City Council Packet - 09/14/2004
~w
C F TIGARD
OREGON
TIGARD CI IL
MEETING:
September 14,2004
GWILLOETELE I .
-MEETIN
WUNCIO,
I:Wtsoome MCcpktl
13125 SW Na1F;8lvd., Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639-4171 TDD (503) 684-2772
Item No.
For Council Meeting of
COUNCIL MINUTES
TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING
September 14, 2004
The meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m. by Mayor Dirksen.
Council Present: Mayor Dirksen, Councilors Moore, Sherwood, Wilson. Councilor
Woodruff was excused.
o EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council went into Executive Session at
6:31 p.m. to discuss pending litigation under ORS 192.660(2) (h).
Executive Session concluded at 7:04 p.m.
STUDY SESSION
> FIELD OF DREAM AUCTION 2004
City Manager Bill Monahan noted information about this event is included in
the agenda packet. Councilors are invited to participate by donating an item
or items for the auction.
> CORRECTIONS TO JULY 27 AND AUGUST 10 MEETING MINUTES
Deputy City Recorder Jane McGarvin noted the changes were to designate
exhibit numbers that had been omitted in the minutes. She noted Sally
Harding has indicated her statement on page 20 of July 27 minutes was
incorrect. Beginning on line 6 of her statement, it should be changed as
follows:
"Ms. Harding noted her taxes have gone up substantially since
annexation occurred. The tax assessed value is way out of line with the
appraised value by $20,000 plus, both in 2000 and 2002."
The Council concurred to make the changes during the Business Meeting.
> RIBBON CUTTING AT BONITA VILLAS
to an
the v ribbon cutting at Bonita Villas on
Mr. Monahan n narment of Housing receipt Services of
Thursday, October 21 at 10 a.m.
> ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS
Page 1
Tigard City Council Minutes
Meeting of September 14, 2004
• Calendar Review
a) September 14, City Council Business Meeting
b) September 15, Candidate Orientation at Town Hall; 6 p.m:
c) September 18, Tigard Blast/Citizen Fair, Parade staging at 9:30
a.m.
d) September 21, City Council Workshop Meeting
e) September 28, City Council Business Meeting
f) September 29, Lunch at TVF 8z R Station 51, Noon
➢ PRELIMINARY DISCUSSION ABOUT CONTIGUOUS ANNEXATION
PROCESS
Community Development Director Jim Hendryx explained this item will be
discussed at the Council Workshop Meeting on September 21 and the
presentation tonight would be a brief overview of the proposal. Based on
current policies and practices, property is being developed outside the City.
As a result, the City does not collect park SDC's and is loosing revenue. There
is a comprehensive plan component which proposes logical boundaries be
maintained in the City.
Mr. Hendryx explained as development occurs within the urban services area,
Council has directed that the owners be required to either sign a consent to
annex if they are immediately adjacent to the City Limits, or if they are located
in the urban service area not adjacent to the City, to sign a Waiver to Consent
to Annex. Those waivers are good for an indefinite period of time. Some
areas with signed waivers are located quite a distance from the existing City
Limits, including Bella Vista and Tuscany Subdivisions; other properties are
immediately adjacent to the City Limits. Other areas could be immediately
adjacent if other properties annex. Developments immediately adjacent to the
City are required to be annexed upon development. The Alberta Rider
development included a condition for approval that the property be annexed
prior to development. The Barbara Summit subdivision is going through the
land use process and will include the condition that annexation occurs as part
of their development approval. Summit Ridge is not adjacent to the City but is
separated by other properties. There are other properties in various stages of
development. Some projects are not deemed complete yet, meaning the City
has not accepted it yet.
Mr. Monahan asked if "deemed complete" means someone coming in to ask
quocrlnns_ Summit Ridge Is development as dirt Is being moved around;
pesns
Alberta Rider on the other hand is close to be freed up to begin design.
Tigard City Council Minutes Page 2
Meeting of September 14, 2004
Mr. Hendryx explained that with regard to the Alberta Rider School, that
would mean prior to obtaining building permits or final occupancy. With
subdivisions, "deemed complete" means prior to final plan approval. Council's
policy has been not to proceed with Island annexations. There are Islands on
Fem Street. He also noted some Islands will be created when other properties
are annexed. Council also has to be cognizant of the Bull Mountain
Annexation which Is going to a vote In November. In total, there are
approximately 250 subdivision lots involved, which were pointed out. This
will continue to be dependent on the Washington County Commissioners, and
whether the Commissioners Imposes an interim parks system development
charge regardless of whether property is located inside or outside the city,
which could have an impact on Tigard. He explained he is not asking for
direction at this time, but just wanted to give Council a little explanation before
they look at next week's packet. He showed another map which showed
locations of property where Consent to Annex Waivers have been received as
well as where Petitions to Annex are pending.
Mr. Hendryx explained until recently, Waivers of Consent to Annex were only
good for one year. The law was recently changed that if a city provides
services to a development, the waivers essentially are contracts for services with
the City and there is no timeline that the property has to be annexed by.
What occurs now is when an owner signs a Waiver of Remonstrance, they
agree to annex without objection and also waive the one-year limitation. The
Waivers of Remonstrance are recorded with the County.
Mr. Hendryx noted he will go over this in more detail at next week's
Workshop meeting. Based on the direction Council gives, staff will proceed.
He noted that effective dates of annexations cannot be effective between 60
days prior and 1 day after an election. SDC's are collected at the time building
permits are issued, which is why this is important. Sometimes it takes a while
to get documents recorded, where the City would loose some building permits,
but hopefully not all of them. The School District will pay system development
charges for Alberta Rider School are based on the number of employees.
Mr. Monahan asked Mr. Hendryx to talk about the double majority process.
Mr. Hendryx explained under State law, under double majority, cities can
require additional property be annexed if there is a majority of the voters and
the majority of the property consenting to the annexation. As an example, if
two properties request to be annexed, an additional property could be brought
- in regardless of whether they consent or not. It gets even more complicated
and confusing when there are electors living on the property.
Mr. Monahan explained there are more options outlined in Mr. Hendryx's
memo that is part of next week's agenda packet.
Tigard City Council Minutes Page 3
Meeting of September 14, 2004
Mr. Hendryx explained that with 240 lots being proposed In various
subdivisions, the park SDC's range between $1,500 to $1,700 a house, which
adds up to a lot of SDC fees that could be lost.
Councilor Wilson asked what is intent of the discussion next week. Mr.
Hendryx responded that the intent is to remind Council of its policy and asking
whether Council wants to proceed with annexation regardless of the vote at the
November election, or did Council want staff to be more aggressive and use
the double majority to bring in more properties. That has been the policy,
with the exception of the Bonneville Power Lines and Pacific Crest area
annexation.
Mr. Monahan noted this really needs to be clarified, particularly when
annexation will create an island. Mr. Hendryx explained that with the various
developments surrounding the properties where an island or islands will be
created as a result of the annexation, staff sends out letters to surrounding
property owners explaining that an annexation petition has been received and
asking if they want to be included in the annexation.
Study session recessed at 7:23 p.m.
1. BUSINESS MEETING
1.1 Mayor Dirksen called the Council and Local Contract Review Board Meeting to
order at 7:32 p.m.
1.2 Roll Call: Mayor Dirksen, Councilors Moore, Sherwood, Wilson and Woodruff
were present
1.3 Pledge of Allegiance
1.4 Council Communications 81 Liaison Reports
Mayor Dirksen noted on Agenda Item No. 9, the appellant has withdrawn
their appeal, therefore, no hearing will be held.
City Manager Monahan noted it is the Planning's Staff's understanding is that
the School District will request a Minor Modification to their approved
Conditional Use (CUP 2003-00012) for the school. If a Minor Modification
is requested, a hearing will not be required as they are approvable as a staff
decision. Anyone interested in this matter should contact Morgan Tracy, the
staff liaison, on this application.
Councilor Wilson noted he has a report about Goal 5 meetings.
1.5 Call to Council and Staff for Non-Agenda Items
Tigard City Council Minutes Page 4
Meeting of September 14, 2004
2. PROCLAMATIONS
2.1 Proclaim Constltutlon Week
2.2 Proclaim October as Disability al Employment Alcohol and Drug es Moon Recovery Month
National
2.3 Proclaim September as
Mayor Dirksen asked if there was any objection to his signing the
Proclamations. Hearing none, he indicated he would sign and issue the three
proclamations.
3. VISITOR'S AGENDA
■ Nikki Pham, Tigard High School Student Envoy, told the Council about various ham
distributed activities s and information related tot;e which ,s on file in the City Recorder's
handout (Agenda Item No. 2, Exhibit
office.
■ Chamber President Dan Murphy updated the Council on Tigard Area Chamber of
Commerce activities.
■ Sue Beilke 11755 SW 114th, Tigard, discussed the outcome of the Parks Survey
,
and urged the Council to use funds from the Parks SDC's to acquire open space
along Ask Creek.
Mr. Monahan noted the Parks Survey will be an item for discussion at next week's
Council Workshop meeting.
CONSENT AGENDA: Motion by Councilor Sherwood, seconded by Councilor
4.
Wilson, to adopt the Consent Agenda -as follows:
4,1 Approve Council Minutes for April 5, 2004 (Tualatin City Council and
and August 10, 2004 as
Tigard/Tualatin School District #231 Joint Meeting)
corrected
4.2 ReceiveCoand File:
uncil Calendar
a.
b. Tentative Agenda
4.3 local Contract Review Board:
a. Award Contract for Storm Drainage and Sanitary Sewer Rehabilitation
Program
b. Award Contract for Citywide Janitorial Services to Tualatin Valley
Workshop
Page 5
Tigard City Council Minutes
Meeting of September 14, 2004
4.4 Resolution 04-65, A RESOLUTION OF THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL
APPOINTING SUSAN YSILADA TO THE BUDGET COMMITTEE
4.5 Resolution 04-66, A RESOLUTION OF THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL
APPROVING A PERSONAL SERVICE AGREEMENT WITH BRUCE A.
LIEBOWITZ, PRO TEM MUNICIPAL COURT JUDGE
The motion was approved by a unanimous vote:
Mayor Dirksen - Yes
Councilor Moore - Yes
Councilor Sherwood - Yes
Councilor Wilson - Yes
4.1b Approve Council Minutes for July 27, 2004 as corrected
Deputy City Recorder Jane McGarvin noted Sally Harding has indicated her statement
on page 20 of July 27 minutes was incorrect. Beginning on line 6 of her statement, it
should be changed as follows:
"Ms.. Harding noted her taxes have gone up substantially since annexation
occurred. The tax assessed value is way out of line with the appraised value by
$20,000 plus, both In 2000 and 2002."
Upon motion of Councilor Wilson, seconded by Councilor Sherwood, to approve the
Minutes of July 27, 2004 as corrected.
The motion was approved by a unanimous vote:
Mayor Dirksen - Yes
Councilor Moore - Yes
Councilor Sherwood - Yes
Councilor Wilson - Yes
5. INVITATION TO TIGARD BLAST/CITIZEN FAIR
Mayor Dirksen invited the citizens of Tigard and surrounding areas to attend the
Tigard Blast and Citizen Fair on Saturday, September 18.
6. INFORMATION AND PRESENTATION - BUSINESS ENERGY TAX CREDIT
Library Director Margaret Barnes explained this program is operated by the Oregon
Department of Energy, primarily for commercial buildings as a tax credit. As a public
entity, the City of Tigard can Identify a business partner who would act as the City's
pass-through partner. From the very beginning, the City wanted to find ways for the
Tigard City Council Minutes Page 6
Meeting of September 14, 2004
building to be energy efficient, to conserve energy, and to be responsible in terms of
energy consumption. By working with Engineering and Finance staff, Hoffman
Construction and the project manager, the project was certified by the State that the
building qualified for this tax credit. She then introduced Eric Hoffman, Operations
Manager of Hoffman Construction, to explain various components accomplished
during the construction phase.
Mr. Hoffman explained this is an investment by the community and a decision by the
team to make an Investment in energy saving opportunities. With the efforts of the
entire design team, this project contained additional cost measures that were part of
the construction costs, totaling about $230,000 of additional investment, all with an
eye on energy savings. These included using more efficient heating systems, special
lighting systems that take advantage of daylight, and special services for reflective
lighting. The energy savings for this project will actually be 28% higher than what
would have been achieved other. This figure translates to approximately $16,000 a
year in savings. The payback time, while a little long, is 14.2 years. Part of the
incentive program from the State of Oregon is that Hoffman Construction agreed to
be Tigard's business partner. He presented a check to Mayor Dirksen in the amount
of $59,022 which represents their share of the savings. Mr. Hoffman noted this
money will save four years of the payback program.
Ms. Barnes commended Mr. Hoffman, Dan and Dirk from Hoffman Construction,
and all the men and women who worked on the project. Hoffman's safety record was
phenomenal and they were a great team to work with.
7. ACKNOWLEDGE ACHIEVEMENTS AND DISBAND THE NEW LIBRARY
RESOURCE TEAM
Ms. Barnes indicated when this project began four years ago, the New Library
Construction Team was formed and worked to get the bond measure approved.
After the bond measure passed in 2002, the team was recreated as the New Library
Resource Team. The group of ten citizens worked diligently with the designers to
come up with the building designs, placement on the property, and was quite
concerned about being environmentally responsive and fiscally prudent. She noted
that of the 10 members, Brian Douglas, Curtis Tigard, George Burgess and Kathy
Sleeger were present tonight.
Mayor Dirksen noted his and the Council's appreciation for the teams work, and
recognized this was a wonderful, broad based project.
Mr. Monahan noted the other members of the team who were not present were Sue
Carver, David Chapman, Elaine Heras, Lonn Hoklin, Sharon Maroney and Joyce
Patton.
Tigard City Council Minutes Page 7
Meeting of September 14, 2004
A motion was made by Councilor Sherwood, seconded by Councilor Moore, TO
APPROVE RESOLUTION 04-67, A RESOLUTION TO ACKNOWLEDGE
COMPLETION OF THE NEW LIBRARY RESOURCE TEAM, TO THANK
MEMBERS FOR THEIR PARTICIPATION AND TO TERMINATE THE RESOURCE
TEAM.
The motion was approved by a unanimous vote:
Mayor Dirksen - Yes
Councilor Moore - Yes
Councilor Sherwood - Yes
Councilor Wilson - Yes
8. CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT THE TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE,
TITLE 14 - BUILDINGS AND CONSTRUCTION
Gary Lampella, Building Official, presented the staff report. He explained the
proposal ordinance changes Tigard Municipal Code 14.04 and 14.06. The State of
Oregon is replacing the present Uniform Building Code with the international Building
Code effective October 1, 2004. There has been a concerted effort to standardize
and coordinate codes through the United States and there are only two states yet to
adopt some form of the international Codes.
Mayor Dirksen noted Council recently held a workshop meeting concerning this. He
asked Mr. Lampella to explain what the changes are.
Mr. Lampella explained the first change is that Tigard had adopted Chapter 33, which
covers excavation, grading, and fill. The State of Oregon did not adopt that but gave
authority to local governments to adopt that chapter by ordinance. The new
International Building Code has renumbered the authority section, so this will be
Appendix ) as opposed to Appendix Chapter 33. Another change is the liability
clause which has been renumbered. On page 2 of Exhibit A, Chapter 14.04 Building
Code, includes a reference to the Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR). The OAR's
had been amended but the State's website where the OAR's are available had not
been updated until recently. Therefore, paragraph (1) which states, "Permit Required
- Except as permitted by OAR 918-261.0000 through .0036" should now be
.0039. The additional OAR's deal with electrical appliances, such as X-rays and MR]
equipment. The intent is to adopt the latest version of the code the State of Oregon
has adopted by Statute.
- er -4~ +,ff 4 :„fn„t Is t-m have this be effective on
City Attorney Tim Ramis askidU ui~ sEq„ J
October 1, the same day the State Code goes into effect, or Is It alright if the
ordinance does not go into effect until 30 days from now.
Tigard City Council Minutes Page 8
Meeting of September 14; 2004
Mr. Lampella stated he has talked with State of Oregon and other municipality
representatives and it is okay for this ordinance not to be effective for 30 days. There
is a lag time for some projects that are currently In the design phases for the past year
to be able to use the current code, with a 90-day extension.
Mr. Ramis stated he just wanted the record to be clear that the Intention of staff that
the ordinance will not be effective on October 1. The ordinance did not include an
emergency clause and the ordinance Indicated that the State of Oregon would be
adopting the International Building Code effective October 1.
Mr. Lampella indicated there would be a transition period after this takes effect as
there Is a lag time between the time plans are submitted and before permits are issued.
There will be a period of time between adoption and when this new code will be
enforceable. He noted Section 14.06 dealing with special inspections is being deleted
In its entirety. The Oregon Building Officials Association has written a very
comprehensive Special Inspection program that will be used throughout the state,
including reprocity agreements entered into with the State of Washington to approve
some of their special inspection companies to work in Oregon. He explained a local
company, Carlson Testing, conducts sounder tests, slump test, and really technical
welding test. By incorporating the special inspection section in the Tigard Municipal
Code, It actually restricts builder's ability to use anyone else. This should be a policy
rather than an ordinance.
A motion was made by Councilor Sherwood, seconded by Councilor Wilson, TO
APPROVE ORDINANCE NO.04-10, AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTERS
14.04 AND 14.06 OF THE TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE, as revised.
The motion was approved by a unanimous vote:
Mayor Dirksen - Yes
Councilor Moore - Yes
Councilor Sherwood - Yes
Councilor Wilson - Yes
9. PUBLIC HEARING (QUASI-)UDICIAL) - APPEAL OF CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT FOR ALBERTA RIDER SCHOOL AND CITY OF TIGARD WATER
RESERVOIR (CUP 2003-00012NAR 2004-00037NAR 2004-0004NAR
2004-0043NAR 2003-00053)
NOTE: This item had been withdrawn by the applicant. No hearing was held at this
time.
10. COUNCIL LIAISON REPORTS:
Tigard City Council Minutes Page 9
Meeting of September 14, 2004
> UPDATE REGARDING GOAL 5
Councilor Wilson noted the process Is moving along. At Council's last
meeting, a number of Issues were raised. County staff has been working very
hard to write a series of white papers addressing each Issue separately. Some of
them are recommending slight program changes and some will be merely
Informational. The Committee members received a number of white papers
yesterday, even though some are still in draft form. The Committee is
scheduled to make some decision two weeks from yesterday, September 27.
He is not sure what will be decided at that time.
Councilor Wilson noted the Council still had a number of concerns and he
probably would be leaning toward a no vote unless there were substantial
changes. What he was hoping that instead of just voting "no," he would try to
come up with an idea to address all the Council's concerns. He has been
thinking about this issue for some time. One comment he had made at one of
the meetings when Council discussed this issue alluded to the possibility that
with a stroke of a pen, enormous value could be wiped out or enormous
wealth created just be moving a political boundary. He had questioned
whether there was a way to neutralize that effect through some sort of transfer
of development price.
Councilor Wilson submitted copies of his proposal (Agenda Item #10, Exhibit
1), copy on file with the City Recorder. He stated he asked Tigard's legal
counsel to review the proposed statement with the request to determine if
there is any thing wrong with the proposal; they did not see any problem. He
then met with the Kelly Ross of the Metropolitan Home Builders to see if they
liked the idea. Mr. Ross was very supportive and even stated he would
promote the idea. He then met with Jim Labbe of the Audubon Society; he
was a bit skeptical, but was willing to look at it. He talked with Brian Wegener
of the Tualatin Riverkeepers who really liked the idea. He has discussed this
with Julia Hajduk, Tigard's staff representative on the Coordinating Council, to
find out what her response was.
Council Wilson then reviewed each of the proposed statements.
1) Metro designates Urban Reserves. Metro would designate urban reserves •
outside the urban growth boundary that meet the criteria to be brought in
and they would designate enough urban reserve to compensate for at least
all of the land you are trying to protect.
2) Resource Land Traded for UGB Expansion Rights from Willing Participants.
In other words, if' 50fi1eV11C is UAl ~f resource land that is otherwise
developable, you could voluntarily opt to dedicate your land to a public
park agency, with a local park provider, In exchange for a certificate that
Tigard City Council Minutes Page 10
Meeting of September 14, 2004
would entitle you to expand the urban growth boundary Into the
designated urban reserve area.
If a person had some really high value resource land, they might get 1.5 acres
per acre that Is designated. An owner could take those certificates and sell
them to a developer, and the developer could then negotiate with property
owners within the urban reserve area to either purchase them outright or some
sort of joint venture, to bring the area into the urban growth boundary and
develop it.
3) Land Purchased to Prevent Development from Unwilling Participants.
Some property owners would not willingly participate in the program and if
there Is a fund set aside, perhaps through an increase in the surface water
management (SWM) fees to raise funds for Goal 5 protection, there could
be some sort of program to set aside reserves to purchase property from
those owners who choose not to participate at the time development
proposal came forward, and it might be the property could be acquired
through eminent domain. If the property would serve the public interest,
we are going to go ahead and take it and purchase it. That would be like
having gold to back up the dollar bill. It is hoped you actually would not
have to use it, but there might be some instances where this would be
needed.
4) Owners May Request Map Corrections to Remove the Resource
Designation from Their Property. This addresses map corrections, which
could be either remove the designation or perhaps to add the designation,
since there is an incentive program, there may be areas that Metro has
missed that should actually be designated.
5) Owners may Create Resource Land and Become Eligible for the Program.
There may be areas that are not yet resource land and owners could
actually come up with a mitigation plan and create resource land. There
may be places where there is a stream in a culvert, that could be day
lighted, planted and turned into resource land and actually create some
connectivity that is apparently lacking. Brian Wegener especially liked that
idea.
Councilor Wilson indicated that is his idea. Metro decides the development
interest and environmental issue and Metro has to be convinced. There may
still be significant issues. He stated he has been mulling this through his mind
for some time.
Mayor Dirksen stated he was very impressed with Councilor Wilson's proposal.
His first impression was to read against it because ~ al, "e _ v,„.p^^,SeA t^
expanding the urban growth boundary. His concern with Goal 5 was that it
was likely that pristine wildlife habitat outside the urban growrth boundary
would be sacrificed in an effort to save degraded wildlife habitat inside the
Tigard City Council Minutes Page 11
Meeting of September 14, 2004
urban growth boundary. He recognizes that one has to be willing to
compromise in order to come up with a workable solution. What happens if
you dig your heels In and demand everyone come around to your point of
view. At first glance, this statement Includes some really terrific ideas that
need to be explored. He asked if this proposal has been shared with the rest of
the Natural Resources Steering Committee.
Councilor Wilson replied he felt the order he should follow was, first check to
see if there were any legal issues to prohibit this from being done; second was
to check with the two extreme opposing sides to determine if both had any
interest in the statement; and third, review the proposed statement with City
staff and Council for support. This was the process he has followed. If Council
supported his proposal, he would pursue it further. The response from
everyone so far has been very positive.
Councilor Moore said the proposed statement shows Councilor Wilson has
spent a great deal of time in writing this proposal, which he appreciates.
Councilor Wilson stated the two opposing sides are not even talking to each
other at the meetings. It occurred to him that nobody really opposes the goal
but is concerned about how we get there.
Councilor Moore indicated the thought process demonstrates a way to achieve
a balance, which includes how to compensate affected property owners.
Reading through the proposal offers a real compromise to everyone. That Is
obvious from the fact Kelly Ross, Jim Labbe and Brian Wegener indicated they
support the statement which says a lot about the proposal. This is very
impressive. This talks about balance and solves some major problems. This is a
very good compromise, even though he does not like to use that word. When
the word 'compromise' is used, it generally means someone looses something
and someone else wins something. He thinks everyone wins if this statement is
approved and implemented.
Councilor Sherwood concurred this was a very good proposal and asked what
the next step would be.
Councilor Wilson asked if he could put this on city letterhead. He has already
talked with Community Development Director Jim Hendryx about some
tweaking of the proposal before submitting the document to other players. He
would also meet individually with some of the committee members to get their
support.
Councilor Moore stated Councilor Wilson had his support. He did not see any
fatal flaws In It. Someone will always come up with something, but this is a
great document, well thought out and planned.
Tigard City Council Minutes Page 12
Meeting of September 14, 2004
Councilor Sherwood stated all the Councilors support Goal 5, but never had
full support of all the proposed solutions. This document seems to address
those concerns.
Mr. Monahan stated the Council consensus appears to say to Councilor Wilson
that it is okay to place this proposal on City stationery, to indicate that the
Tigard City Council has reviewed and supports the concept, and to allow
Councilor Wilson to go forward.
Councilor Moore stated he would add that the final document was suggested
by Councilor Wilson.
Mayor Dirksen noted Council will endorse this. Generally if something like this
is presented to a group, It would normally be picked apart. He supports the
concepts stated in Council Wilson's document.
11. NON AGENDA ITEMS: None
The meeting adjourned at 8:36 p.m.
#necGarvin, Deputy City Recorder
Attest:
a--, .4 ~~k -
Mayo t, City ' of igard
Date: dO6ev ~-Z~ o~Da~
Tigard City Council Minutes Page 13
Meeting of September 14, 2004
t
Mayor"s Agenda
TIGARD CITY COUNCf[
MEETING , .
CITY OF TIGARD
SEPTEMBER 14,.LUu4. ` ®:au p [rr•': OREGON
TIGARD.CITIF HALLy
13:T:25 SW°HALL BLVD
TIGARD, OR 97223
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 Manager. .
Times noted are estimated; it is recommended that persons interested in testifying be present
by 7:15 p.m. to sign in on the testimony sign-in sheet. Business Benda items can be heard in
any order after 7:30 p.m.
Assistive Listening Devices are available for persons with impaired hearing and should be
scheduled for Council meetings by noon on the Monday prior to the Council meeting. Please
call 503-639-4171, ext. 2410 (voice) or 503-684-2772 (TDD - Telecommunications
Devices for the Deaf).
Upon request, the City will also endeavor to arrange for the following services:
• Qualified sign language interpreters for persons with speech or hearing impairments;
and
• Qualified bilingual interpreters.
Since these services must be scheduled with outside service providers, it is important to allow
as much lead time as possible. Please notify the City of your need by 5:00 p.m. on the
Thursday preceding the meeting by calling: 503-639-4171, ext. 2410 (voice) or 503-684-
2772 (TDD - Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf).
SEE ATTACHED AGENDA
COUNCIL AGENDA -SEPTEMBER 14, 2004 page 1
r'
AGENDA
TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING
SEPTEMBER 14, 2004
6:30 PNI
• STUDY SESSION
PROCESS FOR CONTIGUOUS ANNEXATION - INTRODUCTION OF
ISSUES
• EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council will go into Executive Session to
discuss pending litigation under ORS 192.660(2)(h). All discussions are confidential
and those present may disclose nothing from the Session. Representatives of the news
media are allowed to attend Executive Sessions, as provided by ORS 192.660(4), but
must not disclose any information discussed. No Executive Session may be held for the
purpose of taking any final action or making any final decision. Executive Sessions are
closed to the public.
7:30 PM
1. BUSINESS MEETING
1.1 Call to Order - City Council at Local Contract Review Board
1.2 Roll Call
1.3 Pledge of Allegiance
1.4 Council Communications 8z Liaison Reports
1.5 Call to Council and Staff for Non-Agenda Items
7:35 PM
2. PROCLAMATIONS
• Mayor Dirksen
2.1 Proclaim Constitution Week
2.2 Proclaim October as Disability Employment Awareness Month
2.3 Proclaim September as National Alcohol and Drug Addiction Recovery Month
7:40 PM
3. VISITOR'S AGENDA (Two Minutes or Less, Please)
• Tigard High School Student Envoy Nikki Pham
Dan Murphy from the Tigard Area Chamber of Commerce
7:40 PM
4. CONSENT-AGENDA: These items are considered to be routine and may be enacted
in one motion without separate discussion. Anyone may request that an item be
removed by motion for discussion and separate action. Motion to:
i--.-- ie--~-utes - c_ A .+1 [ f)f%nd /T..+l+*O r;,,, rom,.n`9l rr TTCn
4.1 Approve Cound! r1111'lu AP1i1 J, !-WT \.ua.au.. U.,
#231 joint meeting), July 27, 2004 and August 10, 2004
COUNCIL AGENDA -SEPTEMBER 14, 2004 page 2
J
r
4.2 Receive and File
a. Council Calendar
b. Tentative Agenda
4.3 Local Contract Review Board:
a. Award Contract for Storm Drainage St Sanitary Sewer Rehabilitation
Program
b. Award Contract for Citywide janitorial Services to Tualatin Valley
Workshop
4.4 Appoint Susan Yesilada to Budget Committee: Resolution No. 04-
4.5 Approve Municipal Court judge Pro-Tem Agreement: Resolution No. 04- -
• Consent Agenda - Items Removed for Separate Discussion: Any items
requested to be removed from the Consent Agenda for separate discussion will
be considered immediately after the Council has voted on those items which do
not need discussion.
8:00 PM
5. INVITATION TO TIGARD BLAST/CITIZEN.FAIR
® Mayor Dirksen
8:05 PM
6. INFORMATION 8t PRESENTATION- BUSINESS ENERGY TAX CREDIT
® Staff Report: Margaret Barnes, Library Director
8:15 PM
7. ACKNOWLEDGE ACHIEVEMENTS AND DISBAND THE NEW LIBRARY
RESOURCE TEAM:
a. Staff Report: Margaret Barnes, Library Director
b. Council Consideration: Resolution No. 04 -
Councilor: I move for adoption of the proposed Resolution 04-
Councilor: I second the motion.
Mayor: Will the City Recorder please read the number and title of the Resolution.
City Recorder: (Reads as requested.)
Mayor. Is there any discussion?
Mayor
(after discussion): All of those in favor of adopting Resolution No. 04- please say "aye. "
[MM Mayor/Councilors:
COUNCIL AGENDA - SEPTEMBER 14, 2004 page 3
Mayor: All of those opposed to adopting Resolution No. 04- , please say "nay."
Mayor/Councilors:
]i fnvnr Resolution No.04- (is adopted or fails) by a (unanimous, or however
votes were split) vote.
Tie votes = failed motion.
8:25 PM
8. CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE,
TITLE 14 - BUILDINGS AND CONSTRUCTION
a. Staff Report: Gary Lampella, Building Official
b. Staff Recommendation
C. Council Discussion
d. Council Consideration: Ordinance No. 04 -
Councilor: I move for adoption of the proposed Ordinance.
Councilor: I second the motion.
Mayor: Will the City Recorder please read the number and title of the Ordinance.
City Recorder: (Reads as requested.)
Mayor: Is there any discussion?
Mayor (after
discussion): Will the City Recorder please conduct a roll-call vote of Council.
City Recorder: Conducts roll call vote.
Mayor: Ordinance No. _ (is approved or fails) by a (unanimous or however votes
were split) vote.
i
i
COUNCIL AGENDA -SEPTEMBER 14, 2004 page 4
8:40 PM
9. Appellant has withdrawn their appeal, removing the need for this item to be heard
tonight. The Planning Staff's understanding is that the School District will request a
Minor Modification to their approved Conditional Use (CUP 2003-00012) for the school.
If a Minor Modification is requested, a hearing will not be required. A Minor
Modification is approvable as a staff decision. Anyone with an interest in this matter
should contact Morgan Tracy at momandci.tigarl or. us or call at 503-718-2428.
PUBLIC HEARING (QUASI-JUDICIAL) - APPEAL OF CONDITONAL USE PERMIT FOR
ALBERTA RIDER SCHOOL AND COT WATER RESERVOIR (CUP 2003-
00012/VAR2004-00037/VAR2003-00041 /VAR2004-004/VAR2004-0043/
VAR2003-00053)
ITEM ON APPEAL: On July 12, 2004, the Tigard Hearing's Officer held a public
hearing to consider an application for conditional use approval to construct a 67,000
square foot elementary school, a 3-rnlilion gallon water reservoir, and associated
improvements on a 10.71 acre site. With this request were four adjustments and one
variance to various requirements of the Tigard Development Code. The Hearings
Officer issued his decision on August 10, 2004 to approve the Conditional Use
Permit. On August 24, 2004 an appeal was filed by Venture Properties, developer of
the Summit Ridge development immediately south of the school site. The Appeal
Filing Form raises seven grounds for the appeal, generally as follows:
1) Improper notification for granting a variance.
2) Insubstantial evidence in the record to grant a variance.
3) Improper findings to grant an adjustment to the driveway spacing
standard along Bull Mountain Road.
4) Improper deferral of compliance through a condition of approval.
5) Improper finding regarding conditional use criteria to approve the use.
6) Improper finding that the development is feasible to complete.
7) Improper granting of an adjustment to cul-de-sac length.
LOCATION: On the south side of SW Bull Mountain Road, east of SW 133rd
Avenue, WCTM 2S109AC, Tax Lot 2100 and 2S109AD, Tax Lot 1300. ZONE:
R-7: Medium-Density Residential District. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA:
Community Development Code Chapters 18.330, 18.360, 18.370, 18.390,
18.510, 18.705, 18.725, 18.745, 18.755, 18.765, 18.780, 18.790, 18.795
and 18.810; and the Bull Mountain Community Plan.
a. Open Public Hearing
b. Declarations or Challenges
C. Staff Report: Jim Hendryx, Community Development Director
d. Public Testimony
®rnrponante
Opponents
COUNCIL AGENDA - SEPTEMBER 14, 2004 page 5
!
t
Rebuttal
e. Staff Recommendation
f. Council Discussion
g. Close Public Tearing
f%A
h. Council Consideration: Resolution wo. v-r -
9:40 PM
10. COUNCIL LIAISON REPORTS
9:50 PM
11. NON AGENDA ITEMS
10:00 PM
12. ADJOURNMENT
COUNCIL AGENDA -SEPTEMBER 14, 2004 page 6
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION
HATTER
I . BEING FIRST DULY SWORN DEPOSE AND SAY
THAT I AM THE PRINCIPAL CLERK OF THE PUBLISHER OF THE OREGONIAN,
A NEWSPAPER OF GENERAL CIRCULATION, AS DEFINED BY ORS 193.010 AND
193.020, PUBLISHED IN THE CITY. OF PORTLAND, IN MULTNOMAH COUNTY,
OREGON: THAT THE ADVERTISEMENT, THE PRINTED TEXT OF WHICH IS SHOWN BELOW,
WAS PUBLISHED IN THE ENTIRE AND REGULAR ISSUES OF THE OREGONIAN
FOR 1 DAYS STARTING 08/30/04, ENDING 08/30/04 MO
PRINCIPAL CLERK OF THE PUBLISHER
...........G ..3.. 1. 2004.
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME THIS DATE AU
NOTARY:
789823
AD TEXT: OirIC'~L SF
PAT[IICIA ATKINSON
!t~ wi
THE FOLLOWING 346597
c NOTARY °U - C-OREGON
Cori,tS ! X0.
MY COrA^riSSiOr; =,_S ~UNE+ 9, 2005
r -
Tio ~ ~ ba ~ Gy ~f le Col Pi<'t et this T1Qafd CtIdC
Cent - Tovm Hafi,13f w SW HSII ~vd.~,
Botlh pubCC oral and written 'test! mony is Imitad. The public Wilr4 6o ft mfr wtJ he W&cted in =wdance with the
Tigard k tfcW Coda and the nom, at pro W=. g oundl and avalkldle.at CRy Hall or, the odes of procedure set
f0M In Master -18.390. Testlmorri (ray be bh ; to or at the oft hearing or verbally at the dose of the
1 ECCampetd8d by elatei tent or et!Wm olillpdard to the a4lslon-maker an opbarheh iIN to respond to this Ossua
pppaal to the LAW Use Board of Appeal Itesed;on to kite. Failure to apsdty the c trap the Comm el.Ny
ettt Code orCorrVrehons 9 Ptrgat wW a catmmatls directed pr~lt an appeal based on that crtterkm. ,
{ A copy 41 tl1a ep<dlcataii and alt docunheata,andevrdarics sabrnllCeC bbyy o[on hetieh of tt+e eppl(cant and the applicable aite•.
hia'ae avabiefre i at ro cost A'c~y of the staff repel wt0 be tnt~e spa labia for lr>cpecton at ra ccet at least
i>evmn fn deys'prlar to to heailtg, and copla to an tt6m5 can also be pmWded at a rya a>st ,
Further Igtoiiiledfon may be ob4frod itari the Planidrhg Division j~li~g~A~nan 7rr<iv) ai 13125 SY! Hall 81vd,, Tigard,
" Oregah97223'Cycal~ng'503-630-0171ar bye-maIIW ,
t~LIC lirARMiti (l'EAt: °OflBAN 583VlCE AREA"
CW,M NA1 USEPERM(C1"100;3-W2/A TNIM 2~4tap37;A1 42,43&53-
ALBERM RUDER TTARY SCtM & CITY O•TIM WATBC RERFAtIOlR
MIN OH APPEAL ovilay 1* 2004, the Tlpad Hearing's Officer held'a pubhC tArlrp to consider an appikxtlon fou con
r ftnat use appruvaf to cqv tnfet y i,67,000 square foot,elem school, a 3-million gallon water reservdr, and associated
imphavamatt 3 on a 10.71 we site.lVltth this [aquest weld talk r Justmahb and are Variance to various regtdremerds#1tro
Tlgardpevdots4hent Code.Ti The Head Ofiicar Issued his decision onAugust 10, 2004 to approve the Conditorrei Use PWW.
hthatdadskiltieHaarlr~Officerdia lwithsWarecommendationtodenyterequestedvariancetothestree(•'
Ing s In kdlwoidd love hdreIs a north srxdh strut he plar~tl on ire school The Haring Officer also mod
Ma9 sit s teparatng Ore proposed dr(vavtay ohdo SW Bull Mountain
Wby
making it sdahr aan~ ameC
{ access. Tire H Ofter lardy concurred with the remainder of staff's flrd* and recemnhendattare fndud<r>g approast
of ergustments to-, t a the bityole rack require ments, allow a cul-de-s,x longer than 200 JW, and to reduce'the p ~t r
strip width eR the schod across road.
s On August 24th; 2004 an appeal was filed by Modasette homes, developer of the Summit Ridge development immediamly
south of the sdrocl elm. The Appeal Fling Form notes seven lssuea being raised by the appellant
t) Improper notice ties Own for a va~nce` ` by tro Hearings Officer to waive the requirement for an east-weatairsrt
cormedonthroughthnsita:2)improper otav2r =(VAR200 -=7)forfhenorth-sotrtisbeOmnedton,
tatdaceogvrasrbtsupported bysubstantial s{tdance(ntieraced;3Nmproper grantingofane4ustmad(VAR2004r)DOA2)
to tf~qdd a spa* standard Will Bull Maahfain Rorel; as otther attentatves exis$ '4) Improper posywnement of
Gt0 City ~tdards (Ltindttrin M48) Sours attenhra~h Wass lint reghdred by the Hearlrlps;Officer in-lieu of:aIi-
ULri-0C053).
