8005 sw churchill 1 1/86 s 15779 sw 87th ave 1 1/86 s 8785 sw hamlet st 1 1/86 s 10724 sw 127th ct 1 1/86 s 10741 sw 127th ct 1 1/86 s 12560 sw glacier 1 1/86 s 10673 sw 127th ct 1 1/86s 10717 sw 127th ct 1 1/86 s 11675 sw 113th av 1 1/86 s 8721 sw hamlet st 1 1/86 s 8743 sw hamlet st 1 1/86 s 13681 sw ashbury 1 1/86 s 9990 sw kable st. 1 1/86 s 11110 sw 125th pl 1 1/86 s 11660 sw gallo av 1 1/86 s 10920 sw n. dakot -1:. ;• �, 1/86 s 15697 sw 87th ave 1 1/86 s 8686 sw 87th ave. 1 1/86 s 11130 sw 125th pl 1 1/86 s 15860 sw 80th 1 1/86 s 14128 sw fanno cr 1 1/86 s 10704 sw 127th ct 1 1/86 s 11790 swendon 1p 1 1/86 s $202, 000.00 15485 sw 145th ct 1 1/86 s 10662 sw 127th ct 1 2/86 s 11170 sw 125th pl 1 2/86 s 11135 sw 125th pl 1 2/86 s 1355 sw Julia pl 1 2/86 s 11618 sw penn ct. 1 2/86 s 10920 sw north da 1 2/86 s 15704 sw 87th ave 1 2/86 s 10659 sw 127th ct 1 2/86 s 11165 sw 125th pl 1 2/86 s $101,400. 00 12009 sw wildwood 1 Q 86 s 11150 S.W. 125th 1 2/86 s 8020 S.W. Churchi 1 , 2/86 s 11125 sw 125th pl 1 .l 8/18/88 Page 2 2 TIGARD.RES PAGE: DATE: 08/18/1988 ADDRESS UNITS MG/YR JURISDICTION PERMIT# TYPE VALUE ------------ ----------------- _ _ ------- ---- 1 ------------ - 12700 Glacier La. 1 2/86 8628 sw millen dr (- 2/86 s9960 sw kable st 1 2/86 s15762 sw 87th ave 1 2/86 s 10716 sw 127th ct 1 2/86 s1 0 12340 sw duchilly 2/86 s $165,200. 0 1 13645 sw feiring 1 2/86 s11190 sw 125th pl 2/86 s 15719 sw 87th ave 1 2/86 ss 15733 sw 87th ave 1 2/86 s15720 sw 87th ave 1 2/86 s11634 penn ct. 1 2/86 s13670 feiring ln. 1 2/86 s15770 80th ave 1 2/86 s8665 hamlet 1 2/86 s 8030 Churchill ct 1 2/86 s8075 churchill 1 2/86 s8643 hamlet ct 1 2/86 s11185 125th pl. 1 2/86 s8722 hamlet st 1 2/86 s 15748 87th ave 1 2/86 s 8653 hamlet st. 1 2/86 s10687 127t ct. 1 2/86 s14089 fanno creek 1 2/86 s 14265 fanno creek 1 2/86 s11585 sheffield 1 2/86 s8705 hamlet 1 2/86 s 10682 127th ct. 1 2/86 s8035 churchill 1 2/86 s12540 glacier lil 1 2/86 s11690 sw penn ct 1 2/86 s8551 avon st. 1 3/86 s13598 ashbury In. 1 3/86 s 11740 swendon 1 3/86 s14290 fanno creek 1 3/86 s15800 sw 80th 1 3/86 s16170 copper cree 1 3/86 s 11232 morning hil 1 3/86 s $136, 000.00 12058 wildwood st 1 3/86 9925 kable st 1 3/86 s11576 sheffield c 1 3/86 s14330 fanno creek 1 3/86 s8229 fanno creek 1 3/86 s11708 swendon 1p. 1 3/86 s13642 ashbury In. 1 3/86 s8526 avon 3/86 s10569 windsor 1 3/86 s10577 windsor pl. 1 3/86 s10589 windsor 1 3/86 s10603 windsor pl 1 3/86 s10619 windsor 1 3/86 s12430 north dakot 1 3/86 s8040 churchill ct 1 3/86 s10885 115th ave 1 x/86 s 16180 copper cree 1 3/86 TIGARD.RES 8/18/88 Page 3 DATE: ,08/18/1988 PAGE: 3 MO/YR JURISDICTION PERMIT# TYPE VALUE ADDRESS UNITS ----- ------------ ------- ---- ------------ ----------------- ------- 3/86 s 12512 123rd ave. 1 3/86 s 15475 80th ave. 1 3/86 s 9345 julia pl. 1 3/86 s 11676 penn ct. 1 3/86 s 11100 123rd ave. 1 3/86 s 11735 swendon pl. 1 3/86 s 13643 ashbury 1 3/86 s 13543 ashbury 1 3/86 s 8000 bond 1 3/86 s 8637 hamlet 1 3/86 s 8680 hamlet ct. 1 3/86 s 8345 fanno creek 1 3/86 s 14116 fanno creek 1 3/86 s 8539 avon 1 3/86 s 12252 morning hil 1 3/86 s 13176 chelsea 1p. 1 3/86 s 13188 chelsea 1p. 1 3/86 s 13193 chelsea 1p 1 3/86 s 16215 copper cree 1 4/86 s 15765 80th 1 4/86 s 11651 penn ct. 1 4/86 s 16165 copper cree 1 4/86 s 8080 churchill ct 1 4/86 s 11160 eden ct. 1 4/86 s $110, 000. 00 14260 mcfarland 1 4/86 s 13580 ashbury ln. 1 4/86 s 12790 glacier lil 1 4/86 s 9125 omara -1 4/86 s 13219 chelsea 1p. 1 4/86 s 14160 98th 1 4/86 s 13532 chelsea 1p. 1 4/86 s 13454 chelsea 1p. 1 4/86 s 13200 chelsea 1p. 1 4/86 s 8621 hamlet ct. 1 4/86 s 13336 chelsea 1p. 1 4 4/86 s 15120 84th pl. 1 j 4/86 s 8189 fanno creek4/86 1 4/86 s 8050 churhill ct. 1 $113, 000. 00 11975 wildwood 1 4/86 s 14375 fanno creek 1 k 4/86 s $103, 000. 00 8679 hamlet 1 k 5/86 s 15210 100th 1 5/86 s 8704 hamlet 1 5/86 s 11574 sheffield 1 5/86 s 13588 chelsea 1p. 1 5/86 s 13680 ashbury In 1 5/86 s 11704 swendon 1p. 1 5/86 s 13404 chelsea 1p. 1 5/86 s $101, 000 . 00 13416 chelsea 1p. 1 5/86 s 11599 134th pl. 1 5/86 s $100, 000 . 00 16160 copper cree 1 5/86 s 11749 swendon 1p. 1 i 5/86 s 13596 feiring ln. 1 ` 5/86 s 8624 miller ct. 1 I 5/86 s 11605 penn ct. 1 j i TIGARP.RES 8/18/88 Page 4 DATE: . 08/18/1988 PAGE: 4 MO/YR JURISDICTION PERMIT# TYPE VALUE ADDRESS UNITS ----- ------------ ------- ---- ------ 5/86 s 8587 hamlet 1 5/86 s 11812 morning hil 1 5/86 s 1110 tony ct. 1 5/86 s 12330 north dakot 1 5/86 s 14827 91st 1 5/86 s 11573 sheffield c 1 5/86 s 11589 sheffield c 1 5/86 s 13233 chelsea 1p 1 5/85 s 15830 80th ave. 1 5/86 s 11652 penn ct. 1 5/86 s 8365 fanno creek 1 5/86 s 11884 morning hil 1 5/86 s 11852 morning hil 1 5/86 s 14267 fanno creek 1 5/86 s 14355 fanno creek 1 5/86 s 8586 hamlet 1 5/86 s 8605 pinebrook ct 1 5/86 s 8632 miller ct. 1 5/86 s 13571 chelsea 1p. 1 5/86 s 8515 avon 1 5/86 s 11150 123rd pl. 1 5/86 s 9282 sw martha 1 6/86 m $192, 000. 00 12085 sw 135th av 8 6/86 m $192, 000. 00 12085 sw 135th av 8 6/86 m $192, 000.00 12085 sw 135th av 8 6/86 m $192, 000. 00 12085 sw 135th av 8 6/86 m $192, 000. 00 12085 sw 135th av 8 5/86 m $192, 000.00 12085 sw 135th av 8 6/86 m $292, 000. 00 12085 sw 135th av 14 6/86 m $205 , 000. 00 12085 sw 135th av 8 6/86 m 12085 sw 135th av 4 6/86 m $244,000. 00 12085 sw 135th av 10 6/86 m $205, 000. 00 12085 sw 135th av 8 6/86 m $165, 000.00 12085 sw 135th av 8 6/86 s 11680 sw 133th av 1 6/86 s 8205 fanno creek 1 6/86 s 14255 fanno creek 1 6/86 s 14130 fanno creek 1 6/86 s 11135 124th pl 1 6/86 s 11844 morning hil 1 6/86 s 11759 swendon 1p 1 6/86 s 12732 sw springwo 1 6/86 s 16070 sw copper c 1 6/86 s 15380 sw 100th av 1 6/86 s 13331 sw chelsea 1 6/86 s 13624 sw feiring 1 6/86 s 11535 sw woodlawn 1 6/86 s $138,000. 00 12036 sw wildwood 1 6/86 s 12196 sw morning 1 6/86 s 8541 sw hamlet 1 6/36 s 11664 sw springwo 1 6/86 s 11794 sw swendon 1 6/86 s 13593 sw ashbury 1 ,/86 s 8636 sw millen ct 1 6/86 s $130, 000. 00 12595 glacier lil 1 TIGARD.RES 8/18/88 Page 5 DATE: • 08/18/1988 PAGE: 5 MO/YR JURISDICTION PERMIT# TYPE VALUE ADDRESS -UNITS- ----- ------------ ------- ---- ------------ -------- 6/86 s 15035 sw 91st ave 1 5/86 s 11100 sw tony ct 1 6/86 s 11836 sw morning 1 6/86 s 11752 sw swendon 1 6/86 s 14320 sw fanno cr 1 6/86 s 14320 sw fanno cr 1 6/86 s 11600 sw penn ct 1 6/86 s 11579 sw sheffiel 1 6/86 s 8620 sw hamlet 1 6/86 s 8620 sw hamlet 1 6/86 s 11965 sw greenbur -1 6/86 s 13509 sw chelsea 1 6/86 s 14345 fanno creek 1 6/86 s 14325 sw fanno cr 1 6/86 s 13543 sw chelsea 1 6/86 s 11535 sw 133rd pl 1 6/86 s $134, 000.00 14236 sw vista vi 1 6/86 s $167, 000. 00 12305 sw duchilly 1 6/86 s $171, 000. 00 14252 sw mcfarlan 1 6/86 s 16185 sw copper c 1 6/86 s 11566 sw sheffiel 1 6/86 s 11597 sw 134th pl 1 6/86 s 11220 sw arbre ct 1 7/86 s $146, 000. 00 12204 wildwood 1 7/86 s 16175 copper cree 1 7/86 s $109, 300. 00 16457 108th 1 7/86 s 13085 falcon rise 1 ( 7/86 s 12264 millen dr. 1 7/86 s 13579 feiring ln. 1 7/86 s $110, 370. 00 11530 cloud ct. 1 7/86 s 9194 hill st. 1 7/86 s 13322 chelsea 1p 1 7/86 s 13621 ashbury 1 7/86 s $121, 000. 00 11340 ambiance 1 7/86 s 15835 72nd ,r-1 7/86 s 9057 westlund 1 7/86 s 15049 91st 1 7/86 s 10939 118th ct 1 7/86 s 14129 fanno creek 1 7/86 s 13675 feiring ln. 1 7/86 s 11605 sheffield c 1 7/86 s 8514 avon 1 7/86 s 11640 sheffield 1 7/86 s 13282 scotts brid 1 7/86 s 9292 martha 1 7/86 s 11675 penn ct. 1 7/86 s 7998 bond 1 7/86 s 11578 sheffield 1 7/86 s 13181 chelsea 1p 1 7/86 s 15073 91st 1 7/86 s 12310 n. dakota 1 7/86 s 11135 tony ct. 1 7/86 s 10911. 118th ave. 1 �. 7/86 s 14103 fanno creek 1 7/86 s 14253 fanno creek 1 TIGARD.RES 8/18/88 Page 6 DATE: • 08/18/1988 PAGE: 6 MO/YR JURISDICTION PERMIT# TYPE VALUE ADDRESS UNITS - ------- ---- ------------ ----------------- ------- 7/86 s 10823 115th 1 A-7/86 s 11716 swendon pl. 1 7/86 s 11584 woodlawn 1 7/86 s 13345 chelsea 1p 1 7/86 s 9525 riverwood 1 7/86 s 10720 summer lake 1 7/86 s 8654 hamlet ct. 1 7/86 s 15700 pacific hwy 1 7/86 s 11828 morning hil 1 MOM 7j86 s 13552 chelsea 1 7/86 s 16195 copper cree 1 7/86 s 8527 avon 1 7/86 s 13298 chelsea 1p 1 7/86 s $137, 000 .00 12102 sw wildwood 1 8/86 m $370, 000. 00 15518 114th ct. 4 8/86 m $178, 000. 00 15483 114th ct. 3 8/86 m $308, 000 . 00 15522 114th ct. 4 8/86 s 11720 swendon 1p. 1 8/86 s 12228 131st 1 8/86 s 13279 chelsea 1 8/86 s 9252 martha 1 8/86 s $157, 000. 00 14400 mcfarland 1 8/86 s 13262 chelsea 1p 1 8/86 s 12210 n. dakota 1 8/86 s 8639 hamlet 1 8/86 s 11571 sheffield 1 8/86 s 11180 124th pl. 1 8/86 s 11405 winterlake 1 8/86 s 14270 fanno creek 1 8/86 s 8163 fanno creek 1 8/86 s 9237 martha 1 8/86 s 9247 martha 1 8/86 s 14145 98th 1 8/86 s $105, 500. 00 11200 fairhaven 1 8/86 s 8544 hamlet 1 8/86 s 9242 martha 1 8/86 s 11125 123rd pl. 1 8/86 s 13121 katherine 1 8/86 s 8/86 12980 hawks beard 1 s $142, 334. 00 11972 wildwood 1 8/86 s 13665 ashbury 1 8/86 s 9114 hill st. 1 8/86 s 9107 hill st. 1 8/86 s 8664 hamlet 1 8/86 s 8550 stratford 1 8/86 s 13488 chelsea 1p. 1 8/86 s 8630 hamlet ct. 1 8/86 s 9550 millen dr. 1 8/86 s $104, 000. 00 12920 glacier lil 1 8/86 s 12940 katherine 1 8/86 s 8657 hamlet ct. 1 8/86 s 11642 springwood . 1 8/86 s $143, 000. 00 14257 mcfarland 1 3/86 s 12184 morning hil 1 8/86 s 8147 fanno creek 1 j i f TIGARD.RES 8/18/88 Page 7 DATE:. 08/18/1988 PAGE: 7 MO/YR JURISDICTION PERMIT# TYPE VALUE- ----ADDRESS----- -UNITS- ------------ ------- -- - ------------ 8/86 11735 Ballo ave. 1 9/8616012 93rd. 1 8/86 s 11575 sheffield c 1 8/86 s $103, 000. 00 10824 118th ct. 1 8/86 s 10875 118th ct. 1 8/86 s $109, 000. 00 12612 snow brush 1 8/86 s 8565 stratford 1 8/86 s 8585 stratford 1 8/86 s 9955 kable 1 8/86 s $152, 000.00 14227 vista view 1 8/86 s 14275 fanno creek 1 8/86 s 16095 copper cree 1 8/86 s 11595 134th pl. 1 8/86 s 11577 sheffield 1 9/86 s 12660 glacier lil 1 9/86 s 9047 reiling 1 9/86 s 9215 hill 1 9/86 s $105, 000. 00 9022 westlund ct. 1 9/86 s 11763 swendon 1p. 1 9/86 s 11876 morning hil 1 9/86 s 12735 glacier lil 1 9/86 s 9199 hill st. 1 9/86 s 12172 morning hil 1 9/86 s 10837 118th ct. 1 9/86 s 9136 hill st. 1 9/86 s 8562 hamlet 1 9/86 s 11753 swendon 1p. 1 ( 9/86 8960 commercial S 9/86 s 11682 woodlawn 1 9/86 s 11625 sheffield 1 ? 9/86 s 10893 118th ct. 1 9/86s 9862 murdock 1 9/86 s 11756 swendon 1p. 1 9/86 s 13240 brittany dr 1 9/86 s 8642 hamlet ct. 1 9/86 s $300, 000.00 14550 hazeltree d 1 9/86 s 13664 ashbury 1 9/86 s 11786 swendon 1p 1 9/86 s 16425 93rd. 1 9/86 s 14335 fannock cre 1 9/86 s 14248 fannock cre 1 9/86 s 13662 feiring ln. 1 9/86 s $123, 000. 00 11330 ambiance 1 9/86 s 11868 morning hil 1 9/86 s 11860 morning hil 1 9/86 s 16205 copper cree 1 9/86 s 13527 ashbury 1 9/86 s 12790 walnut 1 9/86 s 13244 chelsea 1p. 1 9/86 s 8305 fanno creek 1 9/86 s 14165 fanno creek 1 9/86 s 14241 fanno creek 1 0/86 s 16435 93rd. 1 0/86 s 9062 hill st. 1 10/86 s 13185 falon rise 1 TIGARD.RES 8/18/88 Page 8 DATE:. 08/18/1988 PAGE: 8 MO/YR JURISDICTION PERMIT# TYPE VALUE ADDRESS UNITS - ------------ ------- ---- ------------ ----------------- ------- 10/86 s 10617 windsor ct. 1 86 s 10753 106th ave. 1 U1/86 s 9238 hill st. 1 10/86 s 11425 winterlake 1 10/86 s 12208 morning hil 1 10/86 s 9079 hill 1 10/86 s 10846 118th •ct. 1 10/86 s 9223 hill 1 10/86 s 12633 snow brush 1 10/86 s 11712 swendon 1p. 1 10/86 s 11320 94th ave 1 10/86 s 11782 swendon 1p. 1 10/86 s 11535 67th ave. -1 10/86 s $117, 000. 00 11964 wildwood 1 10/86 s 11130 tony ct. 1 10/86 s 9131 hill st. 1 10/86 s 10851 118th ct. 1 10/86 s 13210 brittany dr 1 10/86 s 11640 gallo ave. 1 10/86 s 13613 sw 121st st 1 10/86 s 14225 fanno creek 1 11/86 s 10605 windsor ct. 1 11/86 s 15045 89th pl. 1 11/86 s 8370 colony creek 1 11/86 s 10868 118th ct. 1 11/86 s 8563 hamlet 1 1.1/86 s 13212 chelsea 1p. 1 1/86 s 11190 72nd -1 11/86 s 13567 ashbury ln. 1 !: 11/86 s 11724 swendon loo 1 11/86 s 9535 millen dr. 1 11/86 s $110, 000. 00 13290 genesis loo 1 11/86 s 8570 stratford ct 1 - 11/86 s 8275 colony creek 1 11/86 s 11885 morning hil 1 12/86 m $144, 000. 00 15514 114th ct. # 4t 12/86 m $294, 000. 00 15510 114th ct. 6 12/86 s 16060 copper Gree 1 12/86 s 13473 chelsea 1p. 1 12/86 s 13226 chelsea 1p. 1 12/86 s 15107 91st. 1 12/86 s 8390 colony creek 1 12/86 s 14020 98th ave. 1 i 12/86 s 13224 shore dr. 1 12/86 s 13212 shore dr. 1 12/86 s 10882 118th ct. 1 12/86 s 9028 reiling 1 12/86 s $143, 000. 00 12160 wildwood 1 12/86 s 8310 colony creek 1 12/86 s 8330 colony creek 1 12/86 s 10908 118th ct. 1 12/86 s 8250 colony creek 1 f' 2/86 s 10973 118th ct. 1 1. 2/86 s 10577 windsor pl. 1 j 12/86 s 15065 89th pl. 1 E - � r f t TIGARP.RES 8/18/88 Page 9 DATE:. 08/18/1988 PAGE: 9 VALUE MO/YR JURISDICTION PERMIT# TYPE ----ADDRESS UNITS- ----- ------------ ------- ---- ------------ 12/86 s 11821 morning hil 1 ^ j 2/86 s 9181 hill st. ` 1/87 TIGARD 6486 S $74, 000. 00 11829 SWMORNING H 1 1/87 TIGARD 6504 S $99, 000. 00 11884 SW WILTON A 1 1/87 TIGARD 6380 S $44, 000. 00 8250 SW COLONY CK 1 1/87 TIGARD 6490 S $89, 000. 00 13172 SW CHIMNEY 1 1/87 TIGARD 6470 S $83,400. 00 11787 SW WILTON A 1 1/87 TIGARD 6480 S $94, 000. 00 13114 SW CHIMNEY 1 1/87 TIGARD 6458 S $84, 000.00 11801 SW WILTON A 1 1/87 TIGARD 6536 S $81, 000. 00 9529 SW INEZ 1 1/87 TIGARD 6516 S $71, 000. 00 11588 SW SHEFFIEL 1 1/87 TIGARD 6408 S $65, 000. 00 10908 SW 118TH CT 1 1/87 TIGARD 6483 S $76, 000. 00 13091 SW CHIMNEY 1 1/87 TIGARD 6454 S $85, 000. 00 12236 SW SCOTTS B 1 1/87 TIGARD 6429 S $68, 800. 00 14518 SW 83RD CT 1 1/87 TIGARD 6456 S $65, 800. 00 11776 SW WILTON A 1 1/87 TIGARD 6455 S $53, 000. 00 9173 SW HILL ST 1 1/87 TIGARD 6432 S $55, 000. 00 13376 SW CHELSEA 1 1/87 TIGARD 6492 S $89, 500. 00 11465 SW WINTERLA 1 1/87 TIGARD 6488 S $86, 000. 00 13158 SW CHIMNEY 1 1/87 TIGARD 6564 S $71, 000 . 00 8604 SW HAMLET 1 1/87 TIGARD 6510 S $81, 000. 00 11856 SW WILTON A 1 1/87 TIGARD 6484 S $70, 000. 00 13147 SW CHIMNEY 1 2/87 TIGARD 6530 S $78, 000. 00 11845 SW WILTON A 1 2/87 TIGARD 6416 S $52, 000. 00 10973 SW 118TH CT 1 2/87 TIGARD 6551 S $79, 900. 00 13789 SW ASHBURN 1 2/87 TIGARD 6526 S $78, 000. 00 9465 SW INEZ 1 2/87 TIGARD 6040 S $81, 000. 00 11821 SW MORNING 1 2/87 TIGARD 6453 S $97 , 600 . 00 9443 SW INEZ CT 1 2/87 TIGARD 6531 S $85,400 . 00 13255 SW CHELSEA 1 2/87 TIGARD 6549 S $59, 000. 00 11565 SW SHEFFIEL 1 2/87 TIGARD 6430 S $85, 000. 00 9181 SW HILL ST 1 2/87 TIGARD 6431 S $132, 000. 00 7710 SW GENTLE WO 1 2/87 TIGARD 6525 S $78, 000. 00 13348 SW CHELSEA 1 2/87 TIGARD 6462 S $66, 500 . 00 13401 SW LAURMONT 1 2/87 TIGARD 6465 S $61, 000 . 00 13363 SW CHELSEA 1 2/87 TIGARD 6466 S $52, 000 . 00 11542 SW WOODLAWN 1 2/87 TIGARD 6444 S $65, 500 . 00 10606 SW GARDEN P 1 2/87 TIGARD 6508 S $81, 000.00 13230 SW BRITTANY 1 2/87 TIGARD 6351 S $84, 000.00 10775 SW N DAKOTA 1 2/87 TIGARD 6513 S $67 , 000 .00 9277 SW MARTHA ST 1 2/87 TIGARD 6450 S $58, 000 .00 11837 SW MORNING 1 2/87 TIGARD 6401 S $69 , 000.00 11586 SW SPRINGWO 1 2/87 TIGARD 6561 S $78, 000 .00 9143 SW HILL ST 1 2/87 TIGARD 6519 S $72, 000 .00 10964 SW 118TH CT 1 2/87 TIGARD 6552 S $74, 000 .00 13284 SW CHELSEA 1 2/87 TIGARD 6532 S $85, 000 .00 13098 SW CHIMNEY 1 2/87 TIGARD 6493 S $89, 500 .00 8640 SW HAMLET ST 1 2/87 TIGARD 6524 S $92, 000.00 13103 SW SHIMNEY 1 2/87 TIGARD 6502 S $61, 000 .00 11892 SW MORNING 1 2/87 TIGARD 6451 S $55, 000 .00 11869 SW MORNING 1 2/87 TIGARD 6447 S $100, 500 .00 13125 SW CHIMNEY 1 2/87 TIGARD 6505 S $63, 800 . 00 8662 SW HAMLET CT 1 2/87 TIGARD 6427 S $58, 000 .00 11853 SW MORNING 1 2/87 TIGARD 6522 S $105, 000 . 00 10878 SW DOVER CT 1 , TIGARD.RES 8/18/88 Page 10 DATE:. 08/18/1988 PAGE: 10 MO/YR JURISDICTION PERMIT# TYPE VALUE ADDRESS UNITS ----- ------------ ------- ---- ------------ ----------------- ------ 2/87 TIGARD 6523 S $80,400.00 10793 SW 106TH 1 2/87 TIGARD 6535 S $79, 200. 00 13255 SW CHELSEA 1 2/87 TIGARD 6514 S $66, 600. 00 1 2/87 TIGARD 6544 S $79, 200. 00 16697 SW 108TH 1 2/87 TIGARD 6546 S $79, 000.00 13350 SW SHORE DR 1 2/87 TIGARD 6543 S $69, 200. 00 11674 SW WILTON A 1 2/87 TIGARD 6520 S $67, 000.00 9227 SW MARTHA ST 1 3/87 TIGARD 6573 M 6,480, 000. 00 15435 SW 114TH CT 14 3/87 TIGARD 6606 M $461, 632. 00 15371 SW 114TH CT 8 3/87 TIGARD 6503 S $79 , 000 . 00 13225 SW BRITTANY 1 3/87 TIGARD 6501 S $89, 000. 00 13250 SW BRITTANY 1 3/87 TIGARD 6571 S $68, 000. 00 13200 SW SHORE DR 1 3/87 TIGARD 6434 S $63, 000.00 13224 SW SHORE DR 1 3/87 TIGARD 6489 S $74, 500. 00 13169 SW CHIMNEY 1 3/87 TIGARD 6518 S $66, 600. 00 9232 SW MARTHA ST 1 3/87 TIGARD 6553 S $79, 200. 00 9051 SW HILL ST 1 3/87 TIGARD 6528 S $77, 000. 00 11593 SW 134TH PL 1 3/87 TIGARD 6449 S $67, 000. 00 11845 SW MORNING 1 3/87 TIGARD 6570 S $78, 000. 00 11626 SW WOODLAWN 1 3/87 TIGARD 6537 S $98, 000. 00 14809 SW 91ST AVE 1 3/87 TIGARD 6589 S $62, 600. 00 11820 SW MORNING 1 3/87 TIGARD 6541 S $51, 000. 00 11445 SW WINTERLA 1 3/87 TIGARD 6614 S $53, 000. 00 9058 SW HILL ST 1 3/87 TIGARD 6583 S $81, 000. 00 13387 SW LAURMONT 1 3/87 TIGARD 6584 S $71, 000. 00 11754 SW WILTON A 1 3/87 TIGARD 6547 S $65, 300. 00 11823 SW WILTON A 1 3/87 TIGARD 6548 S $68, 000. 00 11992 SW WILTON 1 3/87 TIGARD 6649 S $63, 850. 00 14554 SW 83RD CT 1 3/87 TIGARD 6602 S $77, 520. 00 10801 SW DOVER CT 1 3/87 TIGARD 6630 S $150, 000. 00 11175 SW NOVARE 1 3/87 TIGARD 6469 S $71, 340. 00 11160 SW 109TH 1 3/87 TIGARD 6610 S $73, 000. 00 13310 SW CHELSEA 1 3/87 TIGARD 6555 S $83, 000. 00 11608 SW SPRINGWO 1 3/87 TIGARD 6557 S $55, 000. 00 9044 SW HILL 1 3/87 TIGARD 6582 S $62, 000. 00 11553 SW 133RD PL 1 3/87 TIGARD 6560 S $79, 000. 00 16270 SW COPPER C 1 3/87 TIGARD 6452 S $71, 000. 00 9935 SW KABLE 1 3/87 TIGARD 6563 S $73, 000. 00 11119 SW 91ST 1 3/87 TIGARD 6506 S $63, 800. 00 113215 SW BRITTAN 1 3/87 TIGARD 6566 S $72, 000. 00 11812 SW WILTON A 1 3/87 TIGARD 6621 S $76, 000. 00 11689 SW WILTON A 1 3/87 TIGARD 6569 S $88, 000. 00 11889 SW WILTON A 1 3/87 TIGARD 6572 S $93,900. 00 10836 SW DOVER CT 1 3/87 TIGARD 6588 S $78, 000. 00 13136 SW CHIMNEY 1 3/87 TIGARD 6656 S $82, 000. 00 10616 SW RIVER DR 1 3/87 TIGARD 6590 S $101, 000. 00 12641 SW SNOW BUS 1 3/87 TIGARD 6628 S $86, 000. 00 11732 SW WILTON A 1 3/87 TIGARD 6616 S $69, 000. 00 13089 SW KATHERIN 1 3/87 TIGARD 6597 S $80, 000. 00 11743 SW WILTON 1 3/87 TIGARD 6613 S $70, 000.00 10935 SW SUMMERLA 1 3/87 TIGARD 6645 S $56, 000. 00 9395 SW JULIA PL 1 3/87 TIGARD 6618 S $82, 000.00 12625 SW SNOW BUS 1 3/87 TIGARD 6623 S $82, 000. 00 11985 SW WESTBURY 1 J/87 TIGARD 6662 S $125, 000.00 10605 SW TUALATIN 1 4/87 TIGARD 6384 S $84, 000. 00 16085 SW COPPER C 1 TIGARD.RES 8/18/88 Page 11 DATE: 08/18/1988 PAGE: 11 MO/YR JURISDICTION PERMIT# TYPE VALUE ADDRESS UNITS ----- ------------ ------- ---- ------------ ----------------- ------- TIGARD 6682 S $79, 000. 00 15042 SW 91ST 1 4/87 TIGARD 6558 S $88, 600. 00 10957 SW 118TH CT 1 4/87 TIGARD 6227 S $93, 000. 00 12257 SW 131ST 1 4/87 TIGARD 6592 S $81, 000. 00 13235 SW BRITTANY 1 4/87 TIGARD 6593 S $103 , 000. 00 12648 SW SNOW BUS 1 4/87 TIGARD 6631 S $179, 000. 00 14230 SW VISTA VI 1 4/87 TIGARD 6695 S $73, 000. 00 11155 SW 124TH PL 1 4/87 TIGARD 6642 S $67 , 000. 00 12470 SW DURHAM R 1 4/87 TIGARD 6445 S $65, 000 . 00 16250 SW COPPER C 1 4/87 TIGARD 6540 S $69, 000. 00 11668 SW WOODLAWN 1 4/87 TIGARD 6657 S $65,900 .00 10734 SW RIVER DR 1 4/87 TIGARD 6675 S $72, 000. 00 12708 SW SPRINGWO 1 4/87 TIGARD 6433 S $55, 000.00 9095 SW HILL ST 1 4/87 TIGARD 6617 S $72, 000. 00 9045 SW WESTLUND 1 4/87 TIGARD 6435 S $69 , 000.00 13312 SW SHORE DR 1 4/87 TIGARD 6654 S $85, 000. 00 14172 SW 91ST 1 4/87 TIGARD 6620 S $97, 000 .00 12184 SW 131ST AV 1 4/87 TIGARD 6534 S $51, 000. 00 13570 SW FEIRING 1 4/87 TIGARD 6693 S $64, 000 .00 10942 SW 118TH CT 1 4/87 TIGARD 6651 S $63, 850. 00 14652 SW 83RD CT 1 4/87 TIGARD 6676 S $78, 000 .00 10867 SW DOVER CT 1 4/87 TIGARD 6634 S $86, 000. 00 9563 SW INEZ 1 4/87 TIGARD 6603 S $99, 000.00 13220 SW BRITTANY 1 4/87 TIGARD 6684 S $67 , 000.00 13916 SW CRIST CT 1 4/87 TIGARD 6643 S $87, 000. 00 9155 SW HILL CT 1 4/87 TIGARD 6666 S $72, 000 .00 14616 SW 83RD CT 1 4/87 TIGARD 6646 S $82, 000. 00 13821 SW ASHBURY 1 {_ 4/87 TIGARD 6612 S $86, 000 . 00 10570 SW RIVER DR 1 4/87 TIGARD 6674 S $60, 000.00 2280 SW N DAKOTA 1 4/87 TIGARD 6692 S $82, 000. 00 10926 SW 118TH CT 1 4/87 TIGARD 6669 S $66, 000 .00 11600 GALLOS VINE 1 4/87 TIGARD 6653 S $82,400. 00 10845 SW DOVER CT 1 4/87 TIGARD 6639 S $60, 086.00 10594 SW GARDEN P 1 4/87 TIGARD 6698 S $90, 000. 00 11878 SW WILTON A 1 4/87 TIGARD 6685 S $86, 000 .00 11125 SW TONY CT 1 5/87 TIGARD 6626 S $50, 000. 00 13620 SW 110TH 1 5/87 TIGARD 6599 S $86, 000. 00 14045 SW 98TH AVE 1 5/87 TIGARD 6648 S $73, 000.00 14638 SW 83RD CT 1 5/87 TIGARD 6636 S $85, 000. 00 10823 SW DOVER CT 1 5/87 TIGARD 6694 S $67, 000.00 8595 SW PINEBROOK 1 5/87 TIGARD 6627 S $79, 000. 00 15048 SW 91ST AVE 1 5/87 TIGARD 6619 S $80, 000.00 11721 SW WILTON A 1 5/87 TIGARD 6637 S $72, 000. 00 13411 SW CHELSEA 1 5/87 TIGARD 6659 S $120, 000.00 1145 SW NOVARE PL 1 5/87 TIGARD 6743 S $74, 000.00 10625 SW RIVER RD 1 5/87 TIGARD 6550 S $67, 000. 00 13489 SW LAURMONT 1 5/87 TIGARD 6712 S $83, 000.00 14780 SW 91ST 1 5/87 TIGARD 6664 S $76, 000. 00 9241 SW HILL ST 1 5/87 TIGARD 6716 S $103, 000. 00 9246 SW HILL ST 1 5/87 TIGARD 6661 S $74,900.00 9023 SW REILING 1 5/87 TIGARD 6691 S $82, 000. 00 12242 SW 131ST AV 1 5/87 TIGARD 6587 S $85, 000. 00 14576 SW 83RD CT 1 5/87 TIGARD 6671 S $60, 000. 00 12032 SW WESTBURY 1 5/87 TIGARD 6673 S $77 , 680.00 12320 SW N DAKOTA 1 5/87 TIGARD 6585 S $64, 800.00 11765 SW WILTON 1 TIGARD.RES 8/18/88 Page 12 DATE:. 08/18/1988 PAGE: 12 MO/YR JURISDICTION PERMIT# TYPE VALUE ADDRESS UNITS ----- ------------ ------- ---- ------------ ----------------- ------- 5/87 TIGARD 6142 S $63, 000.00 10797 SW 115TH AV 1 1/87 TIGARD 6633 S $60, 000.00 13391 SW CHELSEA 1 5/87 TIGARD 6713 S $78, 000.00 13186 SW SHORE DR 1 5/87 TIGARD 6635 S $85 , 000. 00 11110 SW 124TH PL 1 5/87 TIGARD 6715 S $83, 000.00 13439 SW SCOTTS B 1 5/87 TIGARD 6683 S $101, 000. 00 12609 SW SNOW BUS 1 5/87 TIGARD 6638 S $63, 800.00 11861 SW MORNING 1 5/87 TIGARD 6681 S $98, 000. 00 12617 SW SNOW BUS 1 5/87 TIGARD 6770 S $67 , 000. 00 13938 SW CRIST CT 1 5/87 TIGARD 6600 S $68, 000. 00 9825 SW JANZEN CT 1 5/87 TIGARD 6567 S $65, 000. 00 13865 SW CRIST CT 1 5/87 TIGARD 6598 S $75 , 000. 00 9820 SW JANZEN CT 1 5/87 TIGARD 6758 S $61, 806. 00 10638 SW RIVER RD 1 5/87 TIGARD 6720 S $78, 000. 00 12716 SW SPRINGWO 1 5/87 TIGARD 6744 S $55, 000.00 16652 SW 108TH AV 1 5/87 TIGARD 6714 S $72, 000. 00 13444 SW SCOTTS B 1 5/87 TIGARD 6727 S $66, 000.00 11627 SW WOODLAWN 1 5/87 TIGARD 6734 S $78, 000. 00 11748 SW SWENDON 1 5/87 TIGARD 6733 S $67 , 000.00 12061 SW WILTON A 1 5/87 TIGARD 6719 S $68, 000. 00 12036 SW WILTON 1 6/87 TIGARD 6665 S $85, 000.00 13023 SW KATHERIN 1 6/87 TIGARD 6655 S $54, 000. 00 16047 SW 104TH 1 6/87 TIGARD 6670 S $67 , 000.00 11620 SW GALLOS A 1 6/87 TIGARD 6660 S $57 , 000. 00 16003 SW 104TH 1 6/87 TIGARD 6701 S $101, 000.00 10800 SW DAKOTA S 1 6/87 TIGARD 6731 S $131, 000. 00 14420 SW HAZEL HI 1 6/87 TIGARD 6753 S $64, 000. 00 11890 SW WILTON A 1 6/87 TIGARD 6830 S $61, 900. 00 10635 SW GARDEN P 1 6/87 TIGARD 6827 S $66, 000. 00 13205 SW CHELSEA 1 6/87 TIGARD 6828 S $72, 000. 00 13110 SW SHORE DR 1 6/87 TIGARD 6779 S $84, 000. 00 9092 SW HILL ST 1 6/87 TIGARD 6780 S $68, 000. 00 16696 SW 108TH 1 6/87 TIGARD 6749 S $69, 000. 00 15034 SW 91ST AVE 1 6/87 TIGARD 6750 S $66, 000. 00 12070 SW WILTON A 1 6/87 TIGARD 6787 S $70, 000. 00 12724 SW SPRINGWO 1 6/87 TIGARD 6755 S $79, 000. 00 10645 SW TUALATIN 1 6/87 TIGARD 6738 S $99, 000. 00 14921 SW 91ST AVE 1 6/87 TIGARD 6762 S $66, 000. 00 13158 SW SHORE DR 1 6/87 TIGARD 6767 S $66, 000. 00 16729 SW 108TH 1 6/87 TIGARD 6769 S $73, 000. 00 13236 SHORE DR 1 6/87 TIGARD 6690 S $86, 000. 00 12288 SW 131ST 1 6/87 TIGARD 6771 S $70, 000. 00 9628 SW MCDONALD 1 6/87 TIGARD 6772 S $70, 000. 00 9574 SW MCDONALD 1 6/87 TIGARD 6774 S $90, 000. 00 12890 SW WATKINS 1 6/87 TIGARD 6775 S $100, 000. 00 12660 SW SNOW BUS 1 6/87 TIGARD 6778 S $72, 000. 00 8875 SW SCHEKKLA 1 6/87 TIGARD 6829 S $72, 000. 00 10741 SW RIVER DR 1 6/87 TIGARD 6791 S $64, 000. 07 13268 SW SHORE DR 1 6/87 TIGARD 6782 S $62, 000.00 13918 SW HINDON C 1 6/87 TIGARD 6784 S $62, 000. 00 11665 SW SHEFFIEL 1 6/87 TIGARD 6820 S $108, 000. 00 16280 SW COPPER C 1 6/87 TIGARD 6826 S $79,200. 00 10683 SW RIVER DR 1 5/87 TIGARD 6803 S $69, 000.00 11607 SW WINTERLA 1 6/87 TIGARD 6795 S $78, 000. 00 20729 SW RIVER RD 1 6/87 TIGARD 6838 S $78, 000.00 9259 SW HILL ST 1 r i TIGARD.RES 8/18/88 Page 13 DATE: 08/18/1988 PAGE: 13 MO/YR JURISDICTION PERMIT# TYPE VALUE ADDRESS UNITS ----- ------------ ------- ---- ------------ ----------------- ------- 6/87 TIGARD 6812 S $70, 090. 00 9044 SW REILING 1 (-7/87 TIGARD 6797 S $74, 000. 00 9033 SW WESTLAND 1 7/87 TIGARD 6793 S $85, 000. 00 10603 SW RIVER DR 1 7/87 TIGARD 6679 S $66, 000. 00 16104 SW 93RD 1 7/87 TIGARD 6864 S $68, 500. 00 10540 SW PATHFIND 1 7/87 TIGARD 6892 S $74, 600. 00 10620 SW PATHFIND 1 7/87 TIGARD 6893 S $67, 900. 00 10600 SW PATHFIND 1 7/87 TIGARD 6697 S $81, 000. 00 11756 SW MORNING 1 7/87 TIGARD 6800 S $63, 000. 00 14547 SW 83RD CT 1 7/87 TIGARD 6835 S $72, 018. 00 9046 SW WESTLAND 1 7/87 TIGARD 6868 S $95, 600. 00 10943 SW DOVER CT 1 7/87 TIGARD 6871 S $71,400. 00 13174 SW SHORE 1 7/87 TIGARD 6845 S $76, 000. 00 10567 SW TUALATIN 1 7/87 TIGARD 6841 S $93, 500. 00 12223 SW 131ST 1 7/87 TIGARD 6842 S $83, 000. 00 12367 SW MILLVIEW 1 7/87 TIGARD 6844 S $72, 036. 00 12323' MILLVIEW CT 1 7/87 TIGARD 6878 S $96, 935. 00 9570 SW MILLEN DR 1 7/87 TIGARD 6846 S $75, 309 . 00 12398 SW MILLVIEW 1 7/87 TIGARD 6848 S $69, 300. 00 12154 SW MILLVIEW 1 7/87 TIGARD 6849 S $72,438. 00 12394 SW MILLVIEW 1 7/87 TIGARD 6853 S $74, 596. 00 10560 SW PATHFIND 1 7/87 TIGARD 6858 S $76,400. 00 10580 SW PATHFIND 1 7/87 TIGARD 6876 S $60, 000. 00 13146 SW SHORE DR 1 7/87 TIGARD 6877 S $83 , 000. 00 12345 SW MILLVIEW 1 7/87 TIGARD 6873 S $68,950. 00 13412 SW LAURMONT 1 7/87 TIGARD 6865 S $69, 000. 00 13122 SW SHORE DR 1 7/87 TIGARD 6886 S $70, 600. 00 16128 SW 93RD AVE 1 7/87 TIGARD 6887 S $106, 600. 00 12235 SW 131ST 1 7/87 TIGARD 6874 S $83 ,400. 00 10553 SW WINDSOR 1 7/87 TIGARD 6901 S $71, 000. 00 12389 SW MILLVIEW 1 7/87 TIGARD 6905 S $72, 000. 00 13290 SW SHORE DR 1 7/87 TIGARD 6907 S $61, 560. 00 11569 SW SHERFIEL 1 8/87 TIGARD 6123 S $74, 596. 00 10640 SW PATHFIND 1 8/87 TIGARD 6836 S $54, 641. 00 13390 SW BRITTANY 1 8/87 TIGARD 6863 S $81, 142. 00 12162 SW 131ST 1 8/87 TIGARD 6837 S $78, 900. 00 12279 SW 131ST 1 8/87 TIGARD 6896 S $98, 600. 00 11778 SW MORNING 1 8/87 TIGARD 6919' S $64, 000. 00 12290 SW MILLVIEW 1 8/87 TIGARD 6936 S $82, 635. 00 11145 SW 123RD PL 1 8/87 TIGARD 6953 S $85, 290. 00 10671 SW KENT ST 1 8/87 TIGARD 6940 S $79 , 000. 00 12301 SW MILLVIEW ?. 8/87 TIGARD 6911 S $71, 000. 00 14295 SW 112TH AV 1 8/87 TIGARD 6913 S $84, 000. 00 12469 SW EDGEWATE 1 8/87 TIGARD 6914 S $89, 000. 00 12183 SW MILLVIEW 1 8/87 TIGARD 6918 S $87, 040. 00 12278 MILLVIEW CT 1 8/87 TIGARD 6935 S $65, 500. 00 11621 SW WINTERLA 1 8/87 TIGARD 6920 S $78, 000. 00 10599 SW RIVER DR 1 8/87 TIGARD 6922 S $68, 500. 00 10660 SW PATHFIND 1 8/87 TIGARD 6925 S $103, 381. 00 9125 SW HILL ST 1 8/87 TIGARD 6960 S $68, 330. 00 16000 SW 93RD 1 8/87 TIGARD 6962 S $85, 000. 00 10647 SW RIVER DR 1 8/87 TIGARD 6938 S $66, 000. 00 12083 SW WILTON 1 /, 8/87 TIGARD 6964 S $78, 000. 00 10889 SW DOVER CT 1 8/87 TIGARD 6963 S $78, 000. 00 10669 SW RIVER RD 1 8/87 TIGARD 6952 S $99, 850. 00 10835 SW TIGARD 1 TIGARD.RES 8/18/88 Page 14 DATE:. 08/18/1988 PAGE: 14 NEO/YR JURISDICTION PERMIT# TYPE VALUE ADDRESS UNITS ----- ------------ --- 8/87 TIGARD 6958 S $87, 900 .00 1'2207 SW MILLVIE 1 8/87 TIGARD 6970 S $66, 680.00 12492 SW EDGEWATE 1 9/87 TIGARD 6748 S $53, 000. 00 11755 SW GALLO AV 1 9/87 TIGARD 6862 S $82, 000 .00 12274 SW 131ST 1 9/87 TIGARD 6894 S $99, 000 .00 13090 SW LAURMONT 1 9/87 TIGARD 1308 S $66, 000 .00 13112 SW LAURMONT 1 9/87 TIGARD 6979 S $77, 940. 00 10785 SW RIVER DR 1 9/87 TIGARD 6942 S $74, 523. 00 13445 SW LAURMONT 1 9/87 TIGARD 6983 S $78, 000 . 00 10543 SW RIVER DR i 9/87 TIGARD 6902 S $97, 000 .00 13172 SW LAURMONT 1 9/87 TIGARD 6969 S $77, 500.00 14551 SW 81ST AVE 1 9/87 TIGARD 6899 S $99, 000 .00 13044 SW LAURMONT 1 9/87 TIGARD 6971 S $141, 880.00 11165 SW NOVARE P 1 9/87 TIGARD 6972 S $74, 100. 00 12049 SW WILTON 1 9/87 TIGARD 6975 S $65, 000 . 00 11645 SW SHEFFIEL 1 9/87 TIGARD 6976 S $80, 000.00 13901 SW HINDON C 1 9/87 TIGARD 6977 S $67, 600 .00 13923 SW HINDON C 1 9/87 TIGARD 6978 S $85, 675. 00 10674 SW 127TH CT 1 9/87 TIGARD 7015 S $79,445 . 00 9036 SW REILING S 1 9/87 TIGARD 6982 S $88, 000 . 00 13258 SW LAURMONT 1 9/87 TIGARD 7018 S $72, 000.00 13125 SW FALCON R 1 9/87 TIGARD 6984 S $81, 000.00 13134 SW LAURMONT 1 9/87 TIGARD 7025 S $85, 000.00 10673 SW RIVER DR 1 9/87 TIGARD 6988 S $64, 000 . 00 12263 SW MILLVIEW 1 9/87 TIGARD 6989 S $97, 000.00 13067 SW KATHERIN 1 9/87 TIGARD 6994 S $98, 950.00 12481 SW EDGEWATE 1 9/87 TIGARD 6996 S $81, 900 .00 14945 SW 91ST AVE 1 9/87 TIGARD 6997 S $80, 031. 00 14795 SW 91ST AVE 1 9/87 TIGARD 7001 S $96, 000.00 14140 SW 98TH CT 1 9/87 TIGARD 7004 S $77, 175 .00 13134 SW KATHERIN 1 9/87 TIGARD 7032 S $219, 109 .00 11520 SW FONNER S 1 9/87 TIGARD 7007 S $93, 900.00 9487 SW INEZ 1 9/87 TIGARD 7010 S $58, 000.00 14000 SW 98TH AVE 1 9/87 TIGARD 7014 S $80, 115.00 13367 SW SHORE DR 1 9/87 TIGARD 7029 S $67, 000.00 16300 SW 104TH 1 9/87 TIGARD 7016 S $64, 828.00 12229 SW MILLVIEW 1 9/87 TIGARD 7045 S $74, 000.00 10560 SW KENT 1 9/87 TIGARD 7056 S $72, 000.00 10587 SW RIVER DR 1 9/87 TIGARD 7027 S $68, 950 .00 13309 SW SHORE DR 1 9/87 TIGARD 7074 S $57, 000.00 16279 SW 104TH 1 9/87 TIGARD 7033 S $79, 615.00 9021 SW WESTLUND 1 9/87 TIGARD '7042 S $78, 000.00 10873 SW DOVER CT 1 10/87 TIGARD 6885 S $53, 000.00 3165 SW LAURMONT 1 10/87 TIGARD 6891 S $49, 200.00 13302 SW SHORE DR 1 10/87 TIGARD 6459 S $53, 400.00 8085 SW BOND ST 1 10/87 TIGARD 7005 S $124, 873.00 12653 SW SNOW BUS 1 10/87 TIGARD 7118 S $0.00 11545 SW 135TH -1 10/87 TIGARD 7126A S $0.00 13580 SW PACIFIC -1 10/87 TIGARD 6906 S $66, 000.00 12974 SW LAURMONT 1 10/87 TIGARD 7040 S $62, 682.00 14077 SW 97TH 1 10/87 TIGARD 7036 S $79, 736.00 9747 SE ELROSE ST 1 10/87 TIGARD 7034 S $57, 300.00 16048 SW 93RD 1 1' 0/87 TIGARD 7046 S $67, 000.00 16267 SW 104TH AV 1 1.. .1/87 TIGARD 7055 S $67, 000. 00 10350 SW KERI CT 1 10/87 TIGARD 7054 S $67, 308.00 13134 SW SHORE DR 1 TIGARD.RES 8/18/88 Page 15 DATE:. 08/18/1988 PAGE: 15 MO/YR JURISDICTION PERMIT# TYPE VALUE ADDRESS UNITS ----- ------------ ------- ---- 10/87 TIGARD 7121 S $72, 196. 00 14880 SW 92ND AVE 1 C-)/87 TIGARD 7019 S $145, 595. 00 14101 SW 125TH AV 1 X0/87 TIGARD 7093 S $79, 971.00 13478 SW LAURMONT 1 10/87 TIGARD 7069 S $77, 000. 00 12027 SW WILTON A 1 10/87 TIGARD 7104 S $78, 000. 00 10627 SW TUALATIN 1 10/87 TIGARD 7030 S $77, 195. 00 9020 SW REILING 1 10/87 TIGARD 7091 S $60, 016. 00 13363 SW LAURMONT 1 10/87 TIGARD 7097 S $80, 000. 00 15867 SW 81ST CT 1 10/87 TIGARD 7103 S $100, 000. 00 14802 SW 91ST AVE 1 10/87 TIGARD 7105 S $61, 800. 00 10591 SW KENT ST 1 10/87 TIGARD 7111 S $55, 000. 00 10624 SW KENT 1 10/87 TIGARD 7126 S $0.00 13578 SW PACIFIC -1 ' 10/87 TIGARD 7119 S $88, 090. 00 13486 SW LAURMONT 1 10/87 TIGARD 7132 S $78, 000. 00 10646 SW KERT ST 1 11/87 TIGARD 7113 M $630, 000. 00 11361 SW 135TH 24 11/87 TIGARD 7048 S $56, 000. 00 16264 SW 104TH 1 11/87 TIGARD 6986 S $61, 700. 00 13236 SW LAURAMON 1 11/87 TIGARD 7110 S $61, 525. 00 12054 WESTBURY TE 1 11/87 TIGARD 7102 S $100, 228. 00 12665 SW SNOW BRU 1 11/87 TIGARD 87112 S $69, 000.00 12001 SW WESTBURY 1 11/87 TIGARD 7061 S $172, 000. 00 14035 SW 125TH 1 11/87 TIGARD 8767 S $71,735. 00 10579 SW KENT ST 1 11/87 TIGARD 8714 S $68, 292. 00 11963 SW WESTBURY 1 11/87 TIGARD 8752 S $62, 157. 00 12010 SW WESTBURY 1 11/87 TIGARD 87128 S $81, 367. 00 11120 SW 124TH PL 1 11/87 TIGARD 87134 S $61,465. 00 12300 SW NORTH DA 1 11/87 TIGARD 8757 S $50,400 . 00 16163 SW 104TH AV 1 1/87 TIGARD 87146 S $81, 007 . 00 8132 SW BOND 1 11/87 TIGARD 87161 S $69, 392.00 16228 SW 104TH 1 11/87 TIGARD 87178 S $94, 049. 00 12476 SW EDGEWATE 1 11/87 TIGARD 8746 S $50,400. 00 16163 SW 104TH AV 1 11/87 TIGARD 87219 S $91, 165. 00 10548 SW KENT 1 11/87 TIGARD 87103 S $73, 384. 00 9169 SW HILL ST 1 11/87 TIGARD 8758 S $99, 000. 00 10700 SW SUMMERLA 1 11/87 TIGARD 8786 S $86,284. 00 8090 SW BOND ST 1 11/87 TIGARD 87116 S $100, 547 . 00 14285 SW 112TH 1 12/87 TIGARD 7081 M 3, 220, 125. 00 11531 SW 135TH 166 12/87 TIGARD 7072 M $441, 600. 00 11587 SW 135TH 18 12/87 TIGARD 7116 M $420, 000.00 11309 SW 135TH 16 12/87 TIGARD 6903 S $63, 850. 00 13056 SW LAURMONT 1 12/87 TIGARD 870270 S $0. 00 9245 SW OAK -1 12/87 TIGARD 870156 S $70, 600. 00 16082 SW 93 AVE 1 12/87 TIGARD 870193 S $57, 047. 00 10405 SW TITAN LN 1 12/87 TIGARD 870238 S $76, 393. 00 12285 SW MILLVIEW 1 12/87 TIGARD 870249 S $0. 00 13874 SW CRIST CT 1 12/87 TIGARD 870170 S $69, 372. 00 16276 SW 104 AVE 1 12/87 TIGARD 87205 S $80, 596. 00 9267 SW HILL ST 1 12/87 TIGARD 870271 S $0. 00 9405 SW OAK 1 12/87 TIGARD 870272 S $0. 00 10165 SW 93RD -1 12/87 TIGARD 870273 S $0. 00 9315 SW MAPLELEAF -1 12/87 TIGARD 870280 S $65,453. 00 12940 SW HAWKS BE 1 12/87 TIGARD 870293 S $82, 109. 00 10668 SW KENT 1 2/87 TIGARD 870303 S $65, 592. 00 11128 SW 78TH AVE 1 2/87 TIGARD 870264 S $82, 013. 00 16685 SW 108TH AV 1 1/88 TIGARD 870322 S $88, 308. 00 9148 SW HILL ST 1 TIGARD.RES 8/18/88 Page 16 DATE:. 08/18/1988 PAGE: 16 MO/YR JURISDICTION PERMIT# TYPE VALUE ADDRESS UNITS ----------- ------- 1/88 TIGARD 870322 S $88, 308= 00 91d8 SW HILI., ST i 1/88 TIGARD 870355 S $85,400. 00 9500 SW MARTHA ST 1 1/88 TIGARD 87205 S $80, 596. 00 9267 SW HILL ST 1 1/88 TIGARD 870326 S $50,400. 00 16207 SW 104TH AV 1 1/88 TIGARD 870336 S $66, 000. 00 13081 SW LAUMONT 1 1/88 TIGARD 880101 S $57,227. 00 16325 SW 104TH AV 1 1/88 TIGARD 880115 S $78, 000. 00 10519 SW KENT ST 1 1/88 TIGARD 880058 S $71,970. 00 13405 SW SCOTTS B 1 1/88 TIGARD 880125 S $69, 300. 00 12314 SW MILLVIEW 1 1/88 TIGARD 880135 S $84,901. 00 12348 SW MILLVIEW 1 1/88 TIGARD 880071 S $76,230. 00 13045 SW KATHERIN 1 1/88 TIGARD 880001 S $68, 895. 00 11130 SW 123RD PL 1 1/88 TIGARD 880014 S $84, 383. 00 9053 SW REILING 1 1/88 TIGARD 880036 S $80, 827. 00 13178 SW KATHERIN 1 1/88 TIGARD 870072 S $156, 000. 00 9718 SW N DAKOTA 1 1/88 TIGARD 870166 S $69, 372. 00 16288 SW 104TH AV 1 1/88 TIGARD 880070 S $60, 947. 00 13162 SW SHORE DR 1 1/88 TIGARD 880071 S $104, 000. 00 9700 SW N DAKOTA 1 1/88 TIGARD 87025 S $53, 179. 00 10387 SW 87TH AVE 1 1/88 TIGARD 880083 S $72, 539. 00 9176 SW HILL ST 1 1/88 TIGARD 870071 S $104, 000. 00 9700 SW N DAKOTA 1 1/88 TIGARD 870072 S $156, 000. 00 9718 SW N DAKOTA 1 1/88 TIGARD 870193 S $57, 047. 00 10405 SW TITAN LN 1 1/88 TIGARD 870280 S $65,453. 00 12940 SW HAWKS BE 1 1/88 TIGARD 870238 S $76, 393. 00 12285 SW MILLVIEW 1 2/88 TIGARD 880255 S $60,497. 00 13162 SW SHORE DR 1 2/88 TIGARD 880298 S $94, 308. 00 9059 SW REILING S 1 k 2/88 TIGARD 880277 S $74, 048. 00 10623 SW 127TH CT 1 2/88 TIGARD 880090 S $85, 955. 00 10558 SW RIVER RD 1 2/88 TIGARD 880228 S $81, 000. 00 13292 SW LAURMONT 1 2/88 TIGARD 880052 S $61,700. 00 12996 SW LAURMONT 1 2/88 TIGARD 880119 S $76, 959. 00 16283 SW 104TH AV 1 2/88 TIGARD 880281 S $76, 069. 00 10624 SW 127TH CT 1 2/88 TIGARD 880289 S $89, 000. 00 12176 SW MILLVIEW 1 2/88 TIGARD 880151 S $74, 000. 