Loading...
City Council Packet - 07/23/1991 CITY OF TIGARD OREGON AGENDA PUBLIC NOTICE. Anyone wishing to speak on an agenda item should sign on the appropriate sign-up sheet(s). If no sheet is available, ask to be recognized by the Mayor at the beginning of that agenda item. Visitor's Agenda items are asked to be two minutes or less. Longer matters can be set for a future Agenda by contacting either the Mayor or the City Administrator. • STUDY SESSION (6:30 P.M.) 1. BUSINESS MEETING (7:30)) 1.1 Call to Order - City Council & Local Contract Review Board 1.2 Roll Call 1.3 Pledge of Allegiance 1.4 Call to Council and Staff for Non-Agenda Items 2. VISITOR'S AGENDA (Two Minutes or Less, Please) 3. 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: 3.1 Approve Washington County Intergovernmental Agreement - Year Two of the Solid Waste Reduction Plan - Resolution No. 91-5--(," 3.2 Approve Board and Committee Appointments - Resolution No. 9157 3.3 Approve Community Development Block Grant Agreement - Englewood Park 3.4 Approve Community Development Block Grant Agreement - Cook Park 3.5 Approve Appropriation of Contingency - 1991/92 Budget - Resolution No. 9152 3.6 Approve Purchase Agreement for Acquisition of Property for S.W. Gaarde Street Bond Project COUNCIL AGENDA - JULY 23, 1991 - PAGE 1 4. PUBLIC HEARING - ZONE CHANGE ANNEXATION; ZCA 91-0013; PARSONS (NPO #3) A request to annex one parcel consisting of 0.94 acres to the City of Tigard and to change the zone from Washington County R-6 (Residential, 6 units per acre) to City of Tigard R-7 (Residential, 7 units per acre). ZONE: Washington County R-6. LOCATION: 12655 S.W. Bull Mountain Road (WCTM 2S1 09AD, Tax Lot 800) • Open Public Hearing • Declarations or Challenges • Summation of Staff Report - Community Development Department • NPO/CPO Testimony • Public Testimony: Proponents - Opponents • Staff Recommendation • Council Questions/Comments • Close Public Hearing • Council Deliberation: Ordinance No. 91-a1 Resolution No. 91-5_~_ 5. PUBLIC HEARING - COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT CPA 91-0001; ZONE CHANGE 91-0005 - GROSS (NPO #7) A request for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment from Medium-High Residential to General Commercial and Zone Change from R-25 (Residential, 25 units/acre) to C-G (General Commercial) for approximately 4.15 acres of a 5.9 acre site. LOCATION: Southwest quadrant of the intersection of S.W. Scholls Ferry Road and S.W. 135th Avenue (WCTM 1S1 33CA, Tax Lot 100, 200 and part of Tax Lot 1,000) • Open Public Hearing • Declarations or Challenges • Summation of Staff Report - Community Development Department • NPO/CPO Testimony • Public Testimony: Proponents - Opponents • Staff Recommendation • Council Questions/Comments • Close Public Hearing • Council Deliberation: Ordinance No. 91 6. CONTINUATION OF COUNCIL DELIBERATION ON APPEAL OF SCE 90-0005, VARIANCE VAR-0027 SHERWOOD INN SIGN (NPO 5) A request for Sign Code Exception and Variance approval to allow two freestanding freeway- oriented signs where only one is permitted. Also requested is approval to retain one sign of approximately 1,180 square feet per sign face with a height of approximately 65 feet and one sign of approximately 698 square feet per sign face with a height of approximately 69.75 feet where the code specifies a maximum allowable sign area of 160 square feet per sign face and maximum allowable height of 35 feet. ZONE: C-G (General Commercial) LOCATION: 15700 SW Upper Boones Ferry Road (WCTM 2S1 12DD, Tax Lots 100, 900, 1100) • Continuation of Hearing from the June 25, 1991, Council Meeting • Update by Community Development Staff • Public Testimony • Recommendation by Community Development Staff • Council Questions or Comments Consideration by Council: MGtien- - er-Preparation COUNCIL AGENDA - JULY 23, 1991 - PAGE 2 i 7. NON-AGENDA ITEMS: From Council and Staff 8. 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, current and pending litigation issues. 9. ADJOURNMENT COUNCIL AGENDA - JULY 23, 1991 - PAGE 3 S Council Agenda Item .3. 1 T I G A R D C I T Y C-0 U N C I L MEETING MINUTES - JULY 23, 1991 • Meeting was called to order at 6:40 p.m. by Mayor Edwards. 1. ROLL CALL Council Present: Mayor Jerry Edwards; Councilors Valerie Johnson and John Schwartz. Staff Present: Patrick Reilly, City Administrator; John Acker, Associate Planner; Ed Murphy, Community Development Director; Liz Newton, Community Relations Coordinator; Tim Ramis, Lagal Counsel; Catherine Wheatley, City Recorder; and Randy Wooley, City Engineer. STUDY SESSION WATER SYSTEMS STUDY Council selected the James M. Montgomery firm to do the study of the water distribution systems in the Tigard area. REQUEST FOR CONTRIBUTION - SOFTBALL TEAM Council denied a request for a contribution to the Oregon State Champion ASA 10 and Under Softball Team (Izzy's Pizza Tualatin). The Council noted the number of excellent youth sports teams in the area. It was felt that a cash contribution could not be given because numerous similar requests in the past have been denied due to budget limitations. LEGISLATIVE REDISTRICTING DRAFT PLAN City Administrator advised that Secretary of State Keisling released a draft redistricting plan. Council and staff reviewed the proposed map. Motion by Councilor Schwartz, seconded by Councilor Johnson, to forward a letter from the City of Tigard to Secretary Keisling outlining Tigard's concerns with the proposed redistricting plan. The motion was approved by a unanimous vote of Council present. The following concerns will be presented to Secretary Keisling during a public hearing session on June 25: • In the State Representative's District in southern Tigard, the Summerfield retirement community and Pick's Landing areas have been separated from the rest of the City. The Council clearly prefers that the City have CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JULY 23, 1991 - PAGE 1 only one Representative in order to continue our effectiveness and community emphasis. • Scholls Ferry Road has traditionally been the dividing line between Beaverton and Tigard. The City will recommend the district boundary served by Tigard's representative end at Scholls to correspond to the city limit line. • The Council prefers that the area designated for our State Senator match as closely as possible so we have representation by one Senator and one Representative. We work very closely with our state legislators and cooperate with community meetings on a regular basis. This has worked extremely well for Tigard in the past. In order to assist the Secretary in making a determination, the City will forward a new city limit map. Councilors Johnson and Schwartz advised they will attempt to arrange their schedules to attend the public hearing. S.W. NORTH DAKOTA STREET City Engineer reviewed with Council the effect of the traffic islands installed on S.W. North Dakota Street. Some people have contacted the City noting they think the islands are working well r. by slowing traffic. Others are calling to complain, saying the islands should be pulled out because they are a safety hazard. City Engineer will meet with the homeowners, association and report to Council. AGENDA REVIEW Council briefly reviewed the business agenda. City Administrator advised that staff received a petition from seven adjoining neighbors to the proposed Parsons' annexation (Agenda Item 4). The neighbors opposed the annexation because of concerns they had :bout: • The land to be annexed was not contiguous to the City. • Who would pay for cost of new sewer line? • What type of development was planned for the land? City Administrator noted the petition was submitted after the meeting packet was delivered to Council. The petition was misplaced after receipt at City Hall and the Council does riot have a copy for review. Mr. Don Chervin, one of the petitioners, was notified of the lost document; he advised he would attend the meeting. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JULY 23, 1991 - PAGE 2 i i EXECUTIVE SESSION The Tigard City Council went into Executive Session at 7:00 p.m. under the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) (d), (e), & (h) to discuss labor relations, real property transactions, current and pending litigation issues. Council reconvened into the business meeting at 7:32 p.m. BUSINESS MEETING 2. VISITORS' AGENDA: No visitors. 3. CONSENT AGENDA: Motion by Councilor Schwartz, seconded by Councilor Johnson, to approve the Consent Agenda as follows: 3.1 Approve Washington County Intergovernmental Agreement - Year Two of the Solid Waste Reduction Plan - Resolution No. 91- 56 3.2 Approve Board and Committee Appointments - Resolution No. 91- 57 3.3 Approve Community Development Block Grant Agreement - Englewood Park 3.4 Approve Community Development Block Grant Agreement - Cook Park 3.5 Approve Appropriation of contingency - 1991/92 Budget - Resolution No. 91- 58 3.6 Approve Purchase Agreement for Acquisition of Property for S.W. Gaarde Street Bond Project 4. PUBLIC HEARING - ZONE CHANGE ANNEXATION; ZCA 91-0013; PARSONS (NPO #3) A request to annex one parcel consisting of 0.94 acres to the City of Tigard and to change the zone from Washington County R-6 (Residential, 6 units per acre) to City of Tigard R-7 (Residential, 7 units per acre). ZONE: Washington County R- 6. LOCATION: 12655 S.W. Bull Mountain Road (WCTM 2S1 09AD, Tax Lot 800) a. Public hearing was opened. b. Declarations or challenges: None C. Community Development Director reviewed the staff report as submitted in the Council's meeting packet. d. NPO Testimony: None CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JULY 23, 1991 - PAGE 3 i i e. Public Testimony • Lewis F. Parsons, 12655 S.W. Bull Mountain Road, testified as the owner of the proposed property to be annexed. He advised it was his intention to t build a house next to his home. In order to build this, he must hook up to the sewer and, thus, must be in the City of Tigard. He said it was not his intention to build more than one house although the zoning would permit a higher density. Mayor advised of a petition received (as noted in the Study Session minutes above) which outlined concerns of seven adjoining neighbors. Upon request, Mr. Don Chervin testified as follows: • Mr. Don Chervin, 14620 S.W. 126th Avenue, Tigard, OR 97224, advised that while he could not speak for all of the petitioners, he felt that most of the questions he had concerning the annexation proposal had been answered. He advised he did not see any problem with the annexation. The petition outlined questions with regard to who would pay for the sewer line, the type of development planned for the annexed property, and delivery of City services to a parcel not contiguous with City limits. f. Council comments: Each councilor noted their intention to favorably consider this annexation request and forward a "do-pass" recommendation to the Boundary Commission. Mayor Edwards noted the criteria for annexation was generally met, including the fact that the parcel was within the Urban Growth Boundary for Tigard. Councilor Schwartz referred to Council's past practice of not actively seeking annexation to the City, but supporting those persons who request annexation. In addition, he noted the importance of service to areas as they build up and advised that it was important for new construction to be connected to the sewer. Councilor Johnson noted her concern over irregular boundaries and asked for cooperation from adjoining neighbors during this transition period. She advised of concerns with development occurring without adequate provision for the future; i.e., park planning, adequate transportation planning. Q CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JULY 23, 1991 - PAGE 4 Councilor Johnson commented to Mr. Chervin with regard to his concern about higher density development on the property. She advised this property, by agreement with Washington County, was zoned to City of Tigard R-7 (7 ; units per acre). This closely matches the County's previous zoning of R-6, so the property was already designated for a higher density of development than what is presently built on adjoining properties. g. Public hearing was closed. h. RESOLUTION NO. 91-59 - A RESOLUTION INITIATING ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF TIGARD OF THE TERRITORY AS DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT "A" AND OUTLINED IN EXHIBIT "B" ATTACHED. (ZCA 91-13) (PARSONS) i. Motion by Councilor Schwartz, seconded by Councilor Johnson, to adopt Resolution No. 91-59 as proposed. The motion was approved by a unanimous vote of Council present. j. ORDINANCE NO. 91-21 - AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS TO APPROVE A ZONE CHANGE (ZCA 91-13) (PARSONS) AND DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE k. Motion by Councilor Johnson, seconded by Councilor Schwartz, to adopt Ordinance No. 91-21. The motion was approved by a unanimous vote of Council present. 5. PUBLIC HEARING - COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT CPA 91-0001; ZONE CHANGE 91-0005 - GROSS (NPO #7) } A request for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment from Medium-High Residential to General Commercial and Zone Change from R-25 (Residential, 25 units/acre) to C-G (General Commercial) for approximately 4.15 acres of a 5.9 acre site. LOCATION: Southwest quadrant of the intersection of S.W. Scholls Ferry Road and S.W. 135th Avenue (WCTM 1S1 33CA, Tax Lot 100, 200 and part of Tax Lot 1,000) Hearing was postponed to January 28, 1991, at the request of the applicant. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JULY 23, 1991 - PAGE 5 6. CONTINUATION OF COUNCIL DELIBERATION ON APPEAL OF SCE 90-0005, VARIANCE VAR-0027 SMMWOOD INN SIGN (NPO 5) - A request for Sign Code Exception and Variance approval to allow two freestanding freeway-oriented signs where only one is permitted. Also requested is approval to retain one sign of i approximately 1,180 square feet per sign face with a height of approximately 65 feet and one sign of approximately 698 square feet per sign face with a height of approximately 69.75 feet where the code specifies a maximum allowable sign area of 160 square feet per sign face and maximum allowable height of 35 feet. ZONE: C-G (General Commercial) LOCATION: 15700 SW Upper Boones Ferry Road (WCTM 2S1 12DD, Tax Lots 100, 900, 1100) a. Continuation of Hearing from the June 25, 1991, Council Meeting b. Community Development Director reviewed this agenda item. He referred to an overhead projector visual aide entitled: "Sherwood Inn Sign Comparison Chart." (A copy of this document is filed with Council packet material.) C. Mr. Hal Hewitt, representative of Mr. Gene Ferryman and Mr. Craig Banning, requested the hearing be set over because there was not a full Council. He advised that he had a petition signed by several hundred people in support of the existing signs on the property, but that he did not bring the petition with him. Mr. Hewitt contacted City Hall during business hours the previous day and asked about Council attendance expected for this meeting. He advised other individuals would have been present, but because a full Council was not expected, the applicant opted to request for a continuance of this hearing item instead of having those persons attend the meeting to testify. Mayor Edwards advised he was ready to proceed with the hearing noting a quorum of Council was present and the fact that this item had been on the Council calendar since November 1990. In response to a question from Councilor Schwartz, Mr. Hewitt advised he did not receive any indication from staff that this item would not be heard at this meeting. However, because a bare majority of Council was present, he was requesting this item be set over. Mayor Edwards emphasized his concerns with Mr. Hewitt's notation regarding the presence, or lack thereof, of specific Councilors to hear this issue. He again stated that he was not supportive of continuing this issue. t CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JULY 23, 1991 - PAGE 6 After discussion, Council consensus was to proceed with the hearing. d. Mr. Hal Hewitt, Greenhill Associates, 9999 S. W. Wilshire Street, Portland, OR 97225, representative for Mr. Gene Ferryman and Mr. Craig Banning testified as follows: • Major concern of Mr. Ferryman is that he has a strong sense, based on his legal counsel's advice, that he has a permanent permit for the signs granted by the City in 1976. The matter was fully deliberated, reviewed, and approved by the City and the permit was properly issued at that time. • In discussions with staff, Mr. Ferryman has indicated that, given the complexities of the two sides of this argument, an extension to leave the existing signs would be a fair trade-off for yielding his position on the permanency issue. • As indicated in Mr. Hewitt's letter of July 19, 1991, Mr. Ferryman's sense is that a sign in the range 900 - 1,100 square feet is acceptable in terms of distances, the speed of traffic going by, the obstructions, and the topography involved. Applicant requests the City consider granting something close to 1,000 square feet in terms of a variance on the sign faces. This is a substantial reduction over what is presently existing for signs. • There is no major objection from reducing the number of signs from two to one. In response to a question from Councilor Schwartz regarding why a one-year extension was not acceptable to Mr. Ferryman, Mr,. Hewitt responded as follows: Mr. Ferryman has not been the owner of the properties for more than two years. At the time he purchased the properties, he paid a substantial sum of money. That sum included the cost of the signs. Mr. Ferryman was given the documents that were originated at the City Hall over a period of years, assuring him that there was no problem with the signs. Mr. Ferryman is very reluctant, if not totally opposed, to expend an additional $40 - $50,000 on those structures to bring them in compliance with the City Code. If an extension beyond one-year was granted by Council, Mr. Ferryman may feel more comfortable in yielding on the issue of permanency. C CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JULY 23, 1991 - PAGE 7 k Mayor Edwards commented about the history of the issue since 1976 and noted prior discussions in the current public hearing process. He advised it was his understanding that the Council and the applicant had reached a point where Council had given some consideration and concessions for sizes, heights, and that a decision would be reached. Mayor Edwards acknowledged there may be unique needs and circumstances to address this particular situation; he referred to the variance procedures outlined in the Code which are available. The Mayor referred to the Sign Code now in place and the ten-year amortization period given to businesses for compliance to the provisions in the Code. The business transaction between the seller and buyer for this property should not be under consideration by the council. Mayor and Mr. Hewitt discussed the process and concerns with the applicant's request for continuances. City Attorney recommended that discussion and deliberation be confined to the sign(s) specifications. • Carl White, 10055 S.W. Garrett, Tigard, OR 97223, noted his agreement with the sign code and urged the Council to make a decision on this issue. e. Public hearing was closed. f. Councilor Johnson summarized the City's proposal for sign specifications: Approval of one freeway-oriented sign up to 750 square feet per side (1500 square feet total sign face)and up to 65 feet high. Approval of a one-year time limit to bring the sign into compliance with the above measurements. She noted the Council's desire to grant a sign variance which would still enable the sign to be read by freeway traffic. g. Councilor Schwartz commented that he was uncomfortable with the applicant specifically requesting his presence for a review of this issue in their June 19, 1991, letter. He advised this situation does represent unusual circumstances but felt this had been considered. He noted his agreement with the sign specifications as recited by Councilor Johnson. t CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JULY 23, 1991 - PAGE 8 C h. Motion by Councilor Johnson, seconded by Councilor Schwartz, to direct staff to prepare a Final Order summarizing the findings of Council on this issue; said Final order will include the sign specifications as outlined by Councilor Johnson. The Final Order will be considered at the September 10, 1991, City Council meeting. The motion was approved by a unanimous vote of Council present. 7. NON-AGENDA ITEM: SUBDIVISION. SUB 91-0008 - FOUR D CONSTRUCTION City Engineer referred to a recent Hearings Officer Decision on a development located south of SW Walnut Street, south and east of S.W. 116th Avenue. This portion of Walnut Street is County Road. The County is not requiring full half-street improvements but has asked for a waiver of remonstrance and sidewalks. After discussion, Councilor Schwartz proposed a motion, seconded by Councilor Johnson, to call the Hearings Officer decision on SUB 91-0008 up for Council review at a public hearing. Council review will be limited to a review of Walnut _ street improvements. CHAMBER OF COMMERCE BROCHURES Council approved a request from the Tigard Chamber of Commerce to pay for 4,000 copies ($1,900) of a Tigard map brochure. 8. EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council went into Executive session at 8:50 p.m. under the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) (d), (e), & (h) to discuss labor relations, real property transactions, current and pending litigation issues. 9. ADJOURNMENT: 9:05 p.m. Catherine Wheatley, City R order Att ayo , y of Tigard ti Date. CI,UIj_U6i_ /3 I ~Q I c h:\recorder\can\can723.91 CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JULY 23, 1991 - PAGE 9 F 6 t: TIMES PUBLISHING COMPANY ~ NoticeTT 701 P.O. BOX 370 PHONE (503) 684-0360 BEAVERTON, OREGON 97075 Legal Notice Advertising u - fory~Q1 F Q,( Ha11 meeang hfgtiligt►ts,uce'u~ R~ecordt, Y3 S • [I Tearsheet No. The foilowin8,he obtn from the Ctty ut 639:4171 F ; a . by tali g agendas rosy Egon 97223i"91 ti ' Boulevard, T~ tF f" t • City of Tigard~I-, BUSIN>✓SS MTIN~ • ❑ Duplicate Affil tt E _ux, PO Box23397 23,1991 i. } 'O AHRDALa • Tigard, or 97223 { j/ tTJ CpTI(~ ( ( t ;r.s , (6,30 P,1~i:) k}~, 13115 S1 • as 9111 Conference R Study Meeang tT ~xa11~ t~:3t1~M) UBLICATION R AFFIDAVIT OF P Fuh1tF 119S 3 ullhfountau► P X12655 5 W. a 91 UW5 STATE OF OREGON, : ns) 1 Zone Chang ' Aiu►eyatton; (moo pmgndment CPA 91-06 , ti of e` )ss re hea'~i~ePlan weir COUNTY OF WASHINGTON, Comp } RlSt4i ~ Y of Judih Koehler ,Gross.. #1) f3 y 4 1 e Advertising ~g 'I ~ oLS 4 bhc,$ She QW- bein to 1 StlAUBtlon! SVat " g first duly sworn, depose and say oat t 1 1 a Sign Ccde ExcePuonS5 Andy, . Director, or his principal clerk, oYonea defined in ORS 193.010 8 newspaper of general circulg) in the y f aY} p } -„~4 , ; i7 Mj 9 ' Cact Ra~neSoftt - and 193.020; published at thQ anUta n te;. t3t1 h 3~ 0 forgsaid gc u tY y ssness Meetin xecdtiv~d~e ' ffi gotice o ~it ave Session F ?wi gr'in(h,ti~dtsc~ns~ els ublished in the , iFace CrtYou>tb is hereto annexed, was Pe.~he,T~gard~ {0`(~)d), , , aaq~n~sa a printed copy of which g4 One successive and pro~wions ctco m Y real PmpertYftrai>s~ " , r entire issue of said newspaper for_- - I8 99_ w consecutive in the following issues* p14 PubltSh 3P1y : f r July 18, 1991 18th da of JuZy 1991 Subscribed and swor to before me this - Notary Public for Oregon my Commission Expires' AFFIDAVIT 17 TIMES PUBLISHING COMPANY Legal TT 7003 P.O. BOX 370 PHONE (503) 684-0360 Notice BEAVERTON. OREGON 97075 Legal Notice Advertising , _ nPI MLIC ~INA r • • ❑ Tearsheet Noi City of Tigard The iblloivm will be'cons~dered b tie Jpi gg Y ganl:Ci CPuncii on PO Box 23397: atsT 30;P M ; atgartCavic;Centch-~'ow7(alloo~g 13,11 V • • ❑ Duplicate Aff u L3;~/ `Hall Blvd , Tigard; O gon 1)~irah" tifQ;M_ ' a QM ~Y~ktteuti'' Tigard, Or 97223 r -sue .t k from fhe Co mumtY Devel ► at u~ Cit ` - arttre same • , e ~ocatiotr Or, by~calhng 639-41 L o ae~utv~`t r n, z~ tupony ynWadWance of the pubticiheaiigh pulb g~lle con ducted in accordance swlth the 41,11 Chap~t+ $ b£ t e~1'i ~ ZMuni 1 Code 64 rules' f ` Pu11e=ad tedapb,~the C$d ?~41++i1YViL W"i774! ~M`i' L..' {f-A' r-~'4 L 1~Ti~i.. k is * =S_~kS",}`Sa~,+T g awn F 3xs Y~ 40 , 2,; ~f s,f' fur AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION ¢ 1 (Nl'O #3gf T refines 3& arceonsisttng of 0, 94acres tothe ity Ufa;. STATE OF OREGON, COUNTY OF WASHINGTON, )ss. , l ga{d d~#ghange'e'rCym,Washmgton tYR een Judith Koehler ucuts/acreytc~C~i~~of ~t ~ (Itesidenrjal, kun~tacie``~~~ZO~~~ 1, Washington t~b~tyr$., ON..12635,Wa + ~~Y= being first duly sworn, depose and sa that I fhe Advertising i' (WGTX, YG a F APPT 11 - m 14 Rr Director, or his principal clerk, of the 1lgarc lines m y t t (yI101Y2°10#._3 a newspaper of general circulation as defined in ORS 193.010 .2-Cg veto meni'GUd s Ops u1 and 193.020 published at ~i~~a in the r `2 . 1~` 3g18 38 O2Q C N" i aforesaid county a d state* that the pal ; Hearing,Zone Change I y ` * w Y ; a printed copy of which is hereto anne~xete, was published in theq reque fotasopreh~ s P1at4 Amin eptdro entire issue of said newspaper for successive and$esll de ntizt GeuieraeFCtal agZo'~eCti std n raI * 5 t / consecutive in the following issues: t , 2 is ac - ~`Y sG (GCn er CgYtttit► Cgal l~o~natelyt4151~aine~'~ofAa~S „,acre sitej.~pG~7i4S~T~s n'" July 11 1991nt~. e~~ttoFoftSN~Schoils?e~=Rod afd''1~V - ven ~b3.3C eta d d ,:RIT 0~00,,2(IO, partofta~e,lo'`sT r 1 t C RiA•~S(atewrdt<~Plar~ntng'Csosts~`, . ,'d ~ ~ ~ . Lj ~ Compre~enai~`e'1'lana)'olcciesA 1 `~,l~xi~~ Subscribed and sworn t before me thisllth day of July 1991 f Notary Public for Oregon My Commission Expires: AFFIDAVIT AGENDA ITEM NO. 2 - VISITOR'S AGENDA DATE: 7/23/91 (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 & ADDRESS TOPIC STAFF CONTACTED t t 6iin Please sign in to testify on the following: AGENDA ITEM NO. 4 DATE: 7/23/91 PUBLIC HEARING - ZONE CHANGE ANNEXATION; ZCA 91-0013• PARSONS (NPO 3) PLEASE PRINT NAME & ADDRESS NAME & ADDRESS PROPONENTS FOR ANNEXATION:' OPPONENTS G i t i a s l Please sign in to testify on the following: AGENDA ITEM NO. 5 DATE : 7/23/91 l PUBLIC HEARING - COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT CPA 91-001;:.ZONE CHANGE 91-0005 - GROSS (NPO 7) PLEASE PRINT NAME & ADDRESS NAME & ADDRESS APPLICANT HAS ESTER IOSTPONEMENT OF THIS AGENDA ITEM. C_ I l Please sign in to testify on the following: AGENDA ITEM NO. 6 DATE: 7/23/91 PUBLIC HEARING - CONTINUATION OF COUNCIL DELIBERATION ON APPEAL OF SCE 90-0005 VARIANCE V_AR-0027 SHERWOODINN SIGN (NPO 5) PLEASE PRINT NAME & ADDRESS NAME & ADDRESS i ~.1 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON ; AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING In the Matter of the Proposed Yom. ~fl d~ ~ ALt- STATE OF OREGON ) County of Washington ) ss City of Tigard ) I, Q 2 A& AA r, begin first duly ra-1.1 - 31 04 sworn, on oath, depose and say: That I posted in the following public and conspicuous places, a copy of Ordinance Number(s) 31- dl which were adopted at the Council Meeting dated •1 a 31q I copy(s) of said ordinance(s) being hereto a tac d a d y reference made a part hereof, on the o date of 1991. Tigard Civic Center, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon 2. Washington Federal Saving Bank, 12260 SW Main St., Tigard, Oregon 3. Safeway Store, Tigard Plaza, SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon 4. Albertson's Store, Corner of Pacific Hwy. (State Hwy. 99) and SW Durham Road, Tigard, Oregon YLADIX Subscribed and sworn to before me this Q V1 date of , 19 RI OFFICIALSEAL rO M.JOANNHAYES Nota Public for regon NO i ARY PUBLIC•OREGON COMMISSION Y5 My Commission Expires: 5 1q,15 MY COMMISSION ION EX @XpIRES RES MAY 5, ,1 2995 h:\1ogin\jo\cwpost t t CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON ORDINANCE NO. 91-_S2j AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS TO APPROVE A ZONE CHANGE (ZCA 91- 13) (PARSONS) AND DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the City has received a request for annexation signed by Lewis and Aldora Parsons, who are the owners of the subject parcel; and WHEREAS, The City Council held a public hearing on July 23, 1991 to consider the annexation request and to consider zoning designations for the property; and WHEREAS, on July 23, 1991 the City Council approved a resolution forwarding the annexation to the Portland Metropolitan Area Local Government Boundary Commission; and WHEREAS, the zoning district designation recommended by the planning staff as set forth in Section 1 below is that which most closely conforms to the Washington County zoning designation as provided in the Washington County-Tigard Urban Planning Area Agreement. THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: The recommendation of the planning staff as set forth below is consistent with policy 10.1.2 and 10.1.3 of the City's Comprehensive Plan. Tax Map/Lot Number Current Zoning Proposed Zoning 2S1 9AD/800 Wash. Co. R-6 Tigard R-7 Current Plan Designation Proposed Plan Desicnation Wash. Co. R-6 Tigard Medium Density Residential Section 2: The property meets the definition for a developing area as defined in Chapter 18.138 of the Community Development Code and shall be designated as such on the development standards area map. Section 3: This ordinance shall become effective upon filing of the annexation final order with the office of the Secretary of State. PASSED: By u n Curl. Y10 U-5 vote of all Council members present after ( ~~I • being read by number and title only, this a34_d day of ~r .ey, City Reco der APPROVED: This day f , 1991. / er ne ;Ewta al rd , ay or AppA ved as to fo Attorne Date STAFF REPORT July 23, 1991 TIGARD CITY COUNCIL TIGARD TOWN HALL 13125 S.W. HALL BOULEVARD TIGARD, OREGON 97223 A. FACTS: CASE: Zone Change Annexation 91-13 REQUEST: To annex one parcel consisting of 0.94 acres of unincorporated Washington County into the City of Tigard, and for a zone change from Washington County R-6 (Residential, 6 units per acre) to City of Tigard R-7 (Residential, 7 units per acre). COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Washington County Residential, 6 units per acre. ZONING DESIGNATION: Washington County R-6 (Residential, 6 units per acre). APPLICANT: Lewis and Aldora Parsons 12655 SW Bull Mountain Road. Tigard, Oregon 97223 OWNERS: Lewis and Aldora Parsons 12655 S.W. Bull Mountain Road Tigard, Oregon 97223 LOCATION: Southwest Corner of Bull Mt. Road and 126th Avenue, WCTM 2S1 09AD, tax lot 800. 2. Background Information No previous applications have been reviewed by the City relating to this property. 3. Vicinity Information Property to the north of the site is in Washington county and is zoned R-6 (Residential, 6 units per acre). Property to the east is developed as a single family residential home in Washington County. Property to the south is a large lot single family residence in Washington County. Properties to the west are developed as single family residential homes in Washington County. All other surrounding properties are zoned Washington County R-6 (Residential, 6 units per acre). ZCA 91-12 Staff Report 1 s 4. Site Information and Proposal Description l The property to be annexed has one single family residence with the remainder of the property undeveloped. The property slopes downward to the east. The area is largely open with grasses and a few trees scattered throughout the property. The applicant requested that his parcel be annexed into the City of Tigard in order to partition the property for one additional house and to serve both houses with sanitary sewer. The property is proposed to be connected to the City of Tigard by a "Cherry Stem" with the annexation of a 125 foot portion of Bull Mt. Road. 5. Agency and NPO Comments Portland General Electric, General Telephone, Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue, Tigard School District 23J, and the Tigard Building Division, Tigard Field Services Division have reviewed the proposal and offer no objections or comments. The Tigard Engineering Department comments that the annexation should include all of the right-of-way of Bull Mountain Road. Neighborhood Planning Organization #3 has the following comments: { The organization voted to deny the annexation proposal because it is not contiguous to the City of Tigard and is setting a precedent in. annexing property not contiguous on Bull Mountain. The Tigard Police Department has the following comments:. A continuing concern in the Police Department is that this.type of small (one lot) annexation causes problems for, emergency 'police response, traffic enforcement and patrol. For example, as you drive west from Highway 99W on Bull Mt. Road, you will be in the City, out, in, out, in, out, in, out, in, out, in, out, in, and out. This makes police response very difficult, confuses.traffic enforcement and in general causes problems for the police department. The Police Department has not seen a development plan, but, if any of the residents in this area of annexation have access off 126th, which is not included, it will only further complicate matters. The Police Department will have no jurisdiction to respond to problems on their street, but we will respond to problems on their property. This will be very confusing for the homeowners and bad public relations for the City. The Tigard Water District has the following comments: It should be noted that if this parcel was to be developed, the Water District would at that time require the existing 6" water main on S.W. 126th Avenue be extended northerly across the entire frontage ZCA 91-12 Staff Report 2 i p of the property. The Fire District may require additional fire hydrant at the end of water main extension. Washington County Land-Use and Transportation has the following comments: Washington County would like to eventually widen Bull Mt. Road to three (3) lanes. To do this, the county needs 33 feet of right-of-way north of the centerline of Bull Mt. Road. The County would like the applicant to dedicate the appropriate amount of right-of-way to accomplish the future widening. B. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The relevant criteria in this case are Tigard Comprehensive Plan Policies 2.1.1, Citizen Involvement; 6.4.1, Developing Areas; 10.1.1, Service Delivery Capacity; and 10.1.2, Boundary Criteria and chapters 18.136, Annexations; and 18.138, Established/Developing Area Classification of the Tigard Community Development Cade. The planning staff-has determined that the proposal is consistent with the relevant portions of the Tigard Comprehensive Plan based upon the findings noted below:. 1. Plan Policy 2.1.1 is satisfied because the Neighborhood Planning Organization and Community Planning Organization as well as surrounding property owners were given notice of the hearing and an opportunity to comment on the request. 2. Plan Policy 6.4.1 is satisfied because the annexation will be designated as a developing area on the development standards map. 3. Plan Policy 10.1.1 is satisfied because the City has conducted the Bull Mountain/Walnut Area Urban Services Study which includes the subject property. This study as well as the comments from the Police Department, and other service providers indicate that adequate services are available in. the vicinity and may be extended to accommodate the subject property. 4. Plan Policy 10.1.2(B) requires that the annexation not create an irregular boundary for police service. This annexation creates an irregular boundary in this area. The annexation will add to that irregularity. The police Department has been notified of this request and have responded that such annexations create difficulty and confusion for police services. The planning staff has determined that the proposal is consistent with the relevant portions of the Community Development Code based upon the findings noted below: 1. Section 18.136.030 of the Code is partially met because all facilities and services can be made available, all applicable comprehensive Plan policies have not been satisfied (irregular boundary), and the property has been determined to be a developing ZCA 91-12 Staff Report 3 3 area in accordance with the criteria in Chapter 18.138 of the Code. The Urban Planning Area Agreement between the City and Washington County requires that when annexing land within the City's area of interest, the City adopt a zone designation which most closely 1 resembles the County plan and zone designation. In this case, the property is designated in Washington County for single family residential use with a minimum lot size of 5,000 square feet and a maximum density of six units per acre. The City of Tigard Medium Density Residential plan designation and R-7 zone with an identical minimum lot size requirement and maximum density of seven units per acre are the most comparable to the present County designation. 2. Chapter 18.138 of the Code is satisfied because the property meets the definition for a developing area and shall be designated as such on the development standards area map. C. RECOMMENDATION Given the fact that there is no definite policy on this type of annexation and the application has proceeded to this point, it would be appropriate to recommend approval to the Boundary Commission. It is suggested that similar annexation requests not be approved and that potential applicants be informed that such annexation will not receive an affirmative recommendation from the City of Tigard. Attempts should be made to seek _ the combination of additional lots to make annexation boundaries more regular. PREPARED BY: 01 Victor Adonri, Development Assistance Planner ZCA 91-12 Staff Report 4 .5 Cass f OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF STATE NEWS RELEASE PHIL KEISLING July 22, 1991 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Contact: Nina Johnson, 378-4139 SECRETARY OF STATE KEISLING RELEASES DRAFT REDISTRICTING PLANT FOR MULTNOMAH COUNTY; ANNOUNCES SENATE PAIRINGS FOR DRAFT PLAN Salem, OR Secretary of State Phil Keisling today completed his draft redistricting plan by releasing the proposed Multnomah County districts and pairings for all Senate districts. The rest of the draft plan was released last week. Secretary Keisling begins seeking public input on the entire draft plan in a hearing in Bend this evening. "I cannot emphasize enough that the draft plan on which we are seeking public comment is truly a draft," Secretary Keisling said. "It is important that anyone interested express their concerns and share their ideas about how we might better meet all constitutional and legal requirements." The Multnomah County House Districts reflect the shift in population to the east part of the county because of faster population growth in other parts of the state. As a result, House Districts 10 and 14 have been largely combined into one House district and most other Multnomah County districts have moved east from their 1981 lines to pick up additional population. "One of the primary considerations in drawing Multnomah County district lines was to preserve the integrity of neighborhoods," Secretary Keisling noted. "Although we couldn't accomplish that in every instance, we gave it our best effort." (more) 2-2-2 ` r~ The Senate pairings, as outlined in the attached listing, use current Senate and House district numbers for all Senators, though numbers may change for the final plan. In three cases, two Senators reside within the same proposed Senate district, and the Secretary of State is required by law to assign one of those Senators to a district so that no Oregon citizen goes unrepresented. The six affected are Senators Brenneman, Dukes, Grensky, Hannon, Jolin and Kintigh. Each Senator keeps his or her current Senate district number, with the boundaries as proposed in the draft plan. Secretary Keisling noted that one of the considerations in assignment was that substantial parts of the new proposed Senate districts were contained in the previous Senate districts of the same member. "There are some fundamental guidelines we followed in proposing the Senate pairings, " Secretary Keisling noted. "Of particular concern was community of common interest and the compactness of the district. As a result, there are some changes from the current districts. Secretary Keisling also noted that his legal advisers have said that the new constitutional language approved by Oregon voters in 1986 on legislative redistricting requires him to assign a current House member to every new district in which there would otherwise be no incumbent. Those decisions will not be made until the hearings process is complete and the draft final plan is unveiled the week of August 5. "This is the first time redistricting has been done under constitutional language as modified in 1986," Secretary Keisling explained. "In addition to having to assign all Senators and Representatives to districts, we are also further consulting with the Attorney General's office as to whether any acceptable plan must contain only minimal population deviation from district to district. If less deviation were advisable than in the current draft plan, districts in Eastern Oregon would be primarily affected by any changes." (more) J " 3-3-3 Two new hearings have been added to the previously announced schedule. A hearing will be held on Wednesday, July 31, at 5:30 pm in the Tillamook County Courthouse Circuit Court Room, and at 10:00 am on Thursday, August 1, in Hearing Room A of the State Capitol in Salem. The deadline for written public comment on any parts of the draft plan has been extended to August 1. Keisling added that his office is continuing to work to overcome technical problems that have made the production of clear black and white maps so difficult. More complete narrative descriptions of proposed districts will also be available later in the week. Secretary Keisling expects to present a draft of the final plan at a meeting of the Redistricting Advisory Group on August 6. A public hearing on the draft will also be held that week. The draft of the final plan will incorporate public comments made during the public hearings to the extent they do not conflict with the constitutional and legal requirements the Secretary of State must follow in drawing district lines. The final plan must be filed with the Oregon Supreme Court by August 15. i P t. SECRETARY OF STATE SCHEDULE OF STATEWIDE HEARINGS ON REDISTRICTING July 22 7:00 pm BEND Central Oregon Community College, Hitchcock Auditorium (2600 NW College Way) July 23 12:00 pm ONTARIO Treasure Valley Community College, Tech Lab 3 (650 College Blvd.) July 23 7:00 pm BAKER CITY Baker High School Commons (2500 'E" Street) July 24 10:00 am PENDLETON Blue Mountain Community College, Morrow Hall, Room 130 (2410 NW Carden Drive) July 24 5:00 pm THE DALLES Mid-Columbia General Hospital, Conference Room 1 (1700 E. 19th Street) July 25 12:00 pm PORTLAND Portland Community College, Cascade Campus, Terrell Hall Room 122 (705 N. Killingsworth) July 25 7:00 pm HIL SBORO Tuality Community Hospital, Conference Room 1-2 (335 SE 8th) July 26 12:00 pm ASTORIA • Astoria Public Library, Flag Room (450 10th St.) July 29 12:00 pm KLAMATH FALLS Klamath County Commissioners Hearing Room (305 Main Street) July 29 7:00 pm MEDFORD Old County Courthouse, Auditorium (10 S. Oakdale) July 30 12:00 pm EUGENFJSPRINGFIELD Lane County Courthouse, Harris Hall (125 E. 8th Avenue, Eugene) July 30 7:00 pm OREGON CITY Clackamas Community College, Pauling Center, Room 101 (19600 S. Molalla Avenue) July 31 12:00 pm LINCOLN CITY Lake Elementary School (540 N. Coast Highway) July 31 5:30 pm TII.LAMOOK Tillamook County Courthouse, Circuit Court Room (201 Laurel Ave.) August 1 10:00 am SALEM Revised 7/22/91 Hearing Room A, State Capitol Building All { + ~ o ~ ~ _ "•~~M~ tea- I I L rr • ~ ~ i l+Ia 1 r ~ + i ~'~Jt y ~i14~:4• ' + si 1 M~ i `I sl R ~ ~ ~ ~ ; t; , ~ II ` ~'F. Fyn h.t„ !•,Ir•(. ; y,! 4 v s 1'T 5• • d` r. rh ,t f•.F,~•li• „F+ 1 ~.I:ve al~{''{r:~ti~~t~l:y••,1"'1 nAA N„f'~~. ,F' .t!'r ~ ~ 'dpi ~I ` rt';;yh , h'. „r'F,'• ' r:i.` ,~1is~~fj'+i'Y'. ! rh+! !,~•i~' ;~!ir. ~','Fh;~ { t ➢ • + ~:~1:f'Ir rq1i ' ~ti'l~jF' ~r * ?t rh. y"'F 'J~. .:4' ~ I , r:Pr~ ~Y 1n~~ 4 ~ ~ J ~lr, rF; !r r ~ . 1 • ~ 4 ~ F,~ . ~ ` t t? H , ~ Y lt'~ ~~r~ 1 r ~•~'uh~~~~F~~'" " ' yF. r~~ ~ F~ t. k. r r h,. l ) 111 rH 1~ 1 r ' ' y 15 t~ t {tU~ •ir~F~T{{`~Y~`~~1`,h4r.fr~`r{4~~'h'r F!r '71i ~~•F.~?"~th• y ~ 0 ~ 1~! r' 1 p K '1 ~''FI ^rF, F•fi. f r• n •F 'F, , - J ,r,~.: .11 f •Iq~''},'F.~ T I F,}~~ ffY•.j, 1.~.'r+FF ~h ir•F ~ i•.F yF'h.~' .r,f , +p •_F.p'1ry..fF,li•~~ .f.•,f''fi.~:.r'f..i,F.F•hy:;F'F~n:f••~.j,;~"L•.t't•~;F ~h•n • . . ,'f • $.r. _f•,F n:, 'iel: I•..r. •:~.r + f.~ ;i • :.g' )•.r r 'I 'hr •.:.ri +";.F'?nt:.: "f••r.,, •.i.., 'i•,r..,. i a {~1 A..F'h.r...'+:•...~d•.R{.. 'h•.."t~..+•.1,,, i i I I Sfzxcb sRss; w~ 7/~ -3 / q/ TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: I AM REPRESENTING THE OREGON STATE CHAMPION ASA 10 AND UNDER GIRLS SOFTBALL TEAM. WE RECENTLY COMPETED IN THE STATE GAMES OF OREGON AND RECEIVED A GOLD MEDAL FOR OUR EFFORTS! THE TEAM HAS BEEN WRITTEN UP IN THE TIGARD/TUALATIN TIMES NEWSPAPER, ON THE REVERSE SIDE IS A PHOTOCOPY OF THOSE ARTICLES. THE TEAM IS COMPRISED OF GIRLS FROM THE TUALATIN/TIGARD AREA WHO HAD BEEN IN LITTLE LEAGUE ALL SEASON AND CAME TOGETHER TO PLAY IN THE ASA TOURNAMENTS. LITTLE DID WE KNOW WE HAD A WINNING COMBINATION! OUR MANAGER IS JOHN MALLOCH, THE COACHING STAFF INCLUDES DAN BEELER, WHOM YOU MAY REMEMBER COACHED THE TIGARD LITTLE LEAGUE SENIORS THE WORLD SERIES CHAMPIONSHIP IN 1988. HE AND HIS DAUGHTER BECKY, HERSELF A STAR PLAYER FOR TIGARD HIGH SCHOOL AND A MEMBER OF THAT CHAMPIONSHIP TEAM, ALONG WITH BILL WILSON, ANOTHER DEDICATED PARENT AND COACH COMPRISE OUR COACHING STAFF. WE HAVE A TEAM OF TALENTED AND HARDWORKING GIRLS! THESE YOUNG LADIES ARE WINNERS IN EVERY SENSE OF THE WORD! THIS TEAM HAS BEEN INVITED TO PARTICIPATE IN THE ASA NA- TIONAL INVITATIONAL TOURNAMENT IN SANTA MARIA CA. AUGUST 1-4. WE BELIEVE OUR GIRLS HAVE WHAT IT TAKES TO BRING HOME ANOTHER WIN FOR NOT ONLY OREGON, BUT FOR TIGARD/TUALATIN. BUT, WE ARE IN NEED OF SPONSOR MONEY TO TAKE THIS TEAM TO THE TOURNAMENT. WON'T YOU PLEASE HELP US OUT? YOUR GIFT OF MONEY OR GOODS IS TRULY APPRECIATED! TAKE ONE MORE LOOK AT OUR TEAM PICTURE, HOW CAN YOU SAY NO? f OUR GRATITUDE FOR YOUR GENEROSITY CANNOT BE EXPRESSED BY MERE WORDS, BUT WE HOPE THANK YOU WILL DO! THE PARENTS ,a t s no Tne Times • Week of July 11 - 1_71.991 • P_ age 1 IA. r y ~ •~r ti ~ t/tCtl• •i. t,~tAlq. , .1 . r: t ti •q~,~~ State champions! The Izzy's Pizza ASA 10-and-under softball team from Tigard and Tualatin recently won the Oregon state championship at Meldrum Park in Gladstone. The victorious team includes (front row, left to right) Jenny Beeler, Kristen Peerman, Erin Malloch, Amy Sweda, Lindsay Wilson, Brittanie Sullivan, (middle row, left to right) Sarah Poison, Emily Brokaw, Mandy But- ler, Holly Ray, Trisha Guffey, Mandy McGrath, (top row, left to right) Coaches Bill Wilson, Dan Beeler, John Malloch and Becky Beeler. Izzy's I o-and-under team wins state championship The Izzy's Pizza ASA girls' 10- two RBIs and Emily Brokaw drove and-under softball team from in one run. Tualatin and Tigard captured the The team from Tualatin and first-place trophy at the state cham- Tigard reached the championship pionships Sunday in Gladstone. game by defeating Oregon City 2-0. The pitching of Trisha Guffey, Defense was the key to the victory Jenny Beeler and Amy Sweda as the Izzy's infield turned three earned the squad a 7-1 tournament double plays in as many innings - record, playid at Meldrum Park. Kristen Peerman turned an unas- After losing to Oregon City in its sisted double play at first, Beeler first game, the Tualatin and Tigard tagged a runner advancing to second team battled back through the and made the throw to Peerman at loser's bracket to win seven straight first, and Sweda caught a fly ball in games, including a pair of wins center field then threw the ball in to ~ against Oregon City, a team than Peerman at first who tagged out the had won 44 straight games. runner who had left the bag. Izzy's Izzy's defeated Oregon City 5-4 two runs came on RBI hits by Peer- in the championship game, After man and Sarah Poison. playing four back-to-back games After losing its first tournament MR= Izzy's rallied from a 4-2 deficit in game 3-1 to Oregon City on Satur- the fourth inning to score three runs day, the Izzy's Pizza team marched in the fifth inning and hand Oregon through the loser's . bracket by City it- second straight defeat. Guf- defeating Aloha 14-2, Gaston 15-3, fey pitched a strong game and Holly North Clackamas 7-3, Kidd Corr- Ray and Amanda McGrath each had crete 6-5, and Canby 24-4. ~Sfu.~l~ sass; (M 71-)3lgl o l L t~v TIGARD AREA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE 12420 S.W. MAIN ST., TIGARD, OR 97223 C~ (503) 639-1656 ,r?nr'~~`n nq,~ JUL 15 1991 July 12, 1991 l Pat Reilly City of Tigard PO Box 23397 Tigard, OR 97223 Dear Pat: I sent you a letter the other day with information on the Tigard map brochure. I have some additional information for you. Mike Stevenson, B&B Litho, offered an alternative solution to printing each year. Here are some figures concerning costs: 4,000 copies $1,900 10,000 copies 3,250 20,000 copies 5,395 Mike suggested printing 10,000 copies at a. cost of $3,025. 5,000 copies would be printed with the map and 5,000 copies would be printed with everything except the map. Mike would print the map on the second 5,000 the next year (or at the time the brochures are needed or when the map needs updating) for an approximate cost of $400. I wanted you to be aware of these options. I hope the map brochure is still possible and Emily and I can meet with you if you need more information. I look forward to hearing from you as soon as possible. Sincerely, S• S. Carolyn Long Executive Director COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM 3.I CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY AGENDA OF: July 23, 1991 DATE SUBMITTED: July 11. 1991 ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: 1991-92 InterT PREVIOUS ACTION: -Adoption of Year overnmental Agreement With Washin to 1 Plan Count - Year Waste Reduction P PREPARED BY: Loreen Edin DEPT HEAD OK CITY ADMIN OK i REQUESTED BY: Loreen Edin ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Should the City participate in the Washington County Wasteshed Plan? STAFF RECOMMENDATION Participate in Year 2 of the Waste Reduction Plan in conjunction with all cities within Washington County by approving an intergovernmental agreement with Washington County. - INFORMATION SUMMARY METRO has established a Regional Solid Waste Management Plan which includes a Waste Reduction Chapter. This plan provides that METRO shall establish a five-year work plan for solid waste reduction and identifies specific programs for local governments to implement. For the first year (7/90 - 7/91) of the five-year plan, the cities of Washington County determined it would be most cost effective to participate together and adopt an annual work plan as the Washington County Wasteshed. It is now time to adopt the Year 2 work plan. Attached is a summary of those tasks. Again as last year, under the plan, each city will pay to Washington County, as Program Administrator, the amount identified as that city's share for administrative cost as allocated under the annual plan from METRO. PROPOSED ALTERNATIVES 1. Participate in the second year work plan as a part of Washington County's Wasteshed. 2. Do not participate in the county-wide program and adopt a plan for the City of Tigard pursuant to the requirements in ORS.Chapters 268 & 459. - - FISCAL NOTES 1. Funding for the 91-92 work plan are provided by METRO grant monies which Tigard will pay to Washington County to administer the program. ( 2. Unknown. COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM 3. z CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY, AGENDA OF: July 23, 1991 DATE SUBMITTED: July 11,1991 ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Board and PREVIOUS ACTION: Committee A ointments PREPARED BY: Elizabeth Newton DEPT HEAD OK CITY ADMIN OK REQUESTED BY: Mayor's Appt. Adv. J ISSUE B E THE COUNCIL Appointments To Planning Commissioniand Library Board STAFF RECOMMENDATION Adopt the proposed resolution. - INFORMATION SUMMARY The attached resolution forwards the recommendations of the Mayor's Appointments Advisory Committee to make appointments to the Library Board and the Planning Commission. PROPOSED ALTERNATIVES 1. Adopt the attached resolution. 2. Decline action at this time. FISCAL NOTES C t ~ , I MAR 2 7 19911 z ,~►~~J CITY OF TIGARD OREGON CITIZEN COMMITTEE INTEREST APPLICATION Name: WEM1 CONOtER HAV FY Date: 3/26/91 Address (Res.): 14790 Std 79th Ave. Tigard, OR 97224 Res. Phone: 620-5056 caress (bus.): same lids. riioue: -620=V56 Length of Residence in Tigard: 36 yrs Suggested by: Where did you live previously: (I've only lived out of Tigard 4 yr at various times) Educational Background: Graduate Jackson HS '69; PSU '71; PCC misc; various trade CEU's; Certificate of Bookkeeping (Elliot)- (was educated in Tigard except for senior Occupational Status and Background: Currently with HAWL.EY CONSTRUCTION (owner/business mgr) a residential remodeling firm; past experiences include Accounts Mgr, Office Mgr (financial) nject tjgX(]xifh fiPlri& offine)v SySt-Ptra Anal3fcic R, Cnn3111_tatjCM• Tnt-arinr no igu-Cops.- v How long have you been employed with this firm: 9 yrs Is this Company located within your NPO area (NPO applicants only): Previous Community Activity. NPO #5 (3yrs), Fanno Greek Conference-.,(3yrs vari ous of f i c_es), Mayor's Blue Ribbon Task Force, Tigard Little League (Board, Uniforms, coach, field director team mom h t ch Roa d, i?itrham School VnlttntaPr Tnt.tta~- Parents for a New Dirham SchpQ~--etc. o how Cow itte, llraani~afinnc anel OfficPs- Tigard Chamber of Commerce; Oregon Remodelers Assn (91 HIR S - - _ Chair, 90 Education Comm.), Spotlights President '90 (drama parents), FCC Issues c& Speakers Committee Chair 92, HOST/ORA Joint Venture Project Mgr 1990 HIRS (low income housing auth) Other Information (General Remarks): '89-90 worked w,/Construction Contractors Board and Clac as Community College to develop a CEU program for State licensed contractors (impl. Fall 91) Boards, Committees or NPO Interested in: Planning Commission Date Received at City Hall Date Interviewed _ Date Appointed Board, Committee, or NPO T-aide City Outside City l login\tiz\citcomin 13125 SW Hall Blvd, P.O. Box 23397, Tigard, Oregon 97223 (503) 639-4171 tt'v CCITYOF TIFAID OREGON CITIZEN COMMITTEE INTEREST APPLICATION Name: ~If/yo3-I 1,1(f. -Burae.ss Date: Address (Res.): 1,3~/JS- Vr 11'tq e ~~c,K H ~1r Res. Phone: X 317-0,fO 3 Address (Bus.): Bus. Phone: Length of Residence in Tigard: rilv~ . Suggested by: Where did you live previously: ~ge ,Le( Educational Back-ground: Occupational //Status and Background.' Tt- uu-~a Z-~~~- ~kuk per` How long have you been employed with this firm: Is this Company located within your NPO area (NPO applicants only): qq Previous Community Activity: -0 1 C/ 61 Organizations.and Offices: Other Information (General Remarks): 47 Boards, Committees or NPO Interested in:z~ /o( 7 Date Received at City Hall Date Interviewed Date Appointed Board, Committee, or NPO de City Outside City login\liz\citcomin 13125 SW Hall Blvd, P.O. Box 23397, Tigard, Oregon 97223 (503) 639-4171 CITYOF TIIFARD OREGON CITIZEN COMMITTEE INTEREST APPLICATION Name: Je-i Cundiff Date: _2-28-91 Address (Res.): 12860 S.W. Watkins Av. Res. Phone: 639-9096 Address (Bus.): 8770 S.W. S c off i ne Tigard, Or. 97223 Bus. Phone: 684-1424 Length of Residence in Tigard: 21 Yrs. Suggested by: Where did you live previously: a. W . Portland Educational Background: _ B . A . & M.A. in special ad. Occupational Status and Background: T am currently mnrVi ng Env W , r, Rsp. I have had the same job for the gas 7 yrs I teach at risk adolescents in a day treatment program. We currently moved from Portland to Tigard. How long have you been employed with this firm- 7 yrs Rr Is this Company located within your NPO area (NPO applicants only): Yes Previous Community Activity: I helped organize the Friends of the Tigard Library many moons ago, -and also served on the Lihr ry Board for 8-years. Organizations and Offices: I belong to Oregon Association f nr A 1 terns i y G ttaJL and - B"U09 rELlip 1. aterted 24 Years al e- I did not choose to hold offices.,in these organizations. Other Information (General Remarks): Tom aYCi tad abol)t the passihi litg of semri ng once again on the board after such a long time away. Boards, Committees or NPO Interested in: Tigard Library Board Date Received at City HaU Date Interviewed Date Appointed Boani, Committee, or M'O ;de City Outside City login\liz\citcomin 13125 SW Hall Blvd., P.O. Box 23397, Tigard, Oregon 97223 (503) 639-4171 i i Cirf OF UVARD OREGON CITIZEN COMMITTEE INTEREST APPLICATION Name: r,~ a 7 /L„- >t- &j-t Z .'e Date: 7 1/ /19/ Address (Res.): /0a,F.5' -f/-J '70 acct Res. Phone:.24J lo.