LOGATIMThd subject site is locatcd on the soutff side of SW Bull Matntaln Raid, cart of SW 133rd Avenue; WCTM 2S109AC,
Tax Lct-21 q0 & 2S109AD, Tax Lot 1300.
ZDFZ: R-7 Medium-Density Residential Dlsb %The R-7 zoning district Is designed to accommodate attached single-farruly
homes, detaArA cinpie-family homes with or without accesw res;der~al units, ata minimum lot size at 5,300 squatefeet;
and duplexes, ata minimum. lot size of 10,000 square feet toobflo home parks at subdivisions are also permitted ouhhght
Some cMc chid lnsti *hal use are also permitted conditionally.
IFIMTkhCfiUMIA SOFcG QFTHE APPEAL, 18.330 (Conditional Uses), 18.370 (Variances and Adjustments), 18.390
Mocislca Wkig Ptocedwes);18.705 (Access, Egress, and Cirmlabon), 18.725 (DMronmental Pertonnance Standards), Pod
18.810 (Street end Mty improvement Standards).
it
-4 1
~
City* of Tigard, Oregon
Affidavit of Posting
CITY OF TIGARD
OREGON
In the Matter of the Proposed Ordinance(s)
STATE OF OREGON )
County of Washington ) ss.
City of Tigard )
being first duly sworn (or affirmed), by
oath (or affirmation), depose and say:
That I posted in the following public and conspicuous places, a copy of
Ordinance Number(s) --_--04-10 , which were adopted at the
City Council meeting of September A, 200A--, with a copy(s) of said
Ordinance(s) being hereto attached and by reference made a part hereof, on the
day of ~20-0 y
1. Tigard City Hall, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon
2. Tigard Public Library, 13500 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon
3. Tigard Water Building, 8777 SW Burnham, Tigard, Oregon
Signature of Person who erformed Posting
Subscribed and sworn (r affirmed) before me this day of
OFFICIAL SEAL
CHEITYLA cAINES " ' Signature of Notary Public for Oregon
rrM1 NoTnnv bi tal lc-nAFGON
I COMMISSION N0.371603
MY COMMISSION EXPIRES AUG. 14, 2007 I
\\TIG333\USRIDEPTSWDM\GREER\FOF2MSVIFFIDAVITS\AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING • ORDINANCE.DOC
City of Ingard, Oregon
Affidavit of Posting
CITY OF TIGARD
OREGON
In the Matter of the Proposed Ordinances 04-01 through 04-15
STATE OF OREGON ) Pe- D N(D' DO ) D
County of Washington ) ss. 41 4
City of Tigard ) " 1
being first duly sworn (or affirmed), by
oath (or affirmation), depose and say:
That I on December 15, 2005, I posted in the following public place, a copy of
Ordinance Numbers 4~thm ig o4. 5 , which were adopted by the City
Council.
Tigard Permit Center, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon
Y
Signature of Person who Perfo d Posting
Subscribed and sworn (or affirmed) before me this / day of
n~ r P.mCJ~' , 20
OFFICIAL SEAL
JILL M BYARS
COMMISSION NO 3817933 Signature of Notary Public for Oregon
MY Ct MISSION EXPIRES JUNE 14.200Q
14AtknVA d0nnstatfdavNs\2MM of posfinp-04 ordinances-0401 to 04.15-pem0 oenteI,dM
' CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
ORDINANCE N0.04- / 0
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTERS 14.04 AND 14.06 OF THE TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE
WHEREAS, the City of Tigard has been delegated authority to enforce a statewide model code by the State
of Oregon, and;
WHEREAS, the State of Oregon will adopt the international Building Code on October 1, 2004, replacing
the existing state code, the Uniform Building Code, via statutory authority, and;
WHEREAS, it is necessary to modify references to the building code that will be in effect, and;
WHEREAS, various Oregon Administrative Rules have been modified as a result of legislation and
renumbered.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1: Chapters 14.04 and 14.06 of the Tigard Municipal Code are being amended as shown in
Exhibit A.
SECTION : This ordinance shall be effective 30 days after its passage by the Council, signature by
the Mayor, and posting by the City Recorder.
PASSED: By ~Qn /IbaL vote of all Council members present after being read by number
and title only, this day of by~ , 2004.
4v~-
Jan cGarvin, Deputy City Recorder
Council this 141'd of p'm
APPROVED: By Tigard City ,2004.
Approved as to form:
ity Attorney
U
Date
ORDINANCE No. 04- o
Pagel
EXHIBIT "A"
TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE
"Exhibit A" 14.04.030 State Codes Adopted.
* St-eikeeuts are deleted language 1. Except as otherwise provided in this
* Bold underline is revised language chapter, the following codes, standards and rules
are adopted and shall be in force and effect as part
Chapter 14.04 BUILDING CODE. of this Municipal Code:
Sections: a. Under the authority of ORS
455.150 (effective 9/5/95), the City of Tigard
14.04.010 Title. administers those specialty codes and building
14.04.020 Definitions, requirements adopted by the state which the City
14.04.030 State Codes Adopted. of Tigard is granted authority to administer,
14.04.040 Administration. including: the Structural, Mechanical, Plumbing,
14.04.050 Repealed By Ord. 96-10. Electrical and One and Two Family Dwelling
14.04.060 Repealed By Ord. 01-25. Specialty Codes; mobile or manufactured
14.04.065 Electrical Program dwelling parks requirements; temporary parks
Administration. requirements; manufactured dwelling installation,
14.04.070 Occupancy Restriction support and tiedown requirements and park or
Recordation. camp requirements (as listed in ORS 455.153);
14.04.090 Violation--Penalty--Remedies.
b. Appendix Chapter A33 J of the
14.04.010 Title. 1997 T nif m Building Cede International
Building Code, as published by the International
This chapter shall be known as the building Code Council h4ematiertal "onfer-ense of
code ordinance and may also be referred to as Bui;regarding Excavation and
"this chapter," or the "building code." (Ord. 86-53 Grading, including the recognized standards for
§2(Exhibit A §1), 1986). Appendix Chapter 33 J listed in PaA A'-ef
Chapter 35 of the 109? ;Till ~r^ Building Cede
14.04.020 Definitions. International Building Code;
For the purpose of Sections 14.04.010 c. Section 104.6.8 of the -1493
through 14.04.090, the following terms shall Unifefm Building Code International Building
mean: Code, as published by the International Code
Council
1. Building Official. "Building Official" g€Beiels, regarding Liability.
means the designee or designees appointed by the
Director of Community Development who is 2. At least one copy' of each of these
responsible for building inspections and specialty codes shall be kept by the Building
enforcement of the building code. Official and the Tigard Public Library, and shall
be available for inspection upon request. (Ord.
2. State Building Code. "State building 01-25, Ord. 99-04; Ord. 96-10; Ord. 93-04 §1,
code" means the combined specialty codes as 1993: Ord. 90-14 §1, 1990).
listed in Section 14.04.030. (Ord. 86-53
§2(Exhibit A §2),1986). 14,04.nAn administration.
14-04-1 SE//Code update: 021x2
TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE
1. The City shall provide a program of
building code administration, including plan 2. Expiration of Permits - Permits shall
review, permit issuing and inspection for expire pursuant to OAR 918-309-0000 (6) fn.
structural, electrical, mechanical and plumbing
work. The program shall be administered by the 3. Validity of Permit - The issuance of a
Building Official, under the supervision of the permit or approval of plans, specifications and
Community Development Director. The program computations shall not be construed to be a permit
shall operate pursuant to the state specialty codes for, or an approval of, any violation of any of the
listed in Section 14.04.030 and the remainder of provisions of this code or of other ordinances of
this chapter. the jurisdiction. Permits presuming to give
authority to violate or cancel the provisions of this
2. Administration and enforcement of code or of other ordinances of the jurisdiction
Appendix Chapter 33 J, Excavation and Grading, shall not be valid.
as adopted by Section 14.04.030.1.b., shall be by
the Building Official and City Engineer. Where The issuance of a permit based upon plans,
the term "Building Official" is used in Appendix specifications, computations and other data shall
Chapter 33 J, it shall mean either the Building not prevent the Building Official from thereafter
Official or City Engineer. requiring the correction of errors in said plans,
specifications, and other data or from preventing
3. Fees for permits and other related building operations being carried on thereunder
services pursuant to the building code when in violation of this code or of other
administration program shall be established by ordinances of this jurisdiction.
resolution of the City Council. (Ord. 99-08; Ord.
96-10; Ord. 95-16; Ord. 93-04 §2, 1993: Ord. 86- 4. Revocation of Permits - The Building
53 §2(Exhibit A §4), 1986). Official may, in writing, suspend or revoke a
permit issued under the provisions of this chapter
14.04.050 Repealed By Ord. 96-10. whenever the permit is issued in error or on the
basis of incorrect information supplied or in
14.04.060 Repealed By Ord. 01-25. violation of other ordinances or regulation of the
jurisdiction.
14.04.065 Electrical Program
Administration. 5. Plan Review Requirements - Electrical
plan reviews shall be required. Plan review
1. Permit Required - Except as permitted requirements and procedures shall be as stipulated
by OAR 918-261-0000 through 0035 0039 - in OAR 918-3 11 -0000 through 0060.
electrical work exempt from permit, Subsection
14.04.065.15 of this section for minor 6. Expiration of Plan Review -
installations, Subsection 14.04.065.16 of this Applications for which no permit is issued within
section for temporary electrical permits and 180 days following the date of application shall
Subsection 14.04.065.17 of this section for expire by limitation, and plans and other data
industrial plant electrical permits, no electrical submitted for review may thereafter be returned to
work shall be performed unless a separate the applicant or destroyed by the Building
electrical permit for each separate building or Official. The Building Official may extend the
structure has first been obtained from the Building tine for action by the applic?nt fnr s perind not
official. exceeding 180 days upon request by the applicant
14-04-2 SF.//Code Update: 02102
TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE
showing that circumstances beyond the control of the plan review fee paid when an application for a
the applicant have prevented action from being permit for which a plan review fee has been paid
taken. No application shall be extended more is withdrawn or canceled before any plan review
than once. In order to renew action on an effort has been expended.
application after expiration, the applicant shall
resubmit plans and pay a new plan review fee. The Building Official shall not authorize
refunding of any fee paid except upon written
7. Permit Fees - Fees for electrical permits application filed by the original permittee Pot later
shall be established by resolution of the City than 180 days after the date of fee payment.
Council.
10. Right of Entry. When it is necessary to
8. Investigation Fees: Work without a make an inspection to enforce the provisions of
Permit. this section or when the Building Official has
reasonable cause to believe that there exists in a
a. Investigation. Whenever any work building or upon a premises a condition which is
for which a permit is required by this code has contrary to or in violation of this section which
been commenced without first obtaining said makes the building or premises unsafe, dangerous
permit, a special investigation shall be made or hazardous, the Building Official may enter the
before a permit may be issued for such work, building or premises at reasonable times to inspect
or to perform the duties imposed by this section
b. Fee. An investigation fee, in provided that if such building or premises be
addition to the permit fee, shall be collected occupied that credentials be presented to the
whether or not a permit is then or subsequently occupant and entry requested. If such building or
issued. The investigation fee shall be equal to the premises be unoccupied, the Building Official
amount of the permit fee that would be required shall first make a reasonable effort to locate the
by this code if a permit were to be issued. The owner or other person having charge or control of
payment of such investigation fee shall not the building or premises and request entry. If
exempt any person from compliance with all other entry is refused, the Building Official shall have
provisions of this code nor from any penalty recourse to the remedies provided by law to
prescribed by law. secure entry.
9. Fee Refunds. 11. Corrections and Stop Orders. When any
work is being done contrary to the provisions of
a. The Building Official may this section, the Building Official may order the
authorize the refunding of any fee paid hereunder work corrected or stopped by notice in writing
which was erroneously paid or collected. served on any persons engaged in the doing or
causing such work to be done, and such persons
b. The Building Official may shall forthwith make the necessary corrections or
authorize refunding of not more that 80 percent of stop work until authorized by the Building
the permit fee paid when no work has been done Official to proceed with the work.
under a permit issued in accordance with this
code. 12. Authority to Disconnect Utilities in
Emergencies. The Building Official or the
c. The Building Omciai may Building g Off:ri»al's authorized representative shall
r
authorize refunding of not more than 80 percent of I have the authority to disconnect electrical service
14-04-3 SE//Code Update; 02102
TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE
to a building, structure, premises or equipment Official authorizes the reconnection and use of
regulated by this section in case of emergency such equipment.
where necessary to eliminate an immediate hazard
to life or property. The Building Official shall, 15. Minor Installation Labels - Rules for the
whenever possible, notify the serving utility, the use, issuance, and inspection of minor installation
owner and occupant of the building, structure or labels shall be as stipulated in OAR 918-050-0500
premises of the decision to disconnect prior to through 0520,
taking such action, and shall notify such serving
utility, owner and occupant of the building,
structure or premises in writing of such
disconnection immediately thereafter.
13. Authority to Condemn Equipment.
When the Building Official ascertains that any
equipment, or portion thereof, regulated by this
section has become hazardous to life, health or
property, the Building Official shall order in
writing that the equipment either be removed or
restored to a safe or sanitary condition, as
appropriate. The written notice shall contain a
fixed time limit for compliance with such order.
Persons shall not use or maintain defective
equipment after receiving a notice.
When equipment or an installation is to be
disconnected, written notice of the disconnection
and causes therefor shall be given within 24 hours
to the serving utility, the owner and occupant of
the building, structure or premises. When any
equipment is maintained in violation of this
section, and in violation of a notice issued
pursuant to the provisions of this section, the
Building Official shall institute an appropriate
action to prevent, restrain, correct or abate the
violation.
14. Connection after Order to Disconnect.
Persons shall not make connections from an
electrical service nor supply electrical power to
any equipment regulated by this section which has
been disconnected or ordered to be disconnected
by the Building Official or the use of which has
been ordered to be discontinued by the Building
Official until the proper permits have beent
obtained, inspections approved, and the Building
14-04-4 SE//Code Update: 02102
TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE
16. Temporary Electrical Permits - Rules for 3. No person shall install, alter, replace,
the use of temporary electrical permits shall be as improve, convert, equip or maintain any plumbing
stipulated in OAR 918-309-0080. or drainage piping work or any fixture or water
heating or treating equipment in the City, or cause
17. Industrial Plant Electrical Permits and the same to be done contrary to or in violation of
Inspection -Rules for the use of industrial plant this chapter.
electrical permits and inspections shall be as
stipulated in OAR 918-309-0100. (Ord. 01-25, 4. No person shall install, alter, replace,
Ord. 95-16). improve, convert, equip or maintain any electrical
equipment or system in the City, or cause the
14.04.070 Occupancy Restriction same to be done contrary to or in violation of this
Recordation. chapter.
An applicant for a building permit for new 5. Violation of a provision of this chapter
construction, as a condition for the issuance of the constitutes a Class I civil infraction and shall be
permit, may be required to execute, notarize and processed in accordance with the procedures set
deliver to the City a recordable occupancy forth in the civil infractions ordinance, codified in
restriction in the form of Exhibit A-1, attached to Chapter 1.16 of this code.
the ordinance codified in this chapter. This
requirement shall be at the discretion of the 6. Each day that a violation of a provision
Building Official and the Community of this chapter exists constitutes a separate
Development Director. Upon receipt of the violation.
occupancy restriction, the Building Official shall
record it in the deed records of Washington 7. Notwithstanding the other remedies in
County. The recording fees shall be charged to this chapter, if the Building Official determines
the applicant. When the conditions in the that any building under construction, mechanical
occupancy restriction have been satisfied, the work, electrical work, or plumbing work on any
restriction shall be released and the occupancy building or any structure poses an immediate
certificate shall be issued. (Ord. 86-53 §2(Exhibit threat to the public health, safety or welfare, he
A §7), 1986), may order the work halted and the building or
structure vacated pending further action by the
14.04.090 Violation--Penalty--Remedies. City and its legal counsel.
1. No person shall erect, construct, enlarge, 8. The penalties and remedies provided in
alter, repair, move, improve, remove, convert, this section are not exclusive and are in addition
demolish, equip, occupy or maintain a building or to other penalties and remedies available under
structure in the City, or cause the same to be done City ordinance or state statute. (Ord. 95-16; 90-08
contrary to or in violation of this chapter. §4, 1990). 0
2. No person shall install, alter, replace,
improve, convert, equip or maintain any
mechanical equipment or system in the City, or
cause the same to be done contrary to or in
violation to this chapter.
14-04-5 SE/ICvde Update: 02102
TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE
ep-peoial
* Delete in its entirety
,wke--afe--eurm
.
m nn acs 1993; n A on 11 clip F lnnm
Seetimm A n 38 nere. T
4 A.°:.&6 nom- m:N. -
-lie€efen5e-}s tnede-te Bestion 306 Chap
' m. n=V! Of the state Stmetur-al Speeialty Gede. (Ord.
n 11 §1 i«e.4~' 1 nom
14~A6:04
. A n non r. el uv ed
97
14.06.100 Steel > eFk
fems provided by the Building Offleial, the
1 Th Y Jeet name and "ddFA
1 A n M!1 T:tl
be known and may be 1 The h't t of eeeFd'-
u n (Ord
9G- -1 The engineer of fee ord;
1 Ao'1`o„^1 T1' r 1 spe ti e is r°~car
A TL. 1 C The Fth fi / \ to « .:`1e
number-s;
sE tic s}?eE ees-€e -t F , « :fie --6 -~13e tra tes eatiens-
eations of the
agstg~e-ejeet
G..141. date s-by the -GiPf--of igned.
--v. PFeeenstfuetion Meeting. Pfier to the
n n - F h ildio r nits, the e,.
~
e seetien of the their agent, engineer4afrahiteet of n3eans-t+`~° >
and Pfifere&4hese , spee:al v and City
i
14-06-1 SE Update: 12101
TIOARD MUNICIPAL CODE
' -A -t en
gt~eet~--eer~1€te~-~-c~;-ap~~e'+e~-6e~~eta
r
Building it is the Fluthefintie" ;s= f4!AR; the Gity.
-2. N8 insi-eati8ns shall be
r '
of lntpf
1 U t ddf
T F} 69;;#;i ior-
1 Tl t' - F the
-al-iflAq g6pee4efi
ri ~ts r~e ' 1 r t - ~e
~ r Dt rules that tl, City
eemmeneement44"-WME t.. c--
A not- limited '
i~Fitt~ ,
ti'te fekwing'
• 1 it . r t .7 tl.e_ of ..11
1 It
---P*Ar that the
- I 1 11 0 ~e the-jE)b
wFitifig-
§ICY *hpw~qe F i mote"als,,
14-06-2 SE Update: 12101
TIGAR D MUNICIPAL CODE
4. They Shall inspeet fer- e
to Le
Lion of weFiHe
-His Seeti inspeeted is inaluded in the be done as shewn an he building p
S. They shall pFeper-ly netif~- the-City applioatien;
eFts. 3. Eheole that pfeyieusly Fequiivu
3tiens have been made, and immediately
} the t4 4• Of the traetn and f r r-"-'"ffie
been Feeefded;
n1 rr~,
f. Go ever the nehea.,le of r red
a name of the the extent of : inspeetions na types of test:nn
should , 1 •f a t-this -time. (Ofd. 90 14
of to a t' s all be r-eeefded in the (put
inspeetion fepet-.
7. PeFfefmanee Of tin a.,t:e9
t a this are- be done in A. General. un•,a,,...:tte : Field ??epefts.
1 en that the Building Tnspeetef eaft
e eleFCnine- whether a speeiai inspeetef- s
r-ti -a.n-~ -
i
afty and all the affiete 1 tea peet:,,n n mn-d has n ups,r vv rva
sueh time is « Of neneemplianee wit,, the work, n n y eF the handwritten field Y-ep
shall be left at the nl, site, at the eampletion Of
eede has been verified by the--C~y and the, stop o~
is lifted. (Ord. 90 11 § , eae# inspeetien visit. 'e'ke-eentraslef-is
at the :n,, site wh:eh is aeeessible to all
interested parties. The speoial inspeet8r- shall se--
eepies--e€-i}i Se
building eede, Gity-ef T-igafd building the G:-,,.
2. The special inspeeeteer- shall 3viiv
4,Apynn of teal tent r nits to time afshiteet
nna engineef o rd, the owner, the eentfaete
and the ci r~'ry,-
ty.
Q L k theA the-eeHtfaetef has Et Minimum Requirements. All repo rL..4 4L.. «Inn 2TIL[JL
1. 3s Ad-d-fress. The job aaw:ess as it
applevep; ~
14-06-3 SE Update: 12101
TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE
9-Substitatlens-and-Dead iati ens-nR
2. Time-Started and Gempleted-
he
3. Pe=mit Number. ;Ti}eFe is Gity. All noneenfe items shall be f =lh,
issued an 2the
identified en the repet4s.
semetimes mere than ene
In Name aff liatien and t ;stfat;an
A r t' ronnspeetien Fef field
otiens, 11. r ist of indiyidualsAir s reeeiviq
trsixg -grid-- lines; -ter number., e. eepies eftl,e . pent
L'.-eanene,, efRep8fts.
S. identi€eatlen e€ Materials and
Metheds of tGenstmetien. Adequate!., ;ale * 1. QYe r n.,tt %r eael, day that the
t t and + the th as ..f eenstrurtieft-, al . eta peffenras _ =1 : speetien.
speeted-fuse 2. When requested by the City, an
de,.:atiens F a"' the a •ed nlnnn
6 'resting-Bata identify , and
d t It f all + al testis tteat,,,e,,t 3. Final summaF3'-i'epeft-^v€
tF'f- + a t t'. testing, Anna test
)
ling, welding ef ether test WeFk, SU611-as- masers y, fein€efeed eenefete,
being- utilized. piling, ete.
11- Genfemanee Statement -va=t°o in general, work Y-e
hall be a .ea by the s ;al inspeete- the
't- if net efifema1ee Building insneetef) semplianse with Ce6ti0ns
was ..-ifieations, 305 and 306 efthe state building eede. )
applieable wer-kma;;shin RrRvigign- 44he- state the Building InspeeteF will net approve the wer-k
building eede and related standards. defifify and unless a han.l. FiRen field t nett has been-left-at
the jeb site, a ,mess thesneeial in eetef has
by the ar-ehkeet r e€FeseFd
S-other Information - In Additien to
the M ents listed i this seatian-, 14.06.080 .
A. rnsneetion_ shall be ent;nuous during
di t a b th C't, b., the ata~et/enginee_:ef the taking of teats "n, nlaa;na of saner-ete,
Eeeerd steel, 14-06-4 SE Update: 12101
TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE
Type and quantky-~~
(field and
a Me}s«e eentent of th
agl~~~~,
for- --4he
Building Qffieialh".~~
eeA6F@t9 }g'ull` I the r e the type and quantity of all
4+ 1 lead +:nt.°} „c °aeh-peiif
fna When \eae
woe&, m"eetim shall be emtinuous during th shall ate the quantity of eement and water- a-s
batehing opeFatien- well as the type and Of admimture.
Veri€~ that all h°+°h ..t +
shall be- equipmefft i shall
pfesen4 during the plaaeffient-ef-eenefete. Ong be "ZeMed" and all r
4. Beemme €arn}liar- with test
eeaeFe
Dufles of the r
,
designs. fnix
,,aarAkw4a4he-stMe building eede,-Seetten,1604, sampling of the mi* for- tests as ealled feF in th
has been Maa°a un'--- water- h_ -h°....... ua°~
6eeftain in the field of p! - the field, the of
as a shall h noted i the r°r. J~
aauc r
--t4sser-Ealn ll3at the eiri€e e
1 ha-ve been Yt°..°a °°lled F r in +h°
(field a i&Tla"`„
a C~a~e, ai~e, aaar~~i43; --and
14-06-5 SE Update: 12101
TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE
h
fabr4eaflon py-eeess may be waived e
T'~f ° aflEi-ieeatieft-e€'e + Building Offleial when the wefk efffHA-0fl
e
d-HH6 w.4g@-0f
G -Pe
ef the state building eade, pfisfn -testing-4s
~ " eertaiit that --Nle---fllett%d-ef required pfier to and during fuetio Testing
pla--- shall be as pfeseFibed by Seetio 2405(e) of the
state building e
and all the p e ieietls-ef-t}te-s~~~e'k"d r t• caw ter- shall t,.ae
standuds. D. r
tifnited t".
1 Eefldtteting E)r---observing and
eenstmetien P- -m ei€eatiafts: th • a th
LnI T'ovaoj'vr[Ylri ~•J .
I nh the piing and lay b
r`- meet sift tHat a11-st ffattf a}
i-s
Feyed of nits and , that f reeme^t masonry
tt e„t.. nFthis nn,t,,
~isrt}1~98}.
applie
and plaeing e- -sift€ef sefffeflt,--ifts~e s~
„t• g limitations
immedi- A• J V 'f' b that bo~ a
~
duing 4 eimeded eleanouts are ,ri !tort n and r
aFe
fequifed by Table.-No. 24 G of the state buildin
-B-Exeerti n s6Ele
F .t. it with appfeved bou
e state
buildin&wd&See~~- state building eode. The centfaetef shall sub,
It.- -Feut and mer-taf mix designs to the e
--6. AsseFtaifliflg-that the mas8nfy
t t eenfem t the quality and quantity
14-06-6 SE Update: 12101
TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE
~~ao~F+t~Fltis•~Hnl{-i+te4a~e-eHeelE+t~g: n
i
3-Miseellaneetis welding, : e (but
i
-Gmdjng,-PA)e-md quand4y ef landings, welding te steel wall studs, er-eetion of
~ e
negate-(tv~e+~-~etle►+~e~y-~te~t~}`}; s+~ te,
E. Duties of the iRspeetef shall inelu
e-v0tFf6e-R41~-~tt&Ntt~`-e~
(VJltblt- 8f~t111'tlE~-4 ' l~l® 6ik~'} not be limited te:
1 Reviewing •u «ee« e peA& a-nd
tt,j seeing that the stmetural ste in eamplianee
~
with the speeified eedes and the eppk-We
standar-ds and supervision of suoh tests as may be
§§a; 8r1~3+ fequir-ed by the ,
~ ~ of ~ nr~ ~~rte~i~isetien e€ the--~tsel
t•fivrrrtlfif~•°v ~r identifieation t for- e4 «'ib ...:±1, ±ne
plans, speeifieatiens and appliaable i
Az-'ale-s~eelEt~--tt1S0r-sl►all•-lie-~fesext
Elt+rlttg- testte+t-a~-sttttstttl Cheeking steel lte-fi►E~watiHe►t-nttcl-e
steel-tnefnHeasr--►rtiysell
tassein4~ie~-t►tx~lat=ittg-Nte-weld+~-cif-~e~t€e~r*g
steep '
n c 6Etett-dente 4, The r « hall e that h„t«
€a~ r~eess•tttt~-be-wa+r~ed-lty-~lte-9~este~
ivltelt-tlte-4V9r1(-ic~tew€Or♦tteEl-9 installed as shown on the appfeved plans and
febW0HE91'•00F~t1"ieEkttfkWPA4@d-•iy-t1184t1Y'~
tZ3p9Y9"f8®l4bl'10N{AH belting shall be in aeeerdanee with the state
-v--~ii9t'--1H--66tHHt@'rte@H19tt-
~t'iBNtiett-11t1d~9Y-el'e8tie , 3
t C-i~-FeEt~. 4~ Regularly appraise quality the ^r
}}~tf~-~He-4tt9~e6f®t-~ltst-9H61~ W9•
welds pfedueed by welders, welding epefatefs,
ataekers 1 h F during and .,F«e« the ...elm
,
14 c,,.. «he ,
-6. Review the « «^..'s eldi°g
r ~
metal items de ined in Seefiens 2-1-i~- Neer anee with AWS standar-ds and of these
fttles t note en his npeFt the
AISG fiame(s) of the individual(s) (and eeFfifieati
14-06-7 SE Update; 12101
TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE
testing ether than Nisua! is te be-FequiFed-,4-Fte ineluding patehing of damaged and weatheFed
W&4&-b~, plans must be submitted, approved by the
the extent ef testing of eaeb weld and-the+fleflied afehiteet/efigineef: and Gity, and thefeafter be kept
06 §9, 1993i )fd-.-9044 en the j E)b site pFier to this meetifit.
ef testing. "ord. 94 n12_
$ -&ppl}e pre Afl All inspeLien M
test pfeeedur-es shall be based on 14fliferm
Building Cade Standard 43 8.
A Dee.,., ..71.
:
7cuthofi$@tim lflspewefts-_F 1 r t Ve.:f,/ . that all :per+
--i-
F + + 1 steel membeis a
-I Tlie-yep F matefials shall
1 ♦ shall submit e.,F ' tee-to
'Q. TI, p
ar-ehiteegefigi """""p"'
sehedule and plans -shall be-~~he
Repefts Thespeeia; --,inspeeter shall
:ir wFiting as outlined by Seetien 14.06.070 of this
1 ,
being used, the fequiFed density and-the-speeffied 14.06.120 Site observatio
thiekness r designated
members. - A. Objeetive,
Tt, I t I1 ..Ie,..t J :.I e.+++-F,T.
elements-Ee Fe '
when--Fequ.:md by the City, aeeefding to the
u "Speeial f e
1 2. These 1'equirefn nts-- iriia
D f Genf Ple fespensibilities are not the same as these of
r
14-06-8 SE Update, 12101
f
TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE
'
\ that has been hispeetien -l•Slla
j
rll. T !
At tl - 1 F th I the -
F, o
"hall
h -'t 1 tt .t' t' rt- r th I,
B. is made -to acs ---was
Seetien 306(a)(14), a
building -eed@'
G. Definition.
The speeifie seepe of the site ebsen~atiefis
-1-i"...i.-ed in the permit deeuments as r-equiFed
ddeeuments a&- well as design- i! t' n h r should h F e.t reattl.~tF
a
that elose t t' and er-dinatien
t between the EOR, the-oe„t.. the
,
P-ArSARRAll r
22. Rush h ebsefvatio.rs absen,atien4s not to be relied The rtnn shall - 't the sr
.,e,.t:e„/test:,,
agency's speei peetiefis. This should not be
t a t t the et:e^/te..t•
t a eg~l}eal~~e--:Te manse ,
intended t assist the r't` the :te ing of the
e state building -Eede and ether stexduls:
e . -a:. to the The EO and t t should t
---v n- nvvr~ Y•' r r
en a regular basis to review the pFegm&&-&f4he
" n
eefitained in Seetion 306(a)(14),
1 and the 1'V e.,trel of the
`t r
The -EQR sheuld he evaileble, •ed F
that this may be in addition te the fequir~~ pro-fessiefial eensultation. The EOR shall feview
.t valuate the special nreetef's _inspectieid
. ,
thfoug~ (13) ete L the EQ should initiate r rr action m
.t t' ?.ist:..a n , 1993; , . 93 04 §
,.,.t.. tl,
e_-1ny r_. to
- , - - t - qualified
,
14-06-9 SE Update: 12101
I 11 Ir
;~E f -L - i y s'-r i - - - - -
'.y~~ a''t.tE e,k ~5 " -t 4" Lc a
` `hut Y` - rt-~ i s; x° - e ! . S - _
dr s °i fd t 13e,& y' ssf jr a S e t
l '1 T~ k - ; y _
- C - 'Z .s , a-n : #f 7 X to i x 11- 0. k-,-- , t i _
7 1 - _ ''.r 7 t-' k. t r y r - -A G A - i - . - ,
c xa_ d t°3 kh 3 4 - ,4
ITt g TISAI CITY COUNCI4 BUSINESS_MEETI'. STUDY SESSiQN
, 9 ,
3 r3 September i'41'2004:' 6 30 p m
t 3126 SW Nail Bauiev~id, TfSard, ' ,
Y t) -2 -..3 1
#~ydy $tp~ held In the Red Rod Cheek Confereoite!'f the number of attendeesexceeds theecapacity
' citizens; attend all or, part of file meets g .
encourages I ' ~ I y. Iob'to the TQwm Hall "
` - tfie ttl~ :Room die :oundt may mays the Stud Sees
of t 4 t--- - _ - 5 - r - ? - -
- f, x~rS _ ecu : E VE SESSION The TiA I dliuss ®s arse cotnfld nd- i(- d thosespresent may disclose nothing from the -
uridee 01tS 192 G60(2j(h} , rovide¢ by ORS
X a " Snlon ,Representatives of a Eiose a y niforination discusszd No eecutive Session! ay' be held for the
. ;4 1921560( 4),` but.rnust not
~ " N purpose of taking any final action or making aqy final decision Executive Sessions are closed to the public.
s4 r x
y t
S 5" f9 s 3 t _ _
',s~ : $t s , LsTUDY s>~ssloN -
g '
F ~ - > --FIELD (OFD LREAMS AUCTION 2004 _ -
,P- t { - > CpItRECT10N5 TO )uLY 27;AND AIlGUSI' 10 MEETING MINUTES
r, ~
F t--"~~;Po ' > kigBON CUTTING AT BONITA VILLAS
Y - - - -
a+ t
ADRNISTRATIVE ITEMS
; > a Calendar Review -
e Septemr i:4 Glty Coi►nd! Badness Mewing
Septemberl 5 Candidate Orientation at Town Hatt = 6 pm
September t 8 Tigard Blast/Cidzens Fair Parade suging at 9.3 0 am -
Pteinber 21 City Council Workshop " eO d
September 28: City Coimcii'8usinesc NEeednB
September 29 Lunch it NEBtR Station 51 Noon
- - - - -
s t D!1 ~lid~~'
Y Wi
0 adA/1
) 1 - r .
p t m ind(s~jio . pyj
y
y .
-_y
5 , - - - - - - - - - - - _
, - - -
$ t I - - - - - -
F 9 - - - _
,TS a Yx- ,.r _ -
r'+' i x~f - r
W -9 ~J farm C S, - S _ _
Ft's sgs - ' ` - - - - -
a a'9~ ^R"y 6 A Jam' h 4
s Nl-i lti"P--" r-^ rear' a s
F - i ~~~~~~~~i~~i~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~l~~~~;~~'~ . _ . I - I M111111111 ~~l~ll~i~iiiiii~l I ili~l~~ll~l~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~l~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1~ ~ I ~ I ~ ~ ~ I ~ I ~ ~ ~
~ @
s -
x S- t _ 4 r, r ¢Y a - iz. 3 t',` - `F't Is ~,n, '4',, .7 r
v 7g ~3} Y'9' S , . r W s }
t+ 5 "fit'+ ~"r, .,#'w } - s g ° s i j t C- , r } t { r - y r~ ~ .,d AaS -
IT ' trk. s f f is a `"t, `ri a < - - r, ry 't - a, '
, k 'x~ ku p. fir,. - i 5-+~.%FYv - -s, w t x t
a, .S"--A a 2 s - ~ sV" ~ xr" ~t
z
t*`C 'h :44';i}qr a t 1 S t t^ 7 i p -1_ f , P'p - -
r i` SrF F.>_ t -'a.° vfi; ° r W o 7-,~~ -s _ y .
q
I' LLL 11 , Nn~ 4 a c ,-g- 2 i r ivt.+3' 4 `4'ict F 7 - - - -
M tgx { hteedngs Law apthocheS gover4eln$ hod ie5 t° .meet in executive I es". n in certain limited -11
'A PMbI 6-Q):" xecutlvesesston Is defined as any meeting or-Part of a meeting
;'Mmations (®,'F ~ _ osW to tertM Persons for deliberattoW on certain matter u r ;
fi_%. a goveming ho y, which is Cf
W ~ F ; $ Qermisslb(e Purixts, for t.XeCaltive 'esslans
Ed ent bf, ptibitc ofRcers employees and agents,
}.s 3~r>=2.6bQ (2} {a} ' ElnP yry► r uWtes.