00 13146 SW KATHERIN 1 2/88 TIGARD 880151 S $74, 000. 00 13146 SW KATHERIN 1 2/88 TIGARD 880213 S $63, 850. 00 14532 SW 83RD CT 1 2/88 TIGARD 880165 S $57 , 227. 00 10418 SW PICKS WA 1 2/88 TIGARD 880169 S $57 , 227. 00 16233 SW 104TH AV 1 2/88 TIGARD 880173 S $57,227. 00 10365 SW RICKS LA 1 2/88 TIGARD 880177 S $50, 375. 00 16245 SW 104TH 1 2/88 TIGARD 880198 S $66, 000. 00 12901 SW LAURMONT 1 2/88 TIGARD 880202 S $69, 133. 00 12445 SW 129TH AV 1 2/88 TIGARD 880208 S $60, 000. 00 14335 SW 112TH 1 2/88 TIGARD 880159 S $76, 300. 00 13165 SW KATHERIN 1 ' 2/88 TIGARD 870307 S $102, 814. 00 10610 SW TUALATIN 1 3/88 TIGARD 880492 S $72, 000. 00 13379 SW SCOTTS B 1 3/88 TIGARD 880572 S $71,430. 00 12256 SW MILLVIEW 1 3/88 TIGARD 880539 S $91, 165. 00 10504 SW KENT ST 1 3/88 TIGARD 880580 S $74, 225. 00 10602 SW KENT ST 1 3/88 TIGARD 880585 S $84, 270. 00 10521 SW RIVER DR 1 3/88 TIGARD 880243 S $101, 579. 00 13187 SW KATHERIN 1 3/88 TIGARD 880576 S $66, 621. 00 10494 SW TUALATIN 1 _ 3/88 TIGARD 880357 S $89, 847. 00 12336 SW MILLVIEW 1 3/88 TIGARD 880365 S $57, 055. 00 16295 SW 104TH AV 1 i i I i TIGARD.RES 8/18/88 Page 17 17 PAGE: DATE-, 08/18/1988 ADDRESS UNITS MO/YR JURISDICTION PERMIT# TYPE VALUE _______ 3/88 TIGARD 0880369 S $57 , 227 .00 16230 SW 104TH AV 1 3/88 TIGARD 880373 S $86,404. 00 12075 SW 131ST AV 1 3/88 TIGARD 880379 S $49 , 200. 00 13314 SW SHORE DR80383 S $83,400 . 00 10544 SW WINDSR 1 3/88 . TIGARD 880407 S $83 , 000 . 00 12161 SW MILLVOIEW 1 3/88 TIGARD 110, 250. 00 13143 SW KATHERIN 3/88 TIGARD 880302 S $$84, 184. 00 12923 SW LAURMONT 1 3/88 TIGARD 0 10372 SW KERI CT 3/88 TIGARD 880312 S $65, 075. 0 0 11693 SW WOODLAWN 3/88 TIGARD 880331 S $93,0326 S 0333 . 00 12590 00 . 0 SW GLACIER 1 3/8$ TIGARD 3/88 TIGARD 880335 S $89, 548. 00 11573 SW WOODLAWN 3/88 TIGARD 880341 S $86, 284.00 15932 SW 81ST CT 1 3/88 TIGARD 880347 S $65, 413. 00 10820 SW SUMMERLA 1 $83,400.00 10562 SW WINDSOR 3/88 TIGARD 880356 S $96, 164. 00 10556 SW TUALATIN 3/88 TIGARD 87318 S $96, 164.00 10578 SW TUALATIN 1 3/88 TIGARD 3/88 TIGARD 87330 S $95, 627 . 00 12952 SW LAURMONT 3/88 TIGARD 880066 S $54, 545 .00 13892 SW 83RD CT DON C 1 3/88 TIGARD 880097 S $60 , 622.00 14523 SW 83R 1 3/88 TIGARD 880220 S $99, 000.00 13090 SW W COTTS SCOTTS TAMERA B L 1 3/88 TIGARD 880478 S $83 , 917 .00 13314 S 1 3/88 TIGARD 880425 S $72, 000 .00 16674 SW 108TH 1 3/88 TIGARD 880431 S $66, 000 .00 10693 SW KENT 3/88 TIGARD 880439 S $79 ,405.00 14575 SW 81ST AVE 1 1 3/88 TIGARD 880451 S $69 , 372.000977305SW SW SH 880459 S $0.00 9730 LN 1 3/88 TIGARD 3/88 TIGARD 880464 S $33,944.00 11495 SW GREENBUR 1 3/88 TIGARD 880474 S $63 , 329 .00 13025 SW FALCON R 1 3/88 TIGARD 880487 S $68, 788.00 10594 SW WINDSOR 4/88 TIGARD 880245 S $57 , 227 .00 10365 SW PICKS 1 4/88 TIGARD 880548 S $66, 200.00 15976 SW 81ST CTT 4/88 TIGARD 880552 S $57 , 227 .00 10343 SW PICKS WA 1 $57 , 227 .00 10396 SW PICKS WA 4/88 TIGARD 880556 S 1 4/88 TIGARD 880563 S $81, 007 .00 15889 SW 81ST CT 1 4/88 TIGARD 880600 S $118, 247.00 12530 SW GLACIER 4/88 TIGARD 880612 S $83,413.00 13058 SW TAMERA L 1 4/88 TIGARD 880624 S $87 ,971. 00 12550 SW EDGEWATE 1 4/88 TIGARD 880387 S $66, 000.00 13146 SW 106THAV A L 4/88 TIGARD 880421 S $79 , 827 .00 10787 SW 106TH 1 00 12372 SW MILLVIEW 4/88 TIGARD 880443 S $79 ,405. 1 4/88 TIGARD 880482 S $50,907.00 16069 SW 104TH 4/88 TIGARD 880513 S $69, 395.00 10647 SW 127TH CT 1 4/88 TIGARD 880526 S $67 ,972.00 10636 SW 127TH CT 1 4/88 TIGARD 880530 S $67 ,972.00 10635 SW 127TH CT 1 4/88 TIGARD 880535 S $69 , 395.00 10648 SW 127TH CT 1 4/88 TIGARD 880544 S $80, 864. 00 12694 SW SPRINGWO 1 4/88 TIGARD 880643 S $95, 500. 00 16630 SW 108TH 1 4/88 TIGARD 880657 S $124, 000.00 11949 SW BULL MTN 1 4/88 TIGARD 880672 S $71, 600. 00 10553 SW KENT ST 1 4/88 TIGARD 880683 S $64, 500.00 9217 SW MARTHA 1 4/88 TIGARD 880687 S $64, 500. 00 9222 SW MARTHA 1 4/88 TIGARD 880740 S $57, 227. 00 16204 SW 104TH AV 1 4/88 TIGARD 880629 S $71, 600. 00 10650 SW RIVER DR 1 14252 SW FANNO CR 5/88 TIGARD 880799 s $69,764. 00 5/88 TIGARD 880608 S $81, 000.00 13102 SW TAMERA L 1 TIGARD•.RES 8/18/88 Page 18 DATE*- 08/18/1988 PAGE: 18 MO/YR JURISDICTION PERMIT# TYPE VALUE ADDRESS UNITS ----- ------------ ------- ---- ------------ ----------------- ------- 5/88 TIGARD 880609 S $130, 854. 00 12945 SW LAURAMON 1 (- 3/88 TIGARD 880616 S $69, 500. 00 13227 SW TAMERA L 1 5/88 TIGARD 880633 S $129, 150. 00 14977 SW 100TH AV 1 5/88 TIGARD 880776 S $65, 075. 00 16138 SW 104TH AV 1 5/88 TIGARD 880795 S $70, 775. 00 15921 SW 81ST CT 1 5/88 TIGARD 880858 S $88, 000.00 13281 SW TAMERA L 1 5/88 TIGARD 880873 S $77,235.00 10526 SW KENT ST 1 5/88 TIGARD 880881 S $92,470. 00 12350 SW MILLVIEW 1 5/88 TIGARD 880885 S $87, 132. 00 14705 SW 83RD AVE 1 5/88 TIGARD 880942 S $71, 694. 00 16216 SW 104 TH A 1 5/88 TIGARD 881011 S $85, 000. 00 13428 SW SCOTTS B 1 5/88 TIGARD 880846 S $88,488. 00 13434 SW LAURMONT 1 5/88 TIGARD 880850 S $71, 961. 00 12234 SW MILLVIEW 1 5/88 TIGARD 880032 S $85, 000. 00 13078 SW LAURMONT 1 5/88 TIGARD 880803 S $69,764. 00 14256 SW FANNO CR 1 5/88 TIGARD 880815 S $53, 000. 00 9718 SW LONDON CT 1 5/88 TIGARD 880819 S $53, 000. 00 9721 SW LONDON CT 1 5/88 TIGARD 880826 S $81, 076. 00 10753 SW 115TH AV 1 5/88 TIGARD 880837 S $68, 013.00 11867 SW WILTON A 1 5/88 TIGARD 880316 S $65, 075. 00 16360 SW 104TH AV 1 6/88 TIGARD 881217 S $80, 827. 00 12330 SW MORNING 1 6/88 TIGARD 881254 S $50, 375. 00 10387 SW PICKS WA 1 6/88 TIGARD 881246 S $57, 227. 00 10114 SW 104 TH A 1 6/88 TIGARD 881055 S $70, 775. 00 15987 SW 81 ST CT 1 6/88 TIGARD 881059 S $57,418. 00 16036 SW 93RD AVE 1 6/88 TIGARD 881063 S $88, 733. 00 12930 SW GLACIER 1 6/88 TIGARD 881068 S $95, 500. 00 10565 SW RIVER DR 1 6/88 TIGARD 881072 S $59, 943. 00 7965 SW MARA CT 1 6/88 TIGARD 881079 S $74, 563. 00 12086 SW 131ST AV 1 6/88 TIGARD 881087 S $77, 337. 00 12241 SW MILLVIEW 1 6/88 TIGARD 881091 S $85, 103. 00 12154 SW MILLVIEW 1 6/88 TIGARD 881099 S $82, 013. 00 10659 SW KENT ST 1 6/88 TIGARD 881103 S $80, 367. 00 12550 SW GLACIER 1 6/88 TIGARD 881119 S $90, 275. 00 13192 SW BENISH S 1 6/88 TIGARD 881123 S $80, 125. 00 12149 SW MILLVIEW 1 6/88 TIGARD 881129 S $91, 165. 00 10680 SW KENT ST 1 6/88 TIGARD 881132 S $74,750. 00 13950 SW 104 TH A 1 6/88 TIGARD 881141 S $76, 033.00 13343 SW SHORE DR 1 6/88 TIGARD 881146 S $71, 169. 00 13338 SW SHORE DR 1 6/88 TIGARD 881156 S $81, 056. 00 10728 SW KENT ST 1 6/88 TIGARD 881182 S $86,496. 00 10727 SW TUALATIN 1 6/88 TIGARD 881193 S $114,432. 00 9076 SW HILL ST 1 6/88 TIGARD 881206 S $81, 007. 00 15845 SW 81ST CT 1 6/88 TIGARD 880447 S $79, 405. 00 11345 SW 121 ST A 1 6/88 TIGARD 880766 S $66, 000. 00 13158 SW LAURMONT 1 6/88 TIGARD 880841 S $82, 848. 00 13234 SW BENISH S 1 6/88 TIGARD 880900 S $84, 184. 00 12930 SW LAURMONT 1 6/88 TIGARD 880923 S $57, 228. 00 10407 SW KERI CT 1 ! 6/88 TIGARD 880956 S $57, 308. 00 10449 SW KERI CT 1 6/88 TIGARD 880964 S $69, 372. 00 16358 SW 104TH AV 1 6/88 TIGARD 880982 S $50, 375. 00 16170 SW 104 TH A 1 6/88 TIGARD 881020 S $62, 514. 00 7929 SW MARA CT 1 S/88 TIGARD 881025 S $71, 000. 00 7947 SW MARA CT 1 o/88 TIGARD 881042 S $56,412. 00 14315 SW 112 TH A 1 6/88 TIGARD 881048 S $137, 151. 00 13269 SW TAMERA L 1 1 r TOM R. LANCASTER, P.E. Transportation Engineering Union Station, Suite 206 CTraffic Studies 800 N.W. 6th Avenue (31anning Portland, OR 97209 Safety (503) 248-0313 TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY E. Asphalt and Concrete Batch Plant r. Tigard, Oregon s. PROFESsjo G1 IV'22. August, 1988 TOM R.LANCASTER,P.E. Transportation Enpineerinp TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Site Description . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Trip Generation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Trip Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Capacity Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Railroad Crossings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 26 Roadway Improvements 28 Summary . . : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 ( Appendix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 i -1- i r TOM R.LANCASTER,P.E. Tansporlsllon Erpinsertrq i l � INTROEDUCTION I This report will analyze the traffic impact of the r proposed asphalt and ready mix plant on 74th Avenue in Tigard . Aggregate and other raw materials will be brought in by train, mixed on-site , and transported by r truck to construction sites. E The plant will be located south of Bonita Road between the Southern Pacific and Burlington Northern railroads. Access to the site will be from 74th Avenue. i Detailed traffic count data are included in the r appendix to this report, and the capacity calculations are available in a separate report. r I i I -2- .� -......, .„,IN U l \ •. :app •�41777) = �;1�_ t� ..,1. � �� C 1 � � ow•aa R. ca.N,oN . . a. s K v.aw �t '�w... �' i +t.4 A.(�y"� Jaa' O• _ _� _ •o+o' �oa.ow `�/� ~• a++t 'c.+o Er [• ah � I' `Y' i• 'qac, CRYS AL aa�••ns, ^R. soIAI1K •t.,1,� �tet+ , "woaa LAKf M[w4p[O F•{• •1 I a U i I •o..er Z. L.j111I� JP•J " • '',. [ \� Vbr+E+ ,CN�• � . pV0 O 0 I 'I..V, O.r1 7 TIGAR 1_e Pop 18.000 � Ga• Mo,renn 4a» Wt a. J � C r1. puri R o1r•w• < 'SF. ar. �• 9,y Oq cN[.wr ar. !17 lo G q a•CO ,.NO•Y.O Le [DOIFOOfI R. O �C/,t. '7'F• f,. O 'Ip� c VV �•�+wa.nay.rw t.. •t,..c.. i 'C ? (FCS recv • tI crr.n • C=J .., F _ "EJL�"< "'•'°°' .-PROJECT N1a,A e•" — •Iter _ �' SITE --� r « `�x �•yPa•i : u 1 Sr • �J vmwow ./.0 ar+aRJ1 ['C, aN.RI Wwl 110. e , O.rr •••�i 1. + -Lt?[ f..v.rw tn.1 )'. IeJ L�7 O�� i i ` Wd10M. R.8 � vJ,Ja/'"•�C P=� ? aN • rNM aN : � 9 w iY lvltaG .v(. w p ' •�ti. ' T Oft. Jt ,Y 000�'a��' 1 [ \ I� �I1 ■I { « £ „ 'i ou.N•u we y S w•s.w°.o V� c. 1 M 11 S 'a '''t ' �N•aTE _ 7 COO.. •..N•� •V.».w u»oea ', '°�- _� — • �a ,a i i Zsc- On u� —_ 0 rFOOp \ O / —� \ I r 'PON 8 si.o a.•ns n. I 1w1_aa_°1(_uJ • _w Y-( K I L p , • J ..rP „ 111` 1 1 // D. P I / � I .•.R c. i=y r 1lS1 L:v I tp•` 'Pa r / `aJ f--. / 1 0.(No' •..• to / J R[r^(r DURHAM I . r 4„700\ P/ It VICINITY MAP —� TOM R. LANCASTER, P.E. Consulting Transportation Engineer —3— 1 TOM R.LANCASTER,P.E. Transportation Enpinearinp SITE DESCRIPTION The proposed asphalt and ready mix plant will be bordered by the Burlington Northern railroad on the west and the Southern Pacific Railroad on the east. The north border will be about 540 feet south of Bonita Road. The width of the site varies from 140 feet on the north to 400 feet on the south. The length of the site is 950 feet from the north boundary to the south boundary. The total area is about six acres. There will be two accesses to the site, both of which will be from 74th Avenue and both of which will cross the Burlington Northern tracks. One will be near the north end of the site and the other at the south end. Both accesses will be private rail crossings not open to the general public . Each access will have at least a 25-foot tangent on the approach to 74th. Due to the alignment of 74th there should be no sight distance restrictions at the access points if shrubbery growth is controlled. Aggregate will be delivered by train, and asphalt and concrete will be mixed on the site. It is expected that ultimately there may be up to 200 truck deliveries per day from the site. Parking will be provided for employees who work on the site. All truck parking and truck driver parking will be off the site. i -4- . I M 11 ,11111111111111111,ll�Ill 11 t TOM R.LANCASTER,P.E. Transportation Engineering C Existing land development in the vicinity of the proposed plant is generally industrial , although much of the land along 74th is presently undeveloped. On the southwest corner of Bonita and 74th is a shipping business , and on the southeast corner is a car repair business. South of Bonita Road between the two tracks is a plastics manufacturer. North of Bonita and east of the tracks is a steel manufacturing plant. The access to the proposed plant will be from 74th, which is a two-lane roadway. From Bonita Road to a point about 0. 3 miles south, 74th is paved and is 24 feet in width. The frontage of the shipping firm south of Bonita is curbed with a sidewalk , but the remainder is uncurbed. For 0.1 mile south of the paved section, 74th is surfaced by pavement that is severely deteriorated. The next 0 . 4 miles to the south is gravel , and the remaining 0 . 1 mile north of Durham Road is paved. About 300 feet south of Bonita is a reverse curve which is signed for a recommended speed of 20 mph . At the intersection with Bonita Road, 74th is controlled by a STOP sign. Bonita Road is paved and carries two-lane two-way traffic, except that on the approach to 72nd Avenue, the roadway widens to include a center left-turn lane. Except along the shipping plant frontage at 74th and in the three-lane section near 72nd, Bonita is 24 feet in width without curbs or sidewalks . East of 72nd, Bonita is curbed with a continuous center turn lane. There are two railroad crossings on Bonita between 72nd and 74th . The Burlington Northern crossing is i E -5- i r E TOM R.LANCASTER,P.E. transportation Engineering located about 90 feet east of the centerline of 74th Avenue. The Southern Pacific crossing is located about 90 feet east of the Burlington Northern crossing. Both crossings are protected by interconnected automatic crossing gates . If a train approaches on the east track, the two outside gates are lowered. After ten seconds , the eastbound inside gate is lowered, but the westbound inside gate remains raised. After an addition- al 20 seconds , the train is expected to arrive at the crossing. If a train approaches on the west track, the operation is similar , except that the westbound inside gate is lowered and the eastbound inside gate remains raised. Both crossings are equipped with Grade Crossing Predictors , which minimize unnecessary gate activations due to stopped or slowing trains. On 72nd Avenue there is one through lane in each direction, plus a center two-way left-turn lane. There is curbing on both sides of the street. The intersection of 72nd and Bonita is controlled by a four-way STOP. The intersection of 72nd and Upper Boones Ferry Road is controlled by a three-phase actuated traffic signal , with protected left turns from southbound on 72nd to eastbound on Upper Boones Ferry. There is also a northbound right-turn lane on 72nd and a westbound right-turn lane on Upper Boones Ferry. This is presently a T-shaped intersection, but a fourth leg may be con- structed in the future to provide access to a private development. t -6- TOM R.LANCASTER,P.E. Traneporlalion Engineering C Upper Boones Ferry Road from 72nd to Interstate 5 has two eastbound traffic lanes and one westbound lane. Except for a section on the north side near I-5, both sides of Upper Boones Ferry are curbed. East of Inter- state 5, one of the eastbound lanes is dropped. The two I-5 ramps are controlled by STOP signs at their intersections with Upper Boones Ferry. The ramp intersections are under the jurisdiction of the Oregon State Highway Division. Both ramp intersections present- ly meet the warrants for the installation of traffic signals and have been placed on the Oregon State Highway Division signal priority list for installation of Sig- nals. Manual peak period traffic counts were made at the following intersections: 1. 72nd at Bonita Road 2. 72nd at Upper Boones Ferry 3. Upper Boones Ferry at I-5 Southbound Ramps 4. Upper Boones Ferry at I-5 Northbound Ramps Each intersection was counted from 7 to 9 AM, and from 4 to 6 PM. In all cases , traffic volumes were higher during the evening peak hour than during the morning peak hour. The intersection with the highest volumes during both the morning and evening peak hours was 72nd at Upper Boones Ferry. The second highest was Upper Boones Ferry at the I-5 southbound ramps. The morning peak hours generally occurred from 7: 15 to 8: 15 AM, the the evening peak hours were from 4:30 to 5:30 PM. C -7- TOM R.LANCASTER,P.E. Transportation Engineering L The highest-volume turning movements during the evening peak hour were between the east and the north at the intersection of 72nd and Upper Boones Ferry. There were also high-volume turns from eastbound on Upper Boones Ferry to north and south on the I-5 ramps. Some recent 24-hour counts were also available for the intersection of 72nd and Bonita Road. The counts indicate an average daily volume of 7500 on Bonita west of 72nd, and 5000 east of 72nd. There are 8000 vehicle per day on 72nd north of Bonita , and 8500 south of Bonita. E -8- 't S o � j t, Bonita Road . m � � m e 1 PROJECT = SITE J6 r r\ Kable NORTH Lane �s > 2 0 '- a ooh > 0 C Q3 01 �. _ o _ A p a r" PROJECT VICINITY TOM R. LANCASTER, P.E. Consulting Transportation Engineer —9— TOM R.LANCASTER.P.E. Transportation Enpineerinq TRIP GENERATION It is expected that ultimately there tray be as many as 200 trucks per day delivering asphalt, concrete, or rock products from the proposed site. In addition there will be trips to and from the site by employees , and an occasional delivery of cement or liquid asphalt or ash to the site. Assuming 200 truck deliveries per day from the site, plus 30 employee and miscellaneous daily trips to the site , there would be 230 trips entering and 230 trips exiting the site, for a total of 460 trip ends per day. l This is a very low number of trips compared to com- mercial land use. A six-acre retail commercial develop- ment would typically generate about 7,000 trips per day. The peak period for the site is projected to be from 6 to 9 AM, as delivery trucks are filled and dis- patched to customers. if ten percent of the daily depar- tures occur during the peak hour , there would be 23 exiting trips during the peak hour. Assuming a worst case situation, there could be up to 30 vehicles enter- ing the site and 30 exiting during the morning peak hour. There is not normally an evening peak period for a plant of this type, because trucks return from deliver- ies at random times. Assuming that a typical afternoon r -10- TOM R.LANCASTER,P.E. Transportation Engineering f hour might involve five percent of the daily volume, ther would be 12 vehicles entering and 11 vehicle exit- ing the site. All of the trips generated by the project are expected to be new trips, so no reductions were made for pass-by trips. Following is a summary of the trip generation projections: ! TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY Entering Exiting Total Time Period Trips Trips Trips Weekday 230 230 460 AM Peak Hour 30 30 60 PM Peak Hour 12 11 22 -11- TOM R.LANCASTER,P.E. Transportation Engineering 4 TRIP DISTRIBUTION The proposed plant is intended to serve the City of Tigard as well as the surrounding areas of south and west Metropolitan Portland which are experiencing high growth rates . The percentage of trips to each these areas was estimated based on the size of the area and the amount of growth that is occurring. These estimates are listed below: Area Percent Tigard-King City 20% Sherwood 5 Tualatin-Wilsonville 15 Beaverton-Hillsboro 50 Lake Oswego 5 West Linn 5 100 % For most of these locations , the most convenient route will be via Interstate 5 . To Tualatin, Wilson- ville, Lake Oswego, and West Linn, the fastest route is clearly via Interstate 5. To Sherwood, the fastest route is probably via I-5 and Tualatin-Sherwood Road. To Tigard and King City the shortest and possibly the fastest route may be westerly from the plant site via Hall Boulevard, McDonald Street , or Durham Road. However it was assumed that, as a general practice, all deliveries to Tigard and King City would be via Inter- state 5, ORE 217, and ORE 99W. i -12- i TOM R.LANCASTER,P.E. Transportation Engineering E To Beaverton and Hillsboro, the fastest route would be via ORE 217 . Again, it was assumed that delivery trucks would use I-5 to reach ORE 217. This results in the worst-case situation .for the capacity analysis of the intersections on Upper Boones Ferry Road. Delivery trucks destined to Tigard , King City , Beaverton, and Hillsboro would turn to the north on I-5. All other destinations would be reached by turning south on I-5 except Lake Oswego, where it was assumed that half of the delivery trucks would turn to the north on I-5 and half would turn to the south. It was assumed that there would be no delivery trucks proceeding east to Lake Oswego on Carman Drive to avoid the residential development in that area. Because all delivery trucks were assumed to use I- 5, all would use a common route when exiting or entering the plant. From the plant, delivery trucks would turn north on 74th, then east on Bonita. After crossing the tracks , the trucks would turn south on 72nd, then east on Upper Boones Ferry Road . At 1-5 , based on the percentage distribution listed on the previous page, 27.5 percent would turn south onto I-5, and 72.5 percent would turn to the north. The return route from I-5 to the plant site would be the same. p I Of the two accesses planned for the site, the south I access would be used only for traffic entering the site. The north access would be used only for traffic exiting the site. E -13- TOM R.LANCASTER,P.E. Transportation Engineering t The following seven pages of traffic flow diagrams illustrate existing and projected traffic volumes for both the morning and evening peak traffic hours for the following conditions: 1. Existing AM peak hour traffic. 2. Existing PM peak hour traffic. 3. Projected AM peak hour site traffic. 4. Projected PM peak hour site traffic. 5. Projected daily site traffic. 6. Total existing plus site AM peak hour traffic. 7. Total existing plus site PM peak hour traffic. -14- s Bonita Road � a tu � a c o IIUlI...iiifft777---IIi � b � C 'I (.1 lil � o x 00 -c Go - Kable NORTH Lane m - a N 2 : n Doi o ve1 0o e Q � m ^ F°"� 0 m � .1 N M RO p0, A • EXISTING TRAFFIC AM Peak Hour t TOM R. LANCASTER, P.E. Consulting Transportation Engineer —15— i Boalra Road Mir � a 0 m 13 4 +6 � or Goth Kable NORTH Lane : cl m z -o 2lb . n 3. 00 o o. c Y, m _ C 0 OV -1 �. ROoy A 'e EXISTING TRAFFIC PM Peak Hour TOM R. LANCASTER, P.E. Consulting Transportation Engineer —16— i rte® s Bonita Road b U � � Q O to m O CIP � O \.7 0 W , Koble NORTH a Lane m : Q t : Z c — > > cz N ` o m a O� - o �hOrj r C„ O ROCPO, A •. PROJECT TRAFFIC i ` AM Peak Hour TOM R. LANCASTER, P.E. E Consulting Transportation Engineer z -17- s � sULBonita Rood V � � a ~ m (o In O LJ � w -I L ' M ........... %+6 3 t o�o � Got n Kab1e NORTH c Lane m - o C o �6 o � o � et oa e<< 0 -10 m � --z 0 opo, ,� • PROJECT TRAFFIC PM Peak Hour TONS R. LANCASTER, P.E. Consulting Transportation Engineer —18— z s Bon►►a Road > a to C b. O Nm 0 O :I ev b 4�l +6 Goin CL Kab/e NORTH c Lane m - a r Q _ s Oo b b, t cla -10 'a 0 PROJECT TRAFFIC Daily Volumes TOM R. LANCASTER, P.E. Consulting Transportation Engineer -19- _a C z Bonito Road b u a � a ca cv O 1 .I w _ M -I 'U W ,x CL Goin n Kable NORTH Lane v m - a r cs m IK o K e � � m � � r e+1 -10 -w� 170, a EXISTING PLUS PROJECT TRAFFIC �. AM Peak Hour _ TOM R. LANCASTER, P.E. Consulting Transportation Engineer —20— z s Bonita Road u _ a � a c v m rte. to 0 b W � Q ..........— s i f •c G� k Kable 001 NORTH a Lane � v m :o t - -w s • 6 2 4b t ` - `—L��1 - ^ lei0 o Ix T I EXISTING PLUS PROJECT TRAFFIC PM Peak Hour TOM R. LANCASTER, P.E. Consulting Transportation Engineer 10 —21— TOM R.LANCASTER,P.E. Transportation Engineering , CAPACITY ANALYSIS A capacity analysis was conducted for the four intersections for which manual turning traffic counts were made. The analysis was made for existing traffic volumes and for existing plus projected site-generated volumes. Both the AM peak hour and the PM peak hour were analyzed. i; t c' The capacity analysis was conducted using the Plan- ning Method in Transportation Research Circular 212 for signalized intersections , and the Highway Capacity F Manual (TRB Special Report 209) for unsignalized inter- sections . Circular 212 was used to reflect the uncer- tainty of existing and future actuated traffic signal timing , and to provide a quantitative estimate of level of service. Existing Traffic: A capacity analysis was first made for existing conditions with existing traffic volumes. The analysis indicates that during the AM peak hour all four inter- sections are presently operating at an acceptable level of service (D or better) except Upper Boones Ferry at the I-5 northbound ramps. At this intersection the left turn from northbound on the I-5 ramp to westbound on Upper Boones Ferry is operating at level of service F. This indicates that there is substantial delay for this turning movement during the peak hour . This is because there is a relatively high volume making this turn (287 vehicles) , and the through traffic volume on Upper -22- TOM R.LANCASTER,P.E. Tisnspoilelion Engineering Boones Ferry is too high to provide sufficient gaps in the traffic. During the evening peak period, the northbound left turn from the I-5 ramp to westbound on Upper Boones Ferry continues to operate at level of service F. In addition, the left turn from the I-5 southbound ramps is also operating at level of service F. The other two intersections are operating at level of service D or better. The intersection of 72nd and Bonita Road is con- trolled by a traffic signal . A direct method for deter- mining the level of service for intersections controlled by four-way STOP signs has not yet been developed, but there are guidelines in the Highway Capacity Manual for estimating the level of service. Bonita Road and 72nd has a 63/37 directional split in the evening peak hour. For this split ratio, level of service C is about 1050 vehicles per hour, and capacity (level of service E) is estimated to be about 1650 vehicles per hour. The actual evening peak hour volume is 1415 vehicles , which is equivalent to about level of service D. The morning peak hour directional split at 72nd and Bonita is 56/44, with a total volume of 1160 vehicles . This is estimated to be equivalent to level of service C. An analysis of the existing traffic volumes at the intersection of 72nd and Bonita Road indicates that the peak hour volume warrant for installation of a traffic signal is met. i -23- TOM R.LANCASTER,P.E. Transportallon Engineering C Existing Plus Project Traffic: The traffic volumes projected to be generated by the proposed plant were then added to the existing traf- fic volumes, and the intersection levels of service were re-calculated. It was found that in every case, for both the morning and evening peak hours, the level of service remained unchanged. This is because the additional traf- fic that would be generated by the project is very small compared to the existing volumes at the intersections. Because each of the three intersections that were studied meet the warrants for the installation of traf- fic signals, capacity calculations were made assuming that a traffic signal is installed. The capacity calcu- lations were made for both the morning and evening peak periods , and for traffic volumes with and without the proposed plant. The analysis indicated that all three intersections would operate at level of service B or higher, both in the morning and evening peaks, and with or without site traffic. It also indicated that at the intersection of Upper Boones Ferry with the I-5 southbound ramps, the demand for the westbound left turn may exceed the capa- city with a two-phase signal . A summary of the results of the capacity calcula- tions is shown on the following page. The detailed capa- city calculations are available in a separate report. -24- TOM R.LANCASTER,P.E. Transportation Enp{neednp i CAPACITY ANALYSIS SUMMARY AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR Existing Existing Plus Plus Existing Project Existing Project Traffic Traffic Traffic Traffic 72nd/Bonita C C D D i 72nd/Upper Boones Ferry A A D D i Upper Boones } F F Ferry/I-5 SB D D E t Upper Boones Ferry/ I-5 NB F F F F With Traffic Signals: 72nd/Bonita A A B B Upper Boones i A/B A/B Ferry/I-5 SB A A Upper Boones Ferry/ I-5 NB A A B B -25- TOM R.LANCASTER,P.E. Transportation Engineering RAILROAD CROSSINGS There are two railroad crossings on Bonita Road between 72nd Avenue and 74th Avenue. It is expected that all of the delivery trucks from the site will use these crossings. Both crossings are presently protected by interconnected automatic gates , and the timing of the gates can be adjusted if necessary to allow for the lengths and slower speeds of the delivery trucks. There is a potential problem involving westbound trucks turning left onto 74th Avenue. There is a dis- tance of 90 feet between the centerline of 74th and the centerline of the west tracks. This is sufficient dis- tance to store a 60-foot truck. However, if the truck is waiting for oncoming traffic before turning left, and there is a queue of westbound vehicles behind the truck, and a train approaches on one of the tracks, the vehicle queue could be trapped on the tracks until the truck moves. A typical mitigation measure for this type of situ- ation would be the construction of a left-turn lane to allow following vehicles to bypass a left-turning vehi- cle. At this location, construction of a standard left- turn lane would require widening and reconstruction of both railroad crossings. Because of the high cost of such an improvement and because of the possibility that one of the two tracks may, at some time in the future, be removed, such an improvement is probably not justifi- able at this time. -26- TOM R.LANCASTER,P.E. Transportation Engineering i. is ii As an alternative, it may be possible to provide a turnout to allow bypassing of left-turning vehicles by a widening the north shoulder of Bonita Road. The widening would begin just west of the west crossing, and would end just west of 74th Avenue. An additional width of about ten feet may be adequate. The widened shoulder would not be striped as an additional lane, but parking would be prohibited, and the shoulder could be used by i bypassing vehicles if necessary. Construction of the turnout may require additional right-of-way. It should be noted that the construction of a by- pass turnout will be of benefit to existing trucks turn- ing left at 74th as well as to trucks destined to the proposed project. In addition, it will be of benefit to any new developments that locate on 74th and which generate truck traffic or high volumes of automobile traffic. E y —27— @ F TOM R.LANCASTER,P.E. Transportation Engineering f� ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS The paved portion of 74th south of Bonita is 24 feet in width except in the widened portion near Bonita. With the existing low traffic volumes and low speeds, this width should be adequate to avoid any safety or congestion problems despite the reverse curve south of Bonita. It will , however, be necessary to prohibit all parking on the pavement (except in the widened area near Bonita Road) . If substantial additional development occurs on 74th in the future resulting in significantly increased traffic volumes , widening .of 74th will ultimately be desirable. If there are multiple high-volume driveways , a three-lane section with a continuous center turn lane would be appropriate. The southeast corner of the intersection of Bonita and 74th does not have a turning radius sufficient for long trucks . The poor condition of the existing guard rail has probably resulted from the guard rail being struck by turning trucks . The corner should be recon- structed to provide a greater turning radius , and the guardrail , which is intended to protect the railroad crossing gate, should be repaired. The new radius should ideally be designed to accommodate the largest delivery truck likely to use the site without requiring encroach- ment on the westbound traffic lane on Bonita, but the design may be limited by the available right-of-way. C -28- TOM R.LANCASTER,P.E. Transportation Engineering Long eastbound trucks on Bonita approaching 72nd, and long westbound trucks on Upper Boones Ferry ap- proaching 72nd, may be required to encroach slightly on the adjacent lane to make the turn while remaining in the proper lane after turning. Due to the presence of the center turn lane on Bonita and the second westbound lane on Upper Boones Ferry, this is not expected to have a significant adverse effect on operation of the inter- sections. All other intersections should be adequate to ac- commodate the delivery trucks . r -29- TOM R.LANCASTER,P.E. TransDarialion Engineering SUMMARY 1 . The proposed plant is projected to generate a total of about 460 new trips per day. All trips to and from the site were assumed to use the Upper Boones Ferry Road interchange on Interstate 5. 2. The additional traffic projected to be generated by the site is not sufficient to change the existing level of service at any of the four major intersections that were studied. 3 . The following roadway improvements are recom- mended to accommodate the projected site traffic: a. The radius on the southeast corner of Bonita and 74th should be increased , and the existing guardrail repaired. b. It would be desirable to widen the north side of Bonita between the Burlington Northern crossing and 74th to allow bypassing of left-turning vehicles. c . Parking should be prohibited on 74th between Bonita Road and the south access to the site (except in the widened area near Bonita) . T -30- t TOM R.LANCASTER,P.E. Transportation Engineering APPENDIX -31� TOM R.LANCASTER,P.E. Transportation Engineering l LEVEL OF SERVICE Level of Service is used to describe the quality of traffic flow. Levels of Service A to C are considered good . Level of Service D is typically the Level of Service for which an urban street is designed. Level of Service E is the maximum volume a facility can accommo- date and will result in occasional stoppages of momentary duration. A more complete description of Levels of Service follows: Level of Service A : Low volume, high speeds , speeds not restricted by other vehicles , all signals clear with no vehicles waiting through more than one signal cycle. Level of Service B: Operating speeds beginning to be affected by other traffic ; between one and ten percent of the signal cycles have one or more vehicles which must wait through more than one signal cycle during peak periods. Level of Service C: Operating speeds and maneuver- ability closely controlled by other traffic; between 11 and 30 percent of the signal cycles have vehicles which wait through more than one cycle during the peak period; recommended ideal design standard. Level of Service D: Tolerable operating speeds; 31 to 70 percent of the signal cycles have one or more vehicles which wait through more than one cycle during peak traffic periods. Level of Service E: Capacity; the maximum traffic volume an intersection can accommodate ; restricted speeds ; 71 to 100 percent of the signal cycles have one or more vehicles which wait through more than one cycle during peak traffic periods. Level of Service F: Unstable flow; long queues of traffic; stoppages of long duration; traffic volume and speed can drop to zero; traffic volume will be less than the volume which occurs at Level of Service E. TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANT CALCULATIONS � /1 Major Street 7�KJ Aviva .e_ Minor Street g0vv14v2L i;�oacL Location v- Number of Lanes for Moving Traffic on Each Intersection ADT on Major St ADT on Minor St Approach (total of both (higher-volume Major St Minor St approaches) approach) 100% 708 100% 708 WARRANT 1 Warrants Warrants Warrants Warrants 1 1 8,850 6,200 2,650 1,850 2 or more 1 10,600 7,400 2,650 1,850 2 or more 2 or more 10,600 7,400 3,550 2,500 1 2 or more 8,850 6,200 3,550 2,500 WARRANT 2 1 1 13,300 9,300 1,350 950 2 or more 1 15,900 11,100 1,350 950 2 or more 2 or more 15,900 11,100 1,750 1,250 1 2 or more 13,300 9,300 1,750 1,250 Warrant Used 100 percent of standard warrants used. 70 percent of standard warrants used due to 85th percentile speed in excess of 40 mph or isolated community with population less than 10,000. No. of Approach Minimum Is Signal Lanes Volumes Volumes Warrant Met ? WARRANT 1, Minimum Vehicular Volume: Major Street . . . . . . a gasp lop o Minor Street . . . . . . a r QSC—> WARRANT 2,2, Interruption of Continuous Traffic: Major Street . . . . . . a, rAGO !S 'I Minor Street . . . . . . .a Q50 I-26D l�O WARRANT 11, Peak Hour Warrant: Major Street . . . . . . '�- g9� Minor Street . . . . . . _�_ 51$ `Jap Ye$ Note: ADT volumes assume 8th highest -�Rp�pFtL %I"At- WAR. hour is 5.68 of daily volume. 