~ 99 Address (Bus.): C o p ,y, s t,~, Bus. Phone: Yqq - 05 ,Pa Length of Residence in Tigard: Syex,-,s Suggested by: Where did you live previously: AL (a Nd - Educational Background: /-7/ . Ed a.-•~c- Occupational Status and Background: How long have you been employed with this firm: 4 Is this Company located within your NPO area (NPO applicants only): o Previous Community Activity: APV ? m e cin 6,-,, Organizations and Offices: Ce•7- n-, :ate a'd_ C3.haA,~, Other Information (General Remarks): Boards, Committees or NPO Interested in: w oar r[ . Date Received at City Hall Date Interviewed Date Appointed Board, Committee, or NPO -;de City Outside City ,t login\14\6tmmin 13125 SW Hall Blvd., P.O. Box 23397, Tigard, Oregon 97223 (503) 639-4171 COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY AGENDA OF: July 23, 1991 DATE SUBMITTED: July 10, 1991 ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Agreement with PREVIOUS ACTION: Council author- Wash. County to accept- CDBG funds &BEFORE fized submittal of project proposal hand. access rovements to Engle- 10 26/90 wood Park PREPARED BY: Duane Roberts,Adm Plan DEPT HEAD OK CITY ADMIN REQUESTED BY: Ed Murphy, CD Director THE COUNCIL To enter into an agreement with Washi gton County Accepting $10,284 in Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds or the construction of certain handicapped access improvements to Englewood Park. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Authorize the Mayor to sign the agreement. INFORMATION SUMMARY The Community Development Block Grant Policy Committee has recommended that the City be awarded $10,600 for the construction of curb cuts at ten entrances to Englewood Park and at two pedestrian crossing on the opposite side the street from existing entrances. Copies of the full, 28-page contract are available for review at City Hall. Award of the construction contract will require separate Council action. Contract award is tentatively set for September 1991. PROPOSED ALTERNATIVES - Sign the agreement on July 23, 1991, to accept the CDBG funds. - Not to accept the grant. FISCAL NOTES Local sources of project funds include a $600 City contribution. Most of this "match" amount would be in the form of in-kind contributions. Only $75 would be in hard dollars and would come from park levy funds. l N PROJECT DESCRIPTION, SCOPE OF ACTIVITIES AND ANTICIPATED ACCOMPLISHMENTS I. Project Number and Title: CDBG Project #3410, Tigard Englewood Park Handicapped Access. i II. Description of: Project, Activities, Anticipated Accomplishments, Low and Moderate or Other Target Group Beneficiaries. A. Nature and Purpose of the Project: Improve the accessibility of Englewood Park to the mobility impaired by providing curb cuts at park entrances and/or removal of architectural barriers. B. Proposed Location or Impact Area(s): The location of the project is Englewood Park and the sidewalks in the immediate area. The 15 acre park serves a larger area. C. Duration/Timincr of the Project: August 6, 1991 - July 31, 1992 D. Number of Low and Moderate Income or Target Group Beneficiaries: It is estimated that 75 disabled individuals will be served by the accessibility improvements annually. E. Component Activities (CDBG vs Others): Total project cost: $10,884. CDBG $10,284; Local $75; In-kind $525. F. Quantitative Projections for CDBG Component Activities (in units, linear feet, square feet, etc.) for all acquisitions, construction, reconstruction, rehabilitation, etc.: Install 12 curb cuts in locations to enhance access to Englewood Park. t Q EXHIBIT A i COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM 3•q t, CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY AGENDA OF: July 23, 1991 DATE SUBMITTED: July 10, 1991 ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Agreement with PREVIOUS ACTION: Council author- Wash. Count to accept CDBG funds fo ized submittal of project proposal hand. access improvements to Cook P r 16T26795 PREPARED BY: Duane Roberts Adm Plan DEPT HEAD OK CITY ADMIN OK REQUESTED BY: Ed Murphy, CD Director - S UE EFORE THE COUNCIL To enter into an agreement with Washington County Accepting $12,500 in Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds for the construction of certain handicapped access improvements to Cook Park. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Authorize the Mayor to sign the agreement. INFORMATION SUMMARY The Community Development Block Grant Policy Committee has recommended that the City be awarded $12,500 for the construction of handicapped access improvements to Cook Park. The proposed improvements include the construction of a hard surface pathway leading to the children's play area, the construction of two accessible picnic areas, and the installation of an accessible drinking fountain. Copies of the full, 28-page contract are available for review at City Hall. Award of the construction contract will require separate Council action. Contract award is tentatively set for September 1991. PROPOSED ALTERNATIVES - Sign the agreement on July 23, 1991, to accept the CDBG funds. - Not to accept the grant. FISCAL NOTES Local sources of project funds include a $4,434 City contribution. Half of this "match" amount would be in the form of administrative overhead and other in-kind contributions, such as project design, management, and supervision. The other half would be in hard dollars and would come from park levy funds. , r PROJECT DESCRIPTION, SCOPE OF ACTIVITIES AND ANTICIPATED ACCOMPLISHMENTS I. Project Number and Title: CDBG Project 13432, Cook Park Handicapped Access. II. Description of: Project, Activities, Anticipated Accomplishments, Low and Moderate or other Target Group Beneficiaries. A. Nature and Purpose of the Project: Improve the accessibility of Cook Park to the mobility impaired through physical improvements or removal of architectural barriers. B. Proposed Location or Impact Area(s): While the location of the project is in Cook Park, Tigard, the 51 acre park serves the larger region. C. Duration/Timing of the Project: August 7, 1991 - July 31, 1992 D. Number of Low and Moderate Income or Target Group Beneficiaries: It is estimated that this facility may serve up to 3,440 physically disabled persons annually. E. Component Activities (CDBG vs. Others): Total project cost: $16,935. CDBG $12,500; City $2,075; In-kind $2,360. F. Quantitative Projections for CDBG Component Activities (in units, linear feet, square feet, etc.) for all acquisitions, construction, reconstruction, rehabilitation, etc.: Construct two hard surface pathways to the children's play area; provide two wheelchair accessible picnic areas and an accessible drinking fountain. EXHIBIT A i a ti i COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM 3-5 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY AGENDA OF: July 23, 1991 DATE SUBMITTED: July 11, 1991 ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Appropriation or PREVIOUS ACTION: Council -Contingency - 1991/92 Budget / discussion PREPARED BY: Wayne Lowry DEPT HEAD OK CITY ADMIN OK REQUESTED BY: Wayne Lowr r Y- ISSUE BEFO E THE COUNCIL Should the City Council approve the appropriation from contingency in the General Fund for a review of franchised waste haulers financial reports and records. i STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of resolution. ~~N INFORMATION SUMMARY The Solid Waste Advisory Committee has recommended that the City Council examine its policy related to solid waste rates to determine whether each type of service should pay for itself or if some services should subsidize others. The idea of reviewing the solid waste haulers financial records, reports and practices has been discussed as a way to provide accurate information to the Council to assist them in addressing the solid waste rate policy. The estimated costs associated with this review were not included in the adopted budget because the scope of the review had not been finalized at that time. If Council wishes to proceed with this study, contingency must be appropriated. PROPOSED ALTERNATIVES 1. Approve resolution - proceed with review. 2. Do not approve. FISCAL NOTES 1. Appropriates contingency in General Fund of $10,000. 2. N/A C i Coo ers certified public accountants 2700 First Interstate Tower in principal areas of the world Portland, Oregon 97201 Uy rand telephone (503) 227.8600 C July 9, 1991 Mr. Wayne Lowry Finance Director City of Tigard 13125 S.W. Hall Blvd. P.O. Box 23397 Tigard, OR 97223 Dear Wayne: It was my pleasure to meet with you and Loreen Edin last week. I understand the City of Tigard wishes to retain Coopers & Lybrand to provide financial assistance to the City in connection with rate structure issues for solid waste disposal services. While the exact services required have not been completely established and may change as additional issues surface as the scope is refocused, the work is expected to address the following items. Review last three calendar years' annual reports filed by haulers and make comments on our observations regarding accuracy, consistency, etc. Determine cost allocation methods used to separate revenue and expenses between service types and jurisdictions and report whether allocations appeared to have been made based on methods described. Determine, if possible, cost of service by type and frequency of service. Identify the reasons for differences between haulers. Review amount paid as franchise fee and report any discrepancies noted. Based on above information, review annual reporting form and: Evaluate adequacy of form; Recommend consistent cost allocation methods (i.e. ways to consistently compute owners' compensation; disclose related party transactions; efficiencies of service delivery, etc.); Examine system of replacement of capital items and report reasonableness in light of industry standards; and Other recommendations the contractor may wish to submit. suggest method of computing pass through fee changes throughout the rate schedule. l Mr. Wayne Lowry City of Tigard July 9, 1991 Page Two You will be billed at our rates of each individual person for actual hours incurred, not to exceed $10,000. Each bill will note the general task performed, hours worked, and fee incurred. I will be happy to answer any questions you have and am looking forward to working with you on this matter. Very truly yours, Dennis D. Powell DDP:cs l i t i COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. 3,(D CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY AGENDA OF: July 23, 1991 DATE SUBMITTED: July 8. 1991 ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Acquisition___ PREVIOUS ACTION: Property for S.W. Gaarde Street Bond Protect PREPARED BY: _Gary Alfson DEPT HEAD O CITY ADMIN OK REQUESTED ET POLI ISSUE Shall the Council ratify a purchase agreement for property for the Gaarde Street project? INFORMATION SUMMARY Staff has negotiated a purchase price to acquire one of the properties developed with a duplex. The purpose of the acquisition is acquire right-of-way for the realignment of Gaarde Street Major Streets Bond Project. Surplus property remaining after completion of the project will be offered for sale to the adjoining property owners as "special-case property" as defined in TMC 3.44.005(d) ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 1. Approve the acquisition of the property for $133,000 plus closing costs for the Gaarde Street-Pacific Highway Major Streets Bond Project. 2. Continue to negotiate with the property owner. FISCAL IMPACT Right-of-way costs are funded by the Street Bond project. The purchase price is within the negotiation limits previously approved by the Council. SUGGESTED ACTION Staff recommends the Council authorize the City Administrator to create all necessary documents to acquire the above described property. dj/H:\engdoc\counci1\gaarde.du = -"n FRO RWA i x3)641- 40F,, REAL ESTATE OPTION f GRANTORS: Philip B. Feldman MAIL ADDRESS: 6141 SW Seymore Portland, Oregon PROPERTY LOCATION: 14870 S.W. Gaarde Park Place, Tigard, OR 97223 PURPOSE: Fee Acquisition IN CONSIDERATION OF the offer to the undersigned for the hereinafter described property, the undersigned do hereby give and grant to the City of Tigard, a Municipal Corporation of the State of Oregon, upon the terms and conditions hereinafter stated, the option to purchase the following described real property, to-wit: SEE ATTACHED DOCUMENT Said City shall have the irrevocable right to elect to purchase under this option at any time within three months from date hereof, and the undersigned agree to convey to said City, thereupon, the real property herein described by warranty deed, conveying a good and marketable title thereto free from all outstanding liens and encumbrances, including unpaid and deferred real property taxes, and free from all rights of lessees, tenants, and other persons claiming any rights in or to said property. Upon written notice of the acceptance of this option mailed to the address shown above, the undersigned agree to give immediate notice to vacate to all persons in possession or otherwise, occupying the premises. It is specially understood and agreed that the property herein agreed to be conveyed shall, unless stated to the contrary herein, include all buildings, fixtures, emblements and appurtenances to the land. Upon the execution and delivery of said warranty deed. and the furnishing of an owner's policy of title insurance in the amount of said purchase price to the City, the undersigned, in the usual course and through the usual channels of auditing claims against the City, and subject to City approval shall be paid the sum of One Hundred Thirty Three Thousand and NOW DOLLARS ($133,000.00) as full payment of the purchase price of said real estate, including all damages, if any there be, by reason of the taking and use thereo& except that in addition to said purchase price the City shall do the following things, or allow compensation for the doing thereof., as the case may be, and it is expressly understood that the City shall not be obligated further than in this option expressly stated: 1. The City shall pay all Closing costs consisting of fep for title insurance, escrow fee and recording costs. 2. Real Estate taxes will be prorated at closing. The undersigned further agree neither to sell nor encumber the said real estate during the term of this option. In the event that any buildings fixtures, appurtenances, or other things are to pass to and become the property of the City in connection with the real property 1of3 • *-09-91 110:53PM FROM RWA (503)644-7400 PO:. i. herein covered, the undersigned agree to keep the same in good condition without waste, ; r damage or destruction during the term of this option. f ~ The City shall have the right to enter upon and take possession of the said property upon ' the execution and delivery of this option, but entry upon said premises for the purpose of inspection or survey or in any slight or inadvertent entry without material damage or injury to the realty, or without the exercise of dominion thereover to the exclusion of the undersigned, shall not be construed as a final election to close this option. All claims for damages, injury, or loss on account of failure to close this option are, hereby, expressly waived, It is further agreed that no statements, expressions of opinion, representations or 3 agreements of any nature whatsoever, not herein expressly stated, made by any representative or agent of said City shall be binding on, or of any effect against the City. The undersigned expressly acknowledge that all items of damages. all sums of money to be paid, and all things to be done by the City in the event this offer is accepted and the option exercised by the City are included in this option. The undersigned agree that the consideration recited herein is just compensation for the optioned property, including any and all damage to the undersigned's remaining property, if any, which may result from the acquisition or use of said property and any construction or maintenance work upon said { property. Dated this day of 1991. , antor j STATE OF OREGON ss County of Washington , ) On this day of , 1991 before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said County and State, personally appeared the within named Pifflp 13.. Feldman who h on the basis of satisfactory evidence is known to be the person whose name is subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged that he executed the same freely and voluntarily for the purposes therein c6ntained. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and official seal the day and ' year last above written. s~ Notary Public for Oregon` My Commission Expires: A' 2 of 3 ~f k S~ Y ( t GAARDE STREET REALIGNMENT CITY OF TIGARD WASHINGTON COUNTY, OREGON SCALE 1" = 100' N GARDEN PARK PLACE co U U Q U Q O r 3 ~ O Z- E C D A MCDONALD STREET GAARDE STREET • ~P v~ G~ © QP Cqq RAF ` STRFFl COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. 4 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY AGENDA OF: July 23, 1991 DATE SUBMITTED: ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Parsons Annex. PREVIOUS ACTION: ZCA 91-0013 Zone Change Annexation UICA\ A. PREPARED BY: Victor Adonri DEPT HEAD OK CITY ADMIN OI REQUESTED BY: ISSUE BE ORE THE COUNCIL Should the City Council forward to the Portland Metropolitan Area Local Government Boundary Commission a request for annexation of a parcel consisting of approximately 0.94 acres located at the S.W. corner of Bull Mt. Road and 126th Avenue? More particularly, should the Council act favorably on this annexation request, which involves a "Cherry Stem" along Bull Mountain Road, since the parcel is not contiguous? STAFF RECOMMENDATION Adopt the attached resolution and ordinance to forward the annexation to the Boundary Commission and to assign plan and zone designation to the property in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. INFORMATION SUMMARY This annexation request consists of one parcel totaling 0.94 acres that is ontiguous to the City of Tigard by a "Cherry Stem" along Bull Mountain Road. C-The owner of the property requests annexation in order to obtain sanitary sewer, service. Attached is a resolution to forward the annexation request and an ordinance to change the zone designation from Washington County R-6 to City of Tigard R-7 in conformance with the City's Urban Planning Area Agreement with Washington County. Also attached is a vicinity map and staff report. The Tigard Police Department has expressed concerns that this annexation could create confusion for police services. PROPOSED ALTERNATIVES 1. Adopt the attached resolution and ordinance to forward the annexation to the Boundary Commission and to assign plan and zone designations to the property in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. 2. Postpone in order to contact surrounding property owners regarding their their interest in annexation at this time. 3. Deny the proposal. FISCAL NOTES The City of Tigard will pay the Boundary Commission fee of $140 for annexation. The current tax assessment is $91,760. CHER I N B USI MESS FORMS' ®9~ %on 8155 S.W. NIMBUS, BEAVERTON, OR 97005 • PHONE 646-4818 7 7-3, _ ell L ~C-> l Per iT/orf 47 v4--11#r tr To yA-1,71 T y O'- tw 15 157suc'D wJ43 V~LivE~~oV Tu T(4 ir C~r*y r-As-, &V tK, 1 T C,-5 AS 5fci-ecp Y~Y 17 40JOirjjAe& r/Ca P4.AS`iy Q,ci1~£~r5~ T c r .4 S C11 6 ~ v t- 9ZC- P l u P 4, re s a t4 ! U K. rk kv if r A r oL Y. r H'~ P~Tt Tt a,,✓ eft! <E rif s, c us p` C-1 r p N1 10 'y fc `c 5 ~7 74 A P P c-A a--f- . N l vsi i'aiv~.r€~.~* A- c o P Y w o f AAA 06 , y;. R 4 s v c r r- u Y (Z E Q v !rc s T Pc s r cz m r r o r= r- t-t r s fssuc VNT G. 7-if L &17 710A.) 2£C6r✓s rCuc--rEs~i A N R I Su d rrs, o ~c{~Z0 s w tzCf4 T1 Cr ft a17, 0/Z ~ 77. Z A S you CAIJ 5t: E 8Y rot Tis/1C P p4 715 dr i s N" "i"1,.~ r' T D a c c u S l! T if ! S E rr-, 2 r- O t 4 z RECEIVED P1ANNiNc ( JUL 16 1991 Bill Gross 3019 Sod Hampshire St. Portland, OR 97201 Tel: 228-3228 July 15, 1991 Ron Pomeroy Tigard Planning Department ` PO Box 23397 Tigard, OR 97223 A %F RE: Comprehensive Plan Amendment CPA 91-0001; ' Public Hearing before the City Council; Scheduled July 23, 1991 FROM: Applicant TO. Ron Pomeroy Applicant requests that the public hearing on CPA 91-0001 before the City Council, now scheduled for July 23, 1991, be postponed for an indefinite period to allow applicant to consider and respond to the planning commission's concerns about the plan amendment. 'r Applicant agrees to limit this indefinite postponment to a reasonable time period and to bear the expense of re-notification costs for such a postponment. i Regards, l' Bill Gross Copy: Dick Beuersdorff, Tigard Planning i ot"I"I ~ c. COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. J CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY AGENDA OF: July 23, 1991 DATE SUBMITTED: February 15, 1991 ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Comn. Plan. Amend.PREVIOUS ACTION: Planning Comm. HrQ -Comprehensive Plan Amendment CPA 91-00,01 Zone Change ZON 91-0005 on June 17 1941 4 1 . PARED BY: Dick Bewersdorff DEPT HEAD O CITY ADMIN O~ QUESTED BY: ISSUE BEF RE THE COUNCIL Should the City change plan designations to allow commercial development at the intersection of SW Scholls Ferry Road and SW 135th Avenue. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Deny the request because application does not follow agreement with neighboring ' jurisdictions and does not meet plan location criteria. INFORMATION SUMMARY The proposal seeks to redesignate approximately four acres of a 5.9 acre site from a Plan Designation of Medium-High Residential to General Commercial and zone change from R-25 (Residential, 25 units per acre) to C-G (General Commercial). While the application has a number of strong points in its favor including market potential and the traffic carrying capacity of scheduled street improvements, staff felt compelled to recommend denial because of the agreement with Beaverton and Washington County to control commercial and strip commercial development on Scholls Ferry and the Comprehensive Plan locational riteria which indicates that commercial areas not be surrounded by residential districts on more than two sides. After the issuance of the staff report, the applicant contacted both ODOT and Washington County with additional information. Both agencies subsequently withdrew their objections. Beaverton maintains its concern regarding additional commercial on Scholls Ferry. A representative of NPO 7 appeared at the Planning Commission hearing June 17, 1991 to support the proposal. The Planning Commission voted 5 to 0 to recommend denial of the request primarily because of the previous understanding with neighboring jurisdictions to limit commercial on Scholls Ferry, the location criteria, the amount of unleased commercial space available and some concern about traffic moving through the proposal area from New Scholls Ferry to 135th. Draft minutes of the Commission's discussion, the applicant's submittal and the staff report are attached. PROPOSED ALTERNATIVES 1. Approve the requested General Commercial and C-G designations and direct staff to prepare an ordinance reflecting the Council's findings. 2. Deny the request and direct staff to prepare a corresponding resolution. tone FISCAL NOTES r Attachments to the Staff Report are on file and available for review in the City Recorder's office. µ (1- i M 4 ! /rye I i I I S.W. OAVIES vs O N. N , WILTON AVE O BURY L6 f g ~ , rA G ooy z 13~ tI. r A,W. 13 Ih PL. o XN y X le 2 In O p Iy 4a I o ' N 7) N ~~y 133Sd PL S. Ave33rd ~ z n SW rn S.W. COTTONTAIL O- o td ~'1\N `~ti q m g PL. n ^ o n z O r m a z n ~ cn x o r a31NIM N z IE. ~i~ ( rn r• 3~ 130th AVE. 7 S.W. 129th PL. 7 I STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA ITEM, 5-•2. May 6, 1991 TIGARD CITY HALL - TOWN HALL 13125 SW HALL BLVD. TIGARD, OREGON A. FACTS 1. General Information CASE: Comprehensive Plan Amendment CPA 91-0001 / Zone Change ZON 91-0005 REQUEST: A request for approval of a Comprehensive Plan Amendment from Medium High Density Residential to General Commercial and a Zone Change from R-25 (Multi-family Residential, 25 units/acre) to C-G (General Commercial). ZONING DESIGNATION: R-25 APPLICANT: Bill Gross OWNER: E. Aleen Gross 3019 SW Hampshire 2955 SW Fairview Blvd. Portland, OR 97201 Portland, OR 97201 LOCATION: Southwest quadrant of the intersection of SW Scholls Ferry Road and SW 135th Avenue (WCTM 1S1 33CA tax lots 100, 200, and part of tax lot 1000) 2. Vicinity Information The subject site is bordered by SW Scholls Ferry Road to the west, Old SW Scholls Ferry Road to the northwest and north, and SW 135th Avenue to the east. The Summer Creek flood plain and a single family residence abut the site to the south. A number of multi-family apartment complexes are located further to the south along SW 135th Avenue. The subject: site is surrounded on all sides by multi-family residential zoning designations. Properties located to the south and east are within the city limits of the City of Tigard and are zoned R-25 (25 units per acre). Properties to the north and west are located within the city limits of the City of Beaverton and are zoned R-2 (2,000 square feet per dwelling unit). 3. Background Information The subject site was annexed into the City of Tigard in June of 1983. A Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zone Change application was submitted to the City on August 18, 1989. This application requested approval to change the zoning designation from R-25 (Residential, 25 units per acre) to C-N (Neighborhood Commercial) and the Comprehensive Plan Designation from Medium High Density Residential to Neighborhood Commercial. The City Council denied this application on November 6, 1989 for reasons as follows: Future construction plans for the SW Scholls Ferry corridor, this intersection, and Old and New SW Scholle Ferry Roads are not yet final at this time. Therefore, staff recommends that an approval of this proposal be delayed until such time that the public STAFF REPORT - CPA 91-0001/20N 91-0001 - GROSS PAGE 1 l f } improvements to the area are completed and traffic impacts of any development on the subject parcel can be adequately assessed. There have been no other development applications submitted for this site. 4. Site Information and Proposal Description The subject parcel is approximately 4.15 acres in size and is largely covered by natural brush and grasses. There are a few deciduous and evergreen trees surrounding an existing white single family two-story farmhouse which is located on the southeastern portion of this site. All other mature trees on this site were recently removed by the applicant without the issuance of a City of Tigard Tree Removal Permit. The eastern half of the subject site was included in the SW 135th Avenue Local Improvement District. Full street improvements exist along the site's SW 135th Avenue frontage. According to the applicant, the stated purpose of this redesignation is to facilitate construction of a small retail commercial center "limited to small-medium space users such as convenience retailers, drive-in services, and automobile services." Physical development of this site would require City Site Development Review approval. 5. Aoency and NPO Comments The Engineering Division has reviewed the proposal and offers the following comments: Traffic 1. Long-range transportation planning is for New Scholls Ferry Road to be closed at its current intersection with old Scholls Ferry Road. Therefore, we should assume that this site will eventually be served primarily by SW 135th Avenue. Scenario C in the traffic report addresses this long-term planning. 2. The applicant's traffic study assumes that a driveway access to Old Scholls Ferry would be allowed in the future. A decision on whether to allow such a driveway would be made at the time of site development review and would require approval of the County. The suggested driveway location would require an exception to County design standards; therefore, approval can not be assured. Without the driveway to Old Scholls Ferry, traffic volumes at the 135th/Scholls intersection would increase somewhat. 3. C-G zoning would generate significantly more traffic than the existing R-25 zoning. The applicant's traffic report indicates that the primary impacts of the increased traffic would be at the driveway approaches to the site and at the 135th/Scholls intersection. The traffic report also indicates that the 135th/Scholls intersection will have adequate capacity to accommodate the increased traffic (assuming that other zoning in the area is not changed in the future). 4. The applicant's traffic report assumes that development of the site will include types of commercial development that are high traffic generators. This assumption is appropriate for planning for commercial development of this small site; however, the proposed zoning also allows for development that would generate far less traffic. STAFF REPORT - CPA 91-0001/ZON 91-0001 - GROSS PAGE 2 S. The applicant's traffic report assumes that commercial / development of this site would serve primarily the surrounding neighborhoods and pass-by traffic. (Pass-by traffic is traffic that would use the adjoining streets even if the development did not exist; i.e., traffic that does not have this site as its primary destination.) Again, this assumption seems appropriate for this small site. on this basis, the traffic report determines that the zone change would have little impact on traffic volumes at intersections away from the site. 6. The future levels of service at the 130th/Scholls and Davies/Scholls intersections will probably be better than indicated by the applicant's traffic report, as both intersections are to be signalized as part of the current improvement project on Old Scholls Ferry Road. 7. We conclude that the proposed zone change would increase traffic congestion somewhat in the vicinity of 135th/Scholls intersection but would have only minor traffic impacts away from the site. There could actually be some improvement in traffic levels elsewhere in the area, as residents of the 135th Avenue area would have less need to drive on Scholls to reach shopping areas. 8. It appears that adequate controls are available through the site development review process to adequately accommodate thG increased traffic that would result from commercial development of the site. Utilities impacts on the utility and storm drainage systems from development under the C-G zoning would be approximately the same as those for development under the existing R-25 zoning. Under either zoning, development will need to comply with the new USA and DEQ water quality requirements for storm drainage. These requirements may decrease somewhat the amount of development which may occur on the site. Recommendation The Engineering Department has no objection to the proposed zone change. The Washington County Department of Land Use and Transportation has reviewed the proposal and offers the following comments: The applicant distorts or takes information out of context in reaching the conclusions that this site should no longer be considered appropriate for residential purposes. The nature of the changes and circumstances surrounding the site were by and large, the same as those anticipated in the planning analysis which originally designated the site for multi-family residential purposes. The improvements to these and other facilities in the county are not intended to provide additional capacity to accommodate changes to land uses which generate additional traffic, but instead are designed to accommodate the future traffic generated when the currently vacant property is developed to their currently planned uses. i l STAFF REPORT - CPA 91-0001/ZON 91-0001 - GROSS PAGE 3 i The number of new trips that would be added to the / transportation system is significant (2385) [per day] and will add l incrementally to the delay and congestion in this rapidly growing area. In addition, the number of pass by trips expected to drop into this site (2450) [per day] is also significant and the turning movements caused by that traffic at the intersections is of concern to the county. The applicant's analysis did not consider all of the potential access options, in particular, the only option which the county will consider approving. This option is for two accesses to the site - one on 135th Avenue at a location far enough south to not interfere with the. Scholls Ferry/135th intersection and the other on new Scholls Ferry Road. This second access will be at the future terminus of the road or some other location south of that terminus. Option B could be the interim access allowed until the intersection of old Scholls Ferry and New Scholls Ferry is removed and New Scholls Ferry is terminated (see applicants' transportation study). The county would also require that the site access on New Scholls Ferry Road be located far enough south so that traffic turning in and out of the site does interfere with traffic waiting for the signal at [Old] Scholls Ferry. Washington County access spacing standard call for 1000 feet between accesses on major arterial roadways. Because the spacing between New Scholls Ferry and 135th is roughly about 200 feet, the county would not grant an access onto Scholls Ferry Road. Even when New Scholls Ferry Road is cul-de-sac'd, it would not be possible to get the required 1000 feet between the proposed access and Davies Road and 135th Avenue. The City of Beaverton has reviewed the proposal and has offered the following comments: The City of Beaverton has specific standards regarding the location and placement of commercial developments. These standards specify, among other things, how close commercial developments may be located from each other. As a result of these standards, the City has discouraged commercial development along Scholls Ferry Road. In fact, a request for a similar rezone on the property directly north of the site in question was recommended for denial. The applicant withdrew the request before it came to a hearing. It seems a paradox that a similar request could be granted directly across the street in Tigard. The applicant has stated that there is a marked need for more commercial development in the are. The City of Beaverton contends that such a need does not exist. The area is well served by existing commercial development at Scholls Ferry and Murray Roads. The City of Beaverton urges the City of Tigard to deny the request on the grounds that there is not a need for the request. This fact is demonstrated by Beaverton's action to limit commercial development along Murray and Scholls Ferry Roads. Neighborhood Planning organization #7 has reviewed the proposal and offers the following comments: All initial comments have been favorable and a motion for approval has been passed. NPO #7 will submit further comments at the public hearing. STAFF REPORT - CPA 91-0001/ZON 91-0001 - GROSS PAGE 4 The City of Tigard Building Division, Parks and Operations Departments, 1 General Telephone and Electric, Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue, Beaverton School District #48, Tigard Water District and Portland General Electric have reviewed the application, and have offered no comments or objections. No other comments have been received. B. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The relevant approval criteria in this case are Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13, Comprehensive Plan Policies 1.1.1, 1.1.2, 4.2.1., 4.3.1., 5.1.1., 5.1.4, 6.1.1., 7.1.2., 7.3.1, 7.4.4, 7.6.1, 8.1.1, 8.1.3., 8.2.2, and 12.2.1. (locational criteria for the General Commercial Plan designation); and the change or mistake quasi-judicial plan map amendment criteria of both the Comprehensive Plan and Community Development Code. The staff concludes that the proposal is consistent with the applicable Statewide Planning Goals based upon the following findings: 1. Goal 1 (Citizen involvement) is met because the City has adopted and follows a citizen involvement program which includes review of development applications by the Neighborhood Planning Organization. In addition, all public notice requirements have been met for the subject application. 2. Goal 2 (Land Use Planning) is satisfied because the City has applied all applicable Statewide Planning Goals, City Comprehensive Plan policies, and Community Development Code requirements in review of this application. t 3. Although the applicant has addressed Statewide Planning Goal 5 (Open Spaces and Natural Resources) and 6 (Air, Water and Land Resources Quality) in the submitted narrative, staff finds that these Goals are not applicable for the review of this land use application. These Goals shall be addressed through the applicable Community Development Code Sections during the Site Development Review process. 4. Goal 9 (Economic Development) is met because the proposal would increase the City's developable commercial land base thereby increasing economic opportunities with the City. 5. Goal 10 (Housing) has been satisfied because the proposal will not bring the City's Plan out of conformance with the requirements of the Metropolitan Sousing Rule despite reducing housing opportunities. Goal 10 has been satisfied. 6. Goal 11 (Public Facilities and Services) is satisfied because the site is adequately served by a 16-inch public water main, a 27-inch sewerage trunk line, and natural storm drainage through the Summer Creek flood plain. The site is also served by electric, gas, telephone, and cable utilities, and Tri-met bus service. 7. Goal 12 (Transportation) is partially satisfied because this proposal fits within the theoretical intent of the state's provision of a convenient and economic transportation system. The applicant states: STAFF REPORT - CPA 91-0001/ZON 91-0001 - GROSS PAGE 5 This request provides the opportunity to locate intensive commercial retail development along arterial-collector streets. However, Goal 12 also requires the minimization of adverse social and environmental impacts. This is addressed further in the following discussion of Plan Policy 8.1.1. 8. Goal 13 (3nergy) is partially satisfied in that this application meets some aspects of energy conservation in relation to the location of commercial use opportunities in close proximity to residential land use opportunities. However, a larger view of the surrounding area will show that two presently developed commercial retail centers already exist within approximately 1/2 mile of the subject site. Therefore, the real energy savings will most likely be negligible, if there are cumulative energy savings at all, as addressed below in the discussion of Plan Policy 8.1.1. Staff has determined that the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment/Zone Change is only partially consistent with the Comprehensive Plan based upon the findings below; 1. Plan Policy 1.1.1 is satisfied because the Comprehensive Plan is kept consistent with the Statewide Planning Goals, and this plan is kept current with the needs of the community through being opened periodically for necessary revisions. Plan Policy 1.1.2 states that in order to approve a quasi-judicial amendment to the Plan and Zoning Maps, the City must also find that there is evidence of a change in the neighborhood or community which affects the subject parcel(s). Alternatively, the City must find that there has been a mistake or inconsistency made in the original designation of the parcel (Policy 1.1.2, Implementation Strategy 2; Community Development Code Section 18.22.040 (A)). This Policy will be addressed at the end of this section. 2. Plan Policy 2.1.1. is satisfied because Neighborhood Planning organization 7 and surrounding property owners were given notice of the public hearing related to this request as well as their opportunity to comment on the proposal. 3. Plan Policy 4.2.1 which requires compliance with applicable federal, state and regional water quality standards will be satisfied through the development review and building permit processes at which time a development proposal for this site must be shown to comply with such standards, including the preparation and implementation of a non-point source pollution control plan. The proposed redesignation would not, by itself, affect compliance with this plan policy. 4. Although the applicant asserts that Plan Policy 4.3.1, which pertains to development proposals located in noise congested areas, is applicable for the purposes of this application, staff does not feel that this policy is applicable. Excessive noise levels are generally addressed through both building and landscaping placement and design. Building and landscaping placement on the site will be dealt with through the City's Site Development Review process. 5. Plan Policy 5.1.1 is satisftied because the application would enhance the economic opportunities available to Tigard residents with particular emphasis placed on the growth of the local job market. STAFF REPORT - CPA 91-0001/ZON 91-0001 - GROSS PAGE 6 3 6. Plan Policy 5.1.4 requires the City to ensure that new commercial and industrial development shall not encroach into residential areas that have not been designated for commercial uses. This Plan Policy is not satisfied because the proposed rezoning and comprehensive Plan redesignation would involve commercial encroachment into an area currently designated for residential use. The applicant asserts that the subject-site is not suited for future residential development because the site is subject to high level noise and air pollution from three adjacent arterial or collector roadways. The applicant also asserts that the effect of this pollution has functionally reduced the land area which is developable for residential purposes to a fraction of the land within the subject site. Staff agrees that this site is subject to higher levels of air and noise pollution than some other multi-family residential sites within the city. However, to use this as a basis for a conversion from multi-family residential zoning to commercial zoning would also imply that other parcels with similar high volume intersections should also be redesignated to General Commercial. Those parcels also would be subject to the same or similar impacts upon their respective levels of on-site sound and air quality and general livability. 7. Although we do not feel that Plan Policy 6.1.1 applies to the current application, staff will respond since the applicant addressed this policy. The applicant states that Policy 6.1.1 is satisfied because the request provides the opportunity to stimulate multi-family development and thereby increase the affordable housing opportunities within the community. Staff fails to see how approval of this proposal would increase affordable housing opportunities within the community and therefore is not consistent with Plan Policy 6.1.1. The conversion of residential property to commercial property clearly has the net effect of reducing housing opportunities within the community not increasing housing opportunities as stated by the applicant. Staff also contends that there is little basis to claim that the approval of this proposal will function as the stimulus for multi-family development within this community. The applicant rightly states that this request would not reduce the City of Tigard's housing opportunity index below its minimum ten units per acre of inventoried residential land, nor would this reduce the multi-family housing mix below the 50% minimum of multi- family units pursuant to the Metropolitan Housing Rule. The Metropolitan Housing Rule (OAR 660, Division 7) requires that the average density allowed for all developable residential land within the City's original planning area be a minimum of ten dwelling units per acre. The City's acknowledged plan in 1984 inventoried 1,311 acres of developable residential land in the City and the estimated housing opportunity index was 13,110 units. Since then, eight plan amendments have been approved which in turn amended the inventory. Therefore, the City's current inventory includes 1,290 developable acres and a housing opportunity for 13,112 units (10.16 units per acre). The subject proposal would reduce the amount of developable residential land by approximately 4.15 acres and the housing opportunity index by approximately 104 units. This request does not reduce the City of Tigard's housing opportunity index below the minimum 10 units per acres on inventoried residential land nor reduce the multifamily housing mix below the 50% minimum pursuant to the metropolitan housing rule. Therefore, the proposal would not remove the City of Tigard from compliance with the Metropolitan STAFF REPORT - CPA 91-0001/ZON 91-0001 - GROSS PAGE 7 i' Housing Rule. However, additionally, staff feels that it is important to point out that this is not to be used as the basis for the conversion of residentially zoned properties to commercially zoned properties. Rather, this indicator is to be used as a guarantee of a minimum provision of adequate and affordable housing for a variety of income levels within the city. 8. Policies 7.1.2, 7.3.1., 7.4.4, and 7.6.1 have been satisfied because the City Engineering Division will review all utility plans prior to their installation to ensure that existing utility services are of adequate capacity to serve future development and utilities serving the site meet City design standards, that any new structures will connect to city sewer, and that water service for fire protection is accessible. 9. Plan Policy 8.1.1 requires a safe and efficient street and roadway i system. This policy is satisfied because this property fronts SW 135th Avenue, a minor collector street and resulting traffic will not be directed through existing neighborhoods. This application proposes to provide the opportunity to utilize the benefits of the scheduled road improvements along both New and old Scholls Ferry Roads for future intensive commercial retail development through the City's site development review process. Specifically, one of the issues raised by Washington County Department of Land Use & Transportation states that the aforementioned proposed road improvements were designed to accommodate future traffic volumes under the current land use zoning designations. The applicant's Traffic Impact Analysis projects 2,385 new trips per day and 2,450 pass-by trips per day resulting from commercial uses at the subject site. However, the applicant's narrative also claims that: Motorists could reduce the number of their automobile trips to shopping opportunities and thereby reduce their vehicle fuel consumption. While this statement may be true, the Planning Department,,as well as the City Engineering Department, find that the overall effect of this rezone is that the proposed C-G zoning designation would generate significantly more traffic at this site than the existing R-25 zoning. Therefore, staff finds that commercial development of this site would produce a substantial increase in the amount of vehicle trips per day at this site, with the heaviest impact being at the site's driveway approaches and the 135th/ Scholls Ferry Intersection. While acknowledging the concerns of both the Engineering Division and Washington County, staff finds that this information proves inconclusive. 10. Plan Policy 8.1.3 will be satisfied as a condition of approval of any future development on the site. Completion of any necessary street improvements along the site's frontages would be required to be installed by the developer at the time of development. The Engineering Division and affected reviewing agencies will review any future development proposals for the site. 11. Plan Policy 8.2.2 pertaining to public transit is satisfied because, as stated by the applicant: t STAFF REPORT - CPA 91-0001/ZON 91-0001 - GROSS PAGE 8 f,. milli The request provides the opportunity to locate intensive commercial uses close to existing public transit. Tri-met bus service is available at the subject site. 12. Plan Policy 12.2.1 (General Commercial-locational criteria). The locational criteria specified in Chapter 12 of the Comprehensive Plan are partially satisfied for the following reasons: a. Spacing and locational criteria require that the commercial area shall not be surrounded by residential districts on more than two sides. The applicant states: The commercial area is not surrounded by residential districts on more than two sides. However, the applicant also states: The subject site is within a contiguous medium high density residential district, to-wit: R-25 (25 units per acre) in the City of Tigard to the east and south; and R-2 (21-22 units per acre) in the City of Beaverton to the north and west. Staff finds that the subject site is surrounded on all sides by multi-family residential zoning districts (Exhibit 2 details City of Beaverton zoning designations). Therefore, this application does not meet the spacing and location criteria as specified in the comprehensive Plan. b. Site access criteria require: 1) the proposed area shall not create traffic congestion or traffic safety problems; 2) the site shall have direct access from a major collector or arterial street; and 3) public transportation shall be _ available to the site. Two arterial streets, one collector street and two intersections abut the subject site. The applicant states that the site has direct access from three arterial or collector streets. While such streets abut the site, full access to those streets is not guaranteed. Washington County's Department of Land Use and Transportation states that the only permanent access scenario which the County will consider approving was not proposed in the applicant's Traffic Impact Analysis. Specifically, t'iis access option is.for the provision of two accesses to the site; one on SW 135th Avenue at a location far enough south so as to not interfere with the Old Scholls Ferry/135th intersection, and the other on New Scholls Ferry Road. This access on New Scholls Ferry Road will be at the future northern terminus of the road, or some other location south of that terminus. Washington County access spacing standards call for 1000 feet between access on major arterials. The County points out that when New Scholls Ferry Road is cul-de-sac'd it will not be possible to obtain the required 1000 feet between the proposed access and Davies Road and 135th Avenue. The City's Engineering Division states: The [applicant's] traffic study assumes that a driveway access to SW Old Scholls Ferry Road would be allowed in the future. A decision on whether to allow such a driveway would be made at the time of site development STAFF REPORT - CPA 91-0001/ZON 91-0001 - GROSS PAGE 9 1. }t~ f review and would require approval of the county. The ( suggested driveway location would require an exception l to County design standards; therefore, approval cannot be assured. The City's Engineering Division also states that the applicant's traffic report indicates that the 135th/Scholls intersection will have adequate capacity to accommodate the increased traffic (assuming that other zoning in the area is not changed in the future). The Engineering Division finds that the future levels of service at the 135th/Scholls and Davies/Scholls intersections will probably be better than indicated by the traffic report, as both intersections are to be signalized as part of the current improvement project on Scholls. Additionally, adequate controls are available through the site development review process to adequately accommodate the increased traffic that would result from commercial development of the site. Staff finds that public transportation is available on SW Old Scholls Ferry Road. Tri-met bus route 62 currently serves the site. Therefore, staff finds that the site access criteria of this Plan Policy have been met. c. The locational criteria also requires that the site be of a size which can accommodate projected uses and that the site possess high visibility. This criterion is satisfied because the site is approximately 4.15 acres in size and can adequately accommodate a variety of uses permitted in the C-G (General Commercial) zoning district. This site is also highly visible from the adjoining streets. d. Impact Assessment is determined by addressing the following t criteria: 1) the scale of the project shall be compatible with the surrounding uses; 2) the site configurations shall be such that the privacy of adjacent non-commercial uses can be maintained; 3) it shall be possible to incorporate unique site features into the site design and development plan; and 4) the associated lights, noise and activities shall not interfere with adjoining non-commercial uses. Compatibility of future uses on the subject site with adjacent uses is difficult to ascertain without the opportunity to review an actual development proposal. However, the City of Tigard's Site Development Review and Conditional Use review processes are intended co provide an opportunity for the review of a potential development's relationship with adjacent existing uses. Therefore, this aspect of this Plan Policy shall be addressed at another time. The following provides an additional analysis concerning Comprehensive Plan, Volume 2, Policy 1.1.2, Implementation Strategy 2; Change or mistake: The applicant asserts that a change in physical circumstances has occurred since the original land use designation. Specifically, the installation of a 16-inch water main, a 27-inch sewer trunk line, the widening of and parking prohibition on SW 135th Avenue, the re-alignment of the Scholls Ferry/135th intersection and the installation of a traffic signal at this intersection are recent changes in this area which the applicant believes should affect the site's designation. The applicant also states that increases in traffic volume at the subject site have occurred since the original land use designation. This site was designated as STAFF REPORT - CPA 91-0001/ZON 91-0001 - GROSS PAGE 10 Medium-High Density Residential in 1983 and was annexed into the City that same year as part of the 132 acre Krueger annexation. Staff contends that the physical improvements and changes which have occurred at and near the site have been anticipated by the City of Tigard, the City of Beaverton, Washington County, and ODOT. It was the deliberate intention of the respective jurisdictions to encourage the development of Medium-High Density Residential neighborhoods within this area and to design and implement future improvements to accommodate this growth. The fact that expected growth and increased traffic volumes have occurred should not dictate the abandonment of the current plan designation. Rather, these planned changes should be viewed as supportive of the continued planned for development of the area under the existing designations. Similarly the applicant claims that substantial traffic pollution (including noise, vibration, emissions and glare) has ended the suitability of the site for residential use. The applicant provides only substantiation for the claim of noise pollution. Staff contends that this claim is not a valid basis for the approval of a zoning redesignation request for this site. If this site were to be rezoned because the alleged substantial traffic pollution had in fact ended the suitability of the site for residential use, staff would then contend that it would then be reasonable to assume that all properties abutting these same streets and intersections would be similarly affected and should be similarly be rezoned. Additionally, staff contends that the immediate area would not become less polluted with the advent of additional commercial uses on the subject site. Rather, as supported by the comments submitted in reference to the applicant's traffic analysis, staff contends that the levels of traffic pollution at this intersection will increase with the advent of commercial development. Traffic pollution (noise pollution) can make any residential site less desirable. However, staff does not feel that this indicates a necessary conversion of a site from Medium-High Density Residential to General Commercial. Whereas this site may not provide the best potential for the development of a garden style apartment complex (such as Sunflower Apartments or Forest Hideaway Apartments located to the south), alternative forms of residential development are available which may be better suited to this site (eg: urban style courtyard apartment configurations, cluster housing, etc...). The applicant also states that one of the criterion used by Washington County in the siting of commercial centers is that intersections to be avoided are those that have: ...congestion problems or abrupt changes of grade, intersections formed by acute angled streets and other situations where additional traffic generated would cause undue traffic congestion. The County in it's Transportation Plan included the subject site among Washington County locations with significant geometric design concerns (acute angled streets). The major transportation improvement adjacent to the site have ended any adverse geometric design concerns at its location. In light of Washington County's comments concerning potential future access problems to the site, staff finds that this situation has not changed to the degree so as to have eliminated "any adverse geometric design concerns." Therefore, while changes have occurred at and near the subject site, staff contends that these changes have either been anticipated or are not of substantial merit so as to necessitate the approval of the requested Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zone Change. The applicant also asserts that two mistakes were made in the zoning of the subject site. The applicant states: The theme for the Bull Mountain Community was low density residential opportunities with limited commercial opportunities. It would remain a STAFF REPORT - CPA 91-0001/ZON 91-0001 - GROSS PAGE 11 E rural community within the UGB. This was a mistake in the CFP (County Comprehensive Framework Plan). Staff does not agree with the applicant's implication that the theme set forward in the CFP (County Framework Plan) would relegate the Bull Mountain Community to being a "rural community within the UGB." While the applicant correctly points out that the minimum growth allocations for the Bull Mountain Community were significantly disproportionate to other communities, staff contends that not all communities should be designed to contain approximately the same percentages of specific Comprehensive Plan designations. Additionally, the applicant offers no information as to what specific changes in Comprehensive Plan designations would have been necessary in order to prevent this community from being a "rural community." The applicant's second claim that a mistake was made in the zoning of the subject site is as follows: The Bull Mountain plan changed the Northwest Subareas residential opportunities to all medium-high density but it did not change their limited commercial opportunities to mirror their change 'in residential density. This was a mistake in the Bull Mountain plan. The applicant sets forth the locational criteria and definitional information for both Neighborhood Commercial Centers and Community Commercial Centers as specified in the CFP. According to these definitions set forth in the CFP, the applicant concludes that the subject site is classified as Community Commercial Center property (site size is within the range of three to fifteen acres). The applicant states that under this CFP definition, the distance between such commercial centers is to be between two to five miles, depending on density and market analysis. Staff finds that since this site is surrounded on all sides by multi-family zoning designations. 