MR-2, w ;r ~ y x if tare bodflt has satistTed i` i certaip Pre eq
X192 bbQ (2) (b) Dtstfpline of public office and employees {unless affected person requests to`
x~,r
1 l', l , N i " j 'fi~ k' ,7: have ~n open heating} , r
A 3 rr rtainin to medical staff of a 6011c hospltai ` k
" ,F r"~ ~ x f t at 9 2 bb0 (2) (c)To edr r matters g
, re g ttatlotis. News media can be excluded to this instance)
~~z1 Q2 660.(2) {d)f u" negb
'3 u.'sf SP F' ley t Y - - - - - -
i > ` ~ P } ,h X42 66t} (2) (e) Reef propefty transaction ne tiatt ns f `are "e
gi i;I , - 4 ' Y ennPE ublic records to onsider recd ds at xempt by law. from
}~q 192,-60 {Z) Eft, r p,
= 4 ` - `public tnspectfon." These reeordsare spedfie* ldentafled !n the tJ regon )ej ~ 7{I,- t, , -~.'i- x, rr ' # r - , `Revised-Statutes - ~ - - - - - - - -
192-bb0 (2j (g} Trade negotiations involving matxers of trade or eammerce to which the
r - ~ , i", _govern itg body fs competing with other govern ing bodies
~ _ 4~1 1- 92 660 (2j (h} Legal counee( 'for consultation vrith counsel concerning legit rights and dudes
L regarding current Iltiodon or li gation likely t0 be:fliedt
~ ,s 'r,,i4
xr t92.-6Q°(2) (Q - To review and evatuate,.puraritto standards, craterta, and policy directives
11 '4 adoptd by Cie B+overning_body,:the employment related performance of the
x~ ~ { °chlif executive ofitcer; a pubttc officer, employee of staff member unless-the
z,
"~4-' 3r, ' _ affected person requests an open hearing The,staitdards; crheria and policy
'directives to beused in evatuating;ehiefcxecutive offlce'rs shall be adopted by,
the governing body in meetings open to the public in which there has been an
f Sat opportunity for public comment.
~r 192 b60 {2j (p' Rubl(c investments tQ cant' on riegodations underQRS Chapter 293 wtth
pdyate pe~sotu o r businesses regarding proposed acquisition, exchange or
' 4 - z -
liquidation of public investments
192 640 (2) (k) Relates W health professtonai regulatory -giro
s 142 6b0;E2} Ei) ;Relateso State LandscaPe`Archltert Board
A bu y 192 660 (2j (m) :Relates to the review aad.approv I I of programs relating to security.
„y
~h _
FT
? _ - - - -
s,5 h r _ r„ -
t
4
{ y r LP - - -@ - -
_
.3 "I may, .5 _
p t'y'rBt f _ r' - - -
gx fi ,~s.~ a r p,-i'. at °s ~ ;-t - -
I b _ _
mo t~
~L,a 'h$"' - j`1 L 4r'r't' 1~j j el, f i yip„- 7
~,g p 'j -P 1 4-
e.}@;`p~`F t - 1 - t
phi ail d a - ' ' i i IV ,4, t i '
i'kt r `a.Y 1. t fit, v. - m.
s,.-.
- 1'2.JU L'1lVll L),4 . lY1UU11+ 111U. JYIU U" 1 f JJ It 1U I 1 ViO.W VUL, J. U&U
Y1J ItIU R1'Y
F 1
-8 of Dreams Auction 2 04
20
To: Joanne
Fax: 503-684-7297
From: Mary Allen
Phone: 503-612-8204
Re: Just wondering if the council would like to make
a donation to our auction this year. Last year you put a
basket together with a $100 gift certificate from Cafe
Allegro. There are also some knick knacks from the City.
2 pages including this sheet
MJJ UU WY X2. UU 1'3fV{J W.1 . O.LUU11+ L&J1.. 11UJ UJ" 11 JJ 1 tU1 a uVYf uV.. a ua.u
Field of Dreams Aucfim 2004
Dear Friend,
Southside Soccer, Tigard Youth Football, Tigard High School Football/Baseball/Lacrosse, American Legion
Baseball, Junior State Baseball need your help in order to raise money to help pay for the new turf field at
Tigard High School. We are asking you for donations for our auction, which will be held on October 23, 2004.
This is a very important field to the youth in our community because it caters to several different sports. Before
the field was improved it was used strictly for football and baseball purposes on a limited basis, now it is used
year round. There is no other turf field like it in the Northwest. Thank you for your support!
STEPS TO MAKE YOUR CHAIUTABLE DONATION:
1. Complete this form.
2. Mail or fax the donation along with the bottom of this form to:
2004 Auction -.19600 S.W. Cipole Road • Tualatin, Oregon 97062
3. If you need to the item to be picked up call Mary 503-612-8204
FIELD OF DREAMS TAX IDENTIFICATION # 91-1787794
Donor Name (As it should appear in catalog):
Donor Address
City: State; Zap.
Email Address (We will email you an electronic receipt):
Contact Natne: Phone Number:
Item:
Clear Description of Donation (Please include any limitations or restrictions):
Estimated Value of Donation:
Signature of Donor.
Page 1
' Joanne Bengtson - Corrections to July 27 and August 10 minutes
From: Jane McGarvin
To: Joanne Bengtson
Date: 9/9/041:40PM
Subject: Corrections to July 27 and August 10 minutes
I found I incorrectly referred several exhibits to the wrong agenda item number in the July 27 minutes
In the August 10 minutes, I realized it would be clearer to assign exhibit numbers to the various sets of
revised resolutions Council was given, so added exhibit numbers.
After making those changes, I printed out the new minutes that are to be approved by Council next
Tuesday.
Please note corrections on the Pink Agenda sheet.
Thanks
Page 1
Bill Monahan - Re: Ribbon Cutting at Bonita
Prom: Bill Monahan
To: Susan Wilson
Date: 9/8/04 2:18PM
Subject: Re: Ribbon Cutting at Bonita
Hi Susan,
Thank you for the invitation, I have placed the event in my calendar and plan to attend. I will also speak
with the Mayor and council members and encourage them to attend. I should be able to give you a count
of who will be there in a few weeks. I expect that Chief Dickinson will also attend.
Best wishes,
Bill
Bill Monahan
City Manager
(503) 639-4171, ext 2406
bill@ci.tigard.or.us
Susan Wilson <Susan-Wilson@co.washington.or.us> 09/08/04 01:40PM
Bill,
The Washington County Department of Housing Services is planning on a ribbon
cutting at Bonita Villas on Thursday, October 21 st @ 10:00 am. Formal
invitations are forthcoming. We would be very honored by your presence as
well as the Mayor, City Councilmembers and Police Chief. We consider the
City our partner in this very important and challenging project. I hope that
you and your elected leaders will hold this date and participate in the
ribbon cutting ceremony. Please call upon me if you have any questions.
Best Regards,
Susan Wilson
CC: Bill Dickinson
9
CITY OF TIGARD
Community Development
ShapingA Better Community
MEMORANDUM
CITY OF TIGARD
TO: Mayor and City Council members
FROM: Jim Hendryx, Community Development Director mu
DATE: September 10, 2004
SUBJECT: Annexation discussion
As a result of existing annexation policy regarding the creation of uniform boundaries,
the City has lost potential Park SDC's that could have been collected with new
development. On September 21, 2004, the Council will be asked to discuss options to
address continuing issues with annexation. The options identified fall within 1 of 2
categories:
1. Continue with existing practices following the existing Comprehensive Plan
policies which does not result in increased collection of potential Park SDC's, or
2. Initiate discussion on Comprehensive Plan policy changes/interpretations that
provide a clearly defined process for bringing in land prior to development so that
Park SDC's can be collected.
The specific issues that will be discussed include: consents to annex, annexation of
properties contiguous to the City limits and Island annexations. This memo is intended
to provide a brief overview of these issues. A more detailed memo will be presented
prior to the September 21, 2004 meeting which will discuss the issues in greater detail.
Consent to annex
The City has 2 consents to annex that have been recorded and are valid and several
mo- pendinr, Thp pending consents to annex have been required as conditions of
approval for recent decisions, but the conditions have not been satisfied yet. The areas
with valid (signed and recorded) consents are Tuscany Estates and Bella Vista. At
issue is whether and in what manner the City should act on these consents.
9-10-04 Annexation discussion memo Page 1 of 2
Properties contiguous to City limits
As noted above, the current practice is to require development adjacent to the City limits
to annex prior to development (e.g., Final Plat approval) and to process any requested
annexation that is adjacent to the City limits immediately. Examples include Alberta
Rider School, Arbor Summit, and Summit Ridge. This brings these properties into the
City prior to building permits and SDC's being paid, however, it is a piece-meal
annexation method that can result in irregular boundaries. In the past, the City has
changed its practice regarding how proactive it is in bringing in additional properties
utilizing the double majority method. In most cases, the City has not annexed additional
properties to create a more uniform boundary even though the double majority method
is used. More recently, however, the City has been more proactive. An example of this
is annexation of the BPA powerline right of way as part of the annexation of the Pacific
Crest Subdivision. At issue is how to evaluate requests for annexation that are .
contiguous to the City limits and bringing in additional properties using the double
majority method may be appropriate.
Islands
A separate issue involves island annexations. Islands are lands within unincorporated
Washington County that are completely surrounded by the City. Currently,-there are
several islands of unincorporated areas along Fern Street. Council's direction on the
above policy issues could result in additional islands being created. In addition, there is
a petition for annexation submitted north of Bull Mountain Road that will create an island
if approved.
Because the Bull Mountain annexation vote will not include the Fern Street
unincorporated island areas, the Council can consider whether to annex these areas
separately utilizing the island annexation method. It should be noted that some of these
parcels previously in the island have annexed prior to development. There are large
parcels that could develop further, however, because they are adjacent to the City
limits, they would be required to annex (or sign consents to annex, depending on
Council direction on the previous discussion item) prior to development. At issue is how
soon and in what way they want to annex islands.
Conclusion
I will provide an introduction to these issues during the study session on September 14,
2004. This item is scheduled for further discussion at Council's September 21, 2004
business meeting. Based upon Council's direction on the 21St, staff would return in
October for Council action.
9-10.04 Annexation discussion memo Page 2 of 2
Map of current development projects in unincorporated Washington County
to,
`r fir'
ENE
9
m
e
I
r
x n ` Ft ~ {f . r~ t Y "15 .{y . t 1~ iP i 1 `rt t{ ) t . ,
, ,~l~,,"~,,~o °a r ~1~ n iJU~k ~^~p,{!~ ff(f~~`w~:~.•'° ~~BA ~ > ,
wM y r 1 ► ~ ~~r 'a l~~,~ v rll /fir ~
,
k
lye ,
PROCLAMATION
Consftdon Week
M° . WHEREAS September 17, 2004, marks the two-hundred-seventeenth anniversary of the
drafting of the Constitution of the United States of America by the Constitutional
Convention; and :'?ltriHi;
WHEREAS, It is fitting and proper to accord official recognition to this magnificent r*
document and its memorable anniversary; and to the patriotic celebration which will
commemorate the occasion; and lu~'€
WHEREAS, Public Law 915 guarantees the issuing of a proclamation each year by the b 1:
President of the United States of America designating September 17 through 23 as
Constitution Week. ,
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT I, Craig Dirksen, Mayor of the City of .x1011111,
Tigard, Oregon, do hereby proclaim the week of September 17 through 23, 2004 as ~~i~ln(~A
Constitudon Week
33.. In Tigard, Oregon and encourage all citizens to reaffirm the !deals of the Constitution by
vigilantly protecting the freedoms guaranteed to us through this guardian of our liberties. ?;M:..<„
Dated this ~ day of
2004.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF 1 have hereunto set m hand and caused the Seal of the City r~~lwkli~~r. -
of Tigard to be affixed.
Craig Dir en, Mayor
City of Tigard
lT'
Attest:f
C Recorded
MITI,
i911wpP'd'. r`nrrl.lr~iF•
3 tit: in~`• ..~a~S
n , 1 :a-
1 -ll rl jrx 1{ 'fit a ri ~ x iL ~ Y" w 'fit xuu r L/ a rt x* x ~ -
L t 43 G v' 4 stir'.,
PROCLAMATION
r Disability Employment Awareness Month
~111i ~a
WHEREASr the United States of America has prized itself on advancing the civil rights of
•Df"~..at 1"~
~ ~~uilflr>~', individuals and guaranteeing liberty and justice for all. Central to the philosophy of our
democratic form of government are the precepts of equality and individual dignity, the value
' of self-reliance and the basic right of all citizens to live full, Independent and productive lives;
and
„Il~uc p , e'.
a WHEREAS, In keeping with that tradition, the United States Congress in 1990 enacted the
„ Americans with Disabilities Act. This landmark legislation prohibits discrimination against
people with disabilities in employment, public accommodations, transportation and
telecommunications; andr
t~
s;.... WHEREAS, by joint resplut(on, Congress has designated October of each year as
p l " National Disability Employment Awareness Month and I tsys
WHEREAS, the City of Tigard supports this resolution and the spirit as well as the letter of
the law to assure that all citizens with disabilities are fully included in our social, cultural and
: economic mainstream; and
WHEREAS people with disabilities represent a large untapped pool of talent. y p'
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT I, Craig Dirksen, Mayor of Tigard, do
hereby proclaim October as
spY,
Disability Employment Awareness Month
In Tigard, Oregon and urge its observance by all of our citizens.
f Dated this day of r 2~ '2004
t=L',
M r,.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the Seal of the City of
Tigard to be affixed.
Craig D(r en, ayor"tlfii't
City of Tigard Attest: 5
Recorder
} 4lhr~
'tW'v ~ „r'" F_F •il'%+'^•`~ ~n x~ ~ e~~ Pt~ti~)! ~~a~a~k,: ~
f
'or
luny:
Ift
r 1
1 Natlonai Alcohol and Drug Addiction Recovery Month'
September, 2004
tii~►~?i'.
$,)~s WHEREAS, substance use and addiction result in huge societal and economic costs. It was recently
yA
estimated that the cost of untreated addiction in the United States is $294 billion a year. Despite
this staggering statistic, 76 percent of people in need of treatment for a problem with illicit drugs w
did not seek or receive treatment; and
6lI1 WHEREAS, the toll substance abuse takes on family, friends, and community is Immeasurable; and
, 4 Man~'66~~y .
( WHEREAS, every day In every part of the United States, men, women, and youth are entering
treatment and beginning the road to recovery and families are seeking hope and recovery in
support programs and counseling; and
WHEREAS, National Alcohol and Drug Addiction Recovery Month celebrates the tremendous
(iiyt-
,r~:;:. ; strides taken by individuals who have undergone successful treatment, families in recovery, and ,v..}
those In the treatment field who have dedicated their lives to helping people recover; and : '"4I~i!~°=4
WHEREAS, this year's theme, "Join the Voices for Recovery ...Now!", Invites all segments of
society to join the recovery community In Improving the quality of treatment programs and i>
coordinated services in an effort to eradicate the disease of addiction; and
WHEREAS, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Substance Abuse and Mental
Health Services Administrations Center for Substance Abuse Treatment; and the Office of
National Drug Control Policy; Invite all residents of Tigard to participate in National Alcohol and 4i*
Drug Addiction Recovery Months
i NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT 1, Mayor Craig D!rksen of the City of Tigard,
Oregon, do hereby proclaim the month of September 2004 as
' NATIONAL ALCOHOL AND DRAG
ADDICTION RECOVERY MONTH =F
ll~ii~;,', h iay'''•1i~jiU~~~
Dated this day of 2004.
'^kalitiii;'
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the Sea f the City of Tigard {
to be affixed.n
?tom ' Crag r en, Mayor „i7~ilsi+4
City of Tigard .
Attest: e t,~
Recorder
rrn~
~ ~e w t a1
' • Its ~ 81~ i ~ !'fin i wtS 1 * 3, y,a
r
AGENDA ITEM NO. - VISITOR'S AGENDA DATE : September 14, 2004
w The Visitor's Agenda gives citizens the opportunity to address the Tigard City Council on any topic or issue.
w Testimony is limited to 2 minutes or less.
w If you are interested in testifying on a "public hearing" item scheduled for tonight's meeting, please sign the public
hearing testimony sign-up sheet for that item.
NAME, ADDRESS & PHONE TOPIC STAFF CONTACTED
I t SIAI I I
044 z a
VISITOR'S AGENDA Page 1
AGENDA ITEM NO. • VISITOR'S AGENDA DATE ; September 14, 2004
w The Visitor's Agenda gives citizens the opportunity to address the Tigard City Council on any topic or issue.
w Testimony is limited to 2 minutes or less.
era if you are Interested in testifying on a "public hearing" item scheduled for tonight's meeting, please sign the public
hearing testimony sign-up sheet for that item.
NAME, ADDRESS & PHONE TOPIC STAFF CONTACTED
lkl ~ ~ t ~ c~s~riN
S Ko"
12.3 S / T
l , 7 Fe L
VISITOR'S AGENDA Page 1
LhipNcw Tigard h School
20042M 9000 SW Durham Road
Tigard, OR 97223
September 1311, 2004
AS8 President:
Nikki Pham
ASB'Vice President:
Raphael Wit
Academics: Class started off rocky because of construction
ASB Activities: Teachers are being very patient
Joei Walker Planning on an amazing year under guidance of Pam
Henslee.
ASB Secretary:
Ashleigh Stroud Activities: Back to School night is September 22"d
Homecoming week: Those Who Shaped Our World"
ASB Treasurer Homecoming Parade and Game, Oct. Ist
Lauren Schleyer
Athletics: Varsity Football won first game of the season vs.
ASB Human Relations: Canby
Bri Jones New Girls Varsity Soccer Coach, Tiffany Milibrett.
Teams are at the beginning of their season
ASB Assemblies:
MerWith.Durfee Arts: New Marching Band
ASB Spirit: Fall play is Piece of my Heart
147stt Dazes Construction
ASB:Publicity: Update: Summer work started off slow due to bad weather
Stephanie Rogers In the process of Phase 2
New: Science Wing and Counseling Offices
ASB Technology Co.: Teacher's moved into classrooms on September 7th
David McDougall Problems are crowded small hallways and paths from
school building to portables outside.
MEMORANDUM qllqli>q
Administration
CITY OF TIGARD
Shaping A Better Community
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Joanne Bengtson
DATE: September 3, 2004
SUBJECT: Three-Month Council Calendar
Regularly schedule council meetings are marked with an asterisk
September
15 Wednesday Candidate Orientation - 6:00 pm, Town Hall
18 Saturday Tigard Blast/Citizen Fair - 9:30 am, Parade staging at City Hall
21* Tuesday Council Workshop Meeting, Town Hall - 6:30 pm, Town Hall
28* Tuesday Council Workshop Meeting with Study Session - 6:30 pm, Town Hall
29 Wednesday Lunch at TVF&R, Station 51 -12:00 noon, Burnham Street
30 Thursday Focus on Tigard Candidate Forum filming - 6:30 pm, Town Hall
October
1 Friday Strategic Planning Meeting -1:00 pm, Councilor Sherwood's home
11 * Tuesday Council Business Meeting with Study Session - 6:30 pm, Town Hall
18* Tuesday Council Workshop Meeting, Town Hall - 6:30 pm, Town Hall
25* Tuesday Council Workshop Meeting with Study Session - 6:30 pm, Town Hall
November
4-6 Thursday League of Oregon Cities Conference - Mariott Hotel, Downtown
Portland
k Saturday
g* Tuesday Council Business Meeting with Study Session - 6:30 pm, Town Hall
11 Thursday Veteran's Day - City Hall Closed
s
16* Tuesday Council Workshop Meeting, Town Hall - 6:30 pm, Town Hall
3-Month Council Calendar - September to November
November (continued)
23* Tuesday Council Workshop Meeting with Study Session - 6:30 pm, Town Hall
25 Thursday Thanksgiving - City Hall Closed
26 Friday Day after Thanksgiving observed - City Hall Closed
i:Wdmklry cwndM-rr oath calendar word tormaLdoc
i
2
3-Month Council Calendar - September to November
"r Tigard City Council Tentative Agenda 2004
Meeting Date: September 21, 2004 Meeting Date: September 28, 2004 Meeting Date: October 12, 2004
Meeting Typemme: Workshop/6:30 p.m. Meeting Type/Time: Business/6:30 p.m. Meeting Type/Time: Business/6:30 p.m.
Location: City Hall Location: City Hall Location: City Hall
Greeter. Greeter: Loreen Greeter:
Materials Due @ 5: September 7, 2004 Materials Due @ 5: September 14, 2004 Materials Due @ 5: September 28, 2004
Bid Opening Deadline: September 6, 2004 Bid Opening Deadline: September 13, 2004 Bid Opening Deadline: September 27, 2004
Scan Deadline @ noon: September 3, 2004 Scan Deadline @ noon: September 10, 2004 Scan Deadline @ noon: September 24, 2004
Req to Sched Due (_5: August 20, 2004 Req to Sched Due @5: August 27, 2004 Req to Sched Due @5: September 10, 2004
Televised: No Televised: Yes Televised: Yes
Attorney Attends: No Attorney Attends: No Attorney Attends: Yes
Bill M. will not attend Study Session Study Session
Joint meeting with the Budget Committee *City Managers 360 review - Sandy Tom Woodruff out of town
Craig - 45 min Executive Session - Pending Litigation?
Social Service Grant Review & Funding Process
- Liz - 10 min
Present Exec Summary of Park & Rec Assessment
Survey - Dan - 20 min
Review Initial Draft Updated Parks SDC Consent Agenda Consent Agenda
Methodology - Dan - 25 min 0 *Proclamation on Preventing Racism Week
*Tri-Met Commuter Rail Station Design Resolution authorizing submittal of CDBG grant
- Jim - 30 min application - RES - Duane
Continue discussion of Council Groundrules LCRB - Contract Award: Slope Stabilization at
- Liz - 10 min Quail Hollow West - Brian R.
Business Meeting
*Summer Reading Program Recap - Margaret Business Meeting
- 10 min *Library Operations Update
Vision Survey Results - R&F - Loreen/Liz - 20 min
Finalize Formation of Sanitary Sewer Reimburse. °
District #26 (121 st) - PPT, PHI, RES - Gus c
-15 min
*Police Report - Chief
Resurrecting the American Dream Day Campaign
- Liz - 5 min m
a
ao
o °
S
9/3/2004 1
Tigard City Council Tentative Agenda 2004
Meeting Date: October 19, 2004 Meeting Date: October 26, 2004 Meeting Date: November 9, 2004
Meeting Type~me: Workshop/6:30 p.m. Meeting TypeMme: Business/6:30 p.m. Meeting Typemme: Business/6:30 p.m. Yes
Hall
Location: City Hall Location: City Hall Location: City
Greeter. Greeter: Greeter.
Materials Due @ 5: October 5, 2004 Materials Due @ 5: October 12, 2004 Materials Due @ 5: October 26, 2004
Bid Opening Deadline: October 4, 2004 Bid Opening Deadline: October 11, 2004 Bid Opening Deadline: October 25, 2004
Scan Deadline @ noon: October 1, 2004 Scan Deadline @ noon: October 8, 2004 Scan Deadline @ noon: October 22, 2004
Req to Sched Due @5: September 17, 2004 Req to Sched Due @5: September 24, 2004 Re ev sedhed Due @5: October 8, 2004
Televised: No Televised: Yes
rmeeting : No Attome Attends: No Attome Attends: Yes
Study Session Study Session
ill not attend Brian Moore out of town -10123 -1112
th the Senior Center Board -
45 min
*Communication Plan Update - Liz
Tour Permit Center Remodel Project - Tentative -
Loreen - 30 min
ConsentAgenda Consent Agenda
Council Goal Update - Cathy
Business Meeting Business Meeting
*Election results
i
N
2
9/3/2004
Tigard City Council Tentative Agenda 2004
Meeting Date: November 16, 2004 Meeting Date: November 23, 2004 Meeting Date: December 14, 2004
Meeting Type/Time: Workshop/6:30 p.m. Meeting Type/Time: Business/6:30 p.m. Meeting TypeTme: B s ne /6:30 p.m.
Location: City Hall Location: City Hall Location: City a
Greeter. Greeter: Greeter.
Materials Due @ 5: November 2, 2004 Materials Due @ 5: November 9, 2004 Materials Due @ 5: November 30, 2004
Bid Opening Deadline: November 1, 2004 Bid Opening Deadline: November 8, 2004 Bid Opening Deadline: November 29, 2004
Scan Deadline @ noon: October 29, 2004 Scan Deadline @ noon: November 5, 2004 Scan Deadline @ noon: November 26, 2004
Req to Sched Due @5: October 15, 2004 Req to Sched Due @5: October 22, 2004 Televised: Req to hed Due @5: November 12, 2004
Televised: No Televised: Yes
Attome Attends: No Attorney Attends: No Attorney Attends: Yes
Bill Monahan will not attend Study Session Study Session
*City Attorney Review
City-TRIMET MOU Progress Report with Fred
Hansen - Duane - 30 min
'Tour of City Hall Remodel Project - Loreen - 20 min
Quarterly Water Supply Update - Joint Meeting w/
the Intergovernmental Water Board - PPT
- Dennis - 20 min Consent Agenda
Update on Tree Program - Dan, Matt Stine - 15 min Consent Agenda
Report & Discuss Results from Downtown Imp R & F: Canvass of Votes for Mayor and City
Plan Community Dialogue events - Barbara S Councilors and for Ballot Measure ? from
- 30 min November 2 Election- Liz (or 12/14)
Business Meeting Business Meeting
Sen Burdick - 45 min - Cathy Bull Mt Election Adoption - PH - RES - Jim -
*Rep. Gallizio/Gallagher 30 min
*Formation of Sewer Reim District #32 - Eng. Adopt Parks SDC Methodology & Rates
*Formation of Sewer Reim District #33 - Eng. -MOTION -Dan
Updated Parks SDC Methodology - PHL - Dan
- 10 min
3
9/3/2004
rita Tigard City Council Tentative Agenda 2004
Meeting Date: December 21, 2004 Meeting Date: December 28, 2004
Meeting Type[Time: Workshop/6:30 p.m. Meeting Typelfime: Business/6:30 p.m.
Location: City Hall Location: City Hall
Greeter. Greeter:
Materials Due @ 5: December 7, 2004 Materials Due @ 5: December 14, 2004
Bid Opening Deadline: December 6, 2004 Bid Opening Deadline: December 13, 2004
Scan Deadline @ noon: December 3, 2004 Scan Deadline @ noon: December 10, 2004
Req to Sched Due @5: November 19, 2004 Req to Sched Due @5: November 24, 2004
Televised: No Televised: Yes
Attorney Attends: No Attorney Attends: No
Study Session
Skate Park Update - Dan -15 min
Joint meeting with the Budget Committee -
Craig - 30 min
Parks System Master Plan Update - Dan - 15 min
Consent Agenda
Business Meeting
9/3/2004 4
AGENDA ITEM #
FOR AGENDA OF September 14, 2004
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Award of Contract for the Construction of FY 2004-05 Storm Drainage & Sanitary
Sewer Rehabilitation Pro am AA P
PREPARED BY: Vannie N en 4EPT HEAD OK: Agustin P. DuendwMTY MGR OK: Bill onahan
ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL
Shall the Local Contract Review Board approve the contract award for the construction of FY 2004-05 Storm
Drainage & Sanitary Sewer Rehabilitation Program?
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Local Contract Review Board, by motion, approve the contract award to Planned &
Engineered Construction Inc., in the amount of $82,498.00.
INFORMATION SUMMARY
The City of Tigard's television inspection reports identified several thousand feet of sanitary and storm drain
pipes that are seriously damaged. The line segments have numerous cracks and the pipe joints are often split
allowing water to leak through. Beginning FY 2001-02, staff established a yearly rehabilitation program to
restore the structural integrity of the damaged pipes. The program uses a method to install pipe that eliminates
the need to excavate. The installation of Cured-in-Place Pipe (CIPP) utilizes a trenchless construction method
that prevents damage to existing pavement and minimizes disruption to traffic and underground utilities. This
method is widely used by other governmental agencies and has proved effective in solving the problem.
The installation of CIPP is formed by the insertion of a resin-impregnated flexible felt tube into an existing
pipe. The tube is expanded with water in an inversion process to fit against the host pipe, and then heated to
cure the resin. The finished product is a jointless, structural pipe that is formed to the existing host pipe.
So far, the program has rehabilitated approximately 3,200 feet of CIPP located at various locations in the City.
Each year Public Works Wastewater Division supplies a list of storm drain pipe and sanitary sewer pipe
needing rehabilitated. This year's program rehabilitates 693 feet of storm drain pipes and 1,068 feet of sanitary
sewer pipes on the following streets: Viewmount Court, Kable Street, Spruce Street, Burlheights Street and
Greenburg Road.
This project was advertised for bids on August 17 and August 19, 2004 in the Daily Journal of Commerce and
Tigard Times respectively. The bid opening was conducted on August 31, 2004 and the bid results are:
Planned & Engineered Const Helena, MT $52,498
Insituform Technologies Inc. Benicia, CA $88,507
Gelco Services Salem, OR $88,953
Engineer's Estimate $111,000
Based on the bids submitted, the lowest responsive bid of $82,498 submitted by Planned & Engineered
Construction Inc., appears to be reasonable. Staff recommends approval of the contract award to this qualified
lowest bidder,
OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
None
VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY
N/A
ATTACHMENT LIST
Project location map
FISCAL NOTES
This project is funded in the amount of $100,000 in the FY 2004-05 CIP Storm Sewer Fund and $75,000 in
the FY 2004-05 Sanitary Sewer Fund for a total of $175,000. This amount is sufficient to award the contract
of $82,498.00 to Planned & Engineered Construction, Inc.
I %"%vwvk%c ty mursiA2001-DS storm d serer WOMO-14-W pipe mhao wnaad awad ais.dM
ti
FY 2004-05 STORM & SEWER
REHABILITATION PROGRAM
LL
N y
N NORM DAKOTA
~Y2j>
OAK ST
BURLHEWWS Sr i ~ JR QO
SUMMER S ' 0
SJ~I~~'~~~SS q` C y~2j>
SHADY LN
Df B
W
PINE PINE ST PINE 5
W
1
KABLE ST
N N
n
N ~ SPRUCE
dtErmourr
DR
SU~~~Rr16~ 9 J-
31
VICINITY MAP
NTS
AGENDA ITEM #
FOR AGENDA OF September 14, 2004
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Award of contract for City-wide janitorial services to Tualatin Valley Workshop.
PREPARED BY: Joe Barrett DEPT HEAD OK: CITY MGR OK:
ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL
Shall the Local Contract Review Board (LCRB) award a contract for City-wide janitorial services to Tualatin
Valley Workshop?
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the LCRB award a contract for City-wide janitorial services to Tualatin Valley Workshop
and authorize staff to finalize the contract with the vendor.
INFORMATION SUMMARY
In 1977, the Oregon legislature passed the "Products of Disabled Individuals" Act (ORS 279.835 to ORS
279.855). This law obligates all state and local governments, school districts, and other tax-supported political
bodies in Oregon, to purchase goods and services from Qualified Rehabilitation Facilities (QRFs) when the
product or service meets their requirements. A QRF is a non-profit organization that puts Oregonians with
disabilities to work. The mission of a QRF is to help disabled people achieve self-confidence and self-
sufficiency by working in the community in which they live and becoming productive citizens. It is "qualified"
because its programs are registered and reviewed on a regular basis by various state and federal agencies such
as the Oregon Department of Human Services (DHS), Oregon Department of Administrative Services (DAS)
and the National Industries for the Severely Handicapped (NISH).
One of the services that is provided by a number of QRF vendors is janitorial/custodial services. As the City's
existing contract for City-wide janitorial services has expired, staff entered into negotiations with a number of
QRFs providing the service. During the negotiation process with the various QRFs, Tualatin Valley Workshop
emerged as the vendor that could best meet the needs of the City. Under new rules relating to QRF contracts
passed by the State in late 2003, the City was required to submit a Request for Approval of Price Determination
with the State's Department of Administrative Services (DAS) before proceeding with the contract. Staff
received that approval in July and has conducted a one-month trial period with Tualatin Valley Workshop.
Based upon the pricing determination and the success during the trial period, staff is recommending the award
of a one-year contract with Tualatin Valley Workshop, with four additional one-year options, for City-wide
services
jar.1.n ..,1
OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
1. Do not approve the purchase of janitorial services from Tualatin Valley Workshop.
1 r,•
VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY
None.
ATTACHMENT LIST
1. State of Oregon Department of Administrative Services Request for Approval of Price Determination.
FISCAL NOTES
The annual cost of the City-wide services is estimated to be $177,000. The total expense of the contract, if all
option years are exercised, will be approximately to be $885,000.
Previously, the City spent approximately $75,000 annually on janitorial services for three-days a week cleaning.
Under the new contract, the City will be switching to five-days a week cleaning. The move to a five day per
week cleaning is due to the higher level of service necessary to maintain the City facilities to a proper standard.
City staff determined that 3 day per week service was not adequate to meet the City's standard of quality for its
facilities. Also, the new Library has approximately doubled the amount of square footage to be covered under a
janitorial contract. These are the two primary factors in the cost increase for this service.
T-ens P.002/002 F-oea
Jul-12.2004 10:04m From-
Request for Approvel of Price Detexminatlon
For ~
(producx or srsvia) pp,~1~-K
Tow Fria. -s
wi ng Q n.g2A VatlU'Wax •o ao, Inc.
Q F tbo proposed p&* and supporting docwc,neAtatioa meets the ealuiranads of
OAR 125-055-00
dates 7- lZ-m
Amory Si~naturo .
data:
Ata n:edtho ~RF Signah~
DAMPO has rMewed, ft vjb6 tod documcnt4ln supporting the paiCO o1t+md by the QRF and
$ppiov c price far pro=mmt of tha abovc stated product or : ce 9n accotdsncc 'Aft OAR
AM .
coordinator
M '
AGENDA ITEM # '41,4
FOR AGENDA OF September 14, 2004
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
ISSLE/AGENDA TITLE Appointment to the Budget Committee ~j~/~
PREPARED BY: Susan Koepping DEPT HEAD OK e Y MGR 01{L WW
ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL
Shall the Council appoint Susan Yesilada, current Budget Committee alternate, as a member of the Budget
Committee to complete the term held by Forrest Nabors until his August, 2004 resignation?
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Appoint Susan Yesilada to the Budget Committee.
INFORMATION SUMMARY
Susan Yesilada was appointed as the alternate to the Budget Committee on April 13, 2004, after being interviewed
by the Mayor's Appointments Advisory Committee along with other Budget Committee applicants. Committee
alternates receive copies of all written information provided to committee members, are invited to any training, and
are encouraged to attend committee meetings. An alternate can be appointed to membership on the Budget
Committee in the event of a mid-term resignation by a member. Ms. Yesilada would be appointed to complete the
Budget Committee term vacated by Forrest Nabors.
OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
None considered
VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY
Goal: City will maximize the effectiveness of the volunteer spirit to accomplish the greatest good for our
community.
ATTACHMENT LIST
1. Resolution to appoint Ms. Yesilada
2. Biographical information on Ms. Yesilada.
3. Copy of Resolution 01-21 regarding the appointment of alternates to boards and committees
FISCAL NOTES
There is no cost associated with this action.
Biographical information on Susan Yesilada, proposed Budget Committee appointee
Susan Yesilada is a six-year resident of Tigard who lives near the center of town.
A financial advisor with degrees from the University of California at Berkeley and the University
of Michigan, Susan has been an active community volunteer locally and in other communities
where she resided. Her community involvement benefits the Tigard community.
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
RESOLUTION NO. 01-a I
A RESOLUTION OF THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MODIFYING THE BOARD AND COMMITTEE
APPOINTMENT PROCESS TO INCLUDE APPOINTING ALTERNATES
WHEREAS, openings on boards and committees are filled after advertizing for applicants, applicants being
interviewed by the Mayor's Appointments Advisory Committee and their names being submitted to the full
Council for appointment, a process that takes as along as three months; and
WHEREAS, this process this works well when the end of a term is known; and
WHEREAS, when a resignation occurs midterm and is effective immediately, this process is ineffecient
and leaves the board or committee without complete staffing for as long as 3 months; and
WHEREAS, 1 or 2 alternates to a specific board or committee could be selected from the pool of
interviewed applicants and appointed by the Council at the same time new, full-term members are
appointed.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Tigard City Council that:
SECTION 1: When a full-term position on a board or committee is due to open, the Mayor's
Appointments Advisory Committee interviews applicants and selects a candidate or
candidate(s) for immediate appointment as member(s). At the same time, 1 or 2 of the
interviewed applicants would be appointed as alternates.
SECTION 2: Alternates would be appointed to terms that would end when the next full-term
committee positions open.
SECTION 3: In the event of a member's midterm resignation, an appointed alternate could be
appointed to member status by the Council, and would complete the remaining portion
of the term from which the member had resigned. Alternates would only fill remaining
terms on the specific board or committee for which they originally were interviewed.
This modification of the appointment process would be used only in the event of a
midterm vacancy.
SECTION 4: In no event may a person designated as an altemate be so designated for a period
exceeding two years unless the person reapplies and is reappointed as an alternate.