72nANtlBun fkRa TOM R. LANCASTER, P.E. Consulting Transportation Engineer VEHICLE COUNT SUMMARY INTERSECTION 0F:72nd Avenue & Bonita Road OBSERVER: Traffic Logger--- DATE- ogger=PATE: August 5. 198 PAY: Friday LOCATION: City of Tigard TOTAL from from TOTAL from from WEST EAST NORTH SOUTH NORTH EAST & TOTAL ALL TIME ---------------- --- -------------------- ------------------- BEGINS L T R TOTAL L T R 1C17AL SCe1JTH L 7 R TOTAL L T k TOTAL WEST 7:00 3 13 5 21 16 43 3 62 83 7 9 19 35 24 46 21 91 126 209 7:15 6 28 11 45 16 59 2 77 122 9 7 20 3 53 27 6 27 147 143 2310 65 7:311 4 31 7 42 22 62 2 86 128 . 6 11 25 42 31 68 41 140 1S2 316 5 52 35 46 43 124 176 7:45 4 44 5 53 35 51 1 87 140 13 14 2` 36 37 48 121 150 272 7 37 8 52 1< <2 3 70 122 4 12 13 29 K,, 25 74 112 198 x;115 0 25 33 13 36 4 53 8t 6 24 11 38 14 ^� 7 36 24 46 7 'J 99 6 10 18 13 26 17 56 74 173 8:'30 4 " 31 6 63 93 1 13 4 18 16 28 22 66 84 177 5:45 i 21 8 3fl tb 561 873 52 96 120 268 196 339 244 779 1047 1920 TOTALS 29 224 59 312 167 366 g 32 44 83 159 129 204 159 492 651 1163 PK HR 21 140 31 192 8S 224 S 320 512 53 3 87 216 12 28 5 45 14 25 33 72 117 333 4:00 21 79 29 129 31 364 4:15 27 79 28 134 41 49 12 lCl2 236 19 25 6 50 17 18 29 64 197 3'36 4:30 22 69 32 123 57 46 13 116 239 4 `5 4 56 ib 34 39 89 145 342 4:45 20 51 30 101 48 42 6 96 197 17 4 8 5:00 28 61 25 114 52 43 15 110 224 13 44 5 62 17 34 36 70 12"3 304 5:1`• 16 51 16 83 63 31 4 98 181 12 36 5 + 10 29 31 377 12 45 25 82 52 39 11 102 184 20 44 3 67 6 40 40 86 153 5:45 9 4' 19 70 47 30 82 152 13 32 6 51 9 40 20 69 120 272 t 333 6'i 793 1629 11U 265 42 417 105 248 2E•2 313 15 1032 519 1411 TOTAL 155 477 204 836 3'91 �ra6 53 125 23 201 66 114 138 FK, HR 97 260 115 47.' 198 13U 46 424 VEHICLE COUNT SUMMARY INTERSECTION OF: 72rrd Avenue & Upper Boones Ferry Road OBSERVER: Traffic Loggers GATE: August 3, 1985 [SAY: Wednesday LOCATION: City of Tigard from from TOTAL from from TOTAL NORTH SOUTH NORTH EAST WEST EAST TIME _ & TOTAL. ------------------- TIME -------------------- BEGINS L T R TOTAL L T R TOTAL SOUTH L T R TOTAL L T R TOTAL WEST AL 7:00 17 11 0 28 0 39 147 186 214 65 0 48 113 0 0 0 0 113 327 7:15 28 25 0 53 0 46 106 152 205 72 0 73 145 0 0 0 0 145 350 7:30 30 24 0 54 0 67 120 187 241 73 0 82 155 0 0 0 0 155 396 7:45 34 32 0 66 0 74 77 151 217 113 0 92 205 0 0 0 0 205 422 8:00 31 41 0 72 0 56 75 131 203 101 0 58 159 0 0 0 0 159 362 8:15 31 41 0 72 (1 39 90 Ia 201 77 0 27 104 0 0 0 0 104 305 8:30 15 27 0 42 0 36 99 135 177 62 0 27 89 0 0 0 0 89 266 8:45 26 30 0 56 0 31 81 112 168 103 0 34 137 0 0 0 0 137 305 TOTALS 212 231 0 443 0 388 795 1183 1626 666 0 441 1107 0 0 0 0 1107 2733 FK HR 123 122 0 245 0 243 378 621 866 359 0 305 664 0 0 0 0 664 1530 4:00 70 55 0 125 0 49 119 168 293 137 0 28 165 0 0 0 0 165 458 4:15 57 71 0 128 0 66 124 190 315 123 0 53 176 0 0 0 0 176 494 4:30 57 71 0 128 0 58 148 206 334 130 0 47 177 0 0 0 0 177 511 4:45 77 56 0 133 0 71 112 183 316 120 0 38 158 0 0 0 0 158 474 5:00 103 85 0 188 0 97 187 284 472 129 0 47 176 0 0 0 0 176 648 5:15 80 53 0 163 0 77 145 222 355 126 0 50 176 0 0 0 0 176 561 5:30 51 56 0 107 0 67 119 156 293 103 0 46 149 0 0 0 0 149 442 5:45 52 53 0 105 0 61 100 161 266 131 0 33 164 0 0 0 0 164 430 TOTAL 547 530 0 1077 0 546 1054 1600 2677 999 0 342 1341 0 0 0 0 1,141 4018 PK HR 317 295 0 612 0 303 592 595 1507 505 0 152 657 0 0 0 0 687 2194 f VEHICLE COUNT SUMMARY INTERSECTION OF: Leper Boones Ferry Road V Intestate 5 Southbound Ramps OBSERVER: Traffic Loggers DATE: August 4, 1988 PAY: Thursday LOCATION: City of Tigard from from TOTAL from from TOTAL NORTH SOUTH NORTH EAST WEST EAST TIME -------------------- �` - ---------- k TOTAL ------------------- -------------------- -------- - BEGINS L T R TOTAL L T R TOTAL SOUTH L T R TOTAL L T R TOTAL WEST ALL 7:00 6 0 63 74 0 0 0 0 74 27 71 0 93 0 105 35 140 238 312 7:15 8 0 68 76 0 0 0 0 76 23 85 0 108 0 113 35 148 256 332 7:30 11 0 71 82 it 0 0 0 82 48 77 0 125 0 103 51 154 279 361 7:45 9 0 104 113 0 0 0 0 113 46 100 0 146 0 106 53 159 305 418 r 8:00 9 0 83 92 0 0 0 0 92 43 66 0 109 0 104 63 167 276 368 t 8:15 8 0 70 78 0 0 0 078 30 73 0 103 0 81 35 116 219 297 8:30 10 0 65 75 0 0 0 0 75 23 46 0 69 0 10:• 38 139 'LOS 283 8:45 10 0 51 61 0 0 0 0 61 25 41 0 66 0 84 36 120 186 247 TOTALS 71 0 580 651 0 0 0 0 651 265 559 0 824 0 797 346 1143 1967 2618 FI: HR 37 0 326 363 0 0 0 0 36.3 160 328 0 488 0 426 202 628 1116 1479 4:00 20 0 94 114 0 0 0 0 114 31 63 0 94 0 130 105 235 329 443 4:15 14 0 85 9'.a 0 0 0 0 99 44 62 0 106 0 117 96 213 319 418 4:30 17 0 8.3 105 0 0 0 0 105 60 72 0 132 0 112 103 215 347 452 4:45 31 0 81 112 0 0 0 0 112 37 76 0 113 0 121 100 221 334 446 5:00 30 0 82 112 0 0 0 0 112 69 69 0 138 0 148 124 272 410 522 5:15 :{0 0 8E. 116 0 0 0 0 116 48 K 0 131 0 104 82 186 317 433 5:30 22 0 78 100 0 0 0 0 100 51 66 0 117 0 118 81 199 316 416 5:45 23 0 78 101 0 0 0 0 101 40 70 0 110 0 97 70 167 277 378 TOTAL 187 0 672 459 0 0 0 0 859 380 561 0 941 0 947 761 1708 2649 3508 PK HR 108 0 337 445 0 0 0 0 445 214 300 0 514 0 485 409 894 1408 1853 r Ef VEHICLE COUNT SUMMARY INTERSECTION OF: Upper Boones Ferry Road t Interstate 5 Northbound Ramps OBSERVER: Traffic Loggers DATE: August 5, 1988 DAY: Friday LOCATION: Clackamas County from from TOTAL from from TOTAL NORTH SOUTH NORTH EAST WEST EAST TIME ------------------- -------------------- & -------------------- -------------------- & TOTAL BEGINS L T R TOTAL L T R TOTAL SOUTH L T R TOTAL L T R TOTAL WEST ALL 7:00 0 0 0 0 57 0 21 78 78 0 37 27 64 99 19 0 118 182 260 7:15 0 0 0 0 74 0 37 111 111 0 43 23 66 105 17 0 122 188 299 7:30 0 n 0 0 94 0 46 140 140 0 61 24 85 80 23 0 103 188 328 7:45 0 0 0 0 87 0 48 135 135 0 45 17 62 60 19 0 79 141 276 8:00 0 0 0 0 67 0 61 128 128 0 54 18 72 85 35 0 120 192 320 8:15 0 0 0 0 39 0 45 84 84 0 48 19 67 58 20 0 78 145 229 8:30 0 0 0 0 44 it 29 73 73 0 41 31 72 52 29 0 81 153 226 8:45 0 0 0 0 41 0 29 70 70 0 42 16 58 87 28 0 115 173 243 TOTALS 0 0 0 0 503 0 316 819 819 0 371 175 546 626 190 0 816 1362 2181 FK HR 0 0 0 0 287 0 200 487 487 0 208 78 286 283 97 0 380 666 1153 4:00 0 0 0 0 42 0 47 89 89 0 69 9 78 108 67 0 175 253 342 4:15 0 0 0 0 53 0 40 93 93 0 67 8 75 98 59 0 157 232 325 4:30 0 0 0 0 49 0 42 91 91 0 86 12 98 105 64 0 169 267 358 4:45 0 0 0 0 54 0 54 108 108 0 57 14 71 80 72 0 152 223 331 5:00 0 0 0 0 51 0 39 90 90 0 99 12 111 120 65 0 185 296 386 5:15 0 0 0 0 68 0 50 118 118 0 74 7 81 89 77 0 166 247 365 5:30 0 0 0 0 62 0 49 111 111 0 64 10 74 75 60 0 135 209 320 5:45 0 0 0 0 38 0 35 73 73 0 65 13 78 53 46 0 99 177 250 TOTAL 0 0 0 0 417 0 356 773 773 0 581 85 666 728 510 0 1238 1904 2677 FK HR 0 0 0 0 222 0 185 407 407 0 316 45 361 394 278 0 672 1033 1440 C l MICHAEL L. FEVES 4110 5.W.Jerald Court t` Geophysics/Rock Mechanics Portland, Oregon 97221 (503) 227-7650 August 16, 1988 Mr . Paul Hribernick Rappleyea, Beck, Helterline, Spencer & Roskie 1200 The Bank of California Tower 707 S .W. Washington Portland, OR 97205 SUBJECT: Ground Vibration Analysis for Morse Bros. Proposed Concrete and Asphalt Plants . Dear Mr . Hribernick : At the request of Morse Bros . Construction, I conducted a study of ground vibrations for a proposed concrete plant and an asphalt batch plant. The proposed plants are to be located near the intersection of S .W. 74th Avenue and Kable Lane, Tigard, Oregon. The purpose of this study was to determine if ground vibrations produced by the proposed plants will be in conformance with the Environmental Performance Standards of the Tigard Community Development Code (TCDC) , Section 18 .90.050 which states : "No vibration other than that caused by highway vehicles, trains, and aircraft shall be permitted in any given zoning district which is discernible without instruments at the property line of the use concerned. The methodology consisted of three steps : First vibration measurements were obtained at operating plants . Second, seismic attenuation characteristics of the proposed site were investigated. Third, distances to the limits of perception at the proposed site were calculated using the attenuation curves and the maximum ground motion measured at the existing plants . A Slope Indicator Co . , SINCO Model S-6 vibration monitor was used to measure ground motion. The Model S-6 is equipped with two triaxial transducers which continuously monitor ground particle velocity. When the ground particle velocity exceeds a pre-set threshold, the data record is stored. The threshold for this study was set at either 0. 003 or 0 .006 inches per second ( ips) . The data record can subsequently be printed, graphed or used for Fast Fourier Transform analysis . 's tE k F V i a Ambient ground vibration measurements were obtained at the Morse Bros . asphalt plant in Salem, OR, and a portable concrete plant located near S.W. 185th and Walker Road, Aloha, OR. Data from a previous study at the Stoneway Concrete Plant, 3803 E. Marginal Way S. , Seattle, WA were also included . Measurements at the Aloha and Salem plants were obtained on August 9, 1988 and August 11, 1988 respectively. The Salem asphalt plant uses a double chain drive, parallel flow drum with a capacity of approximately 500 ton per hour . The Aloha concrete plant is a portable batch plant with a capacity of approximately 150 cubic yards per hour . The Stoneway plant is a permanent state-of-the-art facility which uses a tilted mixing drum. Attenuation measurements at the proposed site were conducted on August 15, 1988 . The attenuation curve for the proposed site is shown in Figure 1. The data for this curve were obtained by measuring ground motion at various distances from a constant energy seismic source. The seismic source consisted of a eight pound sledge hammer impacting an aluminium plate . Human response to vibration according to the U.S . Army ( Corps of Engineers (Systematic Drilling and Blasting for Surface Excavations, Engineer Manual, EM 1110-2-3800, 1 March 1972) is summarized in Figure 2. The response curves in Figure 2 were developed by subjecting people to vibrations ranging from 1 to 70 Hz for five seconds under laboratory controlled conditions . Generally, vibrations less than 0 . 025 ips are considered unperceptible regardless of frequency. The dashed portions of the curves in Figure 2 are extrapolations. (Goodman, D.E. , A Review of Subjective Responses of Vibrating Motion of the Human Body in the Frequency range, 1 to 70 Cycles per Second, Naval Medical Res. Inst. , Pro ' . NM 004001, Rept. 1, Mar . 16, 1948) The maximum observed ground vibration for each of the existing plants is summarized in Table 1 . The data in Table 1 are plotted on Figure 2. The maximum ground motion from the asphalt plant was 0. 775 ips at 12 to 18 Hz. This ground vibration was observed below the chain drive of the drum during full production. The maximum ground motion at the Aloha concrete plant was 0.1808 ips at 22 Hz. This observation was made at the base of the aggregate conveyor hopper during opening and closing of the hopper doors. All observed vibrations at the Stoneway plant were below the threshold of human perception. C r" 2 . 000 1 .000 - 0 .500 000 0 .500 \ o 0 . 100 �SPHA m 0 .050 \,, 0.025 P PTION T D �., O0.010 -- eTe. q \ tY ANt C7 0.005 0.0011 1 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 D I STANCE FIGURE 1. ATTENUATION CURVES, Table 1. Summary of Maximuim Ground Motion. Vibration Peak Particle Velocity ( ips) Frequency Fig . 2 T V Sum Hz Location Activity IL- A Background 0 . 0035 0 . 0041 --a 0 .0041 --c 1 opening and 0 . 0129 0 .0076 0.0041 0 .0141 12-30 2 closing hopper doors . Full operation 0. 0088 0 . 0053 0.0065 0 .0088 10-30 3 0 . 0235 0 .0857 0 .0170 0 .0892 13-23 4 B Background Opening and 0. 0487 0 .1755 0.0569 0.1808 22 5 closing hopper doors . Full operation --b 0.0129 0.0106 0.0135 12 6 C Mixing concrete 0 . 0059 0 .0106 0 .0053 0.0106 105 7 and loading truck � D Mixing concrete 0 . 0106 0 .0059 0.0053 0.0112 70 d 8 and loading truck or traffic on Marginal Way. E Empty drum 0 .082 0 . 358 0.129 0.358 68 9 rotating Full operation 0 .153 0 .763 0. 346 0.775 12-18 10 F Slat conveyor 0 .070 0 .117 0. 112 0.123 --C 11 on, no load Full operation 0 . 070 0 .135 0 .106 0.147 13 12 G Full operation 0 .0188 0 .0270 0.0129 0.0276 --c 13 H Full operation 0 .0059 0. 0070 0. 0059 0.0076 --c 19 I Full operation 0 . 0076 0 . 0047 0 .0076 0.0094 20 15 Notes to Table 1. a - less than 0 .003 ips . b - less than 0.006 ips. c - insufficient data sample for frequency analysis . d - estimated. L = longitudinal. T = trans-:erse . v = vertical . Locations: A - Concrete foundation at SW corner of Aloha concrete plant. ;s B - Concrete foundation at NW corner of Aloha concrete plant, directly below base of aggregate C - Concrete foundation at NE corner of Stoneway Plant . D - 30 feet from NE corner of Stoneway plant. E - Steel support below chain drive of Salem asphalt plant. F - Steel support below base of slat conveyor of Salem plant. s t G - 50 feet from location G. H - 100 feet from location G. I - 150 feet from location G. 4'. 5. E t i t i P 10 _ a - 6 4 2 IPS SAFE STRUCTURE LIMIT I INTOLERABLE '^ 10 a 0.0 > 0.6 H U 0 0.4 09 w UNPLEASANT w -t 0.2 U cr 0 5 a 12_ _ 11� 4 0.1 0.00. 0.06 PERCEPTIBLE 0.04 0.02 2 og � •153 ? ao1 14 - 0,006 0.004 x.002 0.001 1 2 4 6 10 20 40 60 100 FREQUENCY. CPS FIGURE 2. HUMAN RESPONSE TO VIBRATION. (U.S. Army Corps of Zriginoers, 1972) I i f Using the attenuation curve in Figure 1 and a maximum source vibration of 0.775 ips for the Salem asphalt plant, it is expected that the ground vibration will not be perceptible at distances greater than 120 feet if the Salem asphalt plant r, were located at the proposed Tigard site. Similarly, Figure 1 indicates that the minimum allowable distance for the Aloha concrete plant is 55 feet from the property line . f I understand that the present design specifies that the f proposed concrete and asphalt plants will be located approximately 40 feet from the property line. In order for the new plants to be in conformance with the TCDC, the ground vibration at the plant foundations should not exceed 0 .11 ips . The design of the Stoneway concrete plant is well within this requirement. If the Aloha plant is moved to the Tigard site, then seismic dampening would need to be incorporated into the foundation to bring the Aloha plant into conformance with the TCDC. I understand that the proposed asphalt plant will use a roller drive, counter-flow drum. According to the manufacturer, this design is expected to cause considerably less vibration than a chain drive drum. Since the design is new and represents state-of-the-art technology, no vibration data is yet available . I suggest that ground vibration specifications be obtained from the supplier of the asphalt plant to insure that the plant will be in conformance with the TCDC. ( The original seismic records are available at my office. They will be kept on file for at least two years. It has been my pleasure to work with you on this project. Please do not hesitate to call me if you require additional information or if you have any questions. Sincerely, A Michael FXves, Ph.D. rY 7 ENGINEERS rs- t Daly • Standlee& Associates. Inc. 11855 s.W.Rugecrest Drive Suite 201 Beaverton.Oregon 97005.6321 (503)646.4420 MORSE BROS. CONCRETE AND ASPHALT PLANT NOISE STUDY MERCER PROPERTY - ON S.W. 74TH TIGARD, OREGON DSA FIDE # 103.88 For: David Evans & Associates Bob Price i 1 1 • k l i k 1 By: Daly-Standlee & Associates, Inc . ch "'"` Kerrie G. Standlee, P.E. August 18, 1988 ORE•3�1 c. <v �eh 3 "tJ f G r h e i .103.88 ( 1 .0 INTRODUCTION s asked to conduct a noise Inc.. Daly- Standlee & Associates, Morse Bros. study of the asphalt and concrete plants proposed by on Southwest 74th in Tigard, Oregon. We i for the Mercer property lants could be were specifically asked to determine if the P operation designed to meet state and city noise standards during This report presents the results of our at any hour of the day. to help decide the future study and should provide information direction of the project . R. I t� c: t:. I i i �I 103.88 2.0 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Morse Bros . proposes to locate a concrete plant and asphalt plant on the Mercer property on southwest 74th in Tigard, Oregon. The predominate noise sources expecteill e the e concrete plant trucks asphalt plant burner and fans and th Site generated sound can be controlled to meet State and City noise standards if a new style asphalt plant burner design is used along with around the plant . barriers or enclosures ound the concrete plant Additionally, barriers or enclosures ar and reduction of noise from significant secondary sources on site will be required . 103.88 l 3.0 OVERVIEW OF THE OPERA Morse Bros . proposes to locate an asphalt plant, concrete plant and an aggregate g ire ate stora a area on the Mercer property in Tigard, Oregon, Exhibit(see 1 and 2) and provide a site in the Southwest part of the Portland Metropolitan area where concrete, asphalt and aggregate can be easily supplied to the public . The company proposes to deliver aggregate to the site by train, designed "dump cars if The train will have a using specially g self contained conveyor system which will be used to off-load aggregate to an on-site conveyor system. The on-site conveyor gate to the aggregate storage area (see system will deliver aggre Exhibit 3) . Additional conveyor systems , different from the on-site aggregate delivery conveyor system, will be used to transfer aggregate from the storage area to the asphalt plant and the concrete plant. Asphalt will be transferred by conveyor to storage silos after mixing is accomplished within the asphalt plant. Concrete trucks will move under the concrete plant silos to be loaded for off-site deliveries . Asphalt trucks will move under the asphalt storage silos to be loaded for off-site deliveries. Dump trucks will move along side the aggregate storage area and be loaded with a front end loader for off-site deliveries . Aggregate re ate delivery to the site is expected to occur on an as needed basis throughout the day and night hours. Concrete hours asphalt production generally will occur during daylight but at times may occur at night to meet the demand. Sand and gravel shipment off-site will 9.1so generally occur during day light hours but at times may occur at night . The peak hourly production possible at any time at the site would be approximately 13 trucks per hour of sand and gravel (250 TPH) , 25 trucks per hour of concrete (200 CYPH) and 21 trucks per hour 3 \ N \ bF� «xvY ZHO i Sol m Sul I 1 � d d \ a I \ 'eA J i I � I IVA MO* I ® 1 i r 103.88 of asphalt (400 TPH) . However, the probability is very remote that all three products would reach a peak production condition during any hour; especially during night hours . r 4 103.SS 4.0 DESCRIPTION OF COMMUNITY SURROUNDING THE SITE 4.1 LAND ZONING AND USE The proposed plant site lies between the Burlington Northern and Southern Pacific railroads near their intersection with S .W . Bonita Road (see Exhibit 2) . The site is located within an area generally considered industrial. It is bounded on the north, east and south by I-L (light industrial) zoned property and on the west by I.-P ( industrial park) zoned property (see Exhibit 4) . Approximately £300 feet north of the site, businesses ,such as Fought & Company (Steel Fabricators) are located on I-H (heavy industrial) property. Approximately 400 feet east of the south part of the site the property zoning changes from I-L to I-P. To the south of the site, the I-L zoning extends approximately 1000 feet before changing* to I-P. Approximately 500 feet west of the site , the property zoning changes from I-P to residential. ( The nearest residence is located in I-P property on S.W. 74th approximately 150 feet west of the site . Additional residences are located within I-P zoned property both north and south of the site . The nearest residence located west of the site in the residentially zoned property is approximately 760 feet 'from the site . East of the site , the nearest residence is located approximatley 450 feet away on I-L zoned property. 4.2 TOPOGRAPHY The terrain east of the site increases in elevation at a relatively gradual rate for a substantial distance (greater than 2000 feet ) . To the north and south , the terrain stays at relatively the same elevation of that at the site. The terrain to the west slopes downward to a flood plain area along Fanno Creek and then rises to about the same elevation as is on the site at a point approximately 700 feet away. 5 .. � \ • � V I�C IN I-�•Y. MSP_ YN Al px� A. ' �. � .�� — -!ago. i ' L�. .(• � \�`'•� f ..a. _ —. •-is / •. �• I Ice. it 12. It i! -' - - .(. 1. ... . ,` i�' Pttz�et;Cotporation_� Ti7iT ., ,' c; r• �� ! ; ''• Site; {• �a�,t.,, • -`...I , wosa I_.rwat• •; — .. , III ,••, ; . Vs R-7 le � � ••.ate tt��.,,>rl I I I � i i� •t—_ .t i •� ••� �.. __.1�'; ._. , �••�1� -. ... g '; r -Jill11LY141L31�` ,� �Vl_ ' 1 •i•T--7-T.((11 �_A� � -�:' aj TTT1 ,• rr^tT^.-+. l�'r 1 �� •'` ��- .01 NZ (_Ij..1J•j , .,• i.l..rl 1.1 _.�_, �f �' / \ Wit+ If� �>. r.ar..-we 1 '�• ; r { Ir—. ( J � 1 rill .•— •\� 1 �•a,l •, + , ..�. , . 1 . . � �� 1, , 1 :�,�\ 1 TREATUENT fl�.>l ; ; _ �� , I ►� r r I ' a •aur IFS"rte 1 -•. I, i rtcow i` k 103.88 Existing industrial buildings are located between the site and the residence east of the site. There are no natural barriers to sound between the west side of the site and any residences in the immediate vicinity southwest, west or north of the site. The k line of site between residences along S.W. 74th and the east side f of the site is broken by the natural bluff located along the west i 1 side of the property. i i I i i 's i i I 6 103.88 5.0 APPLICABLE NOISE STANDARDS 5.1 THE STANDARDS Any industrial operation located on the proposed site must meet of EnvironmentalQualityty (DEQ) noise the Oregon Department standards and the City of Tigard Environmental Performance Standards on noise . opted the Oregon State regulations gu ntthes and The City of Tigard has adcase added two additional restrictions which would apply code of the proposed site . Section 18. 90• 030 of the city states; 1 ) Any point where a noise sensitive building could be constructed shall be evaluated as if such point contained a Park property shallbse e sensitive building and 2) Industrial considered noise sensitive property except thatthe noise levels allowed shall be 5 dB higher than that allowed residential ( d by the operator of the noise source. property, unless owne The Oregon DEQ noise standards state that an industrial source located on a new, previously unused site shall not increase existing statistical ambient sound at noise sensitive property by more than 10 dBA nor exceed the following: Allowable Statistical Noise Levels in Any One Hour 7:00 am _ 10:00 Pm 10:00 pm _ 7-00 am L50 - 55 dBA L50 - 50 dBA L10 - 60 dBA L10 - 55 dBA L1 - 75 dBA L1 - 60 dBA The L50, L10, and L1 , mean the level equaled or exceeded 50%, 10%, and 1% of an hour respectively. The DEQ noise standards generally do not apply to 'trucks engaged in interstate commerce and regulated by Part 202 of title 40 of 7 i 103.88 engaged in the Code of Federal Regulations nor to equipmentpart 201 of railroad that is regulated by interstate commerce by 1 however , to trucks which Title 40. The DEQ standards do apply, went such as front are located permanently on site and to equip end loaders . s: 5.2 EXISTING SOUND LEVELS unused industrial site , Since the proposed site is a Previously residential sites ambient sound level measurements were made at 5 degradation to determine if the 10 dBA around the property Measurements were restriction would con 74th at S We 74th (north of the site) , f'. made for 10 to 15 minutes ; 1495 S.W. 74th (west of the site and directly across 74th) ,1511 S.W. 74th (directly across 74th at the south end of the silte) 14760 S.W. 76th (in; the residential zoneearea f west osite) .f the s The and 14865 S.W. 72nd (the one residence the early morning August 9, 1988 during measurements were made on Aug 00 am to determine the conditions hours between 2:00 am and 4: during normally the quietest hours of the day. of the measurements , in all cases, showed the 10 dBA The results degradation rule would not apply because the existing ambient was deg see data in the at all locations ( above L50=40 and L10=45 ambient noise at all Appendix) . The source of the existing ns except at traffic on I-5 loca.tio tt 14645 S.W. 74th was vehi the ambient was controlled by an freeway- At 14645 S.W. 74th, compressor operating at an adjacent industrial business . air com P 8 __ 103.88 6.0 EXPECTED NOISE SOURCES Several noise sources will be located on the proposed site which will potentially radiate sound into the nearby community. The amount of sound radiated by each source and the impacts of the sound on the community will depend mainly on the sound energy generated by the source, the frequency content of the sound and the length of time the source will operate. In general , the asphalt plant has the potential of generating the greatest impacts on the community because of the amount of sound energy created by several pieces of equipment on the plant, and the length of time the equipment operates . The burner , the exhaust fan and possible additional high speed blowers are the primary sources of noise on an asphalt plant . The second source of potential impacts to the community is the concrete mixing operation. The concrete trucks stop under the mix silos and speed up the vehicle engine in order to turn the concrete mixing drum on the vehicle. During the concrete loading period , the engine noise dominates the noise from the concrete plant . Other more secondary sources of noise expected at the site include a screen, conveyor hoppers , conveyor motors , pumps , pneumatic valves, and rocks falling against rocks . Often, once primary noise sources are reduced in level, the secondary sources sometimes have to be addressed to control the sound radiating from a site . 9 4: i h 103 .88 i 7.0 PROJECTED NOISE LEVELS Sound levels were projected for 3 residences near the site along halt Plant and the concrete plant were S.W. 74th assuming the asp the predominate sources radiating sound to the community. In environmental reality , the secondaryndary sources can add to the expected at the level. However , all the known thecoeneratedunoiseto levels well site can be treated to reduce g is es. Therefore, the analysis will consider below the primary sourc only the sound from the two primary sources . c Reference sound levels for the primary sources were obtained from oncrete plants and from past measurements of ashalt plants and c manufacturer supplied sound data. In the analysis , sound levels were proj ected assuming the asphalt plant had a Genco Model AF-75 burner with a Mini ,-Guard sound reduction package . Reference octave band sound levels for the plant were generated usingPd243 taken from a measurement of a plant with a Genco Model F ( Appendix) . burner and sound data from the manufacturers was ( obtained from Reference data for the concretep Oregon while concrete measurements made around a plant in Eugene, g trucks were being filled . Projections were generated for the residences at 14905 S.W. 74th, 14975 S .W. 74th and 15115 S .W. 74th. The sound levels were predicted assuming 1 ) there were no barriers around the plants and 2) a 15 foot barrier was located near each plant to block sound radiating to the residences . The results of the predictions without -the barriers showed the sound level at the residences would exceed thbe DEQ d10 at 1m - 7:00 am standard by 24 dBA �t 1 149.05 S.W. � 74th , The asphalt plant S.W. 74th, and by 14 dBA a 5 was the predominate source contributing to the noise at each residence but the concrete plant was a significant contributor (see calculations in Appendix) . 10 103.88 The results of the predictions for the asphalt plant with the barriers in place showed the sound level at the residences would exceed the DEQ 10:00 pm - 7:00 am. standard by 11 dBA at 14905 S.W. 74th, by 10 dBA at 14975 S.W. 74th and by 5 dBA at 15115 S.W. 74th. The asphalt plant was the predominate source with the concrete plant sound being less than 10 dBA below the asphalt plant. i i Additional sound data supplied by the manufacturer indicated an asphalt plant with a newer burner design called the "Ultra Flame" design was approximately 10 dBA quieter than the AF-75 model r unit . Additionally, the manufacturer stated the most recent i. burner design called the "Ultra Drum" design was just being completed and it was estimated to be 5 dBA quieter than the "Ultra Flame" design. With either of the two new asphalt plant burner designs , the DEQ 10:00 pm - 7:00 am will be obtainable. If the "Ultra Flame" design is used, a higher barrier near the asphalt plant or a full acoustically treated enclosure will bring the sound levels at the nearest residences to within the standards . If the "Ultra Drum" i E, design is used, a 15 foot high barrier near the asphalt plant and concrete plant will be adequate to bring the sound levels at the nearest residence to within the DEQ standards . t; Y• IT ij C N tw 11 tgr�y�y Cj is l 103 .88 8.0 CONCLUSIONS i An asphalt plant and concrete plant can be operated at the proposed Mercer property site in Tigard, Oregon and meet the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality Noise standards if: 1 ) An asphalt plant with a new burner design is used. 2) A barrier or acoustically treated enclosure is placed around the asphalt plant . k. 3) A barrier or enclosure is placed around the concrete batch plant . 4) Significant secondary sources on site are treated r. acoustically to reduce any contribution they may have to the total exposure . r The Oregon DEQ standards are more restrictive than the City of Tigard ordinances for this site. Therefore all City of Tigard ordinances addressing noise will be met . '- �s r f r- t r' t, t: k- l 6 12 r l APPENDIX 7_ ir s J; Z) %Ci Pl.3 E T =0071 Rri --7IV-.RS AT A PAID PP TI-E 2- 6;-.r7l--: SOUND I. I DB SMUND LE-VEL +61. 5: DBA Sc,"JND DB sn!1.\;r 7R'217' S PPE . 7: S: v0 17 -7 CN 7 D f7l R E W.T '.,J 1 7, -4 'r C 0 C A_ Ds scji,-.D LElvzL +611 . 3 DBA THE-7 0r_',rAV_= 72'-*:'-D C5':'�'+'I-'j '-'RESSUIR-�_ LEVELS r!;;E- T.71 T 0 2 K a K 1EK z -77. 0 7� 4.67, 5 -57,1 . 8 -r.5_.. 1 +14. j- tC!. G' i AT 14. j- AT 7 SW 7 SOUND -t-73:2. C- L'3B SGLj!\.!) :-EVE*t 60. 3 DBA ;%,-j7C S, SOLND -!-79. S DB SOU.%ID L_=",.;E7!_ -SO. 3 DBA THE 0,77PVE :',2:*,-_- 721UN-7, PRE_'SSURELE ..= o v=--S ARE: 31. 5 6".. 5 0.0 1 K 2 X 8 K ISK HERTZ -i-75. 3 -i-717-.. j.-72. 7 +,.4. 6 +46. 7 +38. 7 +_0. 77 4-13. 4 ' +kl. IZI T=1= S Cl L_=.5 3 7 C Di",1 T F(1 72 C.,N S =R= :WITH-7N 1 L7, -r;; OF 77-4:E -�'::7-_ L;=t!=L- P7 RE-_-:=IVE-� LOCATION, ARE' 1'79. Z DD! SZUI,..D L-=VE:- = -=1!. Z B rq LJ ,__u,4 it .. t_',._ ..._4'.__5 p 31. 5 K •!-7,.5.1. 2 7 1 7 -7'=. G L E 5 Z 43. S 7. R' + 8 1 AT RECE__VE7; -T GN 7L. S S :CBP S 0,J ND P;r '7i- ir v 3 5 7 Ei 7t: r 2K 16K HE. E- 3. Cl -4-i4 i4 RE s u L 0: S01-:NT� LEVEL R CE R'�7 LEV 5 -i-SG 3 iy 4-73. 5 3 15 1 1 74 ^��.,_ ALL\ r _- — -• :.."�=. e: - n �:\: .._�K� C�_1L i��";.'. r: - = T72 c J*- l_. _-_ J ri:. :`_r'!LG J.._lv -Cv__ -- - _•�_�C.W t __..a •.:k� r[G: 311.3 63 :6f) 2f3 =ice i{ 4-1 61 i6i 'E '[ ��'.�•�il.4 +62.4 +i 4 1. —75.3 -64.L —6:_A A TC6.7 E2.3 +35.2 +J.a -6.5 6CJa•� �_.__ _ +ri.. Vic" !7.7 -4,6._ — .4 Z.i u: 311.5 63 1123 2 :( EK 4r a{ 116{ }.:RTZ .En .��u.y T�_.g .lel+•_ -� ._ -__.. _.._ .. �.... -._.� �Y.a ��S _JMYriY i4sz=. 31 7 Z. - S .. •v�.v .M1 a S - • 1a3.a3 "�F�-�i� +N�JT rO I�. �,1.GU 1.►�+0►� 01= %Nlo?�-5'—�7al�,eo �s� Poo mltv -"DOT.4 6, �.svJT: j�l B-T1g-51 5DcJ,rccr N*M6 n_io � a� Saute 4acnr.J COAXRA'►t ? /45 /qa, 31U, so R z-v?- pgr4 ' �ssvm51 RSPN9t7R4�T 'Has Ars Ar--M gc3l�rl�2. �A?A �s HSS oN NtE S: DK FP 243 8J/KAM�L CQMP_/ i�. F�243 )4F�S. G'a1JG Txvc„- 'PAr& DIS? >t LAS -av �o �i� 2rlc- 8 16 cr Lvr1� /OD gL �� p ?3¢ 73 7/ -Of-,VM P3 8C 86 g3 ado 75 -71 -c (s, o=aAK, Z�xxs) 26 .76 AJo 5L0� Goss ,4,t.pj •pl-T DAZA dS f:�1e f�S+Tv ate. inkt� TffLc �.'o,�til to . 1 ►a3, �a :I sr Cviou.,�d om J ,s��.S r QC-'rrct:,S 7a .S0.07W :56 08-51- O F R,AN7— Ntatest 6Y S 7-t5ay.� ssk,— P-t idwNus Tv U?amr) �1 cu'rwc� CtJJcc rKccC (mac. 5 'L Arc AssvM� R7 2iv0 .�e� lvL �iS'afz�,9 vads.� �C ct, iwL ,�i�nLr Gu cct�ieyV x rs r�n��—S L.at, Ccs r �e /45o.5 Z"47Ll - 1 /35 slo/ Ts/ NO Go 4-iL- 7s sw 7q -2 !38 270/ Iya, 1143 ISS, 1.45 �8 44 2 51 DEiJ c 7� wEsT er IeEGE/l/�iL G2A�x= (.acA�7oiJ G-X ,SrJV LL-41L Lso) 14-760-70- -/ /s�- 9Go, 7l, A6J /4 77s) �54I46/E� -70 Jnlo 7-A4,E1.143 S.�J-- /-15-Ti Ca— 12.z.1 ►.��DS 5��4 /SrS�IiPrLT Pl,►ar1T � �0��{8, /.G5 l5'b�a1\� COAL, 2,. Imo,3/9,I co wall) . 2 14 9'1 S 5w -7¢ fESPh�i� �c.►� I Ioo, l uo, ►Gs 2 1`5115 ?� °rs�ha�� IarJr S /oo, SSS jc5 5-Rid, 160 FIELD DATA DALY, STANDLEE & ASSOCIATES, INC. Project ## /a5,&5 Position 3tA/olll4 Date 8/-)/98 AMy PM Start Time 3;o5 t9n-, Instrument Used P�=,�� zz►g Data Taken By K� Data Data Data Time dBA Point Time dBA Point Time dBA Point 00 r-av 1 co`"`p :00' 29 Caws' ;�,' :00 57 :15 So 2 ca�lp :15 51 30 '' :15 58 :30 3 : 30 2 31 '( Ir : 30 59 :45 4 :45 Sl 32 :45 60 —0-0--T9 5 :00 V 33 r r :00 61 :15 6 :15 05'1 34 " :15 62 :30 14 7 Cow,, : 30 'p 35 : 30 63 :45 4q 8�-�� :45 GO 36 :45 64 -- u :00 9 : 00 IE5b 37 :00 65 :15 K 10 !' :15 .S~J 38 :15 66 : 30 qq 11 rl : 30 J-Z) 39 `r " : 30 67 ---_45 6-6 12 rr �5;p;�� :45 S! 40 ti r :45 68 --------------- -------------------- -------------------- :00 u 13 :00 41 :00 69 :15 ;U 14 r''d~'`' : 15 SI 42 :15 70. :30 L� { 15 + : 30 '30 4311 : 30 71 :45 r-H 16 :45 sb 44 a :45 72 -------------------- -------------------- ---------- :00 17 'r : 00 45 :00 73 :15 18 r' :15 46 :15 74 : 30 L11 19 " : 30 47 :30 75 :45 J. 20 :45 48 :45 76 :00 21 :00 49 :00 77 :15 22 �r : 15 50 :15 78 : 30 J A 23 r� : 30 51 :30 79 :45 4� 241' :45 52 :45 80 :00 -5D 25 ' Gir'' :00 53 :00 81 :15 �i`'1 26 " : 15 54 :15 82 : 30 54.) 