'The applicant's Retail Public Need Analysis demonstrates that by 1995, a 10.3 acre shortage in the amount of land designated for retail use will exist within the primary trade area which was analyzed by the study. The recommended distance between such Community Commercial centers would logically be much closer to the two mile minimum than the five mile maximum. The boundaries of the Primary Trade Area, which were set by the applicant, were arrived at by applying the following definition: The Primary Trade Area of a neighborhood-serving retail center in a suburban area is usually defined as the area within three to five minutes (by automobile) from the center. A brief look at Exhibit 1 "Primary Trade Area" which was submitted by the applicant (see attached) will clearly show that there are currently five developed commercial locations within this Primary Trade Area. With reference to the Bull Mountain Community, the applicant states: This area has no shopping centers within it. The area is 2/3 to 1 1/2 Miles from the closest shopping center with some exceptions. Staff contends that those exceptions are the Murrayhill MarketplaEe and the Greenway Town Center which are both within approximately 1/2 mile of the subject site. In addition, an approximately 2 - 4 acre undeveloped C-N (Neighborhood Commercial) site which is located approximately 1/2 mile to the southwest along the proposed Murray Boulevard Extension. The applicant asserts that a mistake was made on the Comprehensive Plan Map with regard to the shortage of General Commercial designated properties along the Scholls Ferry corridor. The applicant maintains that the proposed rezoning is intended to help meet the day to day needs of the residents of the surrounding neighborhoods and those who are of a pass-by nature. Additionally, the applicant STAFF REPORT - CPA 91-0001/ZON 91-0001 - GROSS PAGE 12 i k k r states that this is an intense market for commercial uses and that these uses r" will serve the needs of the area's residents. It is the applicant's contention however, that the City's Comprehensive Plan Map does not provide enough appropriately zoned land to meet these needs of the neighborhood and community. From the applicant's viewpoint, a mistake may exist. A large market demand may exist that cannot easily be satisfied by the current inventory of properly zoned developable land. Since the applicant states that the amount of commercially zoned land within the Bull Mountain Community Plan is disproportionate in relation to the amount of commercially zoned land in other community plans and that additional commercially zoned land is necessary within the Bull Mountain Community, they conclude that an additional amount of land must be rezoned for commercial use. Staff contends that if additional land were to be rezoned for commercial use, this land should be located in a centralized location within the interior of the Community Plan, so as to serve to majority of the community's residents, rather than at the northern extremity of the community, as is the case of the subject site. Additionally, from a land use planning viewpoint, other reasons exist for not trying to satisfy ever-.7 economic market demand. The City of Tigard has paid close attention to the amount of developable commercially designated land along the Scholls Ferry corridor, as has the City of Beaverton. The cities have chosen to limit the amount of general commercial properties in order to reduce traffic congestion along the highway in order to reduce the appearance of strip development and in order to minimize traffic, noise, and lighting impacts upon surrounding neighborhoods. The limitation upon general commercial designations was not a mistake, but instead was a conscious decision to limit the amount of developable commercial properties along Scholls Ferry Road. The City of Tigard has looked at several other proposals for re-designation of properties to General Commercial and Neighborhood Commercial Plan designations along the Scholls Ferry corridor and the city has consistently denied those requests. On the property located on the southeast quadrant at the intersection of SW North Dakota Street and SW Scholls Ferry Road, the City Council denied a request to change the zoning of the entire property from Commercial Professional (C-P) to General Commercial (C-G) in 1985 (CPA 3-85/ZC 3-85). The Council's decision was appealed to the Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals. The decision to deny this application was upheld. The City found that there was no evidence of a mistake and the land zone designations for this area; there was no overwhelming need for additional commercially designated lands in this area; and the Council expressed concern with traffic along both North Dakota Street and Scholls Ferry Road. A later Plan/Zone Change request for the same property resulted in a mixture of Professional Commercial, General Commercial, and Neighborhood Commercial designations being approved (CPA 10-86/ZC 18-86). Additionally, the City Council in November 1989 denied a request for the redesignation of an approximately 1.9 acre portion of the subject site from Medium High Density Residential to Neighborhood Commercial (CPA 89-08/ZC 89-08). This decision was largely based upon traffic concerns with regard to the intersection of Scholls Ferry and SW 135th as well as traffic along SW 135th to the south. In review of this application, the City Council was unable to find that a mistake had been made in the original designation of the property or that substantial changes had occurred in the neighborhood which supported a change to a commercial designation. Staff concludes that the same holds true for the current application. In summary, Staff does not find that a change in circumstances has occurred in the neighborhood to the extent, or of the nature, so as to warrant the approval of this current application. Jn addition, staff does not find evidence of a mistake in the original plan designation. Conversely, staff finds that the original Medium High Density Residential designation was carefully conceived and was intended to minimize the possible impacts upon adjoining land uses and to minimize traffic impacts at this congested intersection. The existing Medium STAFF REPORT - CPA 91-0001/ZON 91-0001 - GROSS PAGE 13 High Density Residential Plan designation and R-25 zoning designation for the subject parcel should be maintained. C. RECQHIHEPIDATION The Planning Division recommends that the Planning Commission forward a recommendation to the City Council for DENIAL of Comprehensive Plan Amendment CPA 91-0001 and bone Change ZON 91-0001 based upon the foregoing findings. 7t PREPARED BY: Ron Pomer Assistantolanner ~SLJ.-~-~.Ock ' APPROVED BY: Dick Bew ra orff Senior Planner nl\cpa91-01.dec STAFF REPORT - CPA 91-0001/ZON 91-0001 - GROSS PAGE 14 k S.W. COTTONTAIL m` LN- • J O U _ ~ 3a as a a "'St S.W. HAWK ai ST. k--L- . N W WINTERLAKE SW CT. try' 10 M M ai J Vi CL S.W I E HEFFIELD CI _ ,P- z O 4 M f F J S.W CL _ s, pQ` R_ M W. ASHBURY LN. J ~ a m~ LN. > m a LS.W_FEIRING lft. ~k P S.W. I ~P 3 LAURiWONT Z CT, LAURMONT - o Q J 3 S.W. ENO i~ 'n MORNING W. FALCGN kIS OR. IS.W- o w O f ~'QO CHI CTT CW womnnN N F ^ r Q \ \ m Rl p {ri f ROBERT CHARLES LESSER & CO. C 11-3785.00 EXHIBIT 1 PRIMARY TRADE AREA, LOCATION OF COMPETI'IVE SHOPPING CENTERS, AND !VACANT LAND PARCELS RETAIL. CENTERS TaN MAU aNE 1 map K*y Nmnr.01 Gnw Sq-- Factwo Ritinaood Q~ 10,240 oo~t °"n Hyww l.m cantw 84212 mat ~ „ muffw cf-mno 21.648 26 mwmyhw mw*w pfxm 76,242 jI I Gmmwmy Town C~ 74760 Pwkddo s wppwv Canter 22610 w wftiwoom ~j aa,bmCww 1IL71S ® Padllo Prod C~ 13,w ALTERNATLVE SUES ~uanttw Mm KW Z-ft aa..pr 208 ® Natphborftood Satvica 0.2 wwrnom Naiyhbartwod Sarvica 11.0 _ 21 T Noiphttorbood sanica OS NvVhbcrhoo6lWJContnt 1.7 ,y Commwci&vPmfewiona! NaghbarAOOd Areali 5.0 fY WaSHMGTON 4 ' ~ ~ SOUaaE g ~T•t: r.3S. r a PRIMARY TRADE AREA E ~c"4 -r ~ ~:;c.•• sum W . o.Mae . it "pv" URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY] n ataaaeoww i rwoa I 1 a. N ~r ll I u Nuyru Ull r 4: Illllllll I .N.T R7 _ R a ~ ne I R7 R7 'N5 t. 1 1F - _ l Z r • ' CI , ~2 cl 5 _ i RS = RA `I RS ' R7 r r) h7 CI R2~ RA .ur z Y L RS L A _R L fli~. 'I - RS I r R7 ( R7 t. t y R1 RIA RS r~ rI R7 ,t , F IS 1 rr ' RA ar=. ki S ' v R2 E ~it-r. r -fir' ~w RSS J Ul.. s _ pA _ r i~ r a r 1w HS RS eS 57' rA 11 NS ~ s. • 0 tw 5 R2 r ' 7 AS LI ~~l I'3••2Y' L F- F1~'. ! R5 - CITY R2 R2 I _ ,II ~J . 3EAVERTON ZONING MAP 1990 COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS INDUSTRIAL DISTRICTS BMDENTIAL DISTRICTS RA RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL CV CONVENIENCE IP INDUSTRIAL PARK R•10 SINGLE FAMILY (LOW) DENSITY, 10000 SO. FT. NS NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICE CI CAMPUS INDUSTRIAL R•7 SINGLE FAMILY (STANDARD) DENSITY, 7000 SO. FT. OC OFFICE L1 LIGHT INDUSTRIAL TO TOWN CENTER R•5 SINGLE FAMILY (STANDARD) DENSITY. 5000 60. FT. ' r_ R•3.5 MULTIFAMILY (LOW) DENSITY, 3500 SO. FT. CS COMMUNITY SERVICE OC GENERAL' R•2 MUL71-FAMILY (MEDIUM) DENSITY, 2000 80. FT. • R•1 MULTI-FAMILY (HIGH) DENSITY, 1000 SO. FT. NOTE: Thfb map 'It for General Reference 0* Comw the Piannkrp Z~A ;,6 j 7` Z Deparlmenl to con0rm the ronkv of airy parcel of land. _ July 11, 1991 DEPT. OF LAND Ron Pomeroy City of Tigard Planning Department CONSERVATION 13125 SW Hall Boulevard AND Tigard, Oregon 97223 DEVELOPMENT Dear Ron: The Department of Land Conservation and Development submits the following comments regarding the proposed comprehensive plan amendment from Medium High Density Residential to General Commercial and zone change from R-25 (Multi-family Residential, 25 units/acre) to C-G (General Commercial) for property located at the intersection of SW Scholls Ferry Road and SW 135th Avenue. We concur with the conclusions presented in the staff report for this proposal. There is no evidence of a mistake in the original plan designation and there has not been a change in circumstances which warrants the proposed plan and zone amendment. The cities of Tigard and Beaverton have chosen to limit commercial development adjacent to Scholls Ferry Road in order to avoid traffic congestion and impacts to residential neighborhoods. The improvement to Scholls Ferry Road and the intersection with 135th Street are intended to provide traffic capacity to serve currently designated uses. The land uses permitted in C-G Zoning at this location would generate significantly more traffic those permitted in R-25 zoning. Similar circumstances regarding improved facilities and increased traffic volume that were used to justify this zone change could likely be attributed to other properties abutting Scholls Ferry Road. The cumulative effect of rezoning these properties to commercial zones could, undermine the land use and transportation planning for this area. OAR 660-12-060(1) requires amendments to comprehensive plans that significantly affect a transportation facility to be consistent with the function, capacity, and level of service of the facility. To adopt the proposed plan amendment, the level of travel and access BARBARA ROBERTS at the Scholls Ferry Road/135th intersection resulting Govemor from the change from R-25 to C-G must be shown to be consistent with the functional classification of the affected transportation facilities. 1175 Court Street Sale `~~~777 Salem, OR 97310-059 590 (503) 373-0050 JUL 121991 FAX (503) 362-6705 CITY OF TIGAKU AMMIKIP_ nFPT. Ron Pomeroy -2- July 11, 1991 r~ C' If you have any questions concerning our comments, please contact Elaine Smith at 373-0086. Sincerely, Michael J. Rupp Plan Review Manager MJR/LS:bh <pa> CC: Jim Sitzman, Field Service Manager Bob Cortright, DLCD Coastal Coordinatior Leo Huff, ODOT Region 1 Brian Gregor, ODOT Highway Planning Section Linda Davis, City of Beaverton DLCD Plan Amendment File 002-91 C J UL 12 1991 OI1Y OF IIGAKO PLANNING DEPT. TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING - JUNE 17, 1991 ' 1. President Donald Moen called the meeting to order at 7:30 PM. The meeting was held at Tigard Civic Center - TOWN HALL - 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon. 2. ROLL CALL: Present: President Moen; Commissioners Barber, Boone, Fessler, and Moore. Absent: Commissioners Castile, Eyre, Saporta and Saxton. Staff: Senior Planner Dick Bewersdorff, Assistant Planner Ron Pomeroy, City Engineer Randy Wooley, and Planning Commission Secretary Ellen Fox. 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES * Commissioner Moore moved and Commissioner Fessler seconded to approve the minutes for the May 20, 1991 meeting as written. Motion carried unanimously by Commissioners present. Commissioner Moen abstained. * Commissioner Fessler moved and Commissioner Boone seconded to approve the minutes for the June 3, 1991 Work Session Meeting as written. Motion carried unanimously by Commissioners present. 4. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMUNICATION o Commissioner Fessler commented on a letter received from Fans of Fanno Creek encouraging the City to protect the Hart Wetland and classify it as a "significant natural area." She requested clarification regarding the next step in identifying the subject area as a significant natural area. Senior Planner Bewersdorff explained the hearing process and periodic review dealing with the City's inventory. Commissioner Fessler said she was very much in favor of including this area as a significant natural area. o President Moen asked Commissioners to sign the letter of appreciation from. the Planning Commission to former Senior Planner Keith Liden. He requested that the lett,r be forwarded to Mr. Liden. 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - JUNE 17, 1991 PAGE 1 T r5.1 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT CPA 90-0009 ZONE CHANGE ZON 90-0010 CUNNINGHAM/BP OIL (NPO 0) A request for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment from Commercial Professional to Neighborhood Commercial and a Zone Change from C-P (Commercial Professional)-to C-N (Neighborhood Commercial) for an approximately 1.04 acre portion of a 1.38 acre parcel. LOCATION: Northern portion of 12528 Sii Scholls Ferry Road (WCTM 1S1 33AD, tax lot 2400) APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2, 9, 12, and 13; Comprehensive Plan Policies 1.1.1, 2.1.1, 4.2.1, 4.3.1, 5.1.1, 5.1.4, 6.6.1, 7.1.2, 7.4.4, 7.6.1, 8.1.1, 8.1.3, 12.2.1, and Community Development Code Section 18.22.040.A. o Assistant Planner Ron Pomeroy advised that applicant has withdrawn the application. 5.2 RECOMMENDATION BY PLANNING COMMISSION FOR 90TH AVENUE STREET VACATION Assistant Planner Ron Pomeroy advised that the City initiated this request, and that Charlotte and Daniel Cook and Charles Hing were the petitioners. He explained how this request differed from two previous requests, which would have created a land-locked parcel and were denied. He said the only comment received back concerning this request was from PGE, who requested that an overhead easement be provided for the existing pole and anchor currently in the right-of-way. He advised that staff recommended approval of the Vacation. PUBLIC TESTIMONY o There was no one present to testify on this item. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED o There was brief discussion with Commissioners indicating they were in favor of the Vacation. o Commissioner Barber commented the Ordinance contained a misspelling. * Commissioner Barber moved and Commissioner Fessler seconded to approve the street vacation with the condition to keep an overhead easement for the lighting pole and anchor as requested by PGE. The motion was passed unanimously by Commissioners present. 5.3 RECOMMENDATION BY PLANNING COMMISSION FOR 135TH AVENUE STREET VACATION o Senior Planner Bewersdorff advised that the request was being postponed. There was no date set for this item. ! PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - JUNE 17, 1991 PAGE 2 5.4 COMPREHENSIVE rLAN AMENDMENT CPA 91-0001 ZONE CHANGE ZON 91-0005 GROSS (NPO #7) A request for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment from ' Medium-High Residential to General Coulmercial and Zone Change from R-25 (Residential, 25 units/acre) to C-G (General Commercial) for a 5.9 acre site. LOCATION: Southwest quadrant of the intersection of SW Scholls Ferry Road and SW 135th Avenue f.14CTM 1-c"18 33CA, tax lot 100, 200, and part of tax lot 1000) APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2, 5, 6, 9, 10, 11, 12, & 13. Comprehensive Plan Policies 1.1.1, 1.1.2, 4.2.1, 4.3.1, 5.1.1, 5.1.4, 6.1.1, 6.6.1, 7.1.2, 8.1.1, 8.1.3, 8.2.2, & 12.2.1. Assistant Planner Ron Pomeroy described the location and area of the subject property. He provided a background of prior application and the reasons for denial at that time. He advised that staff was recommending delaying approval of this Comprehensive Plan Amendment until such time that public improvements to the area have been completed and traffic impacts on the subject parcel can be addressed. He distributed to Commissioners letters received from the Oregon Department of Transportation and Washington County Department of Land Use. He explained the difference between zoning districts and property lines. o Senior Planner Bewersdorff clarified the argument which the applicant is using concerning the surrounding zoning. APPLICANT'S PRESENTATION o Bill Gross, 3019 SW Hampshire, Tigard, described the site, which is made up of 3 parcels. He handed out photographs of the site and adjacent areas (Exhibit A) for the consideration of the Commissioners. He used an overhead projector to share correspondence received from NPO #7 stating reasons they were in favor of the Zone Change (letter already contained in the meeting packet). He shared correspondence from Nelson Management, Panoco, Chevron USA, Inc., Arco, Plaid Pantries, Inc., Sharis, and Taco Bell (Exhibit B). He said these letters demonstrated the high interest in the site for retail use. He displayed letters the City received from the Washington County Department of Land Use and Transportation and discussed their concerns about traffic issues and access to the site. o He described the issue of access to the site and presented a map of the area showing analysis of different traffic access scenarios. He showed zoning maps of adjacent areas in Aloha and Bull Mountain and spoke about the spacing of commercial districts and the problems of strip development. He addressed the need to provide retail opportunities within nearby access for the high-density neighborhoods in the subject area. o Mr. Gross displayed copies of-the Aloha-Reedville-Cooper Mountain Community Plan and the Bull Mountain Community Plan to compare other area community planning intentions. He discussed the placement of neighborhood commercial centers near major arterials. He observed that the subject site fits within the planners' design element criteria for the original Bull Mountain Community Plan. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - JUNE 17, 1991 PAGE 3 o Commissioner Boone inquired about the postponement of this Zone Change request previously, and the postponement of Item 5.3, a street vacation. PUBLIC TESTIMONY o Cal Woolery, Chairman of NPO #7, 12356 SW 132nd Court in Tigard, advised that NPO members were in agreement that it is not.realistic to require 1/2 mile between commercial areas. He pointed out on the map the nearest commercial outlets to his neighborhood. He discussed the noise issues, advising that the increased noise levels expected after the widening of the road, would make the subject property best suited as a commercial site. He said the commercial use of this property would be a convenience for the residents in the area. o Commissioner Fessler asked about the Morris Brothers contract with the -CPO concerning the cessation of the industrial operation. Mr. Woolery spoke about the noise, smoke, dust, and contamination of ground water which brought about the agreement to close the operation in 1995. o Mr. Woolery closed saying he favored the development of the subject site based of economics and service to the neighborhood. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED o Commissioner Moen requested clarification of floodplain issues pertaining to commercial development. He discussed restrictions concerning Neighborhood Commercial as compared to General Commercial and site size restrictions. Assistant Planner Pomeroy explained. o Commissioner Fessler brought up the ODOT letter regarding access to the subject site and asked for clarification. City Engineer Randy Wooley explained that the access to 135th would be decided through Site Development Review. o Commissioner Boone suggested that the cul-de-sac on New Scholls Ferry Road would result in traffic cutting through the neighborhood. o Commissioner said she did not agree with the applicant's premise that his site was not bordered on any side by Residential property. There was discussion concerning this view of the code language. Senior Planner Bewersdorff advised he did not interpret the meaning the same way the applicant did. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED o Commissioner Barber commented on the unwritten agreement City has with Beaverton concerning strip development. She said the shape of the subject site did not appear to add to the strip development problem, and she noted the convenience factor for local residents. She did not agree with the applicant's interpretation concerning the zoning of surrounding property. She approved of the Zone Change. PLANNING COWISSION MINUTES - JUNE 17, 1991 PAGE 5 F o Commissioner Fessler discussed the Bull Mountain Community Plan and the role of CPO in the drawing up of the plan. She expressed concern about the traffic access issues and was not convinced there had been a significant change in circumstances. She favored denial of the application. o Commissioner Moore said he agreed that the site would be an attractive commercial location, but he was concerned about the agreement with the City of Beaverton to limit strip development. He agreed with Commissioner Fessler that there did not seem to be a change in circumstances to warrant a Zone Change. o Commissioner Boone stated he was concerned about the traffic issues, and he did not see the the property as being a valuable a commercial site. He felt that saving energy was a minor consideration for this property. He said he was inclined to vote for denial. o Commissioner Moen spoke about the convenience of the site, the traffic access issues, and the rules governing zone changes, specifically boundary zoning. He noted his main concern was for the City of Beaverton's opposition to the proposal. Commissioner Fessler moved and Commissioner Moore seconded to deny CPA 91-0001 and ZON 91-0005 per staff recommendation and findings. There was brief discussion. Commissioner Barber advised that she would vote to deny the application, as the arguments against outweighed the arguments in favor of approval. Motion passed unanimously by Commissioners present. 6. OTHER o Commissioner Moen told the Commission he would not be seeking reappointment to the Commission. He said his years served were enjoyable and valuable. 7. ADJOURNED - 10:45 PM Ellen P. Fox, Secretary ATTEST: A. Donald Moen, President PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - JUNE 17, 1991 PAGE 6 r APPLICANT'S STATEMENT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT AND ZONE CHANGE REQUEST CITY OF TIGARD'S CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION' FILE NO.: CPA 91-01/ ZON 91-OS Applicant requests a comprehensive plan amendment and zone change with respect to parcels located in the southwest quadrant of the intersection of SW Scholls Ferry and SW 13Sth Ave. (hereinafter called the subject site). Applicant requests a land use change from medium high density residential, R-ZS, to general commercial, C-G. Applicant finds commercial general, C-G, is the highest and best use of the subject site to the community. Applicant finds: The land use change is consistent with all applicable plan policies, A substantial change in physical and other circumstances, including changes in the findings or assumptions upon which the comprehensive C_ plan was based, have occurred since the original land use designation, and A mistake was made in the original land use designation. A. FACTS Genera Information APPLICANT: Bill Gross 3019 SW Hampshire St. Portland, OR 97201 Z28-3228 OWNERS: E. Aleen Gross E.W. and Lynn L. Gross Z9SS SW Fairview Blvd. 3019 SW Hampshire St. Portland, OR 97201 Portland, OR 97201 PARCELS: WCTM 1S1 33CA Tax Lot 100 WCTM 1St 33 CA Tax Lot 200 That portion of the parcel WCTM iSi 33 CA Tax Lot 1000 which is north of the Summercreek floodplain CPA 91-01/ ZON 91-OS - GROSS - PAGE 1 SIZE: 4.15 acres Tax Lot 100 1.75 ac Tax Lot 200 1.3Z ac That portion of the parcel Tax Lot 100@ which is north of the Summercreek floodplain 1.08 ac Total 4.15 ac LOCATION: Southwest quadrant of the intersection of SW Scholls Ferry and SW 135th Ave. ZONING: R-25 Background Information The City of Tigard, Boundary Commission, and DLCD met to discuss the Krueger Annexation in June 1982. The Krueger Annexation was 13Z acres of contiguous parcels, including the subject site. The annexation was to the west of 135th, east of New Scholls Ferry, south of Scholls Ferry, and north of Walnut. The Washington County Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) designated the northern 90 acres of the Krueger Annexation, including the subject site, as high density residential. R-24, in April 1983. The BOCC also designated Z-4 acres of the annexation as neighborhood commercial, NC, at the same time. The NC site was located in the northwest quadrant of the future intersection of 135th and Murray, between Morning Hill and Walnut. Its final size and shape depended on the alignment of the future intersection. The NC site was located adjacent to existing public facilities. The Tigard Water District had installed a 16 inch water main in 135th, between Morning Hill and Walnut. Developers had stubbed a City of Tigard eight inch sewer line in 135th, at Morning Hill. The high density residential and commercial uses were adjacent to arterial-collector roads, to-wit; 135th, a County major collector; Scholls Ferry, a State major arterial; and New Scholls Ferry, a State minor arterial. C ~ CPA 91-01/ ZON 91-05 - GROSS - PAGE Z i t The Washington County Public Works Division had conducted a study of future peak hour traffic volumes on Scholia Ferry and New Scholls Ferry, in Fall 1982. It projected peak hour two-way volume for the year 2000 at the subject site would be: 1,200 vehicles at PM peak on Scholls Ferry, and 550 vehicles at PM'peak on New Scholls Ferry. The County had previously designated all 13Z acres of the Krueger Annexation, including the subject site, as low density residential, suburban residential. R-Si, in April 1961. The City of Tigard agreed'to adopt the County land use designations within the Krueger Annexation, in June 1983, as a condition of County approval of the annexation. The BOCC adopted the Bull Mountain Community Plan, which included their land use designations within the Krueger Annexation, in June 1983. Washington County received brief comment on its Bull Mountain Plan from The City of Tigard, on March 31, 1983, to-wit; "To date, the City of Tigard has not completely reviewed the County's Community Development Ordinance draft. The City sees no objection with those portions that have been reviewed." "Due to our comprehensive planning efforts and our limited staff in which to conduct a thorough review of your plan, our comments will be limited. We hope to coordinate the City and County codes where necessary during the coming months." The County received no comment on its plan from NPO V. The Boundary Commission annexed the Krueger Annexation, including the subject site, to Tigard in June 1983. The City of Tigard, pursuant to it agreement with Washington County, designated the northern 90 acres of the Krueger Annexation, including the subject site, as medium high density residential, R-Z0, in its land use request, CPA 10-83/ZC 2-83, in August 1983. The City, bound to the County agreement, designated 4 acres of the annexation as commercial neighborhood, C-N, in the same request. The size and location of the C-N site was subject to change upon the review of the road alignments at the future intersection of 135th and Murray. The City received no comment on its request from NPO V. The City of Beaverton installed a V inch sewer trunk line, the Unified Sewerage Agency Weir Trunk, in Summercreek, which adjoins the subject site, in Summer 1984. CPA 91-01/ ZON 91-05 - GROSS - PAGE 3 1 The Oregon State Highway Division conducted a 14 hour manual traffic count at the intersections of New Scholls Ferry and Scholls Ferry, and 135th and Scholls Ferry, both adjacent to the subject site, in November 1986. It estimated 24 hour two-way volume at the site in 1986 was: 17,000 ADT (average daily trips) on Scholls Ferry, 6,200 ROT on New Scholls Ferry, and 1,900 ADT on 135th. The State Highway Division conducted a peak hour manual traffic count at the same intersections, in February 1987. It found peak hour two-way volume at the site in 1987 was: 1,530 vehicles at PM peak on Scholls Ferry, 640 vehicles at AM peak on New Scholls Ferry, and 170 vehicles at PM peak on 135th. The State Highway Division conducted a peak hour traffic noise level count along Scholls Ferry and at the subject site in Fall 1987. It found that peak hour traffic noise at the site was 72 decibels (dB). The Highway Division found that 1987 noise levels along Scholls Ferry and at the site were higher than the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) standards for noise sensitive residential land use. It found that noise mitigation for second and third-story apartment units was not feasible because soundwalis to protect upper-story units would be too high. The Oregon State Highway Division Environmental Section sent its Noise Study Report to the cities of Tigard and Beaverton. The report urged the cities to recognize that the noise levels along Scholls Ferry were in conflict with FHWA residential noise standards. It urged them to recognize this noise pollution in any future changes to their comprehensive plans, zoning districts and building codes. The Highway Division improved the intersection of Scholls Ferry and New Scholls Ferry, adjacent to the subject site, in Spring 1988. It installed a new traffic signal at, and realigned, the intersection. The City of Tigard realigned the intersection of Scholls Ferry and 135th, adjacent to the subject site, in Summer 1988.. The City also widened and improved 135th with sidewalks and lights, in Summer 1988. It built a new bridge over Summercreek. Public utilities installed electricity, gas, telephone and cable undergrounds within the \ right-of-way. The Tigard Water District installed a 16 inch water main within the right-of-way. CPA 91-01/ ZON 91-05 - GROSS - PAGE 4 i } The City of Tigard prohibited parking on 135th, in Spring 1989. Tax Lot 100 was the subject of a land use request, CPA 89-08/2C 89-08, in November 1989. The request was for approval of a comprehensive plan amendment and zone change from medium high density residential, R-ZS, to commercial neighborhood, C-N. The request was denied upon staff and Planning Commission finding that approval of the request should be delayed until public transportation improvements to the area could be completed and traffic impacts from development on the parcel could be adequately assessed, to-wit; "In conclusion, staff finds that the proposed Plan Amendment... is generally consistent with all applicable Statewide Planning Goals, City of Tigard Plan policies, and the locational criteria The City of Beaverton, Washington County, the State Highway Division and staff all share concerns about the short-term impacts of traffic in the area and access to and from the property. Future construction plans for the SW Scholls Ferry corridor, this intersection and Old and New SW Scholls Ferry Road are not final at this time. Therefore, staff recommends that an approval of this proposal be delayed until such time that the public improvements to the area are completed and traffic impacts of any development on the subject parcel can be adequately assessed." Tax Lot 1000 was also the subject of a land use request, M 89-Z5, in January 1990. The request was for approval of a lot line adjustment. The request was approved upon staff finding that the proposal met lot line adjustment standards and minor land partition criteria. Lot 1000 was a S.07 acre parcel, which was split into two developable parcels by the Summercreek floodplain, to-wit; 2.24 acres to south of the floodplain; 1.08 acres to the north of it; and 1.7S acres within the floodplain. The lot line adjustment merged the southern Z.Z4 acres of the parcel into an adjacent parcel for future multi family residential development. It retained the northern 1.08 acres, and the floodplain, within Tax Lot 1000. Trimet started bus service along Murray, Scholls Ferry and the subject site, in Spring 1990. Its Route #GZ is a weekday daytime bus service. It has S4 scheduled stops each weekday at the intersection of Scholls Ferry and 13Sth adjacent to the site. Route #6Z connects with several routes at the Washington Square Mall, which extends bus service to the Tigard Transit Center and to the Portland Mall. It connects with a number of routes at the Beaverton Transit Center, which extends service to the Portland Mall and \ Hillsboro. CPA 91-01/ ZON 91-OS - GROSS - PAGE S The City of Tigard submitted its periodic review of its comprehensive plan and land use regulations to DLDC, in April 1990. It conducted a study of residential and commercial land use, during its periodic review, in Fall 1989. It found, in its draft housing report, that; "The Metropolitan Housing Rule requires that the average density allowed for all developable residential sand within the City's original planning area be a minimum of ten dwelling units per acre. The City's acknowledged comprehensive plan in 1984 inventoried 1,311 acres of developable residential land and the housing opportunity was 13,110 units for a density of 10 units per acre. Since then, eight plan amendments that included developable residential land have been approved. The current inventory includes 1,290 developable acres and a housing opportunity for 13,11Z units which is a density of 10.16 units per acre. Of these housing units, there is the opportunity for over 9,@00 units to be attached single family or multiple family housing, thus exceeding the requirement of a minimum of 50 percent." It found, in its draft economy report, that; "In late 1989 the City conducted a tax lot by tax lot survey of vacant and underutilized land within the Tigard City limits.... Total Vacant Acres 1981 1989 C-G 76 59 C-G(PD) 64 0 A major highlight of the table is that land conversions generated by economic development has drastically reduced the supply of land zoned for General Commercial use. Indeed, if the average annual rate of loss were to continue, there would be no vacant G-C designated land available by 1994.... In summary, the lack or diminishing supply of land available for commercial development is one of the core problems facing City economic development. It represents the most significant change in economic development opportunities since the acknowledgement of Tigard's comprehensive plan." "Rapid population growth changed the complexion of the City from a rural community to a growing suburban community and created a rapidly expanding demand for goods and services. Trade patterns followed the major highways through the City, developing commercial zones along the highways and other major arterial streets." "Commercial activity has developed in a strip along Highway SSW. with increasing development along Highway Z17 and portions of Scholls Ferry Road. This includes eating and drinking establishments, general retail and numerous individual businesses." CPA 91-01/ ZON 91-05 - GROSS - PAGE 6 t } commercial development has been occuring at a rapid tempo in the City. The total value of new commercial construction and alterations increased eight-fold during the period 1983 to 1989, spurting from $3 million in 1983 to $Z4 million each in 1988 and 1989. The effect of this development on the supply of commercial land was outlined above." Carl Buttke, Inc., consulting transportation engineers, conducted a study of the traffic impact on public streets from commercial retail land use at the subject site, which abuts Scholls Ferry, 135th and New Scholls Ferry, in January 1991. It finds peak hour two-way volume at the subject site in 1991 is: 1,965 vehicles at PM peak on Scholls Ferry, 655 vehicles at AM peak on New Scholls Ferry, and 655 vehicles at AM peak on 135th. Carl Buttke, Inc. estimates Z4 hour two-way volume at the subject site in 1991 is: 25,000 ROT on Scholls Ferry, 9,500 ROT on New Scholls Ferry, and 6,000 ADT on 135th. Carl Buttke, Inc. finds no adverse traffic impact on public streets from commercial retail land use at the subject site by 1992 (the State Highway Division will finish improvements to Scholls Ferry by then). Robert Charles Lessor & Co., consulting real estate economists, conducted a study of the public need for commercial retail land use within the community around the subject site, in January 1991. It finds a shortage of developable commercial retail land use within the community by 199Z. The State Highway Division will start to improve Scholls Ferry, between Fanno Creek and Murray, in Spring 1991. It will widen Scholls Ferry to four travel lanes and a left turn lane, and interconnect traffic signals. Construction will finish in Fall 199Z. The Highway Division will install a new traffic signal at the intersection of Scholls Ferry and 135th, adjacent to the subject site. The Highway Division will transfer all of its interest in Scholls Ferry, and New Scholls Ferry, to Washington County, in July 1991. It considers Scholls Ferry, and New Scholls Ferry, between Highway 217 and Murray, as urban arterials, which do not serve statewide purposes. CPA 91-01I ZON 91-05 - GROSS - PAGE 7 1 The City of Beaverton has plans to extend Davies Rd., from Scholls Ferry to New Scholls Ferry, at which time New Scholls Ferry would terminate in a cul de sac next to, and south of, Scholls Ferry. The City has neither funded nor scheduled construction of this plan. Vicinity Information Three streets surround the subject site, to-wit; Scholls Ferry to the north; New Scholls Ferry to the west; and 135th to the east. Scholls Ferry is a major arterial road. Transportation engineers estimate ADT (average daily trips) on Scholls Ferry at the site is 25,000 vehicles. Scholls Ferry will be widened and improved, and a new traffic signal will be installed at its intersection with 135th by Fall 1992. New Scholls Ferry is also an arterial road. Transportation engineers estimate ROT on New Scholls Ferry at the site is 9,500 vehicles. A traffic signal has been installed at its intersection with Scholls Ferry. 135th is a collector street. Transportation engineers estimate ADT on 135th at the site is 5,000 vehicles. It connects Walnut, which is a l major collector street, to Scholls Ferry, which is a major arterial street and thereby functions as a major collector street. Its peak AM hour and peak PM hour volumes each exceed 500 vehicles. Parking is prohibited on it. Two travel lanes and a left turn lane are available to motorists on it. The subject site is within a contiguous medium high density residential district, to-wit; R-Z5 (25 units per acre) in the City of Tigard to the east and south; and R-Z (21-2Z units per acre) in the City of Beaverton to the north and west. Parcels to the north and east of the site are vacant. Parcels to the south and west of the site are underutilized or vacant. The Summercreek floodplain and a single family residence adjoin the site to the south. Apartments, Forest Hideaway, Sunflower and Greenfield Village, along with Cotswald subdivision and underutilized parcels are further to the south. s The floodplain is also to the west of the site. Underutilized parcels are further to the west. Condominiums, Village at Glen Forest, are to the northwest of the site. Ashwood Downs subdivision is to the northeast of the site. CPA 91-01/ ZON 91-05 - GROSS - PAGE 8 Retail centers are at least Z/3 mile from the subject site, to-wit; Greenway Town Center, adjacent to Scholls Ferry and 121st, and Murrayhill Market Place, adjacent to Murray and Teal. Site Information The subject site is located in the southwest quadrant of the intersection of Scholls Ferry and 135th. It is about 4.15 acres and is an irregular triangle shape. Three streets surround the subject site, to-wit; Scholls Ferry to the north; New Scholls Ferry to the west; and 135th to the east. The Summercreek floodplain and a single family residence adjoin the site to the south. The site fronts about 1,290 feet of public streets, to-wit; ZOO feet on Scholls Ferry; 560 feet on New Scholls Ferry; and 530 feet on 135th. 91% of its area is within 150 feet of public streets. Street right-of-way and floodplain separate the site 60-Z5O feet from all adjacent parcels except for one. The subject site is flat and sits 1-12 feet above the adjacent Summercreek floodplain. It also sits above adjacent streets, to-wit; 1-3 feet above Scholls Ferry; 1-4 feet above New Scholls Ferry; and 1-2 feet above 135th. The site is visible from Scholls Ferry and New Scholls Ferry for at least 1000 feet from the west and southwest, and from Scholls Ferry for more than 1000 feet from the east. The site is vacant except for a white two story farmhouse, located in the northeast corner of Tax Lot ZOO. The site is covered with grass except for trees located around the house. Washington County Comprehensive Plan Information The Bull Mountain Community Plan was one of a number of planning elements which comprised the Washington County Comprehensive Plan. It was an area and site specific element of the County Comprehensive Plan. The other elements of the Comprehensive Plan were: Comprehensive Framework Plan (CFP) County Resource Document t. Other Community Plans j CPA 91-01/ ZON 91-05 - GROSS - PAGE 9 i Community Plan Background Documents Community Development Code Transportation Plan The CFP articulated county-wide comprehensive planning and community development policies. Two central provisions of the CFP had particular importance in planning and implementing the community plans. These, provisions were the county-wide development concept and the urban growth management policies. The county-wide development concept prescribed the creation of a series of distinct, balanced, relatively self-sufficient and diverse communities throughout the urban portion of County. The urban growth management policies required urban development to be accompanied by adequate urban facilities including public sewer, public water and a balanced urban level transportation system. The Community Plans divided the unincorporated portion of the County within the UGB and outside of city planning areas into community planning areas. The CFP was applied in a site specific mannner to the community planning areas. } Washington County C FP The County prescribed, in its CFP, that: "The overall goal of the county-wide development concept is to create a series of distinct, balanced, relatively self-sufficient and diverse communities throughout the urban portion of Washington County." In a community, the proximity of various housing types to the workplace, recreational activies, institutional uses and shopping opportunities can foster a closer spatial relationship of the range of human activity. Therefore, the county-wide-development concept calls for the creation of a series of distinct, balanced, relatively self- sufficient and diverse communities. The specific form of each community wiil depend on the character and opportunities that exist for community business and employment centers, as well as opportunities and constraints resulting from natural features." "Each community should include a community business area as a focus. These commercial areas should include a full range of retail opportunities and office uses with medium and high density residential uses in proximity. CPR 91-01/ ZON 91-05 - GROSS - PAGE 10 "Each community, barring limitations imposed by existing development patterns, service capacities or topography, should include a mix of low and medium density housing, designated in accord with adopted locational criteria. Generally, as the distance increases from shopping areas and employment centers, the density of residential development will decline." "In summary, the overall objective in the urban portion of Washington County is to create a series of identifiable and independent communities where the opportunity exists for residents to have easy and energy- efficient access to work and shopping. The CFP prescribed that; "It is the policy of Washington County that community plans be prepared using housing, employment and population allocations contained in the Comprehensive Framework Plan as the minimum necessary number of new housing units and new jobs which must be accomodated." "The holding capacity of the County's buildable lands is represented by the estimated number of homes and jobs that can be accomodated on those lands given certain assumptions about public right-of-way, institutional needs and housing and employment densities. Inside the UG8 residential holding capacities are calculated using housing mix and density ` requirements established by Metro after an amount of land needed for economic development is removed. According to State rules, Washington County is required to provide in the Comprehensive Plan the opportunity for a new residential construction mix of 50:50 between detached and attached units and an average density for new residential construction of 8 units per net buildable acre in the urban unincorporated area." "The process of allocating homes and jobs took into account the amount and location of existing vacant lands in each area, topographic features, transportation accessibility, prevailing character of each area and surrounding communities. The CFP prescribed minimum growth allocations, to-wit; Community Plan Growth Allocations- Minimum New Opportunities Community Plans Housing Units/ LDR MDR CBD-CN Comm'l SgFt/ Units Acre Mix Mix Acres Housing Unit Total Plans 76,ZZ1 6.09 48% SZ% 307 175 18Sth East-West Z0,364 6.80 39% 61% 76 163 Aloha-Cooper Mtn 19,648 6.75 40% 60% S8 1Z9 Bull Mtn 4,818 * 3.75 100% 0% S 45 CPA 91-01/ ZON 91-05 - GROSS - PAGE 11 • 1285 acres; excludes floodplain and steep slopes The County prescribed, in its Bull Mountain Community Plan. actual growth allocations for the Bull Mountain community. The Bull Mountain Plan included actual growth allocations for the Bull Mountain-Northwest Subareas, which included the Krueger Annexation, and the subject site, to-wit; Bull Mtn-Northwest Subareas Growth Allocation- Actual New Opportunities Community Plan Housing Units/ LDR MDR CBD-CN Comm'1 SgFt/ Units Acre Mix Mix Acres Housing Unit Planned Land Use 4,056 } 16.22 0% 100% 4 43 Existing Land Use 18 # 0.07 100% 0% 0 0 New Opportunities 4,038 16.41 0% 100% 4 43 250 acres; excludes 10 acres in floodplain, steep slopes and drainways 246 acres; excludes 4 acres in existing land use The County prescribed, in its CFP, that; "It is the policy of Washinton County to locate development through the community planning process by considering land use compatability, complementary scale, and overall community impacts; and, establish a clear and objective development review process which evaluates individual developments from a functional site design perspective. The CFP prescribed land use designations and location criteria, to-wit; " R2 4" "Characterization: This class of uses includes attached residences.... These uses occur at a density of Z4 or fewer units per acre." "Location Criteria: Residences in this class should be located on or near Major Collectors and Arterials. Through traffic access to residences in this district should not be provided from local streets. Locations on or near Transit Streets are desireable for these uses. Location of residences at or near Major Collector-Arterial and Arterial-Arterial intersections will require use of construction design techniques to reduce potential visual, noise, and air pollution impacts on occupants. If appropriate design features can protect the area from potential adverse impacts, adjacent land uses may include retail commercial, office commercial, and industrial uses." "Neighborhood Commercial (NC)" ti CPA 91-01/ ZON 91-05 - GROSS - PAGE 12 "Characterization: this district provides for small to medium sized shopping facilities up to 35,000 square feet and limited office use. The intent is to provide for shopping and services needs of the immediate urban neighborhood and as such should be readily accessible by car and foot from the surrounding neighborhoods. The scale, operation and types of uses permitted in this district are in keeping with the neighborhood character. The principal tenant is likely to be a grocery store." "Location Criteria: The precise location of these uses should be jointly determined by market factors and the community planning process. Generally, they should be located at Collector and/or Arterial intersections and at intervals a mile apart. These uses may be grouped on sites of up to 10 acres." The Neighborhood Commercial (NC) land use designation, prescribed in the CFP, was intended to provide shopping center opportunies within neighborhoods, to-wit; "THE SHOPPING CENTER" "A shopping center is a group of commercial establishments, planned, developed, owned and managed as a unit related in location, size, and type of shops to the trade area the unit serves. It provides on-site parking in definite relationship to the types and sizes of stores. The ' proper location of a shopping center can minimize the distance and travel time for the shopper, and through the utilization of the concept, a wide range of business activities can be concentrated in one area while providing a central parking area for today's motorized shopper. This greatly reduces the number of stops per shopping excursion and also has the potential for becoming a "town center" which could include public facilities..." "To insure the economic stability of the community as well as services which meet the needs of the public', deti3rmination of an area's commercial needs should be predicated on an analysis of population densities and a market analysis as well as the available transportation system, access, compatibility of adjacent land uses and relationship to similar commercial uses. New commercial development is only justified when an analysis of these considerations and plan policies indicates." "Commercial space will be allocated on the basis of a market analysis to meet the needs of the community. Designated commercial uses will be located and designed to serve residential communities and designed to ± make them an integral part of the community." "Activities occurring in a commercial area can be detrimental if the community is exposed to the effects of traffic, noise, large lighted signs, and generally intense activity found in some thriving enterprises. When a need for commercial space arises, a site should be chosen which provides the greatest convenience to the shopper while producing the least conflict with adjoining land uses." CPA 91-01/ ZON 91-05 - GROSS - PAGE 13 1 "For the convenience of the public, commercial uses will be encouraged to develop within centers rather than scattered throughout the area or mixed with non-commercial land uses." "The design of the center and layout of the buildings will be executed in a manner which integrates the center as a part of the community and is compatible with surrounding or planned uses." "Centers are divided into four types: neighborhood, community, district and regional, furnishing different levels of service." "A neighborhood commercial center provides for the sale of convenience goods (foods, drugs and sundries) and personal services (laundry and dry cleaning, barbering, shoe repairing) for everyday living needs." "The neighborhood center has: Principal Tenant: Convenience grocery store Site Size: Less than two acres Locational Criteria: Within walking distance of all neigh- borhood units with direct access to a residential collector street Service Area: A potential 3,000-7,000 persons Distance between Centers Not less than 3/4 to 1 mile" "Neighborhood commercial centers will be conveniently located to facilitate pedestrian use and to provide each residential community with convenience shopping and services facilities within a one-half mile walking distance." "The neighborhood center's convenience location makes it an integral part of the neighborhood but also increases the risk of creating traffic conflicts with adjoining residential uses. Traffic should not move through the neighborhood in order to reach the shopping center, but rather should be carried by collector or arterial streets which are designed for higher traffic volumes." "Community commercial centers contain the same facilities as neighbor- hood centers, but on a larger scale and in addition, will provide for business uses such as professional offices, financial institutions, service stations and other services that are necessary to the community but cannot be supported on a smaller neighborhood basis." "The community commercial center has: Principal Tenant: Supermarket, also includes wearing apparel, hardware and appliances Site Size: Three to Fifteen acres Locational Criteria: Serves several neighborhoods, is adjacent to a developed arterial CPA 91-01/ ZON 91-0S - GROSS - PAGE 14 i. s• Service Area: Potential 15,000-70,000 persons Distance between Centers Between Z to 5 miles depending on density and market analysis" "The similarities between neighborhood and community centers require an adequate spacing to insure successful commercial operation. The larger center will serve the function of a neighborhood center in its immediate area." "Commercial Location and the Transportation System" "The following group of policies are specifically directed to the location of commercial and business uses in relation to the transportation system." "Commercial centers will be conveniently located on trafficways of adequate capacity, centrally within or at a point best serving the trade area." "A commercial center will be at a location which is conducive to convenient access by numerous shoppers. To be avoided are intersections which have congestion problems or abrupt changes of grade, intersections formed by acute angled streets and other situations where additional traffic generated would cause undue traffic congestion." "Commercial development will be preceded by provisions for sufficient road right-of-way, control of access points and other improvements." "In order to preserve their traffic moving function, streets designated for through traffic will not be lined with commercial development." "Access points to commercial uses located on major arterials will be limited to reduce the traffic hazard potential." The CFP prescribed a balanced transportation system, to-wit; "It is the policy of Washington County to provide a balanced transportation system which combines land uses with the appropriate levels and types of transportation services necessary to accomodate the full implementation of the comprehensive plan." "Major and minor arterials: (Example: Farmington Road, 185th Avenue)" "Functional Purpose: Major and minor arterials are intended to serve as the primary routes of travel between areas of principal traffic generation and major urban ativity centers, and for trips between non-adjacent areas. Major and minor arterials should also be used for access to principal/regional arterials." CPA 91-01/ ZON 91-05 - GROSS - PAGE 15 i ' "Design Consideration: A major arterial will be four to five lanes wide, a minor three to five lanes, and both designed to carry traffic at speeds between 40 and 50 miles per hour. Access to an arterial will be primarily via collectors and local streets. Private drive access will be strictly limited and on-street parking will not be allowed.... The design of an arterial shall allow for the efficient operation of buses in mixed traffic." "Land-Use Considerations: Auto-oriented land uses will be encouraged to locate adjacent to arterials. Commercial strip development will not be encouraged, however. Residential development adjacent to an arterial will be carefully buffered from the right-of-way." "Transit streets:" "Functional Purpose: Transit streets are intended to designate streets where public transit routes are present or should be present as determined by the community planning process in conjunction with the Public Works Department and Tri-Met. A transit street designation is applied for two puposes: a> To determine those streets where transit service is desirable, and b> To allow development to respond to the availability of transit." "Design Considerations: Land uses which have the ability to take advantage of transit will be encouraged to incorporate transit streets. The intensity of such uses should correspond to the frequency of transit and vice versa...." "Land-Use Consideration: Higher density land uses should be located along transit streets with appropriate pedestrian access ways provided." The Bull Mountain Community Plan Background Document The County described, in its Bull Mountain Community Plan Background Document, the various elements and circumstances which together would influence the future development of the Bull Mountain community, to-wit; "Bull Mountain itself, with an elevation of 711 feet, dominates the area to the extent that it greatly influences development patterns and amenities. Pacific Highway, Scholls Ferry Road and the major collectors Bull Mountain Road and Beef Bend road provide the area's main access..." "Employment opportunities within the planning area are limited. Most of the land available for future development is designated for low density residential use. Community residents will continue to depend on the county and region for jobs and shopping opportunities...." CPA 91-01/ ZON 91-OS - GROSS - PAGE 16 "Traffic on major transportation routes and the operations of the Progress Quarry just north of Scholls Ferry Road are the primary sources of noise in the Bull Mountain Planning Area." "Noise is measured in terms of decibels (dB). As demonstrated in numerous medical and psychological studies, exposure to noisy situations can result in pronounced physical and/or emotional problems e.g., stress, increased blood pressure, and deafness." "Certain types of land uses, e.g., residences, hospitals, libraries, are noise sensitive. This means that the operation of these uses conflicts with the existence or introduction of another use which creates noise above certain levels. For example, in residential areas, Federal government standards recommend that daytime noise levels not exceed 50 dB. Land use regulation can be used to help separate noise sensitive uses from noise sources." "In addition to serving the planning area, the street and road system in this area must also accomodate heavy traffic flow between Portland and Beaverton, and points to the south and west. Highway 99W is a primary route from the Portland area to the Oregon Coast and Scholls Ferry Road accomodates a growing share of rush hour traffic." "The most recent transportation analysis of County urban road needs was completed in the Fall of 1982. Projections consistent with Metro's RTP show that by the year 2000 there will be an approximate doubling of 1980 traffic throughout the Bull Mountain-Tigard area." To relieve this projected congestion, the analysis suggests improvement of minor collectors and major collectors to better organize traffic, and the construction of two major new facilities." "The first major new facility recommended as a result of the transportation analysis for the Bull Mountain area has been discussed for many years. The extension of Murray Boulevard from Scholls Ferry Road around Bull Mountain on the east to Pacific Highway is projected to relieve congestion.... Washington County Public Works Department and the City of Tigard are currently working with an engineering consultant to define an acceptable, low impact alignment of this extension." B. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The applicable criteria in this case are Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2, 5, 6, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13. ~fhe applicant finds that the request is consistent with the applicable goals based upon the following findings: CPA 91-01/ ZON 91-05 - GROSS - PAGE 17 6 E 1 Goal #1 (Citizen Involvement) The City of Tigard will ensure the opportunity for citizen involvement in its review of this request with review of the request by its Neighborhood Planning Organization V. (NPO #7); review of the request by the public in its public hearings; and notice to the public of the request, its public hearings and its decision. Goal #2 (Land Use Planning) The City will apply all applicable Statewide Planning Goals, City of Tigard Comprehensive Plan Policies and Community Development Code requirements in its review of the request. Goal #5 (Open Space and Natural Resources) This request conserves open space and protect natural resources. The subject site is adjacent to the Summercreek floodplain and forest. The floodplain and forest is a natural resource and wildlife habitat within the community. Beaver. racoon, heron and ducks live in its thickets, reeds, and watercourses. This request provides residents with the opportunity to enjoy this natural resource on their shopping trips. The Summercreek floodplain and forest is a natural greenway within the community. It connects Mary Woodward Elementary School, Summerlake Park, and the subject site to the neighborhoods within the community. The City of Tigard is acquiring the floodplain and forest to provide the community with a public greenway which links its public sites with its neighborhoods. This request provides residents with the opportunity to access commercial retail development by way of the greenway. Goal #6 (Quality of Air, etc.) This request improves environmental quality within the community. The subject site is located within a contiguous medium high density residential use community within the cities of Tigard and Beaverton. This multi family use community could generate high shopping trip volume. The community has no shopping opportunities within it. Its residents must travel Z/3 to 1 1/Z miles to the closest shopping centers, with some exceptions. This request locates shopping opportunities within the community. Its residents could travel a to 3/4 mile to shopping opportunities, with some exceptions. This request provides residents with the opportunity to travel shorter distances in their automobiles for shopping trips. It provides them with a practical opportunity to walk or bike to shopping opportunities. Residents within the community could reduce the length, and the number, of their automobile trips to shopping opportunities and thereby reduce their vehicle emmissions. CPA 91-01/ ZON 91-OS - GROSS - PAGE 18 i The subject site is located at the intersections of arterial-collector streets. This request provides motorists with the opportunity to access shopping opportunities en route to their destinations. Motorists could reduce the number of their automobile trips to shopping opportunities and thereby reduce their vehicle emmissions. The subject site is subject to high level traffic pollution, to-wit; vibration, noise, emmissions and. glare. Traffic on major transportation routes is the major source of pollution within the community. Residential uses are noise sensitive. Noise can cause pronounced physical and psychological stress. Noise sensitive uses should be separated from noise pollution by buffers, setbacks or land use. This request separates noise sensitive residential use from noise pollution by land use. The State Highway Division found the traffic noise along the subject site was 72 dB in 1987. This was about four times more noise than Federal government standards recommended as the maximum daytime noise in residential areas. Goal #9 (Economy) This request diversifies and improves the economy of the community. This request increases the developable commercial land base within the City of Tigard and the economic opportunities within the community. Commercial development within the community creates permanent retail and service jobs, and temporary construction jobs. It increases the City's revenue sources within the community. Commercial development increases assessed values more than residential development. This request provides the opportunity to stimulate multi family development on the vacant and underutilized parcels close to the subject site. Multi family development increases property tax revenues within the community. It increases assessed values more than single family development. Commercial retail development should be close to multi family development. Residents within multi family developments should have convenient pedestrian access to shopping opportunities within their community. The development pattern within the cities of Tigard and Beaverton attest to this land use principle. Real estate economists find that the demand for commercial retail development within the community around the subject site is more than the existing supply.in the community. Goal #10 (Housing) This request provides adequate housing for the community. J CPA 91-01/ ZON 91-OS - GROSS - PAGE 19 `r - 3 The subject site is located within a contiguous medium high density ; l residential use community. Vacant and underutilized land is located within the community. This request provides the opportunity to stimulate multi family development on its vacant and underutilized land. Commercial retail development supports multi family developments. i Commercial retail opportunities should be close to multi family development. The development patterns within the cities of Tigard and Beaverton show that multi family developments cluster around retail development. Real estate economists find that residents within the community around the subject site need additional commercial retail opportunities within their community. This request provides the opportunity to stimulate the conversion of contiguous multi family districts into contiguous multi family developments. Contiguous developments reduce the friction between multi family and single family developments which has been evident in the Cotswald and Brittany Square subdivisions. This request provides the opportunity to stimulate multi family development and thereby increase the affordable housing opportunities within the community. Residents tend to remain in their community even t; as their incomes change or their families undouble. Multi family ( development provides young adults, single parents, and senior adults with affordable housing opportunities within their community. This request removes 103 housing opportunities from the City of Tigard's Comprehensive Plan (25 units/acre x 4.15 acres). However, this request does not remove 103 developable housing units from the community. The subject site is not suited for continued residential use, nor is it suited for future residential development. It is an irregular triangle shape. It is subject to high level pollution from three adjacent arterial-collector roadways. Setbacks and buffers within the site, to mitigate traffic pollution, would reduce developable residential land to a fraction of the land within the site. Regardless of the developable residential land within the subject site, this request does not reduce the City of Tigard's housing opportunity index below its minimum 10 units / acre of inventoried residential land ((13,112-103) units / (1,290-4.15) acres - 10.12 units / acre). nor reduce its multi family housing mix below its 50 percent minimum ((9,000-103) multifamily units / (13,112-103) units = 68% multifamily), pursuant to the Metropolitan Housing Rule. Goal till (Public Facilities) This request recognizes and utilizes the capacity of the public infrastructure within the community. C ~ . CPA 91-01/ ZON 91-05 - GROSS - PAGE 20 , t i l The public infrastructure should direct the location and intensity of housing and commercial opportunities within the community to promote the most public benefit at the least public expense. This is no more than efficient land use. This request locates high intensity commercial use within the subject site to utilize the capacity of the public: infrastructure within the community. This public infrastructure will support commercial retail development at the site by Fall 1992. Public water and sewer, and natural storm drainage serve the site, to-wit; 16" water main, 27" sewer trunk line, and Summercreek floodplain. Public utilities serve it, to-wit; electricity, gas, telephone, and cable. Police and fire protection serve it. Public transit serves it, to-wit; Trimet bus service. Three public streets and two intersections serve the site. One of these intersections is signalized, and the other one will be signalized by Fall 1992. Transportation engineers find no adverse traffic impact upon public streets from commercial retail development at the site after Fall 1992. Goal #1Z (Transportation) This request encourages safe, convenient and economic transportation within the community. Land use should utilize transportation investments to encourage and support balanced transportation development within the community. This is no more than efficient use of monies spent for streets and public transit. The subject site is located at the two intersections of three arterial- collector streets, to-wit; a major arterial, a minor arterial, and a major collector. One of these intersections is signalized, and the other one will be signalized by Fall 1992. Transportation engineers find no adverse traffic impact upon public streets from commercial retail development at the site after Fall 1992. This request provides the opportunity to locate intensive commercial retail development along arterial-collector streets and signalized intersections within the community. It provides motorists and residents within the community with safe and convenient access to shopping opportunities. Land use should limit residential development along major arterial trafficways to assure livability within the community. The subject site is subject to high level traffic pollution. The traffic noise alone is 22 dB more, or about four times louder, than the 50 dB maximum daytime noise which Federal government standards recommended for residential areas. This request separates noise sensitive residential use from traffic pollution and thereby assures livability within the community. 1~ ) CPR 91-01/ ZON 91-05 - GROSS - PAGE Z1 i 1 Land use should locate intensive land use close to transitways to encourage the expansion and use of public transit. This request locates high intensity commercial retail use along a major transitway within the community. Goal #13 (Energy) This request conserves energy within the community. Land use should conserve energy with efficient transportation and land use patterns. It should locate commercial use opportunities in relation to residential use opportunities to minimize vehicular travel. The subject site is located within a medium high density residential community. This multi family community has no shopping opportunities within it. Its residents must travel Z/3 to 1 1/Z miles to the closest shopping opportunities, with few exceptions. This request locates shopping opportunities within this community. Its residents could travel 0 to 3/4 mile to shopping opportunities, with few exceptions. This request provides residents with the opportunity to travel shorter distances in their automobiles for shopping trips. It provides them with a practical opportunity to walk or bike to shopping opportunities. Residents within this community could reduce the length, and the number. of their automobile trips to shopping opportunities and thereby reduce their vehicle fuel consumption. Land use should locate higher densities and intensities of land use 1 close to existing and potential transit routes, specifically with convenient access to highways, arterials and major collector streets. The subject site is located at the intersections of arterial-collector streets. This request provides motorists with the opportunity for easy i and convenient access to shopping opportunities en route to their destinations. Motorists could reduce the number of their automobile trips to shopping opportunities and thereby reduce their vehicle fuel consumption. Applicant finds the request is consistent with applicable portions of the comprehensive plan as noted below: Plan Policy 1.1.1 a) The request is consistent with all applicable plan policies, as demonstrated below and is consistent with the growth and development patterns within the community. b) A substantial change in physical and other circumstances, including changes in the findings or assumptions upon which the comprehensive t plan was based, have occurred since the original land use designation; i) A change of physical circumstances has occurred since the r original land use designation, CPA 91-01/ ZON 91-05 - GROSS - PAGE ZZ K e i } ii) An anticipated transportation development has not occurred which the acknowledged plan assumed, iii) An unanticipated transportation development has occurred which the acknowledged plan did not assume, iv) A change in assumptions has occurred since the original land use designation, and v) A significant loss of economic development opportunities for general commercial use has occurred since the original land Ltse designation. c) A mistake was made in the original land use designation. 13 change of physical circumstances as occurred since the original land use designation:_ Substantial improvements in the capacities of the public infrastructure at the subject site have occurred since the original land use designation. The City of Beaverton installed a 27 inch sewer trunk line, the Unified Sewerage Agency Weir Trunk, adjacent to the site, in Summer 1984. The Oregon State Highway Division installed a traffic signal at, and realigned, the intersection of Scholls Ferry and New Scholls Ferry, adjacent to the site, in Spring 1988. The City of Tigard realigned the intersection of Scholls Ferry and 135th, adjacent to the site, in Summer 1988. The City of Tigard widened and improved 135th, in Summer 1988. It built a new bridge over Summercreek. The Tigard Water District installed a 16 inch water main, adjacent to the site, in Summer 1988. The City of Tigard prohibited parking on 135th and adjacent to the site, in Spring 1989. Trimet started bus service along Murray and Scholls Ferry, and to the subject site, in Spring 1990. The Oregon State Highway Division will start to widen and improve Schoils Ferry, between Fanno Creek and Murray, and at the site, in Spring 1991. Construction will finish in Fall 1992. The State Highway Division will install a new traffic signal at the intersection of Scholls Ferry and 135th, adjacent to the site, by Fall 1992. :i CPA 91-01/ ZON 91-05 - GROSS - PAGE 23 l The Highway Division will transfer all of its interest in Scholls Ferry, and New Scholls Ferry, to Washington County, in July 1991. It considers them as urban arterials, which do not serve statewide purposes. Substantial increases in traffic volumes at the subject site have occurred since the original land use designation. 24 hour traffic volume increases at the site have been spectacular since the base year 1982, or later years as traffic counts became available. Compare average daily trips on the streets which surround the site; Scholls Ferry New Scholls Ferry 135th 1982 Base 10,300 ADT 1984 Base 5,500 ADT 1986 Base 1,900 ADT (Hwy Div) 1986 Count 17,000 ADT 6,200 ADT 1,900 ADT (Hwy Div) 1991 Count Z5,000 ADT 9,500 ADT 6,000 ADT (Buttke PE) Compare average daily trips as a percentage of base year ADT on the streets adjacent to the site; Scholls Ferry New Scholls Ferry 135th 198Z Base 100 % 1984 Base 100 % 1986 Base 100 % (Hwy Div) 1986 Count 165 % 113 % 100 % (Hwy Div) 1991 Count 243 % 173 % 316 % (Buttke PE) Substantial traffic pollution at the site has ended the suitability of the site for residential use. Traffic pollution at the site includes noise, vibration, emmissions and glare. 1987 peak hour traffic noise at the site was 7Z decibels (dB). This traffic noise is ZZ dB more, or about four times louder, than the 50 dB maximum daytime noise which Federal government standards recommended for residential areas. 7Z dB is also higher than the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) standards for noise sensitive residential land use. Noise mitigation for second and third-story apartment units at the site is not feasible because soundwalls to protect upper-story units would be too high. CPA 91-01/ ZON 91-05 - GROSS - PAGE Z4 r d l` \ The Oregon State Highway Division Environmental Section has urged the cities of Tigard and Beaverton to recognize the traffic noise pollution along Scholls Ferry in any future changes to their comprehensive plans, zoning districts and building codes. An anticipated major transportation development has not occurred which the acknowledged plan assumed: Washington County adopted the Bull Mountain Community Plan, which included land uses within the Krueger Annexation, and for the subject site, in June 1983. The County anticipated, in the Plan, a major new transportation development within the community. It prescribed that; A list of planned road improvements follow: 'a b Connection between Scholls Ferry Road and SW 135th Avenue as a major collector, improved [later] as part of an extension of Murray Boulevard to Pacific Highway when such a facility is built. 7 Extension of Murray Boulevard as a major collector to Pacific Highway (99 W). This improvement will traverse the Northern Triangle [the Krueger Annexation] subarea." The Plan also located Z-4 acres of neighborhood commercial land use in the northwest quadrant of the future intersection of Murray and 135th between Morning Hill and Walnut. Its size and shape depended on the alignment of the future intersection. However, the City of Tigard, in its Comprehensive Plan (revised February and November 1983), opposed any Murray extension to the east of Bull Mountain. It found, in its Special Areas of Concern, that; "The City of Tigard, in the 1975 plan for NPO #3, opposed a proposed Murray Boulevard Extension through NPO #3 [on Gaarde and/or 1215t]. It has been the opinion of both the City and the local residents that the Murray Boulevard Extension to Pacific Highway should be located to the west of [emphasis added] Bull Mountain. Completion of this arterial linkage could remove much of the through traffic from what should be neighborhood collector streets." It prescribed that; "The City of Tigard shall work with other governmental bodies for the development of an arterial route connection from Murray Boulevard or Scholls Ferry Road to Pacific Highway. This arterial route should be located west of [emphasis added] Bull Mountain, and should not utilize roads which pass through existing residential areas within Tigard." Residents within the community, and members in the City of Tigard City Council still oppose the Murray extension. CPA 91-01/ ZON 91-05 - GROSS - PAGE 25 4 The City of Tigard Transportation Plan is still not specific as to the location of the Murray extension. The City has neither funded nor scheduled any construction of the Murray extension around, and to the east of, Bull Mountain to Gaarde. It is improbable that the Murray extension, or any commercial retail 1 development adjacent to it, will ever occur as anticipated in the Bull Mountain Plan. It is probable that convenient shopping opportunities within the community will never occur as anticipated in the Plan. fin unanticipated major transportation development had, occurred which the acknowledged an did not assume: The County did not anticipate, in the Bull Mountain Plan, the major transportation improvements which have occurred adjacent to the subject site. The County, in its CFP, prescribed policies on the location of commercial uses in relation to its transportation system, to-wit: "A commercial center will be at a location which is conducive to convenient access by numerous shoppers. To be avoided ar.e intersections which have congestion problems or abrupt changes of grade, intersections formed by acute angled streets and other situations where additional traffic generated would cause undue traffic congestion." The County, in its Transportation Plan, included the subject site among Washington County locations with significant geometric design concerns (acute angled streets). The major transportation improvements adjacent to the site have ended any adverse geometric design concerns at its location. The Oregon State Highway Division installed a traffic signal at, and realigned, the intersection of Scholls Ferry and New Scholls Ferry, adjacent to the site, in Spring 1988. The City of Tigard realigned the intersection of Scholls Ferry and 135th, and widened and improved 135th, adjacent to the site, in Summer 1988. The City prohibited parking on 135th, adjacent to the site, in Spring 1989. The Oregon State Highway Division will start to widen and improve Scholls Ferry, between Fanno Creek and Murray, and at the site, in Spring 1991. Construction will finish in Fall 1992. The State Highway Division will install a new traffic signal at the intersection of Scholls Ferry and 135th, adjacent to the site, by Fail 1992. CPA 91-01/ ZON 91-05 - GROSS - PAGE ZG L 1. ~i i f } Transportation engineers find no adverse traffic impact upon public streets from commercial retail development at the site by 199Z. A significant loss economic development opportunities for general commercial use within the community has occurred: The City of Tigard found a drastic reduction in developable general commercial land during its periodic review of its comprehensive plan and land use regulations, in April 1990. It found, in its draft economy report, that; land conversions generated by economic development has drastically reduced the supply of land zoned for General Commercial use. Indeed, if the average annual rate of loss were to continue, there would be no vacant G-C designated land available by 1994.... -In summary, the lack or diminishing supply of land available for commercial development is one of the core problems facing City economic development. It represents the most significant change in economic development opportunities since the acknowledgement of Tigard's comprehensive plan." "Rapid population growth changed the complexion of the City from a rural community to a growing suburban community and created a rapidly expanding demand for goods and services. Trade patterns followed the major highways through the City, developing commercial zones along the highways and other major arterial streets." "Commercial activity has developed in a strip along Highway 99W, with increasing development along Highway 217 and portions of Scholls Ferry Road. This includes eating and drinking establishments, general retail and numerous individual businesses." Real estate economists find a shortage of developable general commercial land within the community around the subject site by 199Z. A change in assumptions has occurred since the original land use designation' The County assumed, in the Bull Mountain Plan, that traffic volumes within the community would double over the ZO year period of 1980-2000. Its Public Works Division had projected peak hour traffic volumes for the year 2000 within the community and adjacent to the subject site, in Fall 1982. Peak hour traffic volume increases at the site have been spectacular since the base year 1980, or later years as traffic counts became available. Compare peak hour vehicles on the streets which surround the site; CPA 91-01/ ZON 91-05 - GROSS - PAGE Z7 s j Scholls Ferry New Scholls Ferry 135th 1980 Base * 600 vehicles 27S vehicles (WA Cty PW) 1987 Base 170 vehicles (OR Hwy Div) 1991 Count 1,965 vehicles 655 vehicles 65S vehicles (Buttke PE) 2010 Est. 3,Z00 vehicles 49S vehicles 1,170 vehicles (Buttke PE) * 1/Z of year Z000 peak hour volume estimated by the County in 1982. Year 2010 peak hour volume estimated by Carl Buttke, Inc. in 1991. Compare peak hour vehicles as a percentage of base year vehicles on the streets adjacent to the site; Scholls Ferry New Scholls Ferry 135th 1980 Base 100 % 100 % (WA Cty PW) 1987 Base 100 % (OR Hwy Div) 1991 Count 328 % 238 % 385 % (Buttke PE) 2010 Est. S33 % 180 % 688 % (Buttke PE) A change in assumptions of peak hour traffic volumes at the site has occurred. The County assumed that traffic volumes adjacent to the site would double over the 20 year period of 1980-2000. However, traffic volumes adjacent to the site doubled and tripled over the first 10 years of this ZO year period. The most recent estimates show that traffic volumes adjacent to the site would quintuple and sextuple over the 30 year period 1980-2010. The County assumed, in the Bull Mountain Plan, that its UP locational criteria for its high density residential use at the subject site could be met. Its CFP prescribed that; "Location of residences at or near Major Collector-Arterial and Arterial-Arterial intersections will require use of construction design techniques to reduce potential visual, noise, and air pollution impacts on occupants." The County assumed that any traffic pollution at the site from adjacent streets and intersections could be mitigated. It assumed that any noise pollution at the site could be reduced to the 50 dB maximum daytime noise level which Federal government standards recommend for residential areas. However, construction techniques would not reduce the existing noise pollution at the site to S0 dB. CPA 91-01/ ZON 91-05 - GROSS - PAGE 28 t 'r Peak hour traffic noise at the site was 7Z dB in 1987. Noise mitigation for second and third-story apartment units at the site is not feasible because soundwalls to protect upper-story units would be too high. flL mistake was made in the original an use designation. The County prescribed minimum growth allocations, in its CFP, for its urban community plans. Compare minimum growth allocations between the Bull Mountain community, other similar urban communities (those adjacent to cities with major commercial development), and total urban communities; Urban Community Plan Growth Allocations- Minimum New Opportunities Community Plans Housing Units/ LDR MDR CBD-CN Comm'1 SgFt/ Units Acre Mix Mix Acres Housing Unit Total Plans 76,ZZ1 6.09 48% 52% 307 175 185th East-West 20,364 6.80 39% 61% 76 163 Aloha-Cooper Mtn 19,648 6.75 40% 60% 58 129 Bull Mtn 4,818 • 3.75 100% 0% 5 45 * 1285 acres; excludes floodplain and steep slopes Compare minimum growth allocations for the Bull Mountain community as a percentage of other similar communities, and total urban communities; Relative Minimum Growth Allocations- Bull Mountain Plan as Percentage of Other Plans Bull Mountain Plan Community Plans Units/ LDR MDR Comm'l SgFt/ Acre Mix Mix Housing Unit Total Plans 62% Z08% 0% Z6% t 185th East-West SS% 256% 0% Z8% Aloha-Cooper Mtn 56% ZSO% 0% 35% The minimum growth allocations for the Bull Mountain community were significantly disproportionate to other similar communities. Its residential land use mix was all low density detached single family use. \ Its residential opportunities were about 3/S that of other communities, J CPA 91-01/ ZON 91-05 - GROSS - PAGE 29 F 1 t f and its commercial opportunities per residential opportunities were about 1/3 that of other communities. The theme for the Bull Mountain community was low density residential opportunities with limited commercial opportunities. It would remain a rural community within the UGB. This was a mistake in the CFP. The County prescribed, in its CFP, that; "The overall goal of the county-wide development concept is to create a series of distinct, balanced, relatively self-sufficient and diverse communities throughout the urban portion of Washington County." "Each community should include a community business area as a focus. These commercial areas should include a full range of retail opportunities and office uses with medium and high density residential uses in proximity. "In summary, the overall objective in the urban portion of Washington County is to create a series of identifiable and independent communities where the opportunity exists for residents to have easy and energy- efficient access to work and shopping. The intent in the CFP was to balance the residential densities and commercial opportunities within its urban communities. However, the minimum growth allocations within the CFP for the Bull Mountain community failed to promote this intent. The theme for the Bull Mountain community changed in the Bull Mountain Plan. In it, the County prescribed actual growth allocations for the community. Compare the actual growth allocations for the Bull Mountain-Northwest Subareas, which include the Krueger Annexation, and the subject site; Bull Mtn-Northwest Subareas Growth Allocation- Actual and Minimum Opportunities Community Plan Housing Units/ LDR MDR CBD-CN Comm'1 SgFt/ Units Acre Mix Mix Acres Housing Unit Planned Land Use 4,056 ; 16.2Z 0% 100% 4 43 Existing Land Use 18 + 0.07 100% 0% 0 0 Actual 4,038 " 16.41 0% 100% 4 43 Opportunities Minimum 923 " 3.75 100% 0% 1 45 Opportunities CPA 91-01/ ZON 91-05 - GROSS - PAGE 30 t k • ZSO acres; excludes 10 acres in floodplain, steep slopes and drainways t 246 acres; excludes 4 acres in existing land use The actual Northwest Subareas' residential opportunities quadrupled that of its own Bull Mountain community minimums, but its actual commercial opportunities per residential opportunities remained the same as those minimums. Compare the actual growth allocations for the Northwest Subareas as a percentage of the minimum growth allocations for the Bull Mountain Plan and other plans; Relative Growth Allocations- Actual Allocation as Percentage of Minimum Allocations Bull Mountain-Northwest Subareas Actual Community Plans Units/ LOR MDR Comm'1 SgFt/ Minimums Acre Mix Mix Housing Unit Total Plans 269% 0% 192% 25% 185th East-West Z41% 0% 164% Z6% Aloha-Cooper Mtn 243% 0% 167% 33% Bull Mtn 438% 0% Inf% 96% The actual growth allocations for the Northwest Subareas were more disproportionate than the minimum growth allocations for the Bull Mountain community. The Northwest Subareas' residential land use mix went from all low density detached single family use to all medium high density multi family use. Its residential opportunities went from 3/5 that of the other urban plan minimums to about Z 1/Z times those minimums. But, its commercial opportunities per residential opportunities remained 1/3 that of other urban plan minimums. The Bull Mountain Plan changed the Northwest Subareas' residential opportunities to all medium-high density, but it did not change their limited commercial opportunities to mirror their change in residential density. This was a mistake in the Bull Mountain Plan. The County prescribed, in its CFP, that; "Each community should include a community business area as a focus. These commercial areas should include a full range of retail opportunities and office uses with medium and high density residential J uses in proximity. 1 CPA 91-01/ ZON 91-05 - GROSS - PAGE 31 t "Each community, should include a mix of low and medium density housing, designated in accord with adopted locational criteria. Generally, as the distance increases from shopping areas and employment centers, the density of residential development will decline." The intent in the CFP was to balance the residential densities and commercial opportunities within its urban communities. It was a simple balance. Distances between commercial opportunities and residential opportunities should decrease as residential densities increase= and commercial opportunities should increase as residential densities increase. However, the actual growth allocations within the Bull Mountain Plan failed to promote this balance. Compare the actual growth allocations for the Northwest Subareas to the minimum growth allocations for other similar urban communities. Housing Units/ LDR MDR CBD-CN Comm'l SgFt/ Units Acre Mix Mix Acres Housing Unit Actual Growth- Northwest Subareas 4,038 16.41 0% 100% 4 43 Minimum Growth- 185th East-West 20,364 6.80 39% 61% 76 163 Aloha-Cooper Mtn 19,648 6.75 40% 60% 58 129 The minimum growth allocations for the other urban communities show that. mixed residential densities require more commercial opportunities than low residential densities, and medium-high residential densities require more commercial opportunities than mixed residential densities. It ,is obvious that the medium-high residential densities within the Northwest Subareas need more commercial opportunities within their community. In fact, real estate economists find a shortage of developable commercial retail land within the community around the subject site by 1992. The CFP prescribed locational criteria for neighborhood commercial opportunities, to-wit; this district [neighborhood commercial] provides for small to medium sized shopping facilities up to 35,000 square feet and limited office use. The intent is to provide for shopping and services needs of the immediate urban neighborhood and as such should be readily accessible by car and foot from the surrounding neighborhoods. The scale. operation and types of uses permitted in this district are in keeping with the neighborhood character. Generally, they [neighborhood commercial opportunities] should be located at Collector and/or Arterial intersections and at intervals a mile apart. These uses may be grouped on sites of up to 10 acres." CPA 91-01/ ZON 91-05 - GROSS - PAGE 32 } t C The Neighborhood Commercial (NC) land use was intended to provide shopping center opportunies within neighborhoods, to-wits The proper location of a shopping center can minimize the distance and travel time for the shopper, and through the utilization of the concept, a wide range of business activities can be concentrated in one area while providing a central parking area for today's motorized shopper. This greatly reduces the number of stops per shopping excursion and also has the potential for becoming a "town center" which could include public facilities..." "Activities occurring in a commercial area can be detrimental if the community is exposed to the effects of traffic, noise, large lighted signs, and generally intense activity found in some thriving enterprises. When a need for commercial space arises, a site should be chosen which provides the greatest convenience to the shopper while producing the least conflict with adjoining land uses." "Centers are divided into four types: neighborhood, community, district and regional, furnishing different levels of service." "A neighborhood commercial center provides for the sale of convenience goods (foods, drugs and sundries) and personal services (laundry and dry cleaning, barbering, shoe repairing) for everyday living needs." "The neighborhood center has: Principal Tenant: Convenience grocery store Site Size: Less than two acres Locational Criteria: Within walking distance of all neigh- borhood units with direct access to a residential collector street Service Area: A potential 3,0@0-7,000 persons Distance between Centers Not less than 3/4 to 1 mile" "Neighborhood commercial centers will be conveniently located to facilitate pedestrian use and to provide each residential community with convenience shopping and services facilities within a one-half mile walking distance." "Community commercial centers contain the same facilities as neighbor- hood centers, but on a larger scale and in addition, will provide for business uses such as professional offices, financial institutions, service stations and other services that are necessary to the community but cannot be supported on a smaller neighborhood basis." "The community commercial center has: C. CPA 91-O1/ ZON 91-OS - GROSS - PAGE 33 s c Principal Tenant: Supermarket, also includes wearing apparel, hardware and appliances Site Size: Three to Fifteen acres Locational Criteria: Serves several neighborhoods, is adjacent to a developed arterial Service Area: Potential 15,000-70,000 persons Distance between Centers Between Z to 5 miles depending on density and market analysis" "The similarities between neighborhood and community centers require an adequate spacing to insure successful commercial operation. The larger center will serve the function of a neighborhood center in its immediate area. " "Commercial centers will be conveniently located on trafficways of adequate capacity, centrally within or at a point best serving the trade area." "A commercial center will be at a location which is conducive to convenient access by numerous shoppers. To be avoided are intersections which have congestion problems or abrupt changes of grade, intersections formed by acute angled streets and other situations where additional traffic generated would cause undue traffic congestion." The subject site will meet all the locational criteria for a community commercial center by 199Z. The County should have recognized that the ! site could meet all its Neighborhood Commercial, NC, location criteria, with public facilities, and/or site development, improvements. The UP prescribed a balanced transportation system, to-wit; "Auto-oriented land uses will be encouraged to locate adjacent to arterials. Commercial strip development will not be encouraged, however. Residential development adjacent to an arterial will be carefully buffered from the right-of-way." The subject site is surrounded by two arterials and a major collector. Washington County should have recognized that increases in traffic would impact the suitability of the site for any residential uses. It should have recognized that increases in traffic pollution would reduce the livability and desirability of the site for any pollution sensitive residential uses. Plan Policy 4.Z.1 will be satisfied during the development review and buiding permit processes. The subject site does not include any natural watercourse, floodplain or drainageway. The request does not itself affect compliance with this policy. 1. CPA 91-01/ ZON 91-0S - GROSS - PAGE 34 4 i ( 1 Plan Policy 4.3.1 will be satisfied during the development review process. Street right-of-way and floodplain surround most of the subject site and separate it 60-250 feet from any adjacent parcels except for one. The request does not itself affect compliance with this policy. Plan Policy 5.1.1 is satisfied because the request increases the opportunities for commercial development, local permanent retail and services jobs, and temporary construction jobs. Plan Policy .1.4 is satisfied because the request does not provide the opportunity for commercial development to encroach into any established residential neighborhood. Street right-of-way and floodplain surround most of the subject site and separate it 60-ZSO feet from any adjacent parcels except for one. Land adjacent to the site is either vacant or underutilized except for parcels to the northwest and the northeast. Neither does the request provide the opportunity for commercial development to encroach into any significant developable residential land. The site is about 4.15 acres. It is not suited for continued residential use, nor is it suited for future residential development. It is subject to high level pollution from three adjacent arterial- collector roadways which reduce its developable residential land to a fraction of the land within the site. The request does provide the opportunity to stimulate the conversion of developable residential land adjacent to the site into an established multi family neighborhood. Commercial retail development at the site should encourage and support multi family development on land adjacent to it. Plan Policy 6.1.1 is satisfied because the request provides the opportunity to stimulate multi family development and thereby increase the affordable housing opportunities within the community. Land adjacent to the site is either vacant or underutilized except for parcels to the northwest and the northeast. Commercial retail development at the site should encourage and support multi family development within the community. The request does not remove any significant developable housing opportunities within the community. The site is about 4.15 acres. It is not suited for future residential development. It is subject to high level pollution from three adjacent busy roadways which reduce its developable residential land to a fraction of the land within the site. Regardless of the developable residential land within the subject site, the request does not reduce the City of Tigard's housing opportunity index below its minimum 10 units / acre of inventoried residential land ((13,i1Z-103) units / (1,Z90-4.15) acres = 10.12 units / acre), nor reduce its multi family housing mix below its 50 percent minimum ((9,000-103) multifamily units / (13,11Z-103) units 68% multifamily). 1 pursuant to the Metropolitan Housing Rule. l CPA 91-01/ ZON 91-05 - GROSS - PAGE 35 6 F 1 Plan Policy 6.6.1 will be satisfied during the development review process. Street right-of-way and floodplain surround most of the subject site and buffer it 60-250 feet from any adjacent parcels except for one. Commercial development at the site would position buildings. and screen service areas, storage areas and parking, to maintain the livability of adjacent residential uses. The request does not itself affect compliance with this policy. Plan Policy 7.1.2 is satisfied because adequate public services are available for commercial retail development at the subject site. Public agencies and utilities provide water, sewer, electricity, gas, cable. telephone, police protection, fire protection and public transit to the site. The Summercreek floodplain provides natural storm drainage to the site. Plan Policy 8.1.1 is satisfied because the request provides the opportunity to locate intensive commercial uses between two arterials, a major collector and two signalized intersections. One of these intersections is signalized, and the other one will be signalized by Fall 1992. Transportation engineers find no adverse traffic impact on public streets from commercial retail uses at the site after Fall 1992. Plan Policy 8.1.3 will be satisfied during the development review process. The subject site has direct access from three arterial- collector streets. Two intersections abut the site.. One of these intersections is signalized, and the other one will be signalized by Fall 199Z. Transportation engineers find safe and easy access from public streets to commercial retail development at the site after Fail 1992. The request does not itself affect compliance with this policy. Plan Policy 8.2.2 is satisfied because the request provides the opportunity to locate intensive commercial uses close to exiting public transit. Trimet bus service is available at the subject site. Its Route #62 serves the site 54 times each weekday from Scholls Ferry. Plan Policy 12.Z.1 The applicable locational criteria for medium high density residential development (12.1.1 (b)(3)) are satisfied as follows: These aromas are not subject to development limitations. such as soils, topography and drainage: The subject site is subject to environmental i development limitations. High level traffic pollution, such as noise, vibration and emissions, has impacted the site and limited residential development to a fraction of the site. The site should be removed from medium high density residential areas. These areas are within 1/4 mile of public transit: The subject site is within contiguous medium high density residential areas. Public transit to these areas, and the site, began in 1990. Intensive land use close to transitways encourages the expansion and use of public transit. j r. CPR 91-01/ ZON 91-05 - GROSS - PAGE 36 f Commercial retail development at the site should encourage public ` transit to remain within 1/4 mile of these areas. These areas are within 1/4 mile ro neighborhood an a era commercial shopping centers or business and office centerA The subject site is within a medium high density residential area. This area has no shopping centers within it. The area is Z/3 to I I/Z Miles from the closest shopping center, with some exceptions. Commercial retail development at the site would locate a shopping center within the area. The area would be within 0 to 3/4 mile to a shopping center, with few exceptions. The applicable locational criteria for commercial general development (IZ.Z.1 (c)(Z)) are satisfied as follows: The commercial area Jkl not surrounded k& residential di tricts Rn more than two sides: Three streets surround the site to the east, north and s west. The Summercreek floodplain adjoins the site at its southwest corner. An underutilized parcel adjoins the site at its southeast corner. The proposed area shall not create traffic congestion gr a traffig safety problem: Two intersections and three arterial-collector streets surround the subject site. One of these intersections is signalized, and the other one will be signalized by Fall 1992. Transportation engineers find no adverse traffic impact on public streets from commercial ! retail development at the site after Fall 1992. The site shall have direct access from a major collector or arterial street: The subject site has direct access from three arterial- dollector streets, to-wit; Scholls Ferry, a major arterial; New Scholls Ferry, a minor arterial; and 135th, a major collector. Transportation engineers find safe and easy access from public streets to commercial retail development at the site after Fall 1992. Public tranggortation shall tL_e available tg the site s general area: Trimet bus service is available at the subject site. Its Route #62 serves the site 54 times each weekday from Scholls Ferry. The site shall be of a size is can accomodate projected uses: The subject site is 4.15 acres. Its size is adequate to accomodate general commercial development limited to small-medium space users such as convenience retailers, drive-in services and automobile services. The site shall have high visibility: The subject site fronts about I ,Z90 feet of public streets. 91% of its area is within 150 feet of public streets. It is visible from Scholls Ferry and New Scholls Ferry for at least 1000 feet from the west and southwest, and from Scholls Ferry for more than 1000 feet from the east. CPA 91-01/ ZON 91-05 - GROSS - PAGE 37 r \ The ca c the project shall be rgmoatible with the surrounding uses: / The subject site is within a medium high density residential district. The site is an adequate size to fit general commercial development limited to small-medium space users such as convenience retailers, drive-in services and automobile services. The development patterns j within the cities of Tigard and Beaverton show that commercial retail development limited to small-medium space users is compatible with multi .,.j family development. jbe site configuration arm characteristics and relationshio t2 th_q street system shall be such that orivacv of adjacent non-commercial uses can be maintained: Three streets, the Summercreek floodplain and an underutilized parcel surround the subject site. Street right-of-way and floodplain separate the site 60-250 feet from all adjacent parcels except for one. Commercial development at the site would position buildings to maintain the privacy of adjacent residential uses. The associated lights. noise Wd activities shall not interfere with adjoining non-commercial es: Street right-of-way and floodplain surround most of the subject site and separate it 60-250 feet from any parcel except for one. Commercial development at the site would position buildings to maintain the livability of adjoining residential uses. CPA 91-01/ ZON 91-05 - GROSS - PAGE 38 T a F Tvjv CITy TIGARD At4j) .TUNE 30, 1989 . vIstvN _AST C►T'f OMIT RE I MAP REHO NSIVE PLAN CONPD. 83-2 4 ZONING DISTRICTS r f- fww.a C.w . (PD) r ©~Cl©0 f 6 aaw* ~n ` r M ` ~ IUMMERI.AKE'.I~' \ a s ~orw. ; own o , ~ f w --4 T (HD) • i ee.w 3 r . Y fe f B R. ` ` - i ~ , + c f ~ ar+ K 3 33 0 e ' rc,r er 1 6 _ Mire-+ ~~`C M ~T l Yf tl ! 6 's R -12 G R-2` OIL s Now= BEAIVERTON ZONING MAP 1990 ( 1 QMMFR .IALR(,STRI .7S INDUSTRIAL DISTRICTS ~RIDENTLAL DIS'fRItrTS \ RA RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL Cv CONVENIENCE IP INDUSTRIAL PARK . R•1o SINGLE FAMILY (LOV4 DENSITY, moo SO. FT. NS NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICE Cl CAMPUS INDUSTRIAL R-7 SINGLE FAMILY (STANDARD) DENSITY, 7000 SO. FT: OC OFFICE U. LIGHT INDUSTRIAL R•5 SINGLE FAMILY (STANDARD) DENSITY, 5000 SO. FT._ TO TOWN CENTER ' R•3.5 MULTI-FAMILY (1041 DENSITY. 