RESOLUTION NO. 01-al
Page I
SECTION S: An alternate who has been appointed to a remaining term may subsequently serve two
full consecutive terms on the board or committee to which he or she was appointed, and
would be subject the same membership requirements as any other citizen.
PASSED: This : day of d 2001.
Council President - City of Tigard
ATTEST:
City Recorder - City of Tigard
i rcitywidcN=1utdot
RESOLUTION NO.01-d 1
Paget
AGENDA ITEM # ~5'
FOR AGENDA OF 09/14/04
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Approve Municipal Court Judge Pro Tem Agreement
1 Y~
PREPARED BY: Nadine Robinson? DEPT HEAD OK _ CITY MGR OK NO~~
ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL
When the Municipal Judge is not available for Court or has a conflict with a case, the Court needs to have a
Municipal Judge Pro Tem available to call upon.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Approve a personal services agreement with Bruce Liebowitz to serve as Municipal Judge Pro Tem.
INFORMATION SUMMARY
In 1989 Bruce A. Liebowitz entered into an agreement with the City of Tigard to serve as Municipal Judge Pro
Tem when the regular judge was absent or caseload exceeded normal limits. Mr. Liebowitz served as a Pro Tem
Judge for the City into the mid-1990s. During that time, City Council was satisfied with his performance and
continued to approve his agreements. Mr. Liebowitz voluntarily resigned in 1995. Since then, Mr. Liebowitz has
made himself available to assist the Court in emergency situations. At this time, we would like to again formalize
the working relationship with Mr. Liebowitz. Entering into a personal services agreement with Mr. Liebowitz will
allow the Court more flexibility in obtaining a Municipal Court Judge Pro Tem. The Court anticipates requesting
Mr. Liebowitz's assistance three or four times per year.
OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
Advertise for additional Municipal Judges Pro Tem.
VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY
N/A
ATTACHMENT LIST
1. Resolution
1. Personal Services Agreement
FISCAL NOTES
Funds are budgeted to cover the cost of judicial services.
AGENDA ITEM #
FOR AGENDA OF September 14, 2004
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Invitation to Ti and Blast/Citizen's Fair
PREPARED BY: Joanne Bengtson DEPT HEAD OK~G~ J~ffWCITYMGROK FU kNOM
ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL
The Mayor would like to issue an invitation to the community and the cable viewing audience to join in the
festivities of the Tigard Blast/Citizen Fair on September 18, 2004.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
None.
INFORMATION SUMMARY
On Saturday, September 18, the Annual Tigard Blast will be held in downtown Tigard. It will begin with a
parade at 10:00 a.m. and staff will coordinate a Citizen's Fair to be held in conjunction with the Blast activities.
OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
None
VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY
None
ATTACHMENT LIST
None
FISCAL NOTES
There is no financial impact created by this action. •
i:\adm%eity couneillcouneilagmda item aummaries\2004\ais for tiganl blast 040914.doc9/3/04
3
i
K~
AGENDA ITEM #
FOR AGENDA OF Sept. 14, 2004
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Business Energy Tax Credit for New Library
PREPARED BY: Margaret Barnes DEPT HEAD OK CITY MGR OK eao"
ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL
Purchase of Business Energy Tax Credit for new library by Hoffman Construction
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Council accept purchase of the Business Energy Tax Credit by Hoffman Construction
and acknowledge the partnership between the City and the company.
INFORMATION SUMMARY
To encourage energy-efficient construction, the Oregon Department of Energy offers tax credits to commercial
buildings that meet certain environmental standards. Tigard citizens had emphasized the importance of respecting
the environment in the design and construction of the new library. Many environmentally responsible features
were incorporated into the design and location of the new library. For example, to help conserve energy, the design
emphasizes natural light. Automatic light controls will adjust interior lighting according to the amount of daylight.
The building meets standards set by the U.S. Green Building Council's Leadership in Energy and Environmental
Design (LEED) program. Therefore the city is eligible for the Business Energy Tax Credit.
Public agencies are allowed to transfer this credit to private businesses for a lump-sum payment. Hoffman
Construction offered to acquire the tax credit, which will be taken over a period of years. Hoffman has paid the
City $59,022.00 for the tax credit. It is another example of the productive partnership that existed between
Hoffman and the City throughout the entire construction project.
OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
None
VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY
Goal 0: Adequate facilities are available for efficient delivery of life-long learning programs and services for all
ages.
ATTACHMENT LIST
FISCAL NOTES
AGENDA ITEM #
FOR AGENDA OF Sept. 14, 2004
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE A Resolution to Acknowledge Completion of the New Libraa Resource Team To
Commend Its Members for a Job Well Done and To Terminate the Group
PREPARED BY: Margaret Barnes DEPT HEAD O CITY MGR OK
ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL
This resolution acknowledges the completion of the group's work, commends the members for a job well done and
terminates the resource team.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that City Council approve, by motion, the attached resolution.
INFORMATION SUMMARY
The New Library Resource Team was established by City Council Resolution 02-47 on July 23, 2002. Its mission
was to continue to provide public input during the design and construction stages of the building process for the
new library. The Resource Team consisted of ten citizens. A Council member was the liaison between the
Resource Team and the City Council.
Most resource team members had previously served on the New Library Construction Committee and developed a
strong base of knowledge about the project as they advised the Council on options for building a new library. The
Resource Team provided feedback to the architects and staff regarding design proposals. Members also
participated in community design meetings to seek public recommendations for the new library.
Because construction has been completed, and the new library is open to the public, the mission of the resource
team has been fulfilled. Therefore, it is appropriate to terminate the New Library Resource Team at this time. The
City Council takes this opportunity to thank the Resource Team members for their efforts and commends them for
their excellent work.
OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
None
VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION C:ONI'Mii 11 EE S nATLGY
Urban and Public Services Goal No. 3: Adequate facilities are available for efficient delivery of life-long learning
programs and services for all ages.
ATTACHMENT LIST
Exhibit A
Resolution
FISCAL NOTES
There are no costs associated with the passage of this resolution.
AGENDA ITEM #
FOR AGENDA OF September 14, 2004
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Ordinance Amending Chapters 14.04 and 14.06 of the Tigard Municipal Code
PREPARED BY: QM Lampella DEPT HEAD OK A TY MGR OK6~-
ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL
An.Ordinance amending Chapter 14.04 - Building Code and 14.06 - Special Inspections, of the Tigard Municipal
Code to reflect the language of the International Building Code which replaces the Uniform Building Code on
October 1, 2004.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Approve the attached Ordinance.
INFORMATION SUMMARY
Staff updated Council at the August 17, 2004 Workshop on the code adoption process for the State of Oregon. Staff
also informed the Council that an Ordinance revising Chapters 14.04, Building Code and 14.06, Special Inspections
would be presented at the September 14, 2004 regular Business Meeting.
The State of Oregon is adopting the International Building Code (IBC) as a statewide document on October 1,
2004. This replaces the previous building code, the Uniform Building Code (UBC), which is no longer being
published. There are some changes in the new code that require changes to the TMC to reflect chapter number
changes and references to the appropriate code and the publisher of such code. Additionally, there are amendments
of references to Oregon Administrative Rule that are re-numbered due to legislative changes during the last
legislative session.
The attached Ordinance also proposes to delete Chapter 14.06, Special Inspections in its entirety without
substitution. This Chapter was developed during a time that the provisions of the building code where not as
comprehensive as that which will be published in the new building code. This subjective language is substandard to
the preferred code provisions found in the International Building Code that will be adopted on October 1, 2004.
Chapter 14.06 actually limits the City's authority regarding Special Inspections. With the adoption of the new
code, we will, in effect, adopt all of the provisions of the new code and Chapter 14.06 is no longer necessary.
OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
None.: ORS 455 mandates that all jurisdictions within the State of Oregon enforce the same code.
VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY
N/A
ATTACHMENT LIST
• Ordinance amending Chapters 14.04 and 14.06 of the Tigard Municipal Code.
"Exhibit A" - Chapters 14.04 and 14.06 - "Exhibit A"
FISCAL NOTES
Cost of new code books and training has been budgeted in Fiscal Year 2004-05 Building Division budget.
TIGARD CITY COUNCIL
Tuesday, September 14, 2004
Business Meeting 7:30 p.m
REVISION TO AGENDA - ITEM No. 9
Appellant has withdrawn their appeal, removing the need for this item to be
heard tonight. The Planning Staff's understanding is that the School
District will request a Minor Modification to their approved Conditional Use
(CUP 2003-00012) for the school. If a Minor Modification is requested, a
hearing will not be required. A Minor Modification is approvable as a staff
decision. Anyone with an interest in this matter should contact Morgan
Tracy at morgan0ci. tigard. or. us or call at 503-718-2428.
9. PUBLIC HEARING (QUASI-JUDICIAL) - APPEAL OF CONDITONAL USE PERMIT
FOR ALBERTA RIDER SCHOOL AND COT WATER RESERVOIR
(CUP 2003-00012/VAR2004-00037/VAR2003-00041 /VAR2004-004/
VAR2004-0043/VAR200 3-0005 3 )
ITEM ON APPEAL: On July 12, 2004, the Tigard Hearing's Officer held a public hearing
to consider an application for conditional use approval to construct a 67,000 square foot
elementary school, a 3-million gallon water reservoir, and associated improvements on a
10.71 acre site. With this request were four adjustments and one variance to various
requirements of the Tigard Development Code. The Hearings Officer issued his decision on
August 10, 2004 to approve the Conditional Use Permit. On August 24, 2004 an appeal
was flied by Venture Properties, developer of the Summit Ridge development immediately
south of the school site. The Appeal Filing Form raises seven grounds for the appeal,
generally as follows:
1) Improper notification for granting a variance.
2) Insubstantial evidence in the record to grant a variance.
3) improper findings to grant an adjustment to the driveway
spacing standard along Bull Mountain Road.
4) Improper deferral of compliance through a condition of approval.
5) Improper finding regarding conditional use criteria to approve the use.
6) Improper finding that the development is feasible to complete.
7) Improper granting of an adjustment to cul-de-sac length.
LOCATION: On the south side of SW Bull Mountain Road, east of SW 133rd Avenue,
WCTM 2S109AC, Tax Lot 2100 and 2SI09AD, Tax Lot 1300. ZONE: R-7: Medlum-
Density Residential District. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development
Code Chapters 18.330, 18.360, 18.370, 18.390, 18.510, 18.705, 18.725, 18.745,
18.755, 18.765, 18.780, 18.790, 18.795 and 18.810; and the Bull Mountain
Community Plan.
AGENDA ITEM #
FOR AGENDA OF 9/14/2004
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Appeal of Conditional Use Permit for the Alberta Rider Elementary School and
Tigard Water District Reservoir
PREPARED BY: Morgan Tracy DEPT HEAD OK ITY MGR OK ~ W, '
ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL
This matter is being brought to City Council as the result of an appeal of a Type III Hearings Officer's decision
approving the Alberta Rider elementary school and water district reservoir. The Council will need to consider the
merits of the appeal and decide whether to deny the appeal and uphold the Hearing Officer's decision or grant the
appeal and modify the decision.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the appeal be denied in part and approved in part. The rationale for this recommendation is
explained more fully in the included memorandum (Attachment 2). As recommended by staff, the final outcome
would be approval of the Conditional Use Permit for the school and reservoir along with adjustments to planter
strip width and reduced bicycle parking. Staff disagrees with the appellant in regards to the disputed adjustment to
driveway spacing, and recommends this adjustment also be approved. However, staff concurs with the appellant
that the variance to the street connectivity requirement is not supported by substantial evidence in the record, and as
a result neither the variance nor its associated adjustment to allow a longer cul-de-sac are recommended for
approval. This will result in a requirement that Street F be connected from the development to the south to the
school's east-west access road.
INFORMATION SUMMARY
On July 120, 2004, the Tigard Hearing's Officer held a public hearing to consider an application for conditional use
approval to construct a 67,000 square foot elementary school, a 3-million gallon water reservoir, and associated
improvements on a 10.71 acre site. With this request were four adjustments and one variance to various
requirements of the Tigard Development Code. After the hearing concluded, the applicant requested two days to
supplement the record with additional evidence. The Hearings Officer granted the request and allowed the public
seven days to respond to the new information, and seven more days for the applicant to make final argument.
Following close of the record, the Hearings Officer issued his decision on August 10, 2004 to approve the
Conditional Use Permit. In that decision, the Hearings Officer disagreed with staffs recommendation to deny the
requested variance to the street spacing standards which would have required a north-south street be placed on the
school property. The Hearing Officer also modified staff's recom_mendation regarding the proposed driveway onto
SW Bull Mountain Road by making it solely an emergency access. The Hearing Officer largely agreed with the
remainder of staff's findings and recommendations. A copy of the Final Order is included in the Council's packet
(Attachment 4).
On August 24~ 2004 an appeal was filed by Venture Properties, developer of the Summit Ridge development
immediately south of the school site (Attachment 3). The Appeal Filing Form notes seven issues being raised by
the appellant:
1) Improper notice was given for a variance approved by the Hearings Officer to waive the requirement for an
east-west street connection through the site.
2) Improper granting of a variance (VAR2004-00037) for the north-south street connection, since that decision
was not supported by substantial evidence in the record.
3) Improper granting of an adjustment (VAR2004-00042) to the driveway spacing standard along Bull Mountain
Road, as other alternatives exist.
4) Improper postponement of satisfying City noise limit standards (Condition #48). Sound attenuation was not
required by the Hearings Officer, in-lieu of a condition requiring such mitigation should particular noise
thresholds be reached.
5) Improper finding that the "site size and dimensions provide adequate area for the needs of the proposed use."
The decision improperly relies on the granting of a variance that has been challenged elsewhere in the appeal.
6) Improper finding that the development is feasible to complete in light of an east-west waterline easement
encumbering the parcel.
7) Improper granting of an adjustment to cul-de-sac length (VAR2004-00053).
Tigard Community Development Code (TCDC) 18.390.050.G authorizes the City Council to hear appeals of
Type III decisions, such as the Hearings Officer's decision approving the conditional use permit application.
Pursuant to the procedures established In 18.390.050 C-F, appeals of Hearing Officer decisions must be
reviewed as a de novo matter. The City Council is required to conduct an independent review of the record.
They are not bound by the previous decision and new evidence may be introduced in an appeal. The Council
must decide whether the applicant has carried the burden of proof that the application complies with all
applicable approval criteria in light of all relevant substantial evidence in the whole record, including any new
evidence.
Based on the material contained within the record, the findings in the staff report and Hearings Officer decision and
the supplemental findings in staff s memorandum (Attachment 2), it is recommended that the Council adopt the
attached resolution to approve the Alberta Rider Elementary School and Tigard Water Reservoir together with
adjustments to reduce the bicycle parking requirement, the planter strip width, and driveway spacing requirement,
but denying the variance to street connectivity as it relates to the north-south street connection, and its associated
adjustment to cul-de-sac length.
OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
Uphold the appeal in full, deny the appeal in full, or modify the decision accordingly.
VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY
None applicable to this appeal.
ATTACHMENT LIST
1. "Draft" City Council Resolution.
2. Memorandum from Morgan Tracy, Associate Planner dated September 1, 2004.
3, Copy of the appeal submitted by Morissette Homes c/o Ed Sullivan.
4. Hearing Officer Final Order including the Staff Report.
5. Supplemental Information and Closing Arguments.
6. Residents, Agencies, and other Staff Comments
7. The applicant's application materials.
FISCAL NOTES
Appeal fees have been paid by the appellant.
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
RESOLUTION NO. 04-
A RESOLUTION AND FINAL ORDER APPROVING THE ALBERTA RIDER ELEMENTARY
SCHOOL AND TIGARD RESERVOIR (CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP) 2003-00012/
VARIANCE (VAR) 2004-00037/ ADJUSTMENT (VAR) 2004-00041/ ADJUSTMENT (VAR) 2004-
00042/ ADJUSTMENT (VAR) 2004-00043/ AND DENYING ADJUSTMENT (VAR) 2004-00053,
ADOPTING FINDINGS AND IMPOSING CONDITIONS.
WHEREAS, the Tigard's Hearing Officer reviewed this case at a public hearing at his meeting of July 12,
2004; and
WHEREAS, the Heating Officer adopted findings approving the request, subject to additional conditions of
approval; and
WHEREAS, an appeal was filed on August 24, 2004 by Morissette Homes, Inc., on seven specific grounds;
and
WHEREAS; the City Council held a public hearing on the appeal of the approval on September 14, 2004;
and
WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed the testimony, submittals, and staff report on September 14, 2004,
and reviewed findings and conditions of approval that were contained within the Hearing Officer's final
order, and
WHEREAS, the City Council concluded that five of the seven grounds raised in the appeal were without
merit, but that the appellants assertions that the requested variance as approved and the related adjustment
to cul de sac length were not supported by substantial evidence in the record are valid; and
WHEREAS, the City Council required the applicant to revise the site plan to reflect a street connection
between Street F and the east-west access road and modified Condition #12 of the Hearings Officer's
decision requiring such connection;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Tigard City Council that:
SECTION 1: The Tigard City Council approves applications CUP2003-00612NAR2004-
00037NAR2004-00041NAR2004-00042NAR2004-00043 and denies VAR2004-
00053 Alberta Rider Elementary School and City of Tigard Water Reservoir, subject
to the conditions of approval stated in the Hearing Officer's final order dated August
10, 2004, attached hereto as Attachment 4 and incorporated herein by this reference,
with the exception of the changes to Condition #12 to reflect a full north-south street
connection.
RESOLUTION NO. 04 -
Page 1
SECTION 2: The Tigard City Council adopts the findings and analysis stated in the Staff
memorandum, attached hereto as Attachment 2 and incorporated herein by this
reference. The Council further adopts the subsequent findings stated in the above-
referenced Attachment 4, insofar as they don't conflict with the findings in Attachment
2.
SECTION 3: This resolution is effective immediately upon passage.
PASSED: This day of 2004.
Mayor - City of Tigard
ATTEST:
City Recorder - City of Tigard
RESOLUTION NO. 04 - -
Page 2
ATTACHMENT 2
CITY OF TIGARD
Community Development
SkapingA Better Community
mm am
MEMORANDUM
i , OREGON
13125 SW Hall Boulevard
Tigard, Oregon 97223
(503) 639-4171
Fax 684-7297
TO: City Councilors
FROM: Morgan Tracy, Associate Planner
DATE: September 1, 2004
SUBJECT: Alberta Rider Appeal, Casefile No. CUP2003-00012
This memorandum sets forth the reasons for staffs recommendation to partially deny the appeal and
partially uphold the Hearing Officer's decision. As you may already be aware, this application is
complicated in its very nature, and is further complicated by the myriad of development projects
occurring in and around the site. It is important that this decision be viewed on its own merits and
considered in light of the findings and decision rendered by the Tigard Hearing Officer.
INTRODUCTION
The applicant proposes a two story 67,000 square foot structure to house approximately 600
students and 46 teachers and support staff. Additionally, the Tigard Water District has joined with
the school district to pursue approval of a 3 million gallon water reservoir, which will be constructed
below grade in the southeast corner of the site. As part of this application, the applicant requests
approval of a number of adjustments and variances:
1) Not meet the street connectivity standards [to fully comply with this requirement two north-south
streets and one east-west street would be required to extend through the site]-VAR2004-00037
2) Reduce the bicycle parking requirement [from 186 to 44 spaces]-VAR2004-00041
3) Reduce the 200-foot spacing requirement for driveways along a collector road [to fully comply
with this requirement, the applicant would need to close both existing driveways on SW Bull
Mountain Road which serve the life estate, and provide a shared access for the school and the
life estate]-VAR2004-00042
4) Reduce the planter strip width from 5 to 3.5 feet [where there is inadequate available right of way
along the east-west access road]-VAR2004-00043
5) Increase the maximum length of a cul-de-sac from 200 to 560 feet [if the required north-south
street is not extended, the east-west access will then terminate in a cul-de-sac that does not
meet code requirements]-VAR2004-00053
Page 1 of 5
The Hearing's Officer considered this proposal and after lengthy consideration and analysis (see
Attachment 4) found that the applicant had sustained the burden of proof regarding the suitability of
the site for the Conditional Use request. The Hearing's Officer granted the requested variance and
adjustments, and clarified that the variance approval was inclusive of all three required streets. The
applicant had noted in the hearing that the street stubbing at the south property line, part of the
Summit Ridge Subdivision, could be used to drop children off, rather than be extended through the
site. This resulted in the Hearing Officer's requirement that a standard turnaround be provided on
the school site (Condition #12 in his decision, Attachment 4). Also, staff had recommended that the
Hearing Officer consider potential noise impacts associated with the soccer field on the southern
portion of the site, which led to condition #48 in his decision.
CONSIDERATION OF APPEAL
The developer of Summit Ridge filed an appeal of the Hearings Officer decision on August 24, 2004,
raising the following general issues:
1) Improper notice was given for a variance approved by the Hearings Officer to waive the
requirement for an east-west street connection through the site. (TCDC 18.390)
2) Improper granting of a variance (VAR2004-00037) for the north-south street connection, since that
decision was not supported by substantial evidence in the record.
3) Improper granting of an adjustment (VAR2004-00042) to the driveway spacing standard along Bull
Mountain Road, as other alternatives exist.
4) Improper.postponement of satisfying city noise limit standards (Condition #48). Sound attenuation
was not required by the Hearings Officer, in-lieu of a condition requiring such mitigation should
particular noise thresholds be reached. (TCDC 18.725)
5) Improper finding that the "site size and dimensions provide adequate area for the needs of the
proposed use." The decision improperly relies on the granting of a variance that has been
challenged elsewhere in the appeal. (TCDC 18.330)
6) Improper finding that the development is feasible to complete in light of an east-west waterline
easement encumbering the parcel.
7) Improper granting of an adjustment to cul-de-sac length (VAR2004-00053).
The following recites the appellant's specific grounds for his appeal, with Staffs response and
recommendation for each ground:
1) The Hearing's Officer's decision improperly granted a variance waiving compliance with TDC 18.810.030H,
requiring an east-west street through the site. There was no notice that such a variance was going to be
considered or approved, and thus, nobody had a chance to raise the issue below.
RESPONSE: The notice for the Conditional Use Permit included a description of the proposed
development, along with an explanation of the associated adjustments and variances: "The applicant
is also requesting four (4) Variances/Adjustments to the Tigard Development Code (TDC). The
Variances and Adjustments are as follows:
Section 18.810.030(H) of the Tigard Development Code requires full street connections with spacing
of no more than 530 feet between connections is required except where prevented by barriers such
as topography, railroads, freeways, pre-existing developments, lease provisions, easements,
covenants or other restrictions existing prior to May 1. 1995 which preclude street connections. A full
street connection may also be exempted due to a regulated water feature if regulations would not
permit construction. The District is proposing not to fully connect the street"
Staff and counsel agree that the notice language is adequate. There -is no specific distinction made
whether the street would be connected north-south, or east-west. The fact that the Hearings Officer
specified that the variance include the lack of an east-west connection does not merit a reversal.
Page 2 of 5
2) The Hearings Officer's decision improperly granted a variance waiving compliance with TDC 18.810,030,H,
requiring a north-south street through the site. This issue was raised and discussed throughout the decision
below, especially on pages 12-19 of the HO dec. The decision was not supported by substantial evidence and
did not comply with the variance requirements.
RESPONSE: The Hearings Officer's Final Order states in part that "Although a close call, the
Hearings Officer concludes that the applicant sustained the burden of proof for a variance to TDC
18.810.030.H, based on the responsive arguments and evidence in the application and its
supplements and the... [additional findings found in the HO Final Order, Attachment #4, pgs. 15-181."
Staff disagrees that the criteria for a variance are satisfied, and worries about the implications to
connectivity requirements and policy that such a variance will have on the transportation network in
and around this site in addition to any future institutional use applications. There is no waiver
explicit for institutional uses listed in the code.
The Hearings Officer loosely found that there were special circumstances related to the site, in
relation to the mixed use nature and the unique needs of the school for greatest safety and security,
that make compliance with the street requirement a hardship. While staff recognizes the safety and
security needs of the school, the Hearings Officer's finding is clouded by the reality that the school
design could be altered to provide the needed safety and security. The Hearings Officer notes
"when given a choice about whose opinion to give more weight - the staffs opinion that the road will
not pose a hazard and the school district's opinion that it will the Hearings Officer elects to err on
the side of the school district, because of the district's experience building and operating schools."
The Hearings Officer neglected to acknowledge the City's experience in building and operating
roads. Moreover, the district's argument regarding safety is questionable in light of the other
elementary schools in Tigard that are built alongside streets, and even streets of higher
classification (Durham Elementary School, Metzger). Staffs critical assertion is that the District was
made aware of the street requirement in July of 2003 (four months before the application was
submitted, and ten months before the application was deemed complete). The school district's
architect did not proceed with a design to incorporate the street, but instead presented a design that
would preclude such possibility. Staff's contention is that had the street been a part of the site plan
program, such safety and security issues could be addressed with the design.
Staff continues to recommend that this variance be denied, but notes that the Hearings Officer found
to the contrary.
3) The Hearings Officer's decision improperly granted an adjustment to the driveway spacing requirement of
TDC 18.705.030.H(3). It is clear that the school and life estate property can share an access because the terms
of the life estate can be changed. This issue was discussed in the HO Dec. at p. 19-20.
RESPONSE: The Hearing's Officer concluded "Regarding the adjustment for the new school
driveway, the Hearings Officer finds that it is not possible to share access with land to the east,
because that land is about to undergo redevelopment, including the dedication and improvement of
"H" Street. It is not possible to share access with the life estate part of the site, based on the
existing terms of the life estate, although the terms of the life estate could be changed... Although
another very close call, the Hearings Officer concludes that an adjustment to the driveway spacing
standard should be approved, subject to conditions" (Final Order, pgs.20-21): Again, staff and the
Hearings Officer disagreed on this point, and staff recommended an alternate driveway design to allow
restricted right turn-in/right tum-out access to facilitate the school's traffic flow through the site, rather
than returning back to SW 133` a^d the IntQrSection with SW Bull Mountain Road. Staff, however, did
acknowledge that with the impending redevelopment of the property to the east (Arbor Summit 11,
application submitted July 30, 2004) that by closing the eastern life estate driveway, the new school
access would ultimately meet the required 200 foot spacing standard, even if it did not at the time of the
decision.
Page 3 of 5
The appellant argues that it is clear that the school and the life estate can share driveways since the
terms of the life estate can be changed. It may be possible to share access, but whether it is feasible,
especially in light of the emergency-only nature of the access is another question. Staff supports the
final conclusion of the Hearing's Officer that an adjustment to allow at least some form of access in this
location conditioned upon closing one of the life estate driveways is warranted.
4) The Hearings Officer's decision improperly failed to require sound attenuation required by condition of
approval 30; the decision improperly postpones to a future time the possibility of requiring such attenuation.
The applicant did not provide adequate evidence that the City's maximum noise level [would be met]. This
issue was discussed on pages 22-23 of the HO dec.
RESPONSE: The imposition of Condition #48 is the result of satisfying a criterion (TCDC 18.725) that
cannot be met until after the school is in operation. That is, to require noise attenuation to mitigate for a
noise impact that does not yet exist (as the school is not constructed) would be an improper
assumption of non-compliance without any evidence to conclude that the site will be in violation. A
condition is valid if it is reasonably feasible and does not require discretion in its implementation.
Condition #48 contains objective numerical standards that cannot be measured prior to the completion
of the school. Staff recommends the council reject this argument for appeal.
5) The hearing Officer improperly found that the "site size and dimensions provide adequate area for the needs
of the proposed use." TDC 18.330.030.A(1). As indicated by the applicant itself, the site is not large enough
to provide adequate access through the street connections required by the City's code. The decision
improperly relies on a variance to meet that standard; in addition, as noted above, the variance should not have
been granted and, without that variance, there is no question that the site does not provide adequate area for
both the school and the reservoir. This issue was discussed on page 23 of the HO Dec.
RESPONSE: The applicant did. not propose street F as part of their application. Staff argued that this
street was a necessary and required part of the development, to which the applicant sought a variance.
Part of the applicant's multi-pronged argument for the variance was that the site could not
accommodate the proposed school and required street. Staff disagrees with the applicant that Street F
could not be accommodated on the site, in main part because the hardships expressed are the result
of building design and siting choices that are partially self-imposed, including the presence of the City
Reservoir. However, it was long held by staff that the street could be accommodated on site with the
other proposed uses, but that the applicant did not consider the full ensemble of required
improvements while developing their site plan. As such, the finding that the site size and dimensions
are adequate is not flawed, but that this issue be used as a consideration in the request for the
variance to street connectivity is not appropriate. Therefore, Staff recommends the council reject this
particular argument for appeal.
6) The Hearings Officer's decision improperly fails to account for the east-west water easement. The decision
acknowledges the existence of the easement "roughly across the middle of the site" and that it will have to be
"re-situated." (HO Dec. p.2) However, there is no evidence in the record that the applicant can do so.
Without that evidence, the applicant failed to show that it can complete the development.
RESPONSE: The School District is a public agency that has the authority to condemn real property
interests. This will admittedly require additional time to resolve this issue in the courts, however, since
the school may condemn the area over the easement, it is therefore feasible to construct the project.
Therefore, staff recommends the Council reject this argument for appeal.
7) The Hearings Officer's decision improperly granted an adjustment to the 200 foot cul-de-sac length limitation
in TDC 18.810.0301; the street should have been required to have been extended across the site instead of
terminating in a lengthy cul-de-sac. This issue was discussed on page 2 of the HO dec.
Page 4 of 5
d have been ed to be extended and
RESPONSE: The adjustment to theumaxi"mumt200 foot lenlgth of a cul-de sacrwould be needed. Staff
with such, no adjustmen icant the
was aware of this isue the variance was grant d. As staff has indicated, the granting lof the adjustment
adjustment in case
staff varecommendsriance should hat
is directly tied the granting respect to nth separticularf disagrefor that such a
granted. Nevertheless,
Council decide the variance matter first, and subsequently approve or deny the related adjustment.
CONCLUSION s we In summary, staff finds that there is substantial concurs with the appeldlant that theccriteea forra
followed on 5 of the 7 grounds of appeal
variance were not d satisfied, and as a result the associated adstment to recommends that the Council deny the var ancecul-de-sac length
street connectivity
not have been granted.
Staff fu
th further
related to the north-south street iinclude Street r F with as f originally adjustment) and
the applicant to project to
recommends that the Council reject the remaining grounds of the appeal.
Page 5 of 5
Zoo1
08/24/2004 13:49 FAR 11038961960 CITY OF TIGARd
ATTACHMENT 3
APPEAL FILING; FORM
...FOR. LAND U DECISIONS
CITY of 719AM 131 z5 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639.4171 FAX (503) 684-7297
The City of Tigard supports the citizen's right to partlcrpate in local government. Tigard's Land Use Code,
therefore, sets out specific iequliements for filing appeals on certain land use decisions,
The-following form-has been developed to -assist you in filing an appeal of-a• land use decision in proper
appeal. To .
determine.what_fling fees will be required or to answer any questions you. have..regarding the app process,
please contact the Planning Division or the City Recorder at the phonelfax listed at the top of this form.
BEN Ri4L (NM.tti
,S FOR STAFF USE ONC Y
V<31D, U3
~ 5..k ~ 11 ~l
P~erty Ad I and me sj of the y Case No•(s?:
IA-A lot • 2610~A~ z zy)o`1 D
Appiication.6 tag Appgaied: DMZ' Case Name(s):.A t4
. d~d3 - a 3 Receipt Nb. 2E)r~' { 3 f) X19
How o'You Qus!V As A Party?:
_Y
APP ligation Agcggted_8
Date: lul b `1
rf%bc 4;/b E ; ,9p.,N 40roved As To Form By:
AppellanYs'Ad'dressDate; g~~]IDN
CitylState: Zip: Denied- . As To Form By:..
0 e• •
Day Phone Where You Can Be Rr3ached:1 -31 Date:•_._-
Rev. 1$-AuIt42 kkvpln4mastersuavisedle;peal,~ac E
Scheduled Date Dacisfon Is To Be Final:
Date Notice of Final Decision Was Given: g o l/
OE&
ti*
Specific Grounds For-Appeal or Review: 1 ~~,dUIRED 5(16Afl11`i AL 7ELE
Application Elements Su❑ - Appeal Filing Form (=-nplated)
❑ Filing Fee (based on criteria below)
> DinodafaDecislpn~?bannlnpCammiselon 3 ^v~o.oo ,
>Aevev (deaosit; $'300.00
> 9 Refaree S 510.00
- - > Planning CommlwlonlHeating's Me( m•Clry Couna ' 3.,Sszoa "
Tran.:cnp
Sig pturA s o pellan
(OVER FOR ADDITIONAL WRITING SFAUI
ARFBAt PaaNG FORM POP LAND US!! DEC191CNS •
CITY OF TIGARD 004
12:36:1 36:19PM
13125 SW Hall Blvd.
Tigard, Oregon 97223
(503) 639-4171
Receipt 27200400000000003849
Date: 08/27/2004
Line Items:
Case No Tran Code Description Revenue Account No Amount Paid
CUP2003-00012 [LANDUS] Appeal PC/HO-Council 100-0000-438000 2,016.00
Line Item Total: $2,016.00
Payments:
Method Payer User ID Acct/Check Approval No. How Received Amount Paid
Check VENTURE PROPERTIES MET 5733 In Person 64.00
Check VENTURE PROPERTIES MET 5732 In Person 1,952.00
Payment Total: $2,016.00
Page 1 of 1 nRrPA tMt
05/24/04 15:34 FAX Q002
NOTICE OF APPEAL
A. Decision Being _App . Notice is hereby given that Don Morrisette Homes, be.,
appeals the City's decision regarding an application by the Tigard-Tualatin School District for a
conditional use permit, variance and adjustments for the proposed Alberta Rider Elementary
School at roughly 13000 SW Bull Mountain Road in the City of Tigard, Oregon. The City file
nos are CUP 2003-00012 and VAR 2004 - 00037, 00041, 00042, 00043 and 00053, dated
August 10, 2004. A copy of the challenged decision is attached as Exhibit A to this Notice of
Intent to Appeal.
B. St . Don Morrisette, Homes, Lie., has standing to appeal because it participated in
the proceeding through the submission of oral testimony as demonstrated on page 9 of the
Hearings Officer's Final Order, in which the Final Order notes that'13rent Landells testified for
Don Morrisette Homes."
C. Issues Raised cut Anneal. This appeal raises _ issues:
1. The Hearings Officer's decision improperly granted a variance waiving
compliance with TDC 18.810.030.H, requiring an east-west street through the site. Where was no
notice that such a variance was going to be considered or approved and, thus, nobody had a
chance to raise the issue below.
2. The Hearings Officer's decision improperly granted a variance waiving
compliance with TDC 18.810.030.H, requiring a north-south street through the site. This issue
was raised and discussed throughout the decision below, especially on pages 12-19 of the HO
dec. That decision was not supported by substantial evidence and did not comply with the
variance requirements.
3. The hearings officer's decision improperly granted an adjustment to the driveway
spacing requirement of TDC 18.705.030.H(3). It is clear that the school and the life estate
property can share an access because the terms of the life estate can be changed- This issue was
T)e at n l0_M
Ulacw~cu ii,..aw , av y
08/24/04 13 04 FAa a f~ 003
4. The Hearings Officer's decision improperly failed to require sound attenuation
required by condition of approval 30; the decision improperly postpones to a fature time the
possibility of requiring such attenuation. The applicant did not provide adequate evidence that
the City's maximum noise level. This issue was discussed on pages 22-23 of the HO dec.
5. The hearing Officer improperly found that the "the site size and dimensions
provide adequate area for the needs of the proposed use." TDC 18.330.030.A(1). As indicated
by the applicant itself, the site is not large enough to provide adequate access through the street
connections required by the City's code. The decision improperly relies on a variance to meet
that standard; in addition, as noted above, the variance should not have been granted and, without
that variance, there is no question that the site does not provide. adequate area for both the school
and the reservoir. This issue was discussed on page 23 of the HO Dec.
6. The Hearings Officer's decision improperly fails to account for the oast-west
water easement. The decision acknowledges the existence of the easement "roughly across the
middle of the site" and that it will have to be "re-situated." (HO Dec. P 2) However, there is no
evidence in the record that the applicant can do so. Without that evidence, the applicant failed to
show that it can complete the development.
7. The Hearings OffiQer's decision improperly granted an adjustment to the 200 foot
cul-de-sac length limitation in TDC 18.810.0301; the street should have been required to have
been extended across the site instead of terminating in a lengthy cul-de-sac. This issue was
discussed on page 2 of the HO dec.,
D. Demonstration that Issues Were Raised Below. The discussion of the specific issues
raised on appeal in section 'C' above includes a demonstration that the issues were raised below.