27 : 30 55 : 30 83 :45 28 '' '' :45 56 :45 84 Comments- e.- Q9, Rxftr - PLprsrlc.s rs rr.J open-4, voo �outaht- cO1i.;,, I S t1a; o pct; rlc' -ri.}1S Rm Co►ti�onSS.v ak 4 Q1t �3 rvrn;n,� d0vrinc CX11+.NJ r,�1�md•,� C ��L = �e pari ru sra� (., /it�a�rlu �s GtM�1nu P-14 is loot t - X"j' i" Z:505 Ga. a L�� - 5� •s/ G, - Z S�_ /,�3z &ort = O,zr.% r 1�LL 11N1H DALY, STANDLEE & ASSOCIATES, INC. Project # /v3,99 Position 4C—Mkik '74) Date ell fag AM L,,*' PM Start Time 25-/4-ri Instrument Used �4L n.r$ Data Taken By lk:,61 — i4 �o`� sw -.`f Data Data Data Time dBA Point Time dBA Point Time dBA Point :00 :00 29 :00 S'11 57 :15 y }- 2 :15 30 :15 58 : 30 3 :30 31 : 30 59 :45 4 ---_45 Lf(1 32 :45 �i 60 --:00---y -----5-- .00--- -- 33-- ----00- ---------61-- : 15 yG 6 :15 14 34 :15 62 :30 7 : 30 ' 35 : 30 63 45 -• ----00-- -------8-rOA I ---.45 36 1 ��.� :45 . 64 :00 -95----37-- -�_ :00----------65-- :15 4-c� 10 :15 .gib 38 :15 66 :30 it :30 1.1 39 : 30 67 :45 C� 12 ----45 `fa 40 :45 ----00- ---------- 68 Li --------'------- :00 1: 41 --69 :15 45 14 :15 4210U �:e.y ' yw.L :15 70 : 3o 43 15 :30 '18 43 '711 I2 1004- " :30 71 :45 � 16 :45 US-- 44 :45 72 U y 17 :00 �6-1j 45-7-vL1L-s ---:00 ------------- 73 :15 43 18 :15 Ua 46 _ :15 74 : 30 4Z- 19 :30 =��' 47 :30 75 :45 20 :45 ------------- ----------- 00 c414 21 ------ 77 : 15 2 2 �' , :15 ~;? 50 :15 78 :30 .S 23 :30 51 79 :45 24 :45 5 2 ,� -----------fr_------- :45 80 :00 ----00-------------- .00 - 53 81 : 15 4'F 26 :15 54 :15 g2 : 30 Lk 4 27 � : 30 55 : 30 83 t :45 `fi� 28 :45 56 :45 84 Comments : 11011 F �'Uri`ict �-y i"''J.1L.r h,��,,u• ^ra,-f• '1 i ' i v. "sr. '+ 1 „, +�.k• 'r<<IL ,� ala\ hsr til. R t..y�'• ..1.)1C•.��.c� Yltia...�N tl'. ;\- +•�- 1�c1i��nv; }'Y.t31� r Y t• •►s"lZA- r _. r f1LLU DATA DALY, STANDLEE & ASSOCIATES, INC. Project ## /C3, Position l;(S.;nJ 74) Date $(g/fig AM V PM l Start Time .5;-I,,I Instrument Used lbflk 2SIS; Data Taken By r S �F{Jblo:i"Q ¢ Data Data Data Time dBA Point Time dBA Point Time dBA Point :00 4? 1 :00 SU 29 :00 57 :15 L =r 2 :15 Wt 30 :15 58 : 30 4� 3 :30 3lTvv�l.. :30 59 --.45-- tq------4-- ---_45- 32 " .45 60 : 00 g 5 :00 u;- 33 :00 61 : 15 yC,.Z 6 :15 4G 34 :15 62 : 30 7 : 30 qU% 35 :30 63 :45 4 � 8 :45 L1 7 36 :45 64 :00 65 : 15 Lf G 10 :15 46 38 :15 66 : 30 : 30 39 : 30 67 :45 12 - :45 40 :45 68 00 sz- 13 :00 t 41 :00 69 :15 5b 14 :15 - -b 42 :15 70 : 30 5LD 15 : 30 43 : 30 71 :45 16-- :45 44 :45 72 ------------------ -------------------- -------------------- :00 '51 17 :00 45 :00 73 :15 H E-, 18 :15 46 :15 74 : 30 19 : 30 47 : 30 75 :45 20 :454$- :45 76 - -------- -------- ---------------- - --- -------------- :00 21 .00 49 00 77 :15 $'` 22 : 15 50 :15 78 :30 54 23 L : 30 51 : 30 79 :45 t u 24 :45 52 :45 80 -------------------- -------------------- -------------------- :00 L-�- 25 :00 53 :00 81 : 15 y 26 :15 54 :15 82 : 30 27 : 30 55 : 30 83 :45 28 :45 56 :45 84 Comments : Lam„ - 4a AC - 9H is 1o°fo - i is h So a FIELD DATA DALY, STANDLEE & ASSOCIATES, INC. Project # I63,9U Position '/ib AL'v- Date 8;q/oy AM 4'- PM Start Time :2'r^ Instrument Used Data Taken By A4:r�, Data Data Data Time dBA Point Time dBA Point Time dBA Point :00 4'2 1 :00 -t3 29 :00 4q 57 :15 q4 2 :15 4 Z 30 :15 53 TLu5.8_ rs : 30 4-G7 3 :30 31 :30 59 :45 '_'0 4 :45 �{(, 32 :45 43 60 .00 q7 5 �a 33 :00 61 : 15 4-S 6 :15 34 :15 62 : 30 q3 7 : 30 35 : 30 63 :454}S 8 :45 36 :45 :00 9Thr-c :00 37 :00 65 :15 sb 10'I►��'�Ic- :15 `r Co 38 - :15 66 : 30 q9 11 : 30 UZ 39 — : 30 67 :45 12 :45 Li 0 40 :45 68 :00 y 13 :00 440 41 .00 69 :15�— 14 :15 �q 42 :15 70 : 30 15 : 30 y 1 43 :30 71 :45 y 5 16 :45 44 .45 72 :00 q3 17 :00 4-Z 45 :00 73 :15 u-6 18 :15 4`1- 46 :15 74 : 30 L'+- 19 : 30 4 '-- 47 : 30 75 :45 Lf L� 20 :45 43 48 :45 76 :00 L�g 21Tguu, . r :00 4' 49 :00 77 : 15 Y- ' 22 : 15 4�- 50 :15 78 : 30 4,5 23 : 30 4; 51 :30 79 45 ---_ � 24 52 :45----------80 ------ -- ------- �4 ------- ------ --- ---- :00 `?- 25 :00 53 :00 81 : 15 4.3 26 :15 4-' 54 :15 82 : 30 `}2 27 : 30 55 :30 83 :45 `}2 28 :45 4'�- 56 :45 84 Comments : L-;? sovwl,; -t-'7tc►u,M, Z-S a,'�'SJ- I �l.`F ,-..�.r• �,, `-, �yn��G+i. �^•1�Etv�`H Csr<+sR...r- '1J n( t.'�" F1''^o' N irJ 1 k.•nro �'se\ V_,�- fU'r -. - v Lyo= el/ Gia = 45 Gin - yB S n-_ 2.-7 v/ F .1 = o,3 sg FIELD DATA t DALY, STANDLEE & ASSOCIATES, INC. Project # /��3•�d Position 72 ,) Date 9/x/95' AM li' PM Start Time Z;'ib�7.r� Instrument Used 30-- ZS(8 Data Taken By �_ 14�GS SW "iZ Data ` Data Data 1 Time dBA Point Time dBA Point Time dBA Point 4 :00 ,�'� 1 :00 0 29 Co. �"'n:s :00 41� 57 � f :15 qcl 2 :15 q / 30 :15 14 58 30 4f3 3 : 30 43 31 :30 45; 59 :45 SS 4 C:a v ri ss�,,. ---:45—q S ------32-- ---45--�4�-----60-- j .� --- 61 ---00-t�v-------5-- :00 � 33 :00 67 :15 9-9 6 :15 43 34 :15 ¢7 62 _. 30 47 35Tv-lAr- � :-S :30 a 3 63 3 0 Yv 7 . .45 8 .45_46-------36--�/ ---=45-------------- -------------------- ----00 LF•q 37 ,.. . ar 7� .00 65 15 10 .15 38 .15 66 . 30 r;O 11C'f:.�1Z' :30 39 :30 67 .45 12 .45 48i ------40Tvucic-mss ----45----------6a-- ----00- -- , ----00-L�S- 41 .00 69 :15 `'� 14 :15 4i 42 i rP.1c :15 70 : 30 4(- 15 : 30 a -( 43 :30 71 :45_4-4 16 :4_5 y --------44 -45 72 00 4-717 00 4 -- ---------- ---- - 45 :00 73 ---- - :15 4-5 18 :15 cE 7 46 :15 74 30 4-� 19 : 30 GO 47 '�yv.�lc T-S' :30 75 .45 4`0 20 .45 Co 48 Co v -7 L ---:45----------7 6-- -------21-- ----00-�------------ 'r 49 �nc�� -s 77 00 4'7- :00 15 22T''v:Loti= :15 4`1 50 :15 78 : 30 u•8 23 : 30 1- 3 51 :30 79 :45 46-- 24 .45 ` G-------52-- ---:45----------80-- ------ --------- � 81 ----00-17�- -25--- :00 -SI 53T%v: I-� :00 :15 4,-7 26 :15 A(a 54 :15 82 : 30 u. � 27 : 30 55 :30 83 :45 44 28 :45 56'i•ro'u`t. �-�� :45 84 Comments: ►- .:, ,..a ,w, .,;, _ d� � SL L _ �3 a = y7 Z- = 51 L, = �/ .5r�: 3.8 Ea1�1= 4.x/7( • ENVIRONMENTAL NOISE DATA FORM PROJECT NI c;c.;.s. P—as ' 2oG _SS �"GH �Anr—) PROJECT # i v 11 C RECORDER r=0.s DATE 2�g(8� INSTRUMENT '5S C. q4 CALIBRATOR (Model) , //u dB /d aa• Ez Site No. / - ur�un Znd - 1(30E-L F4!�'- 245 Sjr_� TIME PERIOD TEMP: WET OF DRY OF PH WIND VELOCITY 10 MPH DIR. No. Samples Sample Period L1 L10 L50 L90 Lecr 16A. dB RANGE Channel Dist Channel Dist Channell Dist 0 22 42 2 24 44 4 26 46 6 28 48 8 30 50 10 32 1 49 52 12 34 YID 54 14 36 56 16 38 58 18 40 60 20 62 _'Jc-'-/=.;�� :jf�•.;v ►..�rFr �c {aU�,Tv-�'ra;T�.. NOTES: (a2 I cx) Lq, J 380 UENVIRONMENTP.L NOISE DATA FOR*; ✓ PROJECT A161e—E5r Ae-7 c /U�rG. ',�c�"S� �.�T61,- PROJECT # x;21 O I I RECORDER DATE :%3,(ye INSTRUMENT CALIBRATOR (Model)_, dB Hz Site No. 2- - 100 j 4'4c hKk'A'u. TIME PERIOD TEMP: WF.T OF DRY WIND VELOCITY MPH DIR. No. Samples Sample Period L1 L10 L50 j L90 I Le 2 l �yoC. Z• Q-71� dB RANGE Sb /:y Channel Dist lChannell Dist hannelj Dist p 1 22 1 42 21 24 1 44 4 26 46 6 28 48 8 30 50 10 32 7 52 12 34 U 54 14 36 56 16 38 58 18 40 1 60 20 1762 NOTES: �03�S /a'.,8 Aaa of ^ • _ _ -. Iav,3� 1%,U ! /gL�_��.y�•S ;F .-4P z.. =.-� ,c.. is �� y,s j i�2 ,�..__ ��'-p.-- �D✓ o Y 1 Ca i 1�2,s 1 `77, • �/"�____L�1S�S `:.�� 1�` 380F 1�:S :�,. -�•�,,s-- -,-•-T.S-• , 17.3 �►� VAN GULIK& SSOCIATES,INU. SHEET l F JOB NAME JOB NO. OK6c rdr�-OS t''��' 1rc� ;,c+.�r7 11.X� \�6` M IUa I I DESCRIPTION J DES.BY: DATE p �1�-�-�' Lei G I t - �Lr1�'�:r• KJt:(,j `7�3 gg C I U 633 r%/ rZo i✓� 1 1 pyo �� !_�-� W WW i 000 43 '� 3d.3 i.3 3g,o '; X4. 1 �B aon V -9 :5 30: 16,1 9�{,8 qy„� eY.3 ANCI ( I C4 N C I i /Ov '.fa �dr2r�.1. ' 753 �(3 ,S �2- �Jv.�' `�� 63 i i -73,8 73,5 72.5 -7Z- -7z. 7 z,y cam , l7drS � 67.3 GG,B ` 71, ` 72.5 �1 .I t. NEW oMOW" n�r�lco GENERAL COMBUSTION CORPORATION SUBSIDIARY OF Mt:CHIIIUN INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION 2140 WEST WASHINGTON STREET•ORLANDO, FLORIDA 32806 • Phone(305)843.9890 P.O.BOK 5280.32855 Telex:Genco 56.4454 March 25, 1988 Attention: Mr. Karrie Standlee We understand that your firm is comparing the noise levels of the FP-243 to the AF-75 burner, specifically, the proposed noise level of the AF-75, equipped with Mini-Guard sound reduction package. In response to your question, we have found, from our experience, that the AF-75, equipped with the Mini-Guard and turboblower inlet silencer, will operate at approximately 95 DHA at 10 feet and, - correspondingly, will operate from 5 to 10 DBA lower than a burner not equipped with this sound reduction package in the 31.5 to 250 Hz. octave bands. We would expect the sound level intensity of the AF-75 without a Mini-Guard system to operate approximately 3 DBA lower than a FP-243 at 10 ft. GENERAL COMBUSTION CORPORATION Joe Mollick GENCO-Today's imagination...tomorrow's reality :k,k TOTAL PACE . 02 w lc - rt y tl` n a .w � I.ru "�i'I,q�.f.l �. � � �:_ ?.� _ •:s .+i;-i .. C _ – �.± � �•.�- i::' a L^. Q.; .�, ��i �I, ■ w yasd 1 may_ �_ e• •�•.�•� C O— • �• �'it _ w `.' Qi2 .� , I f `�• > >:�-• 4j � y?i� � Q+{ °jfii2 <.j IL OUR 14 3 S � •t� tl tlLD �Y+ / _• •1Qt• o y's�\\i' o `y �I I �• I•{� .o Clw. �• I .. err �• �o \ =.oi � C `OF _ •e c �\171 o- d2 r :i: C ixg 9 r l ;1 O` 1 �fwr.• ]G it` �. . '• Q � � it c t I • • '0 e — o w � — N t •Xl tt .. f. ar.... '�r• t �?�Kt�� ; ��CiGC1� _ �'1�►��z1. Z1.Y v~..�m��f']wNvy�!`--t�''��.'�` _ a aaa Nl INC. All G 12 E suRin9 August 12, 1988 ;cn . TM Mr.Robert Price David Evans and Associates 2626 Southwest Corbett Avenue Portland,Oregon 972014802 Dear Mr.Price: I have reviewed the proposed siting of the Morse Brothers asphalt and concrete plana ate the s4a Avenue location near Bonita Road in Tigard. Oregon to determine the e potential fraam sthe ye I have nearby properties. In evaluating the potential for air quality problems reviewed the following: • Site location and adjacent properties; • plant layout; • pollution control equipment; • Production materials;and • Rates of production. The effects of emissions from proposed plant site activities are summarized below and are based upon information now available and the expectation of continuing compliance with Oregon Department of Environmental Quality(DEQ) rules and permit requirements. Particulate Emissions Dryer-Drum Stack — particulate matter released during material drying will be removed by the proposed baghouse. prior to release of the dryer gas stream to the atmosphere. The baghouse provides the highest level of particle control efficiency of any available equipment. Use of a baghouse on an asphalt plant complies with federal requirements for demonstrating the Lowest Achievable Emission Rate in particulate non-attainment areas. No visible emissions will result from the stack due to particulate matter. However, because of the significant moisture of the dryer exhaust gas,a"steam"plume will be visible under humid conditions. Material Transfers-Processed(crushed) rock will be received by train and truck and transferred to storage bins by a conveyor system. Conveyors and transfer locations are potential emission points when materials are dry. The plant will include water sprays for dust control under such conditions. Properly configured sprays will satisfactorily control dust releases during transfers. Baghouses on cement transfer points will adequately control these sources. Stere pfies — Wind-blown dust from storage piles of fine materials can result in notable dust emissions under dry conditions. Only one storkpile will contain significant quantities of wind- pile will be located so as to minimize its direct exposure to wind transportable materials. This and thereby greatly reduce fugitive dust potential. This configuration will emissions and off-site dust nuisance. 10950 S.W.5th Street Site 160 Beaverton,OR 97005 5o3i643.3755 FAX:5031526.20135 �.� 'Sl IH".7 f,?T hHR 00 or c�nw Mr.Robert Price Page 2 August 12,7988 Dust due to vecle traffic be mii'imi�'ed pa"'�heavily trafficked areas. Paved Vehicalar'Traffic hiods to minimize build-ups of dusty materialsaddition,in areas will be cleaned routinely during dry Peri . Irl suppressed by watering under dry conditions. traffic areas that cannot be paved,dust will be Gaseous Enissiow oration in general cause no notable air quality impacts- Gaseous emissions produced by asphalt plant op unds are However, because of the sulfur content of fuel oil and the asphalt itself, tthodorous�� f o��problems released which can occasionally cause an ratesofdons cnuisance. In estimatingompounds human sensitivity to these compounds, and three factors are critical: emission the dispersion of emissions between the Plant and receptor location. Each of these factors is discussed briefly below. Emission Rates of Odorous Compounds—1. A►sPhalts are a mixture of hea-•y hydrocarbon compounds—the heaviest compounds in crude oil. In general, these non-volatile compounds are not sources of odor teAa erature. This process can create problems. They are subject to thermal cracking if exposed to� P and er laat operation more volatile if not necessarily more odorous compounds- However, normal Pip P concentrations does not result in sisai5cant crackiug of asphaltic compounds. In addition,because sulfur are Iow i n fuel and asphalt,overall emission rates of all sulfur compounds will be quite low. halt Plant, g�,� geashivity to Emitted �p°� — Of the potential products in emitted from an asp humans are most sensitive to odors due to sulfur � M t�amountscof asphalasphalt t-related organic sulfur-related odors are unpleasant and are easily detectable- not been compounds can be expected to be has not been well� chazacBerized asecause tth has potentialmd �odor problems,this mixture of compounds Dispersion conditions are affected by the characteristics of the emitted plume, Dispermon of Emissions" P local terrain and atmospheric conditions. In addition, concentrations of emitted materiand�m� than increasing distance downwind from the plant. 'The stack gases viii be nearly saturated lunge rise ambient air with an upward velocity, which should result in modest initial plume rise. variations in � the planned stack height should minimize off-site odor effects. Also,seasonal1 combined with P production will tend to minimi7a off-site impacts. Atmospheric mixing dispersion conditions and asphaltp Production is ata ' and dispersion are at a maximum during spring and summer months when asphaltar production manamum. Poorest mixing conditions occur most frequently during In fall and winter, Pr will be at a minimum- �F•11-1A3`f1IhHQ ?S:80 $R, 9T :(nH t� Mr.Robert Price Page 3 August 12,1988 The history of odor problems associated with asphalt plants was investigated with the DEQ and the Lane Regional Air Pollution Authority. In only one case of hundreds of plant sitings was an odor problem identified. In this circumstance, the plant was located adjacent to a mobile home community. The proposed facility should result in off-site concentrations of odorous compounds below those found in this extreme case. Considering the proposed emission controls, dispersion conditions, site and adjacent property geometry, the potential for significant air quality problems associated with the proposed siting is small if the plant is operated in compliance with DEQ permit conditions. Sincerely, 011 Scott A.Freeburn,P.E. r Vice President SAF:sar PSOOO-99.009 j;'p �f•` ,g. :7'= k�2'2 �.. G. • {�G.I ni '•'.2.10�� i F i i e . k } c u i+ SMITH & MONROE & GRAY ENGINEERS, INC. PARI(PLAZA WEST • SUITE 210 10700 S.W.BEAVERTON HIGHWAY BEAVERTON.OREGON 97005 503/643-8595 MATERIAL HANDLING&MECHANICAL IL&STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS i i i EVALUATION REPORT MORSE' BROS . , INC. TIGARD FACILITY AUGUST 19 , 1988 f SITE DESCRIPTION. Morse Bros. , Inc. has proposed a unique concrete and asphalt manufacturing facility for its property in. the City of Tigard. The facility will not be located rear any extraction area, and processed aggregate will e by train. In addition, applicant 's be imported to the sit i concrete and asphalt batch plants will be enclosed to reduce noise and fugitive emissions. The site chosen by applicant is ideal for the use proposed in that it is bordered on both sides by two separate railroad lines, the Burlington Northern to the west and the Southern Pacific to the east. The site is very gently sloping with an average slope of less than six percent. The site presents no technical limitations to development. As is shown on the applicant's plans, there is adequate room for handling and loading materials, truck circulation and emergency vehicle access on the site. Applicant has proposed six structures on the site: asphalt batch plant; enclosure buildings, approximately 45' X 90' (4,050 square feet) ; asphalt process oil enclosure, approximately 85 ' X 35 ' (2, 975 square feet) ; an office facility, approximately 65 ' X 30' (1,950 square feet) ; an asphalt loading facility, approximately 35' X 75' (2, 625 square feet) ; and an enclosed concrete batch plant, approximately 75 ' X 25' (1,875 square f z feet) . The total amount of square footage of structures on the property will be approximately 13, 500 square feet. As is shown on the site plans, all uniform building code building separation requirements are met by the placement of the buildings on the site. Applicant has engineered its facilities so that the maximum 55-foot height may be maintained for the asphalt batch plant facility and the asphalt loading facility (typically, such structures would be 75 feet in height) . Access to the site is provided by two private crossings over the Burlington Northern railroad. NOISE AND DUST CONTROL. ( Noise and dust impacts potentially associated with the applicant's proposed use will be minimized by a number of engineering features employed at the site. During the unloading and handling of the raw material, automatic conveyor belts running on idler rollers will be used. Conveyor belts provide the quietest method of transporting aggregate. In addition, the conveyor systems will be powered by electric motors to provide the quietest degree of aggregate handling. The typical conveyor transfer can be noisy because rock falls from one belt into a metal -2- chute to direct it to another belt. To control this potential noise source, all transfers at the Morse Bros. project will have rubber coverings so that rock falls on rubber, not steel. Transfer boxes will be enclosed to control dust and noise. Rock falling off the end of conveyors into stockpiles is also a potential noise source directly related to the height at which the raw material falls from the conveyor line. At the Morse Bros. project, the noise source will be controlled by automatic "stacking" conveyors that can be raised and lowered to keep the end of the conveyor close to the top of the aggregate pile so that rock is laid on the pile, not dropped. This method avoidin lar e-falling distances. also reduces dust by 9 g Dust related to the storage of raw material will be limited by a number of design features. First, each of the piles is protected by the proximity of other piles from sun and wind. This will reduce the drying of the aggregate and help reduc,: dust. Most importantly, noise on the project will be reduced by state-of-the-art technology incorporated in the Genco/Bituma asphalt mixer drum, or equivalent product, that will be installed on the site. This drum represents a significant step forward in technology in that the burner jet (noise source in a batch plant) is enclosed deep within the burner drum. This design -3- dramatically reduces the amount of noise associated with an asphalt plant. In addition, both the asphalt batch plant and the concrete batch plant will be enclosed to furthen reduce noise and prevent heat from escaping to adjoining properties. The enclosure of these facilities will not only reduce noise and dust, but will also provide a more desirable appearance for the project and eliminate heat. Morse Bros. has retained an acoustical engineer to assure that all DEQ noise levels will be met by the project. Paved 24 foot accessways will eliminate truck-generated dust at the site. i PROCESS AND WASH WATER. Ready-mix concrete requires water to mix the concrete. Concrete trucks must be washed daily to avoid buildup of hardened concrete. These two demands compliment each other in the plant proposed by Morse Bros. Wash water required for truck cleaning will be held and recycled for use as concrete mix water. This eliminates any process water from leaving the site and greatly reduces the total water requirement for washing trucks and mixing concrete. This process also eliminates the need to dispose of process water. -4- STORM WATER DRAINAGE. The drainage plan for the site will drain all storm water to the north of the property. The natural slope of the property (to the north) will facilitate this drainage plan. Water will be directed to the north primarily along paved transit corridors. Rain water will be kept separate from both the recycled truck wash/ready-mix water and from sewage on the plant. Storm water drainage will be routed into a controlled collector ditch towards the north of the property. This ditch will direct all storm water run-off into 'an oil skimmer/separator where it will be cleansed prior to discharge into an existing watercourse to the north. The northern portion of the property along the drainage course will be left undisturbed to insure the drainage capacity of the area. An existing .18-inch culvert allows the watercourse to pass under the Burlington Northern railroad, and the culvert is sufficient to handle all upstream uses together with drainge received from the Morse Bros. property. The drainage features at the site will be designed according to the standard engineering practice and will meet the requirements of the City of Tigard's Master Drainage Plan. -5- OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS. Minimal trash will be generated by the operation, and all trash will be contained in a screened storage area for disposal via a commercial hauler. The raw materials and process materials used in the applicant 's manufacturing operation (i.e. , processed aggregate, asphalt and cement) are not the type of materials that assist or aid the propagation of rodents. The design of applicant 's plant will prevent heat or glare from radiating onto adjacent properties. The only thermal portion of the process is the asphalt batch plant which will be enclosed to eliminate heat and glare. Lighting on the site will be directed toward the ground in a manner to eliminate spillover onto adjacent properties. The asphalt process oil necessary to produce commercial asphalt is not a fuel substance. It is a thick, slightly viscose tar-like substance which has a very high flash point. It must be heated to flow for use and is k i essentially nonvolatile. Applicant 's process oil tanks will be constructed to meet uniform fire code requirements M- and will be enclosed in a concrete spill barrier of sufficient size toan type ' P y ype of spill.ill. Erosion is not a problem on the site because of a very gentle slope (less than y six percent) . No soil instability is indicated by previous ' soil investigations on the site. No slumping or sliding s res is evident. Applicant will revegetate designated landscaped portions of the property according to the Tigard Community Development Code to prevent erosion. LANDSCAPING CONSIDERATIONS. The entire area will be fenced with a six-foot cyclone type fence (measured from the finished grade) . The gates to the plant will be locked when the operation is closed. As part of the landscaping plan, trees of greater height than the fence will be planted in conformance with the Tigard Community Development Code. On the east, west and south property lines, vegetation buffers will be planted along the property line to provide separation { from adjoining uses. Preference will be given to trees which provide the maximum amount of screening. The area around the office complex and parking area will be landscaped in accordance with the provisions of the Tigard Community Development Code. The northern portion of the site will be left in a passively landscaped state as open space to protect the watercourse which is adjacent. Vegetation near the entrance and exit areas will be controlled to insure that visibility is maintained for passing trucks. Landscaping will be properly irrigated to insure survival and will be pruned to insure neatness. -7- GRADING. 's The essentially flat surface of the property will not require a great amount of grading in order to install the necessary equipment. Nonetheless, the property will be leveled with a slight slope to the north to facilitate storm water drainage. Topsoil will be banked for landscaping uses. Improvement of the surface via grading will occur before any construction commences on the property. PARKING AND OFF-STREET LOADING. Parking will be available on the site in close proximity to the actual operating uses on the site. There will be approximately eight employees on the site, and as the operation is not open to the public, customers will not be present. However, two visitor parking spaces are provided. Parking spaces conform to the dimension requirements of Tigard Community Development Code § 18.106.050 and include 9-foot stall width, 18-foot overall channel width, 24-foot aisle width and 9-foot curb length per stall. Wheel stops will be provided. Access to the parking area and the surface of the parking area will be constructed to City specifications. A handicapped parking space will be provided. Walkways to buildings will be provided from the parking area. Truck parking and truck driver parking will not be allowed on this site. The project will have -8- two enclosed loading spaces (both off-street) associated with the concrete batch plant and asphalt batch plant. Each truck loading space is designed for easy access by trucks without the need to maneuver or turn the vehicles on public streets. Entrances and exits to the loading areas are an integral part of the continuous flow traffic design of the project. After exiting the loading areas, trucks will continue to the perimeter of the site where they will exit onto S. W. 74th Avenue. SMITH & MONROE & GRAY ENGINEERS, INC. r Robert Monroe Professional Engineer r i r f -9- H�JU,--,1 9-�=: FR I 1 � : �•� t•1t�Ft.=.E F>ROL-' TaN �ENT Corporate O�erattons OffCe PROJECT EVALUATION MORSE BROS. , INC' REQUEST FOR COMPREEENSIVE PLAN CHANGE AND ZOi3£ CyA13GEU$Rl'RZALIZONEIANDSDEVELOPME13TT0 HEAP . I:7D CON clill''Itill I'll, APPROYMAU pACTURI G FACILITY pBAL BY FRANK MORSE' PRESIDENT MORSE BROS• r INC* [AUGUST. 19883 Phone (So3)928-6491 TangcntOR 97389 __,_-- FR I 1 S �1 MOF'=:E EF.O TFatJGEh�T �- - y^i1JG— 1 i THE PUBLIC INTEREST. i Concrete and asphalt production are essential he for economic anvelcpsant Concin reteitQnstxucy of tion isard dused Washington County in numerous building applications throughout the City and region. Concrete d rpadamaintenanceare einQboth lthe City to l road construction an Washington County area. of Tigard and in the surrounding g enormous population growth in the incof reased aigard nsteady surrounding communities has Products- demand Major road demand for concrete and asphalt p and construction project- Which are predicted in the future in the area indicate that future demand for finished concrete and asphalt products will continue to rise. The City of Tigard, at present, does not have facility producing concrete or asphalt for residential, a Ging"� e Trio needs of the City commercial or indu..trial purposes. are principally served by Portland-area companies, sPqcuired as Lone Star and Ross Island. These producers are r_ Portland to travel longd$su��ays from orable slumpown characteristicciflons. Concrete devel.op it is transported too long a distance and rotated too he many times as it is ergresorted b site. wi.11tallow ao the ocentrally Tlocated use pCoposed by Mors concrete concrete facility to provide the highest quality �s of construction work. This facility necessary for all types point for high-quality will also provide a central distribution asphalt to be used in a number of app A major contribution to the public interest offered by the Morse Bros• project is the design concept to dove processed of the plant. Morse Bros. proposes aggregates to its manufacturing site by train. This is d in a state of the art improvement, and the Morse Bros. facility would be one of the few suchsfacilities C a train taonstmove ucte rocsssed the entiro United Ststsignificant i aggr®gates provides a significe ficeency (onentrainkrepl.aces� a provides for increased energy provides additional between 30 and 60 truck trips) , and p operating efficiencies. A further public benefit °retatee project design is. that importation of processed aggregates by rail ®liminates the need to sit* a quarry and crushing operation inside an urban area. in addition to eliminating t. _2^ C AUG 19 '22 15:68 RAPPLEYEA,BE_K 55033346143 P.1 the intrusive quarrying impacts (i.e. , blasting and crushing noise) , the project design allows the manufacturing use to be located on a much smaller parcel. The proposed use, if combined with a quarry, would need at least 25 to 50 acres. All of these factors combine to minimize effects of the operation on the community at the same time as providing a high quality building materials plant at a competitive price. SITS DESCRIPTION. Morse Bros. has proposed the installation of a concrete batch plant and asphalt plant on land in the City of Tigard. The 5.36-acre parcel is located between the Burlington Northern railway bine on the west and the Southern Pacific railway line on the east near S. W. 74th Avenue in the City of Tigard. The site includes Tax Lots 1000, 1100, 1400 and 1500 in the southwest one-quarter, northeast one-quarter of Section 12, T2S, RIN, Willamette Meridian, in the City of Tigard, Washington County, Oregon. The land is currently zoned for light industrial uses and is surrounded on all sides by land Zoned for light industrial purposes. To the west from the centerline of the Burlington Northern line is land zoned for industrial park purposes. The closest residential zones to the area are approximately 530 feet to the west across the Fanno Creek drainage. Measured from the Burlington Northern line to the west to the Southern pacific line at the east, the Minimum lot width is approximately 140 feet. The maximum lot width is approximately 400 feat. The length of the project size is approximately 900 feet (measured along the Burlington Northern line) . Access to the site will be by private crossing negotiated with the - Burlington Northern railroad. The location of the access crossings will be at the northern and southern ends of the property to provide for a circular traffic flow on the site. The costs of crossing construction will be allocated to the parties under the crossing agreement. Empty trucks will enter near the southern access, be loaded with manufactured concrete or asphalt products, and exit near the northern end of the project. The uses proposed by Morse Bros. , including transit corridors, the batch plant buildings and material storage ,area, will cover approximately 83% of the site, and 17% of the site will be landscaped. The site will not be open to the public, and access will be limited to Morse Bros. vehicles and in certain instances limited vehicles of parties -3- 1 4—c::. F R I 3. !5 - 1 1 f•1 =tRSE BROS Ti-4NGEN4T r � � —• picking up concrete and asphalt products sold at wholesale. Morse Bros. will construct all the facilities on the site as part of one united project. No planned development will be present at the site. Construction sequence will include establishing accezz to the site, improving the surface of the site through grading, installation of equipment footings, and general construction, followed by-.landscaping. AREA DESCRIPTION . The Morse Bros. parcel is entirely surrounded by land located in industrial districts- Light industrial uses prevail to the north, south and east and to the west to the centerline of the Burlington Northern railroad line. Industrial park uses are found farther to the west (across 74th Avenue) and farther to the east (across 72nd Avenue) . Existing rcasidenzial zones are found approximately 540 feet to the west of the project and are separated from the project by the Fanno Creek drainage and greenway. The Fanno Creek drainage way to the west of the site is identified as a significant wetland habitat and delineates the 100-year flood plain in the .area. i The predominant uses in the area are manufacturing and supply uses, including light industrial plastics, and directly north of the project a building material supply company, and directly south of the project has several small manufacturing and services businesses to € the east of the project across the Southern Pacific rail line. vacant land predominates to the immediate west of the project, although one contractor' s yard and three !' dwellings are located across S. W. 74th Avenue. one of the most important features in the general area is the proximity of multilane highways with existing access to Interstate 5, served by existing on and off 4 ramps located a short distance to the east of the project. Highway 217, the transportation lifeline of Washington County, is located slightly to the north of the project . in addition, the parcel is unique in that it is served by not one but two railway lines. As described below, access to these railway lines is an essential component of the site and its proposed use. The Morse Bros. parcel is gently sloped to the F north and it covered by scrub trees, grasses and berry E r-- -4- • s} Ci HIJG— 1= •=• FR I i -=, L 1 - �•li��: =:E Ett: J1 . Ti1tdGEr� r r ti,ti brambles, which are common to the Willamette valley. No trees of any significant size are located on the parcel. The Parcal is not on an existing bus line or bikeway. PLANT AND AREA DESIG-t. Morse Bros. proposes a concrete and asphalt manufacturing plant that differs radically from common concepts Of. a L•aLch plAl,l.. .Pfuhl. 