3500 SO. F7 CS COMMUNITYSERVICE • R-2 MULTI-FAMILY (MEDIUM) DENSITY, 2000 SO. FT. GC GENERAL R-1 MULTI-FAMILY (NIGH) DENSfTY,1000 SO. FT. NOTE: This map Is lot t~~nrtal Re,e+erre-OnH. Cor act the Planning Department to confirm the zoning of any parcel of land i R7 me „ = c. k= t e RA 2 - a o~ Lle i S R5 RA d R5 R7 •P7 R2 RA R "S11 l RS I R2 R7. 7 RS R1 R R7 ~ipr R5 RA lx, • R2 . RS cc: A eaar ^o~~-ll1 ° % Rs =-"2 ~-°Srte Rs LI C I T R2 R2 j J r-T- 4 cl-ry 0 F ~t A hi D GA ~ASr P cirY L1 INI AR fCS parr REVrs, ~ . GR orv. EENA~''S ,q Np ~S, 3 ►g8y - PARKS ®p EN SPACE -PROPOSED GREENW AY - DEDICATED GRFENW Y 'PRIVATE GREEN WAY/ OPEN SPACE A PREPARE.: RE $Y rHE OEPq RrMENT OF COMMUN►7-Y _ DEVELOPMEN7' 1. 0 QOC2: ©O t .it::. :Nit'.~.-.+•,•.~,•,Y.,-C_',~~.~.! '.•M1' •tapr • _ \ ♦ ♦ S O . • ai o 3334 7irPw•SaM ~ 7 r~'' ~ 3 ~ ss a Sr° ~ air t i +J t t i 33 . III . EXISTING STREETS. ARTERIAL MAJOR COLLECTOR 1®®• MINOR COLLECTOR ` LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT CORRIDORS -0 0 vD - . 4 30© ' rf . f 1 I 7. • V ~ i~ i { •fFv ~'l i \ j 2 33 : . I ti1✓ 31 34 ~O 1J _I r a w +1 1 ; ; I ;-fit ~ ~ • - 001, `iIS , 'NOTE: The City of Tiga has a ed a series of i irect av tMnor llectoc connecti ns P betwee-i Murray Blvd. and Gaarde St. Ti - - WASHINGTON COUNTY OREGON e~;1 P bi s. OP ✓ r.• wr. we, a^ J; e ' 100 at ik 475 1 it 0`. 1500 S //SIA P RAC M 1 f .~ar°wirw t•on SEE iii/a 1 1000 :e E / ,•7: n 300 0 :i \J i/ 58 i ; 32 ti I ct .•,3N 1 ZO .S I CA ..7511 IA/ \ 33 / / 51- 85 / q lei 2%0341 / 34 = / 4 ~ 6.tffNMII ~ ~ ~ / J•c r / 1001 _ 700 4 % - 2.f1.1e L/1.C / ~ IIOO 1°•e / als.ae - 500 / 0 / 1 do FOR ASSESSMENT PURPOSES / ONLY. 00 NOT RELY ON • / FOR ANY OTHER USE. lei 1,45!1 g / 1200 I•n•a lU K a M aa4'- - - a•snr ~aD A•' »r• 1 / 4C 800 j f $ Of /G / lGi oa~1 •sY r' % R 0 900 • / Y / si/ i / BEAVERTON TIGARD W IS 1 33CA r WASHINGTON COUNTY OREGON t* s pPtO ✓rrr~ l..ll.u. u,. s 100 A 10 1900 ~4. As 200 rK is 1000 L it. .W / u rrr 0 • 3300 / Z-V AC •V / 10 58 j , 32 ICs In; 33 51-85 t n 3 (GA 71.134) 34 Z r. w • , / 400 6NrrNY'I) w o d )oo1 700 - r.:c~c r.1tK / 1100 exC SOO / iV P A AAA/ i y / / FOR ASSESSMENT PURPOSES •4 0 ONLY. 00 NOT RELY ON / FOR ANY OTHER USE. 1 t .lw • MK l'l / 2 i 1200 or ,.e..r we w ow _ .wT- - naor .t nr nr 0 x Goo e uK ib 0 a ICS 17•4S)1 , ; ( 3 8' / 900 a / b I!!K / 10 I / BEAVERTON 8 ',.d11 I 1 .eOr } N. TIGARD • IS I 33CA i y ,~«1 Ila My t/M +'II , 1i t® ~ 1 y ~ ~a 77'4 J''• ~ I R ~ r'S~`tffCl 3.e M \ 133rd t PLACE q taa rQ 1 pe i • ug a 3 ~ „r '•1 ~J q~ i ei ig 00 71 s q's Iy 15 8^ G J d <~17f~ QX a • i Qa ~ o. = rti • .•~na ~ o p n a.%~• N 13Atf i :ay •f3 I Y g f. I pig b g n . g N tt, P rdl N •I • t,?• .°•It p Z as i>. nn l,tn 1 A I I• OYI I I i N~ A 8• I 4 m~ 4 11" I«I}b Ital OP 0°t pp , ~ ~f y 2 ` oY oa J N C p.l p ti ! tO - i •iw lid ~ rR ~ 4 111 MCI • W - t t« _ I O m t Ip tj CD oyes I- -1 qy Lc) c•`t t I °Y o0 z ( l WASHINGTON COUNTY OREGON r a•R4LLf+ 1•• ••ff • loo title = r s Wt$$rlan B6®® , GNP°/' 1900 !S- l Rota] N4N ~1 • + p a.., a O 200 tx a s: 1000 K Z. 93 41. lt! S t .a.w ~ V / C ;Y 300 Z-V AC 58 c~ 32 tS a \ (Ci „.M) IA% l C.i „,1541 !F1/ { 33 ~ 10 51- 85 u e ~ IGi 21.!]11 ~ 34 p I aM 4 6R 1001 Too i 4r+At. AdK wa•• / 1100 _ I t>iK SOO / k NK `VC3 / r % 'rev + / FOR ASSESSMENT PURPOSES / ONLY. DO NOT RELY ON % FOR ANY OTHER USE. k 1 C.i 4.4591 a•iW 8 / % I Y 1 1200 Jlw 155 Aa lw~ - fled ow rnr ~ ~ ec Boo IF • $ IsK - / i~ / lei 17.45.) / f r / R b• ' 1 tae G / si/ / / BEAVERTON 8 _ TIGARD IS I 33CA + i G 1 ~ 1; SNOW :5 1 We ,W gA q c s A ~r N Y N if. b \ R~t~ 1 N 33rd ti~~ \ y Yr ! / . 1 n` gg =a\!!JQ' \ y R V \ \ lSit c 1m~ a w.n 1 j~.~+ 1AGO % 1-1 14, N p'4 ~ P i! AA . l..t ~ ~ Opp ~k Or. 1 It , ! .0 a • 8C ~`~Y rya o7s ~J A • Jp i 1g ac ~ ` J 'M . S ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ eevs ~ ~ l • 7pH~ y Ltd f ems s S a.~" $o 00-0 taY " I" ~ T gs • 41 A BULL MOUNTAIN COMMUNITY PLANNING AREA WASHINGTON COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN I SOURCE WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT' WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT -of 000~ NORTH t 0 1000 2000 FEET : EXISTING MULTI-FAMILY O 1/+ 112 MILE F~ a RESIDENTIAL USE PPj • SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE f~ Aso y~9 Rp 9 _ Acres Percentage f 18.3 0.9 E~Pt ' • Residential 5 SCNOLL„j. f • e•.•.•• • j Residential 6 1426.7 b9.7 ' • • Residential 9 257.8 12.u i Residential 15 194.8 9.5 f • •i Residential 24 118.1 5.8 ° I Neighborhood Commercial 7.9 0.4 • • s Community Business District 18.5 0.9 • • I Institutional 4.9 0.2 • . • : • 1 Total 2047.1 B1. .0 % ^•e • +•:r • •...e•e..WILL ~e•~ AIN ° ®7/OAND • ~.4.......RJt...... ' ..'.7~.~. •e • • o • I.q e e • dft • ° • u7Y • ~t Its R~ _ Rp■ THIS MAP IS COMPILED FROM ORIGINAL MATERIALS AT DIFFERENT SCALES. FOR MORE DETAILS PLEASE • REFER TO THE SOURCE MATERIALS OR THE WASHINGTON • . •^t UU=T= PLANNING DEPARTMENT. PLANNING AREA BOUNDARY • • URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY s BULL MOUNTAIN COMMUNITY PLANNING AREA WASHINGTON COUNTY - VICINITY MAP COMPREHENSIVE PLAN SOURCE : WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT. 1882 THIS MAP 13 COMPILED FROM ORIGINAL MATERM~Lti AT • WASHINGTON COUNTY DIFFERENT SCALES, FOR MORE DETAILS PLEASE FIGURE PLANNING DEPARTMENT SOURCE MA COUNTY PLANNING VEPARTME T~S OR THE WAiHIN07QIf MARCH, 1983 EST b UNIO } BET NY a s 4 yO 5TH E ~,4 S• : v y E A HILLS- HILLSBORO t AR MILL S' A A OHA I Q A HOM R5EDVI LE- , j . .o l OP a M TAIN I .wS E O R G. .1'31LLS ros.a - . r 1~1 GEFi- / / , w.. I 9 eM o.r i i I F.rnxngepl LZI ~ ROG&ESS z.- TIG R o•rs ro a.a - a..^a:uM:s.. r.oow•.° s. is w .rn it ~ rrr.u .o TUALA '~yr. - i SHE R n. or r• 0 3 MILES KAMA$ / COU Y T r i 1 t BULL MOUNTAIN COMMUNITY PLANNING AREA WASHINGTON COUNTY r _ WOODED AREAS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN SOURCE. -AERIAL PHOTO INTERPRETATION I I op WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING WASHINGTON COUNTY DEPARTMENT JULY. 1982 FIGURE 5 PLANNING DEPARTMENT PHOTOGRAPHS FROM 1979,1980 MARCH 1983 NORTH - eEaveRTOtr 9, EXISTING WOODED AREAS t;s v O 1000 2000 FEET T O 1/4 1/2 MILE 9 M~ o • O" OP, als is a<A, ~d ~f1YTj ~n is (.•iie}~! ~ ■ gR•,! +fwt.~'', erns r~'•I~ ~C e'~'!~ -in ? cj gUtl MOU TAIN ek T/QARD a C r~rx o , G -c, BEE t ;►L... i K/Mi s wrr . eflTn a W 1 r. ROAD THIS MAP 1$ COMPILED FROM ORIGINAL MATERIALS AT F\SC , DIFFERENT SCALES. FOR MORE DETAILS PLEASE ' 3:-t•• REFER TO THE SOURCE MATERIALS OR THE WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT. PLANNING AREA BOUNDARY 9y 99 URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY K BULL MOUNTAIN COMMUNITY PLANNING AREA WASHINGTON COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN EXISTING LAND USE SOURCE WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT' WASHINGTON COUNTY EXISTING LAND USE INVENTORY JUNE. 1982 FIGURE 6 PLANNING DEPARTMENT MARCH 1983 r NORTH - BEAYfR~ON 0 1000 2000 FEET ° ■ EXISTING COMMERCIAL LOCATIONS NMM / • EXISTING MULTI-FAMILY 0 1/4 1/2 MILE ~0 • : RESIDENTIAL USE 6~p~ ■ SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE - ~GaoyyS / n ■ " - E~P~ Existing Urban Uses SCHOLL$ • • • • i • j • Residential 139 acres ■ Comercial 15 acres • Industrial 0 acres Institutional 4 acres a ' Total Urban 188 acres % • . •,d AIN : • :A =w/BARD . • : ayo • ...........IRRII.f}fR II.T.~.~ S • • • • i . • ■ ROA I - a a ° C/TY w I a 1 ROAD ' THIS MAP IS COMPILED FROM ORIGINAL MATERIALS AT • • . ;^y ■ DIFFERENT SCALES. FOR MORE DETAILS PLEASE • ' REFER TO THE SOURCE MATERIALS OR THE WASHINGTON • • CO U TTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT. • '•YY.,cg J • *A / PLANNING AREA BOUNDARY a. S URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY a nMALA1 N f - 4 BULL MOUNTAIN COMMUNITY PLANNING AREA WASHINGTON COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WATER SERVICE SOURCE: TIGARD WATER DISTRICT ~ WASHINGTON COUNTY FIGURE 7 PLANNING DEPARTMENT MARCH 1983 EXISTING WATERLINE 16e OR LARGER NORTH eeavERfoN ® EXISTING WATERLINE 10'-14' 0 1000 2000 FEET EXISTING WATERLINE 8' OR LESS 0 1/4 112 M!E ~Dp I • RESERVOIRS f~~P~ _ ■ ■ PUMPSTATION 9 ~ s O" OPN~ ~e SCHOLL$ ~aP'~ ' r i/ a ■ a or/ea►o • BULL ' U TAIN . ..........~...nnr n.r.::.-. s.a.. • RO ° gEE t....... n~een•••• arv a ■ • ROAD t THIS MAP IS COMPILED FROM ORIOINAL MATERIALS AT ■ DIFFERENT SCALES. FOR MORE DETAILS PLEASE v REFER TO THE SOURCE MATERIALS OR THE WASHINGTON ' ` COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT. PLANNING AREA BOLWARY ~y URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY MALAf N c BULL MOUNTAIN COMMUNITY PLANNING AREA WASHINGTON COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN SANITARY SEWER SERVICE SOURCE: UNIFIED SEWERAGE AGENCY : LOWER TUAIATIN FACL►CES PLAN VOLUME ONE; 2/511978, EXISTING WASHINGTON COUNTY AND PROPOSED SYSTEMS MAP, 511411980, FIGURE 8 PLANNING DEPARTMENT PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING STUDY BULL MOUNTAIN SERVICE AREA 3/1983 MARCH 1983 NORTH ' e~AVeRTOa 0 1000 2000 FEET i I I- . mmm~ EXISTING SEWER LINE 0 Zia 112 MILE 40~ ° PROPOSED SEWER LINE ESTwim LOCATION OF FUTURE SEWER LINE s f. ~oy`g a i■ ® EXISTING PUMP STATION so 1 ❑ FUTURE PUMP STATION oa • Ova p~ • _ SCHOLLs i e • 3 • / t)tt MOU TAIN T/9ARP ~°RO 0 • f 0 • • ■ ..QQ.. • • •,N . m.°:SA.fl1@!.lflRR.R.lS„:.-Pr.6.' • • •A9 / • Ito . a ~ . • pT L • • s R R D CNE THIS MAP IS COMPILED FROM ORIGINAL MATERIALS AT - / DIFFERENT SCALES. FOR MORE OETAILS PLEASE REFER TO THE SOURCE MATERIALS OR THE WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT. • PLANNING AREA BOUNDARY ' URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY . a 7l/ALAT N t t BULL MOUNTAIN COMMUNITY PLANNING AREA WASHINGTON COUNTY EXISTING URBAN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM WASHINGTON COUNTY SOURCE : WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING' PLANNING DEPARTMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENTS, 1882 FIGURE 13 MARCH 1983 THESE CLASSIFICATIONS ARE BEING UPDATED BY THE 1983 TRANSPORTATION AND COMMUNITY PLANS. NORTH ® REGIONAL TRAFFICWAY/ PRINCIPAL ARTERIAL eaavERSOa O 1000 2000 FEET I I I ~e® OTHER ARTERIAL O 1/4 1/2 MILE • po ° 823118, MAJOR COLLECTOR app{ • O = s ~ 9 y •s•s CONNECTION UNDER STUDY • O. OP SCHOLLS • . a • ■ e . °•O.101~•~ 00• . . ~ ~ . T/fJARO ~ L OU TAIH ~ ROgO v.. . +taaeaa o ■ . ....:R:s~...nnn..... :-.na--r.n... . ♦ ♦ . . . . . . s . . s RID BE P i Ktas C/TY . .%vaaaaaaaaaaaa 3~ ■ THIS MAP IS COMPILED FROM ORIGINAL MATERIALS AT F DIFFERENT SCALES. FOR MORE DETAILS PLEASE REFER TO THE SOURCE MATERIALS OR THE WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT. ) RIVER / PLANNING AREA BOUNDARY 3 _ ~ 9 1 URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY TUALar N 2 1. 3 ' t~ 1i1 :mot -°,~t ~ ~ ~ + - ' Y•. fit. s a ' 1 ! t ayER~! 9 x ' a+aM ~ ~ E ~ Q a ..e ~n3 • ~ ~ •ve ~ ~ ~e ~ err 174 Gr Y ~ 1 rA -ft a ~ 1 , „avA = :i "pr's + ax~• / , } ~ n ~-r'~'r t.t .•+~is ~sS4' 1 Fww-lvl v1K tin lter ` 7 wu p ~ t - i 1 ~ F1G l 0 _ CONGES-rJO t d $eotiac+ ted poa •E• oc •Notse~ N1FiCAT 0000 • ~B e; of gecvic$ 5~~3 Stem SECT s 'With SX7jgtin9 S`! READ '1380 Ttalfic on a5hington 0UTAY ML-b QuauC woR15 i 4 - ~ 377 rEl ~ t' ~ n n ~ ' ,,,,.E . 7 ~ Oro „w i ~y j '34 N _ f .ice' i 1 ..r•=`• ~ '.--s~., +-r'~"1' h :~i~.4 _ / 'rj J F 'r"' 1 t . ay t~ e... ~-..w. ^ 3 ,Nd = e~ Dut!;grt, '.~1ir ~ + ~ a~n~,••~~, f/ i✓, `R\:.1 ~".,-ter ` ;'.i t S "mss L_ , I y ` L -.,...Ia t ;i i 1 - ~iGURE can9eS1ted Road Section _ NGEST`ON or worse) ~O n,evel at sefv~ce SiGN1FtC'p'~•r stem SEG1IONS with on Existing Sy SOAD -rrailic ashington year 2000 ounty et:$uc ~voRKs s oil Ci. i-- 1 ,J{ •41 # ix ZZ: a cS-. E s r z i W Z 5 J ~ ~ fe ~ ~ o I J - r FIGURE 34 .i 1 1 ( l ashington Locations with Significant J ounty Geometric and Traffic, Safety Problems PUBLIC WORKS 4 J 1 • ~ 1 ` . 1 `1 X1.1 L HilLdboro I l" I Big- i . ri' 1 , r~ r..cvu - Alone yw - gvend • b y ~ I e.wr ne r ~ ~a. 't a . t • .OLO. R \ li b y .ryyry~i 1 4.iN.. ~.r _ ~ 1 ~F ♦ n~n11 p 1 Q • R 1 ti. C°°WI 1 • 1 I l fw"hnzon rt \ • r r lgar + Jar l i 41n . • I~ 1 w•w•, frIw t . S . 1J 1 i lit-~ l~ 1 ~ + I ~1 NORTH C..J-.1 { f C twl f~1 ' \ \~J +1 i Lf°•° 1O - Tualati r !1 L t She ocC ` a r sr_ Vv- y.. M b +t = w.lwroll c- ° T ~ a I 1 roan. -.V ~ I L-- FIGURE 44 ashington ounty CANDIDATE TRANSIT STREETS PUBLIC WORKS f E 1 3.3.17 Preliminary Growth and Land Use Distribution Urban Unincorporated Washington County* Area Total Buildable Distribution of Units and Land (Gross Acres Employees to Acres Excluding Steep Slopes and Flood Plains TOTAL ' URBAN UNINCORP. WASHINGTON COUNTY ..14,882.9 Low Density Residential 9,770.9 36,642 units/9,770.9 ac. Medium Density Residential 2,748.4 39,579 units/2,748.4 ac. Office 254.7 24,841 emp./ 254.7 ac. Retail 306.7 7,953 emp./ 306.7 ac. Industrial 1,802.2 45,055 em 1,802.2 ac. C DAR HILLS-CEDAR MILL Total 2,055.1 Low Density Residential 1,337.9 5,017 units/1,337.9 ac. Medium Density Residential 534.3 7,694 units/ 534.3 ac. Office 92.5 7,863 emp./ 92.5 ac. Retail 76.0 1,900 emp./ 76.0 ac. Industrial 14.4 360 em 14.4 ac. RALEIGH HILLS-GARDEN H M Total 817.5 Low Density Residential 748.7 2,808 units/ 748.7 ac. Medium Density Residential 31.5 454 units/ 31.5 ac. Office_ 22.6 4,339 emp./ 22.6 ac. Retail 14.7 368 emp./ 14.7 ac. Industrial 0 0 / 0 METZGER-PROGRESS Total 277.6 Low Density Residential 220.6 828 units/ 220.6 ac. Medium Density Residential 27.7 400 units/ 27.7 ac. Office 12.9 1,870 emp./ 12.9 ac. Retail 16.4 440 emp./ 16.4 ac. Industrial 0 0 0 BULL MOUNTAIN Total 1,290.0 Low Density Residential 1,285.0 4,818 units/1,285.0 ac. Medium Density Residential 0 0 / 0 Office 0 0 / 0 Retail 5.0 125 emp. /5.0 ac. Industrial 0 0 0 ( * excluding active city Urban Planning Areas M E r `u 3.3.18 SHERWOOD C Total 996.0 Low Density Residential 624.0 2,340 units/ 624.0 ac. Medium Density Residential 100.0 1,440 units/ 100.0 ac. Office 0 0 Retail 44.0 1,100 emp.// 44.0 ac. Industrial 228.0 5,700 em 228.0 ac. COOPER MOUNTAIN Total 3,012.0 Low Density Residential 2,093.3 7,850 units/2,093.3 ac. Medium Density Residential 819.3 11,798 units/ 819.3 ac. Office 12.0 13-020 emp. / 12.0 ac. Retail 57.3 1,433 emp. / 58.3 ac. Industrial 30.1 753 em 2. / 30.1 ac. BETHANY Total 1,620.0 LDR 1,247.4. 4,436 units/1,183.0 ac. MDR 356.4 4,908 units/ 340.8 ac. Office 0 0 / 0 Retail 16.2 250 emp. / 10.0 ac. Industrial 0 0 / 0 185TH EAST-WEST Total 4,237.7 Low Density Residential 2,137.8 8,017 units/2,137.8 ac. Medium Density Residential 857.4 12,347 units/ 857.4 ac. Office 114.7 9,749 emp. / 114.7 ac. Retail 76.1 2,157 emp. / 76.1 ac. Industrial 1,051.7 26,292 em p. /1,051.7 ac. WEST UNION Total 478.0 Lbw Density Residential 0 0 / 0 Medium Density Residential 0 0 / 0 Office 0 0 / 0 Retail 0 0 / 0 Industrial 478.0 11,950 em p. /478.0 ac. f i' Plan Testimony C1.F V11~1 . It~~ gyp, r Recd 1-3/-95-Date WASHINGTON COUNTY, OREGON cc: BCC-!:-- PC RD 'J YA DC JR March 30, 1983 1 P C (LCOC) Nfi6 ~•tJ ~ G 1-4 ? Yvonne L. Addington Urban Planning Hanager Washington County Planning Department 111 S.E. Washington Hillsboro, Oregon 97123 Dear Yvonne: To date, the City of Tigard has not completely reviewed the County's Community Development ordinance draft. The City sees no objection with those portions that have been reviewed. Due to our Comprehensive Planning efforts and our limited staff in which to'conduct a thorough review of your plan, our co=ents will be limited. We hope to coordinate the City and County codes where necessary during the coming months. Sincerely, William A. Monahan Director of Planning and Development WAM:pjr 0D L iC-7s %VASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT J ~ 12755 S.W. ASH P.O. BOX 23397 TIGARD, OREGON 97223 PH: 639-4171 C ROBERT CHARLES LESSER & CO. REAL EgATE ADVISORS RETAIL PUBLIC NEED ANALYSIS FOR A SITE AT SOUTHWEST SCHOLLS FERRY ROAD AND SOUTHWEST 135th AVENUE IN TIGARD, OREGON LETTER REPORT Prepared for: BILL GROSS FEBRUARY 11, 1991 k c i t r 4 r 101 SW. MA K SLATE 1500 • PORnAM. OREGON 97204 • 226bd16 FAX (503) 423.'5,572 OMW LLS • AXANZA • WAPWrKA04 • PORNAAC • SN+UFE • SEAMS • V&"W"D.C. r. a RCBERT CHARLES LESSER & CO. K February 11, 1991 Mr. Bill Gross 3019 S.W. Hampshire Portland, OR 97201 SUBJECT: Retail Public Need Analysis for a Comprehensive Zone Change Application for a Site at Southwest Scholls Ferry Road and Southwest 135th Avenue; Tigard, Oregon Dear Bill: Pursuant to our agreement dated December 4, 1990, we have completed our assignment regarding the above subject. The objective of our analysis was to determine if and to what extent public need exists for retail uses proposed at the aforementioned subject site. This letter and the attached exhibits summarize our findings and conclusions regarding this assignment. L Conclusions Based on an inventory of vacant land, the total acreage available for development of retail space within the competitive sphere of the subject site is 17.9 acres, of which 12.3 acres would be considered competitive to the subject site. This competitive land is capable_of supporting an additional 135,000 square feet of retail space if developed at a 25% coverage ratio. Retail demand generated from within the primary trade area of the subject property will have the ability to support an additional 205A00 square feet of neighborhood-serving retail space by 1992, and 246,000 square feet of space by 1995. Reconciliation of demand and supply projections yields an 11.6 acre shortage of neighborhood-serving retail space within the study area by 1992, decreasing to a 10.3 acre shortage by 1995 as additional retail land is made accessible. IL Study Objectives and Methodology The objective of this study is to evaluate the public need for neighborhood-serving retail development at the subject property in support of an application for a comprehensive plan and zone change in the city of Tigard. Oregon. A series of analytical steps was performed in accomplishment of the above-stated objective. First, a primary market was defined based on the characteristics of the site and local market conditions. Second, existing retail space was inventoried within the market area and categorized by Standard Industrial Classification (S.I.C.). Third, an inventory of vacant land currently zoned for neighborhood-serving retail in the study area was performed, and available parcels were evaluated with respect to their competitive position and the nature and magnitude of their probable build-out. Next. the demand for retail space in the study area was projected based on current and ( projected household and income figures in the primary trade area. Finally, the need for neighborhood-serving retail space at the subject site was evaluated by reconciling f 4 ROBERT CHARLES LESSER & CO. MR. BILL GROSS 11-3785.00 February 11, 1991 Page 2 projected demand with the existing and potential future supply of land available for the development of retail space. For the purposes of this study, the public need for retail space was evaluated over a four-year planning horizon, to the year 1995. IL Subject Site As shown in EXHIBIT 1, the subject property Is centrally located in the Murroyhill/Bull Mountain area of the city of Tigard. The 4.0-acre, triangularly shaped site Is bounded on-the north and west by Scholls Ferry Road, and on the east by 135th Avenue. The site enjoys excellent visibility and local access as a result of Its frontage along Scholls Ferry Road and 135th Avenue. Both the scale and location of the site limit retail development potential to neighborhood-serving retail uses. The proposed development is conceived as a neighborhood-serving convenience center developed in conjunction with two separate single-user retail pads. ' Assuming development at a 25% coverage ratio, the site could support slightly over 40,000 square feet of retail space. From a market perspective, development of a service station and restaurant are likely to occur on individual pads fronting Scholls Ferry Road. with a roughly 35,000- to 40,000-square foot convenience center located on the southern portion of the site. IV. Trade Area Characteristics Trade Area Definition ` At the most fundamental level, a retail trade area is that geographic plane which provides the majority of sales necessary to support a shopping center or retail concentration. Factors determining the extent of the trade area include type of center, accessibility, physical barriers to travel, location of competing facilities, and limitations to driving time and distance. Because most shoppers use automobiles, the driving time distances around competitive shopping centers are generally used to establish trade area boundaries. The primary trade area of a neighborhood-serving retail center in a suburban area is usually defined as the area within three to five minutes from the centerl. Consistent with this criteria, a baseline primary trade area for the subject property was conservatively delineated using the minimum three-minute drive time, as shown in EXHIBIT 1. The primary trade area used in our evaluation was limited on the north by Hall Boulevard and Hart Road, on the east by Highway 217, on the south by Bull Mountain, with the urban growth boundary effectively becoming the limit to the west. Trade Area Demoaraohics At the present time (1991), the trade area population stands at approximately 32,000 persons in 12,500 households. As shown in EXHIBIT 2, the number of households has Urban Land Institute, Shoooina Center Development Handbook (Washington, 1977). k ROBERT CHARLES LESSER & CO. MR. BILL GROSS 11-3785.00 February 11. 1991 Page 3 grown since 1980 at a rate of 5.2% per year. Consistent with national averages, the household size is dropping slightly, with 2.6 persons per household In 1990. Income distribution in the area Is bl-modal, with over 12% of households having Incomes exceeding $75,000 (in 1988 dollars), and over 40% of household Incomes exceeding $30,000 (EXHIBIT 2). When the 1988 estimates are converted to 1990 dollars, the mean household income in the area is roughly $38=, based on Metropolitan Service District (METRO) estimates. In recent years, the area surrounding the intersection of Murray Road and Scholls Ferry Road has experienced significant growth. Spurred by the development of Murroyhill, the area's excellent attributes as a residential location have generated increasing development activity. As high quality residential products continue to be developed within the area, the demographic composition should continue to improve from a retailing perspective. Retail Competition An inventory of neighborhood-serving retail establishments in or near the primary trade area was conducted to identify the current supply of retail establishments serving the area. The analysis focused on five retail classifications that are the predominant components of neighborhood-serving retail: Variety Stores; Gasoline Service Centers; Grocery Stores; Eating Establishments; and miscellaneous. retail goods. The survey included establishments located in shopping centers as well as free-standing structures. The square footer ;,q and S.I.C. code for each business was recorded, as well as vacant space a .a for retail users. The results of this survey are presented in EXHIBITS 3 and 4 . Square footages by category for these shopping centers include: Total Occupied Retail Category Square Footage Variety Stores M000 Gasoline/Service Stations 4214 Grocery Stores 138,856 Eating & Drinking 57,998 Miscellaneous Retail 41,703 Subtotal 255,771 Add: Vacant Space 32554 ..Add: Remaining Retail Users 112210 Adjusted Total Available Square Footage 400,535 In aggregate, of the total 400,535 square feet in these shopping centers, approximately 70% of the occupied space, or 256.000 square feet, are retail goods targeted In our analysis. Grocery Stores, including both full line food stores and convenience retail C ) stores, account for over 138,000 square feet. i. ROBERT CHARLES LESSER & CO. MR. BILL GROSS 11-3785.00 February 11, 1991 Page 4 At the time of our survey, the overall market vacancy rate in the primary trade area was 8.1%. This figure is seen as somewhat misleading, as two centers represent roughly 60% of total market vacancy, Parkside Shopping Center and Murrayhlil Market Place. Parkside Shopping Center's 9,000 square feet of vacant space reflects a recent tenant loss, and is not seen as a long term condition. Previously, the center has enjoyed 100% occupancy. The Murrayhlii Market Place has suffered from a combination of poor management and insufficient visibility. Built prematurely, before the Murrayhiil development was well established, the project experienced slow leasing which created.an image problem for the project. This problem was aggravated by poor management. Columbia Willamette Development, the current owner of the center, has been trying to sell the center as a result of a decision to leave the real estate business. Financial problems experienced by Howard's Thriftway, the centers primary anchor tenant, has further eroded confidence. Physically, landscaping berms impair visibility from Murray Boulevard, while access via Teal Road is less than optimal. The map in EXHIBIT 1 shows the location of. retail developments inventoried. As would be expected, the major retail concentrations have occurred on major arterials such as Scholis Ferry Road, Murray Road, and Allen Boulevard. As a result. of their relative distances from the subject property, support for competitive retail development.at these sites will not be drawn exclusively from the subject property's trade area. In other words, each of the competitive developments identified herein has Its own unique trade area. Depending on an individual centers location in' relationship to the subject site, the competitive centers trade area may not be concentric with that of the subject site. Given that a competitive center may draw support from an area outside the subject site's trade area, it follows that a proportionate amount of that centers space does not compete for expenditures from within the subject site's trade area. In order to correct for this factor, a partition factor was used in order to adjust for the proportion of existing competitive space actually supported by expenditures within the subject site's primary trade area. This partitioning estimates the proportion of a competitive shopping centers total sales that emanate from within the primary trade area, and consequently, the proportion of space that competes for expenditures within the primary trade area. (The higher the partition factor, the more competitive the shopping center is to the subject property.) ? The partitioning factors are determined largely by geographic location within the trade area. Competitive developments will have individual primary trade areas that fall within the trade area for the subject site. Retailers on the periphery have a customer i base that only partially overlaps the primary trade area under consideration. As shown in APPENDIX A. the partition factor is based on the proportion of the surveyed project's primary trade area that overlaps the trade area delineated for the subject property. The partition factors range from a high of 80% for those retailers at or near the center of a defined area to a low of 30% for peripheral locations. The results of the partitioning are shown in EXHIBIT 4 and in the following table: f ROBERT CHARLES LESSER & CO. MR. BILL GROSS 11-3785.00 February 11, 1991 Page 5 Total Partitioned Retail Category Square Footage Variety Stores 8A50 Gasoline Service Stations 1,343 Grocery Stores 64222 Eating Establishments 29b29 Miscellaneous Retail 23,866 Total, Partitioned Space 127,510 Add: Vacant Space 21,678 Add: Remaining Retail Users 61,371 Adjusted Total Partitioned Square Footage 21OA59 The difference between this net competitive (partitioned) retail area (210,500 square feet) and the total amount of retail space in the inventoried shopping centers (400,500 square feet) is the space allocated to the customer base that resides outside of the subject site's primary trade area. Altemative Sites Analysis In addition to the survey of existing retail facilities, on inventory of vacant land currently zoned for neighborhood-serving retail development was completed for all parcels within and near the primary trade area. A total of six potential retail sites were identified and considered based on the aforementioned criteria. The location and a brief description of these sites is included in EXHIBIT 5. Of the six sites identified, only five could be developed over a two year horizon, while the remaining site (Site 6) would require transportation improvements in order to qualify as viable retail site, because if currently has no access or exposure. This site could not be feasibly developed until the Murray Road extension is completed, and is not included in the analysis until 1995. After partitioning the identified sites based on their location relative to the subject property and the allowable level of retail development, a total of 12.3 acres are currently available to serve the primary trade area (EXHIBIT 6). For the purposes of this analysis, it is conservatively assumed that all potential alternative sites will develop retail uses at a 25% coverage ratio. f V. Demand Analysis In order to ascertain the support for neighborhood-serving retail development in the primary trade area, an analysis of retail demand and supply conditions within the trade area was performed. ' First, a demand analysis was performed to determine market area demand for neighborhood-serving retail goods, which include Variety Stores, Gasoline Service Centers, Grocery Stores, Eating and Drinking Establishments, and miscellaneous retail stores. Second, projected demand conditions within the trade area were reconciled with existing supply conditions to determine the residual demand, or incremental support for retail development. As outlined in EXHIBIT 7, a 't f } ROBERT CHARLES LESSER & CO. MR. BILL GROSS 11-3785.00 r February 11, 1991 Page 6 residual (net) demand format was followed in the assessment of supportable square footage of retail space. i Neighborhood-serving (detail Goods Demand Potential Methodologically, the primary focus of the analysis presented herein is on several major categories of neighborhood-serving retail goods. EXHIBITS 5 through 15 present the analysis determining the potential demand for these goods emanating from within the trade area. As shown in EXHIBIT 5, trade area demand by Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) was determined by multiplying total aggregate income (average household income times total households) within the trade area by the projected ratio of total income expended on each retail category annually. Robert Charles Lesser & Co. has forecast future trade area population and households based on the most recent forecast of new single family and mufti-family development by METRO, the regional planning agency in the metropolitan area. Based on these forecasts, the 1990 household total of roughly 13,000 will increase to 14,500 by 1995 (EXHIBITS 2 and 9). In order to derive retail expenditures as a percent of total personal income, historical sales information by SIC within the Portland/Vancouver SMSA was used (EXHIBIT 8). Population and per capita income figures were used to determine total personal income, while expenditures by SIC were assumed to be equal to sales. Using these expenditure ratios, aggregate expenditures generated within the primary trade area are projected by retail category for 1992 and 1995 (EXHIBITS 9 and 10). Total aggregate expenditures for neighborhood-serving retail goods is projected to be approximately $80.5 million in 1992, growing to $88.3 million in 1995. Total aggregate expenditures by persons living within the trade area are projected to be as follows On thousands): Aggregate Expenditures Retail Category 1992 1995 Variety Stores $837.6 $919.9 Gasoline Service Stations $7,919.5 $8b97.3 Grocery Stores $34270.1 $37b36.0 Eating Establishments $20258.8 $22248.5 Miscellaneous Retail $17,193.7 S18B82.3 Total Aggregate Expenditures $80,479.7 $88,384.0 Trade Area Cann ure The preceding expenditure projections are for QI expenditures which occur within those categories and that will be made by households in the primary trade area, regardless of where those expenditures are made. It is unrealistic to assume that all of the retail demands by residents of the trade area will be met by the retail facilities within the trade area. That is, some leakage of expenditures is normal. The literature suggests that for suburban locations, this leakage can range from 10% to 60% of total t. ) expenditures, depending on the type of retail good and the size of its individual trade ROBERT CHARLES LESSER & CO. MR. BILL GROSS 11-3785.00 February 11, 1991 Page 7 area.2 The next step in the analysis is to estimate what percent of these expenditures can be captured by establishments within the primary trade area. Within this analysis, leakage ranging from 20% to 45% is conservatively assumed from the primary trade area. The inverse of the leakage rate is the capture rate, or the proportion of total expenditures that can be captured within the trade area. These capture rates assume that a. normal distribution of retail opportunities are available in the trade area. As such, these rates estimate potential expenditures within the trade area, not current expenditures. Without an adequate supply of retail opportunities, many of these expenditures will occur (leak) outside the trade area. Using the aforementioned capture rates, the aggregate trade area expenditures summarized above are converted to captured expenditures in EXHIBIT 12. Captured expenditures are then converted to supportable square footage by means of data on average sales per square foot derived from the Urban Land Institute's Dollars and Cents of Shoppina Centers: 1989. The following table summarizes the results of this conversion: Suooortable Square Footage Retail Category 1992 1995 Variety Stores 3A25 3,761 Gasoline Service Stations 8213 9JM0 Grocery Stores 84,965 93,310 Eating Establishments 93,649 102,847 Miscellaneous Retail 100,742 110,637 Total, Supportable Square Footage 290994 319,574 Reconciliation of Qemond and Supply (Rgsiduol Demand) The final step in the residual demand analysis simply reconciles the total supply of existing and potential space serving the trade area from the preceding section with the potential demand generated from within the trade area. This comparison and the net result, or residual demand, are summarized in EXHIBIT 13. Based on our analysis, the demand for neighborhood-serving retail space within the primary trade area is projected at approximately 416,000 square feet in 1992, increasing to 457,000 square feet in the year 1995. Based on the previous supply analysis, currently existing facilities provide approximately 211,000 square feet of competitive space, yielding a net deficit of 205DW square feet in 1992 and 246,000 square feet in 1995. This residual demand is converted into acreage in EXHIBIT 13 using a 25% average coverage ratio. This conversion yields a residual demand for an additional 18.8 acres of retail land uses in 1992 and 22.6 acres by the year 1995. A total of 7.3 acres of vacant, appropriately zoned land will be available for development in 1992, growing to 12.3 acres in 1995. This total is insufficient to support the ( 2 See McCollum, William J., 'Basic Research Procedures; p. 18, in R. Roca, Market { Research For Shoooin¢Centers, (New York: 1980). S 1 ROBERT CHARLES LESSER & CO. MR. BILL GROSS 11-3785.00 d February 11, 1991 Page 8 demand generated within the trade area, and results in a net deficiency of approximately 11.6 acres in 1992 and 10.3 acres in 1995. Vt. Summary Based on the preceding analysis, the primary trade area is considerably underserved by neighborhood-serving retail development, and has on insufficient supply of available and appropriately zoned land to serve the area's retail needs. Even after allowing for the development of each available parcel at a 25% coverage ratio, there will still be a 10.3-acre shortage of land designated for neighborhood-serving retail uses by 1995 (EXHIBIT 13). The subject property, with approximately 4.0 acres of developable area, would serve to offset this inadequacy. Given its excellent visibility and high degree of traffic exposure, the site is well suited to retail uses and would be poorly received as a residential location. C s S ROBERT CHARLES LESSER & CO. z 1 s. z ~ 11-3785.00 EXHIBIT 1 t PRIMARY TRADE AREA, LOCATION OF COMPETITVE SHOPPING CENTERS, AND VACANT LAND PARCELS T z' .s , RETAIL CENTERS TANAISBSOL RNE i MeP Key Name of Center 8quaro Foaepe RNerwood Gras 15,240 ocean Hyland mm csntw 55,211 Murray Crossing 21AO 26 1 , o o ' ~ MurrayD6Market Place 75.112 < c 1 8_ < w now y Gnmv%ey Town Center 78.760 ParkskL Shopping timer 22.510'rOAe . Nln bus Center 19.715 Pacdlfc Place Center 13.359 t~.yy reweaoeo ~o s Jpimr .~7 8 $ ~o• ~ ALTERNATIVEf SITES aR 6 BLVD Map Key Zoning Acreage 208 ® Neighborhood Service 02 - w~mrao.o ® Noo*c&,adSennce 11.0 ...r,:;:::::..::' :;;^+`•w:H<;:: 217 NaiphborhoodSemce OS ?vY;;z .>;;a:•.. NeighbortroodnProflComm. 1.7 j~''i ~;%'•V 3y>:>f`•'.~ L4*$+:;:.~'y>'~,i: {.~:x<%`:'i;'v;,.. ^ CartrnsrdaYProlessbnai 1.4 ~a•• - xs;;, ' w~'b Fb: •ii"•u^A:ti : ?u.ti;{Y : .m::<.>:s?: ' c<:r •#~:t~7 itv3?' ti.'^,3<x . NoWborhood Retail 5.0 '~~S'FX.,•.. ~ :WASHINGTON 4 a §u::a>3:::: ' SQUARE iak< PRIMARY TRADE AREA 4' •^y r« ' $nS t ~u;F.4'.I 'i,•>apClC.:•~~y': i %y 99 's 4 a" 1 y`` $ SU9JECT..:r: enter URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY r33 mveeowa.o ' s- i neo+ar pow C / tt r .t LXr yeti k` ROBERT CHARLES LESSER & CO. 11-3785.00 EXHIBIT 2 f r PRIMARY TRADE AREA DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE r Population and Households 1980 1989 AAGR 11 1995 AAGR Census Est. 1980-1989 Est. 1989-1995 Population 21,486 31,350 4.47% 36,844 2.92% Households 7,757 12,010 5.19% 14,485 3.43% Household Size 2.77 2.61 -2.13% 2.54 -1.22% Household Income Distribution 1988 Income Range 21 Total % Total Less than $7,500 862 7.9% $7,500 - $14,999 1,408 12.9% $15,000 - $22,499 1,070 9.89'° $22,500 - $29,999 971 8.90/6 $30,000 - $37,499 1,080 9.90% $37,500 - $52,499 1,091 10.00/0 $52,500 - $74,999 950 8.70/6 $75,000 and Over 1,375 12.6% 14% Less than $7,500 120/6 ® $7,500-$14,999 100/0 $15,000-$22,499 8°/O = r ❑ $22,500-$29,999 60/0 ` <zr a ® $30,000-$37,499 4% ; < Sr ; Q $37,500-$52,499 ?:it: swv ~/O $52,500-$74,999 00/0 Income Distribution ® $75,000 and Up 1 /Average Annual Growth Rate. 2 / 1988 Dollars. SOURCE: Metropolitan Service District and Robert Charles Lesser & Co. ROBERT CHARLES LESSER & CO. 11.3785.00 EXHIBIT 3 SUMMARY OF RETAIL SPACE BY S.LC. PRIMARY TRADE AREA (January, 1990) MAP SHOPPW3 OCCUPIED VACANT TOTAL VACANCY SLC KEY CENTERNAME TENANT S.F. F. F. RATE CCCE 1 RIVERWOOD CENTER Riverwood Pub 1,856 1,856 5813 Vacant 1,160 1,160 Pizza Rush 1,200 1,200 5812 Home Video 1,200 1,200 5735 Vacant 1,160 1,160 Frame Craft 1,858 1,856 5945 New Star Cleaners 1,936 1,938 7212 Elise Master Talon 1,856 1,856 5699 7-11 3,016 3,016 541 SU9T0TAL, PJVERKCOD CENTER 14920 2,320 15,240 15.29 5 HYLAND HILLS CENTER Safeway 41.600 41,600 541 Sellars For Children 6,630 6,630 584 Maytag Appliances 1,950 1,950 5722 Round Table 3,575 3,575 5812 Alpine Cleaners 11950 1,950 7216 Res Vaunt 2.080 2,080 5812 Masters Of Hai Design 1,430 1,430 7231 Ouik Silver Printing 845 84S 511 AAA TV b VCR 1,300 1,300 7622 Jan's Paperbacks 1,989 1,989 5942 United Parcel Service 1,000 1.000 7389 Jewelers Fair 1,450 1,450 5944 Ikenchama Restraunt 1.500 11500 5812 Body Dynamics 6.000 6,000 7299 Hallmark 3,600 3,600 5943 Videcland 5.850 5,850 5735 CHEVRON 2.464 2,464 554 SUBTOTAL HYLAMDHRLSCENTER 85,213 0 85,213 0.090 6 MURRAY CROSSING McMenamin 1.430 1,430 5812 Vacant 1,950 1,950 Willoughbys 97S 975 5947 Express Cleaners 975 975 7212 Yogurt 975 975 5812 Software Pipeline 1,670 1,610 5734 Enchanted Florist 2.240 2,240 5992 Rose International Food Mrkt. 3,150 3,150 541 All Risk Auto Insurance 1,050 1,050 63 Dog Wash 840 840 One Up Hair Design 1,560 1,560 7231 Unlimited Video 975 975 5735 Pizza Rush 975 975 5812 Van Duyn Chocolate 1,560 1,560 5812 One Hour Photo 975 975 7395 Hanas Grocery 1,000 1,000 S41 Shaft Restaraunt 4.600 4,600 5812 Asia Express 608 608 5812 SU8707AL, MURR4YCN0SSlNG 25.446 7,950 27.448 7.1% Page 1 of 4 { ROBERT CHARLES LESSER & CO. i ( 11.3785.00 EXHIBIT 3 SUMMARY OF RETAIL SPACE BY SIC. PRIMARY TRADE AREA (January. 1990) MAP SHOPPNG OCCUPIED VACANT TOTAL VACANCY S.LC KEY CENTERNAME TENANT S.F. S.F. RATE OCCE 8 MURRAYHILL MARKET PLACE Thriftway 37,587 37,587 541 House of Good Fortune 2,556 2,556 5812 Vacant 2,698 2,698 Reflections Clothes 1,349 1,349 562 Bonnie& Collectable& 1,633 1,633 5947 1st Interstate 2.840 2840 6059 Claudius Jewlers 1,420 1,420 5944 Photo World 1,278 1,278 7395 Papa Aldos 1.420 1,420 5812 Alpine Cleaners 1,420 1,420 7212 Vacant 3,053 3,053 Mail Boa Plus 1,278 1,278. 7389 Vacant 2.678 2678 R.M. Dietz Company 504 • 504 5713 Fritz Salon 1.548 1,548 7231 Malones Cafe & Bar 1,080 1,080 5812 Vacant 1,020 1,020 Golden Rose Travel 900 900 4724 Vacant 1.620 1,620 I Show Case Video 1,440 1,440 5735 Sportswear for Her 5.340 5,340 563 Vacant 1,680 1,680 Century Pharmacy 3.600 3.600 591 Vacant 2.520 2520 Home Court Pizza 3,000 3,000 5812 SUBTOTAL MURRAYHLL MARKETPLACE 63,593 12,749 76,342 16.7% 9 GREENWAY TOWN CENTER Baskin Robins 972 972 5812 U.S. Bank Branch 3,000 3,000 6059 Godfathers 5,058 5,056 5812 Sub Shop 2.070 2.070 5812 Maytag Appl. 2030 2.030 5722 Paradise Video 2.030 2.030 5735 Greenway Pub 2250 2.250 5813 Paper a•la-Carte 3,150 3,150 5943 Vacant 3,060 3,060 Scamps 2,340 2.340 5999 Perfect Look Salon 1,750 1.750 7231 Country Peddler 1,750 1.750 5947 Hancock Fabric. 12000 12000 5949 Sprouse Reitz 13,000 13,000 5331 Value Rite/U.S. Post Office 3.700 3,700 5999 Howards 21.600 21,600 525 The Summit Rest. 2520 2.520 5812 Vacant 1,025 1.025 Vacant 1,025 1.025 Greenway Pet Clinic 1,230 1,230 742 Alpine Dry Cleaners 2.370 2,370 7212 State Farm 1,500 1,500 6411 C~ Page 2 of 4 ROBERT CHARLES LESSER & CO. • ` 11-3785.00 EXHIBIT 3 SUMMARY OF RETAIL SPACE BY SJ.C. PRIMARY TRADE AREA (January, 1990) MAP SHOPPING OCCUPIED VACANT TOTAL VACANCY SlC ' ImY CEN IMNAME TENANT S.F. (&F-) ayfl RATE OME 9 GREENWAY TOWN CENTER (Cont.) Barrett Benjamin Hair 1,500 1,500 7231 Vacant 2.400 2.400 Far West Federal 2,000 2,000 6059 Express Shoe Repair 750 750 7251 Barb's Postal Plus 1,250 1,250 7389 7-11 2,500 2.500 541 Scotty's Game Rm & Pub 3,000 3,000 5813 SUBTOTAL. GREENWAY TOM C&OER 76,700 3,060 79,760 38~L 10 PARKSIDE SHOPPING CENTER Greertway Cleaners 1,830 1,830 • 7212 Greenway Video 760 760 5735 Vacant 5,320 5,320 Vacant 4,020 4,020 Back In Motion Chiro. 1,407 1,407 8041 Oregon Dental Specialist 2.613 2,613 8021 Doctors Emergency Center 4,710 4,710 8062 Shear images 819 819 7231 Pace Setter Athletic 1,131 1,131 5699 SUBTOTAL. PARKSIDESHOPPAGCENTER 13,270 9,340 22.610 41.3%11 11 NIMBUS CENTER West One Bank 3.120 3,120 6059 Burger King Drive In 3.600 3,600 5812 Vacant 780 780 Nimbus Cleaners 1,365 1,365 7212 Print Rite 1,430 1.430 7355 Vacant 1,105 1,105 Gental Dental 1,755 1,755 8021 Computer & Electronics 4,800 4,800 5734 Auto Solution 750 750 7515 Vacant 375 375 Vacant 875 875 Liberty NW Insurance 3,360 3,360 6411 The Furnishings Systems 2.000 2,000 5712 SUBTOTAf.NLJMSUSCENTER 22,180 3,135 25,315 12.4% 11 PACIFIC PLACE CENTER 7-11 1,323 1,323 541 Dominos 1,127 1,127 5812 Malacca Rattan 5,559 5,559 5712 Teryaki Express 900 900 5812 Ames Tools & Supplies 925 925 7699 Kirby Repair 740 740 5722 Salon 999 999 7231 Deli C-US 1,436 1,436 5812 Hopfer Distrubuting 350 350 50 SUBTOTAL. PACIFIC PEACE CENTER 13.359 0 13,359 0.0'.4 Page 3 of 4 u~ ROBERT CHARLES LESSER & CO. i` C} 11.3785.00 EXHIBIT 3 SUMMARY OF RETAIL SPACE BY S.J.C. PRIMARY TRADE AREA (January, 1990) MAP SHOPPNG OCCLPED VACANT TOTAL VACANCY SLC KEY CENTFRNAAIE TENANT S.F. S.F. F. RATE Ocm 11 MISCELLANEOUS RETAIL STORES A) Hap & Allen 7-11 2.500 2,500 541 f B) Hall & Allen Texaco (3 Bays) 1,568 1,568 554 C) Murray & Allen Minit Mart 2,880 $880 541 D) 8155 Hall Albertsons 40,800. 40,800 541 E) 125th, N. of Schops T-1t 2,500 2.500 541 F) 125th, N. of Seholls Car Wash 1,500 1,500 70 G) Scholls & 125th McDonald's 3,500 3,500 5812 SUBTOTAL, MI;SCELINJEOUSRETAIL 55,248 0 55,248 0.0% GRAND TOTAL / WEIGHTED AVERAGE 367,981 32,554 400,535 8.1%11 i 1/ The exceptionally high vacancy rates in Murrayhill Marketplace and the Parkside Shopping Center are seen as short term aberrations. and accounts for roughly 60% of total vacancy in the survey. Excluding this project, overall vacancy would be reduced to 3.5%. SOURCE: Robert Charles Lesser & Co. i f t s i Pape 4 of 4 ~1J 11.3785.00 EXHIBIT 4 TOTAL RETAIL SPACE BY CENTER AND S.I.C. GROUP PRIMARY TRADE AREA Neighborhood-Serving Retail Space (Sq. FL) Total 533 554 541 • 58 59 Total Vacant Shopping Center Type 1/ . FL Varlet Service Stations Grocer Eall 6 Drinking Misc. Retell 31 . FL Rlverwood Center N 15,240 0 0 3,016 3,056 1,856 7,928 2,320 Hyland Hills Center N 85,213 0 2,846 41,600 7,165 7,039 58,440 0 Murray Crossing N 27,446 0 0 4,150 13,298 3,216 20,663 1,950 Murrayhill Markel Place N 76,342 0 0 37,587 8,056 6,653 52,296 12,749 Greenway Town Center N 79,760 13,000 0 2,500 16,870 22,940 64,310 3,060 Perkslde Slapping Center N 22,610 0 0 0 0 0 0 9,340 Nimbus Center N 25,316 0 0 , 0 3,600 0 3,600 3,135 Pacific Place Center N 13,359 0 0 1,323 3,463 0 4,786 0 Miscellaneous Retail N 55,248 0 t,b'8 48,680 3,600 0 53,748 0 400,535 13,000 4,214 138,858 57,998 41,703 255,771 32,554 Competitive Neighborhood•Serving Retail Space (Sq. FL) Partition Competitive 533 554 541 58 89 Competitive Vecant Shopping Center Factor 21 . FL Varlet Service Stations Food SloresEell d Drinking Misc. Retail 31 S q. FL Rlverwood Center 30% 4,572 0 0 905 917 657 2,378 696 Hyland Hills Center 30% 25,564 0 794 12,480 2,147 2,112 17,532 0 Murray Crossing 30% 8,234 0 0 1,245 3,989 985 6,199 585 Murrayhlll Merkel Place 80% 61,074 0 0 30,070 8,445 6,322 41,837 10,199 Greenway Town Center 651/6 51,844 8,450 0 1,625 10,316 14,911 35,302 1,989 Perkslde Shopping Center 65% 14,697 0 0 0 0 0 0 6,071 Nimbus Center 65% 16,455 0 0 0 2,340 0 2,340 2,038 Rr Pacific Place Center 65% 8,683 0 0 860 2,251 0 3,111 0 0 Miscellaneous Retail 35% 19,337 0 649 17,036 1,225 0 18,812 0 M '"r 210,459 8,450 1,343 64,222 29,629 23,866 127,610 21,578 0 11 Key to Shopping Centers W N . Neighborhood M 21 Proportion of each center's primary trade area that overlaps the primary trade area of the subject site. 13 3/ The live categories Isolated In this analysis as neigborhood•serving retail represent roughly 70% of all occupied retati :pace In the competitive centers. ~ SIP Source: Grubb 8 Ellis Shopping Guide and Robert Charles Lesser & Co. n O -.d1/ ..u J 11.3785.00 EX"lB1T 5 AIAERNA~VE RE'tAiL SITES TRADE AREA SUMMARY OF PRIMARY Gomittenis Vls~ alning Access comtnetcla pates, on Men Conti utatlon Good t Zonln to 4m1 Good Blvd., this alto 1ed silt else. Acres Munlc► Roughly pdtn p0°radty ly by Its retell Beaverton lyelgh Serv,ce borh°od Rectangular s Sltet Size Location this situated site for kiss 0.2 poor location, c,enl exq°8ute to site 1 Avetaga tnauiN conven►enc0 to Vd of "all Blvd. accommodate live Blvd. Neighborhood retail in the next 501 j\090 BOaverton Setv{ce ion Yeats. • 11.0 0t6 site 2 p~, t vlaibllity~ v~ onto 2 1551h Ave. foot site lot C SW end Beard Road Avetaga retell uses. ' site, Nolghbothood As \411h the prevloua would Beaverton Setvlce pool poor vlsiblitty 0.5 Good hsn[per the sites Rectangular site 3 ptOt• msrkelabll y• Net 3 Olt$ Ferry Netghbod 70 set, Tlgatd Commercial o to E of 125th 13 9.8 A c[es-Reiall 190 res•Rela11 209. Good Site 4 0.3 Good n S of Scholls folly Squata Oakota St. Commerclat The Site Wit have no U01 E 01 14011h 111 %a M Tlgard prolessl0nal Ntp exposute un is compleloc 1.4 Retail 20h N7A Road extension Ttlangulat Site 5 Commercial S °l sDakola St. Tigatd Neighborhood s, W of t4o0h No[th 5.0 009. t) Recall 1 p Site 6 Scholls FetrY Sol E 01 Scholls kiwY• South 50URCE: gobs t "asset & Co. d ROBERT CHARLES LESSER & CO. 11-3785.00 EXHIBIT 6 POTENTIAL COMPETITIVE VACANT ACREAGE ALTERNATIVE RETAIL SITES PRIMARY TRADE AREA Total Retail Partition Competitive Acreage Site Location Acreage Acreage Factor 11 1992 1995 Site 1 Hail & Allen 0.2 0.2 301/6 0.1 0.1 Site 2 155th & Beard 11.0 11.0 5596 6.1 6.1 Site 3 Scholls Ferry & 125th 0.5 0.5 6096 0.3 0.3 Site 4 Scholls Ferry & North Dakota 1.7 1.0 70% 0:7 0.7 Site 5 Scholls Ferry & North Dakota 1.4 0.3 70% 0.2 0.2 Site 6 S. of Scholls Ferry 5.0 5.0 100% 0.0 5.0 Total 19.8 17.9 7.3 12.3 1/ Proportion of each alternative site's primary trade area that overlaps the primary trade area of the subject site. SOURCE: Robert Charles Lesser & Co. ROBERT CHARLES LESSER & CO. 11-3785.00 EXHIBIT 7 RESIDUAL (NET) RETAIL DEMAND MODEL INS1I caw r~ v PER CAPITA INCOME m ~~?~;s PERCENT OF INCOME a. EXPENDED BY S.LC. : ~ . .y:i~ ~"1J~ qy'.t9:ivtt+:774Yriv::: •::4'fcit?:yJYVn,' . ~~7?J~1i~i~G{I~{JC~ j[P,,k.~.t~'%S'J"Y».. :<Rr1.•.:.V',.?t??~3?R a MARKET AREA LEAKAGE BY S.I.C. AL[ 91"I..W7CiE3EI #?i:fXENDITEIE3~.5`' BYlci: S.I.C. SUPPORT FACTOR u:paiBtspocE i EXPENDITURES CAPTURED BY EXISTING COMPETITORS R 1D OX -rS' i; { » t~QiVtfAf.`BY~S 6 C 1 Y SOURCE: Robert Charles Lesser & Co. i; i 01111 11.3785.00 EXHIBIT 6 PER CAPITA RETAIL EXPENDITURES AS A PERCENT OF PERSONAL INCOME 11 PORTLAND-VANCOUVER, OR-WA CMSA 1977-1987 COMPOUNDED C0MPOU OED ANNUALGROWM AN= GM F.-CATE: 1977 1/ 1982 1/ 1987 1977.1987 1982.1987 PORTLAND-VANCOUVER, OR-WA CMSA Population 1,132,200 1,267,900 1,365,400 1.89% 1.49% Total Personal Income $9,102,888,000 $15,100,096,000 $21,039,440,600 8.74% 6.86% Per Capita Personal Income $8,040 $11,910 $15,409 6.721/. 6.29% Total Variety Store Expenditures $29,584,000 $29,765,000 $37,978,604 2.53% 4.90% Per Capita Variety Store Expenditures $26 $23 $28 0.63% 3.44% Variety Store % Per Capita Income 0.32% 0.20% 0.18% -5.40% -1.69% Total Gasoline Service Station Expenditures $299,784,000 $527,152,000 $402,037,000 5.08% -1.37% Per Capita MIscJGeneral Mercandise Store Expenditures $265 $416 $360 3.13% -2.82% Misc./General Mercandise Store % Per Capita Income 3.29% 3.491/6 2.34% -3.36% -7.70% Total Food Store Expenditures $759,658,000 $1,209,610,000 $1,550,555,000 7.40% 5.09% Per Capita Food Store Expenditures $671 $954 $1,136 6.40% 3.55% Food Store % Per Capita Income 8.351/. 8.01% 7.37% -1.23% -1.65% Total Eating Expenditures $389,543,000 $647,371,000 $871,967,000 8.39% 6.14% Per Capita Eating Expenditures $344 $511 $639 6.38% 4.68% Ealing % Per Capita Personal Income 4.28% 4.29% 4.14% -0.31% -0.66% Total Misc. Retail Expenditures $356,816,000 $696,492,000 $833,193,000 8.65% 3.65% Per Capita Misc. Retail Expenditures $315 $549 $610 6.83% 2.12% Misc. Rotall % Per Capita Personal Income 3.92Y. 4.61% 3.96% 0.10% -2.99% xo O W m n r m Fn_ 11 1977 and 1982 statistics do not Include Yamhlll County. ~m Sales reported in the Portland Metropolitan are assumed to equal expenditures from within the area. 0 n O SOURCE: U.S. Department of Commerce 'Census of Retail Trade% Center for Population Research and Census, and Hobert Charles Lessor 6 Co. 11.3785.00 EX1tl8tT 9 RETAIL GOODS EXPENDI?URE pROJEC'itONS NEIGHBORHOOD-SERVtt1G TRADE AREA 1i pRtMARY 1992.1995 offars~ (in 1990 Constant D 1995 1994 1993 $38,318 1992 $38,318 $36,318 0.16°!0 $38,318 0.16% 1,23°!0 0.16°!0 1.34010 6.45% Average Household Income 21 0.17°/° 1.45% 6.500 3.939/0 endilures 31 1.57°l0 6,67°/° 3.95910 Exp 6.78°10 3.98°10 3-i 1610 x percent variety Store Station Expenditures 3t 3,20°!0 x percent GasoDnelServke 4.011t0 3.30°10 • - • $5,700 enditures 3t 300/4 x percent food SEX nditures 31 $5,828 14,485 x percent Eating a ail Expenditures 31 - - - - - - - - $5,962 14,040 x Percent Misc. R $6,102 13,608 $62,560,432 enditures 13,190 z ~°raa ,9 aaasa=^• Comparison Goods Exp $81,829,038 a Per Household $81,135,302 x Market Area. Households 41 $80,479,659 ~ TotaiTrade Area Expenditures O m m m Nr mN N adjusted to 1990 dollars. o EXHIBIT A. Service District data, are trended based on the 1982-1987 rate of c ang It From etro oiitan es by S.I.C. ntag 21 Based on 1988 MExpenditure perce where significant. 31 From EXHIB41 From EXHIBIT 2' NNW= SOURCE A°beri Charles t asset & Co ROBERT CHARLES LESSER & CO. 11.3785.00 ` EXHIBIT 10 PROJECTED AGGREGATE EXPENDITURES BY S.I.C. PRIMARY TRADE AREA 1/ 1992 AND 1995 (In 1990 Constant Dollars) PROJECTION PERIOD 1992 1995 TRADE AREA HOUSEHOLDS 2/ 13,190 14,485 AVERAGE HOUSEHOLD INCOME 3l $38,318 $38,318 AGGREGATE PERSONAL. INCOME $505,396,011 $SSS,033,959 1992 AGGREGATE PERCENT TOTALAGGREGATE SIC CATEGORY NOCtitE DISTRIBUTION 41 E)0'EfNrJRURES 533 VARIETY STORES $505,396,011 x 0.17% $837,607 554 GASOLINE SERVICE STATIONS $505,396,011 x 1.57% - $7,919,502 541 GROCERYSTORES $505,396,011 x 6.78% $34,270,139 58 EATING ESTABLISHMENTS $505,396,011 x 4.019E $20,258,754 59 MISC. RETAIL $505,396,011 x 3.40% $17,193,657 $80,479,659 1 1995 AGGREGATE PERCENT' TOTAL AGGREGATE SIC CATEGORY NOCME DISTRIBUTION 4/ EXPENDITURES i 533 VARIETY STORES $555,033,959 x 0.16% $873,917 554 GASOLINE SERVICE STATIONS $555,033,959 x 123% $6,839,660 541 GROCERYSTORES $555,033,959 x 6.45% - $35,801,593 58 EATING ESTABLISHMENTS SS5S,033,959 x 3.93% $21.807,688 59 MISC. RETAIL S5SS,033,959 x 3.11% $17.237,375 $82,560,432 i 11 From EXHIBIT 1. 21 From EXHIBIT 2. 31 Based on 1986 METRO estimates, adjusted to 1990 dollars. 4/ From EXHIBITS. SOURCE: 1987 Census of Retail Trade; Department of Commerce; National Planning Data Corporation; and Robert Charles Lesser & Co. l l i 11 •3785.00 EXHIBIT 11 TOTAL AGGREGATE EXPENDITURES BY RETAIL CATEGORY PRIMARY TRADE AREA 1992 AND 1995 (In Millions of 1990 Dollars) $40.0 $34.3 $35.8 $35.0 $30.0 $25.0 $20.3 $21.8 $17.2 417 - .2 $20 .0 - - $15.0 $10.0 ~ . $5.0 p VARIETY STORES GASOLINE SERVICE GROCERY STORES EATING MISC. RETAIL n STATIONS ESTABLISHMENTS t m 1992 ® 1995 m M n 0 SOURCE: Robert Charles Lesser Co. MENEM 11-3785.00 EXHIBIT 12 SQUARE FEET OF NEIGHBORHOOD-SERVING SPACE SUPPORTABLE PRIMARY TRADE AREA 1/ 1992 AND 1995 (In 1990 Constant Dollars) 1992 TOTAL AGGREGATE CAPTURE CAPTURED LOCAL SALES SUPPORT SUPPORTABLE SIC CATEGORY EXPENDITURES 2/ FACTOR 3/ EXPENDITURES FACTOR 41 S.F. 533 VARIETYSTORES $837,607 x 70.0% - $586,326 + $171 - 3,425 554 GASOLINE SERVICE STATIONS $7,919,502 x 65.0% - $4,355,726 + $530 - 8,213 541 GROCERYSTORES $34,270,139 x 80.0% - $27,416,111 + $323 - 84,965 58 EATING ESTABLISHMENTS $20,258,754 x 70.11% - $14,181,128 + $151 - 93,649 59 MISC. RETAIL $17,193,657 x 65.0% - $11,176,877 + $111 - 100,742 $80,479,659 $57,715,167 290,994 1995 TOTAL AGGREGATE CAPTURE CAPTURED LOCAL SALES SUPPORT SUPPORTABLE SIC CATEGORY EXPENDITURES 2/ FACTOR 3/ EXPENDITURES FACTOR 41 S.F. 533 VARIETY STORES $919,873 x 70.0% - $643,911 + $171 - 3,761 554 GASOLINE SERVICE STATIONS $8,697,324 x 55.0% - $4,783,528 + $530 - 9,020 541 GROCERYSTORES $37,636,013 x 80.01/6 - $30,108,810 + $323 - 93,310 58 EATING ESTABLISHMENTS $22,248,487 x 70.01/6 - $15,573,941 + $151 - 102,847 59 MISC. RETAIL $18,882,349 x 65.0% - $12,273,527 + $111 - 110,637 $88,384,045 $63,383,717 319,574 0 M A I/ From EXHIBIT 1 0 2/ From EXHIBIT 10. 1 3/ Based on the expected leakage by S.I.C. for retail classifications, (McCollum, William J., 'Basic Research Prodeduros' and the Urban Land Institute). rn 4/ Based on national median sales per square fool figures derived from the Urban Land Institute, '1987 Dollars d Cents of Shopping Centers'. {nn Sales figures are escalated Into 1990 dollars based on the Consumer Price Index (C.P.I.). R~ n 0 SOURCE: Dollars and Cents of Shopping Centers, 1987; 1987 Census of Retail Trade; Department of Commerce, and Robert Charles Lesser 8 Co. ROBERT CHARLES LESSER & CO. 11-3785.00 ( EXHIBIT 13 I RECONCILIATION OF SUPPLY AND DEMAND FOR LAND SUITABLE FOR NEIGHBORHOOD-SERVING RETAIL DEVELOPMENT 1992 1995 RESIDUAL DEMAND FOR LAND Partial Trade Area Demand (Square Feet of Building Area) 1/ 290,994 319,574 + Adjustment for Remaing Retail Users 2/ 124,712 136,960 - Total Trade Area Demand (Square Feet of Building Area) 415,705 456,534 - - - Competitive Square Footage 3/ 210,459 210,459 - Residual Demand (Square Feet of Land Area) 205,246 246,075 + Average Coverage Ratio 4/ 25.09/6 25.0% - Residual Demand (Square Feet of Land Area) 820,984 984.299 + Square Feet/Acre 43,560 43,560 Raadlduai Demand (Acres of Land) '«8s s,x213 d ak u k RECONCILIATION-SUPPLY/DEMAND Total Available Acreage 5/ 7.3 12.3 - Unmet Demand (Acres of Land) 18.8 22.6 Over/(Under) Supply of Acres 1/ See EXHIBIT 12. 2/ Based on the observed ratio of space occupied by neighborhood-serving goods to total occupied space in the retail centers surveyed, roughly 70% (EXHIBIT 4). 