PDx_DOCS:337300.1(35264.00100)
08/24/04 3 AS PAS
Item No. ~r
For Council Newsletter dated -~-~f
CITY OF TIOARD
Community Development
ShapinQA (Better Community
MEMORANU
CITY OhF TIGARD, OREGON
13125 SW Hall Boulevard
Tigard, Oregon 97223
(503) 639-4171
Fax 684-7297
TO: City Council A
FR0M: Morgan Tracy, Associate Planner DATE: September 7, 2004
SUBJECT: Alberta Rider Appeal, Applicant's Supplemental Information
Attached is the applicant's response to the appeal filed by Morissette Homes regarding
the Alberta Rider Elementary School conditional use permit. This information was
received on the afternoon of September 7, 2004, after staff had already completed
assembling Council's Packet. Therefore, this information is being furnished to you under
separate cover, but prior to the hearing so that you will have adequate time to review the
additional information. Staff has not had an opportunity to review or analyze the
responses provided herein, but will address any questions the Council may have at the
September 14th hearing.
ED MURPHY AssoCIAT'ES
® Land Use Planning and Development Services
September 7, 2004
Morgan Tracy
Department of Community Development
City of Tigard
13125 SW Hall Blvd.
Tigard, Oregon 97223
RE: Alberta Rider Elementary School Response to appeal
Dear Mr. Morgan:
On behalf of the Tigard-Tualatin School District, I am submitting 10 copies of our response to
the appeal filed by Don Morisette Homes, Inc. on the Alberta Rider Elementary School and City
Water Reservoir Conditional Use Permit application. I understand that this material will go out
to the City Council members in advance of their hearing on this appeal, which scheduled for
September 14a`, 2004.
Thanks Morgan.
Sinc ely,
Ed Murphy, AI ,P
CC. Stephen Poage, Project Manager, TTSD
Rick Rainone, Cornerstone Construction Management
Dick Eslick/Sean Scott, Ellis, Eslick Associates/Architects P.C.
Kelly Hossaini, Miller Nash
9875 SW Murdock St. Tigard, Oregon 97224
Phone 503. 624.4625 &Cellular 503. 314.o677 AFFax 503. 968.1674
Alberta Rider Elementary - response to appeal
The following comments are in response to an appeal filed by Don Morisette Homes, Inc., on
August 24, 2004 to the City of Tigard Hearings Officer's decisions regarding applications by the
Tigard-Tualatin School District for a Conditional Use Permit, variances and adjustments for the
proposed Alberta Rider Elementary School and City Water Reservoir. The City file numbers are
CUP 2003-00012 and VAR 2004-00037, 00041, 00042, 00043, and 00053.
Appeal Issue #1. Appellant claims Hearings Officer improperly granted a variance to
the maximum street spacing standards as they apply to possible east-west streets because
no notice was given that a variance might be considered or approved.
To the extent that the Hearings Officer committed any procedural error by granting a variance to
TDC 18.810.030(H) for the east-west street, the City has corrected that error through its notice of
the September 14, 2004, City Council hearing, which was mailed 20 days prior to the hearing,
and by the provision of a de novo review on the appeal issues at that hearing. Even so, a
variance for the east-west street is not even necessary, as noted below, and so no legal error has
occurred and this issue on appeal is irrelevant.
Although the Hearings Officer granted a variance to the street spacing and connection standards
of TDC 18.810.030(H) for the east-west street, a variance to that Code section for the east-west
street is not even necessary. Connecting the east-west street across the property is exempt from
the street spacing and connection standards of TDC 18.810.030(H) by the very terms of that
provision. TDC 18.810.030(H)(1) and (2) provide as follows:
"H. Street alignment and connections.
1. Full street connections with spacing of no more than 530 feet between connections is
required except where prevented by barriers such as topography, railroads, freeways,
pre-existing developments, lease provisions, easements, covenants or other restrictions
existing prior to May 1, 1995 which preclude street connections. A full street
connection may also be exempted due to a regulated water feature if regulations would
not permit construction.
2. All local, neighborhood routes and collector streets which abut a development site
shall be extended within the site to provide through circulation when not precluded by
environmental or topographical constraints, existing development patterns or strict
adherence to other standards in this code. A street connection or extension is considered
precluded when it is not possible to redesign or reconfigure the street pattern to provide
required extensions. Land is considered topographically constrained if the slope is
greater than 15% for a distance of 250 feet or more. In the case of environmental or
topographical constraints, the mere presence of a constraint is not sufficient to show
that a street connection is not possible. The applicant must show why the constraint
precludes some reasonable street connection."
Under the terms of TDC 18.810.030(H)(1) and (2), extension of the east-west street across the
property is either exempt or precluded from those street spacing and connection standards in the
followings ways, and, therefore, no variance is necessary:
edmurp/ry/asd/albertaride/appeallresponse/9107/04 1
Alberta Rider Elementary - response to appeal
1. Under TDC 18 810 030 M(1) a full street connection of the east=west street is prevented by
the barrier of afire-existing development and so falls under an exception provided in that Code
provision. Extending the east-west road across the site would require removing Mrs. Rider's
home. Mrs. Rider's home is pre-existing development that prevents extension of the road, unless
appellant wants to seriously argue that Mrs. Rider should be forced out of her home. Therefore,
the east-west road is exempt from the requirements of TDC 18.810.030(H)(1). It would not be
possible to realign the road in any reasonable fashion, as the road would have to swing sharply
south, into the school parking lot, in order to miss both Mrs. Rider's house and the existing grove
of trees on her life estate.
2. Under TDC 18.810.030(H)(2), a full street connection of the east-west street is precluded by
an environmental constraint, and so falls under an exception provided in that Code provision.
Extending the east-west road across the site is precluded by the large grove of Douglas Fir trees
in the path of that roadway, ranging in age from 60 to 100 years old. To extend the road would
mean removing many of the trees. This large grove of trees is an environmental constraint, just
like a wetland or a creek, and should be protected, just like any other environmental feature.
(See the Tree Assessment Report at Exhibit `N' and the Existing Conditions Plan map at Exhibit
Q, Sheet C1.1.) Therefore, extension of the east-west road across the site is precluded by an
environmental constraint and the extension is exempt from the requirements of TDC
18.810.030(H)(2). Further, this constraint precludes any reasonable street connection, because to
avoid the trees, either Mrs. Rider's house would need to be removed or the street would have to
be aligned through the school's parking lot. We do not believe that either of those alternatives is
reasonable.
3. Under TDC 18 810 030(H)(2) a full street connection of the east-west street is also precluded
by existing development patterns and so falls under an exception provided in that Code
provision. As noted under point 1, above, with respect to TDC 18.810.030(H)(1), extending the
east-west road across the site would require removing Mrs. Rider's home. Mrs. Rider's home is
pre-existing development that precludes extension of the road, unless appellant wants to
seriously argue that Mrs. Rider should lose her home. 'In addition, West Hills Development
Company has submitted a preliminary subdivision plat to the City on tax lot 2S109AD01400,
immediately to the east of the School District property. This subdivision, if approved, would
eliminate the possibility of a street connection to SW Greenfield Drive (i.e., `H' Street).
Therefore, the east-west road is precluded from the requirements of TDC 18.810.030(H)(2).
4. Under TDC 18 810 030(H)(2) a full street connection of the east-west street is also precluded
by strict adherence to other standards in the City's Code, namely Chapter 18.790 "Tree
Removal," and so falls under an exception provided in that Code provision. TDC Chapter
18.790 recognises the value of trees in the community. Indeed, this recognition is the first
provision of that chapter.' The chapter also lists as one of its purposes the preservation of trees
(TDC 18.790.010(B)(1)) and requires protection over removal wherever possible (TDC
18.790.030(A)). Strict adherence to the tree removal standards of the City's code militates in
1 18.790.010(A) reads: "Value of trees. After years of both natural growth and planting by residents, the City now
benefits from a large number of trees. These trees of varied types add to the aesthetic beauty of the community, help
clean the air, help control erosion, maintain water quality and provide noise barriers."
edmurphylus&albertarideloppeallresponse/9/07/04 2
Alberta Rider Elementary - response to appeal
favor of protecting the trees. Therefore, the east-west road is precluded from the requirements of
TDC 18.810.030(H)(2).
On a practical level, an extension of the east-west street across the property would also result in
an anomaly that would require yet another variance in and of itself. As shown on the attached
submitted preliminary plat for the subdivision directly east of the site, there is no east-west street
on that site for any east-west street on the school site to connect to. If the east-west street were
extended across the school site, then, it would result in a 980-foot long cul-de-sac, instead of the
proposed 560-foot long cul-de-sac. This 980-foot long cul-de-sac would require a variance to
TDC 18.810.030(L.), and the request would be for a greater variance than what has been asked
for and approved under the current application. To facilitate this excessively long cul-de-sac to
nowhere, Mrs. Rider's home would have be removed, the grove of trees would have to be cut
down or the roadway would have to run through the school parking lot - or some combination
thereof. We assume that if appellants were opposed to the 560-foot cul-de-sac currently
proposed, they would be even more opposed to one that's 980 feet long.
In conclusion, because connection of the east-west street across the property is exempt from the
requirements of TDC 18.810.030(IT)(1) and (2) in the ways enumerated above, no variance is
necessary and, therefore, no procedural error of any legal import has occurred.
Even if the City Council does not agree that site is exempt from the street connectivity
requirements or that the site warrants an exception to those requirements under the Tigard
Development Code, there is little merit to the appellant's claim that no notice was given about
the possibility that a variance might be considered and granted or that nobody had a chance to
raise the issue below.
The appellant's complaint is that no notice was given that a variance to the street spacing
standards, as those standards may affect east-west streets, was going to be considered or
approved, and therefore no one had a chance to raise the issue below. It is difficult to believe
that the appellant did not know or could not have known that an east-west street was not
proposed on the Alberta Rider Elementary School site plan, or that the appellant did not have a
chance to raise that issue to the Hearings Officer.
® The notice for the July 12, 2004 public hearing did not specifically refer to a variance for "F"
Street" or for "a north-south street". It simply said "...the Tigard Development Code requires
full street connections with spacing of no more than 530 feet between connections... The
District is proposing not to fully connect the street". Anyone reading such a notice would
realize that the District was requesting a variance to the 530-foot maximum street spacing
standard. However, they would not know whether the street was east-west, north-south, or
both unless-they reviewed the application, where it was very clear that the School District
was proposing neither an east-west nor north-south street.
o The School District's Conditional Use Permit application mentioned the potential of an east-
west street connection on page 19, and said that it was not feasible due to environmental and
other constraints. It even included a map of a portion of the City's Transportation System
ed,nurphy/ttsd/albertaride/appeal/response/9/07/04 3
Alberta Rider Elementary - response to appeal `
Plan as Exhibit `P'. Anyone reviewing the application would have realized that the District
was not proposing an east-west street,
The staff report noted in several places that an east-west street was not being proposed or
required. Staff supported the granting of a variance to the connectivity standards for an east-
west west street. Specifically, the staff report said:
"The Transportation System Plan identifies an east-west connection through the site
between the West Access Road and future Street IT'. As staff has previously
discussed, siting this street across the school site would bisect the site and render a
large portion (the portion north of the connection) undesirable for the school campus.
Moving the road to the northern edge of the property would significantly impact the
Alberta Rider trust land, and would run parallel to SW Bull Mountain Road,
contradicting a Bull Mountain Community Plan policy." (7/12/04 staff report, page
19)
"Staff understands that to apply universally this standard for street connections every
530 feet is not in all senses practical, and if applied to this property would in fact
create two bisecting north-south streets, and one bisecting east-west street. With
consideration given to the nature of the proposed institutional use, and its required
consolidated land requirements, staff made provisions for a single street to run along
the edge of the property, to maintain a whole campus, uninterrupted by a bisecting
'street. In this sense, staff supports the variance for additional streets beyond "F"
street, although the Transportation System Plan (a subdocument of the
Comprehensive Plan, and policy document for transportation requirements within the
City) calls for an east west street between "West Access Road" and the Greenfield
Road extension, also referred to as Street IT'. (7/12/04 staff report, page 21)
"Staff agrees that a variance to the standards for requiring full compliance with the
street connectivity standards is appropriate, rather than requiring a second north-south
street located to the east, as well as an east-west street somewhere on the property.
This will allow the use to be the same as permitted under this title and permit
reasonable economic use of the land. By requiring only a single connecting street
along the west property boundary, City standards will be maintained to the greatest
extent that is reasonably possible for this site." (7/12/04 staff report, page 22)
"The hardship is the result of a code requirement, and the applicant's desire to
develop a school on the site. The operational characteristics of the school are unique
and beyond the applicant's control. Staff agrees that a variance to the standards for
requiring full compliance with the street connectivity standards is appropriate, and
recommends minimizing the degree of this variance by requiring only a single
connecting street along the west property boundary, rather than requiring a second
north-south 5 eet 110cated to the east as well as an east-west street somewhere on the
property having the effect of bisecting the site." (7/12/04 staff report, page 22)
edmurph asealbertarWappeeresporeW9/07/04 4
Alberta Rider Elementary - response to appeal
Therefore, it would have been abundantly clear to anyone reading the staff report that the
City staff recommended a variance to full and literal compliance with street spacing
standards for both north-south and east-west streets across the property. Anyone who
attended reviewed the application or the staff report, or attended the hearing below, would
have been aware that an east-west street was not being proposed, and could have raised an
objection at that point (or in the following days when the record was left open).
® The appellant's representative, Brent Landells, was at the public hearing. He testified in
sMrt of the proposed school, and noted only that there was a need to address the easement
that crosses the site from east to west. He did not object to the fact that the site plan did not
include an east-west street across the School District property. He did not object to the
staff's support for a variance to an east-west street requirement. He did not object to the lack
of specific notice that such a variance was being considered. It was apparent from the city
staffs and School District's presentations, which included displays of the site plan, that a
variance was going to be considered. Yet Mr. Landells did not raise an objection or even
speak to this issue before the Hearings Officer.
4 Even if the appellant is correct in saying that there was no specific notice that such a variance
was going to be considered, the notice of the public hearing on the appeal to the City Council
plainly states that one of the reasons given for the appeal is that "improper notice was given
for a variance approved by the Hearings Officer to waive the requirement for an east-west
street through the property." Therefore, any deficiency in the notice of the Hearings Officer
hearing has already been corrected with the notice of the appeal to the City Council.
As a final note on this issue, we would also like to point out that until the appellant included the
extension of the east-west road across the site as an issue on appeal, no one had argued that such
an extension was required by the Code or that such an extension was in any way a good idea -
not City staff, not Washington County, not the neighbors. We are unaware of any reason why
such an extension would make any sense at all.
Appeal Issue #2. Appellant claims that the Hearings Officer improperly granted a
variance to the maximum street spacing standards as they apply to a north-south street
through the property.
In the School District's application, there was substantial evidence given by experts in
architecture, traffic engineering, planning and engineering as to why a variance to the maximum
street spacing standards was justified. Larry Epstein relied upon the evidence and arguments
given in the application and in the staff report in deciding to grant the variance to the maximum
street spacing requirements. He noted on page 13 of the Final Order that "Only compliance with
TDC 18.370.010.C(a), (b) and (e) is disputed. With regard to other parts of TDC 18370.010.C,
the hearings officer adopts the associated affirmative findings in the Staff Report."
ue V" ",g ~„uanw*.~Ps the. findings made by the Hearings Officer on pages 13-17 of the
Final Order:
edmurphy/tu&albertaride/appeallresponse/9/07/04 5
Alberta Rider Elementary - response to appeal
Mr. Epstein reviewed the purpose statements of the TDC, and particularly purposes #6 and #8.
On purpose statement 46, he found the following:
"a. The purposes of the TDC are diverse and broad. The focus has been on purposes
no. 6 and 8, because they are most closely related to potential adverse impacts of the
variance.2 The hearings officer finds that the block west of the site can be
redeveloped as described by the applicant with a mid-block, north-south street and/or
private streets and drives, even if "F Street" is not extended along the west edge of
the site. Extending "F Street" will make it easier to redevelop the block, and may
spur earlier redevelopment, because it will provide immediate access to the rear of the
adjoining lots. However not building the street does not preclude or significantly
impede incremental redevelopment. Therefore the hearings officer concludes that the
variance is somewhat detrimental but not materially detrimental to purpose no. 6.3',
On Purpose statement #8, Mr. Epstein found the following:
"The hearings officer is persuaded that a "safe, convenient and economic transportation
system" does not require extension of "F Street" as recommended by City staff, because:
(A) This system can safely accommodate the traffic impact of the proposed use and other
existing or approved developments, based on the traffic studies in the record. Therefore
the variance will not be materially detrimental to the safety of the transportation system.
(B) The transportation system is convenient, because vehicular, pedestrian and bicycle
access can be provided to the school from every direction with a minimum of out of
direction travel, particularly for pedestrians and bicyclists.
b. The hearings officer finds that the unique needs of the proposed use, the topography
and tree cover on the site and the arrangements of legal estates on the site (i.e., the life
estate and the easement for the reservoir), all of which are more or less beyond the
applicant's control, are special circumstances that are peculiar to the site. The hearings
officer agrees with the City that the topographic conditions do not make extension of "F
Street" impracticable; it could be built. But the analysis should not end there, because
TDC 18.370.010.C(2)(b) does not say that the special circumstances must preclude
compliance with the standard.4 It merely requires that special circumstances exist. TDC
18.370.010.C(2)(b) also does not say that the greater the variance, the more special the
circumstances must be. But the site in this case is not burdened only by a sloping
s TDC 18.110.020A(6) and (8) provide the following purposes for the TDC:
6. Provide for the orderly and efficient transition from rural to urban land use;...
8. Provide for and encourage a safe, convenient and economic transportation system within the City;
3 - , Im. -'ally" detrimental also is ambiguous. The hearings officer relies on the de&nition in WESsTER's
NEW WORLD DICTIONARY OF THE AMERICAN LANGUAGE for the meaning of that term:
To a great extent; substantially; considerably.
a TDC 18.810.030.H does say that, but the variance standard in TDC 18.370.010.C(2)(b) does not.
ednarrpkylttsd/albertaride/appeaUres~onse/9/Q7/04 6
Albena Rider Elementary - response to appeal
topography; it also is burdened by the other users of the site. The mixed-use character of
the site is an unusual circumstance compared to other properties in the district, most of
which are developed with a single-family detached home. These factors, combined with
the unique need of the school for the greatest safety and security practicable, are special
circumstances that make compliance with the street spacing standard, even to the extent
recommended by City staff, a hardship. From the school district's perspective, that
hardship is not alleviated by placing the street on the edge of the site.
i. A school (at least one of the size and nature proposed in this case) does have unique
needs for security and safety, because the care of so many children is entrusted to it.. It
would bring the children closer to traffic, which makes it per se a greater risk to safety. It
would bring traffic closer to the school, which makes it per se a somewhat greater risk to
security and requires more supervision. The hearings officer cannot make a finding about
the extent of the increased risks without better evidence. But TDC 18.370.010.C(2)(b)
does not require the special circumstances or hardship to be quantified. For purposes of
that section, it is enough to find that special circumstances exist and, due to those
circumstances, compliance would be a hardship. The hearings officer does so here.
ii. The hearings officer finds there is a considerable difference between having a 10-foot
wide landscape strip, a 5-foot wide sidewalk and a 10-foot macadam pathway over which
the applicant can exercise control and an improved 35-foot public road right of way over
which the applicant does not have any control. Moreover, whether the impact directly
affects 1/10 of an acre or ten times that amount, the impact is more than a matter of
square feet. It is not just the area of the right of way that is significant to the hardship
alleged by the school district. It is the implication to the design of the bus circulation
system and school, which affects a much larger area than the right of way per se. Equally
or more important, it has an impact on the safety of the children. As noted above, the
hearings officer cannot say from the record whether extending "F Street" would pose a
hazard to the children or merely an inconvenience to the district. However, when given a
choice about whose opinion to give more weight the staff s opinion that the road will
not pose a hazard and the school district's opinion that it will the hearings officer
elects to err on the side of the school district, because of the district's experience building
and operating schools.
c. With regard to TDC 18.370.010.C(e), the hearings officer agrees with the applicant
that placing a public street along the west edge of the site as recommended by City staff
would be a hardship. Although it would be a lesser variance to have the street on the
west side of the site than to have it through the block to the west, such a variance would
not relieve the applicant of the hardship posed by the street. Having the street anywhere
on the site is the hardship. Therefore the minimum variance that can be granted is the
variance the applicant applied, for, with a relatively minor exception to require the
applicant to improve a turnaround at the end of the "F Street" stub. Because the
turnaround is so far from the school building, the hearings officer finds that requiring the
applicant to dedicate and improve it is not a hardship, because it will not greatly affect
school security or safety."
edmurphy/tts&albertartde/appeallrespome/9107104 7
Alberta Rider Elementary • response to appeal
In summary, (1) the connection will serve only a few vehicle trips per day, but will add a great
burden to the school district in terms of site constraints; (2) the connectivity that would be
provided by such a connection is not significant, especially in light of the burden to the school
district; (3) providing minimal connectivity for a few vehicle trips a day at the expense of
potentially requiring all of the school buses to travel significantly out-of-direction and through
adjacent neighborhoods certainly does not support connectivity; (4) much of the rationale for
greater connectivity - creation of transportation networks that encourage pedestrian and bicycle
modes of travel and direct emergency vehicle access - are met through the design.
There is no evidence in the record that rebuts the expert testimony and evidence of the School
District and its consultants that the connection is not needed, and there is substantial evidence in
the record that site development will be significantly burdened by the road requirement.
Appeal Issue #3. Appellant claims that the hearings Officer improperly granted an
adjustment to the driveway spacing standards.
The Hearings Officer granted a partial adjustment. He allowed the School District to build a
gated, emergency access to Bull Mountain Road, but required the District (and Mrs. Rider) to
close the eastern driveway onto Bull Mountain Road. The District requested an adjustment to
allow the new emergency access road and to allow Mrs. Rider's driveway to remain as is. That
requested adjustment was denied. The appellant is in error in his claim that the Hearings Officer
improperly granted an adjustment. (See Condition 13, Hearings Officer Final Order, which
required the east driveway to be eliminated.)
As conditioned by Larry Epstein, the school's emergency access is no longer in violation of the
driveway spacing standards, with respect to the Alberta Rider driveway to the west. The
adjustment to the driveway spacing standards with respect to the driveway on the property to the
east is only a temporary, technical fix to a situation that will change shortly, as the property to
the east gets redeveloped. The existing driveway to the west of the proposed emergency access
will be eliminated, and access to the property will be from `H' Street, a k.a. SW Greenfield
Drive. West Hills Development Company has already submitted a preliminary subdivision plat
application this property called "Arbor Summit 2".
Appeal Issue #4. Appellant claims that the Hearings Officer failed to require sound
attenuation measures. The appellant has not cited a Code provision that would be violated if
Condition of Approva141(which gives the planning manager the authority to require the District
to install noise attenuation measures or schedule a public hearing to consider whether or not such
measures should be required), did not exist.5 If a Code provision is not violated, any uncertainty
problems that a condition might present do not amount to legal error.
In fact, the School District does not believe that this condition of approval is even necessary,
given that non-amplified sounds created by a school use are clearly exempt from the City's noise
s Staff had recommended sound attenuation measures such as a wall along the south side of the property near the
soccer play field, proposed condition #30 of the 7112104 staff report. The Hearings Officer deleted that proposed
condition, and substituted condition #48 instead. The appellant erred in referring to "condition of approval 30" in
the notice of appeal.
edmurphyldsd'aibertaride/appeallrespono9/07J04 8
Alberta Rider Elementary - response to appeal
regulations by TDC 7.40.180. If the Code exempts schools from the City's noise regulations, it
signifies that the City has already made a policy choice about regulating noise from school uses.
That policy should apply to this proposed school, too, especially since there is no evidence in the
record to support a deviation from that policy choice in this case. There is no evidence that this
elementary school is somehow unique, such that it alone should be called out for noise
attenuation measures when no other schools are.
Further, there is unrebutted evidence from an acoustical engineer, Kerrie G. Standlee, P.E.,
Principal, Daly-Standlee & Associates, Inc. that the sound associated with the use of the play
field will not create an adverse impact on the residences. (See letter from Mr. Standlee dated
July 12, 2004). Mr. Murphy's July 11, 2004 letter also thoroughly addresses this issue. We
would ask, then, that the Council simply remove Condition of Approval 48.
Appeal Issue #5. Appellant claims that the Hearings Officer improperly found that the
site size and dimensions provide adequate area for the needs of the proposed uses.
Variances are a legitimate, Code-sanctioned way to handle site constraints, and the City should
not allow opponents of an application to distort their purpose into a trap for the unwary, so that a
variance can be used to impugn the adequacy of a site for a particular purpose under TDC
18.330.030.A(l). The Hearings Officer correctly found that the size and shape of the site is such
that, with the requested variances, the site is adequate for the needs of the proposed use. (HO
Decision, page 23.) Indeed, TDC 18.330.030.A(1) requires only that "the site size and
dimensions provide adequate area for the needs of the proposed use." TDC 18.330.030.A(1)
does not require that "the site size and dimensions provide adequate area for the needs of the
proposed use with no variances being required." But this is, in effect, how appellant interprets
it.
Under the appellant's interpretation, if an applicant requests any variance as part of a CUP
application, the applicant can never meet TDC 18.330.030.A(1) the site will always be
inadequate if a variance is necessary. We do not believe that the City interprets TDC
18.330.030.A(1) in that way. We also believe that if the City meant TDC 18.330.030.A(l) to be
interpreted in that way, it would have simply prohibited variances as part of CUP applications -
it would not have set up an odd, Catch-22 situation to trap applicants.
Appeal Issue #6. Appellant claims that the Hearings Officer failed to account for the
east-west water easement. First of all, the easement runs north-south, not east-west. It is a 20%
wide general utility easement located along the eastern boundary of 2S109AC, tax lot 2100 (the
parcel on which Mrs. Rider's home is located), and which extends approximately 500 feet into
the Summit Ridge Development. (It is interesting to note that the easement is not shown on the
subdivision plat map for Summit Ridge). The easement was granted to Harold and Elizabeth
Hirsch from Charles and Alberta Rider in 1961, and has apparently never been utilized. There
are no known utilities in this easement.
Q. ,,,i the annailant does not cite which Code provision is violated by an alleged uncertainty
~.,cou.., rr....-.does -
regarding the ultimate disposition of a private utility easement through the property, and we do
not see that there is one. Therefore, this issue on appeal is irrelevant. With that said, the School
edmurphy/ttsd/albertartde/appeallresponsd9/07/04 9
Alberta Rider Elementary - response to appeal
District will work with the private easement holder to vacate the easement, if it is no longer
needed, or move it to another location on the property, if it is needed.
As a practical matter, the easement may even be able to remain as it is, as there does not appear
to be anything in the easement that would preclude developing over the easement, as long as
access to any underlying utilities is maintained. In fact, over 90% of the easement will lie in an
area that is shown on the proposed site plan as landscaping, parking lot, playground, or ball
fields. Only about 65 feet of the easement would be under the proposed school building. The
proposed reservoir is not within the easement area.
Appeal Issue #7. Appellant claims that the Hearings Officer improperly granted a
variance to the maximum cul-de-sac length standard. As noted with respect to Issue 1,
extending the east-west road across the site would still result in a cul-de-sac, but it would be even
longer than the one requested and approved by the Hearings Officer. We cannot imagine how
this is preferable to what has already been approved or why the appellant would find this
outcome preferable. Even so, the application provided reasons why the West Access Street
could not be extended to through the property to the east. It would have to go through Mrs.
Rider's home and the significant wooded area surrounding her home. It would have to connect
to the future `H' Street (SW Greenfield Drive) through a property the School District does not
own, and which is currently being subdivided without making any provisions for such an east-
west street ("Arbor .Summit 2"", a 13 home subdivision proposed by West Hills Development
Company).
The length of the street was dictated by the distance between SW 133`d Street and the School
District property. It is no longer than it needs to be to reach the school site and provide a
turnaround. Further, the length of the dead-end street may change in the future as the parcels
between the school site and SW 133`d are developed. Staff alluded to this in the staff report,
where they made the following statement: "Staff supports the requested adjustment only if the
variance to the street connectivity standards is granted, and only if the future north-south street
from West Access Road is located within 200 feet of the terminus of the cul-de-sac bulb."
(7/12/04 staff report, page 20). Although the Hearings Officer did not make that a condition of
approval (and could not have, as it is not something that the School District has any control
over), the point is that the dead-end West Access Street will mostly likely be only about 200 feet
long when and if the parcels between SW 133`d and the school property are redeveloped.
Conclusion.
The Tigard-Tualatin School District requests that the Tigard City Council uphold the decision
made by the City's professional Hearings Officer in approving the applications for Conditional
Use Permit approval, as well as the related variances and adjustments, for the proposed Alberta
Rider Elementary School and City Water Reservoir. We would ask only that the Council remove
Condition of Approval #48 regarding a possible future requirement of noise attenuation
measures. We believe the Hearing Officer made a sound decision based on the evidence before
.innision was nrnner and well reasoned.
Llllll, GL114 uau. his ♦.ww..... r--r -
End of Response
edmurp)ry/ttsd/albertarl&lappealIrespom&9107104 10
1
1
,.W
20
it
SW BULL MOUNTAIN ROM
1 7 I 2 J I * S ~NV~~'gOg
as wM1 3 s. 2 C~ 1 1 1 i { i m~ a. < $
1 E r.xs wM1 ( •J.S'A a2 I 45or aM1 14 I I 1 j i ~ 6
~ ~ n>r1--- x., 1
i TRACT A_- PRIVATE - SW WINTERVIEW (FU' lUPM) S
~ ~-s.am wM1 4 I ,
, ~ waT uV -
i - 8 •I 1 rr 25 1 25 I I 2
a I $ s
i 4 5 gl 6 I I ~ i j ~
i 7.412
qll- y' 4rn qf1. y,7ee pil L '
j
p
R E S 1""---- 1 1 ,
l o II 1 9
F U T U E
g f` 1.. I
1 g G ~I R O
s A T p H A- 5------- r
aw wM1
' 9 7 I ' N S U M M 1o c
i 7.7G0 qM1 aut wM1 I a I 2J i 2e I 7
1 1
1
_ B I I W ~ a ,
TRACT Y F
o'~ PRIVATE zz
I 4.JQ wR I W_ 1 1 29 j I
10
I 7?u qM1 I 1 I 12 `
1
1 1- I 1 21 j JO ' I
I ,
1 1
f_________________-----------__-__ 1 I
1 1 I , 20 i ® 31
1 1 1 I ' i J/ 1 M97
1 1 -I.m~rr • 11 E
PPLT iii
c~
CITY OF TIGARD
Community (Development
S(aping fl iBetter Community
EMORMINUUM
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
13125 SW Hall Boulevard
Tigard, Oregon 97223
(503) 639-4171
Fax 684-7297
TO: City Council
FROM: Morgan Tracy, Associate Planner
DATE: September 9, 2004
SUBJECT: Alberta Rider Future Street Connectivity Information
Councilor Wilson requested clarification regarding the location of Street "F" and Street
"H" for the upcoming appeal hearing. The attached map is being furnished to all
councilors and shows the location of the proposed Alberta Rider school site in relation to
the approved Summit Ridge and Bella Vista Subdivisions. Also shown are pending and
future applications for the Arbor Summit, Arlington Heights, and Alpine View
subdivisions. The map shows Street "F" aligned along the western edge of the school
site, and Street "H" aligned generally along the eastern edge of the school site. The map
also shows the conceptual location of other future roads in the area.
:J
Left Turn Lane
,.-_LJLU U-L
.......A.A a BULL NK
■
■ :
:
orb or:
Summit'` '
land.
:
2 lots
SrIFIECr F
71
urh it Ridge AKA
OL I'
13 s i< Ky
f+.
- r
:AI pi rie:
Arlington
Private Liti gati o Heights 3
- `2S . I ots?
for Possession ow
58 .lots?
a
P
avement Ends
- .B'ivl l ~ i sfa
; 41 I ots .
~ f.
ATTACHMENT 4
120 DAYS = 911612004 (Includes a 16-day extension) cmornouo
DATE OF FILING: 0110004 Community(DrWropment
srutpingA oetter Community
CITY OF TIGARD
Washington County, Oregon
NOTICE OF FINAL ORDER BY THE HEARINGS OFFICER
Case Numbers: "URBAN SERVICE AREA"
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CUP 2003-00012
DEVELOPMENT ADJUSTMENT VAR 2004-00037
STMENT 200 -000
E
IV U4-UUU42
DEVELOPMENT ADJUSTMENT VAR 2004.00043
DEVELOPMENT ADJUSTMENT VAR 2004-00053
Case Name: ALBERTA RIDER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL & CITY WATER RESERVOIR
Name of Owner: Tigard-Tualatin School District No. 23J
Name of Applicant: Ti ard-Tualatin School District No. 23J
Address of Applicant: 6960 SW Sandbur Street Tigard, Ore on 97223
Address of Property: On the south side of SW Bull Mountain Road east of SW 133 Avenue.
Tax Ma /Lot Nos.: 2S109AC, Tax Lot 2100 and 2S109AD, Tax Lot 1300
A FINAL ORDER INCORPORATING THE FACTS, FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS APPROVING A REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE AND FOUR (41 AD~STMENTS.
AND APPROVING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART ONE LI) AQUSTMENT. THE CITY OF TIGARD HEARINGS OFFICER HAS REVIEWED THE AP~[IUNPS PUNS,
NARRATIVE, MATERIALS, COMMENTS OF REVIEWING AGE??ttCCIES, THE PUNNING DIVISION'S STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE APPLICATION
DESCRIBED IN FURTHER DETAIL IN THE STAFF REPORT. THE HEARINGS OFFICER HELD A PUBLIC HEARING ON JULY 12 2004 TO RECEIVE TESTIMONY
REGARDING THIS APPLICATION. THIS DECISION HAS BEEN BASED ON THE FACTS, FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS CONTAINED WITHIN THIS FINAL ORDER.
Request: ➢ The applicant is requesting Conditional Use approval to construct a 67,000 square foot elementary
school, a 3-million gallon water reservoir, and associated improvements on a 10.71 acre site. The applicant is
also requesting five (5) Variances/Adjustments to the Tigard Development Code (TDC). The Variances and
Adjustments are as follows:
► Section 18.810.030(H) of the Tigard Development Code requires full street connections with spacing of no
more than 530 feet between connections is required except where prevented by barriers such as topography,
railroads, freeways, pre-existing developments, lease provisions, easements, covenants or other restrictions
existing prior to May 1, 1995 which preclude street connections. A full street connection may also be
exempted due to a regulated water feature if regulations would not permit construction. The District is
proposing not to fully connect the street;
/ An Adjustment to the minimum bicycle parking requirements (proposing 44 spaces instead of the required
186);
/ An Adjustment to the driveway spacing standards along SW Bull Mountain Road (the minimum spacing
between driveways is required to be 200 feet, the District is asking for three driveways within 200 feet) and;
► An Adjustment to the street improvement standards to the unnamed street from SW 133rd to the school site
(they are proposing a 3.5 foot planter strip instead of the required 5.5 foot planter strip); and
► An Adjustment to the 200-foot maximum length standard for a cul-de-sac. The District's proposed access
cul-de-sac will measure 520 feet.
At the close of the record, the Hearings Officer approved CUP 2003-00012, VAR 2004-00037, VAR 2004-
00041, VAR 2004-00043 and VAR 2004-00053 and approved in part and denied in part VAR 2004-00042
subject to the conditions of approval within this final order.
Zone: R-7: Medium-Density Residential District. Applicable Review Criteria: Community Development Code
Chapters 18.330, 18.360, 18.370, 18.390, 18.510, 18.705, 18.725, 18.745, 18.755, 18,765, 18.780, 18.790, 18.795
and 18.810; and the Bull Mountain Community Plan.
Action: D ❑ Approval as Requested O Approval and Partial Denial ❑ Denial
Notice: Notice was published in the newspaper and mailed to:
O Owners of Record Within the Required Distance 19 Affected Government Agencies
0 Interested Parties ® The Applicants and Owners
The adopted findings of fact and decision can be obtained from the Planning Division/Community Development
Department at the City of Tigard City Hail.
Final Decision:
THIS DECISION IS FINAL ON AUGUST 10, 2004 AND BECOMES
EFFECTIVE ON AUGUST 25, 2004 UNLESS AN APPEAL 1S FILED.
Appeal:
The decision of the Review Authority is final for purposes of appeal on the date that it is mailed. Any party with
standing as provided in Section 18.390.040 GA. may appeal this decision in accordance with Section
18.390.040.G.2. of the Tigard Community Development Code which provides that a written appeal together with
the required fee shall be filed with the Director within ten (10) business days of the date the notice of the
decision was mailed. The appeal fee schedule and forms are available from the Planning Division of Tigard
City Hall, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon 97223.
THE DEADLINE FOR FILING AN APPEAL IS 5:00 PM ON AUGUST 24, 2004.
Questions: If you have any questions, please call the City of Tigard Planning Division at (503) 639-4171.
BEFORE THE LAND USE HEARINGS OFFICER
FOR THE CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
Regarding an application by the Tigard-Tualatin ) FINAL ORDER
School District for a conditional use permit, variance ) CUP 2003-00012 and
and adjustments for the proposed Alberta Rider ) VAR 2004-00037,-00041,
Elementary School at roughly 13000 SW Bull ) -00042, -00043 and -00053
Mountain Road in the City of Tigard, Oregon ) (Rider Elementary School)
A. SUMMARY
1. Tigard-Tualatin School District 23J (the "applicant") requests approval of a
conditional use permit (the "CUP") for an elementary school and related improvements
on about 6 acres of a 10.71-acre site. The school will house 600 students and 46 teachers
and staff. The school building will contain 67,000 square feet on a footprint of about
45,000 square feet. It will be two stories and will not exceed a height of 35 feet. It will
be setback from lot lines by about 45 feet on the east, 180 feet on the south, 60 feet on the
west and about 230 feet on the north. There will be 76 vehicle parking spaces and 44
bicycle parking spaces north of the school building and east of the cul de sac that ends a
public street extending east from SW 133`d Avenue to the site. There is a loop drive for a
bus drop-off and turn-around area west of the school building and south of the cul de sac.