11011.1:11 E11r1111. tlE,u, .11 )IIID (Dorn concretO and asphalt) are a System ar exposes tanks and belts that are generally located near an area where the processed aggregates are extracted. This typical batch plant operation contributes to the stereotype that . concrete and asphalt batch plants are inherently noisy, dusty and unwanted neighbors. Morse Bros. proposes to build a completely different type of operation. Not only will the actual batch plant (both concrete and asphalt) be enclosed, but the manufacturing facilities will not be located near an area where extraction of processed aggregates will take place. Instead, Morse Bros . proposes to transport the processed aggregate materials from a long term (50 years) extraction area which it controls in the 3outllerll �7illamette Valley. ACCOUaillyly t all L'llQ extraction-related noises (blasting , crushing, etc. ) will not be located at the Tigard site. Instead, Morse Bros. will use state of the art train technology to transport the processed aggregate material to the Tigard site. One such state of the art technology being considered is the dump train. It is a fully self-contained unit train, which is capable of unloading itself once it reaches tha Tigard facility. A train will hold between 1,000 and 1,500 tons of processed aggregates and will be able to unload that material (through a series o£ self-contained conveyor belts) at the Tigard site in approximately one hour. This dump train technology is extremely new in the United States, and only a few other projects are presently operating with this system. A train delivery system provides four major benefits. First, it allows the aggregate extraction operation (i .e. , crushing anti blasting) to hp appa ratiO from the actual manufacturing operation. This allows manufacture of concrete and asphalt products to be located near to the end users of the products without exposing neighbors of the manufacturing facilities to the extraction impact (dust, vibration, noise, etc. ) . Second, the train is extremely efficient in moving large quantities of materials -5- PRI 15 : 12 f7Uh<: _ t•rt. - - - .. . -. . . in a cost-effective manner. The use of the train will ensure a reasonable cost for ptoceesQd aggregates and, accordingly, a reasonable cost for value added products manufactured at the site. Third, the use of the train provides a aignificant reduction in truck traffic which is normally associated with a batch plant cite. A 1, 500-ton trainload of rock will eliminate 62-•I/2 truck and trailer trips (121 round-trip truck and trailer trips) . -This has an extremely positive benefit for the City of Tigard, which must maintain its streets, and for nearby property owners, which will enjoy reduced traffic. Fourth, train technology offers significant energy conservation benefits over the use of trucks. A 1,500-ton train can be pulled by a single locomotive which burns approximately 15 gallons of diesel per male. This energy consumption is compared with 62-1/2 trucks which ger approximately four to five miles per each gallon of diesel. The energy savings inherent in the train concept are quite apparent. In recognition of the urban location of the proposed site, Morse Bros. has incorporated significant design improvement in its site plan to eliminate any adverse effect on adjoining uses. First, the operation will be served by a drive through, circular flow traffic system, which will allow trucks to drive through in a one-way fashion and eliminate truck manuevering on public streets- Because the site is designed for our delivery trucks, emergency vehicles will have ready access to all portions of the site. Morse Bros . will maintain the access ways and transit corridors. Second, Morse Bros. will purchase an entirely new asphalt plant, which incorporates state of the art noise reduction and odor reduction technology. In this type of plant, the burner (a potential sourco of noise) is located well within the asphalt drum producing dramatic reductions in noise. in addition, the asphalt plant recarculates truck loading volatiles back into the drum burner to reduce any fugitive emiasions. A bag house will be provided for the asphalt plant, and the facility will be enclosed to further reduce noise and particulate � emissions. Our purchase of thie new asphalt equipment is based on the manufacturer's warranty to us that all applicable air quality standards will be met or exceeded t by the equipment. Third► the concrete plant will be enclosed and will have bag house technology, which allows it to meet all DEQ standards. Fourth, aggregate-stacking conveyors �. will be of adjustable height to reduce the amount of distance E i l that rock must fall when it is loaded onto a storage pile. Fifth, Morse Bros. trucks are regularly maintained to It is Morse Bros. ' s intention comply with DEQ standards• and commitment to meet all DEQ and federal standardst as well as all the environmental performance Ztandards of the Tigard Community Development Code. We have retained design and environmental experts, who assured us that all applicable standards can and will be met. To reduca visual impact of adjoining property owners, we have worked carefully with our engineers to reduce the principal building height of all structures on the premises to 55 feet. Typically, the principal building height of concrete and asphalt batch plants is -. at least 75 feet. Additional external fixures ( i.e. , bag house) may be located on top of the principal buildings, but total structure height will not exceed 70 feet. In addition to our engineering developments, which allow us to reduce height, we have voluntarily agreed to plant vegetation buffers -On all perimeters of the site . It is our intention to. plant native vegetation buffers, which not only screen the plant from view to the greatest extent possible, but also add to the attractiveness of the plant and e£fice areas will be landscaped- design. The parking in addition to our active landscape Commitment, we re that a small watercourse commonly referred to as Creek is located near the northern portion of our property. In order to eliminate any effects on this watercourse from our operation, we have agreed to leave the northern portion of our property in a passively landscaped statue as open space. This will not only add to the beauty of the site, but will protect the drainage values present in the watercourse. With regard to the watercourse drainage, Morse Bros. commits to the execution of a storm water easement to protect drainage features along the watercourse if such an easement is necessary. EIQVIRONMENTAL CQNSIDEAATIONS. common percootions of concrete and asphalt batch plants are noisy and unaesthetic uses that may produce dust and odors. These common perceptions do not apply to the plant proposed by Morse eros. As previously discussed, the state of th® art technology will baa incorporated with fully-enclosed Morseldings to Bros' hasreduce agreedato substantiaadversO l In add -7- �' t l separato the use from adjoining and screening which will uses. In addition, the site is unig1ueisthat it i located directly between two other intens , the Burlington Northrn anoidealnaetGingcforlthe alacationse intensive uGae an- provide of the uses proposed by Morse Bros. Little trash or refuse will be created by activities associated with the batch plant. Any trash will be combined with the trash produced by the company offices and located in a screened area surrounded by a Five-foot Bench. Asphalt process oil will be contained in aboveground storage containers, wich are locatea 1:naide a concrete-retaining structure to prevent any fill into the environment. Any fuel on site stored in containers large= than 60 gallons will be underground • in accordance with City o£ Tigard regulations. Applicant on th will maintain no fuel (diesel Ian,gasoline)wateskimmer or As indicated in our drainage p separator will be loctwater beforenorthern is reaeaseuthe intoproperty to filter all drainage the adjoining watercourse. This will prevent the negative environmental impacts associated with drainage water. if necessary, Morse Bros. will dedicate the etorthe nortwatehcousse portion of its property immediately adjacent t the site for drainage right-of-way. Drainagewater se arate from sewage, and only sewage produced will be kept p by the employees an the plant will be sent into the municipal sewage lines. The truck corridors on tha site will be paved to reduce dust. SERVICES- The ERVICES. The Tigard Water District waterline and MorseUnified sewerage Agency sewer line abut the property. Bros- will make all necessary connocicientosizethese tolines. provideThe adequate adjoining waterline is of su;f Morse Bros. water for the industrial uses proposed by and at the name time leave plenty of water for other uses, such as lira suppression. All utilities on the site will be placed underground and designed �ar�riatstintarthe There will be no discharges Y ground on the site. Storm aplacedter ainage sewers.seswill tor;� be separated and only sewage water drainage- will pass through a skimmer/separator before it is allowed to leave the site. All service areas on the site (such as gas meter's, air conditioning and ocher E. i- • c 15 : 1 !E; MORSE EEROS - THN1�ENT A U G- 1 �- = 1 FR I items) will be properly screened with a five-toot fence. Proper paskinc arzd loading areas will be maintained, and disabled packing criteria will be complied with. Any utilities will be located necessary easements to ensure that underground will be executed b: Morse Bros. , Inc_ ECONOMIC CONNSIDERAx?ONS. As part of its analysis prior to proposing this new use, Morse Bros. has carefully studied the growth the trends in the. City of Tigard, Washingto l COuntY andd need southern Portland metro ar� � rdx0�r he studies indicate for concrete and asphalt poducs that change in the size of both the Tigard community and : the surrounding coitimunities as a whole hese greatloduncreased the demand and need for high quality aggregate P We have proposed a u$e which will meet these needs in an economically efficient and cost effective manner. term The size of our site is sufficient for our short r production projections, as well as suffi4ent at thedsite. our projected growth and long term production We note that we will have a beneficial impact on the econoiny of the area as additional jobs will be created. Finally, s we note that there are economic benefits to the City of Tigard► as its tax base will be increased by the location of our facility. Further, we find that Morse Bros. will loading areas and maintain its access maintain parking and and egress on a continuing basis so that these responsibilities will not present a drain on the City of Tigard treasury. We also note that we will provide an additional incentive for railroad carriers lino maintain� continuedorailrservice and southern pacific, market to the City of Tigard, as we will provide a steady for their services. PERMIT COMPLIANCE. As previously stated, Mvrs® Bres. will comply with all DEQ, federal and local environmental rraance standards. In addition, Morse Bros. Will apply tain and ma Tigard business tax permit an�oval8willobncluding thosearequirad all necessary permits and apP , for by the City of Tigard. Morse Bros. will also apply a sign permit to construct modest signs for its facility. One wall sign and one sigest n ofgtherTigardectedCommunity and all applicablesi 9 p Development Code will be followed in the sign permit application. Morse Bros. will abide by the construction restrictions in the Tigard Community Development Code, which en3ure that unnecessarily loud noises will not occur outside +: the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 P.M. E CONCLUSION. Morse Bros. , Inc. has requested a zone change which will allow the establishment of a heavy industrial use in the City of. Tigard. Morse Bros. has designed it3 project with great attention to aesthetics and clean operation on the entirt plant. Applicant has proposed a state of the art asphalt plant and has agreed to enclose both its, concrete batch plant and asphalt plant. In addition, i applicant has agreed to meet all applicable environmental regulations. Morse Bros. has demonstrated its sensitivity to future adjoining uses by voluntarily agreeing to extensive buffering and screening around the periphery of the site. Morse Bros. has demonstrated that it is in compliance with all the relevant requirements of the Tigard Gomorehen3ive Plan and Tigard Community Development Code, and its development is request should be granted. I am enclosing with this report a set of 18 conditionst which Morse Bros. is willing to abide by and which I believe meet the City of Tigard' s f standards. Respectfully submitted, t= s, MORSE BROS. INC. By Frank Morse► President `. E r is i k m10- F t CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL REQUZSTSD BY MORSE SROS- , INC. AUGUST, 1988 r CONDITION NO. 1 . Applicant shall install a vegetation buffer around the perimeter of its site and maintain vegetation plants. The plants will be installed according to the provisions of Section. 18.100 of than Tigard Community Development Code prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit. CONDITION NO. 2. Applicant shall, prior to the issuance of an occupancy permmit, properly landscape its parking area in accordance with Section 18.100 of the Tigard Community Development Code. CONDITION No. 3. Applicant shall install a fence with a minimum of five feet and a maximum of eight feet to screen air conditioning, trash collection points, and other service facilities from view. CONDITION NO. 4. Applicant shall , as shown on its site development plan, keep the northern portion of its property as open space for the preservation of the adjoining watercourse. in addition, applicant shall comply with the revegetation requirements of Section 18.100 on those portions of its property which are not paved or necessary to industrial use- CONDITION NO. 5. Occupant shall maintain a minimum of eight parking spaces, including one handicapped spot, and a minimum of two off-street loading sites. Prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit, both the parking and off-street loading shall be approved by the City Engineer. CONDITION NO. 6. Prior to the construction or erection of any sign, applicant shall apply to the City of Tigard for a sign permit. Applicant's wall sign and freestanding A2- sign shall conform in all respects to the requirements of Section 18.114 of the Tigard Community Development Code. CONDITION NO. 7. Applicant shall issua a drainage easement, if necessary, to protect the watercourse adjacent to the northern portion of its property. CONDITION NO. 8. Applicant's asphalt driveway approaches shall be built to City standards and shall be approved by the •, City Engineer. CONDITION NO. 9. Applicant's sanitary sewer plans shall be approved by the Public Works Director prior to issuance of an occupancy permit. CONDITION NO. 10. t Prior to commencing of construction work, applicant Shall present the City with nine sets of construction and construction estimate plans, which have been prepared in accordance with the requirements of the City herein. CONDITION NO. 11. Prior to commencing work on the site, applicant shall notify the City in advance and shall notify the City before work is resumed if there is a discontinuation for any reason. CONDITION NO. 12. The applicant shall allow the City to inspect. all improvements on the site. CONDITION NO. 13. Prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit, applicant's engineers shall provide written certification P 1 -��- 1 �1i7R =.F ER�� TANGENT rovements► workmanship and materials that all imp and construction to the City ent standard engineering are in accord with cuxx practice and are cf high grade. 14. use CO��TZorI NO• trucks will not operators of Y,orse Bros fake brakes- '15operated so COI3DZ'TION NO. . vehicles will be All Morse BrdroP on the streets from loade=d that no material trucks . CONDITION NO. 16• Prior Permit han ix feetainedimeter, A tree removalreater than s to removal of any tree 4 rcund. as measured four feet about the 9 ( CONDI'�ION NO. 17 . lace any survey monuments Applicant shall rep �®ct• that must be disturbed fluxing construction of its pr° COL3DYTION NO. la• Uniform All structures on the Site shall meet Building Code standards. -4- : STOEL RIVES BOLEY JONES &GRE ATTORNEYS AT LAW SUITE 2300 STANDARD INSURANCE CENTER ` 900 SW FIFTH AVENUE PORTLAND,OREGON 97204-1268 Telephone(503)224-3380 Telecopier(503)220-2480 Cable Lamport Telex 703455 Writer's Direct Dial Number Y 294-9523 October 24, 1988 Mayor Bryant and Members of the Council Tigard City Hall 13125 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard, OR 97223 Re• Morse Brothers Inc. - CPA 88-05/ZC 88-11 Dear Councillors: �. This office represents Pacific Realty Associates, L.P. ("Pactrust") , which owns in excess of 1,225,000 square feet of light industrial and office development property in southwest Tigard. On behalf of Pactrust, I offer the following comments in opposition to the above-referenced request for a compre- hensive plan and zone change to Heavy Industrial and I-H. I ask that these written comments, together with my oral testimony, be made a part of the record at the Council's hearing on this . matter on October 24, 1988. As you can see from the attached letter to Mr. Murphy, Pactrust's interests would be substantially affected by any designation of the subject property for heavy industrial use. We believe that such action can only serve to halt the steady development of this area as a primary office and light industrial center. Fortunately, the Planning Commission took formal action in agreement with our position by voting 7-0 to recommend that the Council reject this proposal. Moreover, we also find the Morse proposal. to be contrary to numerous comprehensive plan policies and various provisions of the Community Development Code ("Code") . These inconsistencies, coupled with the inadequate analysis presented by the applicant which has led, in turn, to a deficient staff report, require a Council decision of denial. PORTLAND, WASHINGTON COUNTY. BELLEVUE. SEATTLE, VANCOUVER. 51.LOUIS. WASHINGTON, OREGON OREGON WASHINGTON WASHINGTON WASHINGTON MISSOURI DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA I STOEL RIVES QOLEY JONES&GREY Mayor Bryant October 24, 1988 Page 2 k is As the Council knows, any recommendation to approve a plan amendment and zone change must be supported by a factual demonstration of full compliance with all applicable comprehensive plan policies and Code criteria. The applicant's submittal and the staffs, analysis fail to meet this burden in a number of key respects. First, staff takes the erroneous the position that the Statewide Planning Goals do not apply to plan amendment request, and the applicant offers nothing more than cursory conclusions regarding Goal compliance. For s of the adverse effects of the I-H example, there is no analysi zone and any uses permitted thereunder to existing light industrial and office development in the area (Goal 9) , the feasibility of compliance with all state and federal environ- mental permits or standards (Goal 6) or the negative implica- tions on transportation to, from and through the area (Goal 12) . Without such analysis and a staff recommendation on goal compli- is ance, the Council cannot be expected to find compliance and, J r therefore, should deny the request. See ORS 197.175(2) . Second, the staff offers no analysis or recommenda- ions regarding compliance with the criteria for quasi-judicial amendments of this type, as set forth in § 18.22.040 of the Code. The following criterion is particularly relevant to this proposal due to the testimony and evidence of extraordinary impacts to existing and future commercial and light industrial development in the area and, therefore, to the community as a whole: "A. A recommendation or decision to approve, approve with conditions or to deny an application for a quasi-judicial amendment shall be based on all the following standards: 1. The applicable comprehensive plan pc: .icies and map designations; and (a) The change will not adversely affect the health, safety and welfare of the community." Code § 18.22.040(A) . Further, this standard must be interpreted to preclude an adverse effects of any type and cannot be balanced against any STOEL RIVES BOLEY )ONES&GREY Mayor Brant October 24, 1988 Page 3 potential benefits of adding to the city's industrial land base. 1000 Friends of Oregon v. LCDC, 91 Or App 138 (1988) . Based on the correspondence and testimony presented to the Commission and the testimony before the Council, we believe that such a finding of no adverse impact on this unique commercial area cannot be made. Third, we respectfully disagree with staff's recommendation that compatibility between adjacent uses and an potential use in the I-H zone is not an applicable criterion at this stage of the proceedings. On the contrary, the following criterion for placement of the I-H designation, coupled with the analysis above, mandates that the "external effects" of any of the uses in the I-H zone shall not interfere with properties in the immediate area: "It [shall] be demonstrated that associated lights, noise and other external effects will not interfere with the activities and uses on surrounding properties." Comprehensive Plan Policy 12.3.1(e) . Once again, this binding criterion requires a finding of no potential interference of any magnitude, and it is not enough to suggest that some adverse effects, however minimal, are offset by benefits to the applicant or the community. Finally, we agree with the staff's apparent position that the Council's determination: must be based on a consideration of all permitted uses in the I-H zone and cannot be limited to the specific activities proposed by the applicant. However, the staff errs in concluding that the impacts of all such potential uses on the immediate area and on the community can be deferred to the Site Development Review stage. To support a finding of compliance with the two specific criteria noted above and all applicable comprehensive plan policies and Goal provisions, the Commission and Council must assume full development of the most intensive use permitted under the new designation. Policy 12.3, for example, expressly applies to the designation itself, not to the mere siting of a permitted use 4 STOEL RIVES QOLEY JONES&CREY Mayor Bryant October 24, 1988 Page 4 once the designation is in place. Consequently, the Council must require such a "worst case" analysis by the applicant and the staff, as reflected by a demonstration of full compliance with the applicable comprehensive plan and Code provisions as to each possible use, at this stage. This means, for example, that assessments of noise impacts, trip generation, storm water runoff and the like cannot be limited to the specific use proposed. Further, the locational criteria for Major and Minor Impact Utility and Services - which are permitted only in the I- H District - must be addressed and met at the time the obligatory plan and zone map designation is applied. See Policy 12.4.1. In sum, we believe the applicant has failed to meet its burden of demonstrating full compliance with the wide range of criteria applicable to its request. Moreover, we urge the Council to accept the Commission's recommendation that the information made available demonstrates noncompliance with applicable comprehensive plan policies, Statewide Goals and quasi-judicial amendment criteria and deny this request. If the Council believes that a question remains as to the adequacy of the city's industrial land base, the staff should be directed to address such issues during the upcoming periodic review process. Thank you for your consideration of these comments. Very truly yours, 9ev �h.: Pfeiffer SLP.445:j-e Enclosure _. Sc.t ern �1�cP f'o unci l REMARKS OF RICHARD P. BUONO ON BEHALF OF PACIFIC REALTY ASSOCIATES, L.P. ("PACTRUST") REGARDING THE MORSE BROS., INC. APPLICATION FOR PLAN AND ZONE CHANGE (CPA 88-05 & ZC 88-11) OCTOBER 24, 1988 Since 1972, PacTrust has developed in excess of 1,225,000 square feet of industrial and office buildings on more than 82 acres of land in the area centered around S.W. 72nd Avenue and S.W. Upper Boones Ferry Road. We have, in the past year, purchased 50 acres of land zoned Industrial Park and Light Industrial within less than one-half mile of the site of the property proposed for a concrete and asphalt batch plant by { Morse Bros., Inc. One 4.25 acre parcel we have acquired shares a common, boundary with this site. Our average cost per square foot for the 50 acres acquired in this past year has been almost $4.00. The most recent acquisition is approximately 26 acres of land, zoned Industrial Park, portions of which lie within 500 feet of the subject site. These recent land acquisitions, which will be developed into high quality office and business parks, have been made based on our understanding of the current comprehensive plan designation and zoning in the area and would probably not have taken place had heavy industrial uses this close to these properties been deemed likely. Our commitment to quality development in this area has been based on our understanding that the City of Tigard also has a strong commitment to fostering a successful and enduring environment for the continuing growth of attractive business uses in this area, which are compatible with one another and with their residential neighbors. �r We are proud of being a part of the growth in this area from agriculture to manufacturing and distribution and now to the presently planned areas of large, high quality office and business parks. This trend towards higher quality uses and more cost-intensive development is driven by the increasing cost of property in the area which will be affected by the subject zone and plan change application. We are extremely concerned over the proposed change in the comprehensive plan and zone proposed by Morse Bros., Inc. It is our belief that such a change will allow uses which are incompatible with the present mix of businesses in the area. The proposed concrete and asphalt batch plant is, in our view, completely incompatible with the neighborhood. Many of the other uses which could take place on the property without further deliberation after rezoning, such as major utilities construction and equipment yards, storage of non-operating vehicles, explosives storage, fuel sales (other than vehicular) such as wood, sawdust and other solid fuels, scrap operations and recycling centers would also degrade the desirability of and value of this uniquely successful business area. The proposed plan and zone change, and the uses possible if these changes are made, will make it extremely difficult to continue to attract the businesses which are necessary for the industrial and office park projects planned for nearby parcels. Hotels, office buildings, medium and high technology assembly plants, research facilities and other such uses will not coexist well with a use such as that proposed by the applicant, Morse Bros., Inc., or with many of the other permitted uses in a heavy industrial zone. The Planning Commission minutes from the October 4, 1988 meeting recited that one of the Morse Bros., Inc. consultants stated that the proposed batch plant is similar to one approved east of Cornelius Pass Road and that "they have had no problems". We are familiar with that proposal and I would like to point out that the fact that no problems have been reported may be due to the fact that the batch plant has not been built yet. Some of the Planning Commission members' comments during the deliberations leading to the recommendation for denial given October 4 were that: 1. The Morse Bros., Inc. proposed use was not appropriate on this site. 2. Such a zone and plan change would have a detrimental effect on land values in the area. 3. The approval of such a zone and plan change would increase the uncertainty of the development progress within the City of Tigard. 4. It is inappropriate to create a pocket of Heavy Industrial land in the midst of the Light Industrial uses surrounding the proposed site. 5. Changing the zone for this site to Heavy Industrial will do a disservice to the people who have invested heavily in the area. The comments made by the members of the Planning Commission just prior to their vote on this issue as mentioned above exactly mirror our concerns with respect to the Morse Bros., Inc. application.and shows that the Planning Commission fully understood the issues and the impacts the Morse Bros., Inc. proposal will have on the neighborhood and the City of Tigard if approved. We most strongly urge the City Council to deny CPA 88-05 and ZC 88-11. Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak. s MICHAEL L. FEVES 411 o S.W.Jerald Court Portland, Oregon 97221 Geophysics/Rock Mechanics (503) 227-7650 SUMMARY OF RECENT VIBRATION MONITORING PROJECTS Client Description Guy F. Atkinson Co. Installed borehole accelerometers, San Francisco, CA reviewed blast designs and monitored blast vibrations during excavation of basalt near Bonneville Dam, OR. Oregon Department Special appraisal of vibrations of Transportation associated with realignment of train Salem, OR and truck traffic in Portland, OR. S .R.G. Partnership PC Evaluation of floor vibrations from Portland, OR vibration testing machine at Intel Corp. Design recommendations for reducing floor motion were presented H.S . Wright Const. and Evaluation of the effects of Pittsburgh Testing Lab pi.ledriving on 'green' concrete at Portland, OR U.S . Bank Tower, Portland, OR. Gary M. Buford & Assoc. Blast vibration monitoring during Lake Oswego, OR sewer ling excavation, Sherwood, OR. ng rad Donald M. Drake Const- Vibratin excavationmonitoring Interstateu51at Tigardut Portland, OR interchange . J.S.E. Explosives Inc. Vibration monitoring for road cut Portland, OR near Eugene, OR. Tenold Construction Vibration monitoring during road cut The Dalles, OR excavation in Columbia River Basalt. Granite Construction, Evaluation of vibrations due to Portland District U.S- excavation of a tunnel through John Army Corps of Engineers Day Dam, OR. Johnson Construction Quarry Blasting, Seaside, OR. Seaside, OR Oriard Powder Quarry Blasting: Oregon Rock Oregon City, OR Products, Tonquin Quarry; Tigard Sand & Gravel, Tigard Quarry; and Progress Quarry. Atlas Powder Co. Quarry Blasting, Lewis County, WA. Dallas, TX Publisher's Paper Co. Quarry Blasting, Mollala, OR. Mollala, OR MICHAEL L. FEVES 4110 S.W.Jerald Court Geophysics/Rock Mechanics Portland, Oregon 97221 (503) 227-7650 EXPERIENCE *Vibration Studies *Blast Design and Monitoring *Rock Instrumentation *Test Procedure Development *Thermal & Mechanical Properties of Rock *Geophysical Profiling and Downhole Surveys Dr . Feves is currently an adjunct professor at Portland State University where he is responsible .for teaching and conducting research in geophysics and rock mechanics. Dr . Feves also maintains a consulting practice which specializes in rock mechanics and engineering geophysics. He is a committee chairman for the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) where he has been responsible for development of several test procedures . Dr . Feves' geophysical experience extends over a broad spectrum. While senior research geophysicist for Foundation Sciences Inc. , Dr . Feves was responsible for geophysical studies which included: ground vibration analysis, surface and downhole seismic, electrical and gravity surveys= and in-situ and laboratory rock mechanics programs. Prior to this time, he designed and supervised the rock mechanics laboratory for the Dowell Division of Dow Chemical in Tulsa, OK (Dowell/Schlumberger) . The primary purpose of the laboratory-,was to study relationships between rock properties and hydraulic fracturing. At the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Dr . Feves was a research and teaching assistant in the rock mechanics laboratory. Specific recent projects include vibration monitoring and blast design consultation for excavation of over 250,000 cubic yards of rock at Bonneville Dam, OR; over five miles of high resolution seismic refraction line in Northern California to help determine the subsurface geology beneath a proposed Department of Defense radar installation; vibration monitoring at John Day Dam during excavation of a tunnel through the dam; a U.S . Forest Service study of the response of rockbolts to dynamic loading; stress/strain analysis of loading-dock piles for the Port of Portland; and consultation with Core Laboratories, Dallas, TX to design a new rock mechanics laboratory to service the petroleum industry. EDUCATION Ph.D. GEOPHYSICS, Massachusetts Inst. of Technology, Cambridge, MA B.S . PHYSICS, Reed College, Portland, OR PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS BLASTING LICENSES American Geophysical Union Federal (Class 33) American Society for Testing and Materials Oregon #2086 Seismological So.ciety of America Washington Purchaser Sigma Xi, Scientific Research Society #625-5-14572 Society of Core Analysts Washington Blaster Society of Exploration Geophysicists #620-1-14573 I0+ 24, 1988 CIS:49 01,1111 Enuir;nmer,t l Svcs. 503 526 2085 P.02 n. C SCOTT A.FRF-EBURN,P.E. )EDUCATION M.S., .S Mechanical pngineerirWAlr Pollution Control,Oregon State Universiry HVAC and Convective Heat Transfer Studies,Long Beach StntC University B.S.,Mechanical$ngineering,Oregon State University RB,oisrRA'I IONS Professional Engineer,Oregon M.E.No.9222 EXFERIENCP- SIXT>iMN YEARS SUPF..I2VISING ENGINEER 1' OMNI Environmental Services,Inc. Responsible for supervising professional sei�vicea Beetle Investigating and solving a wide variety of air and water quality and hazardous waste problems. Project work has addressed emission assessment including estimation and measurement of emissions from industrial point sources (wood products, elecxroaies, incinerators, waste handling and disposal, and ore processing), residential wood combustion,and other area sources (agricultural burning and miscellaneous fugitive dust). Direct measurement; masa balani, and modeling (chemical mans balance and dispersion) were used to matte determinations. Work supported permit applications by private clients and investigations of point and area source impacts for regulatory and food agencies. Evaluated emission reduction options for diverse sources s, ineluding iudusuial' snd biomass product driers, organic vapor and acid mist ventilation systemresidential woodstoves, combustion units, municipal sludge and garbage handling facilities. Conducted emission invo Evaluatedand sk assessment for air toxics for Portland, Oregon municipal waste handling and disposal systemthe act of coats and benefits of allernatim control equipment and procedures needed for. reducing ted impact fozestry burnmg on virility in Class I areas; reducing dust emissions for paved and unpa ys; minimizing opacity and loading due to combined inorganic particles and oil mists for drying systema. Supervised PMtu SIP development projects involving assessment of principal sources of geological dust$, residential wood combustion, and prescribed burning acth' cs. Supervised sampling program for development of a source library for PMto sources in California's San Joaquin Valley and Denvtf, Colorado. Developed tatf R so ice lib ea y fo methodologies for estimation of air toxics for municdpal waste transfer stations. Developed smoke txposurc and health effect assessment for western Oregon using raonitosed smoke impact data. Prepared catimates of air toxics emitted by smoke sources (forestry and agrlcultursl burning and woodstoves) in Western Oregon. Developed and directed smoke management program for burning grans good wastes in northern Idaho. 