31 From EXHIBIT 4. Includes all occupied and existing retail square footage. 4/ Based on observed site planning standards for suburban retail space. 5/ From EXHIBIT 6. SOURCE: Robert Charles Lesser A Co. t t ROBERT CHARLES LESSER & CO. C 11-3785.00 APPENDIX A EXAMPLE OF PARTITIONING METHOD HYPOTHETICAL SITE AND BEAVERTON MALL ~fi• SUBJECT SITE 6 . ~'f ~'~;iw'i%:•-..,` „any'; s~ t fatit µ :ir !.:may , = A%~ •~g''~ ..:rte,-:'}<'•~' ~'.~~.":•''~r;" sE►vEftroN » ; &g.. •yy f% ` f5 f: .%;c MALL - . r ;~a4~> ~};•~.;~,~\.'.~`~i"'¢~~;v~.<.~ ~~}r{~' p>~ t y 217 }i':~C.~,'~+Y'..C~",~yk':j':"':~i:f ~~~~~'~".'%'n''$' :k%•nh~•, 1{Si-. ',.l .y~,~ ~ M.:::~k;YTi:Y6 .n} ~yY.!~;y.-..:Y: ::tY` W~: ¢SJ ~?f .7,'• AN ESTIMATED 550% OF THE BEAVERTON MALLS PRIMARY TRADE AREA OVERLAPS THE HYPOTHETICAL SITE'S TRADE AREA, YEILDING A PARTITION FACTOR OF 55%. I---- - i 205 " 5- PRIMARY TRADE AREA AREA OF OVERLAPPING TRADE AREAS r SOURCE: Robert Charles Lesser & Co. +C91t lriiB U i.' ,l K xCONSULTINGTRANSPOWAT10NE'NQIIVEERS~ . TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS PROPOSED ZONE CHANGE S.W. SCROLLS FERRY ROAD and S.W.135'TH AVENUE Tigard, Oregon To: Mr. Bill Gross February 15, 1991 PS 6912 ORFMON ! 2828 Southwest Corbett Avenue Portland. Oregon 97201-4830 503.223.4728 Fax 503.2232701 AtIlmd Evans and Assoeiatas, Inc. Company is CARL BUTTKE. INC. 1 CONTENTS Page No. INTRODUCTION 1 DESCRIPTION OF ZONE CHANGE 1 SURROUNDING STREET SYSTEM 4 S.W. Scholls Ferry Road 4 S.W. Old Scholls Ferry Road S.W. 135th Avenue 4 S.W. Davies Road 5 S.W. 130th Avenue 5 Planned Street Improvements 5 TRAFFIC IMPACT 5 Site Generated Traffic 5 Trip Types . 6 Assignment of Site Traffic I Background Traffic 10 Total Traffic with Site 10 Level of Service 10 CONCLUSIONS AND REC0bffv ENDATIONS 34 APPENDICES 35 A - Trip Generation Calculations B - Level of Service Calculations t t } 6 C 1 t'• CART. BIITTKc. IBC. u LIST OF TABLES Page No. 1. Description of Proposed Zone Change 1 2. Estimated Site Generated Traffic 6 3. New and Pass-By Volumes 7 4. Estimated Level of Service 31 LIST OF FIGURES 1. Site Vicinity Map 2 2. Access Scenarios 3 3. Directional Distribution of Site Traffic - Existing Zoning 8 4. Assignment of Site Traffic - Existing Zoning 9 5. Directional Distribution of Site Traffic - Proposed Zoning 11 6. Assignment of Site Traffic Proposed Zoning - Scenario A 12 7. Assignment of Site Traffic Proposed Zoning - Scenario B 13 8. Assignment of Site Traffic Proposed Zoning - Scenario C 14 9. Assignment of Site Traffic Proposed Zoning - Scenario D 15 10. Year 1991 Traffic Volumes 16 11. Year 2010 Traffic Volumes 17 12. Total 1991 Traffic with Existing Zoning 18 13. 1991 Total Traffic with Proposed Zoning - Scenario A 19 14. 1991 Traffic with Proposed Zoning - Scenario B 20 15. 1991 Traffic with Proposed Zoning - Scenario C 21 16. 1991 Traffic with Proposed Zoning - Scenario D 22 17. 2010 Traffic with Existing Zoning 23 18. 2010 Total Traffic with Proposed Zoning - Scenario A 24 19. 2010 Traffic with Proposed Zoning - Scenario B 25 20. 2010 Traffic with Proposed Zoning - Scenario C 26 21. 2010 Traffic with Proposed Zoning - Scenario D 27 CART. BLITTKH. INC. 1 INTRODUCTION This report concerning traffic impact of the proposed commercial development at the intersection of S.W. 135th Avenue and S.W. Scholls Ferry Road is submitted as part of a zone change application to the City of Tigard. The purpose of this report is to determine the impact of the additional traffic generated at the site as a result of changing the zoning from multi-family residential to general commercial. DESCRIPTION OF ZONE CHANGE The site is located south of and adjacent to both Scholls Ferry Road and New Scholls Ferry Road and west of 135th Avenue, as shown in Figure 1. The site contains approximately four acres of developable land zoned as R-25 multi-family residential which could contain 100 dwelling units. It is proposed that the site be zoned for general commercial use. Since this is a zone change and not a site development review, there are no definite plans of development. Therefore, a mix of commercial uses were developed to yield a maximum estimate of site generated traffic. See Table 1 below. TABLE 1 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ZONE CHANGE USE SIZE Shopping Center 40 T.G.L.A. Restaurant 3 T.G.S.F. Service Station 1 Station Traffic impact on the adjacent street system, for the proposed commercial use, will be evaluated for the following four access scenarios listed below and shown on Figure 2. A. Full Access- 135th Avenue B. Full Access- 135th Avenue Full Access- New Scholls Ferry Rd Full Access- New Scholls Ferry Rd Right In/Out- Scholls Ferry Rd s- ,.,.+~'--ms'''s tr 02/13/1991 pRp 1.VD• QAX4oo` KEM 50, pR 135'CH A'~. o~H Ate' ~i 13 A,VE• ~ t~ t~g~cN ~ g KEM 02/07/1991 LIRPAF02 pRPAX000&- t QP t CSC ~ A'"' c~ ~ r+ 4 N CARL DUTTKH. INC 4 C. Full Access- 135th Avenue D. Full Access- 135th Avenue Right In/Out - Scholls Ferry Rd Right In Only- Scholls Ferry Rd Full Access- New Scholls Ferry Rd Full Access- New Scholls Ferry Rd with cul-de-sac Access for the existing multi-family residential units would be restricted to S.W. 135th Avenue and S.W. Old Scholls Ferry Road. SURROUNDING STREET SYSTEM S.W. Scholls Ferry Road S.W. Schol]s Perry Road, is a collector road from Highway 26 in Multnomah County to S.W. Beaverton Hillsdale Highway in Washington County. South of Beaverton Hillsdale Highway it becomes a minor arterial extending in a southwesterly direction and terminating at its intersection with Hillsboro-Silverton Highway 219. Scholls Ferry Road passes along the north side and west side of the site. Because Old Scholls Ferry Road continues westerly from the site, the section of Scholls Ferry Road adjacent to the west side of the site will be referred to as New Scholls Ferry Road in this report. The intersection between Scholls Ferry Road and Old Scholls Ferry Road is signalized. Both roadways are two lane roadways with left turn refuges. S.W. Old Scholls Ferry Road S.W. Old Scholls Ferry Road is a collector road which branches off Scholls Ferry Road just west of 135th Avenue and merges back with Scholls Ferry Road approximately one-half mile east of S.W. Beef Bend Road, as shown in Figure 1. S.W. 135th Avenue S.W. 135th Avenue is a two lane north-south residential collector street Its intersection with S.W. Scholls Highway is currently unsignalized, but a signal is proposed at the intersection along with the improvements to Scholls Ferry Road. S.W. 135th Avenue terminates within a few miles on each side of Scholls Ferry Road. i CARL BUTTKH. INC. 5 S.W. Davies Road S.W. Davies Road is a two lane local residential street extending north from a "T"-intersection with Old Scholls Ferry Road. Eventually it becomes S.W. Carr Street also an east-west local residential street. The intersection of S.W. Davies Road with S.W. Old Scholls Ferry Road is currently unsignalized. S.W. 130th Avenue S.W. 130th Avenue is a north-south, two lane local residential street. It terminates approximately one and a half miles north of S.W. Scholls Ferry Road. To the north, 130th Avenue becomes S.W. Conestoga Drive which forms a loop by reconnecting to Scholls Ferry Road approximately one mile east of the 130th Avenue/Scholls Ferry Road intersection. The intersection of 130th Avenue and Scholls Ferry Road is currently unsignalizrA Planned Street Improvements Improvements to S.W. Scholls Ferry Road are currently designed and awaiting construction. These improvements consist of widening Scholls Ferry Road from three lanes to five lanes between Murray Boulevard and Fanno Creek. Along with the street widening a signal will be added at the intersection of S.W. Scholls Ferry Road and S.W. 135th Avenue. These improvements are scheduled for completion by the Fall of 1992. The analysis of capacity at the intersections surrounding the site will include these improvements for the site development conditions. TRAFFIC IMPACT Site Generated Traffic The amount of traffic generated at the site, for both. the existing and proposed zoning, was estimated on the basis of trip generation rates and equations contained in the Institute of Transportation Engineers aM Trip Generation Report (4th Edition, 1987). Table 2 shows the amount of traffic which could be generated at the site with and without the zone change. The trip generation calculations are contained in the appendix. } CARL DUTTKE. INC. - 6 ( TABLE 2 ESTIMATED SITE GENERATED TRAFFIC Existing Zoning Proposed Zoning 100 M.F.D.U. 24-Hour Two Way Volume 610 5445 AM Peak Hour Enter 10 150 AM Peak Hour Exit 45 110 PM Peak Hour Enter 45 250 PM Peak Hour Exit 20 250 Note: M.F.D.U. - Multi-Family Dwelling Units Trip Types When analyzing traffic impacts related to commercial developments it is important to define the different types of trips related to these uses. For this analysis we have accounted for the two following types discussed below: 1. Pass-By Trips - These trips already exist on the roadways directly adjacent to the commercial site and are usually the result of a home to work or work to home trip. Since these types of trips are already on the roadway system they add no additional traffic to the system and therefore have no impact on the system except at the driveways. These trips do impact the driveway volumes and are included in the turn movements at the site access points. 2, New Trips - These trips are directly generated by the new development and would not be contributed to the street system if the site remains vacant Therefore these trips are the only trips that add traffic to the surrounding street system. r CARL BUTTKE. INC. 7 The pass-by trips associated with the proposed commercial development were estimated as forty five percent of the total estimated site generated traffic shown in Table 2. This percentage was developed from the PTE Trip Generation Report (4th Edition, 1987). This means that forty five percent of the total site generated traffic is already on the street system and that fifty five percent of the site generated traffic is new to the street system. The table below separates the new trips from the pass-by trips. Table 3 also shows the difference between the new multi-family trips and the new commercial trips which represents the actual impact on the street system as a result of the proposed zone change. TABLE 3 NEW AND PASS-BY VOLUMES New Pass-By New Minus 55% Total 45% Total Multi- Multi- Commercial Commercial Family Family 24-Hour Two Way Volume 2995 2450 610 2385 AM Peak Hour Enter 85 65 10 75 AM Peak Hour Exit 60 50 45 15 PM Peak Hour Enter 140 110 45 95 PM Peak Hour Exit 140 110 20 120 Assignment of Site Traffic The traffic generated by the site, for the existing multi-family zoning, was assigned on the basis i of a directional distribution of residential traffic developed by Metro. The directional distribution of site traffic expected to enter and leave the site for the existing zoning is shown on Figure 3. This site traffic distribution was developed from the regional transportation planning data of Metro and represents the direction motorists are expected to drive to and from their homes. The assignment of the site traffic for the conditions with existing zoning is shown in Figure 4. r G e i tt! V tJ to x u t4v LJ ~`4S A ~y ,.,.(?r (rs'E1 core 4 1 1 wg ~1 (y flC •rt4) ~ t~1 q..a ~ ~ ZO W~~ ZOOOX`~ d21~ KEM 02!13/1991 pRPAFO~ „ „ • pRPAX000~ ~ ~ t DAVi~g VW' r"~~ 1 V ta) r1 taJ 4- cu a'° X174 1 i 1 rC1 t8J .r•11 te) 195?N DNE't15) 4'"~' ~S~ t~~ gyp, X ► 1 ta) 50V Ate' y [f V a CARL BUTTKE. INC. l 10 The directional distribution of the commercial trips was made separately for the new trips and for the pass-by trips. The new trips were distributed in relationship to the population distribution within the market area of the commercial site. The pass-by trips were distributed in relationship to the magnitude of the traffic volume passing the site on the adjacent streets. The assignments of site generated traffic are shown on Figures 6 through 9 for the proposed zoning traffic for each of the four access scenarios. Background Traffic Traffic volume measurements were made in mid-January of 1991, during A.M. and P.M. peak hours. These measurements were made at five intersections surrounding the site, and are shown on Figure 10. The background traffic volumes were projected to represent year 2010 volumes. These forecasts utilized the forecast growth in traffic by Metro for the streets in this area. The forecast peak hour volumes are shown on Figure 11. Total Traffic With Site Assignments of total peak hour traffic were made for conditions with the site fully developed and occupied is accordance with the existing zoning and the proposed zoning for conditions in 1991 and 2010. Figures 12 through 16 indicate the 1991 total traffic for the existing and proposed zoning conditions. Figures 17 through 21 indicate the year 2010 traffic for the existing and proposed zoning conditions. The proposed commercial zoning condition includes assignments for each of the four access scenarios. I Level of Service t The amount of capacity utilized by traffic at the five intersections surrounding the site and the resulting level of service were calculated for both conditions of,development for 1991 and the year 2010. r 13RPA0002 KEM 02/15/1981 13RPAF05 m r a'" ° ...8`~ ARRAY DAVIES RD. wg~ i ~ t .o-22% 195TH A A 1 _ t9OTN AVE. ~m m t ~ - v --x .A rn~ o1 j ~c-~r-- r r 11- D!~ 2 V~jy ; R 1 (OL) ~ "r gg ..I rOti ,S^a tylcgl M`Ot (4L) (rct) (0993 (<a011 `'t'1 r 4 tU fi .1 I J e..r C4 (ov ~yo~ ~3Na~ 0 gppptld2S17 90jtld210 S66t/5Z/Zp 'AV r. i w u~wv 4) (OL) 4% ti gg dy~ d~ d+ .r51(9L) J ya r+,sE~ 0'. (010 Oo s9-ti r (4L' ~..ra6 (48) j".Vj) v Y N ~r C~J 8L~ 'e'7 COtI ~N s • t~~ coy) ~ ay01~ $z~nda g w~+ zooox~~° ~~jyaao t66tiECiza _ U ~ Q, fit- Z O 1.11 (or) rr 1S1 J ~-af csL) 4 ,y T °C (air) ttl"► ~-Ol (rSL) (4) O ,J y rO1' (plU 0~ (6LYi t.pOE(rag) d+ ~ o ~ i i 3Q ~ L.p 8 $s (os)J ddb 6~1/~'OG 4 ZOpOXtld210 80jtldi~D L66t(£j/ZO .W3)1 - low Q ~ tt`jNL~''~~t{~''r`Q1 Y Y ~ i (pL) ICAM ~ pt (C74 (4) yL66(GO) t50► ~ W *7 4rcr> $ 97 M-qN a~ ~ 1 a rk ~po , Q Vb1 (p~7 ~ t7~ g31~'da OJ W3x 2000Xdd~1] , Q4 0 60jtld210 j66t/80lZ t Q . '0 0 0 N 3 O ~ I66l stii ~ w ~7D0 ©13zii1~1~ ~r _htp uls , ~ t1 d v s~ tag) No. a.C- NO 10 1 JAL to()~k $ coy ~u •~00 SWr► ,"UWSA Mkt • X00 ,~~,,•o LEGEND: 17 00 - AM PEAK HOUR NTs (00) - PM PEAK HOUR [00] - 24 NR, nW-WAY .4 aun. evreE. We p VOLU IE Q - w > y 1160) oojo 1 ~w 0( ) 10w \.10 (w°~) g (wr3g) 6 1 (140)1 p 4 df 6g (119) r w ) 90 L4opo63 ` ` (131g) (13940i~oow 125g c16 ) r-13p0 (t0o0) (0) 0 _ 1 gP rA045) w (1100)3 00 ti t p`t O L30POO3 r (1400) g Rp. 1105 oo~ CIO (1619) r P 9G{'IOL1. d1 d~ n fib0(05~) ✓alglg~°' (11910 io}~ sew ca15) 0~ tt (015) , ~RgC Rfl al ras 40 L0 <a3o) olO~ 2a10w a-c a SITE ~ Q Q J *M o. ~ V 0 m o ~M, y O On FIGURE 11 On m tZ30 (55) d 0 1 10 (10) 2010 aACKGROUND t t, rya o Bout Y TRAFFIC VOLUMES 10 cu .n 0o Nom' 6 y a a 0 ORPA0002 KEN 02/15/1991 ORPAF12 i 888 m a D NN %-45(10) 7q ~35> J ~n ; ` 171 (31) DAYIE8 RD. P 3 3 r4jes` r-l (3gsJ i 1' ~N L ~(fj (3y' J <P b ~ n `~3gJ ~ ..g s~ / a 4i6p 1 171 -212(243) 1 135TH At/E. `70 (40) 5~ , [6135] W~ tynw r+ N v _ ~1Ols) N J `5 (5) O t J 4 (19) J ` --265 (360) (85) u5 J i r (15)4 (O)5~ (705) 390-+ 1128) 251, 8b N 31 e22) e-K)O (45) 130TH AVE. f w N ~ J j p Y0 V Xb-ice ZLO Z:ff tJ r CO LEGEND: ~ 19 00 - AM PEAK NOUR (00) - PM PEAK HOUR [00] - 14 NR, TWO-WAY I~ NTS VOUrs Q CARL BUMM M w W Q 0 a (~9~ 4 \.49 <110) t 0 `9 l10) ) [~O1p~fg3 ~ ` r b90 (1180) $ FERN Rp. ( J ~ gGN01'1. o t- r g (0) 13 (1110) AO 4 got- fig) 1T1g~. (985 ~,g90 (6,10) r 140 (0) 1VO pr 4~ ~~;1193 r ((09)45 (190 in $pin M (btig)'r 6 (ggw (~~1) j O'\ p e s (160 m (10) 10 i 01-fl SC%}1O1.y9 FE n 1$ a 0 !ct° `3o) SITE 1 ` V n c l F:[WRE 13 ~4O' 4 ` I99I TOTAL TRAFFIC in ACGE55 SCENARIO A N d1 0 0 0 a' g4 0 N z .mow •~nd ruo91 (4r) oc+~J ti 1 U (oa) o' ~V 41L (409) 9(o) 089 (46U d► '-,-4 (41) J `4>l (4B) 4Lb 106L) 09 (Df) d--4OL (O*I) !4) 4J r (09£) 494° ~ (46) OLJ '~V M14£1 (O) O-+ Q 0, (4~l) 4911 v~' (O9L) OILS (4) OI-a w g~ tp ~¢i' f ~Dj 7 M1 ~ r J rF$> ~ e ~ rp OC (C ~ ~ 9~> st..~ sib t> r~ 87~,_ t> CIO/ n)~ CI G W p ~ 8 $A O ...06 (01) CWOW 931AVC (4L) OM--*- (99) AMJ o (ou QYy 41ddd210 1661/80/20 W3H Z000XVdNO 5 ORPAX0002 KEM 02/08/1991 ORPAFIS 1 10 b x-45 (to) 8 8 m pap r5 C5) • Pi (360) , ` r135 !68) DAMES ROAD 3 Z S~ t`O CI95) 490-+ (IO) 25-+ J 1 ply p/~ Q (S) b s'rot, (180) 460, J w~ A~ CA (65) 30, t to (5) -210(260) td 0 `50 (110) V p 0 -0(0) 1357F1 AVE. r20 (95) ` 4 265 l360) x-315 !4'10).j % r5 (5) 1140) 205- , P (40) 30J 1340) 440 (195) 185J t 1 (195) 380 (o) 5-+ (145) 250 V^ _ :01 ut L 45 (40) 100 C45) 130TH AVE. tP rn /V (p3 MUM rn~ Z -4 oz~ ~ ~ ~ N N I NEW LEGEND: 22 00 • AM PEAK HOUR (00). PM PEAK HOUR NTS Q CARL BMM INC. 1Y W gY t110) 5G"1'g O Y d. AS • . 630 (1100) 00) 4 O d1 x' 83 (30) t84gj1~~ 90 cb"4O) r~~o t43) 3J , t y~(,y,~3) w rb~)n5"e ~~n trio <so) ) 0 40. ..9o (6-0) (~g(V)20-,% 0 W- '40 Mew a l"1 f. 000, g rioi) SITE (95) d5J (30)151 r-4Csl tRE 16 ti q ` rS ~ BwTT W OT. 1991 TOTAL TRAMIC 39 f ~8 t r ACCE65OSCENARIO D p ~3 Q ti w M N p LL ~Z rs -X 1 o LU % V OEI O (s1) s91 J , 4 N~ (L£) Is 1 o K v ~ ^ m 86u o- GAIL (s££) G(O) t ~OO£ (sl'u [s£LB] r~ (su J 1...tI (OW ) (s) 5J r sLf--o r roLU s£J ~nV~ 111s£~ (0) 0- oQO (6l) t =r (£L£) L££-► (s) O11 W i E... t r ~S f r av rs~~ 8 t~ ~°ty~s n ® ~(ty 1 Z gilt Z dF n fs~~s tv p p. Iy n O J1~ 'CrN SSIAVG (L9) 9f'LJ ,p~ (OW Ora { r O+~ Lidtld8D 1661/ST/20 W3H ZOOOddND ,l ORPA0002 KEM 02/15/1991 ORPAFIB a ~o R" `90 (20) r26O l95) DAMES RD. v p OR V 88$ m fs~s j g'p~r• ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ `7 E~ 1 1 ~ ~ ~n w J d ~ ~ (dsJ acs) 1 t tics to ~ v g m J1 (60)25-% w~G ^W fig.. t1o t5) -330(340) GO k-45 (105) 00(F -0(0) 135TH AVE r35 (123) J ` x-410 r5 (5) (210) 418-. , t (40)30--10 [9260] (14°5) 300 t2o) 15~ b (325)135- (O) 5:; , (215) 450, b Vs E wo_ --F N~ `65 (55) 0-00 165 (1b) 130TM A Mo d b nrn~ mfr Z ~ ,n z~ N A :j Y/ N Uzi U- .~~U Cl) Q~Ys p Vw --SW I LLOEI (5L) 591 J ,O C4 1 t55) s91 ~ ~ ~ G s f 4 `594' lSLL) ~ Q m 4~" .,,,5 (O) 5£L (5L£) ~4 X51 COL) J , ` l 00C (em) r 0£ (Ot) ` +-5LIF (OIL) f5) sJ 1 r (0elp) 594-+ r (591) sEJ '3AV HJ.SEI (O) O-► !t1'$$ (541) 59~ (04£) O£E- (5) 011 u` ^ V/ lwos~sbi~ m 4 tr w 8g V Q~ Pri ~ r 'q 'CRJ 53lntra (56) O9LJ g~ . (09) 061 -0 P v 6TJbdND 166T/80/20 W3)1 2000XNdbO LEGEND- 26 00 • AM PEAK FLOUR (00) • PM PEAK FLOUR NTS CARL BUrrM RIC. Q 0 p ~ Q m ~ ~g F13~ _w A .fl 9. t.15 (360) ) r 033-0 > 1030 D In Jt` CJ10 ) (136)(,0 ^ n~ 0- 1 4 r ^ ><,no c15o) 1310(1060) pr ) 0" .1105( 9) ) ~5A &0) 0; ((105)36 O o 01-~ S<%'~g j ` (1450 N n VOW (s0) 0 o Q (2()0)30'1 ` 04, SITE J g t a q~ ~ 2 (145) 60J (30)15 ~+g .r G °n ^ m l01 C o l FIGURE 20 ~f CA A rbg°c°~~' 2010 TOTAL TRAFFIC x WITH PROP705ED ZONING aryyq! f m ACCE55 SCENARIO C 1 Q ry . xQ. ~ y a 0 N U0Q U- uj < w d~ ~Q o~w b hil0£I C9L) 991 J ,O S O a v 'y (99)99 F U Q r Q `9Lt (SLt) 4 m s~ .-S (0) 9£L (9L£) n4 `SI (OS) 1 ` roof (9111 ~O£ (011) ` ~9L11 (OIL) (9) 9J 1 t I (0811) 951--► CSC) 9£J 3ner Mlafl (O) O-+ ¢3~0 (901) 911, ~,n (011£) O££-► (S) OI, LLI ps F_- ~r vm s, ~o f s~~ s`. Bois °r~ w 88 o~ a ~ •azl SMIAVC (96) osaj N (09) or& ss o~ 129VdSD 1661/80/20 W3X 2000XVdND CARL. BVTTK4. INC. 28 Level of service is described by grades "A" through "F" with "A" describing a very high level of service and "F" describing extreme congestion. Level of service "D" is generally considered an acceptable condition in urban areas. 'she level of service for signalized intersections is defined in terms of delay. Delay is a measure of driver comfort, frustration, fuel consumption, and lost r travel time. The 1985 Highway Capacity Manual has determined that average stopped delay per vehicle is the best measure of level of service at signalized intersections. The table below si imarizes the level of service criteria for signalized intersections. LEVEL OF SERVICE CRTSERIA FOR SIGNALIZED INMRSECTIONS Stopped Delay Per Vehicle Level of Service in Seconds A Under 5.0 B 5.1 to 15.0 C 15.1 to 25.0 D 25.1 to 40.0 E 40.1 to 60.0 F Over 60.0 The level of service for non-signalized intersection operation is a function of the reserve capacity or amount of capacity not used by the traffic demand crossing or entering the main street from a stop sign controlled street. The table on the following page describes the level of service criteria for non-signalized intersections. A i• CARL Bu,rTKF.. INC. 29 LEVEL OF SERVICE CRITERIA FOR NON-SIGNALLED ENTERSEC17IONS Level of Reserve Expected Delay to Service Capacity* Cross Street Traffic A Over 400 Little or no delay B 300-399 Short traffic delay C 200-299 Average traffic delays D 100-199 Long traffic delays E 0-99 Very long traffic delays F 0 Extreme traffic delays *Passenger cars per hour The process of detrammmgn the level of service for an unsignalizzed intersection begins by calculating the amount of reserve capacity of each individual movement at an intersection where traffic crosses other traffic. Careful interpretation of the resulting data must be used for movements associated with levels of service "E" or "F" as the analysis can be too conservative. As an example, the delay for left turn movements at stop sign controlled minor streets are often overestimated by this methodology. l CARL UUTTKE. INC. 30 Table 4 shows the level of service at each of the five surrounding intersections for the existing zoning and the proposed zoning conditions, in the years 1991 and 2010. Level of service calculations were made for each access scenario shown on Figure 2 for the proposed commercial zoning. For simplification, we have provided results for the worst case conditions for both the existing and proposed zoning in the appendix of this report. The signals at the intersections Old Scholls Ferry makes with New Scholls Ferry Road and 135th Avenue Sire planned to be interconnected signals and were analyzed using the software Passer-11 for the year 2010 worst case conditions under both existing and proposed zoning. Traffic was analyzed for the year 1991 conditions assuming isolated intersections. As indicated in Table 4, the two unsignalized intersections at S.W. Davies Road and Old Scholls Ferry Road and at S.W. 130th Avenue and S.W. New Scholls Ferry Road have levels of service of "F" for the stop-sign controlled minor streets. This low level of service is attributed to the lack of reserve capacity because of the heavy volume on Scholls Ferry Road. The capacity calculations show that the reserve capacity, for the critical left turn movements from the minor street, only slightly decreases with the zone change and therefore is not truly impacted by any increase in traffic resulting from the zone change. This is also true for the movements associated with major streets. Calculations show virtually no change in level of service from existing to proposed zoning conditions. The intersection of S.W. 135th Avenue and S.W. Brittany Drive is a "T"-intersection and is stop-sign controlled on the minor street or Brittany Court., The level of service analysis shows no change between the existing zoning and the proposed zoning conditions. The intersection of Old Scholls Ferry Road and New Scholls Ferry Road operates at a level of service "B" for the 1991 existing zoning condition. The proposed zoning condition also shows a level of service "B" for the 1991 worst case access scenario condition, indicating little or no impact related to the zone change. As shown in Table 4 this little or no-impact relationship also holds CARL BUTTKE. INC. 31 TABLE 4 ESTIMATED LEVEL OF SERVICE Existing Zoning Proposed Zoning 1991 2010 1991 2010 AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM Intersection: S.W. Davies & Old Scholls Ferry Access Scenario: B A/F A/E D/F D/F A/F A/F D/F D/F Old Scholls Ferry & New Scholls Ferry Access Scenario: B 0.71B 0.72E 0.85C' 0.58B' 0.72B 0.76B 0.85C` 0.6716r Scholls Ferry & S.W. 135th Avenue Access Scenario: B 0.75B 0.62B 1.01D* 0.81C' 0.73B 0.66B 1.02D" 0.87D* Scholls Ferry & S.W. 130th Avenue Access Scenario: B A/A D/F C/F E/F A/A D/F C/F F 4F Legend: A/B - Level of service, "A" for left turn from major street/level "B" for a minor street, stop sign controlled. .75 B - 75 percent of the capacity utilized/level of service "B" at signalized intersections. Assumes interconnection. Passer-II Analysis. CART. NU'fTFI4. INC. 32 TABLE 4 continued Existing Zoning Proposed Zoning 1991 02 10 1991 0 0 AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM Intersection: S.W. 135th Avenue & S.W. Brittany Dr. Access Scenario: B A/A A/A A/B A/A A/A A/A A/B A/A Legend. A/B - Level of service, "A" for left turn from major street/level "B" for a minor street, stop sign controlled. .75 B - 75 percent of the capacity utilized/level of service "B" at signalized intersections. Assumes interconnection. Passer-H Analysis. 6 4 i l f, f CARL BUTTKIL INC. 33 true for the 2010 traffic conditions. The AM peak hour for the existing zoning condition is the critical time period during the year 2010 and results in a "C" level of service with a volume to capacity ratio (V/C) of 0.85. The proposed zoning condition results in a "C" level of service also with a V/C ratio of 0.85 during the A.M. peak hour in 2010. The intersection analysis of Scholls Ferry Road and 135th Avenue indicates a level of service "B" for both the existing and proposed zoning under the 1991 conditions. The level of service for the 2010 A.M. peak hour existing zoning conditions is "D" with a volume to capacity ratio of 1.01. The level of service for the year 2010 proposed zoning, A.Ivi. peals hour, is also "D" with a V/C ratio of 1.02. The 2010 RM. peak hour analysis shows a slight change in level of service between the existing and proposed zoning conditions. The change to a "D" level of service is attributed to the increase in the westbound left turn on Scholls Ferry Road. The average delay per vehicle increased by approximately eight seconds between the existing and proposed zoning, and resulted in a 28 second per vehicle delay for the proposed zoning condition. This is very close to a level of service "C" and illustrates only a minor impact. It follows from the above analysis that the zone change does not adversely impact the capacity or level of service of this intersection for the current conditions or future conditions. The capacity and level of service of this intersection could be improved by adding an exclusive eastbound right turn lane in eastbound Scholls Ferry Road. The current configuration of the planned improvements do not include such a lane. By adding an exclusive eastbound right turn lane to New Scholls Ferry Road the level of service is improved to "C" with a V/C ratio of 0.89. This is not a requirement caused by the proposed zone change and should be implemented regardless of the zone change. 'r.. CARL BUTTKF. INC. 34 CONCLUSIONS It is concluded that the development of the site under the proposed commercial use will have minimal impact on the surrounding street system, given the scheduled improvements to Schous Ferry Road and the signalization of S.W. 135th Avenue and S.W. Scholls Ferry Road. k k i i C t. CARL gUTTKB.INC. 35 APPENDICES w i 4 c> TIGARD ZONE CHANGE EXISTING CONDITIONS SUMMARY OF TRIP GENERATION CALCULATION FOR 100 DWELLING UNITS OF APARTMENT 1/3/91 DRIVE AVERAGE ADJUSTMENT WAY RATE FACTOR VOLUME AVG WKDY 2-WAY VOL 6.10 1.00 610 7-9 AM PK HR ENTER 0.09 1.00 9 7-9 AM PK HR EXIT 0.44 1.00 44 7-9 AM PK HR TOTAL 0.53 1.00 53 4-6 PM PK HR ENTER 0.46 1.00 46 4-6 PM PK HR EXIT 0.21 1.00 21 4-6 PM PK HR TOTAL 0.67 1.00 67 SATURDAY 2-WAY VOL 6.29 1.00 629 PK HR ENTER 0.39 1.00 39 PK HR EXIT 0.14 1.00 14 PK HR TOTAL 0.53 1.00 53 SUNDAY ?-WAY VOL 5.66 1.00 566 PK HR ENTER 0.39 1.00 39 PK HR EXIT 0.14 1.00 14 PK HR TOTAL 0.53 1.00 53 Note: A zero rate indicates no rate data available Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation, 4th Edition, 1987. i TRIP GENERATION BY MICROTRANS I . { TIGARD ZONE CHANGE PROPOSED CONDITIONS SUMMARY OF AVERAGE VEHICLE TRIP GENERATION AVERAGE WEEKDAY DRIVEWAY VOLUMES 1/3/91 24 HOUR AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR TWO-WAY LAND USE SIZE VOLUME ENTER EXIT ENTER EXIT SHOPPING CENTER 40 T.G.L.A. 4096 71 30 190 197 HIGH TURNOVER RESTAURANT 3 TH. GR. SQ. FT. 603 3' 25 32 SERVICE STATION 1 STATION 748 -1-R' 'er- Q5 4s 30 30 TOTAL 5447 115 64 235 ^c3 i Note: A zero rate indicates no rate data available i TRIP GENERATION BY MICROTRANS F 1 -OC:ATION:44rnp Sf=holl Ferry Davies !NAME:JDZ lvJf=:L'r VOLUMES ! VOLUMES 1N--Pi--PH N ! Ma.jf=fr street:New Schnlls Ferry Rd v ! N1- --V5--- 1271 ! . ---V5--- 3rade 1 10----V v---V4--- 40 ; ---V2---:• v---V4•--- 41 0% 16'2---V3---v N= 3 ! ---V3---v - - f f - ' - - f f - )ate G t ~_:f=fUnt S: ; ; ! ! ! ! ! 2010/EXISTING Z ! V7 V9 ! X STOP ! ! V7 V'9 ! Time Period: ! ! ; ! YIELD ! ! ! ! ! AM PK HF:: ; 24E 90: ; ! 250 91! ipprf_fach Speed: Minor Street: Grade ! 45 S.W. Davis Rd 0% ! I-'HF : 0.9 N= 1 ::'copulation: 100000 VOLUME ADJUSTMENTS 1ovement no. ! 2 ! 3 ! 4 ! 5 ! 7 ! 9 ! tl ume (.fph) ! 1120 ! 163 ! 40 ; 1271 ! ::46 ! 90 ! Vol (pcph see-Table lo. 1 ! XXXXXXXX ; XXXXXXXX; 41 ! XXXXXXXX ! .:5c) ! 91 ! i : RT From Mincfr Street V9 Conflicting Flows, Vc ! 1/2 V3+V2= ti + 560 = 560 vph _ritical Gap, To= ! Tc= 6.5 set=s CTab.10.2) tent ial Capacity, '_p ; 1::p9= 442 pcph (Fig. 10.3) Actual Capacity, C:.n ; Cm9=Cp9= 448 pcph STEP . LT From Major Street ! v-- V4 Conflicting Flows, Vc VS+V2= 0 + 1120 = 11220 vph (Vf=4) -r it ical Gap, T. 1 Tf== 6 secs (Tab. 10.2) Potential Capacity, Cp 1 Cp4= 22.9 pcph (Fig.10.3) % of C --'p utilized and Impedance Factor ; (V4/Cp4) i)()= 17.9% p'4= .88 )ctual Capacity! Cm (Fig.10.5) ; Cm4=C:p4= 22*3 pcph STEP 3 : LT From Minor Street ! V7 --conflicting Flows, Vc ; 1/2 V3+V2+V5+V4= ! G + 1120 + 1271 + 40 = 1700 vph (Vc7) f Critical Gap, Tc ! Tc= 2.5 secs (Tab.10.2) 'cftential Capacity, C:p ; Cpl= 35 pcph (Fig.10.3) Actual Capacity, Cm ! Cm7=C:p7 P4= 35 .83 = 31 pcph SHAFTED LANE CAPACITY _ -SH-= (V7+V9)/((V7/Cm7)+(V9/C:m9)) if lane is shared CR C R LOS LOS ►,-,/EMENT V(PCPH) CM(PCPH) CSH(FCPH) (CM-V) (CSH-V) CM CSH ----7------____250 ----------31 41 -219 -30u0 F F 9 91 448 41 357 -30o R F 4 41 "229 1 88 D ow ii i: :ATION:1~4e^.r Schc l 1 s Ferry •'•c Davies ; NAME• JDZ URLY VOLUMES ; VOLUMES IN PCPH N Ma.jc-r street:New Scholls Ferry fld v \1= 3 121S 3r ade 1556---V2----, v---V4--- 20 ; ---V2---;• v---V4--- 20 0% 121----V3---v N= 3 ; ---V3---v )ate =it Counts: ; ; ; ; ; ; 11 2010/EXISTING Z ; V7 VS ; X STOP ; ; V7 V'? Time Period: ; ; ; YIELD ='M F}: HR ; E7 62 20 Approach Speed: Minor Street: tirade 45 S.W. Davis Rd 0% ='HF : 0.9 N= 1 ?OpUlation: 100000 VOLUME ADJUSTMENTS M•. vemen t no. 2 3 4 ; 5 ; 7 ; 9 ; 11 )Ol ume (vph ; 1556 ; 121 ; 20 1215 ; E7 ; 20 ; Vol(pcph),see Table 10.11XXXXXXXX;XXXXXXXX; 2(-.) ;XXXXXXXX; 68 ; 20 -r' 1 : RT From Minor Street V9 - nflicting Flows, Vc ; 1/2 V3+V2= 0 + 778 = 778 vph(V,='-j) =ritu=al Gap, Tc ; Tc= 6.5 see=s (Tab.10.2) ' Potential Capacity, Cp ; I--.p9= 322 pr-ph (Fig. 10.3) Actual C:apaC ity, Cm ; CmS=C:p'3 = 322 pcph STEP : LT From Major Street v-- V4 onflicting Flows, Vc V3+V2= u + 155E = 155E vph(V,_4) r it ical Gap, T•. ; T.--= E see=s (Tab. 10.'2) Potential Capacity, Cp ; Cp4= 124 pcph (Fig.10.3) % of Cp utilized and Impedance Fac=tor ; (V4/C:p4)xIOO= 16.1% P4= .89 Actual Capac=ity, Cm (Fig.10.5) ; C:m4=Cp4= 124 pcph STEP 3 : LT From Miner Street ; V7 ::on f l i c t i ng Flows, Vc ; 1/2 V3+V2+V5+V4= 0 + 1555 + 1215 + 20 = 1700 vp h (V,= 7 ) I:r it ical Gap, Tc ; Tc= 8.5 secs (Tab. 10.'2) ='otential Capacity, Cp ; Cpl= 35 pcph (Fig.10.3) Ac=tual Capac=ity, Cm ; Cm7=Cp7xP4= 35 x .89 = 31 pcph SHARED LANE CAPACITY SH = (V7+V9)/((V7/Cm7)+(V'3/Cm9)) if lane is shared CF' CF' LOS LOS 1OVEMENT V(PCPH) CM(PCPH) CSH(PCPH) (CM-V) (CSH-V) CM CSH 7 68 31 39 -37 - ------49 _ F F _ 9 20 32' 38 302 -49 B F 4 20 124 104 D s OL-D r?r:ATION: Hr_-4 Schol l s Ferry & Davies : NAME. JDZ ' IOURLY VOLUMES ; VOLUMES IN F'CPH N 1 Major street:New Scholls Ferry Rd v 1-- v . ---V5 1285 ; __.-VJ--- Jrade 11:22 5 ---V2-- v---V4--- 40 ; ---V v---V4--- o% t1 17()---V3---v N= 3 ; ---V3---v 'ate :of l,::'Unts: ; ; : ; 2010/ACCESS B ; V7 VS 1 X STOP V7 V9 1 Time Period: YIELD 1 ; ,M PFD:: 90, 264 9i! Hpp•roach Speed: Miner Street: Grade ; 45 S.W. Davis Rd 0% 1 'HF : 0.9 N= 1 ."cpulatic-n: 100000 'OLUME ADJUSTMENTS Movement n:,. ; ; 3 ; 4 ; 3 ; 7 ; 'D ; " , l rime (vph) 1 1 :5 ; 170 ; 40 ; 1285 ; 260 1 : V, ::,l (pcph:) , see= Table 1(.>. 1 1 XXXXXXXX : XXXXXXXX ; 41 : XXXXXXXX: :64 ; 91 1`, _r"' i F,'T From Minor Street V9 -:c,nflicting Flaws, Vc 1 1/2 V3+V2= 0 + 563 = 563 vph(V,;13) :ritical Gap, Tc 1 To== 6.5 secs (Tab.10. Potential Capacity, Cp 1 Cp9= 446 pcph (Fig.10.3) Actual Capacity, CM 1 Cm9=Cp9= 446 pcph STEP : LT Fr,_ m Ma.j: ,r Street : v-- V4 'onflicting Flows, Vc 1 V3+V2= 0 + 1125 = 1125 vph(V,_4) :ritical Gap, Tc 1 To== 6 secs (Tab.10.2) Potential Capacity, Cp 1 Cp4= 228 pcph (Fig.10.3) ,_,f Cp utilized and Impedance Factor 1 (V4/Cp4)xlOO= 18% F•4= .88 lCtual Capac=ity, CM (Fig.10.5) ; Cm4=Cp4= 228 pcph STEP 3 : LT From Minor Street ; V7 _:Onflicting Flaws. Vc 1 1/' V3+V '+V5+V4= 1 0 + 1125 + 1285 + 40 = 1700 vph (V,_7 :ritu=al Gap, Tc 1 Tc= 8.5 see=s (Tab.10.2) tential Capacity, Cp 1 Cpl= 35 pcph (Fiy-.10.3) Actual Capacity, Cm 1 1_:m7=Cp7xP4= 35 x .88 = 31 pcph 'HARED LANE CAPACITY SH = (V7+V9)/((V7/Cm7)+(V9/Cm'3)) if lane is shared CF: C:F; LOS LOS 1OVEMENT V(PCPH) CM(PCPH) CSH(PCPH) (CM-V) (CSH-V) CM CSH 7 264 31 41 -233 -314 F F 9 31 446 41 355 -314 B F 4 41 228 187 D { a~ _ AT ION: Nerw --S-c-holls-Ferry--&-Davies------!NAME:JDZ OUF:L'r VOLUMES 1 VOLUMES 1N PCPH. N 1 Major street : New Schol is Ferry Rd v 3 <---V5--'-- 1230 1 <-.-..-')J_-.•- gr ade 1.` -175----V2 v---V4--- 20 ; V; • v----V4--- 20 o% 15o ---V3---v N= 3 1 ---V3---v )ate of Counts- 2.01:1/ACCESS ) V7 V9 1 X STOP 1 1 V7 V9 1 "ime Period: 1 YIELD 1 ' M F:*% HR 1 95 201 96 C11 Approach Speed: Minor Street: i2-3 r a d e 45 S.W. Davis Rd 0% "I-IF: 0.9 N= 1 .''OpUl at i can : 1 c_ic:uaoo tOLUME ADJUSTMENTS i t 3 i 4 i 5 i / i 9 Movement -nt no. tc ii urr~e_ i:vph --1575 150 i 20 ; 1230 ~ 95 f ..':Q. - Vcl(:pcph),see Table 10.1:XXXXXXXXIXXXXXXXX: 20 !XXXXXXXX! 96 1 20 3 -r"' 1 : RT From Miner Street V9 cnfl icting Flows. Vc ~ 1/2 V':-,+V'2'= 0 + 788 = 738 vph(V~~'3) ritical Gap, Tc 1 Tc= 6.5 secs (Tab.10.' ) Potential Capacity, Op ~ 1--:p'3= 317 pcph (Fig. i(.-).3) QctUal Capacity. Cm Cm9=Cp'D== 317 Pcph STEP 2 : LT From Major Street ~ v-- V4 'conflicting Flows, Vc 1 V3+V3= is + 1575 = 1575 vph(Vc4) ::-ritu=al Gap, Tc 1 To:= 6 se,=s (Tab. 10. ) Potential Capacity, Cp 1 Cp4= 120 pcph (Fig.10.3) .f Cp utilised and 'impedance Factor ~ (V4/C:p4)xl()O= 16.7"%. P4= .89 ,CtUal Capacity, 1---'M (Fig.10.5) 1 Cm4=Cp4= 120 pcph STEP 3 : LT From Minor Street 1 V7 on f l i c t i ng Flows, Vc 1 1/2 V3+V+VS+V4= 1 ci + 1575 + 1230 + 0 = 17011 vph (Vc7) ritical 13ap, T•. 1 Tc= 8.5 see=s (Tab.10.2) -tent ial capacity, i.-;p 1 Cpl= 35 pcph (Fig. 10.3) ACtUal C:apa-_ ity, CM 1 Cm7=Cp7xP4= 35 x .89 = 31 paph ;HARED LANE CAPACITY SH = ('J7+V9)/((V7/Cm7)+(V9/C:m9)) if lane is shared CR CF: LDS LOS 1OVEMENT V(PC:PH) CM(PCPH) CSH(PC:PH) (CM-V) (CSH-V) CM CSH - 7 - _ 6 31 37 -65 -713 F F 9 20 317 37 297 -79 C F 4 2c:1 120 100 D ;TION:New Schol1s Ferry & 130th Ave. :NAME:JDZ IOURLY VOLUMES VOLUMES IN PCP : N : Mz,.jr_r street:New Schalls Ferry Rd v : 3 ---V5--- 1920 : <--•-V5--- i.:irade 1018--•-V`---: v----V4--- 5 ----V2 • v---V4--- SS 0% 75---V3-----v N= 3 : ---V3---v ..'ate iIf I C-Unt s: : -)1(_-)/EXISTING Z V7 VS X STOP V7 V9 -ime Period: YIELD ,M PF': HR I E5 51 : : 167 52: Approach Speed: Minor Street: grade 45 130th Ave. 0% ; 'HF: 0.'a N= 1 c-pt_tl at i on : 100000 'OLUME ADJUSTMENTS MoVemej-14: 4 : 5 : 7 l plume (vph) : 1018 : 75 : J.:: : 1920 : 165 : 51 : : Vol(pcph) , see Table 1(_). 1 : XXXXXXXX : XXXXXXXX: 53 : XXXXXXXX: 167 52 1 . RT From Minor Street V'=+ %nfl i•=t inq Flaws, V.. : 1/2 V3+V = 0 + 509 = 509 vph(V,='3) .r it ical Gap, Tc : Tr-= 6.5 secs (Tab. 10.2) Potential Capacity, Cp : Cp9= 484 pt--ph (Fig. 10.3) ` Actual Capacity, *-m : Cm9=Cp9= 484• pcph STEP 2 : LT From Major Street : v-- V4 :'c,nfl ict inq Flaws, Vc : V3+V2= 0 + 1018 = 1018 vph (Vc4) ;r it ical GZ T•. : Tl_= 6 see=s (Tab. 10.'2) Potential Capacity, C:p : Cp4= 268 pcph (Fig. 10.3) Of C:p Utilized and Impedanc=e Factor : (V4/C:p4) 9:100= 19.8:: P4= .86 Ictl_tal Capacity, Cm (Fig. 10.5) : Cm4=Cp4 = 26a pcph STEP 3 : LT From Minor Street : V7 _'on f 1 i ct i nq Flows, Vc : 1/2 V3+V2+V5+V4= : 0 + 1018 + 1920 + 52 = 1700 vph(V,=7 ) r it ical Gap, T•. : T,== 8.5 see=s (Tab. 10.:;) 'c tent ial Capacity, C:p : C:p7= 35 pcph (Fig. 10. 3) Actual Capacity, Cm : Cm7=Cp7 P4= 35 x .86 = 30 pcph ;HARED LANE CAPACITY SH = (V7+V9)/((V7/Cm7)+(V9/1--:m9)) if lane is shared CF' , CF: LOS LOS 10VEMENT V (PC:PH) CM (PCPH CSH (PCPH) (CM-V) (CSH-V) CM C:SH - 7 167 30 3'3 -137 -180 F F 9 52 484 3'3 432 -180 A F 4 53 268 2 15 C t nCATION: New Scholl s Ferry & 130th Ave. : NAME: JDZ '4OURLY VOLUMES VOLUMES IN PC:PH N Majc or street: New SI_hal is Ferry Rd v .j= .J <---V5--- 1342' : --V5--- .3r ade v---V4--- 41 : ---V3---> v---V4--- 42 ;360---V3---v N= 3 1 1 ----V'' V ...1 1 )ate ofC,::,unts: 1 : ; ; 1 1 1 1 1 , 1 I 1 1 ::010/EXISTING Z ; V7 V'3 ; X STOP V7 V9 : Time Period: : ; YIELD : ; ='M PK H6, ; 75 37: 76 38 Apprr_Iach Speed: Minor Street: G3rade 45 130th Ave. 0% ='H-: 0,9 hl= 1 -'0pu1at i In : 100000 VOLUME ADJUSTMENTS MI_vement nG. ; : 3 14 : 5 : 7 : 13 - )c l ume (vph) : 1917 : 360 : 41 : 13.•.42 : 5 : 37 Vol (pcph),see Table 10.1:XXXXXXXXtXXXXXXXX: 42 :XXXXXXXX: 76 : 38 : i : R'l From Minim r Street V9 onf 1 i1.t ina -Flows, _V1. : 1/3' V3+V'2='= 0 + 959 = '359 vph (Vc9) ::r it il_al Gap, Tc ; Tc= 6.5 secs (Tab. 50.:_) 1-'1 tent ial Capacity, 1--.p : Cp9= 246 p1_ph (Fig. 10.3) Actual Capacity, Cm : C:m'3=C:p9= 246 pcph STEP : : LT From Major Street 1 v-- V4 r_nflictinq~Flows, ~Vc : V3+V2= 0 + 1917 = 1700 vph(Vc4) ::r it ical i3ap, TI. : Tc 6 set=s (Tab. 10.'2) Potential Capacity, Cp : C:p4= 105 pcph (Fiq.10.3) of t--:p utilized and Impedance Factor : (V4/Cp4)xIOO= 40% P4= .67 actual Capacity, Cm (Fig.10.5) C:m4=C:p4= 105 pcph STEP _3 : LT From Minor Street V7 =1_Infl ict inq Flows, Vc : 1/2 V3+V2+V5+V4= 1 0 + 1917 + 134'2 + 41 = 1700 vph (V1=7) .:r it i1_al ~3ap, T1_ : Tc= 8.5 secs (Tab. 10. :'otential Capacity, Cp : Cpl= 35 pcph (Fiq.10.3) Actual Capacity, Cm : Cm7=Cp7xP4= 35 ! .67 = 23 pcph SHAREDLANE CAPACITY SH = (V7+V9)/((V7/Cm7)+(V'3/Cm9)) if lane is shared CP CF, LOS LOS IOVEMENT V(PC:PH) CM(PCPH) CSH(PCPH) (CM-V) (CSH-V) CM C:SH 'a 33 -53 -81 F F 9 38 246 33 208 -81 C F 4 42 165 63 E -`ATION:New Schools Ferry °c 130th Ave. 1NAME:JDZ tOURLY VOLUMES 1 VOLUMES IN PCPH N Major street : New Schol l s Ferry Rd v 1= ,---VS--- 1915 1 ..tirade 1030----V'2--- • v---V4--- EO 1 ---V2---> v----V4--- 61 i% 75---V3---v V3 v )ate f C:c,unts: , 2010/ACCESS B ; V7 V9 1 X STOP V7 V9 i me Period: ; YIELD ; ; V1 Pi::: HR ; 165 65: ; 167 66: Approach Speed: Min,_,r Street: Grade 45 130th Ave. 0% :,HF: 0.., N= 1 .1opul at i on : 100000 ?OLUME ADJUSTMENTS Movemen t no 1 - 11 3 4 5 1 7 ; S )_-lume (vph) 1 1~ 3011 1 715 1 GO ; 1915 1 16 ; 65-~; Vc-l (p,_ph ),see Table 10.1 ; XXXXXXXX I XXXXXXXX; 61 ; XXXXXXXX: 167 ; 66 : :l _r'•~i . -F<;T From Min,-,r Street V9 .:on f l ict inq Flaws, Vc ; 1/' V3+V:= ti + 515~= 515 vph (V~~'3) :ritical Gap, Tc 1 Tc= 6.5 secs (Tab.10. Potential Capacity, C:p : C :p9= 480 p,_ph (Fig. 10.3) r Actual Gap ar i t y , Cm ; C:m'9=Cp'3= 4S O pt--ph .STEP LT From Major Street v-- V4 ,onflicting Flews, Vc ; V3+V3= 0 + 1030 -^1030 vph(V.::4)--`--- ;r it ical Gap, T,-= ; T,=- 6 secs (Tab. 1U.'2) 'Dtential Capacity, Cp ; Cp4= 363 pcph (Fig.10.3) Of C:p Utilized and Impedance Factor (V4/CP4)_x1 0= 23.2% F'4= .83 actual capacity, Cm (Fig.10.5) 1 Cm4=Cp4= 26:3 p+_ph STEP 3 : LT From Minor Street V7 .::can f l i c t i ng Flows, Vc 1 1/ V3+V: +V5+V4= i C) + 1030 + 1915 + 60 = 1700 vph (Vc 7 ) ::r it ical Gap, T•. 1 Tc= 8.5 see=s (Tab. 10.'2.) :Intent ial Capacity, Cp ; C:p7= 35 pcph (F ig. 10. 3) Actual Capacity, 1-:m 1 C:m7=i-:p7xP4= 35 x .83 = 3 pcph A HARED LANE CAPACITY SH = (V7•+-V'3) / ((V7/(-:m7)+(V'3/Cm'3)) if lane-is-shared CR CR LOS LDS 1OVEMENT V(PCPH) CM(PCPH) CSH(PCPH) (CM-V) (C:SH-V) CM CSH 7 167 29 40 138 1133 F F 9 66 480 40 414 -193 A F 4 61 2 63 202 C ATION: New Scliol l s Ferry & 130th Ave. : NAME: JDZ Y 40UPLY VOLUMES VOLUMES IN PCPH N r•c-Ljor st•reet:New Scholls Ferry Rd v ,j= .---X15--- 1365 : ---V5--- Grade 1930---V'*---:::• v---VQ•--- 70 ~ ---V~---: v---V4---- 71 360-- -V3 -V3- 1 :a•L•ce ..f C:o Li:-1 ts: i %>/,~Gi_ ESS B V7 V'3 X STOP : V7 V9 Ti,use Per i•=•d: 1 YIELD 1 ='M PK HR 75 551 76 56: Approach Speed: Minor Street: Grade 1 45 130-t h Ave. 0% 1 :'F4F : 0.9 N= 1 • .pul at i c•n : 100000 J 1Lvrt'.= ADJUSTMENTS , : M._r, omen t no. i 3 4 . : 5 1 7 9 ;'rte 1 ume (.,/p h ) 1 19.':00 1 3G0 i 70 1 1365 1 70 1. 55 : l(pcph),see Table 10.1:XXXXXXXX:XXXXXXXX: 7: !XXXXXXXX: 76 1 56 1 rF'T~From Minor Street --_V'y ',-.nfl ictin4 Flows. V,: -1/2 V3+V2= G + 965 = 965 vph(V,_9) =:r it i,_al Gap, Tc 1 Tc= 6.5 secs (Tab. 10. 2) Potential Capacity, C:p : C:p'3= 244 pcph (Fig. 10.3) ' actual Capacity, CM 1 )=m'3=)=p9= 244 pcph STEP . LT-From MMaj or Street : v-- V4 =:c.nfli•_ting Flows, Vc : V3+V2= 0 + 1930 = 1700 vph(Vc4) =:r it i•_al Gap, T._ 6 sees (Tab. 1C). Potential Capacity, )1p 1 Gp4= 105 pcph (Fig. 10. 3) •_•f gy=p utilized and Impedance Factor 1 (V4/C:p4) lOO= 67.6% P4= .4 1.=tua1 Capacity, )=m (Fig.10.5) 1 i_m4=C:p4= 105 pcp.h STEP 3 : LT From Minor Street V7 =:c•n f 1 i ct i ng Flows, Vc 1 1 / ' V3+V2+V5+V4= 1 c_) + 1930 + 1365 + 70 = 1700 vph (V,_ 7 ) v =:r it i,_al Gap, Tr_ 1 Tc= 2.5 secs (Tab. 10.'x) ::'.-,tent ial Capacity, Cp : Gp7= 35 pcph (Fig. 10.3) Actual Capacity, Cm 1 Gm7=Cp7xP4= 35 r. .4 = 14 paph SHARED LANE CAPACITY SH =+(V7+V9)/ ((V7/Gm7)+(V'3/Cmg)) if lane is shared CR CR LOS LOS 1OVEMENT V (PCPH) M (PC:PH) CSH (PCPH) (CM-V) (i_ SH-V) OM i_ SH 7 76 14 23 -62. 1413 F F 9 56 244 23 lee -109 D F 4 71 105 34 E I i ;TION: 135th Ave. Brittany C=:T. 1 NAME: JDZ ' 1OUF:LY VOLUMES 1 VOLUME:- IN PCPH Major street: 135th Ave. : 1= 1 . ---V5--- 332 : --V5--- ,.~r ade 464•---V2---::: v---V4•--- 35 1 ---V2---> v-----V4 36 ci;: 15---V3---v N= 1 1 ---V3---v 1 i;1te of C_OUnts: 2010/EXISTING Z 1 V7 V9 1 X STOP 1 : V7 V9 1 i me Period: YIELD 1 1 1 1 : ;1"I P--'HR 1 1 23o! 233 : Apprr.ach Speed: Minor Street: Grade : 35 Brittany CT. 0% 1 'HF : 0. '3 N= 1 'aoulatiar-,: 100000 aOLUME ADJUSTMENTS Moverrient no. : 2 : 3 : 4 % : 1 : :,ll.lme (vph) : 46-4 : 15 i 35 1 332 1 C) 230 Val1(pcph),see Table 10.11XXXXXXXXI.XXXXXXXX: 36 :XXXXXXXX1 1= : 233 : `L i 1 F;T F•r cam Min:.r Street 1 V'3 ------,inflicting Fl ws, Vc 1 1/2 V3-+•V'2= 8 + 464 = 472 vph(V.:'3) r it ical Gap. T-_ 1 Tc= 5.5 secs (Tab. 1U. 2) Potential Capacity? C=p 1 1 p'3= 646 pcph (Fig. 10.3) Actual Capacity, Cm 1 CmS=C=p9= 646 pcph 'TEP 2 : LT From Major Street 1 v-- V4 :inflicting Flows, Vc 1 V3+V2= 15 + 464 = 479 vph(Vc4) •:r it ical )map, Tc : Tc= 5 secs (Tab. 10.2) Potential Capacity, Cp 1 Cp4= 72'3 pcph (Fig.10.3:) if Cp utilized and Impedanc=e Factor- 1 (V4/Cp4)xioo= 4.9% F'4= .97 aCtual C=:apaCity, Cm (Fig.10.5) : Cm4=Cp4= 729 p'=ph STEP 3 : LT From Miner Street 1 V7 :tn fl ict irig Flows, Vc : 1/2 V3+V2+V5+V4= 1 8 + 464 + 332 + 35 = 8313 vph (V•= 7 ) ::r itical Gap, T•. 1 Tc= 6.5 see=s (Tab.10.2) 'citential capacity, Cp : Cpl= 294 pcph (Fig.10.3) Actual Capacity, Cm 1 C m7=C=:p7xP4= 294 x .97 = 285 pcph 3rHAPED LANE C=APACITY SH = (V7+V9) / ((V7/Cm7)+(V'3/CI.'m'3:)) if lane is shared \ C R CF; LOS LOS 10VEMENT V(PCPH) CM(PCPH) CSH(PCPH) (CM-V) (CSH-V) CM CSH 7 1(_) 225 614 275 371 C B 9 233 646 614 413 371 A B 4 36 729 6133 A 6 z' ATION:135th Ave. Brittany C.T. :NAME:JDZ HOURLY VOLUMES : VOLUMES IN PCPH ; N> Ma.j~ r street: 125th Ave. -V5--- 323 : . __._1,+5--- •3r ade 200----V2---- 130 --V:- - 12 0% 2Cr---V3---v N= 1 ; ---VS---v ;Date of Counts: ; : : : : ; 01Cr/F_XISTING Z : V7 V9 ; X STOP V7 VS ; Time Period: : YIELD ='M HR 55: ; 10 56: Approach Soeed: Miner Street: Grade 35 f:•r ittany CT. 01%.. : ='HF: O.9 N= 1 -pulation: 100000 VOLUME ADJUSTMENTS Mo=vement nc 4 : 5 : 7 : 9 11 (vp h) ':c'tc i 20 1::0 3::3 lo i Vol(pcph),see Table ir-+.1:XXXXXXXX:XXXXXXXX: 122 :XXXXXXXX: 10 : 56 Dr ,..F'^ 1 . -F'T Fr,_,m Minor Street V. j -c,nflicting Flows, Vc : 1/2 V3+V2= 10 + 200 = 210 vph(V,::S) r it ical reap, T,_ : Tc= 5.5 secs. (Tab. 10. ) Potential Capacity,. Cp : ~.:p9= 880 p,_ph (Fig. 10.3) A,_tuE+i Capacity. Cm : Cm'f=C:p'Z4= Sao p,--ph STEP _ . LT From Major Street : v-- 'J4 _onflicting Flews, V,_ : V 3+V2= 20 + 200 = 220 vph(Vc4) ::r it ical reap, T,_ : Tc= 5 secs (Tab. 10. ) Potential Capacity, Cp : rl:p4= 961 pcph (Fig. 10. 3) % of rp utilized and Impedance Factor : (V4/C:p4)rIOO= 12.7! P4= .92 lctual Capacity. Cm (Fig.10.5) : rm4=Cp4= 961 pcph STEP 3 : LT From Minor Street V7 on f l ict i ng Flows, Vc ; 1/2 V3+V2+V5+V4= 1 10 + 200 + 323 + 120 = 653 vph (V,_ 7 ) ;r it i,_al reap, Tc : Tc= 6.5 secs (Tab. 10.2) =',_,tential Capacity, Cp : Cpl= 391 pcph (Fig.10.3) Actual Capacity, Cm : Cm7=Cp7xP4= 391 •r' .92 = 360 pcph iHARED LANE CAPACITY SH = (V7+V9)/((V7/Cm7)+(V9/Cm9)) if lane is shared CF: CF.' LOS LOS 1OVEMENT V (Pr=:PH) CM (PCPH) CSH (PCPH) (CM-V) ((1SH-V) CM CSH ' 7 10 360 722 350 656 8_ _A_ 9 56 Sao 722 824 656 A A 4 122 961 835 A ,,(-''-AT ION: 1315th Ave. & Brittany CT. ; NAME: JDZ 'AOURLY VOLUMES : VOLUMES IN PCPH N: Ma.ji_'r :st'r'eet: 125th AVe. ' 1 1 . -_-•VS- 330 1 --V5---- •.~r Ad e 475-----V*2-- . v---V4--- 35 1 ---V2 f _ { 015---V31---v N= i )ate of C:! iunt• ; - ;1(WACC:ESS E ; V7 '1119 1 X STOP ~ ; V7 V9 Time Period: YIELD )M PE HR 10 235: ; 10 39 ; a;pprl_lal_h Speed: Minor Street: Grade 35 Brittany CT. 0% : "HF: 0.'3 N= 1 .=c/pulat ion: 1000(-)C> IOLUME ADJUSTMENTS Movement no. 2 2 4 5 7 - - 1 r , 15 1 35 1 J~ -f-) 1 35 1 Vl1l(p-::ph),see Table 10.1:XXXXXXXX!XXXXXXXX: 36 :XXXXXXXX: 1C? ; 2213 1 F%:T Fr••m hlinl,lr Street : t; •3 -'onfl icting Flows. V1. : 1/2 V3+V2= 8 + 475 = 433 vph(Vl_'3)- :r itical 13ap, Tc : Tc= 5.5 sees (Tab. 10.'2) '::terit ial r-:apa~~ its. up ; Cp'3= ES3 pt--ph (Fig. 10.3) ;v_tual CapC.l_ity, Cm ; Cm9=Cp9= 628 Pcph dTEP : LT From Major Street ; v-- V4 ::onfl icting Flows, Vc ; V3+V::= 15 + 475 = 490 vph(V/_4) ;r itical reap, T'= ; T•== 5 seas (Tab.10.2) Potential Capacity, C:p : Cp4= -719 pcph (Fig.10.3) of Cp utilized and Impedance Factor ; (V4/Cp4) 10(- 5'/. F'4= .'37 )Ctual Capacity, Cm (Fig. iii. 5) : Cm4=r_p4= 719 pcph STEP 3 : LT From Minor Street . ion f 1 i t i ng Flows, V--- 1/2 V3+V2,+V'J+V4= : 2 + 475 + 3`10 + 35 = 848 vph Z Vl_ 7 ) ::r it ical Gap, TI. TI_= 6.5 seas (Tab. 10.2) otential Capacity, C:p : Cpl= 291 pl_ph (Fig.10.3) ACtual C:apa-=ity, Cm : Cm7=Cp7rP4= 291 .97 = 28'*2 pcph iHARED LANE CAPACITY SH = (V7+V9) / C (V7/Cm7)+(V'3/Cm'3)) if lane is shared r CR C R LOS LOS 1OVEMENT V (PCPH) CM (PC-PH) CSH (PCFH) (CM-V) (CSH-V) CM C.'SH 7 to 22:: _ 607 272 358 C 8 E - 213113 638 607 399 358 B B C. 4 36 719 623 A 4 -Q' ATION: 105t1h Ave. & Brittany CT. ; NAME: jD-: _._-_.-._.-_-.-.-.-.-_.--.-.-.-....--.r._-.-_..--..--.--._.-.._. 'iULJF:LY VOLUMES VOLUMES IN PPH Major stretet:135th Ave. ; 1 .---V5---- 340 ; <---V5 -3r ade -10---V2---, v---V4--- 125 : ---V'~ 127 t_)Y. 20---V3----v N= 1 -Vu---V )ate of Counts: ; ; 2010/ACCESS B ; V7 V9 X STOP V7 VS Time Period: ; : ; YIELD ; : 'M PK HR ; 10 601, 1 o El: Hpproach. Speed: Minor Street: Grade 35 Brittany CT. 0% :'HF: 0.9 N= 1 'opulation: 100000 %OLUME ADJUSTMEN"S Movement no ; .I. ; 3 4 ; 5 : 7 : 9 -lame (v ph) 210 1 r 1-71-7 340', 10 60 Vol(pcph),see Table 1O.1:XXXXXXXX:XXXXXXXX; 1227 ;XXXXXXXX; 10 ; _ y61 ^1 F:T From Minor Street ---^------_--_/--_VI.== c-nflictina Flows. Vc : 1/2 V3+V2= 10 +-Zit)-=-220 vph(Vc9)-- -r itical Gap, Tc ; Tc= 5.5 secs (Tab. 10.2) Potential Capacity, Cp Cp9= 869 p'=ph (Fig. io.3) Ac=tual Capacity, Cm : Cm'3=C:p'3= 86'= ucph .3TE~ ~ LT From Major Street ~ ,J-- V4 +V2= Flaws. Vc : V3+VO= +-'.210 - 0C) vph(Vc4) r it ical Gap, Tc : Tc= 5 see=s (Tab. 1G.'2) Potential Capacity, Cp : Cp4= 95 pcph (Fig.10.3) % Of Cp Utilized and Impedance Factor : (V4/1--.p4) x tOO= 13.3'!. F'4= .'31 actual Capacity, Cin (Fig.10.5) ; Cm4=C:p4= 952 pcph STEP 3 : LT From Minor Street : . V7 on f 1 i c t i ng Flows, Vc : 1/2 V3+V '+V5+V4= : 10 + 210 + 340 + 1 25 = 685 vph (Vc7) r it ical ).3ap, T•= : T•= = 6.5 secs (Tab. 10. ) :*otential Capacity, Cp ; C:p7= 373 pcph (Fig.10.3) Actual Capacity, Cm : C:m7=1--.p7xP4= 373 x .91 = 339 pcph 'HARED LANE CAPACITY SH = fV7+V9?/C(V7/Cm7)+(V'3/Cm3)) if lane is shared CF: C R LOS LOS 1OVEMENT V(FCPH) CM(PCFH) CSH(F)PH) (CM-V) (CSH-V) CM CSH 7 10 339 712 3'2'3 641 B A 9 61 869 712 BOB 641 A A 4 127 952 E325 A 6 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - INPUT WORKSHEET ,ersectian:New Schools Ferrv Rd & Old Sch1Ills Date:1991/Existing Zff----ni- 'Anal yst: JDZ TimeF-er ivd Anl yzd: PM PK HR Area Type: i=BD XOther : F'rl_I.,it .ORP2P 1 i_:ity/State:Tiger, Portland ; : VOLUME AND GEOMET`:I1 S :New Schol is N/S ST. ; SB TOTAL - ; 750 C 1 095 7 : -wCi TOl"AL ,N) 0 1 1 1 1 NCiF'fH .---TH--1'2.01' ; 01-1 1 : IDENTIFY IN DIAGRAM 1-1 01 -RTH--v 1.VC, 1Umes :'-.Lanes.lane widths LT RT : Old Scholls ' Mclvement s by lane G 12.0 E/W STREET 4. Par k: l na locations - : ; 12. 0 1 0 : :5. Bay storge ingths C 7151 7oo 1 1 to to ' I G.Islands E/B TOTAL - : ; C 203 7. Fus sty cps v 15 : N/B TOTAL ,TRAFFIC AND ROADWAY i_ONDITIONS 1 I ` Gr d . % Fib' Ad.j. F'kg .Lane : Buses ; PHF ! Cn f . Ped ; Ped st r n Button; Arr. 1 C'/.:]: Y/N : Nm : (Nb) :(pd/hr): Y/N :Mn.Time: Type: 'EB:+0.03.0 N G : G ; 0.9() 1~s Y 1t:] 1 1 1 3 I WB:+0.0: 3.0 : N : G ; G : 0.90 ; 10 : N : 0 : " : N : ' ^ o ' N ' : 0 : r_a . SO : 10 : ; 18 : 3 : SB: +0,0 c_a,ra N G .1 0. 0o 0 Y 18 : Grade:+up.-dc.wn Nb:buses stopaing/hr Min.Timing: min.green for : : HV: veh. 4 whls PHF: peak-h0Ltr factor pedestrian crossing! Nm:Q.ka.maneuvers/hr i_nf.Peds:a_nflctna peds/hr Arr.Type: Type 1-5 : 1 :PHASING : I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I D 1 1 1 1 1 , 1 . 1 I I I 1 1 I 1 1 I A 1 # I y 1 1 1 1 ; 1 I , 1 I I 1 G : v G 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 I 1 1 r I 1 1 I 1 1 1 , I M 1 1 , 1 1 I 1 1 1 I 1 + 1 I I 1 1 , 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 I 1 V t I 1 I 1 I Tim- : G= 0.01 G= 0.0: G= G. 0, G= 0.0: G= 0.0.' G= 0.0,' G= 0.0: i3= 0.0: ng : Y+R= 0: Y+P= O: Y+R= G: Y+R= G: Y+F'= O: Y+F = G: Y+F:'= 0: Y+F'= 0; Ptmd/Act; A : A : A Protected turns: cll.ioci•I : Permitted turns: ; Cycle Length 60 Sec: CARL H. BUTTKE, INC., PORTLAND, OREGON, using NCAP by PSI : .•.,tersection:New Scholls Ferry^Rd-& Old-SchollsN- -Date:1991/Existing Zoni Analyst:JDZ TimePeric-d Anlyzd:FM PK HR Area Type: CBD XOther: iProjec t No.ORP P1 City/State:Tiger, Portland ; CAPACITY ANALYSIS WORKSHEET LANE GROUP 1 3 ~ 4 1 v ~ 6 ~ 7 ~ S 9 Adjusted :Ad.Sat: Flow fatiI_I . i--ireen ~Ln.Grp: v/C :Crit.: 1 - Flow Rate :F1w.Rt. ~ Ratio .Capac.: Rati : ; :Appr..Mvmt.1 v s . v/s . g / i :,=,vph . X Lane : (vph) :(vphg): 3/4 . . 4x6 : 3/7 !Group: 1 1 1 1 , , 1 1 , - 1 1 , 1 I 1 1 I , ELF : N . 835 - : 3534 . 0.236 - : 0.425 . 150 1 0.556 : •iE•ih9F i 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 A : 383 - : 1654 : 0.227 - : 0.409 : 689 : 0.556 WS : E : 375 - . 3546 . 0.247 0.884 : ;3136 . 0.279 : - : I 1 I : . : ' : : ' ' 1 1 1 1 , : A . 13 - : 1654 : 0.008 - 1 . 01 G . 26 1 0.494 : - : NS 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 I , 1 . . 1 1 1 f : P . 13 - : 1499 . 0.009 0.016 : 23' : 0.556 : : ; : : : - ' 1 1 ( , 1 1 I , , 1 1 1 1 , 1 1 1 , 1 1 1 , , / 1 , 1 ; 1 I , , 1 I 1 1 , 1 1 , 1 I , 1 1 , Cycle Length= 60.0se/_, Lost Time/C: le L= 9.0se-~r S(v/s)1_i - 0.4722. yc - ! X1_=0.55 JJ6' , • :LANE GROUP DIAGRAMS-E*** = PROTCTD. = PERMTTD. = PROTCTD & PERMTTD7: A : E : N : P : oaf-x~ . . . 1 1 : . + + ; 11 v : v : 1 1 CARL H. BUTTFE, INC., PORTLAND, OREGON, using NC:AP by PSI : ------------------------7------------------------------------------------------ i Intersection: New Scholls Ferry Rd & Old Schvlls Date:1991/Existing-Zoni---: Analyst:JDZ Timef-'eriod Anlyzd:F'M PK HR Area Type: rBD XOther: :,.ject Nc,.OF<'P2P1 City/State:Tige•r, Portland ; LEVEL-OF-SERVICE WORKSHEET : ~ First Term Delay : Second Term Delay :Tat.Delay-ate LOS LANE : 3 : 4 : 5 : 6 : 7 : 8 : 9 : 10 : 11: 12 : 13 iROUF': v/,= : Green! Cycle! Delay : Lane: Delay :F'rgrsn:Lane imp: Ln: Apprch:Apr Ratios' Ratio'.Length: di :Group: d2 !Factor: Delay : Gp: Delay :LOS 1 : 2: X : a/ice : C: :see=/veh1Cap,,_:sec/veh: F'F :see=/veh:LOS:see=/veh:-fbl 'gyp:Mv: : : (see=): :(vph): :T.9-i3:C6+8)x9:9-1: :9-1 EEC : N : 0. 556: o.4251 60. 0 : 9.86: 1503! 0.35: 0.85 : 8.68: 8 : 8.68: B , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ' ' ' ' ' , ' , ' ` , ' ' I,-- I : A : 0.556: 0.409: 60.01 10.301 689: 0.761 1.00 : 11.06: B : : !B : E : 0. 279: 0.884.1 60.0: 0.401 3136: 0.01: 0.85 : 0.36: A : 3.62: A : A : 0.494: 0.016: 60.0: 22.27: 26: 10.16: 1.00 : 32.43: D : : JB: : : : : : : : : : : 32.85: D : PI 0.5561 0.0161 60.0: 22.29: 231 16.86: 0.85 : 33.271 D : : iB: : : : : : : : : : : 0.00: 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 , 1 1 - ersecticm Delay 5.97 =ec /veh. Intersection LOS B Table 9.1 : : :LANE GROUP DIAGRAMS-[*** = PROTC:TD, = PERMT'D, = F'F,'OTC:TD F'ERMTTD7: r N ' CARL H. BUTTF:::E, INC:., PORTLAND, OREGON, using NCAF' by PSI : t i INF'tJT WORk:SHEET ;_Tnt_rsE;ti_m:Ne'r Scholls Ferry Rd '4 Old Schol2s Date:1991/A,.,_ ; -ess B -1l,/ t:JDZ TimePer-iod Anlyzd:PM PK HR Area Type: CBD XOther: f\ oJe,:±,: No.0-RP2A1 t_:ity/State:Tiger, Portland ; :VOLUME AND GEOME T RIGS : New Schol l s N/S ST.: ; : C 03 , tJ , : SB TOTAL 640 C 9851 ; , v : -WB TOTAL: t: N i 0 0 0: : 345 v ' , NORTH <---TH--12.01 v----LT-12.01-1 : 1-12.01--TH--- • : !IDENTIFY IN DIAGRAM 1-12.01 -RTH--v ; :!.Volumes ' 2.Lane 'lane widths ; LT RT : Old Scholls : : Movement s by lane 0 ; 1:. 0 : : E/W STREET : :4.Parkina locations - : ' 12.01 ' : 5. Bay st,_,r-ge ingths C 760) 7 7oS I 1 ; 115 50 : ,6.Islands F_/B TOTAL C 1651 : :7.PUS stops v 55 : : N/B TOTAL : TRAFFIC AND ROADWAY CONDITIONS : :Ap:'3r,J.: HV ; Ad.j.Pkg.Lane : Buses : PHF :i_:nf.Ped: Pedstrn Button: Arr.: : Y/N ; Nm : (Nb) : ; (:pd/hr Y/N : Mn. Time: Type: : 8: +i-) . i_) : 3.0 : N : 0 0.90 : 1(a : Y : 10 : 3 : : WB : +0 . tj : 3.0 : N : 0 : 0 : 0.90 : 10 , N :NB :+G. 3.0 : N : C) ; 0 ; 0.20 : 1t) Y 18 3 SB : +0. (_i ; N : U : 0 . oo : : Y : 18 : 3 : ' Grade: •+-up, -down Nb: buses stopping/hr Min. Timing: min.,green for : :HV:veh. 4 whls PHF:peak:-hour factor pedestrian crossing: !Nm:pkg. maneuvers/hr )=nf.Peds:Cnflctng peds/hr Arr.Type: Type 1-5 : 'PHASING ' r : R : M : + ' v !Tim- : G= 0.0: )1= 0.0: G= 0.0: ti= 0.0: G= 0.0: tom= 0.0: G= 0.0: G= 0.0: : i n g : Y+F:= O: Y+F:= D: Y+R= U: Y+F:_. O: Y+F:= O: Y+F.'= O: Y+R= 0: Y+F; = 0: •)d/Act: A : A : A ' : Protected turns: *#•)t•*•^• octo : Permitted turns: ++++I•- : Cycle Length GO Sec: t CARL H. PUTTKE, INC.. PORTLAND. OREGON, using NCAP by PSI : i :Intersectic.n:New Sl.hl_Ills Ferry Rd & Old SI_holls Date:1991/Access B ; _.l yst : JDZ TimePer iod Anlyzd: PM PK' HR Area Type: CBD XO•ther ; ^1 ,.jeet No.ORP2A1 City/State: T iger, Portland CAPACITY ANALYSIS WORKSHEET 6 7 S Ad.j ust ed : Ad . Sat : Flow Rat i 1_I ; Gr een : Ln . [3r p : v /C : Cr i t . 1 : r - Flow Fate : F1 w. Rt : : Rat i ~ Capac.: Ratio : - ; 1 'Apps.:Mvmt.: V : S : V/S ; g / C: :,,vph : X :Lane : : (vph) :(vphg): 3/4 4x6 : 3/7 :Group; 1 , 1 1 I t 1 1 ~ , 1 1 1 1 : 1 1 1 1 EB : N : 886 - : 3506 : 0. 253 : 0. 3SO : 1332 : 0.665 : ?FdFdF ; 1 1 1 t 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1---•-- 1 1 ' 1 A ' 383 - 1 1684 1 0.2,27 - : 0.342 1 576 1 0.665 1 WB : E 1 747 - : 3546 0. 1 1 - : 0.772 :2736 : 0.273 : - ; 1 1 1 I , 1 1 t f 1 1 1 1 1 1 , 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1----- 1 1-------' ' : A : 144 - : 1684 : 0.085 - : J.28 : 216 : 0.665 : 1 11 11 I i 11 1 1 1 NB , : : P : 63 - : 14913 : 0.04 - : 1.'8 : 193 : 0.327 : - : f 1 ~ 1 1 1 1 , 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 , 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 JL 1 1 1 1 , 1 1 1 SB 1 1 1 1 / . , / 1 1 1 :i`ycle Length= 60.Osec, Lest Time/Cycle,L= 9.0-sec.. S(v/s:)c_i= 0.566. X1==0.6165: : ; LANE GROUP DIAGRAMS-[*** = PROTC'TD, = PERMTTD, = PROTC:TD & PERMTTD] : : A : E : N : F 1 1 1 1 1 1 , / 1 1 : 1 + 1 + 1 1 v : v : CARL H. BUTTKE, INC.. PORTLAND, OREGON. using NCAP by PSI : f Intersect ion: New- Scholls Ferry F::d &< Old Scholls Date:1991/Access B - ,lyst:JDZ TimePericed Anlyzd:PM PK HR Area Type: CBD XOther; No, ORP2A1 City/State: Tiger, Portland LEVEL-OF-SERVIC:E_WORKSHEET ' First Term Delay _____Second Term Delay : Tot. Del ay_?' _LOS -ANE ; 3 : 4 : 5 6 7 1' 8 9 : 10 : 11: 1 : 13 iROUP: v/c : Green: Cycle! Delay ; Lane: Delay : P•rgrsn : Lane imp : Ln : Apprch : Apr Ratio: Rat io:Length: d1 :Group: d: :Factor: Delay : Gp; Delay :LOS 2 : X ; g /C ; C : see: /veh : Cap, 'set:: /veh : PF : sec /veh : LOS ; see= /veh : Tb 1 ;p:Mv: (sec) :(vph): :T.9-13:(6+8)*919-1: :81 N: 0. 