A sports field without lights or bleachers will be situated south of the school
building and west of a City reservoir. The applicant plans to retain 51 of the 62 healthy,
minimum 12-inch diameter trees on the site, especially in the northwest corner. Total
impervious area will be about 132,600 square feet, which results in lot coverage of about
29%. Storm water will be collected and treated on-site before being discharged into the
public storm sewer. The school will be served by public water and sanitary and storm
sewers. The applicant proposes emergency-only vehicular accesses from the school to
Bull Mountain Road (to the north) and to the stub of "F Street" (to the southwest) and
sidewalks in all directions. The applicant also will dedicate right of way for and will
improve the site's 590-foot Bull Mountain Road frontage.
2. At the request of the City Public Works Department, the applicant also
requests approval of a CUP for a 3-million gallon water reservoir. The reservoir will be a
cylindrical tank about 110 feet in diameter that the City will place underground within an
easement that covers the southeast 2.3 acres of the site. The tank will be setback more
than 105 feet from the nearest lot lines. The applicant will landscape over most of the
reservoir and will use the surface above for recreation. Access for occasional reservoir
maintenance will be provided from Summit Ridge to the south or from the school site.
This reservoir implements one of the recommendations of the 2000 Tigard Water
Distribution System Hydraulic Study to add a reservoir in the City's 550-foul service
zone. The proposed reservoir will serve development on the east side of Bull Mountain
that-now is served by a reservoir at the 713-foot service elevation, which requires use of
pressure reducing valves. The new reservoir will be supplied from the City's 10 MG
reservoir at 12475 SW Bull Mountain Road.
3. The applicant also requests approval of a variance to the street spacing
standard in section 18.810.030(H) of the Tigard Development Code (the "TDC") to avoid
having to extend a public street along the west edge of the site (VAR 2004-00037). The
applicant also requests approval of the following four adjustments;
a. An adjustment to the minimum bicycle parking requirements in TDC
18.765.050.E to allow 44 spaces instead of the required 186 spaces
(VAR 2004-00041);
b. An adjustment to the driveway spacing standards in TDC
18.705.030(H)(3) and (4) to allow two existing driveways and an
emergency access within 200 feet of each other and an off-site
driveway on the site's SW Bull Mountain Road frontage instead of the
minimum required 200-foot spacing between driveways (VAR 2004-
00042);
c. An adjustment to the street improvement standards in TDC
18.810.030(A)(4) and (E) and Table 18.810.1 to allow a 3.5-foot
planter strip instead of the regigired 5.5-foot planter strip along the
unnamed street from SW 133 to the school site (VAR 2004-00043).
d. An adjustment to the 200-foot cul-de-sac length limitation in TDC
18.810.030(L) to allow a 560-foot long cul-de-sac for the unnamed
street from SW 133`a Avenue (VAR 2004-00053).
4. The site is situated south of and abuts an under-improved section of SW Bull
Mountain Road between roughly SW Greenfield Drive and what would be SW 132°d
Avenue on the street grid; also known as Tax Lot 2100 WCTM 2S109AC and Tax Lot
1300 WCTM 2S109AD (the "site"). The site is zoned R-7 (Medium-Density
Residential). The site has substantial topographic relief, sloping generally down to the
southeast from a high of about 574 feet above mean sea level ("msl") along the northwest
edge to about 515 feet msl at the southeast corner. Average slopes exceed 25% at the
northwest corner of the site, where there is a drainage swale. Elsewhere on the site slopes
commonly are less than 15% but rolling. The site includes a roughly 1.24-acre life estate
for Alberta Rider along the site's Bull Mountain Road frontage. The life estate includes
an historic cabin and a large single-family detached home with a circular drive to Bull
Mountain Road. The applicant proposes to retain the two driveways for the life estate
tenant. The applicant did not propose any use for the life estate portion of the site, and
does not propose to provide vehicular access to the life estate part from the remainder of
the site. A water easement extends east-west across roughly the middle of the site, and
will have to be re-situated for the applicant to place the building where proposed.
5. Land surrounding the site also is zoned R-7. Land to the west consists mostly
of long oversized lots, most of which are developed with single-family homes. Land to
the east is developed with single-family homes on oversized lots.; the City is reviewing
proposals to develop that land. Further east are recent subdivisions. Land to the south
currently is undergoing development as the Summit Ridge subdivision. An east-west
CUP 2003-000/2, VAR 2004-00037,-00041,-00042, Hearings Officer Final Order
00043, and -00053 (Alberta Rider Elementary School) Page 2
public street in the Summit Ridge development (Bella Vista Road) is proposed to extend
off-site to the west to provide access between SW UP Avenue and points east. A
dispute about the ownership of an a portion of the land needed for the right of way for
Bella Vista Road between Summit Ridge and SW 133rd Avenue has delayed completion
of that road-and may further affect its improvement. In Summit Ridge, Bella Vista Road
will intersect with a north-south road ("F Street") that terminates at the southwest corner
of the school site.
6. The Staff Report to the Hearings Officer dated July 2, 2004 (the "Staff
Report") contains additional basic facts about the proposal, the site and surrounding area,
applicable standards from the TDC, and findings and conclusions applying those
standards to the application. In the Staff Report, City staff recommend that the hearings
officer deny the applications for the conditional use permit and for the variance to street
spacing standards, because the applicant failed to meet the burden of proof for the
variance and, therefore, to show that the site is adequate in size and shape to provide for
the needs of the use, including for an extension of "F Street." However City staff also
provided conditions of approval in case the hearings officer disagrees with their
conclusion.
a. Recommended condition of approval 12 reflects the staffs conclusion
that the applicant failed to meet the burden of proof for the variance to the street spacing
standard. It effectively approves a lesser variance than the applicant proposed. It requires
the applicant to extend "F Street" north as a 35-foot wide right of way on the west edge of
the site to an intersection with the unnamed east-west access road and to improve that
street with a 3/4-width improvements. The school district and most neighbors to the west
object to that condition for reasons discussed more herein. In its proposed circulation
plan for future redevelopment of the block west of the site, the school district proposes a
future north-south public street midway between the school site and 133`d Avenue (i.e.,
through the adjoining block) instead of extending 'T Street" along the edge of the site.
Several neighbors to the west also objected to that future street plan, largely because they
do not want to redevelop.
b. Recommended condition of approval 13 reflects the staff's conclusion
that the applicant failed to meet the burden of proof for the adjustment to the driveway
spacing standards along Bull Mountain Road. It effectively approves a lesser variance
than the applicant proposed. It requires the applicant to close the easterly driveway to the
life estate area of the site. The applicant objects, arguing that the driveway is
nonconforming and can continue to be used, because the application will not change its
use.
c. Recommended condition of approval 14 also reflects the staff's
conclusion that the applicant failed to meet the burden of proof for the adjustment to
driveway spacing standards along Bull Mountain Road. It effectively approves a greater
and lesser variance than the applicant proposed. It requires the applicant to establish the
CUP 2003-00012, VAR 2004-00037, -00041, -00041, Hearings Officer Final Order
-00043, and -00053 (Alberta Rider Elementary School) Page 3
school driveway to Bull Mountain Road as a right-in/right-out only access to the school
site and to install raised medians both in the driveway (a "pork chop") and between
opposing lanes of traffic on Bull Mountain Road to prevent left turns at the driveway.
The applicant objects to this condition, because it wilt complicate security, and the
median in Bull Mountain Road will not be safe given traffic speeds and road geometry.
d. Recommended condition of approval 30 requires the applicant to install
sound attenuation features on the south edge of the playfield. The applicant argues such
measures are unnecessary to comply with any applicable standard.
7. Tigard Hearings Officer Larry Epstein (the "hearings officer") held a duly
noticed public hearing regarding these applications. City staff recommended that the
hearings officer deny the CUP and variance, or approve the CUP subject to conditions of
approval in the Staff Report. The applicant's representatives testified in support of the
applications and against certain conditions of approvals recommended by City staff.
Three persons testified orally and they and others testified in writing against the extension
of "F Street," among other issues. The major disputed issues in this case are set out
above.
8. The hearings officer has considerable misgivings about this decision.
a. The record is imperfect. For instance the school district testified it
considered more than 100 designs for the site, but showed no direct evidence of that
effort. It was not evident from the record whether the reservoir could be shifted to the east
(even if it had to be above-ground) and the school building could be rotated
counterclockwise to create more room for the recommended extension of 'T Street." The
record does not show that physical conditions prevent the applicant from extending "F
Street." The question of whether extension of "F Street" is "reasonable" is a mixed
question of law and fact, but the lack of all of the facts available hampers the analysis.
b. The law also could be described as imperfect by failing to expressly
.address the security issues central to the district's planning for the school or the
relationship of institutions, such as the proposed school, and the street spacing standard.
Metro and Washington County rules exempting institutions from their connectivity-
related standards do not apply in the City of Tigard.
c. It also is not evident from the record whether a different process (e.g., a
mediation process prior to the hearing) might have found consensus-backed solutions to
the disputed issues raised in the case. It is evident that the district and City staff worked
together as best they could. But, without more support, it was not enough.
'CUP 2003-000!2, VAR 2004-00037,-00041,-00042, Hearings OJf1cer Final Order
-00043, and -00053 (Alberta Rider Elementary School) Page 4
d. It is not unusual to have an imperfect record, law or process. But the
presence of all three in this case, together with the public interest embodied in the
district's acquisition of land and funds for the school and an acknowledged short-term
need for an additional school in the neighborhood, made this a particularly hard case to
decide.
e. Nevertheless after careful consideration and for the reasons stated
herein, the hearings officer finds that the applicant sustained the burden of proof that the
CUP, variance and most of the adjustments should be granted. Therefore the hearings
officer approves them as proposed or as modified herein, based on the findings and
conclusions included and incorporated herein and subject to conditions at the end of this
final order.
B. HEARING AND RECORD HIGHLIGHTS
1. The hearings officer received testimony at the public hearing about this
application on July 12, 2004. All exhibits and records of testimony are filed with the
Tigard Department of Community Development. At the beginning of the hearing, the
hearings officer made the declaration required by ORS 197.763. The hearings officer
disclaimed any ex parte contacts, bias or conflicts of interest. The following is a
summary by the hearings officer of selected testimony offered at the public hearing in this
matter.
2. City planner Morgan Tracy summarized the Staff Report.
a. He noted the adjustments that City staff recommended the hearings
officer approve, (i.e., to reduce the planter strip width along the unnamed east-west access
road and to reduce the number of bicycle parking spaces on the site). If the hearings
officer grants the variance to the street spacing standard, staff also recommended that the
hearings officer approve the adjustment to the maximum cul de sac length standard.
b. However he argued that the hearings officer should not approve the
variance to the street spacing standard, which makes the rest of the recommendation
moot.
i. He explained that street connectivity is warranted by the impacts
of the school. It will generate 665 vehicle trips per day, substantially more than the
number of trips that would be generated by residential development of the site.
ii. He explained there is a need for the "F Street" extension given
more than 300 new homes have been built or are approved south and east of the site. The
school will attract traffic from those homes. Without the "F Street" connection, those
trips will have to use Bull Mountain Road or to travel out of direction to U rd Avenue to
access the school.
CUP 1003-00012, VAR 2004-00037, -00041, -00042, Hearings Officer Final Order
00043, and -00053 (Alberta Rider Elementary School) Page 5
iii. He argued there is no certainty a north-south road can be
created through the middle of the block west of the site. Therefore, if the applicant does
not extend "F Street! 'along on the edge of the school site, it might never be created, and
redevelopment of the block to the west will be constrained by lack of access.
iv. He noted that this is the first new school to be reviewed since
the City adopted the street spacing standard to implement the Transportation Planning
Rule. The TDC does not exempt institutions in general or schools in particular from the
standard.
v. He testified that the variance was not persuasive, in part,
because the applicant proposes to develop a sidewalk and emergency access road
substantially where "F Street" would be extended. Staff computed that "F Street" will
use only 6100 square feet more than the sidewalk, emergency access path and adjoining
landscaping.' He disputed the argument by the applicant that other schools are isolated
from streets.
vi. In response to a question by the hearings officer, he conceded
that extending "F Street" to the unnamed east-west street will not do much to distribute
traffic by itself. But it will be part of an overall system that depends on "F Street" being
there. Due to sight distance and road geometry constraints, "F Street" should not extend
to Bull Mountain Road regardless of how the subject site is developed.
vii. Ultimately he concluded that the applicant failed to show that
the variance to the street spacing standard would not be detrimental to efficient
development and interconnection of the area. Also the applicant failed to show that the
site is subject to special circumstances that preclude any reasonable street connection.
See pp. 20-23 of the Staff Report for more discussion by staff. t
c. He recommended that the hearings officer delete condition of approval
15, because it repeats another condition,
d. He discussed the recommended conditions regarding the access drives
to Bull Mountain Road. He disputed the applicant's claim that the proposed use will not
affect Bull Mountain Road sufficient to create a nexus. He noted the limited sight
distance available from the drive that the staff -want the applicant to close. He argued that
testimony by the applicant's traffic engineer about school security needs is not expert
testimony, because the traffic engineer is not an expert in security.
I in his July 20 memo to the hearings officer, Mr. Tracy recalculated the difference to be 4372 square feet
or about 1/10 of an acre. In the applicant's closing argument, Mr. Murphy argues Mr. Tracy fails to
account for the loss of a vegetated buffer on the west and for the need for an additional 5 feet of width so
grading can be done and for another 20+ feet for the setback between the right of way and the school, which
altogether make a 60-foot wide affected area rather than just a 35-foot right of way.
CUP 2003-00012, VAR 2004-00037,-00041,-00042, Hearings Officer Final Order
-00043, and -00053 (Alberta Rider Elementary School) Page 6
e, He identified the need to address the utility easement that crosses the
site where the applicant proposes to place the school building,
f. He discussed the possible need for a sound wall south of the soccer
field, due to its elevation above adjoining single-family homes, and for limits on lighting
if the applicant proposes to light the field.
g. Ultimately he concluded that the constraints on the site on which the
applicant relies to justify the variance to the street spacing standard work in favor of
the variance but against the CUP. If there is not enough area on the site to accommodate
the needs of the use, including public streets that are required by the street spacing
standard and that are consistent with constitutional limits on exactions, then the
application fails to fulfill the first approval criterion for a CUP. Because extension of "F
Street" will require substantial changes to the site plan, staff concluded denial was
warranted.
3. Cornerstone Construction Management's representative Rick Rainone, District
board member Art Rutkin, future school principal Darin Barnard, architects Richard
Eslick and Sean Scott, traffic engineer Bryan Dunn, planner Ed Murphy and District
Superintendent Steve Lowder testified for the applicant.
a. Mr. Rainone testified about the history of project planning. He noted
that, when the district acquired the site, it was under the jurisdiction of Washington
County. Since the City assumed jurisdiction for purposes of development code
administration, the applicant met repeatedly with City staff, twice with neighbors and at
least once with the developer of adjoining land. He noted that the application was
deemed complete in April and originally was scheduled for hearing in June, but that the
applicant agreed to extend the hearing. Regarding the driveway spacing adjustment on
Bull Mountain Road, he argued that the life estate commits the applicant to maintain two
driveways for the life estate tenant, so closing the east driveway as recommended in
condition of approval 13 would require a change in the life estate. He also introduced
aerial photographs of other schools in the district in support of the district's argument that
roads do not intersect or adjoin most other school sites. Regarding the reservoir, he
testified that the City asked the district to include the reservoir in the application and
drafted an intergovernmental agreement for that purpose. He also testified that the
reservoir must be situated where proposed, although Mr. Tracy disputed that, arguing that
the reservoir is elevation-specific rather than location-specific.
b. Mr. Rutkin testified that Alberta Rider Elementary will be the tenth
-
....Mot,.......,..
elementary scnoor - • In a msm • a -r- ul,-+u-__-:_cigviiig raY,., Y„r :a ion growth. The nearest schools
are over-capacity. He argued that extending "F Street" along the west edge of the site
would pose a hazard to children, would detract from the security of the site, and would
impose an undue expense to redesign the site and build the road.
CUP 2003-00012, PAR 2004-00037, -00041, -00042, Hearings Officer Final Order
-00043, and -00053 (Alberta Rider Elementary School) Page 7
c. Mr. Barnard testified about how the proposed design is the best fit for
the site. If there is a public street on the west edge of the site, the district would have to
provide more supervision of the drop-off and pick-up areas to protect the students and
would have to make design changes that would detract from school comfort, safety and
operations. Traffic speeding on that road would pose a hazard to students. Traffic also
would cause noise and would distract students. He testified that the soccer field will not
include lights.
d. Mr. Scott testified that the applicant agrees to dedicate right of way
sufficient for a 35-foot half-width along the Bull Mountain Road frontage of the site
(condition of approval 8). Regarding the sound attenuation measures City staff
recommend in condition of approval 30, he introduced memoranda from the architects, an
acoustic engineer and Mr. Murphy, which contained arguments against a noise
attenuation wall. He highlighted aspects of the school design. He noted that the
kindergarten is on the west end of the school, closest to pick-up and drop-off areas. If "F
Street" is extended along the west side of the site, kindergarteners will be closest to it.
He opined that the topography and shape of the site (in light of the undevelopable life
estate portion and the reservoir area) made the school problematic to design.
e. Mr. Eslick testified that the applicant can relocate the utility easement
that crosses the site. He described how the architects designed the building to take
advantage of solar access and views and to control vehicular access. He noted the
constraint imposed by a drop of 68 feet of elevation across the site. He noted that the
applicant proposes to extend sidewalks from the school to and along Bull Mountain
Road, along the east-west access road, along the west edge of the site to the "F Street"
stub, and to the east edge of the site where a future road is anticipated.
f. Mr. Dunn introduced a memorandum. He argued that the proposed "F
Street" extension still violates the 530-foot street spacing standard, so it should not be
required. He argued that extension of "F Street" is not necessary to address the
transportation impacts of the school, which can be accommodated with the single point of
access the applicant proposed based on Level of Service standards. Moreover having "F
Street" does not improve traffic dispersion, because "F Street" will carry traffic only
between Summit Ridge and the east-west access road to the school; it still dumps all
traffic back out onto 133`a Avenue. He argued that extension of "F Street" is not
necessary to provide circulation to developable land to the west, because those lots can be
divided as flag lots or with private streets in an incremental manner. He argued that
additional access recommended by City staff, (e.g., "F Street" and a general-use driveway
to Bull Mountain Road), will have operational impacts on the school and will detract
from security and safety. "F Street" would pose a hazard because it would be 8 to 12 feet
above the soccer field elevation. "F Street" will require a challenging redesign of the
school access. It might be that buses will have to travel down 133rd Avenue and
approach the school from the south through Summit Ridge to facilitate a one-way traffic
CUP 2003-00012, VAR 2004-00037,-00041,.00042, Hearings Ojf1cer Final Order
-00043, and -00053 (Alberta Rider Elementary School) Page 8
flow. Regardless of the results of the lawsuit regarding Bella Vista Road west of Summit
Ridge, there is ample right of way to provide a two-lane paved road there. (Mr. Tracy
testified that at least 28 feet of right of way will be available for Bella Vista to connect to
133`d Avenue.) He argued that other schools with which he is familiar have not had to
extend stub streets through those school sites, and Tigard should not require it here. He
argued that the driveway from the school to Bull Mountain Road should be for emergency
purposes only, although he conceded there is adequate sight distance at the proposed
intersection, and the intersection would function safely if used for other purposes. He
argued that a raised median would pose a hazard to traffic on Bull Mountain Road, which
has an 85`h-percentile speed of more than 40 miles per hour on the horizontal curve at the
proposed intersection. He argued that the City should not require closure of the east
driveway of the life estate area, because the very small volume of traffic that will use it
will not have any impact on operations or safety.
g. Mr. Murphy testified about his understanding of the 1998 amendments
to the TDC that included the street spacing standard to which the applicant requests a
variance. He argued those amendments were required to comply with the Transportation
Planning Rule ("TPW which emphasizes connectivity. He argued the rule principally
was meant for residential development, but Tigard did not provide exceptions for
institutions such as schools, as Metro and Washington County have. He argued that the
City Transportation System Plan ("TSP") talks about the need to connect destinations,
such as a school. It does not talk about extending streets through them. He argued that
requiring the "F Street" extension would immediately reduce the privacy of adjoining
homes to the west. He described why a future street plan that relies on a north-south
street through the block to the west or incremental private drives and streets is preferable.
Moreover it results in a north-south street situated only about 130 feet west of where the
City wants the applicant to extend "F Street." For purposes of connectivity, the
difference is not significant. He argued that special circumstances that apply to the
proposed uses and to the site sustain the requested variance. He asked the hearings
officer to hold open the record for two days for new evidence.
h. Mr. Lowder testified that the district has not decided whether students
from adjoining land will attend the proposed school. They could be sent somewhere else.
4. Brent Landells testified for Don Morrisette Homes, which is developing
Summit Ridge. He testified in support of the proposed school, but noted the need to
address the easement that crosses the site from east to west.
5. Madalyn Utz, George Olsen, Gayla Smith and David Ririe, all of whom reside
along SW 133`d Avenue, testified in favor of the school as proposed and against a
condition of approval requiring the applicant to extend "F Street." Mrs. Utz argued that it
is unfair to spend bond money on a road extension for future development, because that
was not the purpose of the bond. She argued a north-south street will be created east of
the site which will connect with east-west roads to disperse traffic. Mr. Ririe argued that
CUP 2003-00011, PAR 1004-00037, -00041, -00042, Hearings Officer Final Order
-00043, and -00053 (Alberta Rider Elementary School) Page 9
the north-south road should be situated on the east part of the school site, if at all. He
also argued noise mitigation should be provided for properties west of the school
playfields. Mrs. Utz, Mr. Olsen and Mary Lou Ririe, among others, also wrote letters that
are in the record.
6. City Engineer Kim McMillan testified that the "F Street" extension will reduce
the volume of school-related traffic on 133`d Avenue compared to without it. She
testified that the City has issued an early grading permit for Summit Ridge Subdivision to
expedite its construction. A full construction permit has not been issued. The school
project is ineligible for an early grading permit process.
7. At the end of the hearing, the hearings officer ordered the public record held
open for two calendar days for the applicant to introduce new evidence and testimony; for
seven subsequent calendar days for the public and City staff to respond to the testimony at
the hearing or the new evidence the applicant submits within two days after the hearing;
and for seven subsequent calendar days for the applicant to submit a closing argument.
The record in this case closed at 5 PM on July 28, 2004.
C. DISCUSSION
1. The Staff Report identifies the applicable approval standards for the
application and applies them to the record in the case. No one identified other standards
that might apply. The hearings officer agrees that the standards identified in the Staff
Report are all of the applicable standards in this case.
2. Findings in the Staff Report cite to substantial evidence in the record that
shows that the proposed uses do or can comply with all or most of the applicable approval
criteria for the requested CUP, variance and adjustments. Adoption of recommended
conditions of approval will ensure final plans are submitted and implemented as
approved, consistent with those criteria and will prevent, reduce or mitigate potential
adverse impacts of the development consistent with most of the requirements of the
Tigard Development Code (the "TDC"). The hearings officer adopts the findings in the
Staff Report as his own, except to the extent they are inconsistent with the findings and
conclusions in this final order.
s
3. The applicant and most neighbors dispute certain ultimate findings of law in
the Staff Report. The principal disputes involve the street and driveway spacing
standards and whether the applicant met its burden of proof to show by substantial
evidence in the record that a variance or adjustment to those standards is warranted.
Related to this dispute is whether the failure to extend "F Street" along the west edge of
the site to the east-west access road makes the site unsuited for the proposed uses,
because the site cannot accommodate a public right of way the TDC requires, as argued
by City planning staff. A somewhat less contentious issue is sound attenuation south of
the playfteld. Otherwise there is general support for the school and reservoir where and
CUP 2003-00011, VAR 2004-00037,-00041, -00042, Hearings OJfIcer Final Order
-00043, and -00053 (Alberta Rider Elementary School) Page 10
as proposed, and the applicant appears to accept all of the conditions of approval except
those related to the disputed issues summarized in this paragraph.
4. TDC 18.810.030.H (Street alignment and connections) requires roads at least
every 530 feet.2 The proposed plan does not comply with TDC 18.810.030.H.
a. The site is more than 400 feet east of 133rd Avenue and is more than
900 west of the nearest north-south street east of the site (SW 1261h Avenue/Terraview
Drive). It is more likely than not that development of land east of the site will result in a
new north-south street aligned with Greenfield Drive. See Street "H" on the applicant's
future street plan, Appendix J. That will leave 1250 feet between 133`d Avenue and
Street "H". The applicant proposes a future street situated about 130 feet from and
parallel to 133rd Avenue from the school's east-west access road to Bella Vista Road in
that 1250-foot distance. That would leave more than 1100 feet between north-south
streets; more along Bull Mountain Road. City staff recommended that the applicant
extend' F Street" north along the west edge of the site to the school's east-west access
road. That would leave about 810 feet between north-south circulation routes in the same
1250-foot distance. Neither approach complies with TDC 18.810.030.H, because neither
results in north-south streets every 530 feet and neither results in an additional street
access to Bull Mountain Road in that 1250-foot distance. Arguably the approach
recommended by City staff results in a lesser variance by about 300 feet.
2 TDC 18.810.030.H provides as follows in relevant part:
1. Full street connections with spacing of no more than 530 feet between connections is required
except where prevented by barriers such as topography, railroads, freeways, pre-existing
developments, lease provisions, easements, covenants or other restrictions existing prior to
May 1, 1995 which preclude street connections. A full street connection may also be
exempted due to a regulated water feature if regulations would not permit construction.
2. All local, neighborhood routes and collector streets which abut a development site shall be
extended within the site to provide through circulation when not precluded by environmental
or topographical constraints, existing development patterns or strict adherence to other
standards in this code. A street connection or extension is considered precluded when it is not
possible to redesign or reconfigure the street pattern to provide required extensions. Land is
considered topographically constrained if the slope is greater than 15% for a distance of 250
feet or more. In the case of environmental or topographical constraints, the mere presence of
a constraint is not sufficient to show that a street connection is not possible. The applicant
must show why the constraint precludes some reasonable street connection.
3. Proposed street or street extensions shall be located to provide direct access to existing or
planned transit stops, commercial services, and other neighborhood facilities, such as schools,
shopping areas and parks.
4. All developments should provide an internal network of connecting streets that provide short,
direct travel routes and minimize travel distances within the development.
CUP2003-00012, VAR 2004-00037,-00041,-00042, Hearings Ofricer Final Order
-00043, and -00053 (Alberta Rider Elementary School) Page 11
b. The site is more than 800 feet north-south. Therefore TDC
18,810.030.11 also requires an east-west street through the site. No one has suggested an
east-west street would be appropriate for the school site. Apparently everyone agrees a
variance should be granted waiving compliance with that standard as it relates to an east-
west street, except that the applicant proposes to provide east-west access west of the
school site to 133rd Avenue via the east-west access road. But the lack of attention to this
issue in the record is curious given the extensive attention given the extension of "F
Street." The stub of the east-west access road to the school is like the "F Street" stub to
the south. TDC 18.810.030.H requires both streets to be extended. The fact that an east-
west street would divide the site makes it easier to support a variance, because everyone
appears to agree that the unique circumstances of the proposed use as a school and the
site topography would make it a significant hardship to divide the school site with a road.
But the hearings officer should expressly approve a variance to TDC 18.810.030.H for an
east-west street to avoid any confusion about the matter.
6. Because TDC 18.810.030.1 is a locational standard and not a street
improvement standard, it can be adjusted only by means of a variance to that standard.3
7. TDC 18.370.010.C(2) provides that a variance can be granted when an
applicant has sustained the burden of proof that five criteria are satisfied.4
3 TDC 18.810.020.E provides as follows in relevant part:
Adjustments to the provisions in this chapter related to street improvements may be granted by
means of a Type II procedure, as governed by Section 18.390.040, using approval criteria in
Section 18.370.030 C9. [emphasis added]
4 TDC 18.370.010.C(2) contains the following five approval criteria for a variance:
a. The proposed variance will not be materially detrimental to the purposes of this title, to any
other applicable policies and standards, and to other properties in the same zoning district or
vicinity;
- b. There are special circumstances that exist which are peculiar to the lot size or shape,
topography or other circumstances over which the applicant has no control, and which are not
applicable to other properties in the same zoning district;
c. 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 reasonable
economic use of the land;
d. Existing physical and natural systems, such as but not limited to traffic, drainage, dramatic
land forms or parks will not be adversely affected any more than would occur if the
development were developed as specified in the title; and
e,' The hardship is not self-imposed and the variance requested is the minimum variance which
would alleviate the hardship.
CUP 2003-00012, VAR 2004-00037,-00041,-00042, Hearings Officer Final Order
-00043, and -00033 (Alberta Rider Elementary School) Page 12
8. City staff argued that the applicant failed to meet the burden of proof with
regard to TDC 18.370.010.C(2)(a), (b) and (e) for the variance to the street spacing.
standard.
a. With regard to TDC 18.370.010.C(2)(a), staff argued that the applicant
failed to show that the variance would not be detrimental to the purpose of "providing for
and encouraging a safe, convenient, and economic transportation system." TDC
18.110.020.A(8). That is, by not providing a street, they do not encourage a convenient
transportation system; from some origins, people will have to travel out of direction and
on an arterial to reach the school by motor vehicle. That is inconvenient and uneconomic.
Second they argued that the applicant failed to show that the variance would "provide for
the orderly and efficient transition from rural to urban land use." TDC 18.110.020.A(6).
They explain that the lack of "F Street" would constrain redevelopment of under-
developed land west of the site by increasing the cost of redeveloping that land (perhaps
to such an extent that the City could not constitutionally require a new public street
there), and by dictating a sequential order of redevelopment that is uncertain.
b. With regard to TDC 18.370.010.C(2)(b), they argued that the applicant
failed to show that the site is so affected by topography and lot shape that a reasonable
street connection (i.e., extension of "F Street") is not feasible. They relied on the
standards in TDC 18.810.030.H(2) that land is slope-constrained if it has a minimum
slope of 15% for a distance of 250 feet or more. They noted that the slope of the
proposed 'T Street" extension averages only 4%. They argued that providing "F Street"
consumes only 1/10 of an acre more than the landscape strip, sidewalk and emergency
service drive.the applicant proposes to extend on the west edge of the site, so that the
street would not have much more of an impact. City staff were not persuaded that the
facts and/or the law for other sites relied on by the applicant were sufficiently similar to
the facts or the law in this case to support the existence of other special circumstances.
City staff recognized that "the operational characteristics of an elementary school" are
special circumstances that apply to the site that do not apply generally to other property in
the district. But given the substantial traffic impact of the school, they disagreed with the
applicant that those special circumstances warrant complete waiver of the street spacing
standard where a street along the edge of the site, in staff's opinion, would not unduly
interfere with those operations.
c. With regard to TDC 18.370.010.C(2)(e), they argued that the requested
variance avoiding a street that touches the site exceeds the variance embodied by
the City staff proposal to extend "F Street" along the west side of the site. Given the
basic facts and the law, because a lesser variance can be granted (with 810 feet between
north-south streets), a greater variance (with 1100 feet between north-south streets)
cannot be.
CUP 2003-00012, YAR 2004-00037, -00041, -00042, Hearings Officer Final Order
-00043, and -00053 (Alberta Rider Elementary School) Page 13
9. The applicant disagrees with staff s analysis and argues as follows:
a. With regard to TDC 18.370.010.C(2)(a), the applicant argues that the
300-foot difference in street spacing between the applicant's proposal and the staffs
recommendation is not materially detrimental to the efficient development of land to the
west. That land can readily be divided and redeveloped incrementally without an
extension of "F Street." If it is redeveloped as the applicant recommends, additional
density might be achieved. The street the applicant proposes in the block west of the
school site would be within 530 feet of 133`d Avenue; therefore it complies with TDC
18.810.030.H. The purposes of the TDC include providing a "safe" transportation
system. A public street so close to the school would not be safe. Therefore a variance
that avoids such a requirement furthers that policy. They also argue that, if "F Street" is
extended, the bus turn-around and drop-off would have to be redesigned, resulting in a
one-way traffic system that conflicts with the purpose of the TDC to provide a
"convenient and economic" road system, because it will require more out of direction
travel and will put more traffic on 133`d Avenue.
b. With regard to TDC 18.370.010.C(2)(b), the applicant argued that the
unique needs of a school are a special circumstance that do not apply generally to other
properties. City staff agreed with this concept, but do not give it as much value as the
applicant. The applicant argues that the.need to control access and provide a safe
environment for children is paramount. A street within 20 feet of the school and above
the soccer field would be inherently less safe and, therefore, would conflict with the
unique needs of the school. The applicant argued that the City has recognized this when
reviewing and approving all other schools in the City, where the school district has not
been required to extend streets through school sites. The applicant also argued that the
large turning radii of buses used to transport children poses an obstacle to a simple
ninety-degree intersection.' If "F Street" extends to the east-west access road, the
intersection would have to be flared, requiring more right of way and pushing the school
further east. They also argue that building the street would conflict with the unique
funding needs of the school, in that the bond passed to pay for the school did not include
a road, an argument in which neighbors join. Adjustments to the school to accommodate
"F Street" would increase the cost of designing and building the school, contrary to the
need to use the money for the school.
c. With regard to TDC 18.370.010.C(2)(e), the applicant argues that the
300-foot difference between "F Street" and a north-south street through the adjoining
block to the west is insignificant. Given the unique needs of the school, not granting the
variance is not an option, and the applicant's request is the minimum variance necessary
to alleviate the hardship posed by the existence of a street on the edge of the site.
10. Although a close call, the hearings officer concludes that the applicant
sustained the burden of proof for a variance to TDC 18.810.030.H, based on the
responsive arguments and evidence in the application and its supplements and the
CUP 1003-00011, VAR 2004-00037,.00041, -00041, Hearings Officer Final Order
00043, and •00053 (Alberta Rider Elementary School) Page 14
following findings. Only compliance with TDC 18.370.010.C(a), (b) and (e) is disputed.
With regard to other parts of TDC 18.370.010.C, the hearings officer adopts the
associated affirmative findings in the Staff Report.
a. The purposes of the TDC are diverse and broad. The focus has been on
purposes no. 6 and 8, because they are most closely related to potential adverse impacts
of the variances The focus has been on the potential negative impacts of the variance,
because that is the way TDC 18.370.020.C(2)(a) is framed. The issue is whether having
more than 530 feet between north-south streets is materially detrimental to purposes no. 6
and 8.
i. Purpose no. 6 is ambiguous. It does not say what an "orderly
and efficient transition" consists of. Reasonable people could disagree about what it
means. The hearings officer is persuaded that the transition from rural to urban land uses
is or will be efficient if underdeveloped land can be redeveloped in a manner that
complies with applicable City standards or permitted variations to them .6 The hearings
officer finds that the block west of the site can be redeveloped as described by the
applicant with a mid-block, north-south street and/or private streets and drives, even if "F
Street" is not extended along the west edge of the site. Extending "F Street" will make it
easier to redevelop the block, and may spur earlier redevelopment, because it will provide
immediate access to the rear of the adjoining lots. However not building the street does
not preclude or significantly impede incremental redevelopment. Therefore the hearings
officer concludes that the variance is somewhat detrimental but not materially detrimental
to purpose no. 6.7
ii. Purpose no. 8 also is ambiguous. It does not say what a "safe,
convenient and economic transportation system" requires. Reasonable people could
disagree about what it means. The hearings officer is persuaded that a "safe, convenient
5 TDC 18.110.020.A(6) and (8) provide the following purposes for the TDC:
6. Provide for the orderly and efficient transition from rural to urban land use;...
8. Provide for and encourage a safe, convenient and economic transportation system within the
City;
6 The hearings officer notes that providing a school to meet the need for such facilities created by a rapidly
growing population certainly furthers the purpose of providing for an orderly transition from rural to urban
uses, among other purposes of the TDC and Comprehensive Plan policies.. See, e.g., purpose 7 and policy
7.8. But as noted above, the issue for purposes of the variance is not what purposes and policies the
proposed use furthers, but rather, whether it is materially detrimental to any purposes or policies.
7 The term "materially" detrimental also is ambiguous. The hearings officer relies on the definition in
WEDSTER's NEW WORLD DICTIONARY OF THE AMERICAN LANGUAGE for the meaning of that tern:
To a great extent; substantially; considerably.