1L;;_-1/1988- 08:15U Lil'lldl Erie irunfilcritB.l Svcs. 503 526 2_08S P.03 (f 1 PROJECT MANAGERIV Eugincering-Science,Inc. Prepared a VUC acrd air toxic inventory fur the State of Idaho, Air Ouality Hurciiu. lnventury included traditional VOCs and 1094sted ptitentral air toxic con)rounds. FTA-recommended survey tcchniqucss were used for more than 120 point sources exceeding one tun per year. Important sources included fuel terminals, sugar proussing plants (forrnidde-hydc), large boilers, and smelters .rid ore processors. Area source e171issions for 43 counties were based (III population activity factors and survey data. Major concerns were automobiles and WUOd51pVCS. All sources were screened using emission, release height, toxicity (unit risk or threshold limit values), and population data. Risk assessments were performed on four sourceswith Air with highest screening values. Prepared an air toxic inventory for ICA nun-traditional sources for Puget Soun Pollution Control Agency. Toxic emissions were estimated or measured using EPA-rcwmnteudod procedures fur sewage trcatinew works (public and industrial); municipal landfills; hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal facilities; and Supirfund sites. Prepared preliminary screening procedures for point sources of air toxics for the State of Iowa. !Conducted screening pruwdures for point sources of air toxics for the State of Virginia. Evaluated air toxic (heavy metal) impact.- due to fugitive dust frosts mine tailings piles in Colorado. Reviewed and evaluated data from more than 25 source tests to estimate heavy metals emissions from Blue Plains sewage treatxncnt plant sludge incinerators(Washington,DC). Devclo�cd emission cstieuatiou models for hazardous waste container storage areas. Investigated fugitive VOCr/air toxics emissions from numerous small-to-medium-sized synthetic organic chemical manufacturing and handling facilities to determine compliance with existing regulation., and air toxic impacts. Sired and costed systems fur reducing VoQair toxic emissions and minimizing difficult odor problems. l valuatcd particulate, fluoride, and SO2 emission controLs on two major phosphate fertilizer plants in southeast Idaho. Recommended control equipment O& M procedures and additional cost effective control equipment. Completed case studies of more than 20 hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal facilities for the U. S. LPA to determine the associated levels of toxic air emissions and alternatives available for emission reductions. Estimates were prepared for surface impoundments, landfUs, container and tank storage operations, and unit process and transfer equipment emissions. Emission reduction estimates wore prepared for uudustrial solvent recovery processes. Conducted economic analysis of alternatives to a0cultural field burning in northern Idaho and eastern Washington requiring investigation of potential crop yield declines, increased operational costs, and effects an national markets. Supervised collection and analysis of some 650 samples of fluids from elec-trieal equipment at Mountain Home Air Force Base for PCB content. Resp o sibie for supervising state operation of BPA air quality control program for the State of Idaho. Responsibilities included refurb6hment and operation of statewide ambient air monitoring network, Compliance inspections of industrial facilities, enforcement recommendations, and development of training material to support rc-astablishmcnt of the state program. Directed a complete update of the Idaho now source review system, assuring compliance with federal and state regulations and expeditions processing. Performed non-attainment area technical reviews in support of state implementation plan (SIP) approval and redesignation activities. Related project responsibilities included the preparation of procedural and training documents for compliance assessment (inspections), new source permit review, guidancz to permit applicants, evaluation of Emergency Air Pollution Episode Plans, and implementation of a pollution Standard Index program for the Boise Co non-attainment area. Completed a separate evaluation of Idaho r agricultural burning programs. Updated Idaho's TSP and SO2 emission inventory for all sources greater L than five tons per year. 503 526 2085 P.04 0 ,:51 01-1111 Erw iro�irrlcntal Secs. SCMOR ENG1NFF_R/DFPUTY DIRECI'OR Del Green ASsaciater. Developed technical support infucl+latiun fccr prepar+tiuu of lnopOSCd new federal method to support state Sills containing time exemption opacity rotes. Werk actmllcs included preparation of work plans under L•PA lcvcl•OI-effort contracts and familiarixalion with federal rcgulatiun proululgation procedures. Rcsponsihle for dtvelopment of field study Protocol, evaluation and slatistical analysis of collected data, and preparation of study results. Developed recolurncudatious for drafting new regalatcocis for short term opacity readbig method. SENIOR ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER State of Oregon,Department of Euvi:ol+l+►cictal Quality Responsible for conducting state program regulating annual open buralug of ono quarter millinn acres of agricultural land, Activities pmerij of rules for the control of burning, adevelopment and F' operation of a computeriincluded dcvclozed permit issuance system, operation of an enforcement program, and management of daily burning control to avoid or minimize smoke cffeals on populated areas. ALSO tit program investigation including: alternative disposal practices, new supervised research and dcvclopu+e uses, and markets for waste grass straw; alternative crops not requiring burning; air quality impacts of smoke through ambient air monitoring meteorological forecasting; and fire control. Position required analysis Of rCtiC3reh aeCCLS, setting of contract needs, development of scopes of work and request for proposals, development of numerous technical reports, and presentations for public and professional groups. I i Represented agency in efforts to improve regulation of forestry burning. t r. ASSOCIATE ENGINEEWSCIENTIST ' McDonnell-Douglas Astronautics CumPany Rcspol+sible for the design of various missile handling cumpuncats. Duties included tltc layout and development of proposed component design, conduct of stress and tolerance analyses, selection of materials i and finishes, supervising tests of fabricated parts, and completion of final engineering drawings. Designed , numerous modifications to basic ground support vehicles to accommodate extreme cold weather operations, S speciali-zed missile bast facilities, unique ground support equipment, and military safety requirements. Prepared of design presentation materials and procedures manuals. [ r I: F rROPL+SSIONAL AFFILIATIONS I Air Pollution Control Association , American Society of Mechanical Engineers f HONORARY AFFO-JAMONS Pi Tau Sigma,Engineering Honorary State of Oregon, Department of Energy, Alternative Energy Development CouWlission Advisory Task Fortx t Olt BiomASS UtilizatiOrl Exemplary Service Award.Oregon Department of Environmental Quality l t i s EP1GlNEERS STANDLEE, P.E. Daly • Standlee& Associates, Inc. Registered Acoustical En lSuite 20111855 Aldger l2eer .. g uite 2J1 rastPdve Mr . Standlee is an engineer at BeO�s(t�'Olegon9lGQ$•6321 \ responsible for management , Daly-Standlee �'0' Associates, .Inc . ,, work on r technical direction and acoustical projects undertaken g the Firm. HIS experience includes architectural acoustics design for sound enhancement, noise control , environmental noise transportation noise control , and architectural noise industrial Mr. Standlee has been responsible for thearchitectural and control , and design measurement control. B of control or enhancement >neasures in a' evaluation areas of acoustics . 11 of these PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE Mr . Standlee has worked in the field of acoustic deeigzl control since 1973• He has participated in ro and noise acoustic design projects throughout his career - He arohitectural used for the selection and review of acoustical has been used in elementary school classrooms college lecture halls high school facilities, churches and music practice rooms , band halls , other architectural constructions to acoustic design is met. Mr. Standlee continues today i increase his experience in architectural acoustics on many new projects.the Mr. Standlee has been responsible for the design Of partitions control sound in architecturallyP itions to learned the importance of construction details in the Control sound as well as Projects . Ile has assure that design careful inspection of on-site .construction to (auditoriuMa 6 goals are met. He has worked on man offices , churches projects designs .were recommended to reduce classrooms) where and adjacent spaces noise from mechanical special the critical spaces to assure desired acoustical environment eon Mr. Standlee has provided noise control consultation paper, timber, food processing, in pulp and other assorted smaller industrial operations . 8, metal fabrication, chemical, and responsible for the determination and evaluation of indaor work noise exposure and selection of measures for reduction He has been er exposure to meet federal and state re ion of that regulations. Mr. Standlee is experienced in the measurement control Of outdoor environmental noises to meet state re gulati (Oregon Department of Environmental c evaluation and many noise control measures for commerical and industries sources which would otherwise have exceeded state Y) > He hall designed regulated limitsourcee Mr. Standlee has directri noise studies of transportation such as automobile, trains and aircraft. He the 1-5 Jantzen Beach-Delta Park interchange rfor g Oise study and r-s r: f: evaluation performed for the Oregon Department of Transportation. t He wrote the noise section of the draft environmental impact C rticipated in public hearings to discus statement for ODOT and pas the study and impact statement . He has directed studies of existing and future airport locations r to determine the impact of sound on surrounding communities . Included amongst these are impacts of air traffic at Portland International Aiport as well as other small community airports. Int nationStardll has been responsible for the design of noise Mr . and use ordinances related to controls and drafting of l ` transportation noise and impacted communities . He has s participated on several community noise review boards as a technical member . (' 4 EDUCATION B.S. in Architectural Engineering, University of Texas at Austin. M.S . in Engineering - Acoustics and Vibrations, University of Texas at Austin. PROFESSIONAL AFF111ATIONS Registered Professional Acoustical Engineer in Oregon Acoustical Society of America (Member) National Association of Noise control Officials (Member) Institute of Noise Control Engineering WALLACE M. HOBSON Mr. Hobson is a consulting urban land economist with more than 15 years' experience in sales and marketing, market research, financial analysis and real estate development. He is president of Hobson & Associates and acts as project manager for projects involving market and financial analysis and development programming. His real estate development background includes office, retail, housing and recreation development. Real estate investment and financial analysis is Mr. Hobson ' s specialization within the firm. He has provided investment consultation to individuals, partner- ships, corporations, and institutions on a wide variety of real estate projects in the Pacific Northwest. He has also designed financial analysis models for income property analysis and for the sale of real estate. Mr. Hobson has direct experience in real estate development and has been an owner and project manager in a number of real estate ventures. Prior to joining Hobson & Associates, Mr. Hobson held positions in marketing, market research, and sales in pri- vate industry, including Omark Industries. At Omark, he was in charge of product marketing with world-wide responsibil- ity for the Oregon Saw Chain Division. Mr. Hobson attended the University of Oregon where he received a Bachelor of Science degree in Liberal Arts and later, Portland State University, where he received a Masters degree in Business Administration. Mr. Hobson' s principal responsibilities at Hobson & Associates include project management, marketing and long- range corporate planning and supervision of financial operations such as accounting, financial planning and cost control . Hobson&Associates __ TOM R. LANCASTER, P.E. Transportation Engineering Union Station, Suite 206 ,affic Studies 800 N.W. 6th Avenue Planning Portland, OR 97209 Safety (503) 248-0313 RESUME Mr. Lancaster has been a consulting engineer since 1983 , and is involved in a variety of transportation planning , design, and operations projects in Oregon, Washington , and California . He specializes in traffic signals , signing, striping, geometric design, and traf- fic impact studies. He has also been involved in light- rail transit, school safety , and accident analysis projects . Clients of the firm have included transit agencies, public utility commissions, cities , counties , school districts, and private developers . Mr. Lancaster is a Registered Professional Civil Engineer in Oregon , Washington, and Nevada , and is a registered Traffic Engineer in Oregon. Mr . Lancaster was previously Traffic Engineer for Lane County, Oregon, for seven years . He was responsible for all aspects oftraffic engineering on County roads and street systems, including signing, striping, traffic signals , speed zoning , accident analysis , intersection and arterial design, and community relations. This posi- tion entailed frequent contact with Federal Highway Administration and State Highway Division officials , coordination with local city officials regarding high- way, traffic, and transit projects , administration of traffic engineering consultant contracts, and review of development proposals. T TOM R.LANCASTER,P.E. Transportation Engineering Prior to his position with Lane County, Mr. Lancas- ter was a traffic engineer with the Oregon State Highway Division for six years . His responsibilities included reviewing safety and traffic operations aspects of design proposals for highway construction projects , evaluating traffic signal systems for arterial streets , developing State standards for highway signing and striping, and the preparation of traffic studies for small cities. Mr . Lancaster received a BS degree in Civil Engin- eering from Oregon State University and an MS degree in Transportation Engineering from the University of Cali- fornia. He is a member of the Transportation Research Board , the American Society of Civil Engineers , the National Committee on Uniform Traffic Control Devices Railroad Grade Crossing Technical Subcommittee, and the Institute of Transportation Engineers. He is a Past President of District 6 (comprising the 13 western states) of the Institute of Transporta- tion Engineers . He has been a guest lecturer at the Transportation Research Institute at Oregon State Uni- versity on the subject of traffic congestion, accident mitigation, and uniform signing standards. shops dealing with tires, glass installation, quick �u nlliertuut esuw bu,yb iii We JeaLUe-tacurna area under-*ay V1� ' t-ueuu N and expects soon to announce a multi-size invest- Y n Huriter's-Rur. .lubes,car stereos,brakes,mufflers,repair and auto - dover Park,two new a ai•trr ° parts ;{: ment in California. plexes in Beaverton. P a "" "" Key to American Auto Stops is location and The Aloha site which covers 1 66 acres and Keicher said high traffic counts and relatively af- A total of 558 new-units opens with 80 percent of its 15,000 square feet occu- fluent surroundings are important to a successful in May 1989 for the busy t-' pied, has a Glass Doctor of Oregon, 10 Minute Off- location. .. leasing season,according to r ery, Kaady Car Wash, Valley�Tire Too and Dan - `: :+ Bell,executive vice preside e Nedro Auto Repair. Theie't r plans for a 12,000- Contractor for the Aloha complex was J.T. Roth Properties%Inc., developer U, quare-foot addition when demand requires,accord- Construction, Portland. American.Auto Stop archi- projects <; tng o Brian. Keicher,xsenior,;vice president for tect_is Thompson Vaivoda s f e. :: } _ • t : �s Hunter's Run, _located ray' Northwest Walker Road u Northwest 158th A venue.In �� tend ® ®�� ; .• , ty-'will include c �a irfin�pC `Y �l ty, will include 318 ups f t� % Zr;t s? �,�' u t ments on a 13 -acre slte It < H -•.? yt®�r+�+f.f3 'i� e !. >:. r�lJ ^ + ^3 f �xc 1 °may:•{r .r�.� �.1 k'Pllll =TE!Creati0n';center.: 1 ~�O�G.�7 �� ! �.l �' h .tech r� '.SC��u�e �f.3 eaturing a swimming poo • , y r fisauna,fitness and exercise if.r,ad.-•.. ... i:.+:•.-i.::n�r-: .,--:..... •_} a.,� . .• i;.{�.:. n ta•.party room.Construction: E , BEAVERTON=A'new Y �n overwhelming hiajority•df sen=°,`•Prtc6-Waterhouse •developing,busi .�• late Augiisti Vali�at complet 1. P " ries of small business seminars..,. for business'`executives'in the four- ,••ness,partner."And while what to pro. bi$17 million. f county Washln o °`. -mote may be clear,business is mixed sponsored by the Beaverton y. T tY t• gt °;-It Multnomah,._ Y. Chamber of Commerce and the Clackamas-and-Clark)•area contend -;a§td who should do the promoting Andover Park Is located than the region'musY'put more em- GVhen asked who can best lead the Portland Community••.College .:acre wooded knoll In the Small. Business-Development-... . Murrayhill,Beaverton's new phasic on bringing riew general Indus-.;iegional promotional campaign,.36 -Center are under way for the.- pied community near t tries-.'here iftther than more high percent tabbed private business,:.37 -'..fallseason :_ ?:'-•;`i: ..'r °- technology;according to the Portland. .percent liked state government aqd: section of Southwest•Scho? regional offlce of Price Waterhouse,--'27.*.percent felt chambers of. com,• '':'' Tie schedule of workshops Road and Southwest'Murrr P As as follows: Oct. 4 — Direct vard. Construction. is ex certified public accountants. :. .rnerce were best prepared. Some,60' As •Marke Oct.r>l l :— p p- rcent of,those surveyed -favored ' start this month. At t conic The results:showed that 84 er= "pe Y ":Writing Your-Business Plan; 240 luxury apartment comF cent of the surveyed respondents in-%' :t1pooling".of-all corridor group mar ;,;.Nov. 1 — Keeping the.Good full recreation amenities s. dicated that`.effotfs to boost the re- _,heting efforts and funds to promote :;Employee; Nov ,8 Using Hunter's Run, will be value gional economy should be directed.:.,,the Portland region., Your Financial .1 Statements; �milllon toward generallndustry.Only 16 per-.. :Asked about the'solution to Wash- , and Dec. 6 Worki cent called for7nore high-tech buss-: :jIIgt� County's transportation . -'` gh- .:;Smarter,Not Harder. GSL Pro rhes Inc`of.I ness devo_lopment,>. ]ems;49 percent said light rail.was . ..The workshops are front -has designed bothprojects = h the aosw�r.Some-25 percent favored Ps g f "Business-is sending a strong sig .;aa•extention-ofAnterstate 205 from"'.. • 830 a.m to.12:30 p.m in the on the success of its Sterlir. n: or industrial diversification,--the Tualatin area to Hillsboro,18 ....,-Beaverton Chamber.of Com- luxury;apartments in South .lo( arm jobs and, of course, the "cent recommended widening High-.: - amerce Conference Room,4800 ton.Bunter's Run and Ando lor:o_r term ripple effect general•In=,`way 26,and 8:percent`chose other.:: :•S.W.Griffith Drive`_ :"'.;: will both'offer extensive se dustry carries,', said Don lrvtng,� options _ tenants..* > t•.Zi N Z ` 10'10 t � Dover Landing features homer including woodec ��,�! • l; and 10 lots bordering the Tu: River. All but seven lots al: sold or built on. Model hog j open Saturday and Sunday 5:00 P.M. . Six wooded Tualatin River.lo r•i - now available for purchase. 1 -Tic.ARC I'i'^Es �t-a9-i?g JAY^MILLER at$35.000.Call office forplo ' and details. P R,INC. LOT 6 $148,900 `,= � 101 S.W. Main Street,Suite 1700 Telephone 503 224 9040 Portland,OR 97204 Telecopy 503 223 9081 0 r. G� � tr� E 1`- we ater Louse BUSINESS ATTITUDE SURVEY QUARTER ENDED JUNE 30, 1988 Efforts to boost the regional economy should be directed toward general industry rather than high technology, according to the results of Price Waterhouse's most recent Business Attitude Survey. 84% of the survey respondents indicated that emphasis should be placed upon seeking new general industries,while only 16% called for more high-tech development of business. While it may be clear what to promote, respondents are mixed as to who should do the promoting. When asked who can best lead the rbgional promotion campaign, 36% called for private business, 37% for state government and 27% for the Chamber of Commerce. Likewise, respondents were mixed about state/regional land use policies: 52% felt that more flexibility in such policies was necessary to attract new industrial relocation from outside Oregon, while 48% expressed satisfaction with the existing land use policies. The survey also asked what the number one problem impacting regional business today was. 37% identified employee shortage,25% cited the regional economy and 18% called property taxes the number one problem. Only 12% and 9% of the respondents, respectively, indicated that they ' considered regional leadership and crime to be the biggest problem. When asked what was the answer to Washington County's transportation problems, respondents offered the following suggestions: Light Rail 49%of respondents I-205 Extension 25% of respondents Widen Highway 26 18%of respondents Other 8% of respondents Other survey results indicated bullish actual results with less bullish expectations for the future. As shown in the accompanying graph,reports of sales and profits continue to be strong: 67% of the respondents report increased sales last quarter(compared to 64% during the last two surveys), and 57% report increased profits (compared to 56% and 53% for the last two surveys). However, only 30% expect growth of 10% or more next quarter (compared to 39% in the last survey). i Furthermore, 17% of the respondents felt that business conditions will deteriorate in the near future (compared to only 9% last quarter). I Signs of inflation continue to plague local businesses. 92% of the survey respondents reported that they saw signs of an increase in the rate of inflation, primarily through component price increases. In the last three surveys, 74%, 69% and 87% of the respondents had previously reported signs of inflation. The survey is the tenth in a continuing series of Price Waterhouse surveys designed to monitor and summarize changing business conditions and trends in the Portland metropolitan area. A total of 91 respondents returned the Price Waterhouse survey questionnaire. The respondents represented businesses of varying sizes (with annual sales ranging from less than $1 million to greater than $100 million),in various industries ffrom manufacturers to service businesses),located in the Tri- County area as well as Clark County, Washington. Neither the survey respondents nor the results were selected or evaluated on a statistical basis. 69 70% 67 ® 64 64 - ,- ARE SALES 6o% - UP? 50% 46 46 YES 40% - 30% f i. i 20% i. 10% — i 1st Qtr li 2nd Qtr 3rd Qtr4th Qtr flst Qtr f 2nd Qtr # 3rd Qtr€s 4th Qtr i .: ..!a:•SY",Y"'�`E;s;�i':�1:'S"�i.2f.. 'YC;x,^:;;1?';+al.`.^,:.n; i,^2�Y.�;:,:�:/�f: 1'�.""`:•Yf.:::'+':<;1 �. 58 60%O — S56 57 52 ARE PROFIT_ S 50% _ UP? - 39 40% YES = 30% l 20% ` 10% lstQtr 2nd Qtr 3rd Qtr 4th Qtr Lls{ Qtr ; 2nd Qt�rY`t 3rd"Qtr `4th Qtr Y 60% DO YOU = 50% -- EXPECT GROWTH OF 40% - ' ' ` 342 10% OR - 30 `< 30% MORE NEXT = �` QUARTER? 20% _ 18 YES 10% 0 E: >., x w�,.<..'•:: •t1,N.x•a:vzzrf l>{:i;:. ii+ ,;;Yt�•eo .,Yc,cf•..., t .vv. r i Q 2nd Qtr 3rd Qtr 4th Qtr :z 1st Qtr a z2nd Qtr $•3rd Qtr •:'4th Qte e LEGEND 1 • :� 1 ,,t.: . :..::..::.. M 1987 QUARTERS 1988 UARTERS G i • F r TABLE II 1980-2000 20-DISTRICT POPULATION AND EMPLOYMENT GROWTH t: R Population Employment 1980 200.0 Change 1980 2000 Change District 1 10,690 14,890 +4,200 82,140 128,450 +46;310 District 2 314,500 329,710 +15,210 175,560 210 ,400 +34,840 {: District 3 79,400 102,170 +22,770 70,160 80,430 +10,270 District 4 76,950 93,670 +16,720 24,750 38,350 +13,600 _ District 5 77,970 134,270 +56,300 19,500 39,180 +19,680 District 20 5,840 6,330 +490 800 930 +130 Total Mult. Co. 565,350 681,040 - +115,690 372,910 497,740 +124,830 District 6 64,300 67,930 +3,630 26,990 36,890 +9,900 District 7 17,650 41,050 +23,400 13,410 36,980 +23,570 District 8 43,390 70,060 +26,670 10,290 22,33.0 +1.2,040 District 9 24,560 40,730 +16,170 10,120 15,730 +5,610 District 10 19,450 40,290 +20,840 74,00 21,280 +13,880 District 19 72,590 104,810 +•32_x220 11,100 18;340 +7,240 . s Total Clack. Co. 241,940 364,870 +122,930 79,310 151,550 +72,240 E- District 11 13,270 29,950 +16,680 7f450 15,980 +8 530 District 12 29,470 46,020 +16 550 21 350 32 860 +11,510 u. District 13 72,910 84,330 +11,420 48,330 72,710 +24,380 District 14 57,720 104,740 +47,020 10,040 33,760 +23,720 District 15 30,970 59,320 +28,550 11,790 27,570 +15,780 ' District 16 19,440 30,750 +11,310 5,530 10,100 +4,570 District 18 21,650 28,500 +6,850 2,970 4,890 +1,920 • er Total Wash. Co. 245,420 383,610 +138,180 107,460 197,870 +90,410 ti Total Clark Co. 192,300 310,410 +118,110 59,140 122,830 +63,690 s SMSA Total 1,245,020 1,739,930 +494,910 618,820 969 ,990 +351,170 District 12 =. Tigard/Bull Mountain I - 230 DIAGRAM II Opw Y m % 4 1 1 4- L: Q Z' % 0 A.0 �k J,1,z _,7. ioJr 0 10 LIJ cl. IT Enry r' t • cd 1 A LA • X L :E 10 ZZ 37-1 cd a 0 0% %,0 r. 2 Z > z UJ 0 0z r— a 4 < (N < A6,a p AV Cc 1, K'-t oi, 00 Ln cc —JO LL Un J Q'.. 10: Z: cc) 16 I ,, .1ir Ine !0 e < _j 02 LU U 4p q. 0 c Al Source: Washington County Planning De art DIAGRAM I -N z clip: 0 0 F OX LLJ 0 3r =0 Z $ . I I I .I.. �z , , w .-- 0 0, z 0 r 0 z c < %A P 1171t 4 LU 0 Ln -�O co r- <L) UUj J. r------I CL. LLJ a 0. < Z; 00 10 -w 0rw j. CL. j -j < > Ic 0' ce 1% 0 I.;ource:,,,-Washington County Planning DevajjTent% ' <, • ' , � AFF. ''! .! � :>Ex�'7- .-.-- � �.r- .�, (�- \ � f`` _ �=0.>r".::�'Ci:i JJ�:-��.;,�. •J� /=r�n� ?=,•moi^ , i/� - %r_�:-C.- G- �.�U�r��.__.'Jr �l -/Jrr• j_ , �r _�J:Jr•='1 � . �. _ � �., . �.:.. Or �/�� - �'=C 'J=.'�'�i, :./�.ii '`_'.;,�- rvm.Gc'r• /�.j �/.�� . = Or.'.:�i. ._ n rr'��c� Or? `�y�. Jj�:�- :..� . .._�./. .��'_._. C.c./-f"TrUC"sir' =��YC..C�-'_ �?�-.' - ._.._. v - - �G �.''.o— � - . .�. - - .: � ....-•.-/,•-..Jr. _. _ .. -�',' - .moo.• . , SECTION 25 T1S, R1W ! ROAD JURISDICTION Revised: June 24, 1988 t Street Street Street To Acceptance Footage Name From BC 2413 1,157' Alfred Street North .of 69th Ave 65th Avenue BC 2413 841` Plat boundary 74th Avenue Barbara Lane Ventura Court T/J Res 87-158 193' Barbara Lane Plat boundary Barbara BC 2413 125'' Lane Cul-de-sac Barbara Lane 74th Avenue BC 2413 235 Cedercrest Street Annex boundary BC 2413 300' Elmwood Street Annex boundary 74th Avenue BC 2413 380' 74th Avenue 72nd Avenue 481, Landau Street Shady Place Cul-de-sac BC 2413 Lola Lane y Shad Lane T/J Res 87-158 1,079' Shady Court Shady Lane T/J Res 87-158 887' Shady Lane 74th Avenue Cul-de-sac BC 2413 439, Barbara Lane Plat boundary Shady Place Shad Lane T/J Res 87-158 110` Shady Place Plat boundary y T/J Res 87-158 189' Ventura Court Cul-de-sac Ventura Court plat boundary Alfred Street T/7 Res 37-158 1,427' Ventura Court Cul-de-sac T/J Res 87-158 1,354' Ventura Drive Plat boundary T/J Res 87-158 1,791` line ne Ventura Court Ventura Drive Ventura Drive T/J Res 87-158 197' Ventura Drive Plat boundary BC 2413 860' Walnut Terrace 69th Avenue 65th Avenue TO Res 87-158 630' 66th Avenue Taylor's Ferry Rd end BC 2413 1,390' 69th Avenue Cul-de-sac Taylor's Ferry Rd 1,529' 74th Avenue 77th Avenue South of Barbara Ln BC .2413 74th Avenue Taylors Ferry 210' S of Barbara Ln T/J Res 87-158 1,167' Streets not Accepted by Council ke/3674P 6' f: SECTION 26 TIS, R1W ' ROAD JURISDICTION { Revised: June 24, 1988 Street Street Street Name From To Acceptance Footage r Cascade Blvd. Scholls Ferry Rd Greenburg Road T/J Ord 8343 3,870' Coral Street: Greenburg Road 200' west of 92nd Ave T/J Res 87-118 700' Lehman Street Greenburg Road 200' west of 92nd Ave T/J Res 87-118 590' ; 92nd Avenue Hall Blvd. Greenburg Road BC 4a4-3- a 840' Pf f r 4' f j: i; E i f i v i. I a ` r C i a i• R c G t `r Y b * Streets Not Accepted by Council ke/3674P F SECTION 33 T2S, RIW ROAD JURISDICTION Revised: June 24, 1988 4 � Street Street Street Name From To Acceptance Footage Ashbury Lane Plat boundary Plat boundary Project under 195' Construction Ashbury Lane Plat boundary Swendon Loop Project under 500' Construction Res 86-106 140' Brittany Drive Winterlake Drive Plat boundary Res 83-71 825' Brittany Drive 135th Avenue Plat boundary Res 85-24 2321 Chickory Court Summer Lake Drive Cul-de-sac Res 79-61 675'. Falcon Rise Dr Morning Hill Drive Plat boundary Project under 5011 Feiring Lane Swendon Loop 135th Avenue j Construction f: Glacier Lily Cir Summer Lake Drive Summer Lake Drive Res 85-24 1,697' Hawks Beard Street Hawks Beard Street Cul-de-sac Res 85-24 92'Res 85-24 398' Hawks Beard Street Summer Lake Drive 130th Avenue Project on Dev 265' Laurmont Court Shore Drive Cul-de-sac j Maintenance Laurmont Drive * Shore Drive Plat boundary Project on Dev 131' Maintenance Cul-de-sac Project on Dev 949' Laurmont Drive * Plat boundary Maintenance Morning Hill Dr 135th Avenue Westbury Terrace Res 86-87 684' Morning Hill Dr 135th Avenue Plat boundary Res 79-61 1,266' Morning Hill Dr * Plat boundary Plat Boundary Project on Dev 281' C, Maintenance Brittany Drive Plat boundary Res 83-71 79' Sheffield Cir y Res 83-71 85' Sheffield Cir Brittany Drive Plat boundary Res 84-97 738, Sheffield Court Plat 15oundary Plat boundary Res 79-61 127' Shore Drive Morning Hill Drive Plat boundary pro ect on Dev 237' Shore Drive * Plat boundary Plat boundary j Maintenance * Plat boundary Plat boundary Project Delnq. 895'- Shore Drive Res 85-24 95' Snow Brush Court Summer Lake Drive Cul-de-sac Project on Dev 300' Snow Brush Ct * Plat boundary Cul-de-sac j Maintenance Springwood Dr * Plat boundary Plat boundary Project on Dev 221' Maintenance k: Summer Lake Drive Cul-de-sac Res 85-24 98' Summer Lake Drive 24 2,052 ' Summer Lake Drive Scholls Ferry Road Plat boundary Res Pru 85-85- under 1, 52 F. Swendon Loop * Ashbury Lane Ashbury Lane J f, Construction � Tamera Lane Laurmont Drive Laurmont Drive Project on Dev 595' ftl Maintenance Wilton Avenue Ashbury Lane Proposed Murray Blvd Projecton Dev 1,398' Maintenanc* Plat boundary Plat boundary Project on Dev 162' WinterLake Dr Maintenance Winterlake Drive Plat boundary Plat boundary Res 86-106 388' * Streets Not Accepted by Council ke/3674P SECTION 33 T2S, R1W (continued) ROAD JURISDICTION Revised: June 24, 1988 Street Street Street Name From To Acceptance Footage 127th Court * Springwood Drive Cul-de-sac Project on Dev 409' Maintenance 133rd Avenue Sheffield Circle Plat boundary Res 84-97 125' 133rd Avenue Brittany Drive Cul-de-sac Res 83-71 210' 134th Place Sheffield Circle Cul-de-sac Res 84-79 74' 134th Terrace Brittany Drive Shore Drive Project Delnq. 486' -2 135th Avenue Plat boundary Plat boundary Res 83-71 118' 135th Avenue Walnut Street Scholls Ferry Road T/J Res 86-46 4,369' C� * Streets Not Accepted by Council ke/3674P SECTION 34 T2S, R1W ROAD JURISDICTION Revised: June 24, 1988 Street Street Street Name From To Acceptance Footage Anton Drive * North Dakota St North Dakota St Project not Plated Ashviood Court Hazelwood loop Cul—de—sac Res 83-85 317' Basswood Court Ironwood Loop Cul—de—sac Res 83-84 307' Black Diamond Way 106th Avenue Plat boundary Res 80-69 798' Boxwood Court Cottonwood Ln Cul—de—sac Res 83-86 246' Burlcrest Or (co) Summer Crest Or Plat boundary Annex Ord 65-26 416' Burlcrest Drive (co) Plat boundary Tigard Street Annex Ord 65-26 806' Burlheights St (co) 121st Avenue Burlcrest Drive Annex Ord 65-26 606' Cottonwood Lane 115th Avenue Springwood Drive Res 83-86 2,245' Dawn's Court Plat boundary Cul—de—sac Res 84-41 144' Edgewater Ct Summer Crest Or Cul—de—sac Project under 117' Construction Gallo Avenue Tigard Street Plat boundary Res 85-04 643 ' Glenwood Court Hazelwood Loop Cul—de—sac Res 83-85 237' Hazelwood Loop Springwood Drive Springwood Drive Res 83-85 1,421' Ironwood Loop Springwood Drive Springwood Drive Res 83-84 2,860' Katherine Street 121st Avenue 116th Avenue T/J Ord 81-06 1,040' Lakewood Court Ironwood Loop Cul—de—sac Res 83-84 325' Manzanita Ct 121st Avenue Cul—de—sac Annex Ord 67-4 148' Manzanita Street Plat boundary 115th Avenue Annex Ord 67-16 644' C Manzanita Street 119th Avenue Plat boundary Annex Ord 67-4 170' Merestone Court 121st Avenue Cul—de—sac 297' Millview Court Summer Crest Or Cul—de—sac Project under 711' Construction Nimbus Avenue Scholls Ferry Rd Cul—de—sac Res 81-105 1,161' North Dakota St 115th Avenue Tiedeman Street T/J Ord 83-43 3,780' North Dakota St Scholls Ferry Rd Plat boundary Ord 87-90 1,158' North Dakota St * Plat boundary 121st Avenue Project under 1,486' Construction Penn Court 115th Avenue Cul—de—sac Res 88-03 262' Ponderosa Place Black Diamond Way Cul—de—sac Res 80-69 114' Schollwood Court Hazelwood Loop Cul—de—sac Res 83-85 297' Springwood Drive 121st Avenue Plat boundary Res 83-85 1,727' Springwood Drive Plat boundary Scholls Ferry Road Res 83-84 794' Springwood Drive 121st Avenue Cul—de—sac Res 87-42 195' Street off 116th 116th Avenue Plat boundary Annex Ord 65-21 145' Summer Street 121st Avenue Summer Crest Drive T/J Ord 83-43 844' Summer Crest Or (co) 121st Avenue Plat boundary Annex Ord 65-26 448' Summer Crest Or (co) Plat boundary Plat boundary Annex Ord 65-26 631' Summer Crest Or (co) Plat boundary Cul-pie—sac Annex Ord 65-26 616' Summer Crest Or (co) Plat boundary Plat boundary Annex Ord 65-26 497' Summer Crest Or * North Dakota St Plat boundary Project under 115' Construction Summer Crest Or * Plat boundary Plat boundary Project under 333' Construction * Streets Not Accepted by Council ke/3674P SECTION 34 T2S, R1W (continued) ROAD JURISDICTION Revised: June 24, 1988 Street Street Street Name From To Acceptance Footage Summer Crest Drive Plat Boundary West of 121st T/J Ord 83-43 1,231' Summer Crest P1 Summer Crest Dr Cul-de-sac Annex Ord 65-26 214' Tiedeman Street Plat boundary DLC Line T/J Ord 78-82 360' Tiedeman Street DLC Line Plat boundary Ord 72-41 Tigard Drive Plat boundary Tigard Street Annex Ord 65-26 458' Tigard Drive Summer Crest Dr Plat boundary Annex Ord 65-26 506' Tigard Street 115th Avenue Tiedeman Street T/J Ord 83-43 4,096' Timothy Place 115th Avenue Cul-de-sac Res 80-79 193' Tony Court North Dakota St Cul-de-sac Project under 70' Construction Willowwood Court Cottonwood Ln Cul-de-sac Res 84-86 383' Windsor Court 106th Avenue Cul-de-sac Res 86-105 175' Windsor Court 106th Avenue Cul-de-sac Res 86-105 342' Woodlawn Court * 115th Avenue Cul-de-sac Dev. Maint. 252' 106th Avenue North Dakota St Plat boundary Res 80-04 530' 106th Avenue Plat boundary Cul-de-sac Res 86-105 377' 108th Avenue Black Diamond Way Plat boundary Res 80-69 504' 108th Avenue North Dakota St Plat boundary Annex BC 1817 472' 108th Court Black Diamond Way Cul-de-sac Res 80-69 138' 109th Avenue North Dakota St Cul-de-sac Res 85-42 530' 113th Place Katherine Street Plat boundary Res 81-120 1,020' (� 114th Place Tigard Street Cul-de-sac Res 84-32 500' 114th Place North Dakota St Cul-de-sac Annex BC 1817 503' 115th Avenue Tigard Street North Dakota Street T/J Ord 83-43 1,024' 115th Avenue Springwood Drive Plat boundary 1,357' 116th Avenue 50' N of Plat bon. 250' S of Plat bound. T/J Ord 81-06 246' 116th Avenue Tigard Drive Plat boundary Annex Ord 65-26 379' 116th Avenue Katherine Street Plat boundary Annex Ord 65-21 326' 118th Avenue Katherine Street 500' S of Katherine T/J Ord 81-06 500' 118th Avenue Springwood Drive Cul-de-sac Dev. Maint. 