1 0.3 1 60.0: 11. 744 13321 90 1 0.a5 1 10.741 B : 10.74, 8 : A : 0.665: 0.342: 60.011 1::.79: 576: 041 1.00 : 14.82: B : : JS: E : 0.273: 0.772: Go. 0 1 1.51: 2736: 0.011' 0.85 : 1.29: A : 5.88! B I 1 1 1 1 1 : ; ; ' 1 1 1 1 1 : : ' , A : 0.665: 0.128: 60.01 18.94: 216: 5. 121 1. 00 : 24.05!- C: ; 21.51: C. P : 0. 0. 128: 60.011 18.08: 193: 0.371 0.85 : 15.68: C: 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 , 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 t ' ntersection Delay 9.37 sec/veh. Intersection LOS 8 Table 9.1 ; LANF_ GROUP DIAGRAMS-[*** = PROTi TD, = PERMTTD, = PROTC:TD &< PERMTTDI: 4 1 f : A : E : N : P ; + + : 1 1 : v ; v 6'ARL H. BUTTKE, INC:., PORTLAND. OREGON, using NCAP by PSI : F jt I • hdF'UT WOF:F:'SHEET _ t -t ion: New Scholls Ferry Rd & 135th Ave. Date: 1991/Existing Zuni : Anal yst : JD TimePer iod Anl yzd: AM PK HR Area Type: CBD XOther : Project Nr_.ORP3A1 City/State:Tiger, Portland VOLUME AND GEOMETRICS :135th Ave. N/S ST.; C 157 ; 5 SB TOTAL : 1 : - 6 0 0 1 6493 v ; 12. ti ; -W9 TOTAL: (N) 10 0 51 TH : 44 v : : NORTH v • ---RT-1'2.01 -1 : ---TH-•-12 . t i r : 1-12. v----LT-12 . o -1 1-1'2. Of ---TH---: :IDENTIFY IN DIAGRAM I. V01 Ltmes :'_.Lanes,lane widths : LTH RT : New Scholls : isfemer.ts by lane 1~~ : : E/W S•rREET : J. :4. F'z:r::: ina locations - 12. 0: 5 : :5. Bay stor•ge 1 ngths [1-1851 95t? : 1 1 : 152 247 : 6. T sl ands E/B TOTAL- - I 40"t : ;7.Bus stops v 25 N/S TOTAL : :TRAFFIC: AND ROADWAY CONDITIONS : Gr d. HV : Ad.). F'kg . Lane : Buses ; F'HF : Cn f . F'ed ; F'edst r n Button: Arr. Y/N : Nm : (Nb) : :(pd/hr): Y/N ;Mn.Time: Type: :ES :+-0.0: .0 ; N : 0 : 0 : 0.9? : 10 : Y : 12 ; 3 : :WB;+(:). ii; S.) ; N : 0 : 0 : 0.90 : 10 : Y : 1 ; S : i :NB:+o.o: 3.o : N ; 0 : o : 0. GO : 10 : Y ; 21 : 3 : ;SB:+(-).C!; ^.o : N ; G : u ; 0.60 : 10 ; Y : 21 : 3 : : Grade: +up, -down Nb: buses sty gipping/h•r Min. Timing: min. green for ; ; HV: veh. 4 whls F'HF: peak-ham cur factor pedestrian crossing'. ;Nm:p4%g.maneuvers/hr C:nf.F'eds:Cnflctng peels/hr Arr.Type: Type 1-5 : : F'HAS I NG ; D + : ; A ' 13 v ' i F ' A :xx :xx::•; ::+•x•+: M ' :Tim- ; G= 0.01 G= 0.0.' G= U . O : G= 0.0. G= 0.0: G= 0.0: G= 0.0., G= 0.0: : i ng : Y+F•.= 0: Y+F:= 0: Y+R= o: Y+F:= O: Y+R= G; Y+F,'= 0: Y+R= U: Y+R= 0: :F'tmd/Act; A : A : A ' % ~ e_ ' F'r~~te~=ted turns. o~_~~1r,• : Permitted turns: ~-Iyr _le Length 6t CARL H. 6UTTK.E, INC., PORTLAND, OREGON, using NCAF' by PSI :Interse.:t ion: New Schal1s Ferry Rd & 135th Ave. Date:1991/E:.isting Zoni' : Al y=,t : JDZ Timc-Per iod Anlyzd : AM PK HR Area Type: CLSD XOther ? . 0ject No.OF:F'3J^11 City/state:Tiger, Portland ' , : CAPACITY ANALYSIS WORKSHEET ; :LANE GROUP ~ 3 ~ 4 : 5 ~ E : 7 : Adjusted :Ad.Salt: Flow Ratio : Green :Ln.GrpI v/C :Crit. 1 : 1 : 2 : Flow Fate : F1 w. Rt : : Ratio : Capat:.: Ratio : : :App•r.:Mvmt.: v : s : v/s : g / C ,c.vph X ,'Lan` , (vph) : (vphg) : 3/4 : : 4:,6 : 3/7 :Group 1 0.039 66 ).1G7 : ES : N : 1371 - : 3441 : 0.398 - : 0.534 : 1839 : 0.746 : ~a~ sc ; A : 49 - : 1654 : 0.029 - : 0.039 : 66 : t_).7.16 : : WD : E : i oc) - : 3546 : 0.197 - : 0.534 : 1895 : 0.369 : - : : : F' : 6 - : 1499 : 0.004 - : 0.534 : SO 1 : 0. 007 : - : : : : : : : : : : ; : NB : D : 196 - : 1713 : 0. 1 14 - : 0.277 : 474 : 0.414 : - : : : F' : 309 - : 1499 : o.206 - : 0. 277 : 414. : 0.746 : Se : I : .25 - : 1773 : 0.014 - : 0.277 : 49(--) ; i_), 0571 ; - ' ie Length= 6t:r.c:)see=, L=,st Time/C:yc2e. L= '3.irse=, SCv/s:)=i= <).63a•, X==~:?.74G' 'LANE GROUP DIAGRAMS- t?!••?E * = PR'OTCTD = F'EE'MTTD, = F'E'OTC-:TD F'EF:MTTD 7 : ' : A E I : N : P : ; : ?F + : : + : : + + + ' , ' : CARL H. PUTTKIE, INC:., PORTLAND, OREGON, using NCAF' by PSI : i F M Intersecti=on:New S.:: hol1s Ferry Rd &c 135th Ave. Date:ISSI/Existing Zoni : :,l y st : JDZ TimePer iod An l yzd : AM PK HP Area Type: CBD XOther ; }e ,.t Na.O:F'3A1 City/State:Tiger, Portland ; LEVEL-OF-SERV I UE_WOF'F•;SHEET ; First Term Delay : Second Term Delay :Tot.Delay_,,_LO`a -ANE ; 3 : 4 : 5 : 6 : 7 : a : 9 : 10 : 11: 12 : 13 3ROUP: v/,= : Green! Cycle: Delay : Lane: Delay :Prgrsn:L:~ne Gp: Ln: Apprch:APr • Ratio: Ratio:Length; di 1Group 1 d2 !Factor: Delay : Gp: Delay :LOS t : 2f X : g/'--.* : : s~/veh : )_:ap, c : se•. /vph : PF : seer /veh 1 LOS: se'= /veh . Tb l ap : t1v : (sec).' : (vp h) : :9-1 ' A' 0. 1 G71 0. 0391 60.01 21.19: 66: G.1'2: 1.00 : 21.31: : : ZB: N: %;.746; 0.534: 60.00 8.221: 133'3: 1.'20: 85 : 8.oo., B : 3.11: a A : 0. . 746: o. 039.1 60.0: 211. D : 661 23.25: 1.00 : 44.941 : : 4B 1 E : 0. 369: 0. 534: 60. 0: 6. is: 18915: , 06 : c i , 35 : 5 . 28 1. B : 7.351 B P: 0. ' 0.534: EQ. 0: 4. 96: 801! 0. 00: 0.85 : 4. 2:: A : : AB.' D: o.4141 0.2771 6o. o l 13.47; 474: c.). 35: 0.35 : 11 . 75; B : 14.95: B : P : (-').746: 0.277: 60.0: 15.03: 414: 4.94: 0.85 : 16.S:381 : : S1-3 .1 I : 05 J. ; o. 2-177: 60. U : 1'::. 101 490 0.00 1 6.25 : 10. 29! B : 10. 29: B , , , 1 ; ! Intersection Delay 9.35 sec/veh, Intersection LOS B Table 9.1 : :LANE GROUP DIAGRAMS-[*** = PROTGTD, = PERMTTD, = PR0T)=TD 8, PEP'MTTDI ; ' : A : D : E : I : N : P ; : )CARL H. BUTTKE, INC., POF:TLAND, OREGON, using NCAP by PSI : r t i __INPUT WORKSHEET ; tersecl:i,ri:New Scholls Ferry Rd & 135th Ave. Date:1991/Access B alyst:JDZ Timer'eriad AnlyLd:AM PK HF:: Area Type: B=BD XOther: Project Nea.ORP3A,1 1C:ity/State: Tiger, Portland ; : VOLUMIE AND GEOMETRI1C:S 1135th Ave. N/S ST.: ; 1 152 1 1 Cr. 1 I J 1 SB TOTAL : 1 - ; 1 1 58J - L-J l53 1 1 1 1 JO ; , v : 12.0 : -WIC TOTAL: (N) 10 0 5: TH ; 85 v ; ; N Or-.:TH v • ---RT-12. QF -1 ; ---TH---1'2. 0' ; 1 -1:_. 0' -LT---` v---LT-1'2.01 -1 ; 1-1::. 0' --TI-1--- 'IDENTIFY IN DIAGRAM 1-12.01-RTH--v> 1.Vo1urnes : 2. 1-ernes, lane widths ; L TI•-I F:T : New Schell l s ; :3. Movements by lane !0 ; 12.0 : ; E/W STREET : 4.Park:inq locations - : : 12.0! 5 : . 5. Bay sty merge ingths C i 11303 335 145 190 : :G.Islands E/B TOTAL - : : C- 3403 : ; 7. Bus stops v '.x•45 : ; N/ B TOTAL TRAFFIC AND ROADWAY CONDITIONS : 'An:Grd. ; HV : Ad.j.Pkg.Lane ; Buses : PHF nf.Ped: F'edstrn Dutton: Arr.: ; : Y/N : Nm : CNb> : : ,pd/hr 7 : Y/N : Mn. Time: Type-: - 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 t 1 :ED1+0, 0: 3.0 : N 0 ; U. 130 : 10 : `f : 12 : 3 : WB:+0, 0: 3.0 : N : 0 : 0 : 0.90 : 10 : Y : 1 : 3 : NB: +0. t): 3.0 : N : 0 : ci : i).8() : 10 : Y : 21 : 3 : S131 0: 3.0 : N : 0 : 0 : U.6o : 10 : Y : 1 : 3 : 1 Grade:+up,-dawn Nb:buses stooping/hr Min.Timing: min.green for : :II4J:veh. 4 whls PHF:peak-hour factor pedestrian crossing: ' Nm: pk:g. maneuvers/hr Cn f . F'eds: Cn f 1 ctng peds/hr Arr. Type: Type 1-5 : ,PHASING 1 1 1 1 / 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 D : : + A : v 1 13 : v 1 : R 1 : : A ' M + 1 I 1 v 1 Tim- : G= 0.0: G= 0.0' G= 0.0: G= 0.0: G= o.O: G= o.O: G= 0.0: G= 0.01 i n g : Y+F:= 0: Y+F,'= 0: Y+F:= 0: Y+F'= 0: Y+F' = 0: Y+F:= 0: Y-+-F:= o: `(+F,'= t i: 'I _md/AI_t: A : A : A : : : Protected turns: c1I,c11_I•^ : Permitted turns: +i•++^ : Cycle Length 60 See=: CARL H. BUTTKE, INC., PORTLAND, OREGON, using NCAP by PSI : { Y 1 , Intersect ion: New ..•ch, X11 s Ferry Rd 135th Ave. Date: 1''?1/A1. =ess B ' A1ysJDZ TimePeriod Anly::d:AM F'K HR-: Area Type: CBD XOther: 1 I_I.ject No.0RP3A1 City/State: Tiger, Portland ' : CAPACITY ANALYSIS WORKSHEET ';LANE GROUP ; 3 : 4 : 5 : 6 ; 7 9 Ad.JUSted :Ad.Sat: Flow Ratite. ; Green :Ln.Grp: v/C '.'::r it. 1 1 : ' 1 : ; Fl ,::.w Rate : Fl w. F:t : : Ratio : Capac Ratio Appr.:Mvmt.: v : s : v/s : g / C :1_,vph : X :Lane : 1 "1 1 1 .i 1 1 ' 1 t.vph.) 1 1 (vphg)1 3/4 1 1 4:.6 1 3 /7 1)~rl~up 1 1 A ; 11 - : 1684 : 0.007 - : 0.077 : 130 : 0.085 : - : F_D : N : 1377 - : 34:3: : 0.401 - : G.554 : 19 i1 : 0.725 : 1 1 1 1 1 1 ; : 1 1 1 1 1 , 1 : A 94 - : 1634 : 0. ':)56 - 0. 077 1301 : 0.725 WD : E 632 - , 3546 0.347 : - : 1 1 0.554 1 1 196.4 ' 1 1 0.192 : - : P : 6 - : 149 : 0. o04 - ; 0. . 554 : 830 : 0.007 : ' - : - : ; - : - : : 1 1 1 1 NB : D 137 - : 1773 : 0. 105 - ; 0. X19- ; 389 : 0. 31 ; - : ! : f_) . !59 - : 0. '219 : 329 : 0.7'.5 : 1 1 G' 1 - 14'.-'.'J 1 1 1 r»23 8 1 t 1 1 1 I 1 t I 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 : - : : Sty : I : 25 - : 177:3 : 0.014 - : 0.219 : 389 : 0.064 I 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ' ;)_ycle Length= 60.0sec, Lost Time/Cycle,L= ~.0)se,_. Stv/s),_i= 0.61E, Xc=0.7251 LANE GROUP DIAGRAMS- E * * = PROTCTD, = PERMTTD. = PROTCTD & PEF:MTTD J : : A ; D : E : I : N : F' + + I 1 1 1 ' I I ' 1 1 1 v 1 v 1 \f 1 ' 1 : CARL H. $UTTt`E, INC. , PORTLAND,, OF:E130N, using NCAP by PSI : is f t Y F I Intersect icn: New Sch l l s Ferry Rd & 135th Ave. Date: 1991/Access B _ ..1 yst : JD7 TimePer il_Id Anlyzd: AM PK HF,' Area Type: i3BD XOther : I~ :-Ject Idc-.0F:F'3A1 i_ity/State:Tiger, Portland ; LEVEL-OF-SEF:V I CE~WORIK'SHEET ; Ir I First Term Delay Second Term Delay ITI_,t.Delay_,a LOS '-MNE 1 3 1 T 1 5 1 6 1 7 1 S 1 9 1 10 1 111 12 1 13 3F:OUF': v/c : Green: Cycle! Delay 1 Lane.' Delay IF'rgrsn:Lane 13p: Ln: Apprch.'Apr I Ratio: Fiat i oI Lengt h : d I ;Group: d2 !Factor: Delay : imp : Delay !LOS i : 2: X 1 4 / G 1 is 1 sec / veh I Cap , c .'sec / veh : F•F : see= /veh : LOS 1 si=c / veh : Tb 1 ,p.'Mv: 1 1 (sec): : tvphl.' :T.9-131 i6+8~9E9:9-11 19-1 I A: 0.085: 0.077: 60.01 1 1 1 I 19.55: 1301' 0.01i 1 . O~~ 19.56: C =B: N: 0.7251 0.55.4: 60.0: 7.58: 1'3011 +i.99: 0.35 1 7.23: 8 1 7.33: 8 1 A: 0.7251 0.0771 6+1.0: 20.57: 130: 11.901 1.00 1 32.47: D I : 4S: E! 0.347: 0.5541 6+1. o : 5.62: 1964: 0.05: 0.85 : 4. 3 ' 1 A 1 3. 13 1 N : F : 0.007: 0. 554 1 60.0: 4.561 830: 0.001 0.85 1 3.371 A 1 : 1 I 1 t 1 1 , 1 1 I 1 1 1 I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 AS: D : 0. 431 1 C_).2191 60. 01 15. 5.11 3813 1 0.751 0.85 1 13.35: B 1 16.46: i= I P: 0.7251 0.219: SO. 0 1 16. 52 1 329: 5.26: 0.85 1 1 x. 521 C I 1 1 , 1 1 1 1 t I I , 1 t 1 1 1 , ! 1 1 I 1 1 1 I SDI I : 0.064! 0.219: 60. +1 1 14.10! 389: 0.00: 0.85 I 11.98! 3 1 11.138! 8 1 1 1 1 , 1 , , , 1 t , 1 I 1 I , 1 1 , , 1 I 1 - 1 -,itersection Delay 9.1 see=/veh, Intersection LOS B Table 9.1 I -•--------------------------------------------------------1 : LANE GROUP DIAGRAMS-[*** FF:OTCTD, = F'EF,'MTTD. = PROTCTD &< FEF:MTTD J I 1 A I D 1 E I I I N I F' I : ' + t 1 1 1 I : 1 1 1 + : + 1 : v I v 1 v : I I----------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 CARL H. BUTTKE, INC.. PORTLAND, OREGON, using NCAF' by PSI : y 2010 PM Existing Zoning r (*ART. SLIMY) TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS AND PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION PASSER II-87 MULTIPHASE ARTERIAL PROGRESSION - 145101 VER 1.U JUL 88 tkr f PASSER-87 SEST PROGRESSION SOLUTION SUMMARY Scholls Ferry DISTRICT 1 02/15/91 RUN NO. 1 CYCLE LENGTH =120 SEC -:S (MA X I M I N CYCLE = 95 SECS) (GREAT PROGRESSION) EFFICIENCY - .64 ATTAINABILITY = 1.00 (INCREASE MIN. THROU13H PHASE) ELAND A = 65 SECS AVERAGE SPEED = 30 MPH BAND B = 89 SECS AVERAGE SPEED = 30 MPH NOTE: ARTERIAL PROGRESSION EVALUA"l' I ON CRITERIA EFF I C I ENC Y 0. 00 - 0. 1:2 - "POOP: PROGRESSION" 0. 13 - . 24 - "=AIR PROGRESSION" 0.25 - 0. 36 - "GOOD PROGRESSION" 0.37 - 1.00 - "13R:EAT PROGRESSION" ATTAINABIITIY 1.00 - [i. 99 - "INCREASE MIN THR:U PHASE" 0.99 - Ci . 70 - "FINE-TUNING NEEDED" 0.69 - 0.00 - "MAJOR CHANGES NEEDED" k C i. (SEST.SOLN) TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF HT+GHWAYS AND PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION PASSER II-87 MULTIPHASE ARTERIAL PROGRESSION - 145101 VER 1.0 JUL 88 BEST SOLUTION.... NEMA PHASE DESIGNATION ~ z IN*r. 1 .0 SEC OFFSET ART ST PHASE SEC:? IS DUAL THRUS (2+6) new scho11 .0 % OFFSET CROSS ST PHASE SEC IS LT 3 LEADS C3+8) ARTERIAL STREET CROSS STREET CONCURRENT PHASES 2+6 1+6 1+5 TOTAL 3+8 4+8 4+7 TOTAL PHASE TIME SEi::S) 75.0 19.0 . c) 4. 0 26.0 .0 .0 26.o PHASE TIME ri:) 62.5 15.8 .0 78.3 21.7 .0 ,0 21.7 MEASURES OF EFFECTIVENESS RHASE (NEMA) 5C17 6 1157 2 3157 4 7153 8 PHASE DIRECTION EBLTPM WBTHRU WBLTPR EBTHRU NBLTPR SBTHRU SBLTPR NSTI-iRU PHASE TIME C SEC) .0 94. 0 113.0 75.0 26.0. . C) .0 26. 0 V/C---RATIO .0o .72 . 7; .70 !ii; ,cat.; . Ira LEVEL OF SERVICE C: C A A L-'i=LAY (SECS/ VEH') . o 14.7 58.1 17.7 39.8 . 0 .0 39.8 LEVEL OF SERVICE B E I_'. D D QUEUE (VEH/LANE) , 0 7.5 2.6 7.0 .3 .0 . c7 .3 3 OF'S (STOP'S/HR) 0. 1144. 154. 904. 18. 0. 0. 23. C TOTAL INTERSECTION DELAY MINIMUM DELAY CYCLE 18.3 SECS/VEH 64 SECS (BEST.SOLN) TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF HI13HWAYS AND PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION PASSER 11-87 MULTIPHASE ARTERIAL PROGRESSION - 145101* VER 1.0 JUL 88 *-x•** BEST SOLUTION CONTINUED.... NEMA PHASE DESIGNATION ?e-x INT. 2 82.0 SEC OFFSET ART ST PHASE SEC IS DUAL LEFTS (1+5) with ave 68.3 % OFFSET CROSS ST PHASE SEC IS DUAL THRUS (4+8) 135 ARTERIAL STREET CROSS STREET CONCURRENT PHASES 1+5 1+6 +6 TOTAL 4+8 3+8 3+7 TOTAL PHASE TIME (SECS) 5.0 24.0 65.0 94.0 26.0 ,0 o 26.0 PHASE TIME 4.2 20.0 54.2 78.3 21.7 ,0 .0 1.7 MEASURES OF EFFECTIVENESS PHASE (NEMA) 5157 6 1157 2 3147 4 7113 8 PHASE DIRECTION EBLTPR WBTHRU WBLTPR EBTHRU NBLTPM SBTHRU SBLTPM NSTHRU PHASE TIME (SEC) 5.0 89. 0 29.0 65.0 .0 26.0 .0 26.0 V /C-RATIO .57 .76 .88 .89 .50 , 06 .00 .17 l IEL OF SERVICE A C E E A A A DELAY ( SECS/ VEH) 76.8 11.8 65.1 37.2 44.9 39.7 .0 40.6 LEVEL OF SERVICE E B E D D D D QUEUE (VEH/LANE) .3 6.('-) 5.'3 15.9 0 .2 .0 .6 STOP'S (STOP'S/HR) 19. 1745. 340. 1464. 135. 13. 0. 38. TOTAL INTERSECTION DELAY MINIMUM DELAY CYCLE 28. SECS/VEH 95 SECS ~I TS.DIAGM) TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS AND PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION SSER 11-87 MULTIPHASE ARTERIAL PRO13RESS I ON - 1.45101 VER 1.0 JUL 8S RUN NO 1 DISTRICT 1 Sc hol 1 s Ferry 02/15/91 CYCLE = 120 SECONDS HORIZONTAL SCALE 1 INCH = 50 SECS (I inch = 10 characters) VERTICAL SCALE 1 INCH = 1000 FEET (I inch = 6 lines) INT I 1 S2.OS IXXXXXXXXXXX =\\\\\XXXXXXXXXXXXX =\\\\\XXXXXXXXXXXXX INT 1 I 1 .CAS IXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX\\\\ XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX\\\\ XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX\\\\ /A/ \B\ 30 MPF1 30 MPH E5 SECOND ELAND 29 SECOND BAND DUAL LEFTS (1+5) XXX DUAL THRUS (2+6) LT 5 LEADS (2+5) LT 1 LEADS (1-1-6) i k of 7 o- a' 2010 PM Access Scenario S (APT. SUMY) TEXAS DEP'AR'TMENT OF HI13HWAYS AND F'UE'LIi TRANSPORTATION PASSER 11-87 MULTIPHASE ARTERIAL PROGRESSION - 145101 VER 1.0 JUL 88 #r• * PASSER:-67 REST PROGRESSION SOLUTION SUMMARY * * Scholls Ferry DISTRIC=T 1 02/15/91 RUN NO. 1 CYCLE LENGTH =120 SECS (MAXIMINI CYCLE . =120 SECS) EFFICIENCY = .62 (GREAT PROGRESSION) ATTAINABILITY = 1.oo (INCREASE MIN. THROUGH PHASE) 13AND A = 60 SEA=S AVERAGE SPEED = 30 MPH ELAND B = 89 SECS AVERAGE SPEED = 30 MPH NOTE: ARTERIAL PROGRESSION EVALUATION CRITERIA EFF I C T ENi= Y 0. Q0 - 0. 12 - "POOR PROGRESSION" 0.13 - 0.24 - "FAIT-: PROGRESSION" 0.25 - Q.36 - "GOOD PROGRESSION" 0.37 - 1.00 - ">>F-.:EAT P'ROi3RESS I ON" ATTA I NABL I T I Y 1.00 - 0.99 - "INCREASE MIN THR: J PHASE" 0.99 - 0. 70 - "F I NE-TUNING NEEDED" 0 .6'3 - 0.0ci - "MAJOR: CHANGES NEEDED" t i i, i C c BEST . SOLN ) TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS AND PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION PASSER II-87 MULTIPHASE ARTERIAL PROGRESSION - 145101 VER 1.0 JUL 88 BEST SOLUTION.... NEMA PHASE. DESIGNATION * INT. 1 .0 SEC OFFSET ART S'T PHASE SEO IS DUAL THRUS (2+6) new scholls o % OFFSET CROSS ST PHASE SEO IS LT 3 LEADS (3+8) ARTERIAL STREET CROSS STREET CONCURRENT PHASES 2+6 1+E 1+5 TOTAL 3+8 4+8 4+7 TOTAL. PHASE TIME (SEi=:S) 75.2 18.8 . 0 34.0 26.0 . c) . 0 26.o PHASE TIME 6:.7 15.7 78.3 21.7 .0 .0 21.7 MEASURES OF EFFECTIVENESS PHASE (NEMA) 5111 6 1[53 3[53 4 7[53 ^c PHASE DIRECTION EBLTPM W8THRU WBLTPR EBTHRU NBLTPR SBTHRU SBLTPR NBTHRU PHASE TIME (SEC) .0 94.0 18.8 75.2 26.0 .0 .0 26.0 V / C-RM^ T I O . O(:) .69 .72 . 731 .43 . C_)0 . c_rc_i . 10 LEVEL OF SERVICE B 0 i= A A DELAY (SECS/VF_H) .0 14.4 59. 0 18.1 43.4 , o . 0 319.113 LEVEL OF SERVICE B E B D D QUEUE ( VEH/ LANE) . 7.1 2.6 7.4 1 . 7 . 0 .0 .3 STOPS (STOPS/HR) 0. 1088. 155. '355. 112. o. 0. :3. TOTAL INTERSECTION DELAY MINIMUM DELAY CYCLE 19.3 SECS/VEH 72 SECS (BEST.SOLN) TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF HI13HWAYS AND PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION PASSER 11-87 MULTIPHASE ARTERIAL PROGRESSION - 145101 VER 1. 0 JUL 138 BEST SOLUTION CONTINUED.... NEMA PHASE DESIGNATION x** INT. 2 77.3 SEC: OFFSET ART ST PHASE SEQ IS DUAL LEFTS (1+5) -#~►th ave 64.4 % OFFSET CROSS ST PHASE SEQ IS DUAL THRUS (4+S) 1%5 ARTERIAL STREET CROSS STREET CONCURRENT PHASES 1+5 1+6 2+6 TOTAL 4+8 3+8 3+7 TOTAL PHASE TIME (SECS) 5.0 28.7 60.3 94.0 26.0 .0 .C) 26.0 PHASE TIME C%) 4. 23.9 50.2 78.3 21.7 .0 .0 21.7 MEASURES OF EFFECTIVENESS PHASE (NEMA) 5[53 6 1[51 2 3E43 4 7[:17 8 PHASE DIRECTION EBLTPR WBTHRU WBLTPR F_BTHRU NBLTPM SBTHRU SBLTPM NBTHRU PHASE TIME (SEC) 5.0 813.0 33. 7 60.3 .0 216. 0 .0 26.0 V / C-RATIO .57 .73 .97 .97 .5o . 06 . 0o .17 LEVEL OF SERVICE A C E E A A A F AY (SECS/VEH) 76.6 11.2 77.0 53.4 44.9 39.7 .0 40.6 LEVEL OF SERVICE E B E E D D D QUEUE (VEH/LANE) .3 5.5 9.0 22.13 0 .2 o .6 STOPS (STOPS/HR) 19. 970. 483. 1576. 135. 13. U. 38. TOTAL INTERSECTION DELAY MINIMUM DELAY CYCLE 36.6 SECS/VEH 120 SECS TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS AND PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION `PASSER II-87 MULTIPHASE ARTERIAL PROGRESSION - 145101 VER 1.0 JUL 83 b,,jN NO 1 DISTRICT 1 Sct'olls Ferry 02/15/91 CYCLE = 120 SECONDS HORIZONTAL SCALE 1 INCH = 5G SECS (I inch = 1t:) charzkcters7 VERTICAL SCALE 1 INCH = 1000 FEET (I inch = G lines) INT I 0 77.3S IXXXXXXXXXX =\\\\\\XXXXXXXXXXXX =\\\\\\XXXXXXXXXXXX INT 1 I , CAS IXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX\\\\ XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX\\\\ XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX\\\`. /A/ \B\ 30 MPH 30 MPH Era SECOND BAND 89 SECOND BAND DUAL LEFTS (1+5) XXX DUAL THRUS (2-i-E) LT 5 LEADS C2+5> LT 1 LEADS (1+65 F s , 4 2010 AM r Existing Zoning l (ART.SUMY) TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS AND PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION PASSER 11-87 MULTIPHASE ARTERIAL PROGRESSION - 145101 VER 1.0 JUL 8S 1 ~ PASSER-87 BEST PROGRESSION SOLUTION SUMMARY t1 schools ferry DISTRICT 1 02/05/91 RUN NO. 1 A i, s~ CYCLE LENGTH =120 SECTS (MAXIMIN CYCLE =120 SECS) EFFICIENCY = .58 (GREAT PROGRESSION) ATTAINABILITY = .94 (FINE-TUNING NEEDED) ! LAND A = 73 SECS AVERAGE SPEED = 30 MPH r BAND B = 66 SECTS AVERAGE SPEED = 30 MPH :VOTE: ARTEP:.IAL PROGRESSION EVALUATION CRITERIA EFF I 1--'I ENCY 0.00 - 0.12 - "P'OOP' PROGRESSION" 0.13 - 0.24 - "FAIR PROGRESSION" Q.25 - 0. ^a6 - "GOOD PRO11RESSION" 0.37 - 1.00 - "GREAT PROGRESSION" ATTAINABLITIY 1.00 - 0.99 - "INCREASE MIN THRU PHASE" j 0.93 - 0.70 - "FINE-TUNING NEEDED" 0.69 - O.Oo - "MAJOR CHANGES NEEDED" i i C (SEST.SOLN) TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS AND PUBLIC: TRANSPORTATION PASSER II-87 MULTIPHASE ARTERIAL PROGRESSION - 145101 VER 1.0 JUL 8 BEST SOLUTION.... NEMA PHASE DESIGNATION INT. 1 .0 SEC OFFSET ART ST PHASE SEC IS DUAL THRUS (2+6) new scho11s .0 % OFFSET CROSS ST PHASE SEC! IS LT 3 LEADS (3+8) ARTERIAL STREET CROSS STREET CONCURRENT PHASES +6 1+6 1+5 TOTAL 3+8 4+8 4+7 TOTAL PHASE TIME (SECS) 74.1 7.9 .0 82.0 38.0 .0 .0 38.o PHASE TIME C 61.7 6.6 .0 68.3 31.7 .0 .0 31.7 MEASURES OF EFFECTIVENESS PHASE (NEMA) 5[1] 6 1157 3[57 4 7[57 8 PHASE DIRECTION EBLTPM WBTHRU WBLTPR ESTHR:U NBLTPR SBTHNU SSLTPR NSTHRU PHASE TIME (SEC) .0 82.0 7.9 74.1 38.0 .0 .0 33.0 /C-RAT I 0 , i?0 .63 .71 .34 .06 . 0o . o0 .87 LEVEL OF SERVICE B C D A E DELAY (SECS/VEH) .0 7.9 80.4 23.2 30.E .0 .0 55.0 LEVEL OF SERVICE B F C: C E QUEUE (VEH/LANE) .0 3.1 1 . 1 10.'3 .2 .0 , o t;. r.. STOPS (STOP'S/HR) 0. 574. 56. 1286. 19. U. 0. 387. TOTAL INTERSECTION DELAY MINIMUM DELAY CYCLE 21.6 SECTS/VEH 93 SECTS ( SESI" . SOLN ) TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS AND PUBLIC: TRANSPORTATION PASSER II-87 MULTIPHASE ARTERIAL PROGRESSION - 145101 VER 1.o JUL. 88**** BEST SOLUTION CONTINUED.... NEMA PHASE DESIGNATION INT. 2 117.3 SEC OFFSET ART ST PHASE SEC IS DUAL LEFTS (1+5) 130th ave 97.8 % OFFSET CROSS ST PHASE SEC IS DUAL THRUS (4+8) ARTERIAL STREET CROSS STREET CONCURRENT PHASES 1+5 1+6 3+6 TOTAL 4+8 3+8 3+7 TOTAL PHASE TIME (SECS) 5.7 3.o 73.5 82.2 37.8 .0 .0 37.8 PHASE TIME C%:> 4.8 2.5 61.2 68.5 31.5 .0 .0 31.5 MEASURES OF EFFECTIVENESS PHASE (NEMA) 5[53 6 1153 3[47 4 7[13 8 PHASE DIRECTION EBLTPR WBTHRU WBLTPR ESTHRU NBLTPM SBTHRU SBLTPM NBTHRU PHASE TIME (SEGO 5.7 76.5 8.7 73.5 .0 37.8 .U 37.8 V/C-RATIO .42 .53 .94 1.06 .73 .17 .00 .93 f VEL OF SERVICE A A E F C A E -AY (SECS/VEH) 60.5 13.6 130.9 60.8 44.2 33.7 .0 66.4 LEVEL OF SERVICE E B F E D D E QUEUE (VEH/LANE) .3 4.2 2.8 35.1 4.1 .1 o 7.8 STOPS (STOPS/HR) 16. 573. 113. 2512. 299. 14. 0. 454. TOTAL INTERSECTION DELAY MINIMUM DELAY CYCLE' 48.4 SECTS/VEH 120 SECS 1 4 CTS. DIr,GN TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS AND PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION ASSET: 11-87 MULTIPHASE ARTERIAL Ff;'O,3RESS I ON - 145101 VET: 1.0 JUL 83 kUN NO 1 DISTRICT I schools ferry 02/05/91 CYCLE = 120 SECONDS HORIZONTAL SCALE 1 INCH = 30 SEAS (1 inch = 10 characters) VERTICAL SCALE 1 INCH = 1000 FEET (1 inch = 6 lines) I NT 2 I 117.35 I=\XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX ==\XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX INT 1 I , .OS IXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX\\ XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX\\ /A/ \B\ 30 MPH 30 MPH 73 SECOND BAND 66 SECOND BAND DUAL LEFTS (1+5) XXX DUAL THRUS (2+6) LT 5 LEADS (2+5) LT 1 LEADS (1+6) i E f i' 2010 AM Access Scenanio B (ART. SUMY) TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS AND PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION ASSERT 11-87 MULTIPHASE ARTERIAL PROGRESSION - 145101 VEP 1.0 JUL 88 ¢ PASSER:-87 REST PROGRESSION SOLUTION SUMMARY schools feri°y DISTRICT 1 02/05/91 RUN NO. 1 CYCLE LENGTH =120 SECTS C MA X I M I N CYCLE =120 SECS) EFFICIENCY = .6o (GREAT PR.OGR'ESS I ON } ATTAINABILITY = .93 (FINE-TUNING; NEEDED) RAND A' = 74 SECS AVERAGE SPEED = 30 MPH RAND R = 70 SECS AVERAGE SPEED = 30 MPH NOTE: ARTERIAL PROGRESSION EVALUATION CRITERIA EFFICIENCY 0.00 - 0.12 - "POOR: PROGRESSION" 0.13 - 0.24 - "FAIT' PROGRESSION" 0.25 - 0.36 - "HOOD PROGRESSION" 0.37 - 1.00 - "GREAT PROGRESSION" ATTAINARLITIY 1.00 - 0.99 - "INCREASE MIN THR'U PHASE" 0.99 - 0.70 - "FINE-TUNING NEEDED" C 0.6'3 - 0.00 - "MAJOR: CHANGES NEEDED" ! i • r k - • C ( BEST . SOLD! ) TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS AND PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION ASSET' II-87 MULTIPHASE ARTERIAL P=ROGRESSION - 1'45101 VER 1.0 JUL 88 , BEST SOLUTION.... NEMA PHASE DESIGNATION e** INT. 1 .0 SEC OFFSET ART ST PHASE SEQ IS DUAL. THRUS (2+6) i e w s•.h• 11s .0 % OFFSET CROSS ST PHASE SEGO IS LT S LEADS (3+8) ARTERIAL STREET CROSS STREET ::ONCUR.RENT PHASES 2+6 1+6 1.+5 TOTAL 3+8 4+8 4-1.7 TOTAL PHASE TIME (SECTS) 74.5 7.9 u 8'2.4 37.5 .0 .0 37.6 '='HASE TIME (i:) 62.1 6.6 .0 68.7 31.3 . u .0 31.3 MEASURES OF EFFECTIVENESS PHASE (NEMA) 5[13 6 1153 2 3057 4 7E53 8 PHASE DIRECTION EBLTPM WBTHRU WBLTPR EBTHRU NBLTPR SBTHRU SBLTPR NBTHRU ='HASE TIME (SEC) .0 8'2.4 7. '3 74.5 337.6 .0 , t t 37. 6 )/C-RATIO .00 .62 .71 .86 .12 .0o .00 .88 LEVEL OF SERVICE B C E A E "DELAY (SECS/VEH) .0 3.7 80. 4 23. 6 31. 5 o 5E.7 _EVEL OF SERVICE B C C. E QUEUE (VEH/LANE) . 0 S. 3 1 . 1 11.2 .5 . o . 0 6.2 STOPS (STOPS/H-,:) 0. 5135. 56. 1326. 41. C). 0. 392. TOTAL INTERSECTION DELAY MINIMUM -DELAY CYCLE 2.4 SECTS/VEH 98 SECS (BEST.SOLN) TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS AND PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION "ASSER II-:7 MULTIPHASE ARTERIAL PROGRESSION - 145101 VER 1.0 JUL 88 BEST SOLUTION CONTINUED.... NEMA PHASE DESIGNATION !t* INT. 111.4 SEC: OFFSET ART ST PHASE SEO IS DUAL LEFTS (1+5) # th ave 92.8 % OFFSET CROSS ST PHASE SEG IS DUAL THRUS (4+8) 13S ARTERIAL STREET CROSS STREET _ONCURRENT PHASES 1+5 1+6 2+6 TOTAL 4+8 3+8 3+7 TOTAL PHASE TIME (SECTS) 6.0 5.8 74.9 86.7 33.3 .0 .0 33.3 PHASE TIME C%:► 5.0 4.8 62.4 72. 27.7 .0 .0 27.7- MEASURES OF EFFECTIVENESS PHASE (NEMA) 5157 6 1157 3147 4 7[17 S PHASE DIRECTION EBLTPR WBTHRU WBLTPR EBTHRU NBLTPM SBTHRU SBLTPM NBTHRU = HASE TIME (SEC) 6.0 80.7 11.8 74.9 .0 33.3 .0 33.3 !/C:-RATIO .38 .50 .98 1.05 .83:, .20 .00 .96 LEVEL OF SERVICE A A E F D A E or, )Y (SECS/VEH) 58.2 11.2 126.3 55.7 55.1 36.5 . o 77.6 I cL OF SERVICE E B F E E D E L?UEUE (VEH/LANE) .3 3.4 4.: 5.2 8.1 STOPS (STOPS/HR) 16. 509. 176. 2431. 332. 15. 0. 433. ~ TOTAL INTERSECTION DELAY MINIMUM DELAY CYCLE 47.8 SECS/VEH 120 SECS i 's Cl S. D'IA13M) TEXAS"DERARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS AND PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION :='ASSET' I I -57 MULTIPHASE ARTERIAL PROGRESSION - 145101 VER 1.0 JUL 38 I NO 1 DISTRICT 1 schools ferry 02/05/91 CYCLE = 120 SECONDS HORIZONTAL SCALE 1 INCH = 30 SECS (1 inch = 10 characters) VERTICAL SCALE 1 INCH = 1700 FEET (1 inch = 6 lines) INT I 111.4S I\XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX ==\\XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX INT 1 I .0s IXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX\\\ XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX\\\ /A/ \B\ ; 30 MPH 30 MPH 7-4 SECOND BAND 70 SECOND BAND DUAL LEFTS (.1+5) XXX DUAL THRUS (2+6) LT 5 LEADS (2+5) LT 1 LEADS (1+6) i H ' l t 3 ' l S r f COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON l COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY AGENDA OF: July 23, 1991 DATE SUBMITTED: 6/12 /91 _ ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Sian Code PREVIOUS ACTION: Council Exception SCE 90-05/VAR 90-27 decision to continue for appeal for Sherwood Inn further consideration 114/1 PREPARED BY: Ron Pomeroy DEPT HEAD ITY ADMIN O REQUESTED BY: Ed Murphy POLICY ISSUES 1. Is a variance to allow an over-sized, over-height sign issued by the Planning Commission in 1976 still valid, or have subsequent changes to the sign regulations and the amortization period specifically authorized by those changes invalidated the earlier variance and again made the signs non- conforming? Can the City now require that the signs be brought into compliance with current regulations? 2. Through the sign code exception and variance process, should the property owner now be allowed more freestanding signs, sign area and sign height than permitted by the Community Development Code? INFORMATION SUMMARY Staff and the City Attorney's office advise that the previously granted variance does not continue to have effect and therefore the City does have the authority to require the signs on the Sherwood Inn site to be brought into conformance with the current sign regulations. The materials submitted for the April 9th. City council meeting and the attached supporting documents, explain the staff's position. Sherwood Inn's sign code exception and variance application was reviewed by the Planning Commission on October 16, 1990. The commission determined that the proposal was not consistent with Community Development Code criteria for granting a sign variance or sign code exception as requested. The Commission did approve a variance and sign code exception that would 1) require the removal of the two nonconforming signs and 2) allow one freeway oriented sign with a maximum area of 200 square feet and a maximum height of 50 feet. The Planning Commission's decision was appealed to the City Council by the applicant. The City Council reviewed the matter on December 10, 1990, January 22, March 12, April 9, and April 23, 1991. Prior to the April 9th ' meeting, the applicant had submitted a proposal to 1) remove the "Sherwood Inn" sign on the structure shared with Chevron and 2) substitute the "Motel" portion of the larger sign with a "Best Western - Sherwood Inn" message. This one proposed sign would C remain 65 feet in height and would be approximately the same size as the larger existing sign. The existing sign is approximately i t}F[` L F l 1,180 square feet per sign face whereas the proposed sign would be approximately 1,194 square feet per sign face. The total sign area on the property would be reduced by approximately 334 square feet per side. i In answer to the policy question of whether the previously approved Sign Variance (SCA 2-76) alleviated the applicant from compliance with the Sign Code Amortization program, the City Council tentatively indicated that the signs in question are subject to compliance with this amortization program. The City Council then tentatively agreed to accept the applicant's proposal to retain one freestanding freeway oriented sign with a maximum sign height of 65 feet. However, the Council did request that the applicant return to the Council with a proposal for a specific amount of sign area which is more clearly in line with variance criteria. Since the Council's last public hearing on this matter, the staff and City Attorney have met with representatives of the applicant, Mr. Ferryman, to try to clarify the Code requirements and to attempt to find a solution. Towards that end, a memo was prepared by Ed Murphy to Pat Reilly and Hal Hewett, et. al., dated June 12, 1991 (attached), and a corresponding response by Hal Hewitt, dated June 19th (attached), was received. No agreement has been reached on either an extension of time or the total square footage that could be allowed. Staff has drafted a Final Order (attached) for this variance request with the square footage amount of the sign area left blank, pending Council's decision. i The staff recommends adopting the attached resolution amending the Planning Commision's decision, Final Order 90-25 PC with the addition of the square footage to be decided at the Council meeting. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 1. Approve the attached resolution 2. Modify and approve the attached resolution SUGGESTED ACTION Approve the attached resolution rp/SCE90-05.SUM r r; GREENHILL ASSOCIATES LTD 9999 SW Wilshire St Portland OR 97225 rJUN~ 2 1 #991 June 19, 1991 Mr Pat Reilly City Manager I 13125 SW Hall Tigard, 97223 Dear Pat, Thank you for you continued assistance in finding a resolution of the differences between the city and Mr Ferryman & Mr Bannings signing needs at the Sherwood Inn. I conveyed my understanding of the councils offer, resulting from their executive session on the 11th, to Mr Ferryman yesterday. He wishes me to indicate that because the offer would greatly diminish the existing signing which he currently has, that it would in fact require an appx. $40,000 investment to reconstruct in one year and that he would lose any assurance of permanency, that it is entirely unacceptable. He did not hesitate in his response to me. He feels further, that unless the council can find a basis to further amelioration of the existing differences, he will have no alternative except to resolve the issues through litigation and will do so. However, we feel that due to the complexity of these issues, the matter deserves additional consideration, and have accordingly prepared the attached memo to the council. We especially feel that Councilman Swartz should be present during any followup discussion of this matter. This letter will also confirm a continuance of the hearing on the 25th, to the last Tues in July. Very T ly, al Hewitt lG 1711 cc: G. Ferryman Real Estate Planning & Development (503) 292-6933 s GR,EENHILL ASSOCIATES LTD 9999 SW Wilshire St Portland OR 97225 July 19, 1991 City Council 13125 SW Hall Blvd Tigard, 97223 Mayor Edwards & Council Members, Mr Reilly has conveyed your position to me regarding the issues relating to the Sherwood signs resulting from your discussion on the 11th. I understand it would provide the following: 1). Allow the businesses to maintain a total sign area of not more than 1500 SF. (750 per face.) These busineses currently have a total sign area of 3200 SF. 2). Allow a one year extension of the present signs, at the end of which the signs would have to comply with the 1500 SF limitation. - 3). Not allow any grant of "permanency" which Mr Ferryman feels he currently has under the city's previous variance approval. Mr Ferryman wishes me to indicate that these considerations, even though embodied in a new variance permit, are a substantial reduction from that which was allowed in the 1976 variance approved by the city. Acceptance of them would: 1) Require him in 12 months to expend appx. $40,000 to reconstruct the signs to 50% of the present area. This is a cost which he has already expended at the time he purchased the business, less than two years ago and would unecessarily be duplicated. 2). Eliminate one of two signs currently serving these businesses. 3). Forego any protection of permanency which was provided in the previous variance proceedings, following annexation. Mr Ferryman feels the total effect of these conditions upon the present business enterprise, as well as any considered expansion, is unacceptable. I would however, encourage your further consideration of the following specifc points: 1) Under your current ordinance it would appear possible to allow sign are as follows: 1 freeway sign 160 SF/face pg. 274 E-f 2nd sign 70 SF/face pg. 274 E-h & pg. 287 F-1 ii Sub-Total 240 SF/face Real Estate Planning & Development 15031 292-6933 4 Pg. 2. "additional 50V 120 SF/face pg. 289 G-1 Total area per premise 360 SF/face Total area for 3 parcels, 1170 SF /face This calculation is readily drawn from the ordinance. The only variance determination would be to allow full use of the "additional area" under the 50% proviso for sign copy and perhaps the combining of the three parcels for area purposes. The criteria for doing so would be the inability to obtain highway info signing, obstruction of the trees, topographical character of the site and building obstruction for northbound traffic. 750 SF is significantly less than can be allowed under these provisons. 2. As A ndicated, reconstruction and reduction of the present signs will be very expensive, effectivly duplicating costs already paid at time of purchase. Relying upon the previous permanent approval, these were not adjusted out of the purchase price. As a result, insistance on replacement or reconstruction of the existing signs in any near term period puts Mr Ferryman into a very difficult position, not of his making. In discussions with the staff it seemed a reasonable method to resolve this issue would be to allow for an additional period to ammortize these signs included in the purchase in reliance upon the city's previous variance approval. 10 years was discussed. Mr Murphy indicated only 7 should be allowed from the present since 3 years had already lapsed. If the council will allow the additional 7 years, based upon the circumstances peculiar to this case, Mr Ferryman, will relinquish is position on the "permanency" issue. We feel there is a very adequate basis for agreement on these points given the special circumstances involved. The preferred method for resolving these points is with council itself. We appreciate your further consideration. Very Truly, Hal Hewitt cc: G. Ferryman S. Abel MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON TO: Pat Reilly, Tim Ramis, Steve Abel and Hal Hewitt i FROM: Ed Murph DATE: June 12, 1 1 SUBJECT: Sherwood Inn Signage Response To Memo Of May 10th, 1991 This memo is written in response to a memo submitted by Hal Hewitt on May 10th on behalf of his client, Mr. Ferryman. It will follow the same general format. I. Underlying facts. A. I agree that there are two sign structures located on three parcels. I agree that the businesses need signage. However, it has not yet been demonstrated that the businesses depend on these particular signs for their clientele. B. I agree that there is a line of argument that would conclude that the amortization program does not apply. However, there is also a line of argument that concludes that the program does apply. Since the City Attorney's office has been advising the staff and the City Council for over a year now that the program does apply, I have to assume that it does. C. Likewise, whether or not the amortization program as applied is unconstitutional I will leave for the attorneys to debate. II. Summary history of the request for a variance. A. Mr. Ferryman applied for a sign code exception and a variance in October, 1990. His basic request was that the signage be left as it currently exists. The Planning Commission denied the request, but did approve one sign (instead of the two existing), a maximum of 50 feet high, with a maximum sign area of 200 square feet. Mr. Ferryman appealed the Planning Commission's decision to the City Council. Mr. Ferryman's representatives at one point in time, after the Planning Commission hearing, offered to the City Council that the applicant would reduce the signage by eliminating one sign, and reducing the square footage to 1194 square feet per sign face. i The City retained a sign consultant, who suggested that 40 inch lettering would be adequate, and further, that depending on the number of letters used, a total square footage of between 331 and 653 per sign face would be adequate. i The applicant submitted two letters from sign contractors, both of whom suggested retaining the existing signage. However, one sign company, Ramsey signs, proposed a formula based on "industry standards". The City Council has not yet acted on the SCE/Variance request. The Council at one time seemed to agree that there should only be one sign and that it could be a maximum of 65 feet tall; however, they left the total area up to the applicant to propose, working with City staff. At the last Council meeting, the applicant's representatives apparently withdrew any proposal to reduce the signage number, height or area. On May 6th, staff and Mr. Ferryman's representatives met on this subject to discuss various options. Following that meeting, on May 10th, Mr. Hewitt submitted a written proposal for the City staff to review. III. Summary of the current proposal. According to the memo submitted by Mr. Hewitt, Mr. Ferryman is now proposing, essentially, that: 1. The current signage be left as is for 10 more years. 2. At the end of the 10 year period, the owner would reduce the total signage area for the three parcels to 1200 square feet per face, in the aggregate, which may be contained in one or more signs. (No mention is made of the height...I presume he would be asking for 70 feet, or the height of the Sherwood Inn sign. 3. In addition, he would like an agreement from the City that, after the reconstruction of the signage in the year 2001, the City will recognize the new or reconstructed signage as permanent. In other words, the City would give Mr. Ferryman a square footage figure of 1200 square foot per face, leaving the number of signs and possibly the height of the signs up to the applicant to determine, and then allow Mr. Ferryman 10 years to comply with that square footage, after which the signs would be considered permanent. i x 4. In addition, Mr. Ferryman would like the City to t keep the expansion of the motel in a legal active status so that he will not have to pay the new fees that could be required as a result of the permits previously applied for having expired. 5. The memo from Mr. Hewitt suggests justifying the above proposal based on the arguments on amortization, and on the Development Code language. VI. Response to the specific proposal. 1. If the three parcels were independently owned, staff would still consider the three parcels together a "premise", as per Code Section 18.114.085 E.I.h. The restaurant and motel share a common driveway and parking. Plus, the third parcel behind the hotel is used as part of the parking for the motel, and is therefore clearly part of the motel use. Therefore, the premise would be allowed one freeway oriented sign of 160 square feet per sign face, and one freestanding sign of 90 square feet per sign face, for a total of 250 square feet. (Mr. Hewitt's memo suggests that the second free standing sign could be 160 square feet; however, the Code allows the second sign to be only 90 square feet). If one did consider them to be three parcels, however, they could have 3 x 250, or 750 square feet in aggregate. This square footage would have to be contained on three separate freeway signs and three separate free-standing signs. 2. An additional 25% can be approved by the Planning commission as a "sign code exception". Therefore, the premise could request a sign code exception of 25% on the 250 square feet, for a total of 312.5 square feet ...again, in the aggregate, assuming each of the two signs were allowed to be 25% larger. (The Planning commission already approved a sign code exception for the freeway sign, or for 160 x 1.25% = 200 square feet). Again, if one did consider this premise to be two or three separate premises, one could multiply the above figures by 2 or 3, for 625 to 937.5 square feet/sign face, in the aggregate. 3. An additional 50% is allowed by section 18.114.130.g., but only for the non-copy portion of the sign. In other words, the extra 50% can be for the sign area, but would not allow any letters or symbols or figures in this extra area. An extra 50% would net an area of 468.75, 937.5 or 1406.25 square feet/sign face, in the aggregate, based on 1, 2, or 3 premises. Again, the Development Code would not permit the three parcels to have separate signage; it would allow two separate signs, one at 200 square feet and one at 112.5 square feet, assuming a sign code exception for each one, and assuming the second sign was on a separate frontage with a different orientation. And, it would allow an additional 50% increase in area as long as that additional area did not have any "copy" in it. 4 ALTERNATE PROPOSALS. The following may be helpful for discussion, but should not be construed as recommendations: 1. As indicated above, rather than one premise, assume two...for two businesses. Then aggregate the signage between the one freestanding and the other freeway oriented signs. Therefore, the two premises could have 625 square feet, assuming also a SCE of 25%. (This happens to approximate what the City's consultant said was the maximum necessary, or 653 sq.ft.). Or even assume 3 parcels, for 937.5 square feet. 2. Assume the City's consultant upper figure of 653 square feet, and add 25%, for 816.25 or 50% for 979.5 square feet. 3. Assume the lettering size for the "Sherwood Inn" sign are the maximum size necessary, or about 60". Adjust the other 8' letters accordingly. This figure would tie with the letter from Ramsey signs, which indicated the maximum necessary, which would be about 6011, assuming it is viewed from 3/8ths of a mile. This size sign would be about 783 square feet, not counting the Best Western logo. Removing the Sherwood Inn sign, and reducing the other signage to about the same size lettering as the Sherwood Inn sign, would net about 467 square feet. 5. Keep the Sherwood Inn sign on a separate structure. Reduce the size of the letters for the "Restaurant" and "Motel" signs to somewhere between 40" and 72". That is, request two freeway signs, with a height of 70' maximum. Recommendation: The City's objective should be to reduce the number, height and size of the signage to closer to what the City standards are. Therefore, the City should work towards one sign, high enough only to be visible above the roof of the building to northbound traffic, and large enough to be visible to motorists from about 3/8ths of a mile away. The City should not grant another 10 years to comply, nor should it agree to enter into a contract that would supersede future legislative actions. ( The size should be the minimum necessary, or 467 to 653 square feet per sign face. t h e f CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON RESOLUTION NO. 91- IN THE MATTER OF THE ADOPTION OF A FINAL ORDER UPON CITY COUNCIL REVIEW OF AN APPEAL OF A PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION TO APPROVE A SIGN CODE EXCEPTION APPLICATION AND DENY A VARIANCE APPLICATION (SCE 90-05/VAR 90-27) PROPOSED BY SHERWOOD INN (H. E. FERRYMAN). WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed the case at its meeting of October 16, 1990; and WHEREAS, the Commission denied the variance request and approved a sign code exception subject to conditions (Final Order No. 90-25 PC); and WHEREAS, this matter came before the City Council at its meetings of December 10, 1990, January 22, 1991, March 12, 1991, and June 25, 1991, upon the appeal of the applicant; and WHEREAS, the Council has reviewed the evidence related to the applicant's appeal. THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the requested appeal is DENIED and the Planning Commission decision is upheld based upon the facts, findings, conclusions, and conditions of approval noted in Exhibit "A" (Planning Commission Final Order No. 90-25 PC). The Council further orders that the City Recorder send a copy of this final order to the applicant as a notice of the final decision in this matter. PASSED: This day of March, 1991. Gerald R. Edwards, Mayor City of Tigard ATTEST: r Tigard City Recorder SCE 90-05.RES/rp RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 1 f EXHIBIT "A" i A. FACTS 1. General Information CASE: Sign Code Exception SCE 90-0005, Variance VAR 90-0027 REQUEST: Request to allow two freeway oriented freestanding signs where only one sign is permitted. Also requested is approval to retain one sign of approximately 1,180 square feet per sign face with a height of approximately 65 feet and a second sign of approximately 698 square feet per sign face with a height of approximately 69.75 feet where the Code specifies a maximum allowable sign area of 160 square feet per sign face and a maximum allowable height of 35 feet. APPLICANT: Greenhill Assoc., Ltd. Hal Hewitt 9999 SW Wilshire Portland, OR 97225 OWNER: H. E. Ferryman 9106 NE Highway 99 Vancouver, WA 98665 LOCATION: 15700 SW Upper Boones Ferry Road (WCTM 2S1 12DD Tax lots 100, 900, and 1100) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Commercial General ZONING DESIGNATION: C-G (Commercial General) 2. Background Information The existing Sherwood Inn motel and restaurant were constructed prior to annexation of the subject site and adjoining properties in 1976. Also in 1976, the City Planning Commission approved a Variance to allow the continued use of the existing signs that exceeded the City's size, and height requirements. In 1977, the City amended the sign code to reduce the maximum sizes FINAL ORDER 90-25 PC - SCE 90-0005/VAR 90-0027 FERRYMAN - PAGE 1 i i R t~ permitted and in 1978, a new 10 year sign amortization period was begun for those signs which did not conform with the new standards. The property owner was notified in 1988 that the two freeway oriented signs advertising Sherwood Inn and restaurant where were subject to the City's sign amortization program and that the signs would have to be brought into conformity with the sign code or a Sign Code Exception or Variance would have to be granted by the'City in order to retain the use of these signs. Site Development Review SDR 12-81 approved'expansion of the parking area in 1981. In March, 1990, the Planning Director granted Site Development Review approval (SDR 89-23/V 89-40) to expand the existing motel. One condition of approval required the resolution of the pending sign issue. Also in March 1990, Ken Fox of the City Attorney's office responded to the issue of the sign Variance granted by the City and its relationship to the following amendments of the City's sign code. Mr. Fox concluded that after the Variance was granted, the signs were regarded to be conformity with the code. However, after the City standards were amended to be more restrictive, they became nonconforming signs as did all other legal signs l which did not meet the new standards.. This current sign code exception and variance application was heard before the Planning Commission on October 16, 1990. The Planning Commission denied the sign code exception and variance as requested and approved an amended sign code exception with conditions. This decision was appealed to the City Council by the applicant and is the subject of this current review. Vicinity Information The subject property is located in the southwest quadrant of the intersection of I-5 and SW Upper Boones Ferry Road. Two service stations flank the driveway from SW Upper Boones Ferry Road to the Sherwood Inn. The service station properties are also zoned C-G. Properties to the north and west of the site are zoned I-P (Industrial Park). The Pacific Corporate Center subdivision is currently under development to the north across SW Upper Boones Ferry Road. The subdivision is presently vacant except for two buildings under construction along SW 72nd Avenue. The property to the west is part of the Oregon Business Park. The parcel immediately west of the subject site is currently developed with a children's day care FINAL ORDER 90-25 PC - SCE 90-0005/VAR 90-0027 FERRYMAN - PAGE 2 center and various industrial uses. To the south are other buildings within the Oregon Business Park which are developed with a variety of industrial uses and are zoned I-L (Light Industrial). The properties to the south and west of the site are approximately 20 to 30 feet lower in elevation than the subject site. 3. Site Information and Proposal Description The 2.5 acre site consists of three tax lots set back from Upper Boones Ferry Road by approximately 130 feet. A 40 foot wide accessway located between the neighboring service station parcels connects. the Sherwood Inn development to Upper Boones Ferry Road. The site abuts I-5 on the east. A number of mature Douglas fir trees are located between the motel and the freeway, both on the site and within the freeway's right-of-way. The site is approximately 20 to 30 feet higher than the developed portions of adjacent parcels to the west and south. The slopes between these parcels are covered with grasses, shrubs, and several small trees. The subject property is presently developed with the 56 unit, three story*Sherwood Inn motel, the single story 4,200 square foot restaurant, and paved parking for 135 autos. Access to the property is provided by a paved driveway shared with the adjacent service stations. The two nonconforming freestanding signs, which are the subject of this application, are located near the property boundary of -the adjacent service station parcels. The applicant proposes to retain the existing signs and states that it is appropriate for the City to continue to recognize the 1976 Variance approval. The Sherwood Inn sign is part of a larger sign structure that includes an oversize sign for the Chevron station. This application does not apply to the Chevron sign. The Chevron Corporation has been also notified of the sign amortization program and the City's requirement to bring this sign into conformity with the Code. An application from Chevron is anticipated in the near future. 4. Agency and NPO Comments The Engineering Division, State Highway Division, and the Building Division have no objection to the proposal. No other comments have been received. FINAL ORDER 90-25 PC - SCE 90-0005/VAR 90-0027 FERRYMAN - PAGE 3 i r l /f B. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS As proposed, a Variance is necessary to approve this proposal because this request proceeds beyond the basic Code requirements for number, height and size of signs, as well as the allowances that are available through the Sign Code Exception process; specifically, the Sign Code Exception process may permit up to a maximum of an additional 25 percent of sign area or height above that which is nomally permitted. Prior to the April 9th City Council meeting, the applicant offered an alternative proposal for approval; specifically, to retain only one 65 foot tall freestanding freeway oriented sign with a sign area of 1,194 square feet per face. The Variance criteria which are relevant are listed in Section 18.134.050 (A) of the Community Development Code: 1. The proposed variance will not be materially detrimental to the purpose of this title, be in conflict with the policies of the Comprehensive Plan, to any other applicable policies -and standards, and to other properties in the same zoning district or vicinity; 2. There are special circumstances that exist which are particular to the lot size or-shape, topography, or other circumstances which the applicant has no control and which are not applicable to other properties in the same ( zoning district; 3. The use proposed will be the same as permitted under this title and City standards will be maintained to the greatest extent that is reasonably possible while permitting some economic use of the land; 4. Existing physical and natural systems, but not limited to traffic, drainage, dramatic land forms, or parks will not be adversely affected anymore than would occur if the development were located as specified in this title; and 5. A hardship is not self imposed and the variance requested is minimum variance which would alleviate the hardship. The City Council finds that the proposal as requested is not consistent with the above variance criteria for the following reasons: 1. The purpose of the sign code and the sign amortization program is to reduce the amount of sign area and numbers of signs within the City limits in order to provide for an aesthetically pleasing environment. This proposal to retain the existing signs is not consistent with the intent of the Code because the applicant is requesting FINAL ORDER 90-25 PC - SCE 90-0005/VAR 90-0027 FERRYMAN - PAGE 4 CP° twice the number and approximately 12 times the total i~ sign area that would normally be permitted, in addition to an 85% increase in sign height above that which is normally allowed. The proposal is also not consistent with the sign programs which have been approved for other commercial properties in similar circumstances. The retention of signs this size would clearly be contrary to the purpose of the Code which is intended to "prevent proliferation of signs and sign clutter". However, this is not to say that additional sign area and/or height is not warranted. Toward this end, staff has investigated and presented a professional third-party recommendation as to the sign area necessary to achieve the applicant's purpose for this appeal. 2. There are no special circumstances with respect to this property which justify the continued use of two signs with orientation towards I-5. Vision of the property and the existing signs from I-5 is partially obstructed; however, the request to retain the number of signs, sign area, and sign height is not justified in this regard. The situation of Sherwood Inn and the restaurant is similar to many other freeway oriented businesses in Tigard and Tualatin. Many have less than perfect visibility from the freeway due to their distance from CL., the freeway, terrain, and trees. These businesses have dealt with this problem by utilizing informational signs provided by the State Department of Transportation. These blue signs indicate the specific businesses and or services that are available at the next exit. Sherwood Inn has the benefit of two such signs for southbound traffic. The first is located immediately south of the Highway 217 exit and it advertises Sherwood Inn and Chevron specifically. The second is located near the Bonita Road overpass and it indicates that gas, food, and lodging are available at the Upper Boones Ferry Road exit. With reference to topographic concerns which are specific to this site, additional sign height and sign area should be granted since visibility from I-5 to the property and the existing signs would be obstructed if the standard maximum height of 35 feet and standard sign area of 150 square feet per sign face was required. Whereas there is not sufficient justification for the allowance of two freestanding freeway oriented signs, one FINAL ORDER 90-25 PC - SCE 90-0005/VAR 90-0027 FERRYMAN - PAGE C~ 5 g `r freestanding freeway oriented sign should be permitted as allowed by code section 18.114.090(E). 