CUP 2003-00012, VAR 2004-00037, -00041, -00042, Hearings Oiricer Final Order
.00043, and -00053 (Alberta Rider Elementary School) Page 15
and economic transportation system" does not require extension of "F Street" as
recommended by City staff, because:
(A) The transportation system in the vicinity of the school
will include a north-south street to the east (Street "H"), Bella Vista and "F Street" to the
south, 133rd Avenue and the east-west access road to the west, and Bull Mountain Road
to the north. It also will include improved pedestrian and bicycle routes along all road
frontages and from the school to Bull Mountain Road (at two points), to future "H" Street
and to "F Street" and along the east-west access road. This system can safely
accommodate the traffic impact of the proposed use and other existing or approved
developments, based on the traffic studies in the record. Therefore the variance will not
be materially detrimental to the safety of the transportation system.
(B) The "F Street" extension would marginally benefit the
convenience and economy of the transportation system. Motorists traveling from the east
and south would save about 800 feet of travel distance using an "F Street" extension
rather than UP Avenue to the east-west access road and vice-versa.8 Without the "F
Street" extension, those motorists will have to travel out of direction, which is somewhat
inconvenient and uneconomical. However the hearings officer finds that the absolute
amount of the difference in miles traveled with and without the "F Street" extension is
not significant. The purpose statement does not stand for the proposition that the TDC is
intended to provide the most convenient and most economic transportation system, based
on the plain meaning of the words. The transportation system is convenient, because
vehicular, pedestrian and bicycle access can be provided to the school from every
direction with a minimum of out of direction travel, particularly for pedestrians and
bicyclists. Moreover if buses have to make a loop on 133`d and "F Street" to make a one-
way bus system work on the site (as the applicant argued might be necessary if "F Street"
is required), that also would create out of direction travel, making the
convenience/efficiency analysis a wash.
(C) The school intends to provide a pedestrian path to the
"F Street" stub at the southwest corner of the site. It would be more convenient for
people driving to the school from the south and east to drop-ofi'(and pick-up) children at
the end of the stub. But the stub is not improved to facilitate turning movements;
therefore its use for that purpose would not be safe. To make the "F Street" stub safe for
drop-offs and pick-ups, the applicant should be required to dedicate and improve a
permanent cul de sac for that street stub to City standards or modifications thereto
permitted by law and approved by the City.
8 Superintendent Lowder testified that the school district has not decided whether children who live east or
south of the site will attend the school. That does not mean they will not attend the school; merely that the
district has not decided. Also school district attendance boundaries change often. But it is reasonable to
assume that at least some children who live east or south of the site will attend the school soon--,r or later,
because that is efficient and prudent given the proximity of the school to those children's homes.
CUP 2003-00012, VAR 2004-00037, -00041,-00042, Hearings OjricerFinal Order
-00043, and -00053 (Alberta Rider Elementary School} Page 16
b. The hearings officer finds that the unique needs of the proposed use,
the topography and tree cover on the site and the arrangements of legal estates on the site
(i.e., the life estate and the easement for the reservoir), all of which are more or less
beyond the applicant's control, are special circumstances that are peculiar to the site. The
hearings officer agrees with the City that the topographic conditions do not make
extension of "F Street" impracticable; it could be built. But the analysis should not end
there, because TDC 18.370.010.C(2)(b) does not say that the special circumstances must
preclude compliance with the standard.9 It merely requires that special circumstances
exist. TDC 18.370.010.C(2)(b) also does not say that the greater the variance, the more
special the circumstances must be. But the site in this case is not burdened only by a
sloping topography; it also is burdened by the other users of the site. The mixed-use
character of the site is an unusual circumstance compared to other properties in the
district, most of which are developed with a single-family detached home. These factors,
combined with the unique need of the school for the greatest safety and security
practicable, are special circumstances that make compliance with the street spacing
standard, even to the extent recommended by City staff, a hardship. From the school
district's perspective, that hardship is not alleviated by placing the street on the edge of
the site.
i. A school (at least one of the size and nature proposed in this
case) does have unique needs for security and safety, because the care of so many
children is entrusted to it. Based on the record, the hearings officer cannot say that a
street adjoining a school always would pose a hazard, or that extension of "F Street"
would pose such a hazard in this case. There is no substantial evidence in the record
relating proximity of a street to a school with accident rates or any other measure of
safety. Witnesses for the school testified that the proximity of the street to the school
would force structural, traffic and personnel changes that would be more costly, but the
hearings officer finds that is not a hardship. It would bring the children closer to traffic,
which makes it per se a greater risk to safety. It would bring traffic closer to the school,
which makes it per se a somewhat greater risk to security and requires more supervision.
The hearings officer cannot make a finding about the extent of the increased risks without
better evidence. But TDC 18.370.010.C(2)(b) does not require the special circumstances
or hardship to be quantified. For purposes of that section, it is enough to find that special
circumstances exist and, due to those circumstances, compliance would be a hardship.
The hearings officer does so here.
ii. The hearings officer finds there is a considerable difference
between having a 10-foot wide landscape strip, a 5-foot wide sidewalk and a 10-foot
macadam pathway over which the applicant can exercise control and an improved 35-foot
public road right of way over which the applicant does not have any control. Moreover,
whether the impact directly affects 1/10 of an acre or ten times that amount, the impact is
more than a matter of square feet. It is not just the area of the right of way that is
9 TDC 18.810.030.H does say that, but the variance standard in TDC 18.370.010.C(2)(b) does not.
CUP2003-00012, PAR2004-00037,-00041,40041, Hearings OJficer Final Order
-00043, and -00053 (Alberta Rider Elementary School) page 17
significant io the hardship alleged by the school district. It is the implication to the design
of the bus circulation system and school, which affects a much larger area than the right
of way per se. Equally or more important, it has an impact on the safety of the children.
As noted above, the hearings officer cannot say from the record whether extending "F
Street" would pose a hazard to the children or merely an inconvenience to the district.
However, when given a choice about whose opinion to give more weight the staff's
opinion that the road will not pose a hazard and the school district's opinion that it will
- the hearings officer elects to err on the side of the school district, because of the
district's experience building and operating schools.
iii. Note that the hearings officer expressly rejects the notion that
the funding for the school is a unique circumstance or that the cost of compliance with the
law is a hardship. Every reasonable person, agency and firm must conduct itself
consistent with the law and within its fiscal resources. If lack of funds could be used to
excuse compliance with the law in this case, it would invite others to do the same.
Everyone must comply with the law, which the City must apply equally. Schools are not
special in this regard. Many public projects are paid for by bonds or other devices. If that
form of financing is a special circumstance that justifies waiving compliance with the
law, every public project could evade compliance. It would not be long before some
enterprising capitalist would find a way to structure financing so private projects would
follow suit. This would be a poor precedent. Also there is no need to base a finding of
special circumstances in this case on the school's funding.
c. With regard to TDC 18.370.010.C(e), the hearings officer agrees with
the applicant that placing a public street along the west edge of the site as recommended
by City staff would be a hardship. Although it would be a lesser variance to have the
street on the west side of the site than to have it through the block to the west, such a
variance would not relieve the applicant of the hardship posed by the street. Having the
street anywhere on the site is the hardship. Therefore the minimum variance that can be
granted is the variance the applicant applied for, with a relatively minor exception to
require the applicant to improve a turnaround at the end of the "F Street" stub. Because
the turnaround is so far from the school building, the hearings officer finds that requiring
the applicant to dedicate and improve it is not a hardship, because it will not greatly affect
school security or safety.
d. Based on the foregoing findings, the hearings officer declines to impose
condition of approval 12 as recommended by City staff, but will substitute a condition
requiring the applicant to dedicate and improve at least a permanent cul de sac at the "F"
Street stub as discussed above.
e. Although the hearings officer grants the variance the applicant
requested, the applicant is not required to take advantage of that variance. That is, if it
chooses to do so, the applicant can dedicate and improve the "F Streef 'extension as
recommended by City staff. After further reflection on the issues raised in this case
CUP 2003-00012, VAR 2004-00037,-00041,-00042, Hearings Officer Final Order
•00043, and -00053 (Alberta Rider Elementary School) Page 18
and/or other concerns, the school district could decide that the "F Street' extension does
not pose as great a risk to students as initially thought, and that it provides some benefit
to the school. Granting the variance to waive the required dedication and improvement
does not require the applicant to development without the "F Street" extension; it merely
allows it. Therefore amended condition of approval 12 should not be construed to
preclude dedication and improvement of "F Street" as approved by the City.
11. The City TSP designates Bull Mountain Road as a collector road. TDC
18.705.030.H(3) requires at least 200 feet between driveways along a collector road. The
existing loop driveway to the life estate portion of the site does not comply with this
standard, because they are less than 200 feet apart. The proposed emergency access to the
school does not comply with this standard, because it is 95 feet from the easterly leg of
the loop driveway and 100 feet from the existing driveway off-site to the east. The
driveway east of the site is likely to be eliminated when "H" Street is developed opposite
Greenfield Drive,. and at least one of the loop driveways will be eliminated with future
use of the life estate part of the site. But, in the meantime, the existing and proposed
driveways on the site do not comply with TDC 18.705.030.H(3).
a. TDC 18.370.020.C(5) authorizes adjustments to the driveway spacing
standard in TDC 18.705.030.H(3).to Because Bull Mountain Road is in the jurisdiction
of Washington County (the "County"), access to that street also requires County
approval.I t
b. City staff recommend that the hearings officer deny the adjustment for
the easterly loop driveway for the life estate part of the site and for the new emergency
drive to the school, because access to the school and life estate portions of the site can be
shared, there is alternative access (i.e., onto the east-west access road and, at least for
emergency purposes, to the "F Street" stub), future alternative access to the east is
possible, and the access spacing requirements can be met by combining and relocating the
to TDC 18.370.020.C(5)(b) provides the following criteria for such an adjustment:
(1) It is not possible to share access;
(2) There are no other alternative access points on the street in question or from another street;
(3) The access separation requirements cannot be met;
(4) The request is the minimum adjustment required to provide adequate access;
(5) The approved access or access approved with conditions will result in a safe access; and
(6) The visual clearance requirements of Chapter 18.795 will be met.
1 t The applicant has not applied for and the County has not granted a modification to the access spacing
standards of the Washington County Uniform Road Improvement Design Standards, based on the June 3,
2004 letter from County planner Chris Goodell. Based on a May 25, 2004 letter from Mr. Goodell, the
minimum driveway spacing along a County arteriai is 100 feet. T"he p,oposcd dive way does not comply
with that standard. Also the County prohibits residential access to a collector (e.g., for the two driveways to
the life estate portion of the site). Based on the unrebutted testimony by Mr. Goodell, unless the County
approves modifications for the existing and proposed driveways, the City's access adjustment is moot.
CUP 2003-00012, MR 1004-00037, -00041, -00042, hearings OJjricer Final Order
-00043, and -00053 (Alberta Rider Elementary School) Page 19
driveways onto Bull Mountain Road. As an alternative, City staff recommended allowing
the access adjustment for the new driveway, provided that it is restricted to right-in, right-
out movements only (and with a porkchop and median to enforce that restriction) but not
restricted to emergency use only, subject to conditions requiring the applicant to close one
of the driveways to the life estate portion of the site. Staff argue that allowing use of a
Bull Mountain Road access would reduce school-related traffic volume on 133rd Avenue
and in the vicinity of the bus turnaround.
c. The applicant argues that the two life estate driveways are permitted as
nonconforming development. Because the applicant does not propose to change those
driveways or their use, there is no relationship between the proposed development and the
driveways; therefore the City cannot require them to be closed. Also closing the
driveways now would be disruptive to Mrs. Rider. The district agreed to close the
driveways after the fife estate ends. Regarding the emergency driveway, the applicant
argues that the school cannot share the life estate driveways, because it would require the
removal of trees, and cannot share with land to the east, because that land will be
redeveloped soon. They argue that the emergency access to the "F Street" stub is not as
good as access from Bull Mountain Road, because the front of the school faces and is
closer to Bull Mountain Road. Access via the east-west access road is fine, unless it is
inaccessible for any reason. They also argue that the access to Bull Mountain Road will
be safe, based on sight distance, and impacts to the road will be de minimis because the
driveway is for emergency purposes only.
d. The hearings officer finds that the City can regulate the circular
driveway serving the life estate part of the site, because it is not nonconforming
development as that term is defined in TDC 18.760.040. Moreover it is part of the
development as defined by TDC 18.120.030.A(56).
e. Regarding the adjustment for the second leg of the circular driveway for
the life estate portion of the site, the hearings officer finds that shared access is not only
possible, it exists: the other leg of the driveway. Therefore the adjustment for the second
leg of the circular driveway should be denied, and the applicant should be required to
close one of the driveway legs. 12 Contrary to the argument by Mr. Rainone, the hearings
officer is not persuaded that the common meaning of the plain words in the life estate
prohibit such a result. 13 Therefore the hearing officer will impose recommended
condition of approval 13.
12 The hearings officer understands that change can be hard, especially when people have a long history of
doing things a particular way. But that difficulty is not relevant to any of the applicable approval standards.
13 The hearings officer does not have jurisdiction over matters of real estate law. However it is reasonable
to rely on the common meaning of the plain words of a legal document.
CUP 2003-00012, VAR 2004-00037, -00041, -00042, Hearings Officer Final Order
-00043, and -00033 (Alberta Rider Elementary School) Page 20
f. Regarding the adjustment for the new school driveway, the hearings
officer finds that it is not possible to share access with land to the east, because that land
is about to undergo redevelopment, including the dedication and improvement of "H"
Street. It is not possible to share access with the life estate part of the site, based on the
existing terns of the life estate, although the terms of the life estate could be changed.
Access requirements cannot be met along Bull Mountain Road with the driveway placed
elsewhere unless there is one central drive that serves both the life estate and school
portions of the site. The proposed access point will be safe, based on the testimony of
Mr. Dunn and the County, provided the applicant confirms sight distance. Although
another very close call, the hearings officer concludes that an adjustment to the driveway
spacing standard should be approved, subject to conditions.
g. City staff recommended that, if the hearings officer approves an
adjustment to the driveway spacing standard for the new driveway to the school, the
driveway should not be restricted to emergency-only traffic and should be restricted to
right-in/right-out only movements, enforced by a median in the driveway and in Bull
Mountain Road. Staff offer no basis for such a condition, except that an open driveway
"would better serve site circulation by allowing parents dropping off children to exit the
site without returning to the area where buses are routed." (Staff Report, p. 25)
i. Although the hearings officer agrees that it might be more
convenient for some parents to exit directly to Bull Mountain Road, particularly to
residents of a home north of Bull Mountain Road and east of the site, nothing in the TDC
requires an additional access from the site. For the number of parking spaces proposed,
the TDC requires only one access. The hearings officer was unable to find any explicit
authority in the TDC for imposing such a condition in the absence of an adverse impact
caused by the adjustment. The long list of subjects that can be conditioned pursuant to a
CUP does not include requiring more accesses than required by the TDC.
. ii. Moreover it is counterintuitive to approve an adjustment to
allow a driveway that violates a spacing standard and to condition approval on making
what was proposed as an emergency-only driveway into general-purpose driveway. That
is, it is inconsistent with TDC 18.370.020.C(5)(b)(4) to allow a greater adjustment than
necessary to provide adequate access. Based on the traffic studies in the record, the
proposed access to the east-west access road will be adequate to meet the needs of the
school. An adjustment is warranted to provide an additional, more direct emergency
access to the front of the school. But there is no need shown in the record to increase the
extent of the adjustment by making it a general-purpose driveway even with turning
movement restrictions. Therefore the hearings officer declines to impose recommended
condition of approval 14.14
14 The hearings officer also is concerned about the safety of a median in Bull Mountain Road given the
relatively common high speed of vehicles and the vertical and horizontal curves on the road.
CUP 2003-00012, PAR 2004-00037,-00041,-00042, Hearings Oj)r1cer Final Order
-00043, and -00053 (Alberta Rider Ele nenlary School) Page 21
12. The next disputed issue addressed herein is recommended condition of
approval 30, which requires the applicant to install sound attenuation features on the
south side of the playfield.15 Staff point out the City noise regulations in Tigard City
Code 7.40.130, et, seq.,16 and note that the applicant did not include information on noise
impacts. The applicant submitted comments from the architects and an acoustical
engineer in response to this condition.
a. The acoustical engineer observes that (1) a uniform 6-foot high wall
along the south edge of the site would not obstruct the line-of-sight between the playfield
and homes to the south, particularly to the southeast where elevations are lower; (2) a
wall 20 to 25 feet high would be needed to obstruct the line-of-sight from the playfield to
the second-story windows of homes south of the site; and (3) based on a study of a
softball field in Lake Oswego next to a residential area, "the sound associated with the
use of the field would not create an adverse impact on the residences because the field
would be used only during daytime hours when other noise in the residential area was
already higher due to the presence of traffic on the streets in the area, lawn mowers being
used at residences in the area and animal sounds such as bird calls and barking dogs. I
expect we would see similar conditions at the" proposed school site.
b. The hearings officer finds that the proximity of the playfiold to the
property line and the difference in elevation between the playfield and land to the south
makes it more probable than not that noise from the playfreld will be perceptible to a
person of average sensitivities on the lots to the south. A fence along the edge of the
property will protect against unintentional trespass on adjoining private properties, but
will not reduce noise levels.
15 The discussion in support of this condition is at p. 11 of the Staff Report, which provides as follows in
relevant part:
The proposed soccer field is located 26 feet and uphill from the property boundary of the future
homes to the south. Noise from outdoor events and recess periods may impact these properties.
The applicant has not submitted a noise study, nor proposed any noise mitigation measures. Staff
recommends the hearings officer consider sound attenuation measures such as a wall along the
south side of the property near the soccer play field.
It is not clear from the Staff Report how the staff go from recommending consideration of noise
measures at p. 11 to requiring them as condition of approval 30.
16 The hearings officer notes that TCC 7.40.180 provides that the following is exempt from noise
regulations:
Non-amplified sounds created by organized athletics or other group activities, when such activities
are conducted on property used for such purposes, such as stadiums, parks, schools, and athletic
fields, during normal hours for such events.
CUP2003-00012, VAR 2004-00037,-00041,-00042, Hearings Officer Final Order
00043, and -00053 (Alberta Rider Elementary School) Page 22
c. The hearings officer is persuaded by the testimony from the acoustical
engineer that noise from the playfields is not reasonably likely to be excessive given the
nature and timing of that noise and because of ambient noise levels. Therefore the
hearings officer declines to impose recommended condition of approval 30. However the
hearings officer will impose a condition delegating authority to the planning manager to
require the applicant to employ sound attenuation in the future, or to schedule a public
hearing before the hearings officer to consider such measures, if he or she concludes that
noise on the playfield is excessive. The hearings officer finds that the planning manager
may find that noise is excessive if it exceeds an Leq of 60 dBA at the property line.»
d. The hearings officer finds that sound attenuation is not needed to the
west, based on substantial evidence in the record, because that is area separated from the
playfield by a greater distance and by a significant rise in elevation that effectively
attenuates the noise without more effort.
13. This brings the hearings officer to the last disputed issue in the case: whether
the applicant sustained the burden of proof that the application complies with the first
approval criterion for a CUP: whether "the site size and dimensions provide adequate
area for the needs of the proposed use." TDC 18.330.030.A(1).
a. City staff argue that the site size and shape are not adequate, because
the applicant cannot provide "F Street" while meeting the other needs of the school and
the reservoir.
b. The applicant argues that the site is just fine, as long as the City does
not require it to dedicate and improve "F Street," and that the school does not need access
by means of "F Street."
c. The hearings officer finds that the applicant sustained the burden of
proof for the school and reservoir under TDC 18.330.030.A(1), because the site is large
enough and has dimensions that allow it to be developed as proposed without
extending "F Street" and, based on approval of the variance to the street spacing
standard, the school district does not have to extend "F Street" through the site. Because
the school district can comply with the regulations for the proposed use or permitted
variations and adjustments approved as provided herein, the site size and dimensions
provide adequate area for the needs of the proposed use.
17 The hearings officer selects 60 dBA as a threshold, because that is effectively a doubling of the
perceived sound from a noise level of 50 dBA, which is the maximum noise level permitted in TCC 7.40.
Because sound on a playfield is exempt from the City noise regulations, it is not appropriate to restrict noise
based on the standard in those regulations. However a doubling of the sound permitted by that standard is
an order of magnitude greater, and should not be protected by the exemption, given the independent source
of authority under the CUP standards. See TDC 18.330.030.B(2). The hearings officer states the threshold
in terms of Leq, which allows the noise to be averaged over one hour, and reduces the significance of the
inevitable but momentary shrieks and calls on a school playfield.
CUP 2003-00012, VAR 1004-00037, -00041, -00042, Hearings Officer Final Order
-00043, and -00053 (Alberta Rider Elementary School) Page 23
14. Mr. Goodell notes in his June 3, 2004 letter that the minimum half-width
along Bull Mountain Road is 37 feet. Given that the County has jurisdiction over Bull
Mountain Road, condition of approval 8 should be amended accordingly.
D. CONCLUSIONS
Based on the findings and discussion provided or incorporated in this final order,
the hearings officer concludes that the applicant sustained the burden of proof that the
proposed conditional use permit, variance and all but one of the adjustments do or will
comply with the applicable criteria and standards of the Tigard Development Code for
such applications, provided development that occurs after this decision complies with
applicable local, state, and federal laws and with conditions of approval warranted to
ensure such compliance occurs in fact.
E. DECISION
In recognition of the findings and conclusions contained herein, and incorporating
the Staff Report and public testimony and exhibits received in this matter, the hearings
officer hereby approves CUP 2003-00012, VAR 2004-00037,18 VAR 2004-00041, VAR
2004-00043 and VAR 2004-00053 and to approve in part and deny in part VAR 2004-
00042 (Alberta Rider Elementary School), 19 subject to the following conditions of
approval:
;'1'~~~' . ,~~;~I,~ ~~~;`~idC ~~~i~1~BI'l~~R~; S~`i '~",t ~ " ~3~ ~,~`~lk'~l♦,B 1' ~O~t '?''t'~,
ON S' TE ~r~~~t2C~'1 ~rli1?P+1 ~ S NCi,UDINIG G 1;A1 ING,'
,~'YXl' ON - t , TREE RE1" 10 _~I IVf3/O R'. . D1 I6~~3I,I i 1D4~
ACT;~I"IES:
'gu nut to t e ammng epartment ( organ rac' y, - - , ext or
review and approval:
1. Prior to issuance of site permits, the applicant shall place the following note on all
construction documents: The City of Tigard noise ordinance prohibits
construction activity in excess of 40 decibels between 9:00 PM and 7:00 AM
Monday through Fnday, and between 9:00 PM and 8:00 AM on Saturday and
Sunday.
2. Prior to issuance of a site permit, the applicant shall submit a final tree removal
and protection plan that identifies the trees to be removed, and the trees to be
rotected..Mitig eti n till 1 S be 9 based on the final tabulation of trees removed to
hose retained, p
9
is By this the hearings officer means that he approves a variance waiving requirements for cross-streets in
both east-west and north-south directions.
19 By this the hearings officer means that he approves the variance for the emergency-only access to Bull
Mountain Road and denies the variance to allow the second leg of the circular driveway. See conditions 13
and 14.
CUP 1003-00012, VAR 1004-04037, -00041, -00042, Hearings Officer Final Order
Page 24
-00043, and -00053 (Alberta Rider Elementary School)
3. Prior to issuance of a site permit, the applicant shall provide the City Arborist
with a construction sequence including installation and removal of tree protection
devices, clearing, grading, and paving.
4. Prior to issuance of a site permit the applicant shall notify the City Arborist when
tree rotection measures are in place so that he may verify that the measures will
function properly prior to construction.
5, Prior to issuance of a site permit the applicant shall submit permit drawings that
clearly indicate the visual clearance areas for all intersections and access points
along with recommendations by the applicant's engineer to achieve clear vision
and adequate sight distance.
Submit to the Engineering Department (Kim McMillan, 6394171, ext. 2642) for
review and approval:
6. Prior to issuance of a site permit, a Public Facility Improvement (PFI) permit is
required for this project to cover street improvements and any other work in the
public ri t-of-way. ft t (8) sets of detailed public improvement plans shall be
submittefor review to-lhe Engineering Department. 1VDTE: these plans are in
addition to any drawings re( uired by the Building Division and should only
include sheets relevant to public improvements. Public Facility Improvement
TFI) permit Vans shall conform to City of Tigard Public Improvement Design
Standards; which are available at City Ball and the City's web page
(www.ci.tigard.or.us).
7. The PFI permit plan submittal shall include the exact legal name, address and
telephone number of the individual or corporate entity who will be designated as
the "Permittee", and who will provide the financial assurance for the public
improvements. For example, specify if the entity is a corporation, LLC, limited
partnership, etc. Also specify the state within which the entity is incorporated and
provide the name of the corporate contact person. Failure to provide accurate
information to the Engineering Department will delay processing of project
documents.
8. Additional right-of-way shall be dedicated to the Public along the frontage of Bull
Mountain Road to increase the right-of-way to 37 feet from the centerline. The
description shall be tied to the existing right-of-way centerline. The dedication
document shall be on City forms. Instructions are available from the Engineering
Department.
9. The applicant shall submit construction plans to the Engineering Department as a
part of the Public Facility Improvement permit, which indicate that they will
construct a half-street improvement along the frontage of Bull Mountain Road.
The improvements adjacent to this site shall include:
A. City standard pavement section for a Collector street from curb to
centerline equal to 23 feet;
B. Pavement tapers needed to tie the new improvement back into the existing
edge of pavement shall be built beyond the site frontage;
C. Concrete curb, or curb and gutter as needed;
D. Stone drainage, including any off-site storm drainage necessary to convey
surface and/or subsurface runoff;
E. 6-foot concrete sidewalk with a planter stn;
Street trees ire tic planter strip enarar~ p r t C requirements. Species
selection shall be as recommenT by the City Forester. Such trees shall
be installed prior to final building inspection;
G. Street striping;
CUP 2003-00012, VAR 2004-00037,-00041,-00042, Hearings Officer Final Order
-00043, and -00053 (Alberta Rider Elementary School) Page 25
H. Streetlight layout by applicant's engineer, to be approved by City
Engineer;
1. Underground utilities;
J. Street signs (if applicable);
K. Dri veway apron (if applicable); and
L. Adjustments m vertical and/or horizontal alignment to construct SW Bull
Mountain Road in a safe manner, as approved by the Engineering
Department.
10. The applicant's plans shall show installation of bicycle striping, markers, legends
and mini-arrows along the Bull Mountain Road frontage.
11. Prior to commencing onsite improvements, the applicant's design and
construction plans shall include the left-turn lane with 100-foot of storage for
west-bound traffic on Bull Mountain Road at the intersection of 133` Avenue, if
the design has not already been completed by others.
12. Right-of-way shall be dedicated to the Public for at least a cul de sac termination
of the "F" Street stub on the site as approved by the City. The applicant's Public
Facility Improvement Jiermit construction drawings shall indicate that
improvements, including at least traffic control devices, concrete sidewalks,
driveway aprons, curbs, asphaltic concrete pavement, street trees, streetlights and
underground utilities shall be installed to complete a permanent termination of F
Street as a cul de sac on the site. Improvements shall be designed and constructed
to local street standards. This condition shall not preclude and expressly
authorizes dedication and improvement of an extension of "F" Street from the
south edge of the site along the west edge of the site to the east-west public access
road to dimensions and standards approved by the City.
13. The applicant's plan shall show the east Rider driveway eliminated.
14. The applicant's plans shall show the proposed access onto Bull Mountain Road as
an emergency-only access. That access shall be gated or otherwise improved to
prevent general public motor vehicle access, but shall be accessible to emergency
services providers, edestrians and bicyclists. The access may be used for general
public motor vehicle access only during an emergency or when otherwise
approved for that purpose by the planning manager.
15. DELETED
16. A profile of Bull Mountain Road shall be required, extending 300 feet either side
of the subject site showing the existing grade and proposed future grade.
17. Sanitary sewer and storm drainage details shall be provided as part of the Public
Facility Im rovement (PFI) permit plans. Calculations and a topographic map of
the storm drainage basin an d sanitary sewer service area shall be provided as a
supplement to the Public Facility Improvement (PFI) permit plans. Calculations
shall be based on full development of the serviceable area. The location and
capacity of existing, proposed, and future lines shall be addressed.
18. The applicant shall provide connection of proposed buildings to the public
sanitary sewerage system. A connection permit is required to connect to the
existing public sanitary sewer system.
19. The,ffpplicant shall provide a public sanitary sewer main from the intersection of
133 Avenue and the new east-west street to the stub shown in F Street on the
approved Summit Ridge subdivision plans.
CUP 2003-00012, VAR 2004-00037, -00041, -00042, Hearings Ojftcer Final Order
-00043, and -00053 (Alberta Rider Elementary School) Page 26
20. The applicant shall extend the public storm sewer in the east-west street to the
intersection with 133' Avenue.
21. Prior to construction, the applicant's design engineer shall submit documentation,
for review by the City (Kim McMillan), of Clean Water Services (CWS) approval
of the proposed storm sewer system.
22. Any extension of public water lines shall be shown on the proposed Public
Facility Improvement,(PFD permit construction drawings and shall be reviewed
and approved by the City's Water Department, as a part of the Engineering
Department plan review. NOTE: An estimated 12% of the water system costs
must be on deposit with the Water Department prior to approval of the PFI permit
plans from the Engineering Department and construction of public water lines.
23. The applicant's plans shall be revised to show a new, public 12-inch line
connecting to the 10-inch line in Bull Mountain Road. This 12-inch line will need
to be public in order to serve properties beyond the borders of this site. The 12-
inch line needs to be connected to the water line shown in F Street on the
approved Summit Ridge plans. A public water line also needs to be extended the
full length of the new east-west street, from the site to 133' Avenue. A minimum
15-foot public easement will be required where the water line is located outside of
public right-of-way (ROW).
24. The applicant shall provide an on-site water quality facility as required by Clean
Water Services Design and Construction Standards (adopted by Resolution and
Order No. 00-7). Final plans and calculations shall be submitted to the
Engineering Department (Kim McMillan) for review and approval prior to
issuance of the site permit. In addition, a proposed maintenance plan shall be
submitted along with the plans and calculations for review and approval. The
applicant shall also provide the City with approval from CWS for the water
quality facility.
25. An erosion control plan shall be provided as part of the Public Facility
Improvement (PFI).permit drawings. The plan shall conform to the "Erosion
Prevention and Sediment Control Design and Planning Manual, February 2003
edition."
26. A final grading plan shall be submitted showing the existing and proposed
contours. The plan shall detail the provisions for surface drainage of all
impervious areas, and show that they will be graded to insure that surface drainage
is directed to the street or a public storm drainage system approved by the
Engineering Department. For situations where the back portions of the lot drains
away from a street and toward adjacent lots, appropriate private storm drainage
lines shall be provided to sufficiently contain and convey runoff.
27. The applicant shall incorporate the recommendations from the submitted
geotechnical report by URS Corporation, dated July 2003, into the final grading
plan. The geotechmcal engineer shall be employed by the applicant throughout
the entire construction penod to ensure that all grading, including cuts and fills,
are constructed in accordance with the approved plan and Appendix Chapter 33 of
the UBC.
28. The applicant shall obtain a 1200-C General Permit issued by the City of Tigard
pursuant to ORS 468.740 and the Federal Clean Water Act.
CUP 2003-00012, VAR 2004-00037,-00041,-00042, Hearings Oficer Final Order
-00043, and-00033 (Alberta Rider Elementary School) Page 27
29. The applicant shall submit preliminary sight distance certification for all
driveways and intersections related to this development. Included with the
preliminary certification shall be a detailed list of improvements required to
produce adequate sight distance.
Submit to the Planning Department (Morgan Tracy, 503-639-4171, ext 2428) for
review and approval:
30. DELETED. SEE CONDITION 48.
31. Lights and ff$WAplified sound system for the playfield shall not be provided.
32. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit a final lighting
plan that indicates the lighting levels for the pathways on site. Ensure that all
lighting on site will not cause glare (measured as 1-foot-candle at the property
line) to adjacent properties. This plan shall also address glare onto abutting
properties from outdoor field lighting, if applicable. Lights shall be generally
oriented towards the school building and not towards the abutting properties. The
lighting plan shall include photometric data to demonstrate compliance with this
requirement.
33. Prior to issuance of building permits, screening shall be provided on all sides of
the project that abut residential property. This requirement may be waived for
those properties where the applicant has secured written authorization from these
abutting property owners to forgo this screening.
34. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit a revised
landscaping plan that shows:
A. Street trees along both sides of West Access Road, and one side of SW
Bull Mountain Road, and the F Street cul de sac (or the east side of an
extended F Street). Species selection shall be as recommended by the City
Forester and planted at the required spacing. Such trees shall be installed
prior to final building inspection.
B. Additional screening (vegetation or a sight obscuring fence) along the
western edge of the bus loading area and the eastern edge of the parking
area.
C. Dimensions of the landscape islands to demonstrate that tree planting areas
have a minimum 3 feet of width.
35. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall satisfy the requirements
of Section I of Washington County's Land Use and Transportation Department's
letters dated June 3 and May 25, 2004 and provide written confirmation from the
county that their requirements have been satisfied.
36. The applicant shall revise the site plan to indicate how Section 18.755.050
compliance will be attained.
Submit to the Engineering Department (Yjm McMillan, 639-4171, ext. 2642) for
review and approval:
37. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall pay an addressing fee
according to the rate at time of payment. (STAFF CONTACT: Shirley Treat,
Engineering).
CUP 2003-00012, VAR 1004-00037, -00041, -00042, Hearings Officer Final Order
-00043, and -00053 (Alberta Rider Elementary School) Page 28
38. Durin,g issuance of the building permit, the applicant shall ppa the standard water
quantity fee (fee amounts will be the latest approved by CA
.~..:1
1, > Oi LGIYINCY CbNDI1 )NS blC ATpSl+llill
Submit to the Planning Department (Morgan Tracy, 503-639-4171, ext 2428) for
review and approval:
39. Prior to final building inspection, the applicant shall obtain annexation approval.
40. Prior to final building inspection, the applicant shall ensure that the
recommendations of the project arborist regarding tree care have been
implemented.
41. Prior to final building inspection of any building, the applicant shall satisfy the
requirements of Section H of Washington County's Land Use and Transportation
Department's letters dated June 3 an May 25, 2004.
Submit to the Engineering Department (Kim McMillan, 6394171, ext. 2642) for
review and approval:
42. Prior to a final building inspection, the applicant shall complete the required
public improvements, obtain conditional acceptance from the City, and provide a
one-year maintenance assurance for said improvements.
43. The applicant shall either place the existing overhead utility lines along SW Bull
Mountain Road underground as apart of this project, or they shall pay the fee in-
lieu of undergrounding. The fee shall be calculated by the frontage of the site that
is parallel to the utility lines and will be $35.00 per lineal foot. If the fee option is
chosen, the amount will be $20,667.50 and it shall be paid prior to final building
inspection.
44. To ensure compliance with Clean Water Services design and construction
standards, the applicant shall employ the design engineer responsible for the
design and specifications of the private water quality facility to perform
construction and visual observation of the water duality facility for compliance
with the design and specifications. These inspections shall be made at significant
stages, and at completion of the construction. Prior to final building inspection,
the design engineer shall provide the City of Tigard (Inspection Supervisor) with
written confirmation that the water quality facility is in compliance with the
design and specifications. Staff Contact: Hap Watkins, Building Division.
45. Prior to final inspection, the applicant's geotechnical engineer shall submit a final
report to the Building Division that indicates all grading work on this site was
inspected by said geotechnical engineer, and that it was completed in accordance
with Appendix Chapter 33 of the Uniform Building Code.
46. Final sight distance certification for all intersections and driveways associated
with this development shall be provided by the applicant's engineer.
CUP 1003-00012, PAR 2004-00037, -00041, -00042, Hearings Ojjfter Final Order
-00043, and -00053 (Alberta Rider Elementary School) Page 29
47. Prior to placement of any signs on site, the applicant shall apply for a sign permit
and supply staff with the appropriate plans to verify compliance with TDC .
Chapter 18.780.
48. At any time after the school begins operations, if the planning manager finds that
the noise level at the south property line of the school site exceeds an Leq of 60
dBA, he or she may require the applicant to install noise attenuation measures to
reduce noise levels to 60 dBA or may schedule a public hearing before the
hearings officer to consider whether such requirements should be imposed.
LIJRE; 'PiAA1'%q 'Foi1+ C6!' DITIQNS OF -PlP1ZONTAL lYITfIIN-, 18?
10NT IIS_ OF 1 1E EFFEC'I1F'E, `Di~TE OF TT1F ITI RtN~ OFIFICER'S
DATED this l0a' day of August, 2004.
Larry Epstein, Esq., AICP
City of Tigard Land Use Hearings Officer
I
y
4
1
CUP 1003-00012, VAR 1004-00037, -00041, -00042, Hearings Officer Final Order
-00043, and -00053 (Alberta Rider Elementary School) Page 30
Agenda Item: 2.2
Hearin Date: Jul 12 2004 Time: 7:0013M
STAFF REPORT TO THE
HEARINGS OFFICER CITY OF TIGARD
Community Development
FOR THE CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON Skapinp,4 BetterCommunity
120 DAYS = 8/31/2004
SECTION 1. APPLICATION SUMMARY
"URBAN SERVICE AREA"
FILE NAME: ALBERTA RIDER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
& CITY OF TIGARD WATER RESERVOIR
CASE NOS.: Conditional Use Permit (CUP) CUP2063-00012
Variance (VAR) VAR2004-00037
Adjustment AR VAR2004-00041
Ad ustment AR VAR2004-00042
Adjustment AR VAR2004-00043
Adjustment AR VAR2004-00053
OWNER/ Tigard-Tualatin School District 23J APPLICANT'S Ed Murphy & Assoc.