427' 119th Avenue Katherine Street 490' S of Katherine T/J Ord 81-06 490' - 119th Avenue Plat boundary North Dakota Street Annex Ord 67-4 458' 121st Avenue North Dakota St 1000' S of N Dakota T/J Ord 83-43 720' 121st Avenue Plat boundary Station 23-2029 Crigg Ord 72-41 1,180' 121st Avenue North Dakota St 122nd Avenue T/J Ord 78-82 695' 121st Avenue Burlheight Drive North Dakota St T/J Ord 78-82 250' 121st Avenue 122nd Avenue Scholls Ferry Drive Ord 72-41 1,290' 122nd Avenue 121st Avenue Plat boundary T/J Ord 78-82 850' 123rd Avenue * North Dakota St Cul-de-sac Project under 105' Construction 124th Avenue * North Dakota St Cul-de-sac Project under 105' Construction 125th Avenue * North Dakota St Cul-de-sac Project under 112' Construction * Streets Not Accepted by Council ke/3674P SECTION 35 T2S, R1W ROAD JURISDICTION Revised: June 24, 1988 Street Street Street Name From To Acceptance Footage Cascade Blvd. Greenburg Road Scholls Ferry Road T/J Ord 83-43 3,870' Center Street 95th Avenue 250' E of 95th Ave T/J Ord 81-06 260' i Center Street Greenburg Road Plat boundary Ord 72-41 410' Center Street Greenburg Road 87th Avenue Ord 72-41 460' Center Street Greenburg Road Plat Boundary 330' Private Electric/Tigard Sts Beginning of CR 767 DLC Line Ord 72-41 1,950' Gearhart Acres Sub * 95th Avenue Plat boundary Project under 160' construction Private Greenburg Road Cascade Blvd. Tiedeman Street T/J Ord 83-43 2,800' Greenburg Road Tiedeman Street 95th Avenue T/J Ord •83-43 1,745' Greenburg Road Pacific Hwy 95th Avenue T/J Ord 78-82 2,310' Jefferson Street Locust Street Plat boundary BC 2344 180' Katherine Street Tigard Street 880' W of Tigard St T/J Ord 81-06 880' Katherine Street Plat boundary Tiedeman Street 672' Lewis Lane 95th Avenue Cul-de-sac Ord 72-41 355' Lincoln Street Greenburg Road 720' S of Greenburg Rd T/J Ord 81-06 720' Lincoln Street Center Street 91st Avenue Ord 72-41 288' Lincoln Street Oak Way Street Locust Street BC 2344 665' Locust Street Hall Blvd. Greenburg Road T/J Res 87-113 2,712' Conditional C! Lomita Street 90th Avenue Cul-de-sac Within orig. 813 ` city limits London Court 98th Avenue Plat boundary Res 85-20 142` London Court Plat boundary Loop Res 85-39 550' Private Mapleleaf Street Lincoln Street Vacated Jackson St T/a Res 87-118 475' Mapleleaf Street Vacated Jackson St 90th Avenue BC 2344 225' Meadow Street Tiedeman Street Cul-de-sac Annex Ord 65-21 478' North Dakota Street Greenburg Road Hwy 217 2,771' North Dakota Street 115th Avenue Tiedeman T/J Ord 83-43 3,780' Oak Way Street Lincoln Street 90th Avenue BC 2344 705' Oak Way Street 87th Avenue Abandoned R/R Row FA BC 2344 480' Oak Way Street 90th Avenue Abandoned R/R Row FA BC 2344 150' Pfaffle Street Hall Blvd. 82nd Avenue T/J Res 87-118 1,065' Pine Street W Terminus Hall Blvd. BC 2344 200' Scott Court 98th Avenue Cul-de-sac Res 81-99 380' Shady Lane Greenburg Road Plat boundary T/J Ord 78-82 990' Spruce Street 89th Avenue Hall Blvd. BC 2344 475' Tangela Court 95th Avenue Cul-de-sac Res 80-38 260' !' Tangela Street 92nd Avenue Plat boundary Res 81-08 112' t Tiedeman Street DLC line End of CR 495 Ord 72-41 Tiedeman Street Tigard Street Greenburg Road T/J Res 86-46 Tiedeman Street Tigard Street 800' S of Tigard St T/J Ord 83-43 811' i Thorn Street 89th Avenue Plat boundary BC 2344 274' Streets Not Accepted by Council ke/3674P i i t I SECTION 35 T2S, R1W (continued) ROAD JURISDICTION Revised: June 24, 1988 Street Street Street Name From To Acceptance Footage Tigard Street Tiedeman Street 400' SE of Tiedeman St T/J Ord 83-43 400' Tigard Street Plat boundary 450' NW of Plat bound. T/J Ord 83-43 450' Tigard Street 115th Avenue Tiedeman Street T/J Ord 83-43 4,096' Tigard Street DLC Line Plat boundary T/J Ord 78-82 720' 87th Avenue Center Street Pacific Hwy Ord 72-41 220' 87th Avenue Locust Street Oak Street T/J Res 87-118 801' 89th Avenue Spruce Street S of Thorn Street BC 2344 504' 90th Avenue Greenburg Road North Dakota Street Ord 72-41 1,570' 90th Avenue Oak Street Locust Street T/J Res 87-118 1,120' 91st Avenue Greenburg Road 710' S of Greenburg Rd T/J Ord 81-06 710' 91st Avenue Greenburg Road Cul—de—sac Ord 72-41 653' 91st Court North Dakota St Cul—de—sac Within orig. 310' city limits 92nd Avenue Greenburg Road 870' N of Greenburg Rd T/J Ord 81-06 870' 92nd Avenue Greenburg Road Cul—de—sac Res 81-08 379' 92nd Avenue Locust Street Mapleleaf Street T/J Res 87-118 310' 93rd Avenue North Dakota St Plat boundary Res 82-09 351' 94th Avenue Greenburg Road 430' N of Greenburg Rd T/J Ord 81-06 430' 94th Avenue North Dakota St Plat boundary Res 82-10 259' 94th Avenue Plat boundary Plat boundary 134' 95th Avenue 100' N of N Dakota 500' S of N Dakota St T/J Ord 83-43 500' 95th Avenue Greenburg Road Lot 3 T/J Ord 72-41 370' 95th Avenue Hwy 27 Oak Street T/J Res 87-118 340' 98th Avenue Greenburg Road 1270' S of Greenburg T/J Ord 81-06 1,270' 98th Avenue Plat boundary Plat boundary Res 85-39 254' r i f f e t� K; gg: 6 CStreets Not Accepted by Council ke/3674P I f SECTION 36 T2S, R1W ROAD JURISDICTION Revised: June 24, 1988 I � Street Street Street Name From To Acceptance Footage Atlanta Street 70th Avenue I-5 790' Baylor Street 69th Avenue 66th Avenue T/J Res 86-46 780' Baylor Street 72nd Avenue 69th Avenue T/J Res 86-46 846' Clinton Street 69th Avenue 68th Avenue T/J Res 86-46 320' Clinton Street 68th Avenue 66th Avenue T/J Res 85-10 520' Clinton Street 72nd Avenue 69th Avenue 841' Duvall Street 70th Avenue Plat boundary Annex BC 1910 828' Garden Place Pacific Hwy 440' S of Pacific Hwy T/J Ord 78-82 440' Locust Street 72nd Avenue Plat boundary T/J Res 87-158 420' Mapleleaf Street 72nd Avenue 71st Avenue Annex BC 2413 440' Oak Street 67th Avenue 65th Avenue T/J 87-1.18 575' Oak Street 72nd Avenue 71st Avenue T/J Res 87-158 390' Oak Street 71st Avenue 69th Avenue T/J Res 87-158 930' Pfaffle Street Term CR 975 82nd Avenue T/J Ord 78-82 1,450' Pfaffle Street Hall Blvd. 82nd Avenue T/J Res 87-118 1,065' Pine Street 69th Avenue Cul—de—sac Annex BC 2344 781' Pine Street 72nd Avenue 71st Avenue T/J Res 87-158 390' Pine Street 71st Avenue 69th Avenue T/J Res 87-158 820' Spruce Street W of 78th Avenue 75th Avenue BC 2344 927' Spruce Street 75th Avenue 71st Avenue T/J Res 87-118 1,108' Steve Street 83rd Avenue Plat boundary T/J Res 87-118 162' Steve Street 83rd Avenue Plat boundary T/J Res 87-118 105' Thorn Street Steve Street 79th Avenue FA BC 2344 1,029' Thorn Street Plat boundary Plat boundary BC 2344 304' Warner Avenue Pacific Hwy 400' N of Pacific Hwy Ord 81-06 410' 66th Avenue S of Clinton Street Vacated Varns Street T/J Res 86-46 3,540' 66th Avenue Oak Street Plat boundary Annex BC 2344 197' 67th Avenue I-5 150' N of Hampton St T/J Res 86-46 660' 67th Avenue Oak Street Plat boundary Annex BC 2344 247' 67th Avenue Darthmouth Street N of Clinton Street 610' 68th Avenue Clinton Street Atlanta Stre,,t T/J Res 86-46 800' 68th Avenue Pacific Hwy 485' S of Pacific Hwy T/J Ord 78-83 485' 68th Parkway Plat boundary Haines Street FA Ord 87-65 1,381' 69th Avenue Clinton Street Hampton Street T/J Res 86-46 2,522' 69th Avenue Baylor Street Clinton Street- T/J Res 86-46 450' 69th Avenue Pacific Hwy Pine Street T/J 87-118 469' Intergov. Agrmt exp. 4/16/88 69th Avenue Oak Street Plat boundary Annex BC 2413 556' 69th Avenue Pine Street Oak Street T/J Res 87-158 500' 70th Avenue Oak Street Plat boundary Annex BC 2413 410' 70th Avenue Atlanta Street Section line 1,215' 71st Avenue Pacific Hwy Spruce Street T/J 87-118 470' 71st Avenue Oak Street Spruce Street T/J Res 87-158 1,040' 71st Avenue Oak Street Mapleleaf Street Annex BC 2413 176' 71st Place Locust Street Cul—de—sac Annex BC 2413 293 ' * Streets Not Accepted by Council ke/3674P r i • i SECTION 36 T2S, R1W (continued) ROAD JURISDICTION `. Revised: June 24, 1988 f Street Street Street Name From To Acceptance Footage 72nd Avenue 400' N of Baylor St Elmhurst Street T/J Res 86-46 2,339' 72nd Avenue Term CR 245 Pacific Plat boundary T/J Ord 78-82 11080' 74th Avenue Spruce Street Plat boundary BC 2344 450' 76th Place Spruce Street Plat boundary FA BC 2344 100' 78th Avenue Pfaffle Street Spruce Street Annex BC 1969 1,538' 79th Ave/Twin Oaks Ln Pacific Hwy Plat boundary Ord 81-06 922' E 79th Avenue Pfaffle Street Plat boundary T/J Res 87-118 1,008' 79th Avenue Pacific Hwy Plat boundary FA BC 1877 6604 ` 79th Avenue Plat boundary Plat boundary FA Ord 79-61 1,302' 81st Ave/Steve St Pfaffle Street W of 83rd Avenue T/J Res 87-118 1,746' 82nd Avenue Steve Street Cul-de-sac BC 2344 2841 ' 82nd Avenue Pfaffle Street Cul-de-sac T/J Res 87-118 800' 83rd Avenue Pfaffle Street Cul-de-sac T/J Res 87-118 1,251' 4 is 4.' i.: M: t: s' c k.i r �y. r �f C * Streets Not Accepted by Council ke/3674P €� i SECTION 1 T2S, R1W ROAD JURISDICTION Revised: June 24, 1988 E Street Street Street Name From To Acceptance Footage Beveland Street 72nd Avenue 70th Avenue 631' Beveland Street Cul—de—sac 72nd Avenue T/J Res 86-46 696' Cherry Drive 72nd Avenue 74th Avenue T/J Ord 81-06 330' Cherry Drive Varns Street 74th Avenue T/J Ord 74-31 1,722' Elmhurst Street 72nd Avenue Plat boundary 347' Elmhurst Street 70th Avenue 68th Avenue 300' Fir Loop Fir Loop Fir Loop Res 80-89 1,500' Fir Street 72nd Avenue Fir Loop Res 80-89 938' Fir Street Cherry Drive 76th Avenue T/J Ord 74-31 314' Franklin Street 70th Avenue 69th Avenue 220' Franklin Street 66th Avenue 69th Avenue T/J 86-46 810' Garden Place Pacific Hwy Garden Place T/7 Ord 78-82 440' Garden Place Hall Blvd. Garden Place Res 84—AB 910' Gonzaga Street 72nd Avenue 70th Avenue 645' Gonzaga Street 68th Avenue 67th Avenue 200' Hampton Street 72nd Avenue 69th Avenue 935' Hampton Street 69th Avenue 69th Avenue T/J Ord 81-06 750' Hermaso Way 72nd Avenue Beveland Street T/J Res 86-46 1,085' Hunziker Street Hall Blvd. CR 245 Res 72-41 2,290' Hunziker Street Hwy 217 CR RD 472 T/J Ord 74-31 1,500' Knoll Drive Hall Blvd. Hunziker Street T/J Ord 81-06 740' Tech Center Drive 72nd Avenue R/R Row Res 84-06 1,155' Varns Street 76th Avenue 72nd Avenue T/J Ord 74-31 906' Varns Street 76th Avenue Plat boundary T/J Ord 74-31 357' Varns Street 72nd Avenue Hwy 217 T/J Ord 74-31 580' 66th Avenue Franklin Street Vacated Varns Street T/J Ord 81-06 2,200' 66th Avenue 200' S Clinton St Varns Street T/J Res 86-46 3,540' 67th Avenue Gonzaga Street CR 1601 Term T/J Ord 78-82 450' Vacated Not shown 68th Avenue Gonzaga Street CR 1600 Term T/J Ord 78-82 450' - 68th Avenue Franklin Street Gonzaga Street T/J Res 86-46 460' 68th Parkway Hampton Street Vacated Irving Street T/J Ord 81-06 460' 68th Parkway Vacated Irving St 66th Avenue Res 83-01 1,027' 69th Avenue Clinton Street- Hampton Street T/J Res 86-46 2,522' 70th Avenue Hampton Street Plat boundary Res 82-77 465' 72nd Avenue Section line Term CR 245 T/J Ord 78-82 3,800' 72nd Avenue 300' N of Baylor St 400' S of Elmhurst St T/J Res 86-46 2,339' 72nd Avenue 50' N Beveland St 400' S of Elmhurst ST T/J Res 86-46 880' 72nd Avenue 250' N Beveland St 880' S of Beveland St T/J Res 86-46 880' 76th Avenue Varns Street Plat boundary T/J Ord 81-06 120' 76th Avenue Fir S'.rket Varns Street T/J Ord 74-31 467' Streets Not Accepted by Council ke/3674P SECTION 2 T2S, R1W ROAD JURISDICTION Revised: June 24, 1988 Street Street Street Name From To Acceptance Footage Ash Avenue Garrett Street Plat boundary Within orig. 1,110' city limits Ash Avenue Commercial Street Scoffins Street 537' Ash Avenue Burnham Street 270' S of Burnham St T/J Ord 81-06 270' Ash Avenue Hill Street 220' N of Hill Street T/J Ord 81-06 220' Ash Drive Ash Avenue Ash Avenue Ord 64-4 1,156' Ash Street Plat boundary Plat boundary 954' Barnum Drive Garrett Street Plat boundary T/J Ord 83-43 417' Barnum Drive Barnum Drive Cul—de—sac T/J Ord 83-43 130' Berea Drive Cresmer Drive Garrett Street Res 81-85 400' t Brookside Avenue Brookside Place Johnson Street T/J Ord 72-41 450' Brookside Avenue Walnut Street Plat boundary T/J Ord 81-06 450' r Brookside Court Brookside Avenue Cul—de—sac T/J Ord 81-06 220' Brookside Place Johnson Street Brookside Avenue T/J Ord 72-41 410' Burnham Court Hill Street Cul—de—sac Res 77-51 160' Burnham Street Main Street Hall Blvd. T/J Ord 72-41 2,060' Center Street Lincoln Street Pacific Hwy T/J Ord 72-41 410' Center Street Pacific Hwy Greenburg Road T/J Ord 72-41 540' Center Street- 95th Avenue Plat boundary T/J Ord 81-06 220' Commercial Street Main Street Hall Blvd. T/J Ord 72-41 1,445' Commercial Street 95th Avenue Main Street T/J Ord 72-41 1,310' F (� Cowels Court Ash Avenue Cul—de—sac Res 83-73 138' ` Cresmer Drive Plat boundary Garrett Street Ord 68-28 605' Cresmer Drive Ash Avenue Plat boundary Res 81-85 576' Edgewood Street Omara Street Omara Street T/J Ord 83-43 2,624' Electric Street PacifiE Hwy Main Street T/J Ord 72-41 170' Frewing Court Ash Drive Cul—de—sac Ord 64-4 156' Frewing Street Pacific Hwy Plat boundary T/J Ord 72-41 500' Frewing Street Ash Avenue Omara Street T/J Ord 83-43 620' Frewing Street Plat boundary Plat boundary T/J Ord 78-82 270' Frewing Street Plat boundary Plat boundary T/J Ord 78-82 270' Garrett Court Berea Drive Cul—de—sac Res 81-85 140' Garrett Street Plat boundary Pacific Hwy T/J Ord 72-41 430' Garrett Street Plat boundary Ash Avenue T/J Ord 83-43 1,100' : Grant Avenue Grant Court Plat boundary Res 84-40 120' ' Grant Court Grant Avenue Grant Avenue Res 84-40 501' Grant Street Johnson Street Tigard Street T/J Ord 72-41 1,060' Grant Street McKenzie Street Johnson Street T/J Ord 72--41 480' Grant Street Park Street Plat boundary T/J Ord 81-06 840' Hill Court Hill Street Cul—de—sac Res 77-51 175' l' Hill Street * Omara Street Plat boundary Dev. Maint. 940' r Hill Street * Cul—de—sac Hill Street Dev. Maint. 115' Hill Street Ash Avenue Plat boundary Res 77-51 630' Hill View Street Hill View Street Cul—de—sac Ord 80-26 110' Hill View Street 104th Avenue Ash Avenue Ord 80-28 415' Hill View Street 104th Avenue Ash Avenue Ord 81-100 533' Hillview Court Omara Street Cul—de—sac T/J Ord 83-43 340' f Streets Not Accepted by Council € ke/3674P SECTION 2 T2S, R1W (continued) ROAD JURISDICTION Revised: June 24, 1988 �. Street Street Street Name From To Acceptance Footage f; Johnson Court Johnson Street Cul-de-sac T/J Ord 81-06 180' i Johnson Street Johnson Court Plat boundary T/J Ord 72-41 210' Johnson Street N of Brookside Ave S of Brookside Ave T/J Ord 72-41 230' ' Johnson Street S of Brookside Ave Pacific Hwy T/J Ord 72-41 1,320' '; Johnson Street Plat boundary Plat boundary T/J Ord 81-06 300' ; 0' Karol Court Katherine Street Cul-de-sac 28 Lake Street Village Glenn Dr Plat boundary Ord 66-26 168' Lincoln Street Commercial Street 91st Avenue T/J Ord 72-41 780' f' Main Street Scoffins Street Pacific Hwy Res 79-41 510' Main Street Pacific Hwy N of Scoffins Street Ord 69-2 11910` rR McKenzie Place Pacific Hwy Plat boundary T/J Ord 81-06 660' I:'s McKenzie Street Grant Street Pacific Hwy T/J Ord 83-43 3,976' McDonald Street all Blvd. Omara Street T/J Ord 74-31 850' Park Street Watkins Street Pacific Hwy Pathfinder Court * Walnut Street Cul-de-sac Project Oelinq• g42' School Street Grant Street Terminus Public ROW : Main Street T/J Ord 72-41 1,410' Scoffins Streets Hall Blvd. Res 81-85 170' Steven Court Cresmer Drive Cul-de-sac T/J Ord 72-41 1,950' Tigard Street Katherine Street Pacific Hwy Tigard Street Pacific Hwy Electric Street T/J Ord 72-41 180' E' Village Glen Circle Village Glenn Dr Cul-de-sac Ord 66-26 162' Village Glenn Court Village Glenn Dr Cul-de-sac Ord 66-26 201' Village Glenn Drive Frewing Street Ash Street Ord 66-26 1,225' Walnut Place Pacific Hwy Plat boundary 530' Walnut Street Section line Pacific Hwy T/J Ord 72-41 1,950' Watkins Street Walnut Street Term CR 1679 T/J Ord 72-41 1, 56' 4 T/J Ord $3-43 4 87th Court McDonald Street C 56' Cul-de-sac ii 92nd Avenue Center Street Cul-de-sac T/J Ord 72-41 245' F: 95th Avenue Commercial Street Plat boundary T/J Ord 72-41 1,530' i 102nd Avenue McDonald Street Hillview Street TO Ord 83-43 350' i i 5 1 F E r4. 1 Streets Not Accepted by Council ke/3674P ' t SECTION 3 T2S, R1W ROAD JURISDICTION I Revised: June 24, 1988 I Street Street Street Name From To Acceptance Footage Ann Court 124th Avenue Cul—de—sac FA Res 83-49 420' Ann Place 121st Avenue Cul—de—sac FA Res 85-19 330' Ann Street Plat boundary 116th Avenue 11000` Ann Street 121st Avenue 250' E of 121st Ave T/J Res 83-43 230' Arbre Court * Genesis Loop Cul—de—sac Project Delinq. 96', S'76, Brook Court 124th Avenue Cul—de—sac 190' Clydesdale Court 106th Drive Cul—de—sac FA Res 77-100 125' Clydesdale Place 106th Drive Cul—de—sac FA Res 77-100 400' Derry Dell Court Watkins Street- Park Street T/J Ord 74-31 1,310' Eden Court Genesis Lop Cul—de—sac Project Delinq. 399' /x'" Erste Place Genesis Loop Cul—de—sac Project -Delinq. 206' i:" Fairhaven Street Plat boundary Watkins Street T/J Ord 81-06 1,390' Fairhaven Way 110th Avenue Fairhaven Street T/J Ord 81-06 1,135' C Fairview Court Fairview Lane Cul—de—sac FA Res 74-6 300' Fairview Lane Plat boundary 115th Avenue FA Res 74-6 540' Fairview Lane Plat boundary Cul—de—sac FA Res 79-48 440' Fairview Street Plat boundary Cul-de—sac FA Res 80-88 73' Gaarde Street Pacific Hwy CO Road T/J Ord 74-31 1,250' Garden Park Place * 110th Avenue Plat boundary Dev. Maint. 305' Garden Park Place 110th Avenue Plat boundary FA Res 86-107 953' Genesis Loop 115th Avenue Plat boundary Project Delinq. 2,008' 197' / Genesis Loop 115th Avenue Plat boundary FA Res 82-94 460' t Karen Street 125th Avenue Section boundary FA Res 76-35 120' Katherine Street 125th Avenue 123rd Avenue FA Res 76-35 555' Katherine Street Plat boundary 121st Avenue FA Res 85-19 540' Lynn Street 121st Avenue 119th Avenue T/J Ord 83-43 290' Lynn Street 119th Avenue 116th Auenue T/J Ord 72-41 610' i Mira Court 110th Avenue Cul—de—sac 452' Morgen Court * Genesis Loop Cul—de—sac Project Delinq. 478' 9' Nova Court Genesis Loop Cul—de—sac FA Res 82-94 103' Nova Court * Genesis Loop Cul—de—sac Project Delinq. 103' Novare Place * Genesis Loop Cul—de—sac Project Delinq. 412' S Pathfinder Way Cul—de—sac Plat boundary FA Res 76-12 800' Pathfinder Way Plat boundary Cul—de—sac Project Delinq. 274' Pathfinder way Plat boundary Cul—de—sac FA Res 80-31 125' Quelle Place Genesis Loop Cul—de—sac Project Delinq. 235' Sonne Court * Genesis Loop Cul—de—sac Project Delinq. 148' Terrace Trails Drive 115th Avenue Cul—de—sac FA Res 79-48 1,540' Tiedeman Street Plat boundary Plat boundary T/J Ord 72-41 630' Tiedeman Street CO Road boundary Plat boundary T/J Res 78-82 440' Venus Court Genesis Loop Cul—de—sac FA Res 82-94 118' Viewmont Court 114th Avenue Cul—de—sac FA Res 75-24 550' i Viewmont Lane 115th Avenue 114th Avenue FA Res 75-24 280' Watkins Place Watkins Avenue Plat boundary FA Res 82-122 250' Watkins Street Pacific Hwy Watkins Place T/J Ord 74-31 2,050' * Streets Not Accepted by Council ke/3674P SECTION 3 T2S, R1W ROAD JURISDICTION Revised: June 24, 1988 Street Street Street Name From To Acceptance Footage 104th Court Pathfinder Way Cul—de—sac FA Res 76-12 1,097' 104th Court 104th Avenue Cul—de—sac FA Res 76-12 77' 106th Drive Plat boundary Fonner Street FA Res 77-100 500' 107th Avenue Park Street Cook Lane 300' 107th Court Pathfinder Way Fonner Street FA Res 76-12 110' 110th Avenue Plat boundary Park Street 630' 110th Avenue N of Fairhaven St S of Fairhaven Way T/J Ord 81-06 520' 111th Place Fonner Street Fonner Street FA Res 80-30 680' 113th Court Fairhaven Street Cul—de—sac T/J Ord 72-41 140' 114th Avenue Plat boundary Fairhaven Street T/J Ord 72-41 240' 114th Avenue Viewmont Lane Plat boundary FA Res 75-24 635' 115th Avenue Gaarde Street Genesis Loop T/J Ord 72-41 2, 130' 116th Avenue Fairview Lane Cul—de—sac FA Res 74-6 250' 118th Avenue Katherine Street Plat boundary T/J Ord 81-06 500' 118th Avenue Lynn Street Plat boundary T/J Ord 72-41 110' 118th Court Gaarde Street Cul—de—sac FA Res 80-86 639' 119th Avenue Lynn Street Plat boundary T/J Ord 83-43 110' 119th Avenue Katherine Street Plat boundary T/J Ord 81-06 490' 121st Avenue Station 2 + 20. 17 Station 11 + 40.31 FA Ord 79-81 930' 122nd Avenue Walnut Street Plat boundary FA Res 78-106 380' 122nd Court Katherine Street Cul—de—sac FA Res 85-19 390' C 123rd Avenue Walnut Street Plat boundary FA Res 78-106 310' 123rd Court Katherine Street Cul—de—sac FA Res 85-19 330' 124th Avenue Walnut Street Ann Court 1,300' 124th Avenue Ann Court Katherine Street FA Res 76-35 485' 125th Avenue Karen Street Katherine Street FA Res 76-35 525' * Streets Not Accepted by Council ke/3674P SECTION 4 T2S, R1W ROAD JURISDICTION Revised: June 24, 1988 Street Street Street Name From To Acceptance Footage Bell Court 127th Avenue Cul-de-sac FA Res 86-40 480' Benchview Court Benchview Terrace Cul-de-sac Project under 240' construction Private Benchview Terrace * Plat boundary 132nd Avenue Project under 1,071' construction Benish Street * Morning Hill Drive 131st Avenue Project under 404' construction Chimney Ridge Court Cul-de-sac Morning Hill Drive FA Res 79-61 219' Chimney Ridge Street Morning Hill Drive Plat boundary FA Res 79-61 70' Chimney Ridge Street Plat boundary 131st Avenue Project delinq. 385' / IE; Clearview Court Clearview Loop Cul-de-sac Project under 160' construction Private Clearview Loop * Benchview Terrace Benchview Terrace Project under 1,104' construction Private Crist Court * Wilton Avenue Cul-de-sac Project on Dev. 182' maintenance Hindon Court * Wilton Avenue Cul-de-sac Project on Dev. 154' maintenance Karen Street 127th Avenue Section line FA Res 86-40 219' Katherine Street Morning Hill Drive Plat boundary FA Res 79-61 77' Katherine Street Plat boundary 128th Avenue FA Res 80-80 448' Katherine Street Plat boundary Plat boundary Project delinq. 548' /E'T Katherine Street 128th Avenue Cul-de-sac FA Res 76-89 755' Marie Court 128th Avenue Cul-de-sac FA Res 86-40 220' Morning Hill Drive * Morning Hill Drive Plat boundary Project delinq. 380' Private Morning Hill Drive * Plat boundary Plat boundary Project under 541' construction Morning Hill Drive * ?lat boundary Plat boundary Project delinq. 165' /ee Morning Hill Drive 135th Avenue N of Scotts Bridge Dr FA Res 79-61 1,266' Scotts Bridge Drive Cul-de-sac Morning Hill Drive Project delinq. 435' �� Toland Street Morning Hill Drive Plat boundary Project under 119' construction Westbury Terrace Wilton Avenue Morning Hill Drive Project on Dev. 705' maintenance Wills Place 127th Avenue Cul-de-sac FA Res 76-89 335' Wilton Avenue Murray Blvd. Ashbury Lane Project on Dev. 1,398' (proposed) maintenance 126th Avenue Karen Street Cul-de-sac FA Res 86-40 290' 127th Avenue S of Wills Place Katherine Street FA Res 76-89 475' 127th Avenue 128th Avenue Plat boundary FA Res 86-40 940' 128th Avenue Plat boundary Katherine Street FA Res 80-80 1,150' 128th Avenue S of Katherine St Section boundary FA Res 76-89 250' 128th Avenue Walnut Street Plat boundary FA Res 86-40 720' * Streets Not Accepted by Council ke/3674P SECTION 4 T2S, R1W (continued) I. ROAD JURISDICTION j. �^ Revised: June 24, 1988 Street Street Street Name From To Acceptance Footage E< 11 1131st Avenue * Katherine Street Plat boundary Project delinq. 6401 131st Avenue * Plat boundary Plat boundary Project under 444 construction 132nd Avenue * Plat boundary Plat boundary Project under 153' construction t 132nd Court * Benish Street Cul-pie—sac Project under 259' construction c 135th Avenue Walnut Street Scholls Ferry Road T/J res 86-46 4,369' t i e G. t C. k` fl. L' is �i L� * Streets Not Accepted by Council ke/3674P SECTION 10 T2S, R1W ROAD JURISDICTION Revised: June 24, 1988 Street Street Street Name From To Acceptance Footage Canterbury Lane Pacific Hwy Plat boundary 975' Canterbury Lane Plat boundary Section line FA Res 76-88 335' Century Drive Section line Cul-de-sac FA Res 81-25 410' Cloud Court McFarland Blvd. Cul-de-sac FA Res 80-53 375' Corylus Court Hazelhill Drive Cul-de-sac FA Res 80-120 222' Del Monte Drive Cul-de-sac Section line FA Res 76-88 105' Duchilly Court Hazelhill Drive Cul-de-sac FA Res 80-120 452' Durham Road Pacific Hwy Serena Way T/J Res 87-13 4,400' Gaarde Street 112th Avenue Pacific Hwy T/J Ord 74-31 1,250' Greenleaf Terrace Cul-de-sac Greenleaf Terrace FA Res 81-29 184' Greenleaf Terrace Greenleaf Terrace Summerfield Drive FA Res 81-29 159' Greens Way Summerfield Drive Section line FA Res 81-25 142' Hazelhill Drive Hazeltree Terrace Plat boundary FA Res 80-120 719' Hazeltree Terrace Bull Mountain Rd Hazelhill Drive FA Res 80-120 534' Highland Court Summerfield Drive Plat boundary FA Res 81-44 716' Highland Drive Plat boundary Section line FA Res 81-28 612' Highland Drive Plat boundary Plat boundary FA Res 81-121 335' Highland Drive Highland Drive Plat boundary FA Res 81-121 102' (cul-de-sac) Highland Drive Summerfield Drive Plat boundary FA Res 81-44 418' McDonald Street Pacific Hwy Section line T/J Ord 72-41 500' ( . McFarland Blvd. Wildwood Street Plat boundary FA Res 87-156 277` McFarland Blvd. Plat boundary Bull Mountain Rd FA Res 80-53 1,442` Murdock Street 109th Avenue Plat boundary FA Res 78-71 515' Murdock Street Plat boundary Section line FA Res 76-88 330` Naeve Street Pacific Hwy 109th Avenue T/J Res 86-46 1,375' Old Orchard Place Summerfield Drive Plat boundary FA Res 81-27 295' Summerfield Drive Durham Road 98th Avenue FA Res 81-45 4,914' Vista View Court Wildwood Street Cul-de-sac FA Res 87-158 104' Wildwood Street Plat boundary McFarland Blvd. FA Res 80-53 805' Wildwood Street- Wildwood Street Cul-de-sac FA Res 80-53 155' Wildwood Street McFarland Blvd. Plat boundary FA Res 87-158 784' Willowbrook Drive 109th Avenue Plat boundary FA Res 81-101 100' 105th Avenue McDonald Street Cul-de-sac T/J Ord 81-06 290' 106th Avenue Canterbury Lane Murdock Street FA Res 76-88 450' 106th Avenue Murdock Street Del MOnte Drive FA Res 76-88 450' 109th Avenue Highland Drive Plat boundary FA Res 81-44 237' 109th Avenue Naeve Street Plat boundary T/J Res 86-46 1,200' 109th Avenue Plat boundary Canterbury Lane FA Res 78-71 805' 109th Avenue Plat boundary Plat boundary FA Res 81-63 150' 112th Avenue Pacific Hwy Plat boundary 1,060' 112th Avenue Plat boundary Gaarde Street 340' 114th Court Summerfield Drive Cul-de-sac FA Res 87-58 304' * Streets Not Accepted by Council ke/3674P SECTION 11 T2S, R1W ROAD JURISDICTION Revised: June 24, 1988 Street Street Street Name From To Acceptance Footage Alderbrook Circle Alderbrook Drive Alderbrook Drive FA Res 85-40 1,170' Alderbrook Court Alderbrook Drive Plat boundary FA Res 81-113 291' Alderbrook Drive Plat boundary Sattler Street FA Res 85-40 460` Alderbrook Place Alderbrook Drive Plat boundary FA Res 81-113 291' Avon Court 88th Avenue Cul-de-sac FA Res 83-80 316' Avon Street 87th Avenue Hall Blvd. FA Res 87-60 630' Brentwood Court Brentwood Place Cul-de-sac FA Res 80-114 351' Brentwood Place Cul-de-sac Alderbrook Drive FA Res 80-114 832' Canterbury Lane Section line. 103rd Avenue 540' Century Oak Drive Section line Summerfield Drive FA Res 81-25 1,755' Century Oak Drive Century Oak Drive Plat boundary FA Res 8.1-25 167' (cul-de-sac) Century Oak Drive Century Oak Drive Plat boundary FA Res 81-25 167' (cul-de-sac) Darmel Court 96th Avenue Cul-de-sac T/J Ord 83-43 239` Dawn Court Cul-de-sac 92nd Avenue FA Res 81-81 114' Del Monte Drive Section line 103rd Avenue T/J Ord 83-43 177' Durham Road Pacific Hwy Serena Way T/J Res 87-13 4,400' Inter. Gov. Durham Road Pacific Hwy Serena Court T/J Res 87-13 4,400' Durham Road Serena Lane Hall Blvd. T/J Res 86-47 3,785' Elrose Street Plat boundary 97th Avenue FA Res 82-84 331' Elrose Street 98th Avenue Plat boundary FA Res 83-92 101' Greenleaf Court Greens Way Cul-de-sac FA Res 81-29 169' Greenleaf Terrace Greenleaf Terrace Greens Way FA Res 81-29 11190' Greens Way Plat boundary Summerfield Drive FA Res 81-29 207' Greens Way Section line Summerfield Drive FA Res 81-26 858' Greens Way Highland Drive Plat boundary FA Res 81-28 293' Greensward Lane Plat boundary Hall Blvd. FA Res 80-52 502' Hamlet Avenue 88th Avenue Plat boundary FA Res 83-30 578' Hamlet Court Hamlet Street Cul-de-sac FA Res 87-91 332' Hamlet Street Plat boundary Hall Blvd. FA Res 87-91 933' Heidi Court 92nd Avenue Cul-de-sac FA Res 81-81 92' Highland Drive Section line 100th Avenue FA Res 81-28 1,278' Hood View Drive Section line Plat boundary FA BC 1819 600' Hoodview Drive Kable Street Plat boundary T/J Ord 83-43 667' Inez Street Plat boundary Plat boundary FA Ord 67-20 380' Inez Street Plat boundary Cul-de-sac Project under 280' construction Inez Street Plat boundary Plat boundary FA Res 79-11 630' Inez Street Plat boundary 86th Avenue FA Res 80-52 410' Janzen Court Cul-de-sac 98th Avenue FA Res 83-92 191' Kable Street Section line Plat boundary FA BC 1819/1718 863' Kable Street 100th Avenue Plat boundary T/J Ord 83-43 436' Kable Street 100th Avenue Plat boundary FA Res 87-106 335' Kimberly Drive Plat boundary 98th Avenue FA Res 85-26 166' Kimberly Drive Serena Court 98th Avenue FA Res 80-93 522' * Streets Not Accepted by Council ke/3674P SECTION 11 T2S, R1W (continued) ROAD JURISDICTION Revised: June 24, 1988 Street Street Street Name From To Acceptance Footage Lakeside Drive 98th Avenue Alderbrook Drive FA Res 80-117 1,059' Lakeside Drive Lakeside Drive Plat boundary FA Res 80-117 80' Leslie Court 92nd Avenue Cul—de—sac FA Res 81-81 108' Marilyn Court 96th Avenue Cul—de—sac T/J Ord 83-43 239' McDonald Street Hall Blvd. Pacific Hwy T/J Ord 83-43 4,977' Miller Court Hamlet Street Cul—de—sac FA Res 87-91 137' Mountain View Lane Plat boundary 93rd Avenue 336' Mountain View Lane 93rd Avenue Plat boundary 503' Murdock Street 97th Avenue 98th Avenue T/J Ord 83-43 275' Murdock Street Plat boundary Plat boundary T/J Ord 83-43 469' Naeve Street Pacific Hwy 109th Avenue T/J Res 86-46 1,375' Oak Meadow Lane Oak Meadow lane Plat boundary FA Res 80-116 138' (cul—de—sac) Oak Meadow Lane Oak Meadow Lane Plat boundary FA Res 80-116 80' (cul—de—sac) Oak Meadow Lane Alderbrook Drive Alderbrook Circle FA Res 80-116 1,067' Oakhill Lane Alderbrook Circle Plat boundary FA Res 80-116 100' (cul—de—sac) Oakhill Lane Plat boundary Alderbrook Circle FA Res 85-40 92' Oakhill Lane Alderbrook Drive Plat boundary FA Res 80-115 685' Oaktree Lane Plat boundary Alderbrook Circle FA Res 85-40 110' Oaktree Lane Alderbrook Drive Plat boundary FA Res 80-115 665' Pembrook Street 100th Avenue Plat boundary FA BC 1505 545' Pinebrook Court 89th Avenue Cul—de—sac T/J Ord 72-41 250' Pinebrook Street 92nd Avenue Hall Blvd. T/J Ord 72-41 1,750' Reiling Street * Plat boundary 91st Avenue Project under 114' construction Reiling Street * 91st Avenue Plat boundary Project under 240' construction Reiling Street 92nd Avenue Plat boundary FA Res 81-81 119` Reiling Street Plat boundary Cul—de—sac FA Res 83-97 720' Reiling Street 88th Avenue Cul—de—sac FA Res 83-97 576' Sattler Street 100th Avenue Hall Blvd. T/J Res 86-46 1,960' Scheckla Drive Reiling Street 89th Court FA Res 83-97 707' Serena Court Durham Road Cul—de—sac FA Res 80-93 736' Stratford Court 87th Avenue Cul—de—sac FA Res 87-60 325' Stratford Loop 88th Avenue 88th Avenue FA Res 83-80 1,060' Summerfield Court Alderbrook Drive Plat boundary FA Res 85-40 196' Summerfield Drive Durham Road 98th Avenue FA Res 81-45 4,914' Summerfield Drive 98th Avenue Alderbrook Drive FA Res 81-113 881' Summerfield Lane Summerfield Drive Alderbrook Drive FA Res 81-113 488' Summerfield Lane Summerfield Drive Alderbrook Drive FA Res 81-113 505' View Court View Terrace Ave Cul—de—sac T/J Ord 83-43 137' View Terrace Plat boundary 92nd Avenue FA Ord 67-20 250' View Terrace Avenue 103rd Avenue Cul—de—sac T/J Ord 83-43 338' View Terrace Avenue 100th Avenue Plat boundary T/J Ord 83-43 550' View Terrace Avenue Plat boundary Plat boundary FA Res 79-11 595' View Terrace Avenue Cul—de—sac 103rd Avenue FA R-.)s 82-07 416' * Streets Not Accepted by Council ke/3674P SECTION 11 T2S, R1W (continued) ROAD JURISDICTION Revised: June 24, 1988 Street Street Street Name From To Acceptance Footage Westlund Court * 91st Avenue Cul-de-sac Project under 142' construction 86th Avenue Inez Street Greensward Lane FA Res 80-52 393' 87th Avenue Pinebrook Street Cul-de-sac T/J Ord 72-41 220' 87th Avenue Hamlet Street Plat boundary FA Res 87-91 410' 87th Avenue Plat boundary Durham Road FA Res 87-60 505' 87th Court Inez Street Cul-de-sac FA Res 80-52 185' 88th Avenue Durham Road Plat boundary FA Res 83-80 1,231' 88th Avenue Pinebrook Street Cul-de-sac T/J Ord 72-41 310' 88th Avenue Sattler Street Plat boundary FA Res 83-97 525' 89th Avenue Pinebrook Street Plat boundary T/J Ord •72-41 420' 89th Avenue Plat boundary Pinebrook Street T/J Ord 72-41 100' 89th Avenue Cul-de-sac Reiling Street FA Res 83-97 522' 89th Court Cul-de-sac Scheckla Drive FA Res 83-97 200' 91st Avenue Sattler Street Cul-de-sac Project under 986' construction 91st Avenue Pinebrook Street Cul-de-sac T/J Ord 72-41 310' 92nd Avenue View Terrace Inez Street FA Ord 67-20 190' 92nd Avenue Plat boundary Inez Street T/J Ord 72-41 680' 92nd Avenue Sattler Street Plat boundary FA Res 81-81 1,100' 93rd Avenue Inez Street Plat boundary FA Res 79-11 475' 94th Avenue Lakeside Drive Plat boundary FA Res 80-117 285' 94th Avenue Cul-de-sac View Terrace Ave FA Res 79-11 110' 96th Avenue Plat boundary Murdock Street T/J Ord 83-43 331' 96th Avenue Sattler Street N of Darmel Court T/J Ord 83-43 522' 97th Avenue Murdock Street McDonald Street T/J Ord 83-43 1,979' 97th Place Elrose Street Cul-de-sac FA Res 82-84 235' 98th Avenue Elrose Street McDonald Street FA Res 83-92 383' 98th Court Cul-de-sac Elrose Street FA Res 83-92 281' 100th Avenue Murdock Street McDonald Street T/J Res 86-46 2,167' 100th Avenue Sattler Street Murdock Street T/J Ord 83-43 1,049' 102nd Avenue Highland Drive Plat boundary FA Res 81-28 145' (cul-de-sac) 103rd Avenue Kable Street Plat boundary FA BC 1718 136' 103rd Avenue Highland Drive Plat boundary FA Res 81-28 155' (cul-de-sac) 103rd Avenue Highland Drive Plat boundary FA Res 81-28 282' (cul-de-sac) 103rd Avenue Del Monte Drive Murdock Street T/J Ord 83-43 666' 103rd Avenue McDonald Street Driftwood Lane T/J Ord 72-41 282' 104th Avenue Highland Drive Plat boundary FA Res 81-28 155' 104th Avenue Durham Road Century Oak Drive FA Res 81-25 232' 104th Avenue Murdock Street Del Monte Drive T/J Ord 83-43 430' (cul-de-sac) 105th Avenue Highland Drive Plat boundary FA Res 81-28 155' i (cul-de--sac) 109th Avenue Plat boundary Plat boundary 265' 109th Avenue Plat boundary Naeve Street 105' Streets Not Accepted by Council ke/3674P 3 SECTION 12 T2S, R1W ROAD JURISDICTION Revised: June 24, 1988 Street Street Street Name From To Acceptance Footage Bond Street 81st Court Plat boundary Dev. Maint. 