3. The proposed signage greatly exceeds Code standards and therefore it is not the same as what would normally be permitted under this Code and the staff finds that this proposal would not maintain the Code to the extent reasonably possible. Conversly, staff has presented findings by The Bailey/Warner Group to demonstrate -the minimum sign area which would be necessary to achieve the intent of this application. 4. Existing physical and natural systems would not be affected by this proposal. 5. The hardship is not self imposed because the signs in question were erected legally and have become nonconforming and subject to the sign amortization program due to changes in applicable sign regulations. However, the variance is not the minimum deviation from Code requirements that would alleviate the hardship. Additional sign height should be granted since visibility from I-5 to the property and the existing signs would be obstructed if the standard maximum height of 35 feet was required. Based upon the testimony presented a Sign Code Variance allowing a sign height of / 65 feet is necessary for a sign to be visible from both directions l.- on I-5. An additional percent of the allowable sign area will yield a sign with square feet per face ( square feet for all sign faces combined). Because of the necessary height of the sign and the distance from I-5 and Upper Boones Ferry Road, this Variance is justified in order to ensure the sign's legiblity. C. DECISION The City Council REVERSES the Planning Commission's approval of SCE 90-0005 and APPROVES a Variance for additional sign area. The City Council also REVERSES the Planning Commission's denial of VAR 90- 0027 to allow for additional sign height and APPROVES a modified sign height Variance subject to the following conditions.: 1. The two nonconforming signs shall be removed by July 1, 1991. ` 2. Prior to erecting any signs, permits shall be issued by the Planning Division. STAFF CONTACT: Ron Pomeroy, Planning Division, 639-4171. FINAL ORDER 90-25 PC - SCE 90-0005/VAR 90-0027 FERRYMAN - PAGE 6 i r r k J f 3. One freeway oriented, freestanding sign with a maximum area of square feet per face and a maximum height of 65 feet shall be permitted. THIS APPROVAL SHALL BE EFFECTIVE ON AND AFTER THE 30TH DAY AFTER ITS PASSAGE BY THE COUNCIL, APPROVAL BY THE MAYOR AND POSTING BY THE RECORDER. THIS APPROVAL IS VALID IF EXERCISED WITHIN 18 MONTHS OF THE FINAL APPROVAL DATE NOTED BELOW. It is further ordered that the applicant be notified of the entry of this order. PASSED: By vote of all Council members present after being read by number and title only, this day of 1991. Catherine Wheately, City Recorder APPROVED: This day of April, 1991. C( Gerald R. Edwards, Mayor Approved as to form: City Attorney Date i SCE 90-05.PFO/kl Ordinance No. 91- FINAL ORDER 90-25 PC - SCE 90-0005/VAR 90-0027 FERRYMAN - PAGE C~ 7 e. r; 147 i:C , •i 1 a3 A?( Oregon Sign April 18, 1991 Mayor Edwards & Council Members .Municipal Bldg. 13125 S.W. Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 Ladies Gentlemen, As, a 'person. who has worked in and represented the sign industry f6r.::26 years, I have. been asked:':.to` provide:'--an independent analysis , for your. consideration : of _thesigning at.... the ..Sherwood -.-Inii-Restaurant, near the':•'I=5' Interchange with Boones'Ferry Road My -observation indicates z_.thes Motel & ;Restaurant. are identified by ' , it' }si'i 3~r ~two.x=aign `.structures;- 1) ;.One='.-which .is, approximately 65 feet,° in r. ; ;h'eight contains' the.=wo•rds Restauranth'& :'Motel';`' 2) ,The';, second structure in' addition to the Chevron:: sign also displays the' ;Sherwood >:Inii ._narae: These signs 'serve -two7= separate 'businesses j ~r , ;;1which are.:in fact-.located,` ons.Boones ~'.Fc y,,;Road "but;,dvhich; must `L4 jden~tify traffic because the market ;themselees ;to =the.,freeway ~ -I" rr Primaril to'. motorists': travelin . Y... " '.',i" ~l.•~:c..l %ii- M/ r 1. ggy .c ~yq :L ,t !L.IIy.LY 1•SY.• ~r~ !3,\r~Y.~~'~,~TF~Y~ r~ [`f`'wy r~e. r. N k.~ . , , $ 'i .6 s? p' ItA 3s~{ appareint~; that the height of~the principal ;sign' `cannot be ' . a giveni•ahe areas ` .reducednd?,'still; be'• seen 'by northbound ,traffic; £ xr'`topographical,differeiices'.and .°location of, the`' motel building xst `Y~ =5 Iunderstand the primary. concern * at , present, -~is:.'the ; area of the ?rs= sresulting from.':the;.'`size :'of.:the`•.:letters, ;:which<are z4 " approximately.:8;feet='in_;height: , I have ~watched::;.the` grodvth;vf:;the business `•in.-this.''area for "more.,,:thah., 5-Iears: •.Durin this period; it: has been apparent that the: evergreen trees.,:in:the'"area f . have ;'also`;°shown' considerable- increase in:.."size-:-to:, thex.point ,that : ter. thew obstruct `what.. would: otherwise e very.- readable signs for':-the• northbound trafficleaving only. a : small: amount "'of t; visual ` exposure:: for the traveling public z i<•~ 4644 S.E 17th • P.O. Box 42527 • Portland. OR 97242 • (503) 233-9971 :w The Jim Patti.sott Sign Group Following my observation, I concluded that if the trees were removed and there were no obstructions along the west side of I- 5, and if the sign letters were reduced to six feet in height and maintained a good bold design, they would be readable for the intended traveling motorist. Under the present visual environment, however considering the limited visibility created by the trees and topography, if the present size of the signs is reduced, readability, in my judgement would become difficult if not impossible for people. Very Truly, OREGON SIGN .W. Byzick Sales Manger, ' cc: Hal Hewitt t RWB/pb. _ .A c^ -4 f, n r , ' s~ J r' r~ a r1 : t i"r• t ~1. ii ..3 t - P e.K' y~ ? r. J t {y-•1 t S „;'r ~ 4' Stsy+ 't-. ~t t y~ < ; f a t I . t. lf~,. t ~ ' s Y •`t t Sr of i. ~ ~ • 1' 4/la ,l rGNSSNCE 4e3a a+E. P.etne sa..e P«u«a.or.aoo erz+3 (so3)282-4555 +s++ i April 23, 1991 Mr. Mayor & City Council Members City Hall Tigard, OR My name is Bob Pershing, and I am a Sales Representative for Ramsay Signs, Inc. at 4835 NE Pacific St., Portland, OR 97213. I have been working in the sign industry since 1965, and have worked on many projects of this nature. If I were to recommend a signing program for the SHERWOOD INN today, it would be based on the following information. According to industry standards, the recommended height of a letter is based on 50 ft of visibility per upright inch of the letter. Due to the nature of this project, this standard.can not be used. It would be my professional opinion that the let- ter should be increased by 50% due to the traffic congestion, blockage by trees and the 200 ft set back of the sign from the freeway. I feel the increase is necessary for safety reasons, to give the motorist time to safely manouverthe car into a position to exit at the off-ramp. My recommendation would be that an 8 ft letter be used for the RESTAURANT and MOTEL. Please remember that this is being read by people that are not familiar with this area, and their re. action time will be slower. Sincerely yours, RAMSAY SIGNS, INC. Robert E. Pershing Account Executive REP:sei 2oberl Bailey incorporated EO/ o - 0121 Southwesl 8ancwrl Suer Poltlona. Oregon 97201 ( 503 228.1381 . * may' f cjj(O Y l April 23, 1991 Mr. Ron Pomeroy City of Tigard 13125 S.W. Hall Boulevard Tigard, Oregon Dear Mr. Pomeroy, RE: SHERWOOD INN MOTEL AND RESTAURANT SIGNAGE The City of Tigard requested that Robert Bailey Incorporated make a visual survey of the Sherwood Inn property existing site signage in relationship to I-5 freeway, and how the existing signs relate to the Tigard sign code. RBI was also asked to make recommendations for signage required to support a motel at this location as if we had been commissioned by the Property Owner. FINDINGS: Distance: Recommended approximate viewing distances to text sizes, for legible text in daylight hours are 26 inches for 1/4 mile, 40 inches for 3/8 mile, provided there was good contrast between text color and background. As you are aware, the existing signs exceed this figure. Type Style: Regarding legibility, the existing signs are far from ideal. The text uses a condensed type face of a style that has very little negative space. This type style appears to have been used to ease fabrication of the neon tube. Color: Existing text is red; existing background is dark brovrn. Viewing: It appears that the signs were primarily-designed for night viewing. The existing sign-is illuminated with neon tube-and uses a dark night sky as a contrasting background. The sign is not ideal for daytime visibility as the text does not have a highly contrasting background color. On the enclosed drawings we are shovring information as requested by the City of Tigard; however.,•in designing a new sign for the Client, we would also take into account the following criteria. f • Provide adequate negative space around each letter form • Provide contrasting colors between letter forms and background. • Keep the number of images and/or words to a minimum, providing minimum reaction time. • Use the most easily understood messages in the sign (ie, motel not hospitality house). • Design the sign to have a quality, contemporary image not a Truck Stop image. r i F ( After reviewing the enclosed information and if we can be of any further assistance, please do not hesitate to call. Best regards, ROBERT BAILEY INCORPORATED Ian Harding Director of Environmental Graphics ±l J' 69.75 FEET EXISTING 65 FEET EXSTING > 50 FEET APPROVED VARIANCE r: SHERWOOD INN 12" TEXT HIGHT 35 FEET f TIGARD CITY CODE PER FACE RESTAURANT 160 MOTEL M 24° TEXT HIGHT ~A L;r}. iVr{';K; V SCALE V =10-9' CODE GRADE tt Fiom the Defp Aff- b: ~Hrt hlloy Incorporotsd .-.rte. _ . 69.75 FEET EXISTING 65 FEET EXISTING SHERWOOD INN 12" TEXT HIGHT 50 FEET APPROVED VARIANCE RESTAURANT 200 PER FACE 400 TOTAL MOTEL 30" TEXT HIGHT 35 FEET h> TIGARD CITY CODE X10 a AT 55 MPH REACTION TIME 1512 SECONDS AND DISTANCE TRAVELLED 151,056 FEET. ' -(1/4 MILE -1320 FEET) IF SIGN 15 VIEWED FROM 1/4 MILE, x' ~ TEXT NEEDS TO BE APPROX. 26 INCHES HIGH, 4 $y ,x REACTION TIME; FROM A MOVING CAR. THE TIME IT LAKES A DRIVER 70 SEE A DISPLAY, READ Its MESSAGE, AND RESPOND TO THAT • MESSAGE BY PREPARING A TURN. SCALE 1"=10'•0" GRADE VARIANCE From the Ouga OH'rAi~mrt Bogey incorporated c 1- Z I- W H W w z w LLI U W p U- p ~ u < " n s 1 Q U W Be 1 .x:: 5yi0::Y;:.r.:':~:. • Y ~'.u?.,..:. Sr LTvi' 4:,9' -g f :~.J•~:YG. ~Y : .'ti.:.:iL%'.:.. :•^:;;..:w .::.?}.:.fitft~:.i;J.i:..s::.L::.:}.7i,.x:.'.W~:G4~:...,:.:.x'~.: AtR~: Y.::.:-.,. *~f.:dSE:;.: -o o ~ f o z L 55} +£i ~'/.-.+5:5?•y. y5~?>.r:.?5~:'?:xr'i:~<;:;':vc'- f sY ke S,v:e`^?:5~?5y>r..-?'•9.kk5.k~`.YQk}: F .S v}:'i:~2:i:::r?'~'n ~.%£`k: ':;>r::.isy::.''.~~'t..kx>::.SC..~.y:..t-•:::r.~:::::-: :li:~:}S:: .:5':~.'..k^:i5{?f,.;VLd :S'ji.:^.:iixy'F.: •::3.n :}L{.}r;,}.:.}{ kko: £>•.L.:.,tJ,°.LV}:} 4::?:.:.:5.!>^ctxL,-:.t:: nk pSJU }.,rtt;c?tYtYvxs?in.;;i<.}r ~k: ,d ~ etr.:-t>};r'kYt' ~ x _ W 0 8 E E v: ...::vii: ;L: kC:ik rx•}ti. J..S v5A^. ,..i n:}}: nv: i•?~i:^ \ <iv$:-...... C . , OiiS': - }yk5:c;x -;.k.}Y. J;Si.. :4.,• :.L.Y}::• i£•k ±Jx;::n:~ ~ 5t:.} ; Lx LJY-: ^.J Un ~~jj Ju;~}5'-5 J. ::tikkC \}i:\i~ .J CIO .<:?;5}5}:nv.:....: x: w::::::5'}5.•55.ji'-:y5}:i;v'i•:v}: . :v::::-v•:::}i}...:.::.:555:;}:v}}': J}5i5. v:•:v}: C;uJ':tiiY,J^: i.. v..~ ::•:.i 1 i::'vti!}55iF::kkk::'Lv?'iv;;:::J}i}S:Lk.}•;:L. LU ff W t f w~ WZ w~ o U- LL. w ~ o v at d >?:i>. T+': h.~~~rt: ..f.~'vn+t }~(•r.+A:Y.~:,. .gin .qri -04~F~(> re; v v x'r'~S'.vvi?{. ~.}~Y'+ ~'.>::+'rvl art':"'ikH.Y1' N: ,5 .3. {.S' :.{hi?'~:: ''{i'kS:.v\ ii~,'r.C~-+•ryvCiw%~.3ri'I'l 11 ~:anQ.L,,Y: ~o W r--- z y d/ 0 .v k~i` ik'ru?' v".?i^•ti'3:Ct: ;s3nk..,,.>7. N ' ,iQry .'ia: N k r;c,> :iJ9ut>i 'i`%?i+';;'iiik+' ~_it:w?,]. , t .y S . g..,><>.r,~`-:~~i:,>]%:.r..'z~`4..':^ ~'%~s ~i ?~Yi~'•> ?f3": sue] F4~' a a>`•>'?^kc~' ~ sac .~i:k~: Q G 4J~ Q 0 a ki+Q > '3,.ii::iC:::,xc<k:.u'•k}ik::>%>:~iv=:v '~,:F".kv'•^5.{.. vii(... w9tMt :r. t'{.,w 'vy;}: d:.; ir.Yk:,°]'." a}v ]rRa: nr:^}'•:::\`-•,:.. 3riY?:~?i{i':"i~S`;`?n%ri+><::.' ~ inS:: .ttz}, .,>~*et.,,~•:,~;;r~tii-~s4+k .Mz".tkt:.:..,..,:<'.~x-aD:.,.,'S+x.. ...a:.;^~.. ..t.3, .z~€}."s::.,...{ `J'+.:.''kk}r }+i{d{;C>. >}S> : vv'•••.1'ii:,`vk'{]>%.2il:i~'5~:~;:{,St vf$v2:::2 v:.`J v:- +,~{\:C::? ?Y.~ffrif•.'L:i 'v~'+n h+:..n+•.L: ~T:k$A-: x.>.....:>,,.;:c:i:<'~.,......;x....t:x??.:..., .................z.........,..:.....:....,~~~'...,~. r.+ri?..>.,.tot.~e•:c.....:..:::::.}i:zA~::k >:.:,+.ark.........~`:,:;:....: :i{::iii ~k<<:ai:k:{t•%sisi?•zr'::z::iii>::;;;;?:kk:s::%t>:>:>¢,i>>s-»k::k:r:r•si~~ . A»3. t%5~:::or:% >,Y }ik;~i~ ;;;CL+;":::;is:i::>~::. v :ice'>G:v. :•ti}:•:.+SS'.:+ v:: :v::.... •ti4:>:k:::?:•{tii:i$.?]»::'::.; . t.i>::.v •M~k >:iuvi::i{i:?p>:? .................:..........:w:.............:.::::::A:::...:::::. _.::..v:....k~.ka};k^?i..•:. s. .,Y?,{x::{:%}:}i3.:....t,. +C: v::::..:>]:?k:]:i]:??:}::i>::i::>`.:i 3>:...: w ` Q ) Yi Wz wz f.. W I- Lu Q< WV wp Qw U. < LL. Liz U- < LL U)o ~Yx, W. 11,4 %9w en~ O 3 CV > < O < xrt•t:•t;::t5oi:;•r~::varr.:t~i::;:a;:f;:~»: ~tt?~axo~,p»:26to:t;~t~f+:+• r:,-rti»:L~l;:::}};ti}}•,;::.}::;•.rral a:; c:;Y}# Syxti SLR:} }:..rit~LS..LL'a; s- g'--gg?1#r#jti„ti <'c,L O:LLS.i::.xy:;r{r yeti 2tL.}}L'L:. It ~(;4;L: r..~'.:;Yt: ~..aulf . `%•,/LLX} r ..i«:. .u: f.w ft,:.. r>yr F,'r ..r.. : ':trM.riit..:/ a^.: t •e?~''.l . ~~rvrtt.s::.}:#tt,:x.}C#•',~i%v'•r.:.~:rtff,: ':_.',:,'r.LL...•~Kt..}}r.:t~<r:?}~tl':•x:»>;~:.«:J:.•3..!«t.:~~ z Q LU 0 CC L v p LLI N ~a C~ 0 Y'S'J,>%I.'~ ..#J{k}ti#iv}.jY,}::Y;#f''}.2}nc}lX}';»iKf:JR::':'':'•y#9ti:'•#rii#t:Y;~:i:# r: ):#$:Y;::sS~.t' •f:'i#}`'Y:iii'••<?L#7.o».F:yLi'u"-:6~#9F#,?9%#:LY' ~ k. D : .,.:}.^,.tiv:::::;;u:,.,,{,. }:}l.~»:lhd•:::;';i:ti:<::': ~ : ~ii7•:+ Yfi>cr: i:::: , ......:........o.......l..n:.;.:...:::..................................:::.:...:.......:.....r.:: }:tLL:.:::_ :.r;~:ifLL.:L....:.:........::n~...i~;X~:::L:.t...'.,.:: G. O s 0 V .Q 8 E L .roi.;i: :;...1.-::a:r::ci:::i; ...,.ice L::o}: t:;l;:;.r.:~.}}r::•i: :}:if;:.:. r;: ^a, ';:`<#o:~i. ..f}} : } . '-?ii<:#:;,•r.';>::YY;:i~>Y,:: ;>'Y>is>''•$:i# 'vz::::o'.`: ".:X:ci: :3.;:oti:`.::1:.,:#firr:#:.: Y:;:}>:Y:`i`#`~::::t::y:-_h..uw:t.. ::l:k;•.+c-}: X..yi..r::•:.::}: ~.z:r F.,::t; ator:. n~~}::;u tL•:.L^: ,~Y: ':':r 6:•. :.x , r:::nvnic'.i}: i;. x} rYt~i}`.ij}::L::;x.f ...::....1:..•.. l: ^C..1......hJ...:. ./.}:o}i::::i?.Jeii::`.;•:';i:l:}:.'L,.,::;} ::......:..:.,,v::::: r,v::.,,v: nv: n n,....:::.....-.......v.:}.....w:::.~:......L. nv: nv:t iy!:i:i.......... n.: n................w...x................. Ada Adlmbft~ LU { O 1 4R ~ ~ S E LLZ ti.l z z U~ WU WCp D to LL. tai. 0 LL < LL V d~ ~j ttc) p U LL W O OL l9 l~ ~ ~ 'r1•<: •;yr•: o;rr ' 'xo:-•r:: rrs:~s'y»zy.~ .s;k,~.:,::; ~•:.•rv;,~ 'fF.::•-szx•;x:. C., { k.k ~ ~ ~{t k kF # nnYr t ik3#a ia3 ~ • Y.#~, r xrosw,-G FF t ~f ~ t t ; ~ ~ ;1 r ,s:. ,.:•,ks..;`.' ® ~ . c wsFtxk:<...~ ,c « . A,v..~,Y.utc §•t. K G,. . .w.,.F:tw.,R .:..::.....::cs:::::.•:i.:..:::.:..: .i..t.:: ~.F. ,i,w:.: ..:tco➢.~h... .......u:?r.....:. F:4.;t;:>..:. C 4 o CD M ~ z 0 0 xoF:o,{;~,:•irr• ' :~.i::ix:'t+' :ei +E:..;r. {c;:.,v.: .f.:L-.{'%u.,r:-. :?.•:::{:s:.:. pv i~ tii;:i:'t% k':., c%t.. FF•,•CF . ~ •W :-rs+SFx...-:~~.<,. ::a;::,.... ;~~St : yet;:.:,.:..,: T , -.....t....,...:.. :nt•F:::i-sw.rto.....f.........o.xia..:xt-s:.:.::«i< .:.............:..............................:.«...rr:.:.:.>.......:.:::...: x; :<:<...: :....:.;.::..s.,:... ~ _ U CO) E ..ic-'.:i:: ,:.::.v -aka;.~,.,::.~.:...;.;:?4':-,'','.':>i:£"~~;:: i1{:r.:•;::irNrr.::.iiri::ii:::~Y.kkS: Firi{ij}±;Y~i iyrjF irri:::`vtr:<:~'-rrii::^:i> .v'.\U:k::.:::-:-.-yii'i•:i'H'-i £r'~~:~; it,•'s.::ouiti<.:+.tsnr:;'::;::.r+::.: rt'%..:.:..:. ~,.x.:.•.:::{.+.?. ,C. yyyv -:i..::.i•;.<-.:+:<,:;-x:;,:,-:..v:,.~::.:.::.,,..,,: :......::.....,.........:....:...f.:..4....,4:-j~:.: .v:,-ro.:,.>:t?+,;L::is:<::.:~:::::..v..n:-:<.::x:..:•....;.:::s:::::.v:.::.. a't;:: s:$s:.?;.;:.:::;<:."~ A....set........:...:....,......................v............................... s............:.........:..:v:.:.: C4 LU 0 II W II Iv Wz wz x~< wu wILI o 0 1 IL LL . U- < LL CM to ~ ~w ~W Z~< C, o LL w oz s Q 9 F h Y ...:•::..;:;:-Tr.T.rrxr•i.T:: :...a ;xii:~:RwTx:~'1 b"•:;.'<T, -',i':.i{ui-3x 'tii,•}%:i..~T.S^ T:iT :%i r: "ii{Y%{l>C:.2:'..'.i:i~:\S:!i2J:~(:iri:%f(n .n Fe: 34TSMFii .i h:~ ~~~S.:jn':(¢2i~?r•::H.s.4:.:{un..:: r:infi v: n^: AT:: rrr:;~,<,rr{:.,.:.:r:.:-vr:r:.-,u::: ''{.vii `?•':y;`:::>x' -n~ii~:i.r$j.:.iY'r~: Y.jcF`.oa flv~,`TdC:i f•Qw w.;,•;.i-rims, r} fi'<.,•: •iii,.<:.;i:_: •-'ix; .i. `z:`^~%`;'-:irytr.`~'-%•x°:z:^a>:/'~T~i~>%4=i'u-,..ii?#£i£{ii„-rfac'i-1.•.~tr'~,~:o.,:`r'.~-S:;`•wis-:c;-.:~,:a.,;o.{r:n.?-:".n:.<:::ti~:':a: vN~>i~S:fin£:~•.{av....r. :,ii..,.rT::..:rr:..:,:n:...:::.:. (MCC ® o 0 o a t~ r > :r,•.rr:'<i :.-YR: c?i'.$ "`ii=•<<:;kS~G:'~X2--:::'•"i:.:gROM 9%, -'a: vx?.-, ..-ir ;'.^"-`;::r>.r:;?:i%£:;<'i'`;•;x>.'~<>:<:.:,~::::. .$RYMoY c~~T3m: cr. coo ':•,,•%ii-r..,`•`r,.:i o.>»::'.~.aT:•s.,o,rT. r::fr::::;>:.>T:-;T: io>:.TT£.r::>::,:::>„`.:.;fi?irrr i:.h~...,T ~ o E ;ti.>::isR.:r-;::b:•:c;T;T,i~:brs•:T>:;?•,: S, y~ ::T.. v ,R:-•...:. v~'~ ~ {{:.,?tiiih;tiv;n}::xxiv% T. . >%tivn. Now ow T:i :;T>:.:->::: T::;::r' b>Ti::ii:,:T:::x:;R:;:isxi»;;x:?:>;;:<;::::,...::::o;T+r.•:i;_;:>::xTr,•',•';L::?;::~:o:2i:`:ic:.:::::i:: ui I II W 1 (3 W w wZ wZ u wo 0 LL onol LLa U- o~ oz tq~ / LLI w w 3 t~~))) U WX to cl a 1 ltn0 > < C F l li ita:?: ice:%?ij:;:$! '$${ri r•~+% .~f!$':Ilr;Lx: ;.vi^:i;?2• tvnv- y.:•:.r$i<;tr o a L LLJ LLI Z o m to a COD G JY Q O C L r CD CD M a' W ~Q CD - 3 iv::+c-:i.,ra:.:' .u e }.a:$::':;ri.;.:~•v;;>:;;..?icr}r:->:??<.:c$,r::: rtr-:;::$%:;$,. LAJ W i Y ~ ~ r • .Y.r. nu ~,xt SNOwN A't A0INGHES ov E~ s~ H~,A ETA ,pERFPGE MOTEL 493.73 ~ FS (030a SHE t. PER FAGS 330.67 ~ F ETA ~E oov SHE best ►tkA~1T W eStBr EST FT. pER FAG logo 653.07 5a Imo Betsy _ 4fOmlhlOeuC MINN i S SHERWOOD INN SIGN COMPARISON CHART `?/Z 3/ql U CURRENT SIGNAGE' WHAT THE CODE PLANNING APPLTCANT-OS ;STAFF.. ALLOWS cowass ~S PROPOSAL RECOMMENDATION D$CSS10 "RESTAURANT" One Freeway-oriented One Freeway-oriented One Ir xe? One Free 790/face 160 sq ft/face 200 sq. ft./face 1170 sq.. ft./face, 653 sq. ft/face 65 ft. high. 35 ft. high 50 ft. high (actually 1035) 65 ft. high ® 7 yrs. to comply 1 yr. to comply 70 ft high? "MOTEL" One Freestanding 390/face 70 sq. ft./face 20 ft. high "SHERWOOD INN" 348/face 69.75 ft. high "BEST WESTERN" LOGO 54/face 1 side only 1,582 br/chart.mst / 5 cc / . r CITY OF TIGARD Washington County, Oregon NOTICE OF FINAL ORDER - BY HEARINGS OFFICER 1. Concerning Case Number(s):SUB 91-0008 2. Name of Owner: Various owners r Name of Applicant: Four D Construction 3. Address PO Box 1577 City Beaverton State OR Zip 97075 4. Address of Property: South side of SW Walnut Street, south and east Of SW 116th Avenue. Tax Map and Lot No(s).: 2S1 3AC tax lots 400, 501, 900, & 1000 5. Request: A request for Subdivision approval to divide an approximately 4.53 acre site into 19 parcels ranging between 7,500 and 10,300 s are.feet in size. ZONE: R-4.5 Residential 4.5 units acre 6. Action: Approval as requested X Approval with conditions Denial 7. Notice: Notice was published in the newspaper, posted at City Hall, and mailed to: X The applicant and owner(s) X Owners of record within the required distance X The affected Neighborhood Planning Organization X Affected governmental agencies 8. Final Decision: THE DECISION SHALL BE FINAL ON July 24, 1991 UNLESS AN APPEAL IS FILED. The adopted findings of fact, decision, and statement of conditions can be obtained from the Planning Department, Tigard City Hall, 13125 SW Hall, P.O. Box 23397, Tigard, Oregon 97223. 9. Appeal: Any party to the decision may appeal this decision in accordance with 18.32.290(B) and Section 18.32.370 which provides that a written appeal may be filed within 10 days after notice is given,and sent. The appeal may be submitted on City forms and must be accompanied by the appeal fee ($315.00) and transcript costs (varies up to a maximum of $500.00). The deadline for filing of an appeal is 3:30 p.m. July 24, 1991 10. Ouestions: If you have any questions, please call the City of Tigard t Planning Department, 639-4171. C bkm/SUB91-08.BKM 1 f t BEFORE THE LAND USE HEARINGS OFFICER FOR THE CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON In the matter of an application by Four D Construction ) FINAL ORDER for approval of a preliminary plat for a 19-lot subdivision ) for land south of Walnut Street and west of Tiedeman ) SUB 91-0008 Avenue in the City of Tigard, Oregon ) (Walnut Grove) I. SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST The applicant requests approval of a preliminary plat to subdivide 4.53 acres into a 19 lot subdivision. Proposed lots comply with dimensional requirements of the R-4.5 zone. The applicant will dedicate and improve a road south from Walnut Street aligned to connect with future development to the southwest. All lots will have at least 25 feet of frontage on this street. Only 20% of the proposed lots are oriented to provide solar access; the orientation of other lots is dictated by the existing street pattern. City staff recommended approval of the subdivision subject to conditions. The applicant accepted the recommended conditions of approval. Three area residents testified with concerns about storm water drainage, a creek south of the site, trees on the site, and traffic. The Hearings Officer concludes the subdivision should be approved, and the conditions recommended by staff are required to comply with the law and warranted by the facts. LOCATION: South of SW Walnut Street and about 475 feet west of Fowler Junior High School; WCTM 2S 1 3AC Tax lot 400, and a portion of tax lots 501, 900 and 1000 APPLICANT: Four D Construction Company PROPERTY OWNERS: Norman, Ethel and Lois Gerlach; Jacob and Marjorie Lorenz; Madeira Laub; Fred and Loretta Parish. SITE AREA: About 4.53 acres APPLICABLE LAW: Community Development Code Ch. 18.50, 18.88, 18.92, 18.102, 18.108, 18.114, 18.150, 18.160, and 18.164 and Comprehensive Plan policies 2.1.1, 4.2.1, 7.1.2, 7.3.1, 7.4.4, 8.1.1, and 8.1.3 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Conditionally approve EXAMINER'S DECISION: Conditionally approved II. FINDINGS ABOUT SITE AND SURROUNDINGS A. Site size and shape The site is an irregularly-shaped parcel about 808 to 605 feet north-south and 220 to F 410 feet east-west. It contains about 4.53 acres. B. Site location : The site is situated on the south side of SW Walnut Street about 475 feet west of Fowler Junior High School. Page I - Hearings officer decision SUB 91-0008 (Walnut Grove) a. k• t r C. Existing uses and structures : The subdivision site is occupied by a single family dwelling. D. Proposed uses and structures : 1. The applicant proposes to divide the site into 19 lots. Proposed lots contain from 7500 square feet to about 10,300 square feet. The average lot size is about 8214 square feet. Proposed lots have an average width of at least 65 feet and an average depth of at least 85 feet. A single family detached dwellings will be built on each proposed lot. 2. Access will be provided by a public road that roughly splits the site into east and west halves. The road intersects SW Walnut Street to the north and terminates at the southwest edge of the site, from which point it can be extended west to serve future development. See also finding 111 Storm drainage will be provided principally to a creek south of the site. See finding H.F. E. Existing and proposed vegetation : The majority of the site is covered in grasses and weeds. Deciduous and conifer trees are located principally at the north and south edges of the site. Remaining trees are scattered over the balance of the site. The applicant has identified existing trees on a survey superimposed over the preliminary plat. The applicant will have to remove 3 fir trees in the proposed road right of way. The exact number of trees to be removed will depend on the design of the storm system and homes to be placed on individual lots. r The Hearings Officer assumes that the applicant will use vegetation and other means to minimize the potential for erosion during construction, and that owners of lots will landscape those lots after they build homes on them. F. Topography and drainage : 1. The site slopes generally to the south and southwest. Storm water flows by gravity following the topography to a creek near the site's southern boundary. 2. The applicant submitted a preliminary drainage plan (see sheet 2 of 4 in the application). Storm water will be directed to inlets in the street on the site. Inlets in the north part of the street will carry storm water to a ditch along SW Walnut Street. The applicant will regrade the ditch as part of required road improvements. An inlet at the south end of the street will carry storm water southeast through an easement between lots 8 and 9 to discharge into the creek to the south. 3. The site does not contain flood plain, based on the US Army Corps of Engineers flood plain maps, and does not contain wetlands, based on the USFWS National Wetlands Inventory and maps prepared for the City by Scientific Resources, Inc. G. Plan designation and zoning : The site and adjoining land to the northeast are designated Low Density Residential on the Tigard Comprehensive Plan Map. The site and land to the northeast are zoned R- 4.5 (Residential, 4.5 units per acre). The adjoining land to the east, south and west is in Washington County and is zoned R-6, (Residential, 6 units per acre). l Page 2 - Hearings Officer decision SUB 91-0008 (Walnut Grove) f i H. Public services and utilities 1. The site can be served by public sewer and water systems from existing lines located about 500 feet north of the site, if those lines are extended as the applicant plan, subject to the engineering division's review and approval. 2. The applicant proposes to extend the public sewer south from tax lot 500 north of the site via a public easement. City staff recommends that the sewer line be situated at least 7.5 feet from the edge of the easement and that no laterals connect to manholes. The line under SW Walnut Street should be located in the center of the road, and a plan should show how access to the manholes outside the right of way will be achieved. 3. The site can be served by the Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue District, Tigard Water District, Northwest Natural Gas, General Telephone, and Portland General Electric. Tualatin-Tigard School District 23-J responds that its capacity has been reached as a result of this and other developments. The School District may increase capacity by various means mentioned in the staff report. L Streets and access : 1. The north side of the site has about 220 feet of frontage on SW Walnut Street, a major collector street. It has a 20-foot asphaltic concrete surface between drainage ditches. The applicant will dedicate an additional 13-foot half-width for future widening of SW Walnut Street but does not plan to improve the street frontage. a. City Staff originally recommend the applicant make the frontage improvements necessary to comply with County road standards. b. However, at the hearing in this matter, City Engineer Chris Davies pointed out that the street is under Washington County jurisdiction. The County prepared a traffic study and concluded frontage improvements are not required at this time. Therefore, the City Staff amended the recommendation to delete requirements for frontage improvements and to require the applicant to execute a covenant not to remonstrate against formation of a local improvement district to improve the road. 2. The applicant proposes to dedicate and improve land for a local public street on the site. The street will extend about 750 feet south from Walnut Street. It will curve west to a dead end at the southwest edge of the site. A small "eyebrow" will be created along the street. The street will be improved to local street standards with a 34-foot paved section in a 50-foot right of way between curbs and sidewalks. The applicant submitted a proposed cross section for the street, but it does not comply with City road standards. 3. There is a 20-foot right of way section for about 200 to 300 feet along the west boundary of the site. That right of way is not needed to provide access or circulation. The applicant plans to ask the City to vacate the right of way. J. Surrounding land uses : Northeast of the site is a single family detached dwelling. Land to the east is undeveloped. The remaining surrounding land has large lot single family detached dwellings. Fowler Junior High School is about 475 feet east of the site. Page 3 - Hearings Oj cer decision SUB 91-0008 (Walnut Grove) III. APPLICABLE APPROVAL. STANDARDS A. Community Development Code. 1. Chapter 18.50 contains standards for the R-4.5 zone. A single family detached residential unit is a permitted use in the zone. Lots in the zone and structures on those lots must comply with the following dimensional requirements: Minimum lot size 7500 square feet Average minimum lot width 50 feet Front setback 20 feet Interior side setback 5 feet Street side setback ......................15 feet= feet for a garage Rear setback .............................15 feet Maximum building height 30 feet 2. Chapter 18.88 contains solar access standards. a. A lot complies with this section if it has a north-south dimension of 90 feet or more, and has a front lot line that is oriented within 30 degrees of a true east-west axis (basic design standard); or if a protected solar building line is designated on the plat or on recorded documents with the plat; or if certain performance-oriented standards are imposed on future development. A subdivision complies with this section if 80% or more of the proposed lots comply with one or more of these standards. b. Section 18.88.040(E) (Adjustments to Design Standards) states that the approval authority shall reduce the percentage of lots that must comply with Section 18.88.040(C) (Design Standards) to the minimum extent necessary if it finds the applicant has shown compliance with the basic design standard would reduce density, significantly increase development cost, or eliminate amenities or if shade from existing trees already obstructs solar access for a given lot. 3. Chapter 18.92 contains standards for density. The number of dwelling units permitted is based on the net development area, excluding sensitive land areas and land dedicated for public roads or parks. To determine the number of lots, multiply the net development area by the number of units allowed per acre in the zone. If sensitive lands on a site cannot be developed, then the density from that area can be transferred to elsewhere on the site. 4. Chapter 18.102 requires that adequate visibility be provided at road intersections. 5. Chapter 18.108 provides standards for safe access. A single family dwelling is required to have a driveway with a minimum pavement width of 10 feet. 6. Chapter 18.114 contains sign regulations. A subdivision can have one permanent free-standing sign with up to 32 square feet per sign face at each entry. r 7. Chapter 18.150 requires a permit and contains standards for removal of trees having a trunk 6 inches or more in diameter 4 feet above the ground on undeveloped land. A permit for tree removal must comply with the following criteria: l a. The trees are diseased, present a danger to property, or interfere with utility Page 4 - Hearings Officer decision SUB 91-0008 (Walnut Grove) i f t 3 { 0 i service or traffic safety; b. The trees have to be removed to construct proposed improvements or to otherwise utilize the applicant's property in a reasonable manner, c. The trees are not needed to prevent erosion, instability, or drainage problems; d. The trees are not needed to protect nearby trees as windbreaks or as a desirable balance between shade and open space; e. The aesthetic character in the area will not be visually adversely affected by the tree removal; and f. New vegetation planted by the applicant, if any, will replace the aesthetic value of trees to be cut. 8. Chapter 18.160 contains standards for land divisions. To be approved, a preliminary plat must comply with the following criteria: a. It must comply with the City's comprehensive plan and the applicable zoning ordinance and other applicable ordinances and regulations; b. The proposed plat name is not duplicative or otherwise satisfies the provisions of ORS Chapter 92; c. The streets and roads are laid out so as to conform to the plats of subdivisions and maps of major partitions already approved for adjoining property as to width, general direction and in all other respects unless the City determines it is in the public interest to modify the street or road pattern 9. Chapter 18.164 contains standards for streets and utilities. a. Section 18.164.030(A) requires streets within and adjoining a development to be dedicated and improved based on the classification of the street. However, subsection C provides that the City may accept a future improvement guarantee in lieu of improvements if it "is unlikely that street improvements would be extended in the foreseeable future and the improvement associated with the project under review does not, by itself, provide a significant improvement to street safety or capacity." b. Section 18.164.030(E) requires a local street to be improved with a minimum 34-foot paved section between curbs and sidewalks in a 50-foot right of way. c. Section 18.164.060 prohibits lot depth from being more than 2-1/2 times the lot width and requires at least 25 feet of frontage on a street. d. Section 18.164.070 requires sidewalks adjoining all local residential streets. e. Section 18.164.090 requires sanitary sewer service. f. Section 18.164.100 requires adequate provisions for storm water runoff and dedication of easements for storm drainage facilities. Page 5 - Hearings Officer decision SUB 91-0008 (Walnut Grove) 6 t B. Applicable Comprehensive Plan Policies. 1. Policy 2.1.1 provides the City will assure citizens will be provided an opportunity for be involved in all phases of the planning process. 2. Policy 4.2.1 provides that all developments within the Tigard Urban Planning Area shall comply with applicable federal, state and regional water quality standards. 3. Policies 7.1.2, 7.3.1 and 7.4.4 provide the City will require as a condition of development approval that public water, sewer, and storm drainage will be provided and designed to City standards and utilities placed underground. 4. Policy 8.1.1 provides the City will plan for a safe and efficient street and roadway system that meets current needs and anticipated future growth and development. 5. Policy 8.1.3 provides the City will require as a precondition of approval that: a. Development abuts a dedicated street or has other adequate access; b. Street right of way shall be dedicated where the street is substandard in width; c. The developer shall commit to construction of the streets, curbs and sidewalks to City standards within the development; d. The developer shall participate in the improvement of existing streets, curbs, and sidewalks to the extent of the development's impacts; e. Street improvements shall be made and street signs or signals shall be provided when the development is found to create or intensify a traffic hazard. IV. HEARING, TESTIMONY, AND NPO & AGENCY COMMENTS A. Hearing. The examiner received testimony at the public hearing about this application on June 24, 1991. A record of that testimony is included herein as Exhibit A (Parties of Record), Exhibit B (Taped Proceedings), and Exhibit C (Written Testimony). These exhibits are filed at the Tigard City Hall. B. Summary of testimony. 1. Ron Pomeroy testified for the City and summarized the staff report. Chris Davies testified for the City about roads and drainage. Mr. Davies testified storm water discharged to the creek south of the site is treated as part of the public storm water system; SW Walnut Street is in the City limits, but is under County jurisdiction. He recommended against requiring the applicant to improve Walnut Street. 2. David De Harpport testified for the applicant. He accepted the recommendations of staff as modified. He stated that Washington County prepared a traffic impact study , and will accept an agreement in lieu of improvements to that street; that proposed drainage will not adversely affect downstream properties; that lots along the creek are very long to provide a 25-foot buffer, and that measures will be taken to control erosion. He also submitted a written statement dated June 19 that raises other issues. Page 6 - Hearings Officer decision SUB 91-0008 (Walnut Grove) { r 3. Mr. Gaarde, Mr. Raburn, and Delena Carpenter testified with the following concerns: a. The creek behind the site will be adversely affected from increased flows due to the development. b. Mr. Gaarde asked what the difference is between a public and private storm system; when the surrounding area would be annexed; how would natural storm water runoff be directed; ands who would improve and maintain SW Walnut Street. He also expressed concern about traffic safety on SW Walnut Street. He stated there have been 3 accidents along the street in the last 4 years. Mr. Rabum testified that SW Walnut Street was not safe, noting that he has lost 4 mailboxes due to vandalism and/or traffic accidents along the street. c. Ms. Carpenter was concerned about drainage engineering and whether the off- site right of way would be developed. C. NPO and Agency Comments. 1. The City Engineering Division recommended that the applicant improve SW Walnut Street as part of its development, but modified that recommendation to allow the applicant to submit a performance guarantee in lieu of improvement. They also recommended that the applicant amend the proposed pavement section for the new public street to comply with local standards in terms of thickness and road crown location and submit a plan for the logical extension of the local street. They also recommended that an existing 20-foot right of way along the west boundary of the site should be vacated prior to preliminary plat approval; however, they modified that recommendation to require vacation before the final plat is approved. 2. The Unified Sewerage Agency recommended fees in-lieu of an on-site water quality facility, because the applicant did not propose an on site water quality facility and numerous small site facilities would be a future maintenance problem for the City. 3. The City Building Division commented that a building demolition permit must be obtained prior to removing existing structures. The septic tank should be pumped and completely removed A receipt verifying pumping from the pumping company should be provided and the former tank site inspected A report indicating soil building suitability and bearing capacity should be submitted along with a plan indicating any proposed site fill. The lots should be graded to a maximum slope of 2:1 or a report submtted by an engineer justifying a steeper slope, to include foundation excavation slope and fill. If private storm drains are created, easements should be provided where the drains cross other lots, and a maintenance agreement should be executed by the owners of the lots served by the private system. 4. The Fire District recommends provision of adequate fire hydrants coordinated and approved by the Water District. 5. Tualatin-Tigard School District noted the capacity of the school system is exceeded and core facilities are insufficient to consider portable classroom additions. The District notes the options it has to accommodate additional children. 6. The Tigard Operations Department commented the street base should be 7 inches r and 2 inches, and the asphalt should be 3-1/2 inches thick. Page 7 - Hearings Officer decision SUB 91-0008 (Walnut Grove) i t V. EVALUATION OF REQUEST A. Compliance with Community Development Code. 1. The proposed lots comply with the use standards of the R-4.5 zone, because they will be used for single family detached dwelling units. The lots comply with the dimensional standards of the R-4.5 zone, because they each contain at least 7500 square feet and a minimum average lot width of 50 feet. 't'herefore, the subdivision complies with Chapter 18.50. 2. The proposed subdivision complies with Section 18.88 because: a. Lots 8 through 13 meet the basic design standard of a 90-foot north-south lot dimension and front lot line oriented within 30' of a true east-west line. b. None of the other lots meet the basic design standard. However, an adjustment is wan-anted pursuant to Section 18.88.440(E), because the proposed internal road must be continued north-south through the site. Compliance with the basic design standard would conflict with the planned street pattern, reduce the permitted number of lots, and substantially increase per unit costs of development. 3. The proposed subdivision complies with the density standards of Chapter 18.92, because the net developable area of the site divided by 4.5 units per acre equals 20.8 lots and only 19 lots are proposed. 4. The proposed subdivision can comply with Chapter 18.102, because there are no natural sight distance constraints at road intersections, and the Hearings Officer assumes frontage lot setback requirements will be adhered to. A sign at the entry to the subdivision could obstruct visibility. However, such a sign requires a permit from the City, and the Hearings Officer assumes the City will not issue such a permit will if it violates sight distance regulations. 5. The proposed subdivision complies with Chapter 18.108, because all lots have at least 30 feet of frontage on a public street and adequate width drives can be built in each frontage. 6. Chapter 18.114 establishes standards for sizes and locations of signs. Such sign(s) require a permit from the City, and cannot exceed 32 square feet per side. The Hearings Officer assumes the City will require compliance with this Chapter before issuing a permit for a sign. 7. The applicant will remove a small number of trees to provide for public rights of way and utilities and building sites. Chapter 18.150 defines the critc.'ria for tree removal. Therefore, a tree survey and careful site planning is wan-anted to assure preservation of a maximum number of trees and to facilitate City enforcement of Chapter 18.150. f 8. The proposed subdivision complies with Chapter 18.160, because: a. It complies with the Comprehensive plan map designation of the site, the applicable plan policies, the regulations of the R-4.5 zone, and other applicable regulations. Page 8 - Hearings Officer decision SUB 91-0008 (Wabna Grove) i 2 i t } i b. The proposed name of the subdivision is not duplicative. c. The roads in and adjoining the site conform to the road pattern in the area and provide for needed east-west cross-circulation. 9. The proposed subdivision complies with Chapter 18.164, because: a. The applicant will dedicate roads adjoining and within the site to City standards, and will improve SW Walnut Street with a minimum 22 foot half-width paved section with curb, gutter and sidewalk or will execute an agreement not to remonstrate against future improvement by the County. b. Proposed streets will have a grade of 12% or less. c. Lots are not more than 2-1/2 deeper than the lot width and have at least 25 feet of frontage on a street. d. All streets on the site will be improved with sidewalks. e. All lots will be served by public water, sanitary sewer and storm drainage systems. Conditions are warranted requiring granting of easements for the storm sewer system and other utilities where they cross private property, and requiring the applicant to submit a plan showing the location of existing utilities that will be retained. Conditions are also warranted requiring the applicant to show that the downstream surface water system can accommodate peak storm runoff from the without exceeding the capacity of the system or causing water to overflow onto adjoining private property. B. Compliance with Comprehensive Plan policies. 1. The subdivision complies with Policy 2.1.1, because notice of the application or hearing was provided to the neighborhood planning organization in the area and to owners of property in the vicinity of the site. The concerns raised by the witnesses appearing at the June 24 hearing have been considered in reaching this decision. 2. In order to comply with Policy 4.2.1, a condition is warranted to require the prospective developer to prepare an erosion plan insuring compliance with erosion control standards for the Tualatin River Basin as part of the grading permit application. 3. The subdivision complies with Policies 7.1.2, 7.3.1, and 7.4.4, because the applicant will extend public sewer and water system to the site. In addition, the applicant will contribute funds in lieu of providing an on site storm water quality treatment facility and will show that existing drainage ways are adequate to accommodate storm water from the site and that storm water will not adversely affect downstream properties. The applicant will also provide underground utilities. Detailed public facility improvement plans need to be prepared and approved. 4. The subdivision complies with Policy 8. 1.1 and 8.1.3, because the street system on and adjoining the site will be improved to City standards or frontage improvements will be deferred subject to an agreement not to remonstrate against future improvements. Page 9 - Hearings Officer decision SUB 91-0008 (Walnut Grove) C. Other C To comply with the Uniform Building Code, a condition is warranted requiring the applicant to obtain a demolition permit before structures are removed form the site. VI. SITE VISIT BY EXAMINER The Hearings Officer visited the site of the proposed subdivision. VII. CONCLUSION AND DECISION The Hearings Officer concludes that the proposed subdivision will promote the general welfare of the City, and will not be significantly detrimental nor injurious to surrounding land uses, provided development that occurs after this decision complies with applicable local, state, and federal law. In recognition of the findings and conclusions contained herein, and incorporating the Staff Report and other reports of affected agencies and public testimony and exhibits received in this matter, the Hearings Officer hereby approves SUB 91-0008 (Walnut Grove), subject to the following conditions: UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED, ALL CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED AND COMPLETION OF PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS FINANCIALLY SECURED PRIOR TO RECORDING THE FINAL PLAT WITH WASHINGTON COUNTY. STAFF CONTACT FOR ALL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL IS DEVELOPMENT REVIEW ENGINEER CHRIS DAVIES, UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 1. The applicant shall submit two (2) sets of detailed public improvement plans and profile construction drawings to the Engineering Department for preliminary review and approval. The applicant shall submit seven (7) sets of approved drawings and one (1) itemized construction cost estimate. The plans and estimate shall be prepared by a professional engineer licensed in Oregon. These plans are in addition to plans required by the Building Division and should include only those sheets relating to public improvements. The plans shall include at least the following: a. The applicant will dedicate right of way for Walnut Street adjoining the site as needed for a 33-foot half-width. The description of the dedication shall be tied to the existing right of way centerline. The dedication shall be on City forms. Contact the Engineering Department for instructions. The applicant also will either. (1) Improve SW Walnut Street adjoining the site, including sidewalk, driveway apron, curb, asphaltic concrete pavement, sanitary sewer, storm drainage, street lights, and underground utilities. Improvements shall be designed and built to major collector street standards and shall conform to the alignment of existing adjacent improvements or to an alignment approved by the Engineering Department. If the Engineering Department determines that a new vertical alignment is required, the applicant shall be provide half-street improvements including interim improvements to maintain traffic flow in the westbound lane. The profile of SW Walnut Street shall extend 300 feet on either side of the subject site showing existing grade and proposed future grade. The applicant shall provide to the City Engineering Department a copy of a facility permit from the Washington County Department of Land Use and Transportation before beginning work on the SW Walnut Street right-of-way; or Page 10 - Hearings Officer decision SUB 91-0008 (Walnut Grove) f (2) Execute an agreement that will run with the land and will bind future purchasers agreeing not to remonstrate against formation of a local improvement district to improve Walnut Street in the future, and improve the drainage ditch along the south side of Walnut Street to accommodate planned storm water discharge. An executed copy of the agreement not to remonstrate shall be. provided to the Traffic Engineering Department. b. The applicant will dedicate to the City a minimum 50-foot right of way for the north-south street on the site and grant to the City a 1-foot reserve strip at the terminus of the local internal street. c. The applicant will make full-width street improvements for the internal street, including traffic control devices, mailbox clusters, concrete sidewalks, driveway apron, curb, asphaltic concrete pavement, sanitary sewer, storm drainage, street lights, and underground utilities. Improvements shall be designed and built to local street standards. d. The applicant shall locate driveway cuts at least 30 feet from intersection right of way lines and at least 5 feet from property lines. e. The applicant shall submit storm drainage details, including calculations for and a topographic map of the storm drainage basin. Calculations shall be based on full development of the serviceable area. The location and capacity of existing, proposed, and future lines shall be noted. The applicant shall show that storm water runoff can be discharged into the existing drainageway without significantly impacting properties downstream. £ The applicant shall submit a grading plan showing existing and proposed contours and typical finished floor elevations on each lot, including elevations at 4 different corners of the floor plan tied to the top of the curb elevations as shown on the public improvement plans. g. The applicant shall submit a proposal that shows a logical westward extension of the proposed internal street h. The applicant shall submit and receive approval of an erosion control plan. The plan shall conform to "Erosion Control Plans - Technical Guidance Handbook," November, 1989. 2. The applicant shall pay a fee in-lieu of building on-site water quality facilities. 3. The applicant shall execute and record a maintenance and access easement for all storm drain outfalls on private property, using forms provided by the City. The agreement shall be referenced on and become part of all applicable parcel deeds. The agreement shall be approved by the Engineering Department before it is recorded. 4. Street centerline monumentation shall be provided as follows: a. Centerline monumentation shall comply with ORS 92.060(2) before the City accepts a street improvement. b. The following centerline monuments shall be set: Page 11 - Hearings Officer decision SUB 91-0008 (Walnut Grove) f t i (1) All centerline-centerline intersection points; (2) All cul de sac center points; and (3) Curve points, beginning and ending points (PC's and PT's). c. Monument boxes conforming to City standards are required around all centerline intersection points and cul de sac center points. The tops of all monuments boxes shall be set to finished pavement grade. 5. The applicant shall make an appointment for a pre-construction meeting with the City of Tigard Engineering Department after approval of the plans but prior to starting any work on the site. The applicant, applicant's engineer, and contractor shall attend this meeting before receiving approved plans/permits. 6. Building permits will not be issued and construction of proposed public improvements shall not commence until after the Engineering Department has reviewed and approved the public improvement plans and a street opening permit or a construction compliance agreement has been executed. The applicant shall provide a 10001o performance assurance or letter of commitment and a developer-engineer agreement, and shall pay a permit fee and a sign installation/street light fee. 7. The applicant shall submit evidence that the right-of-way on the west boundary of the property has been vacated or the City Council has approved the vacation before any trees are removed, construction drawings approved or public improvements begun; provided, the City Engineer may authorize removal of trees and construction of public improvements if the applicant complies with other requirements of this decision and the City Engineer concludes use of the right of way for a street will not be adversely by such development. 8. The applicant shall grant to the City a minimum 15-foot public drainage easement between lots 8 and 9, and shall modify the face of the plat to show the easement. 9. The applicant shall grant to the City a minimum 15-foot wide sanitary sewer easement for the sanitary sewer line contained within the property. The agreement shall be approved by the Engineering Department before recording, shall be executed on City forms, and shall be referenced on and become part of all applicable parcel deeds. 10. The applicant shall grant easements to the City as necessary to provide adequate access by the City's maintenance personnel and equipment to manholes on private property, subject to approval of the City's Operations Department. 11. The applicant shall provide evidence to the County that sight distance at the proposed access is adequate. 12. The applicant shall adequately illuminate access to SW Walnut Street. 13. Unless that applicant can show that lots can be served by a public drain, private storm drains shall be provided as specified on the file copy of the preliminary plan, except as otherwise approved by the Engineering Department. Easements shall be provided where private storm lines cross other lots. A joint access and maintenance agreement shall be recorded with each lot accessing a private storm drain. Contact Brad Roast, Building Division (639-4171). t Page 12 - Hearings Officer decision SUB 91-0008 (Walnut Grove) r 14. The applicant shall obtain a demolition permit before removing existing buildings on the site. The septic tank shall be completely pumped out, the tank removed, the site inspected after tank removal and a receipt or copy from the pumping company provided. 15. All lots shall be graded to a maximum slope of 2:1 or a report shall be submitted by an engineer justifying a steeper slope, including foundation excavation and fill slope. Contact Brad Roast, Building Division (639-4171). 16. The applicant shall submit soil compaction reports to the City Building Division for all fills before building permit issuance. Contact Brad Roast, Building Division (639- 4171). 17: The applicant shall obtain a permit before connecting any existing home to the public sewer system. Contact Brad Roast, Building Division (639-4171). 18. Minimum building setbacks on all parcels are as follows: Front yard 20 feet Corner yard 15 feet Garage 20 feet Side yard 5 feet Rear yard ...............15 feet Contact Brad Roast, Building Division (639-4171). 19. The applicant shall obtain a sign permit before erecting any sign. The sign shall comply with the Community Development Code with regard to size and location, including vision clearance at road intersections. Contact Victor Adonri, Planning Division (639-4171). 20. Removal of trees or grading must be approved by the Planning Division pursuant to a tree removal permit. Trees larger than 6 inches diameter measured 4 feet above grade shall be removed only where necessary to construct streets, utilities, and residences. A copy of the tree removal permit shall be available on-site during all tree removal and grading activities. Contact Victor Adonrit, Planning Division (639-4171). 21. Fire hydrant locations shall be coordinated with and approved by the Tigard Water District. Contact Gene Birchill, Fire District #1(526-2501). SUBDIVISION APPROVAL SHALL BE VALID ONLY IF THE FINAL PLAT IS RECORDED WITHIlV 18 MONTH OF THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS DECISION. DATED 's ay of , 1991. t Larry Epstein fficer Page 13 - Hearings Officer decision SUB 91-0008 (Wabw Grove) i 't