211' Bond Street Plat boundary Plat boundary FA Res 88-15 237' Bond Street 70th Avenue 79th Avenue FA Res 85-66 608' Bond Street Plat boundary 79th Avenue FA Res 88-14 323' Bonita Road 72nd Avenue Section line T/J Ord 78-82 1,270' Bonita Road Hall Blvd. 76th Avenue T/J Ord 83-43 2,270' Bonita Road 76th Avenue 72nd Avenue T/J Ord 78-82 1,670' Churchill Court Cul-de-sac Plat boundary FA Res 88-15 489' Churchill Way Plat boundary 79th Avenue FA Res 88-14 333' Colony Creek Court Cul-de-sac Cul-de-sac FA Res 87-79 702' Fanno Creek Court * Fanno Creek Drive Plat boundary Project under 354' construction Fanno Creek Court * Cul-pie-sac Plat boundary Project under 127' construction Fanno Creek Drive Bonita Road Plat boundary FA Res 84-23 789' Fanno Creek Drive * Plat boundary Cul-de-sac Project under 999' construction Fanno Creek Drive Colony Creek Ct Plat boundary FA Res 87-79 96' Fanno Creek Drive Colony Creek Ct Plat boundary FA Res 87-79 96' Fanno Creek Drive Plat boundary Plat boundary FA Res 83-23 340' Fanno Creek Loop * Plat boundary Fanno Creek Drive Project under 180' C construction Fanno Creek Loop * Plat boundary Cul-de-sac Project under 548' construction Fanno Creek Place * Fanno Creek Drive Cul-de-sac Project under 281' construction Gentlewoods Drive 79th Avenue Plat boundary FA Res 86-15 734' Gentlewoods Drive Gentlewoods Drive Cul-de-sac FA Res 86-15 173' Kable Street Cul-de-sac 72nd Avenue FA Res 81-119 450' Kroese Loop 80th Place Plat boundary FA Res 83-23 102' LaMancha Court 83rd Avenue Cul-de-sac FA Res 84-35 700' Landmark Lane Cul-de-sac 72nd Avenue Mara Court * 79th Avenue Cul-de-sac Project under 197' construction Murdock Street Hall Blvd. 83rd Avenue FA Res 83-31 455' Ross Street Hall Blvd. 81st Avenue T/J Res 86-46 910' Weaver Way Fanno Creek Drive Plat boundary 1110' 72nd Avenue Section line Section line T/J Ord 78-82 5,320' 74th Avenue Bonita Road Durham Road T/J Res 86-46 4,628' 76th Avenue Bonita Road Durham Road T/J Res 86-46 4,173' 79th Avenue * Bonita Road Plat boundary Project under 257' construction 79th Avenue Bonita Road Durham Road T/J Res 86-46 3,930' 80th Avenue Bond Street Churchill Court FA Res 88-15 645' 80th Place Fanno Creek Dr Cul-de-sac FA Res 83-23 (� 81st Avenue Plat boundary Bonita Road T/J Res 86-46 1,945' ` * Streets Not Accepted by Council ke/3674P SECTION 12 T2S, R1W (continued) ROAD JURISDICTION Revised: June 24, 1988 Street Street Street Name From _ To Acceptance Footage 81st Court Bond Street Cul-de-sac Dev. Maint. 275' 83rd Avenue Plat boundary Cul-de-sac FA Res 83-31 462' 83rd Avenue Plat boundary Plat boundary FA Res 84-35 260' 83rd Court Bonita Road Cul-de-sac Dev. Maint. 288' 84th Court Murdock Street Cul-de-sac FA Res 83-31 342' i t F S: p`G} F 6 Streets Not Accepted by Council ke/3674P �t tit SECTION 13 T2S, R1W ROAD JURISDICTION Revised: June 24, 1988 Street Street Street Name From To Acceptance Footage Durham Road Upper Boones Fry Rd Plat boundary FA Res 87-59 650' Fanno Creek Place 74th Avenue Upper Boones Ferry Rd T/J Res 86-46 550' Upper Boones Ferry Rd 72nd Avenue Fanno Creek Place T/J Res 86-46 721' Upper Boones Ferry Rd Durham Road Fanno Creek Place T/J Ord 78-82 430' 72nd Avenue Plat boundary Section line T/J Ord 78-82 2,720' 74th Avenue Bonita Road Durham Road T/J Res 86-46 4,628' 76th Avenue Bonita Road Durham Road T/J Res 86-46 4,173' t �e Streets Not Accepted by Council ke/3674P SECTION 14 T2S, R1W ROAD JURISDICTION Revised: June 24, 1988 Street Street Street Name From To Acceptance Footage Cook Court Serena Court Cul-de-sac FA Res 82-06 195' Copper Creek Drive Plat boundary Cul-de-sac FA Res 85-90 1,070' Copper Creek Drive Riverwood Lane Plat boundary FA Res 87-56 842' Durham Road Pacific Hwy Serena Court T/J Res 87-13 4,400' Durham Road Serena Court Hall Blvd. T/J Res 86-47 3,785' Greenland Drive Riverwood Lane Plat boundary FA Res 84-22 314' Greenland Drive Plat boundary Serena Way FA Res 86-16 367' Grimson Court Serena Way Cul-de-sac FA Res 86-16 305' Julia Place Cul-de-sac 93rd Avenue FA Res 83-40 325' Kent Court Greenland Drive Cul-de-sac FA Res 86-16 353' Kent Place Cul-de-sac Greenland Drive FA Res 84-22 394' Keri Court * 104th Avenue Cul-de-sac Project under 194' construction Martha Street Plat boundary 93rd Avenue FA Res 83-40 416' Martha Street 93rd Avenue 92nd Avenue FA Res 83-40 367' Meadowood Way Woodcrest Avenue Woodcrest Avenue FA Res 85-58 562' Millen Drive Millen Drive Cul-de-sac FA Res 81-123 100' Millen Drive Plat boundary 93rd Avenue FA Res 81-123 581' Millen Drive 93rd Avenue 92nd Avenue FA Res 81-123 341' Millen Drive Copper Creek Drive Plat boundary FA Res 87-56 226' Picks Court Plat boundary Serena Way FA Res 84-22 99' Picks Court Serena Way Cul-de-sac FA Res 84-22 185' \ Picks Way 104th Avenue Plat boundary Project under 293' construction Riverwood Drive Plat boundary Plat boundary FA Res 87-56 459' Riverwood Lane Plat boundary Plat boundary FA Res 85-58 496' Riverwood Lane Plat boundary Greenland Drive FA Res 84-22 376' Riverwood Lane Greenland Drive Plat boundary FA Res 86-16 449' Serena Court Serena Way Durham Road FA Res 86-16 181' Serena Way Greenland Drive Plat boundary FA Res 84-22 998' Serena Way Plat boundary Greenland Drive FA Res 86-16 1,400' Sylvan Court Cul-de-sac Serena Way FA Res 84-22 234' Woodcrest Avenue Serena Way Riverwood Lane FA Res 85-58 1,112' 92nd Avenue Cul-de-sac Durham Road T/J Ord 78-82 2,680' 93rd Avenue * Plat boundary Cul-de-sac Project under 50' construction 93rd Avenue Plat boundary Plat boundary FA Res 81-123 773' 93rd Avenue Plat boundary Cul-de-sac FA Res 83-40 701' 104th Avenue # 104th Avenue Cul-de-sac Project under 85' construction 104th Avenue * Plat boundary Durham Road Project under 1,204' construction Streets Not Accepted by Council ke/3674P SECTION 15 T2S, R1W ROAD JURISDICTION Revised: June 24, 1988 Street Street Street Name From To Acceptance Footage Dover Court * 108th Avenue Cul-de-sac Project under 247' construction Durham Road Pacific Hwy Serena Court T/J Res 87-13 4,400' Kent Street * 108th Avenue Plat boundary Dev. Maint. 674' River Drive * Tualatin Drive Tualatin Drive Project under 742' construction Tualatin Drive * Plat boundary River Drive Project under 1,148' construction 108th Avenue Durham Road Tualatin Drive T/J Res 86-46 1,900' C� # Streets Not: Accepted by Council ke/3674P f. ee P/ar EO, L7= Za 2)0 /04� -71 Zli 10447 ACA-0 �EtJi5�0�5 Tb j 4D �1c'C 14 r C` TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMM PRIORITIES Recommendations prepared by the Transportation Advisory Committee on June 16, 1988, and presented to the City Council on June 27, 1988 CUMULATIVE PRIORITY PROJECT DESCRIPTION APPROX. COST TOTAL . 1. DURHAM ROAD, between Hall & Pacific Hwy. $2,200,000 $ 2,200,000 Add turn lanes, sidewalks, drainage and streetlighting. Regrade to reduce dips and improve sight distance. Add signals at Hall intersection. 2. McDONALD STREET, between Hall and 98th. $1,200,000 $ 3,400,000 Reorade to reduce dips & improve sight distance. Add turn lanes at intersect- ions. Provide walkways and drainage. 3. WALNUT STREET, between Pacific Hwy. and $ 260,000 $ 3,660,000 city limits. Sidewalk improvements; intersection improvements at Grant Ave. 4. GREENBURG ROAD, between Pacific Hwy. and $1,140,000 $ 4,800,000 Cascade Blvd. Add turn lanes, side- walks, drainage, and street lighting. Add signals at Cascade Blvd. 5. BONITA ROAD, between Hall Blvd. 'and $ 700,000 $ 5,500,000 Fanno Creek. Add sidewalks, drain- age and street lighting. Regrade to improve sight distance. 6. GAARDE STREET/PACIFIC HIGHWAY inter- $ 850,000 $ 6,350,000 section. Realign Gaarde to intersect Pacific Hwy. at the McDonald St. signal. 7. LOCUST STREET, between Hall and Green- $ 450,000 $ 6,800,000 t burg. Widen, add sidewalk along south side, reduce sharp curves. 8. MAIN STREET. Reconstruct pavement, $ 710,000 $ 7,510,000 replace Fanno Creek Bridge, improve storm drainage, improve Burnham St. intersection. 9. 121st AVENUE, between Scholls Ferry Rd. $ 770,000 $ 8,280,000 and Burlheights Drive. Add turn lanes, sidewalks, and street lighting. 10. 69th AVENUE/PACIFIC HIGHWAY intersection $ 150,000 $ 8,430,000 Revise 69th Avenue approaches to add turn lanes and to improve the alignment of opposing lanes. Page 1 - I 11. 72nd AVENUE/PACIFIC HIGHWAY intersection. $ 450,000 $ 8,880,000 Extend 72nd Avenue to P g hway revise frontage road. r 12. GRANT AVENUE BRIDGE replacement. Replace $ 520,000 $ 9,400,000 and widen bridge and approaches at Fanno Creek. 13. SCHOOL PEDESTRIAN IMPROVEMENTS. Improve $ 340,000 $ 9,740,000 - pedestrian facilities on approaches to Twality and Templeton Schools (portions of 96th, 97th, 98th, and Murdock). 14. HALL BOULEVARD AT HUNZIKER AND SCOFFINS. $ 500,000 $10,240,000 Realign Scoffins to intersect Hall at Hunziker; revise signals. 15. NORTH DAKOTA STREET BRIDGE replacement. $ 570,000 $10,810,000 Replace and widen bridge at Fanno Creek. 16. TIGARD STREET BRIDGE replacement. $ 510,000 $11,320,000 Replace and widen bridge at Fanno Creek. 17. BURNHAM STREET, between Hall and Main. $ 400,000 $11,720,000 Widen to provide turn lanes; add ( sidewalks and street lighting. 18. BONITA ROAD, between Fanno Creek-and $ 980,000 $12,700,000 72nd Avenue. Add sidewalks, drainage and street lighting. Regrade to improve sight distance. Replace and widen bridge at Fanno Creek. 19. 121st AVENUE, between Walnut Street $ 430,000 $13,130,000 and Burlheights Drive. Add turn lanes and sidewalks, and street lighting. 20. 92nd AVENUE, between Tigard High School $ 280,000 $13,410,000 and Cook Park. Realignment and widening to improve safety for pedestrians and bicycles. 21. COMMERCIAL STREET, between Main and Hall. $ 360,000 $13,770,000 Reconstruct and widen. Add sidewalks, t street lighting and drainage. 22. 72nd AVENUE, between Pacific Highway and $ 800,000 $14,570,000 Hampton Street. Add shoulders for pedestrian safety. Regrade and widen north of Baylor Street to improve sight distance and add turn lanes. Page 2 - 23. TIEDEMAN AVENUE, between Fanno Creek and 3 720,000 $15,290,000 Fowler Junior High School. Realign to reduce existing sharp curves; replace bridge; add sidewalks. NOTE: The City Council has scheduled a hearing on July 18, 1988, to consider this recommended improvement list. C br/5625D - Page 3 - it \\ 11 EXCERPTS F120M CARMAN CENTER TRAFFIC ANALYSIS I MACKENZIE ENGINEERING INCORPORATED 0690 S.W.BANCROFT STREET PORTLAND,OREGON 97201 (503)224-9560 i I July 20, 1988 City of Tigard Attention: Randy Wooley P. 0. Box 23397 Tigard, Oregon 97223 RE: Carman Center Traffic Analysis Project Number 287734 P Dear Mr. Wooley: The above referenced traffic study was developed using 100% project buildout of industrial park use and 100% buildout of the existing Carman Retail Center. More recently, the project developer indicated that the project use may include more office space than originally projected. The trip generation is therefore modified as follows: SQUARE ITE LAND1 AM PEAK PM PEAK I FOOTAGE USE CODE' ADT ENTER EXIT ENTER EXIT Warehouse and 139',590 130 1,457 126 28 27 102 Support Office Office 26,380 710 503 55 8 10 55 Retail 27,250 820 3,192 56 24 155 162 f TOTALS 193,220 51237 60 192 319 D�s2 The project's assigned trips (Figure 4) were superimposed on the existing volumes in the same manner as with the original study (Figures 3 through 8). Calculations of intersection capacity were performed based on TRC 212, with software produced by Professional Solutions Inc. The following table summarizes the results of intersection capacity calculations. r / / Randy Wooley Project Number: 287734 July 20, 1988 Page Number 2 72nd & Boones Ferry* Carman Retail** AM Peak Hr. PM Peak Hr. Access PM Peak Hr. LOS V/C LOS V/C LT OUT RT OUT LT IN 1. 1988 Existing Traffic A 0.39 A 0.51 2. 1988 + PacTrust Project A 0.56 C 0.71 E A A (Figure 5) 3. 1988 + PacTrust + Ford/SP B 0.64 C 0.74 E A A (Figure 7) 4. 2000 Estimated Traffic D 0.81 E 0.96 E C B (Figure 8) *Signalized **Unsignalized Conclusions/Recommendations In conclusion, our revised analysis of trip generation has yielded little change in /- the effect on the 72nd/Lower Boones Ferry intersection capacity. t The attached sketch, depicting the proposed 'intersection layout, allows adequately for truck maneuvering. The suggested island in the southeast corner of the intersection would yield little improvement, since, under current conditions, approximately 90% of right turns (northbound to eastbound) are accomplished without delay. Construction of this island would be costly, and would limit the maneuvering of trucks at this intersection. I hope this additional information is adequate for your use in evaluating the proposed project. Please do not hesitate to call Don Odermott or me if you have questions. Thank you for your assistance on this project. Sincerely, K �`_ }O1Ngt �► Rim 1� Y13.�� Q� David G. Larson, P.E. Project Manager Civil and Traffic Engineer DGL/smk ' u k E EXCERPTS OF TRAFFIC ANALYSIS KOLL CORPORATE CENTER t TRAFFIC ANALYSIS KOLL CORPORATE CENTER TIGARD, OREGON 4 'r I i c Prepared for: Koli Company Project Number: 287495 10505 n� Oq�yl p� 1®C3.LPA Prepared by: Mackenzie Engineering Incorporated 0690 S.W. Bancroft Street Portland, Oregon 97201 (503) 224-9570 June 23, 1988 TABLE OF CONTENTS I . INTRODUCTION II. EXISTING CONDITIONS III. TRIP GENERATION IV. TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND ASSIGNMENTS V. INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS VI. SIGNAL WARRANT ANALYSIS VII. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS VIII. APPENDIX I. INTRODUCTION The following study was undertaken to assess the transportation impacts of the proposed Koll Corporate Center Development, on the site of the former Ford Pre- Delivery Services Center in Tigard, Oregon. The study will address trip generation and distribution, intersection capacity, signal warrants, and special access considerations. The project involves approximately 20.5 acres of IP (Industrial Park) zoned land, south of Bonita Road, east of S.W. 72nd, and west of I-5. The initial project phase includes one three-story office structure, one single story, flex-type structure, and one retail/service structure Phase 1 encompasses 81,220 sq. ft. of rentable space. Future development, in conformance with the current IP zoning, will add eight new multi-use/industrial and multi-use/flex type structures, totaling 143,700 sq. ft. An additional portion of-the property, encompassing 247,860 sq. ft. of site area, will also be developed for future IP rental space. Phase 1 access is proposed at an existing driveway located on Bonita Road, at the west end of the I-5 overpass structure. The City of Tigard has requested that this study analyze two scenarios to provide a second access to the site: one scenario includes connection between Bonita Road and 72nd Avenue, while the other provides an extension to Boones Ferry Road to the south. r- - 1 - II. EXISTING CONDITIONS Bonita Road and S.W. 72nd Avenue both function as two lane, two way streets. Bonita Road is currently classified as a major collector. Classification of S.W. 72nd Avenue is currently undetermined. The intersection of Bonita Road and 72nd Avenue currently operates as a 4-way stop with each approach consisting of a left turn lane and a through-right turn lane. Mackenzie Engineering Incorporated (MEI) conducted traffic counts on March 3, 1988, from 3:30 p.m. to 6:30 p.m. at the 72nd Avenue/Bonita Road intersection. The PM Peak Hour was found to be from 4:15 p.m. to 5:15 p.m. Additional counts were undertaken on June 21, 1988 during the PM Peak Hour at the existing driveway serving the Gevurtz Furniture site. The results of these counts, with the addition of volumes projected for Carman Center, have been utilized as the existing volumes on the street system. These volumes are presented in Figure 2A. Traffic counts for the AM Peak Hour were conducted on June 24, 1988 by MEI. The resulting volumes, supplemented by the Carman Center volumes, are presented in Figure 2B. Full buildout of the Koll Corporate Center site has been estimated for approximately 1993. Base volumes for this period were established by utilizing a 3% growth rate per year for volumes existing on the street system. These volumes r are presented in Figure 2C. - 2 - 1 ) III. TRIP GENERATION The project will include warehouse, office, and retail/service uses, in conformance with the current IP zoning. The following trip generation has been compiled utilizing the fourth edition of the ITE Trip Generation Manual (1987) . A. Site Development 1. Phase 1 a. 204, 750 s.f. site area b. 81,220 s.f. rentable building area c. 54,720 s.f. office, 26,500 s.f. industrial park d. Rentable F.A.R. = 40% 2. Phase 2 (future) a. 441,123 s.f. site area b. 143,700 s.f. building area c. Building F.A.R. = 33% 3. . Future Development a. 247,860 s.f. site area b. 99,144 s.f. building area (assumes 40% F.A.R.) ' B. Phase 1 - Trip Generation 1. Industrial Park Use a. ITE Land Use Code 130, Industrial Park b. Average weekday vehicle trip ends = 897 VPD c. PM Peak Hour of adjacent street system ENTER 5 VPH EXIT 20 VPH Total 25 VPH d. AM Peak Hour of adjacent street system ENTER 31 VPH EXIT 7 VPH Total 38 VPH 2. Office Use a. ITE Land Use Code 710, General Office Building b. Average weekday vehicle trip ends = 873 VPD c. PM Peak Hour of Adjacent street system ENTER 19 VPH EXIT 100 VPH Total9 VPH d. AM Peak Hour of adjacent street system ENTER 104 VPH EXIT 15 VPH Total 119 VPH - 3 - 3. Combined Use a. Average weekday vehicle trip ends = 1770 b. PM Peak Hour: ENTER 24 VPH EXIT 120 VPH Total4�4 VPH c. AM Peak Hour: ENTER 135 VPH EXIT 22 VPH Total T97 VPH B. Full Buildout 1. Industrial Park Use a. ITE Land Use Code 130, Industrial Park b. X = 269.34 KSF c. Average weekday vehicle trip ends = 2099 VPD d. PM Peak Hour of adjacent street system ENTER 51 VPN EXIT 192 VPH Total 243 VPH 2. Office Use a. ITE Land Use Code 710, General Office Building b. X = 54.72 KSF c. Average weekday vehicle trip ends = 873 VPD d. PM Peak Hour of adjacent street system ENTER -19 VPH EXIT 100 VPH Total 119 VPH 3. Combined Use a. Average weekday vehicle trip ends = 2972 VPD b. PM Peak Hour: ENTER 70 VPH EXIT 292 VPH Total 762-WH Future development of the area lying between the Koll Corporate Center site and S.W. Boones Ferry Road, would create additional traffic on the project drive if the drive were to extend south to Upper Boones Ferry Road. The additional sites encompass approximately 40.5 acres, currently zoned IP, Industrial Park. Following is the estimated trip generation for these sites: A. Industrial Park Use 1. ITE Land Use Code 130, Industrial Park - 4 - 4 _ 2. 40.5 Acres = 1762 KSF site at 33% F.A.R. = 581.46 KSF . 3. Average weekday vehicle trip ends = 3644 VPD 4. PM Pea 1 Hour VPHacent street system: ENTER EXIT 386 VPH Total 4 8 VPH r - 5 - C IV. TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND ASSIGNMENTS The distribution of site generated trips onto the roadway system has been estimated based upon observation of existing traffic patterns and freeway access routes. Since PM Peak Hour trips are generally work to home related, the majority of trips would be directed toward the freeway system. MEI observed existing traffic volumes at the Bonita Road access point during the PM Peak Hour, roughly 40% of the egressing vehicles turned westbound, with the majority of these vehicles making left turns at 72nd to proceed southbound. The balance of the vehicles exited to the east, presumably to access the I-5/Highway 217 interchange via Bangy Road. Based upon the information described above, the following trip distribution has been estimated. West (north) 10% East (north) 50% South 35% West 5% Figure 3A illustrates the distribution percentages for the Phase 1 development, while Figure 3B reflects the distribution for the full buildout scenario which includes the additional access onto 72nd. Figure 3C addresses the optional access south to Upper Boones Ferry Road. Two access scenarios have been addressed to serve the project full buildout. The first entails connection of the Phase 1 driveway through to tie into 72nd Avenue (see Figure 3B). The second scenario would include extension of the Phase 1 driveway south through the undeveloped property to the south to connect to Upper Boones Ferry Road. Utilization of the IP trip distribution indicated above for IP generated trips, yields the trip distribution for the sites depicted on Figure 3D. The purpose of the second scenario is to determine the projected average daily traffic (ADT) on the drive upon full buildout of the area between S.W. Bonita Road and S.W. 72nd Avenue, if the Phase 1 roadway-were to be extended south to Boones Ferry Road. The ADT is used to determine the required width of roadway; thus, the worst case conditions were required for its determination. Based upon the previous trip distribution and generation analyses, the project ADT for the drive is 4953 VPD for the second access scenario and 1770 VPD for the first access scenario (connection to 72nd Avenue) . 1C - 6 - j. i V. INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS; The following summarizes the findings of the intersection capacity calculations. This study utilized the TRC212 planning method for signalized intersection scenarios and the Special Report 209 Unsignalized Intersection method for the Unsignalized "T" and the four-way stop intersections.> Traffic volumes utilized for this analysis are presented in Figures 2A, 2B, 2C, 5A, 5B, 5C, and 50. The results for the AM Peak Hour analysis are included in parenthesis. f' Level of Volume Left Left Right Service Capacity Major Major Minor i 1. 1988 Existing 72nd/Bonita (4-way stop) A/B (C/D)* 0.58(0.82) Bonita/Driveway A(A) A(A) A(A) A(A) 2. 1988 Existing Plus Phase 1 72nd/Bonita (4-way stop) A/B(D)* 0.58(0.87) A(A) A(A) A(A) Bonita/Driveway 4 3. 1993 Projected Volume t~ 72nd/Bonita (8 phase signal) C 0.76 Bonita/Driveway A A A; 4. 1993 Projected Plus Full Buildout Volume (Access Scenario 1) 72nd/Bonita (8 phase signal) C 0.77 Bonita/Driveway B A A 72nd/Driveway D A A 4. 1993 Projected Plus Full Buildout Volume (Access Scenario 2) r; 72nd/Bonita (8 phase signal) C 0.77 Bonita/Driveway B. A A Boones Ferry/Driveway C 0.80 (2 phase signal) F *Analysis of 4-way stop intersections were conducted in accordance with I.T.E. Special Report 209 (pp. 10-13 and 10-14). The volumes utilized for the analysis have been adjusted in accordance with observed Peak Hour factors. Therefore, the Level of Service presented is for the worst 15 minute period of the Peak Hour. 'r. ph P C~w 1! - 7 - VI. SIGNAL WARRANT ANALYSIS The intersections within the study area were reviewed for signal warrants in accordance with the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. The analysis addressed existing volumes, projected existing volumes assuming 3%/year growth), existing with project phase 1 volumes, and 1993 projected with project ultimate buildout volumes. Following is a summary of the signal warrant findings. Warrant Warrant Warrant 1 2 11 1. 1988 Existing 72nd/Bonita No No No Bonita/Driveway No No No 2. 1988 Existing + Phase 1 72nd/Bonita No No No Bonita/Driveway No No No 3. 1993 Projected 72nd/Bonita Yes No No Bonita/Driveway No No No i 4. 1993 Projected + Full Buildout (Acces's Scenario 1) 72nd/Bonita Yes No Yes Bonita/Driveway No No No 72nd/Driveway No No No S. 1993 Projected + Full Buildout (Access Scenario 2) 72nd/Bonita Yes No Yes Bonita/Driveway No No No Boones Ferry/Driveway No Yes Yes The intersection of 72nd Avenue and Bonita Road will meet the minimum volumes of Signal Warrant 1, Minimum Vehicular Volume, by 1993 regardless of whether or not the proposed project is completed. All other affected intersections were found to not meet warrant requirements. -8- VII. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Conclusions The preceding analysis has demonstrated that: 1. Existing (1988) conditions, plus Phase 1 of the project, will not trigger signalization of 72nd Avenue and Bonita Road. 2. 1993 traffic projections, without the Kol l development, will warrant a signal at 72nd Avenue and Bonita Road. 3. In 1993, with full development of the area between Bonita Road and Upper Boones Ferry Road, signalization at the intersection of the project road and S.W. Upper Boones Ferry Road, would be required for this access option. 4. Phase 1 Level of Service is A at the intersection of Bonita Road and project street. Recommendations 1. The project road, in Phase 1, should be built to a 3 lane standard, approximately 38-42 ft. wide, to accommodate the two possible alignment scenarios. 2. The intersection of the project road and Bonita Road should be configured as shown in Figure 6. -9- l , V Tigard Quarterly July - September, 1988 Report CITY OF TIGARD 13125 SW Hall Boulevard PO Box 23397 Tigard, Oregon 97223 (503) 639-4171 Topics of interest from the City of Tigard Community Development Department New Projects in the Planning Stages Commercial and Industrial Product/Service Size (SF) Key Pacific Bank Office building 88,125 11308 SW 68th Parkway Koll Company Office space 81,220 SW 72nd Avenue PacTrust Warehouse-distribution 44,070 & 25,580 SW 72nd & Upper Boones.Fry Rd center PacTrust Flex space 20,650 & 19,820 15860 SW Upper Boones Ferry & 15960 SW 72nd Avenue Spieker Partners Warehouse-distribution 49,404 & 43,239 End of Tech Center Drive center Van Domilien/Looyenga Warehouse 40,000 7325 Bonita Road Multi-family No. Units Schultz, A. 130 SW 109th & Pacific Highway Sunflower Apts 72 SW 135th & Scholls Ferry Road Tigard St. Apts 80 SW Tigard Street near Tiedeman E s Subdivisions No. Lots Lot Size Burton, Thomas it 26,136-66,200 SW Bonita & RR Row Langtree Estates 44 3,800-15,000 SW Dorburn Place & Hall Blvd Building Permits Issued Commercial: New and Major Additions (Estimated Value $25,000 or more) r r Firm Proposed Use Size (SF) Value Gethemane Church 2,874 100,000 9640 Greenburg (addition) Good Samaritan Medical Office 10,500 85,000 9735 Shandy Lane (tenant mod) Hectors Nursery Retail store 3,285 75,000 15300 Pacific Hwy Lens Crafters Medical Office 4,600 60,000 9730 Washington Sq Rd (tenant mod) Mercury Development Restaurant 3,000 45,000 13500 Pacific Hwy . (tenant mod) _ Pactrust Industrial bldg 217,600 275,000 15805 SW 72nd Ave (site work) Pactrust Office bldg 10,858 64,000 15951 kSW 72nd Ave (tenant mod) Pactrust Office bldg 18,400 30,000 16640 SW 72nd Ave (tenant mod) Precision Packaging Industrial bldg 33,410 40,000 7380 Kable Ln (tenant mod) Puget Corp Industiral bldg 49,820 300,000 7440 Bonita Rd (site work) Firm Proposed Use Size (SF) Value Red Lobster Restaurant 9,540 299,972 10330 Greenburg Scherzer & Moore Office bldg 3,700 25,500 6975 Sandburg Rd (tenant mod) Simco Medical Office 4,070 165,000 9370 Greenburg (tenant mod) Simco Dental office 1,540 40,000 9370 Greenburg (tenant mod) Skourtes, John Industial bldg 7,500 60,000 7220 bonita Rd Spielcer Partners Medical office 3,600 51,000 12246 Garden Pl Trammell Crow Office bldg 1,361-16,680 16,512-419,112 10260 Greenburg Rd (5 tenant mods) Residential Single-Family 1988 1987 Third Quarter Third Quarter Number of Units 58 " 112 High Unit Value $ 142,500 $ 219,109 Low Unit Value $ 43,073 $ 53,000 Largest Unit Size (SF) 3,270 4,795 Smallest Unit Size (SF) 959 1.080 Multi-Family Number of Units 160 0 Total Value $5,108,160 0 Largest Unit Size (SF) 1,230 O Smallest Unit Size (SF)- 660 0 New Business Taxes Total new businesses registered this quarter: 15 Total business taxes active to date: 2,598 Name Address Product/Service Employees Animal House Pet Shop 16200 SW Pacific Hwy, Pet store 5 Suite L Chocolate Express 16200 SW Pacific Hwy, Candy, ice cream 2 Suite 1 gift store Cuvee Northwest- 9816 SW Tigard St Processing 4 bottling 3 Windy Ridge Winery of wine 6 fruit juice Eddie Bauer Inc. 9585 SW Washington Sq Rd Retail sales 9 G K Ltd Travel 10260 SW Greenburg Rd Travel agency 3 #150 Invention Dist 11130 SW 125th P1 Sales - It's Country 16200 SW Pacific Hwy, - Suite "0" Kim's Hair Care 14325 SW Pacific Hwy Beauty salon National Auto Placement 10250 SW Greenburg Rd, Auto consulting - Suite 1048 Northwest Central 19645 SW Blanton, Plumbing contractor - Plumbing Aloha Quality Studio Services 16562 SW 72nd Ave Wholesale - distribution Sabre Const Co 7235 SW Bonita Rd General contractor 9 St. Vincent De Paul 17230 SW Main Thrift store - Thrift Store Sashkin, Grey 6950 SW Hampton Psychologist 1 Woodyard, Stephen 9370 SW Greenburrg Rd Dentist - r` Note: August business tax registration data not available. WHAT IS THE "MAJOR STREETS TRAFFIC SAFETY IMPROVEMENT BOND"? -ch has been said over the last few months about the major roads in Tigard. More than hearing about them, we all experience them daily: ,o Crowded intersections ,o Inadequate turn lanes so through traffic becomes blocked o Roads with severe dips (Durham, McDonald) which impairs visibility to a dangerous degree i o Lack of safe places to walk and bicycle o Too many cars on the road to allow smooth traffic movement Following are frequently heard questions about our roads situation and wl'lat can be done about it. Why are our maior roads not able to serve us? Tigard has experienced more growth over the last decade than any other medium sized city in the state. That is because it's well located relative to Portland and I-5; it's attractive with hills, quality housing and lots of greenery and open space; and it's a good place to live and conduct business because of the low tax rate, quality of services and excellent schools. Because this growth has occurred rapidly, our road system has not been able to keep up with our needs. Many of our major roads were designed for about half the traffic they are now carrying. Most of our major roads do not allow for pedestrians or bikes to travel safely on either side. In addition, because of our hilly terrain many-roads have severe dips and bumps which inhibit sight distance and create very unsafe situations. As Tigard continues to grow, these problems will become more extreme unless something is done now. What is being done to improve our roads? The City is very concerned about these serious road issues. Four years ago the City Council established a citizen's committee to provide advice on improving our road system. This Transportation Advisory Committee has studied the issue, examined options, and concluded that major improvements are needed now in order to correct existing problems and provide into the future a road system that will move people safely and efficiently around and through our communil~y. fhe Transportation Advisory Committee studied all the road needs, conducted a survey and held many public meetings, all of which resulted in a recommendation to City Council that a bond be put to the voters of Tigard to fund the 10 highest priority road impr•ovement-s. What projects are proposed for funding? The following are the highest priority projects as recommended by the Transporation Advisory Connaittcee. STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS B identifying letter sasssson project area A. Bonita Road B. Durham Road Fc C. Gaar•de Street/Pacific Highway Taylors ~ E D. Greenburg Road ■ss fHtY 6t~OUa g 1 E. Locust Street J c,~ e F. Main. Street n walaal ° „ H G. McDonald Street F H. Walnut Street oeara C IRcoonold •G Nonroin I. 69th Avenue/Pacific Highway 9°l' Benlla _ A ' ♦cOe i J. 121st Avenue acct ~b Durham B' G` .1...1.1 o (Tigard Community Development Department Public Information Handout.) Who will pay for these road improvements? The 10 year road bond would be financed through property taxes. Road projects would actually be constructed in the first three years of the bond, however, the Aebt would be spread out over 10 years. In this way we can all enjoy improved roads in the next few years; but as growth in the community continues new residents will also share in retiring the bond. Now much will this cost me? Based on an average $75,000 assessed value home, this will cost $63.75 !per year, or $5.31 per month. Of course, this amount will vary depending on your assessed value. Over the life of the 10 year bond this amount will decrease as population in Tigard increases. Why not use existing funds to make these improvements? Every year soma road `improvements can be made from existing revenues. Following is a map which identifies projects which are now slated for completion vary soon.: STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS o Hall/Burnham intersection improvements (1990, (ALREADY FUNDED) State/City) Intersection project o Hall/McDonald intersection improvements (1989, State/City) nllons project area o Ash St. at Cresmer Dr. (1988, City) o Hall/Pacific Hwy. intersection improvements (1989, State) r1 a•• Tnr...r,n o McDonald St. (Pacific Hwy. to 97th) shoulder I` improvements (1909, City/Grant) r•,,, = o Greenburg/Tiedeman signal (1988, City/Grant) sa+`• +a e.+ o Greenburg/Center intersection improvements aunt o (1989, City) , i - o Greenburg/Ash Creek Bridge widening (1988, City) o Pacific Hwy./Canterbury Ln. intersection = improvements (1909, State) e••,d• M,D•.•,d o Dartmouth St. extension (69th to Pacific Hwy.) s•,,,• (1989, City/LID) o Durham Rd. (Hall to Upper Boones Ferry) s.' shoulder improvements (1989, State) s••, o.,... o Durham/llall turn lane (1988, City)'" o Scholls Ferry Rd. (Fanno Creek to Murray Blvd. (1990, State, MSTIP) = o 135th (Scholls Ferry to Morning Hill) (1988, City/LID) o No. Dakota St. (Fanno Creek to 114th) shoulder improvements (1989, City) o Hall/Scholls Ferry intersection improvements (1990, State/LID) o Hall (Greenburg to Locust) shoulder improvements (1989, State) o Hall/Oak turn lane (1991, State) o Hall/Pfaffle turn lane (1993, State) o Pfaffle Street (Hall to 78th) (1989, City) o Hall/Washington Dr. turn lane (1993, State) o Scholls Ferry Rd. (Fanno Creek to 217) (1990, State) o Hall (Pacific to McDonald) shoulder improvements (1990, State) i Why aren't Hwy. 99 or Hall Blvd. on the ROAD JURISb1Cn0N priority list? State of Oregon Washington County' Many streets in Tigard are not the responsibility of the City. The following City of Tigard map identifies what streets are Tigard's responsibility and. what streets are the responsibility of the State and County. a. t •y' The City works closely with the State and County toward solutions to problems, ~aµ, = however, the funds to make those improvements need to be approved by the State and County. vim,. s If you have questions about any road information, i please call our City Engineer, Randy Wooley, 639-4171. v' n~ 7 i FFF I i October 24, 1988 MRS002 LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT'S STATEMENT i Lombardi Poplar and Lodgepole Pine are proposed to be planted for site screening purposes for the proposed Morse Brothers asphalt and concrete plant facility in the City of Tigard. The plantings are proposed to be irrigated and they are proposed §)(§CG-)to be professionally maintained to encourage rapid and healthy growth. Under these conditions the Lombardi Populars can be expected to grow approximately 5 feet per year and the Lodge Pole Pine can be expected to grow approximately 2 to 3 feet per year. If 20 feet high Lombardi Populars are planted, they can be expected to reach 45 feet in height in 5 years. These plantings, in conjunction with existing trees to be retained on the site, will provide substantial screening of the facility from surrounding properties. C A01 5 Mel J. Stout GREGORY DAVID EVANS ANDASSOCIAM, M. ENGINEERS, SURVEYORS, P4INNERS, GINDSCAPE ARCHIrFECTS OFFICES IN OREGON, WASHINGTON AND CALIFORNIA 2626 S.W. CORBEff AVENUE PORTGIND. OREGON 97201.4802 (503) 223-6663 FAN (503) 223-2701