APPLICANT: Attn: Rick Ranoine REP.: Attn: Ed Murphy
6960 SW Sandburg Street 9875 SW Murdock St.
Tigard, OR 97223 Tigard, OR 97224
REQUEST: The applicant is requesting Conditional Use approval to construct a
67,000 square foot elementary school, a 3-million gallon water reservoir,
and associated improvements on a 10.71 acre site. The applicant is also
requesting five (5)) Variances/Adjustments to the Tigard Development
Code (TDC). The Variances and Adjustments are as follows:
► Section 18.810.030(H) of the Tigard Development Code requires full
street connections with spacing of no more than 530 feet between
connections is required. The District is proposing not to fully connect
the street;
► An Adjustment to the minimum bicycle parking requirements
((pproposln 44 spaces instead of the required 186);
An Adjustment to the driveway spacing standrds along SW Bull
Mountain Road `the minimum spacing between driveways is required
to be 200 feet, the District is asking for three driveways within 200
feet) and;
► An Adjustment to the street improvement standards to the unnamed
street from SW 133` to the school site (they are proposing a 3.5-foot
planter strip instead of the required 5.5-foot planter strip).
► An adjustment to the 200-Dot cul-de-sac length limitation. The
applicant is proposing a 560-foot long cul-de-sac for the unnamed
street from SW 133` Avenue.
LOCATION: The project is located on the south side of SW Bull Mountain Road, east
of SW 133`d Avenue; WCTM 2S109AC, Tax Lot 2100 and 2S109AD, Tax
Lot 1300.
COMP PLAN
AND ZONING
DESIGNATION: R- 7, Medium-Density Residential zoning district.
ALBERTA RIDER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PAGE 1 OF 44
7/12104 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER
APPLICABLE Community Development Code Chapters: 18.330, 18.360, 18.370, 18.390,
REVIEW 18.510, 18.705, 18.725, 18.745, 18.755, 18.765, 18.780, 18.790, 18.795,
CRITERIA: 18.810, and the Bull Mountain Community Plan.
SECTION II. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff can not make adequate findings based on the information provided in the record to
support a recommendation to approve the proposed Conditional Use Permit, and related
adjustments and variance. Therefore, staff cannot recommend approval, but has provided
recommended Conditions of Approval should the applicant be able to provide supplemental
evidence for the Hearings Officer to make findings to support approval of the request. Staff
supports the requested adjustment to reduce the bicycle parking requirement, and reduction of
the planter strip width. Also, staff will support the adjustment to cul-de-sac length, if the
Hearings Officer rejects staffs recommendation to deny the requested variance to street
connectivity as proposed. Lastly, staff does not support the requested adjustment to the
driveway spacing standard as proposed, but has recommended an alternative that staff could
support.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO COMMENCING ANY
ON-SITE IMPROVEMENTS INCLUDING GRADING, EXCAVATION, FILL, TREE REMOVAL,
AND/OR DEMOLITION ACTIVITIES:
u mI to the anning Department organ racy, , ext 2423) or review
and approval:
1. Prior to issuance of site permits the applicant shall place the following note on all
construction documents: The CRy of Tigard noise ordinance prohibits construction
activity in excess of 40 decibels between 9:00 PM and 7:00 AM Monday through
Friday, and between 9:00 PM and 8:00 AM on Saturday and Sunday.
2. Prior to issuance of a site permit, the applicant shall submit a final tree removal and
protection plan that identifies the trees to be removed, and the trees to be protected.
Mitigation will then be based on the final tabulation of trees removed to those retained,
per Section 18.790.030.
3. Prior to issuance of a site permit, the applicant shall provide the City Arborist with a
construction sequence including installation and removal of tree protection devices,
clearing, grading, and paving.
4. Prior to issuance of a site permit, the applicant shall notify the City Arborist when tree
protection measures are in place so that he may verify that the measures will function
properly prior to construction.
5. Prior to issuance of a site permit the applicant shall submit permit drawings that clear)
indicate the visual clearance areas for all intersections and access points along witK
recommendations by the applicant's engineer to achieve clear vision and adequate
sight distance.
Submit to the Engineering Department (Kim McMillan, 639-4171, ext. 2642) for review
and approval:
6. Prior to issuance of a site permit, a Public Facility Improvement (PFI) permit is required
for this project to cover street improvements and any other work in the public
right-of-way. Eight (8) sets of detailed public improvement plans shall be submitted for
review to he Engineering De artment. NOTE: these plans are in addition to any
drawings required by the Building, Division and should only include sheets relevant to
public improvements, Public Facility Improvement (PFI) permit plans shall conform to
City of Tigard Public Improvement Design Standards, which are available at City Hall and
the City's web page (www.cl.tlaard.or.us).
ALBERTA RIDER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PAGE 2 OF 44
7/12104 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER
7. The PFI permit plan submittal shall include the exact legal name, address and telephone
number of the individual or corporate entity w o wI I be designated as the "Permittee",
and who will provide the financial assurance for the public improvements. For example,
specify if the entity is a corporation, limited partnership, LLC, etc. Also specify the state
within which the entity is incorporated and provide the name of the corporate contact
person.. Failure to provide accurate information to the Engineering Department will delay
processing of project documents.
8. Additional right-of-way shall be dedicated to the Public along the frontage of Bull
Mountain Road to increase the right-of-wa to 35 feet from the centerline. The
description shall be tied to the existing right-of-way centerline. The dedication document
shall be on City forms. Instructions are available from the Engineering Department.
9. The applicant shall submit construction plans to the Engineering Department as apart of
the Public Facility Improvement permit, which indicate that they will construct a halt-street
improvement along the frontage of Bull Mountain Road. The improvements adjacent to
this site shall include:
A. City standard pavement section for a Collector street from curb to centerline equal
to 23 feet;
B. pavement tapers needed to tie the new improvement back into the existing edge
of pavement shall be built beyond the site frontage;
C. concrete curb, or curb and gutter as needed;
D. storm drainage, including any off-site storm drainage necessary to convey surface
and/or subsurface runoff;
E. 6-foot concrete sidewalk with a planter strip;
F. street trees in the planter strip spaced per TDC requirements. Species selection
shall be as recommended by the City Forester. Such trees shall be installed prior
to final building inspection;
G. street striping;
H. streetlight la out by applicant's engineer, to be approved by City Engineer;
1. underground.utillties;
J. street signs (if applicable);
K. driveway apron (if applicable); and
L. adjustments in vertical and/or horizontal alignment to construct SW Bull Mountain
Road in a safe manner, as approved by the Engineering Department.
10. The applicant's plans shall show installation of bicycle striping, markers, legends and
mini-arrows along the Bull Mountain Road frontage.
11. Prior to commencing onsite improvements, the applicant's design and construction plans
shall include the left-turn lane with 100-fot of storage for west-bound traffic on Bull
Mountain Road at the intersection of 133" Avenue, if the design has not already been
completed by others.
12. The applicant's Public Facility Improvement permit construction drawings shall indicate
that three-quarter width street improvements, including traffic control devices, mailbox
clusters, concrete sidewalks, driveway aprons, curbs, asphaltic concrete pavement,
sanitary sewers, storm drainage, street trees, streetlights, and underground utilities shall
be installed to complete the extension of F Street from the Summit Ridge development to
the new east-west street. Improvements shall be designed and constructed to local
street standards.
13. The applicant's plan shall show the east Rider driveway eliminated.
14. The applicant's plans shall show the proposed access onto Bull Mountain Road as a
restricted right-in/right-out only with a raised median (pork chop). The plan shall also
indicate the construction of a raised median in Bull ountain Road at this driveway to
prevent left turn movements.
ALBERTA RIDER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PAGE 3 OF 44
7112JQ4 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER
15. The appplicant's Public Facility Improvement permit construction drawings shall indicate
that 3/4 width street improvements for F Street, including traffic control devices, mailbox
clusters, concrete sidewalks, driveway aprons, curbs, asphaltic concrete pavement,
sanitary sewers, storm drainage, approved street trees, streetlights, and underground
utilities shall be installed within the interior subdivision streets. Improvements shall be
designed and constructed to local street standards.
16. A profile of Bull Mountain Road shall be required, extending 300 feet either side of the
subject site showing the existing grade and proposed future grade.
17. Sanitary sewer and storm drainage details shall be provided as part of the Public Facility
Improvement (PFI) permit plans. Calculations and a topogra hic map of the storm
drainage basin and sanitary sewer service area shall be provided as a supplement to the
Public Facility Improvement (PFI) permit plans. Calculations shall be based on full
development of the serviceable area. The location and capacity of existing, proposed,
and future lines shall be addressed.
18. The applicant shall provide connection of proposed buildings to the public sanitary
sewerage system. A connection permit is required to connect to the existing public
sanitary sewer system.
19. The applicant shall provide a public sanitary sewer main from the intersection of 133`d
Avenue and the new east-west street to the stub shown in F Street on the approved
Summit Ridge subdivision plans.
20. The applicant shall extend the public storm sewer in the east-west street to the
intersection with 133`d Avenue.
21. Prior to construction the applicant's design engineer shall submit documentation, for
review by the City Kim McMillan), of Clean Water Services (CWS) approval of the
proposed storm sewer system.
22. Any extension of public wafer lines shall be shown on the proposed Public Facility
Improvement (PF!) permit construction drawings and shall be reviewed and approved by
th e City's Water a artment, as a part of the Engineering Department plan review.
NOTE: An estimated 12% of the water system costs must be on deposit with the Water
Department prior to approval of the PFI permit plans from the Engineering Department
and construction of public water lines.
23. The applicant's plans shall be revised to show a new, public 12-inch line connecting to
the 10-inch line in Bull Mountain Road. This 12-inch line will need to be public in order to
serve properties beyond the borders of this site. The 12-inch line needs to be connected
to the water line shown in F Street on the approved Summit Ridge plans. A public water
line_qlso needs to be extended the full length of the new east-west street, from the site to
133 Avenue. A minimum 15-foot public easement will be required where the water line
is located outside of public right-of4my (ROW).
24. The applicant shall provide an on-site water quality facility as required by Clean Water
Services Design and Construction Standards adopted by Resolution and Order No. 00-
~coFpoaL . inplans and calculations shall be submitted to the Engineering Department (Kim
Millfor review and approval prior to issuance of the site permit. In addition, a
smaintenance plan shall be submitted along with the plans and calculations for
IevlCVll a'Id approval. The applicant shall aisv prvviaa~°, iii°v C 7~ '""th ~pprn~ial from ~'WS
for the water quality facility.
25. An erosion control plan shall be provided as part of the Public Facility Improvement (PFI)
permit drawings. The plan shall conform to the "Erosion Prevention and. Sediment
Control Design and Planning Manual, February 2003 edition."
ALBERTA RIDER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PAGE 4 OF 44
7/12104 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER
26. A final grading pian shall be submitted showing the existing and proposed contours.
The plan shall detail the provisions for surface drainage of all impervious areas, and
show that they will be graded to insure that surface drainage is directed to the street or
a public storm drainage system approved by the Engineering Department. For
situations where the back portions of the lot drains away from a street and toward
adjacent lots, appropriate private storm drainage lines shall be provided to sufficiently
contain and convey runoff.
27. The applicant shall incorporate the recommendations from the submitted geotechnical
report by URS Corporation, dated July 2003, into the final grading plan. The
geotechnical engineer shall be employed by the applicant throughout the entire
construction period to ensure that all grading, including cuts and fills, are constructed in
accordance with the approved plan and Appendix Chapter 33 of the UBC.
28. The applicant shall obtain a 1200-C General Permit issued by the City of Tigard pursuant
to ORS 468.740 and the Federal can Water Act.
29. The applicant shall submit preliminary sight distance certification for all driveways and
intersections related to this development. Included with the preliminary certification shall
be a detailed list of improvements required to produce adequate sight distance.
THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF THE BUILDING PERMIT:
Submit to the Planning Department organ racy, 503-639-4171, ext or review
and approval:
30. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit revised site plans that
show sound attenuation measures such as a wall along the south side of the property
near the soccer play field.
31. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall indicate in writing whether field
lighting is proposed, and ! so, shall abide by the time limitations established by the
hearings officer.
32. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit a final lighting plan that
indicates the lighting levels for the pathways on site. Ensure that all lighting on site will
not cause glare measured as 1-foot-candle at the property line) to adjacent
properties. This plan shall also address glare onto abutting properties from outdoor
field lighting, if applicable. Lights shall be generally oriented towards the school
building and not towards the abutting properties: The lighting plan shall include
photometric data to demonstrate compliance with this requirement.
33. Prior to issuance of building permits, screening shall be provided on all sides of the
project that abut residential property. This requirement may be waived for those
properties where the applicant has .secured written authorization from these abutting
property owners to forgo this screening.
34. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit a revised landscaping
plan that shows:
A. Street trees along both sides of West Access Road, and one side of SW Bull
Iviountain Read, and Street if applicable. Species selection shall he as
recommended b the City Forester and planted at the required spacing. Such
trees shall be installed prior to final building inspection.
B. Additional screening (vegetation or a sight obscuring fence) along the western
edge of the bus loading area and the eastern edge of the parking area.
C. Dimensions of the landscape islands to demonstrate that tree planting areas have
a minimum 3 feet of width.
ALBERTA RIDER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PAGE 5 OF 44
7/12104 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER
35. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall satisfy the requirements of
Section I of Washington County's Land Use and Transportation Department's letters
dated June 3 and May 25, 2004 (and repeated at the end of this decision under
Agency Comments) and provide written confirmation from the county that their
requirements have been satisfied.
36. The applicant shall revise the site plan to indicate how Section 18.755.050 compliance
will be attained.
Submit to the Engineering Department (Kim McMillan, 639-4171, ext. 2642) for review
and approval:
37. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall pay an addressing fee
according to the rate at time of payment. STAFF CONTACT: Shirley Treat,
Engineering).
38. During issuance of the building permit, the applicant shall pay the standard water quantity
fee (fee amounts will be the latest approved by CWS).
THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED
PRIOR TO A FINAL BUILDING INSPECTION:
Submit to the Planning Department organ racy, 503-639-4171, ext or review
and approval:
39. Prior to final building inspection, the applicant shall obtain annexation approval.
40. Prior to final building inspection, the applicant shall ensure that the recommendations
of the project arborist regarding tree care have been implemented.
41. Prior to final building inspection of any building, the applicant shall satisfy the
requirements of Section II of Washington County's Land Use and Transportation
Department's letters dated June 3 and May 25, 2004.
Submit to the Engineering Department (Kim McMillan, 639-4171, ext. 2642) for review
and approval:
42. Prior to a final building inspection, the applicant shall complete the required public
improvements, obtain conditional acceptance from the City, and provide a one-year
maintenance assurance for said improvements.
43. The applicant shall either place the existing overhead utility lines along SW Bull Mountain
Road underground as a part of this project, or they shall pay the fee in-lieu of
under rounding. The fee shall be calculate by the frontage of the site that is parallel to
the unity lines and will be $35.00 per lineal foot. If the fee option is chosen, the amount
will be $20,667.50 and it shall be paid prior to final building inspection.
44. To ensure compliance with Clean Water Services design and construction standards,
the applicant shall employ the design engineer responsible for the design and
specifications of the private water quality facility to perform construction and visual
observation of the water quality facility for compliance with the design and
specifications. These inspections shall be made at significant stages, and at
completion of the construction. Prior to final building inspection, the design engineer
shall provide the City of Tigard (inspection Supervisor) with written confirmation that
the water quality facility is in compliance with the design and specifications. Staff
Contact: Hap Watkins, Building Division.
45. Prior to final inspection, the applicant's geotechnical engineer shall submit a final report
to the Building Division that indicates all grading work on this site was inspected by said
ggeotechnical engineer and that it was completed in accordance with Appendix Chapter
33 of the Uniform Building Code.
ALBERTA RIDER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PAGE 6 OF 44
7/12/04 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER
46. Final sight distance certification for all intersections and driveways associated with this
development shall be provided by the applicant's engineer.
THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED
PRIOR TO INSTALLATION OF ANY REGULATED SIGNAGE:
47. Prior to placement of any signs on site, the applicant shall apply for a sign permit and
supply staff with the appropriate plans to verify compliance with TDC Chapter 18.780.
FAILURE TO SATISFY THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL WITHIN 18 MONTHS OF THE
EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE HEARINGS OFFICER'S DECISION SHALL RENDER THE
HEARINGS OFFICER'S DECISION VOID.
SECTION III. BACKGROUND INFORMATION
Site Histo:
ccoA rding to the applicant, the site is occupied by two existing houses. Both structures will
remain with their current owner, Mrs. Alberta-Rider, as part of a 1.24 acre life estate. Apart
from the two dwellings, the site is presently vacant. The property abuts the city boundary to
the north. In 1998, the School District acquired a 50-foot-wide right-of-way from SW 133 in
anticipation of developing the site. At the time, the right-of-way requirement was 50 feet.
Vicinit Information:
Me site is zoned 7 and is surrounded on all sides by single-family residential development.
Several abutting properties are oversized and are in various stages of development including
the Summit Ridge Development on the south side (approved but not constructed), the
Jackson Bartlett Property on the east side (held a pre-a p ication conference, no application
yet), and the Gooley Property to the southeast (application in review). A total of 268
residential lots are in various stages of development in the immediate vicinity.
Site Information and Proposal Description:
The site is 1 U, 11 acres in size an currently occupied by the Alberta Rider living estate. The
District proposes to reserve 1.24 acres for the continued enjoyment of Mrs. Alberta Rider.
The site is located on slopes ranging.from 4 to 12%. The proposal is for a two story 67,000
square foot structure to house approximately 600 students and 46 teachers and support staff.
As part of the school development, other on-site improvements are proposed such as
pedestrian walkways, a fire lane, soccer field, water quality feature, and landscaping. Also as
part of this application, the Tigard Water District has joined with the school district to pursue
approval of a 3 million gallon water reservoir, which will be constructed below grade in the
southeast corner of the site. The school district has identified an area of property to the east
of the proposed reservoir that may be sold for future residential development. That aspect is
not part of this application however, and is only noted as a potential future use of a portion of
the property. The reservoir and associated grading occupies approximately 1 acre of the site.
The applicant is also requesting approval of a number of adjjustments and variances to 1) not
meet the street connectivity standards, 2) reduce the bicycle parking requirement, 3) reduce
the spacing requirement for driveways along a collector road, 4) reduce the planter strip width
from 5 to 3.5 feet, and 5) increase the maximum length of a cul-de-sac from 200 to 560 feet.
These requests are discussed in more detail in the following discussion.
SECTION IV. DECISION MM' KING DRLOCE-Q ORES PERMITS AND USE
Use Classification: Section 18.130.020
Lists- the U5667`515gorles.
The applicant is proposing to construct a 67,000 square foot elementary school, with associated
improvements, as well as a 3 million gallon water reservoir. Schools and basic utilities are
permitted conditionally within the R-7 zoning district.
ALBERTA RIDER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PAGE 7 OF 44
7172104 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER
Summary Land Use Permits: Chapter 18.310
De tines eth decision-making type to which the land-use application is assigned.
The proposed use is a Conditional Use permit which is a Type 111-HO decision. Staff reviews
adjustments under a Type 11 process. However, when multiple applications are being
reviewed for the same property, the highest authority will oversee all review. In this case, the
review is handled by a Type 111-HO process and heard by the Tigard Hearings Officer.
SECTION V. SUMMARY OF APPLICABLE CRITERIA
summary o the applicable criteria in this case in t e apter order in which they are
addressed in this report are as follows:
A. 18.330 S ecific Conditional Use Criteria
enera p rove n eria
Additional Conditions of Approval)
B. licable Develo men[ Code Standards
18. 3'30 I e eve opmen eview
18.370 ariances/Adjustments)
18.510 Residential Zoning Distracts)
18.705 Access, Egress & Circulation)
18.725 Environmental Performance Standards)
18.745 Landscaping and Screening)
18.755 Mixed Solid Waste and Recyclable Storage)
18.765 Off-Street Parking and Load ng Requirements)
18.780 ~TSrigeetmoval)
n18.790 18.795 isual Clearance)
C. Street and Utili Improvement Standards (18.810)
D. Impact Study-11-8.390)
SECTION VI. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA AND FINDINGS
A. SPECIFIC CONDITIONAL USE APPROVAL CRITERIA
Section 18.330.010.A states that the purpose of this chapter is to provide standards
and procedures under which a conditional use may be permitted, enlarged or altered if
the site is appropriate and if other appropriate conditions of approval can be met.
There are certain uses which due to the nature of the impacts on surrounding land
uses and public facilities require a case-by-case review and analysis.
Section 18.330.020.A states that a request for approval fora new conditional use shall
be processed as a Type III-HO procedure, as regulated by Chapter 18.390.050, using
approval criteria contained in Section 18.330.036A and subject to other requirements
in Chapter 18.330.
GENERAL APPROVAL CRITERIA FOR A CONDITIONAL USE: SECTION 18.330.030
The site size an dimensions provide a equa a area or the needs o the propose use;
The existing site size is 10.71 acres (466,527 square feet) in size. The proposal requests
approval for a total 67,000square foot elementary school, associated infrastructure, and a 3
million gallon water reseenmir, with an approximate 124 acre area reserved for a life estate. This
report evaluates the proposal and necessary setbacks, required parking, landscaping, public
utilities and streets. As discussed later in this report, one (of several) arguments the applicant
asserts for grating the variance to the street connectivity standard is that the site is constrained
by its size and shape (applicant's narrative, p.25, 15). The applicant goes on to state that the
site, while adequate, barely has enough room for a 2-story school, one soccer field, and the city
reservoir, and is constrained by the "L" shape of the parcel, the slopes, the sensitive and
significant grove of trees, and the life estate of Mrs. Rider. It should also be, noted that the
ALBERTA RIDER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PAGE 8 OF 44
7/1204 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER
applicant has speculated about conveying a portion of the site in the southeast corner to
residential development (approximately % acre): This area would be east of the reservoir and
generally inaccessible from the remainder of the school site. As the reservoir and school have
been simultaneously proposed, the burden on the applicant is to demonstrate that the sum total
of all proposed uses can be accommodated on site.
The characteristics of the site are suitable for the proposed use considering size, shape,
location, topography, and natural features;
The site is currently developed with two existing dwellings. These are proposed to be retained
within the 1.24 acre life estate for Mrs. Alberta Rider. The gross site area (10.71 acres) is
generally large enough to accommodate the proposed school use, however, the parcel
configuration, slope and presence of natural features raises significant questions as to the
suitability of the site, as evidenced by the ap licant's own admissions. Since the reservoir and
school have been simultaneously proposed, burden on the applicant is to demonstrate that
the site is suitable for the sum total of all proposed uses together with their required
improvements. The net area for the school (subtracting the life estate, reservoir, and future
residential properly) is approximately 8 acres. The disputed "F" street extension will require
approximately 21,350 square feet, however, the applicants proposed pedestrian and emergency
access drive in this same location occupies approximately 9,150 of these square feet. There is
a 10-foot separation between the emergency access and the western property line that
accounts for another 6,100 square feet. The net decrease in development area represented by
improving F Street would be 6,100 square feet.
All required public facilities have adequate capacity to serve the proposal; and
Public facilities are notd presently sufficient to serve the proposed use. Most notably, the
intersection at SW 133 and Bull Mountain Road will require improvement to mitigate for the
anticipated impact of school bus and other associated school traffic making left turns from west-
bound Bull Mountain Road. Water system capacity is sufficient, but will require that the
applicant bring a 12° water line in from Bull Mountain Road to serve the school and other
developments that are occurring in the area. It should be noted that the adjoining developments
to the south will provide the required sewer and storm drainage connections, and absent these
facilities being in place, there, is inadequate public facilities to support the school use. The
proposed reservoir will not require sewer service, but storm sewer lines to handle water
overflows will need to be placed through the abutting developments on the south. Additional
discussion related to public facilities is contained later in this report under 18.810, Street and
Utility Improvements. With proper conditions of development approval in place, provisions for
adequate public facilities can be assured.
The applicable requirements of the zoning district are met except as modified by this
chapter.
The proposed site is located within the R-7 zoning district. As indicated earlier, schools and
basic utilities are permitted conditionally. The applicable development standards of the R-7
zone are met with this proposal as demonstrated later under 18.510, Residential Zoning
Districts. The applicant has met or exceeded the requirements for the proposed project.
The applicable requirements of 18.330.050, Additional Development Standards, are met.
There are no additional development standards listed for Basic Public Utilities for the reservoir),
b~utuschoG ; are I required to, meet the ` additional cr~ee (ems fha 18.330.050(8). ova~d setback
a , 1:.,,: a to 0„nrcocor( frnn4 roar and
is 30 feet, sides are 20 feet and the rear is also 30 feet. As demonstrated by the applicant's site
plan, these additional standards are met.
The supplementary requirements set forth in other chapters of this Code including but
not limited to Chapter 18.780, Signs, and Chapter 18.360, Site Development Review, if
applicable, are met or can be conditioned to be satisfied.
ALBERTA RIDER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PAGE 9 OF 44
7/12104 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER
The applicable review criteria in this case include the following chapters of the Commut
Development Code: 18.330, Conditional Use; 18.360, Site Development Review; 18.37 ,
Variances and Adjustments; 18.390 Decision Making Procedures; 18.510, Residential Zoning
Districts, 18.705, Access, Egress and Circulation; 18.725, Environmental Performance
Standards; 18.745, Landscaping and Screening; 18.755, Mixed Solid Waste and Recyclables
Storage; 18.765, Off: Street Parking; 18.780, Signs; 18.790, Tree Removal; 18.795, Visual
Clearance Areas; and 18.810, Street and Utility improvement Standards. The development
standards and requirements of these chapters are addressed further in this report.
The proposal contains no elements related to the provisions of the following chapters: 18.350,
Planned Development; 18.380, Zoning Map/Text Amendments; 18.410, Lot Line Adjustments;
18.420, Land Partitions; 18.430, Subdivisions; 18.520, Commercial Zoning Districts; 18.530,
Industrial Zoning Districts; 18.620, Tigard Triangle Design Standards; 18.630 Washington
Square Regional Center Design Standards, 18.640 Durham Quarry Design Standards; 18.710,
Accessory Residential Units, 18.715, Density Computations; 18.720, Design Compatibili
Standards; 18.730, Exceptions to Development Standards; 18.740, Historic Overlay; 18.747,
Home Occupations; 18.750, Manufactured/Mobile Home Regulations; 18.760, Nonconforming
Situations; 18.775, Sensitive Lands; 18.785, Temporary Uses; and 18.798, Wireless
Communications Facilities. These chapters are, therefore, found to be inapplicable as approval
standards.
The use will comply with the applicable policies of the Comprehensive Plan.
The Comprehensive Plan is implemented by the Community Development Code. Compliance
with Comprehensive Plan policies are, therefore, assured by satisfaction of the applicable
development standards of the development code as addressed within this report.
FINDING: Based on the analysis above, the General Approval Criteria for a Conditional Use
are not satisfied. it remains questionable whether the site is of suitable size and
shape to accommodate the proposed use based on the applicant's assertions.
StafF is of the opinion that there is adequate size for the proposed project and
required improvements, including "F" street, but the applicant has asserted that
there is not adequate room. Staff questions whether the 6,100 square foot
difference between improving F street and improving just a pedestrian and
emergency access raises to the threshold level that either makes the site work, or
not. The applicant's plan is dependant upon the favorable granting of adjustments
and variances which are discussed later in this decision. If the variances and
adjustments are approved, and no other modifications occur to the proposed site
plan, then an affirmative finding can be made that the above standards can be
met. Also, the applicant's plan relies on the availability or improvement of
necessary public facilities. These facilities will need to be in place before the
school is occupied or the reservoir is operational.
ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR CONDITIONAL USE.
Section 18.330.030.13 saes a the Hearings Authority may impose conditions on the
approval of a conditional use, which are found necessary to ensure the use is
compatible with other uses in the vicinity, and that the impact of the proposed use on
the surrounding uses and public facilities is minimized. These conditions may
include, but are not limited to the following:
Limiting the hours, days, place and/or manner of operation;
The applicant has not indicated hours, days, or manner of operation, however, it can be
expected that the school would operate during normal school hours (7 am to 4 pm Monday
through Friday). There is no evidence in the record to suggest that there is a need to limit the
hours, days, b lace and or manner of operation for the elementary school. The presence of
the soccer field located on an elevated bench above the future homes to the south may
necessitate a limitation on whether or not field lighting should be permitted. Staff
recommends that if lightinWis permitted, a limitation on the hours of lighting use be imposed.
The applicant needs to affirm or deny whether field lighting is proposed, and if proposed
should be required to provide a schedule of when those rights will be used.
ALBERTA RIDER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PAGE 10 OF 44
7/12!04 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER
Requiring design features which minimize environmental impacts such as noise,
vibration, air pollution, glare, odor and/or dust;
After construction is complete, the proposal would not like )y enerate any vibration, air
pollution, odor, glare, noise, or dust thatwould be considered out of character for the use.
The proposed site is adjacent on three sides to noise sensitive units as defined in the Tigard
Municipal Code (TMC) Chapter 7.40. The proposed soccer field is located 26 feet and uphill
from the property boundary of the future homes to the south. Noise from outdoor events and
recess periods may impact these properties. The applicant has not submitted a noise study,
nor proposed any noise mitigation measures. Staff recommends the hearings officer
consider sound attenuation measures such as a wall along the south side of the property
near the soccer play field. As mentioned previously, glare from outdoor field lighting may
glare onto abutting properties. Appropriate shielding should be in place if such lighting is
allowed, along with limitations on the duration of such lighting.
Requiring additional setback areas, lot area, and/or lot depth or width;
The proposed use will exceed the setbacks, lot area, and lot depth and width requirements of
the underlyingg zone. Dimensional criterion is discussed in more detail further in this
discussion. Tf~is criterion is satisfied.
Limiting the building height, size or lot coverage, and/or location on the site;
The R-7 zoning classification requires 20% minimum landscaped area. The applicant has
proposed 28.7% landscaping. The applicant has indicated on the plans and in the narrative that
the proposed addition will not exceed the maximum building height of thirty five feet in the R-7
zone. There is no evidence in the record to suggest a need to further limit the building height,
size, lot coverage, or location on the site beyond what is required by the development code.
The water reservoir well be built below final grade, and therefore minimizes its apparent-size and
height, and will be covered with vegetation to reduce lot coverage. This standard its satisfied.
Designating-the size, number, location and/or design of vehicle access points;
The applicant has proposed an emergency access to Bull Mountain Road. This access point
requires an adjustment to the driveway spacing standards. Access is more fully described
later in this report under 18.705, Access. However, staff recommends that since this access
does not meet current standards and an alternative for this access may be available (by
eliminating one existing access. point and limiting the direction of access), this proposed
access be redesigned. There is a general concern with access points on Bull Mountain
Road, and approving an additional access when it does not meet the sppacing standards is
contrary to the 'purposes of the development code. It is the policy of the City to reduce and/or
eliminate private access points to this road where practicable. While the applicant has
proposed that this access will be for emergency use only, there exists the potential that the
gate will be inadvertently left open and general traffic well utilize this access. Staff is most
concerned by left turns into this access at a difficult curve in the road (for visibility). Staff
acknowledges there may be a benefit in reducing conflicts between busses and cars at the
West Access Road. By providing a right-in/right-out general use access drive at Bull
Mountain, school traffic can proceed through the parking lot and exit out to SW Bull Mountain
independently of school bus traffic. This access will also serve as emergency access as
currently proposed. To satisfy the access spacing standards, one of the drives to the existing
Alberta Rider home will need to be closed or consolidated with the school driveway. A
secondary emergency access is proposed along the extension of F Street from Summit
Ridge subdivision to the south. It should be noted that the conditions of approval for Summit
Ridge did not account for an emergency only access point. The condition states: "If Street "F"
is determined to not require extension through the School District property, then Street "F" may
be converted to a private street." If the street is private, then the School will have no authority to
use it for emergency access, unless a private agreement is made between the two parties and
easements are recorded. If the street remains public, then it cannot terminate with a stub; a full
cul-de-sac or complete connection to the West Access Road would be required.
ALBERTA RIDER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PAGE 11 OF 44
7/12/04 PUBLIC NEARING , STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER
Requiring street right-of-way to be dedicated and street(s) to be improved;
This is of particular importance with this application. When the 130-lot Summit Ridge
subdivision was proposed, stub streets were shown extending to the boundary of the School
District property. The District expressed concerns with the placement of the proposed street
stub, and the subdivision plan did not meet street spacing standards. As a result, the street
stub was realigned along the applicant's western property boundary for future extension and
general increased connectivity and traffic circulation. The anticipated trip generation impact
of the additional 268 total lots being created in various subdivisions to the south and
southwest of the school site would be better accommodated through this new street built to
city standards and would be borne entirely by the developments that generated the impact.
The applicant has instead proposed that SW 133`d, a substandard street, bear the burden of
this traffic until some undeterminable date in the future when these lots develop and a street
connection is established. There also remains a question whether Summit Ridge will be able
to create a connection to SW 133` , and if they are unable, this will force traffic from the areas
south of the school to go north on the Qreenfeld Road Extension (referred to as Street "H")
turn left, then turn left again at SW 133r, and once again, left into the school site. It is without
question that the school-will generate significant levels of traffic around the site. Staff asserts
that the burden of mitigating for this traffic impact falls on the present applicant, the timing of
these improvements should be tied to the development of the schools site, and therefore
requiring street right-of-way to be dedicated and the street to be improved is a warranted
condition of development approval.
Requiring landscaping, screening, drainage and/or surfacing of parking and loading
areas;
The applicant is proposing landscaping in excess of the minimum requirements, surface
parking and loading areas, and is required to satisfy storm drainage standards, as discussed
ater in this report. Screening may be appropriate from off-site residential properties. The
applicant has proposed a perimeter chain link (non sight obscuring) fence, but this use may
require additional screening from abutting properties. Staff acknowledges that the current
properties are developed with such real separation from the proposed development that
screening may not be necessary. Future more intensive density will place structures closer,
to the property line; but these sites are typically fenced by the developer and/or homeowner.
Since screening is to benefit off site residences, and these residences may not desire this
screening, staff recommends that the requirement for screening be imposed on all sides of
the project that abut residential property but allow the applicant to secure written
authorization from these abutting property owners to forgo this screening if so desired.
Limiting the number, size, location, height and/or lighting of signs;
The applicant has indicated the location of monument signs on the plans, but not specific
details for any wall signage. The proposed monument sign in the center of the cul-de-sac
bulb on West Access Road is within the public right-of-way. Signs in the public right-of-way
are explicitly prohibited by TDC 18.780.070(K). Final sign locations will need to be reviewed
through separate sign permitting processes. Compliance with the sign requirements for the
underlying zone will-be considered once a design is reviewed. The applicant will be required
to indicate the location and type of sign proposed for this site prior to sign permit issuance.
Limiting or setting standards for the location and/or intensity of outdoor lighting;
The applicant has indicated in the narrative that the lighting will be managed to minimize
impacts to the surrounding neighbors, and stated that the new parking ivi lighting would
ur
directed downward and controlled by a time device per District Standards. However, as
discussed previously, there is a potential that nighttime events on the soccer field may have
impacts to the adjoining residential properties if r hting is provided on these fields. Staff has
recommended that limitations of the duration of this lighting be imposed. Additionally, staff
recommends that the lights be generally oriented towards the school building and not towards
the abutting properties. A complete lighting plan with lighting levels indicated should be
required.
ALBERTA RIDER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PAGE 12 OF 44
7/12104 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER
Requiring berms, screening or landscaping and the establishment of standards for
their installation and maintenance;
As discussed further in this report, the applicant has proposed some new landscaping to
screen the parking areas and new portion of the building from surrounding properties, but is
depending largely on existing landscaping for this purpose. This criterion is discussed in
more detail later in this report.
Requiring and designating the size, height, location and/or materials for fences;
The applicant is proposing new chainlink perimeter fencing for the site. This appears
adequate and appropriate for the proposed uses. Screening was previously discussed.
Requiring the protection and preservation of existing trees, soils, vegetation,
watercourses, habitat areas and/or drainage areas;
Some of the trees on site are scheduled for removal to accommodate construction. The
applicant has provided a tree plan that will be discussed later in this report. The applicant
has also proposed retaining the predominant area of mature trees that comprise the life
estate for Mrs. Alberta Rider. Removal of these trees with subsequent development will
require review through a separate conditional use process. This criterion is met.
Requiring the dedication of sufficient open land area for a greenway adjoining and
within the. floodplain when land form alterations and development are allowed within
the 100-year floodplain; and
The property is not adjacent to the floodplain. This criterion is not applicable.
Requiring the construction of a pedestrian/bicycle pathway within the floodplain in
accordance with the. adopted pedestrian/bicycle pathway plan.
The property is not adjacent to the 100-year floodplain. This criterion is not applicable.
FINDING: The proposed site is adjacent on three sides to noise sensitive units as defined
in the Tigard Municipal Code (TMC) Chapter 7.40. The applicant has not
definitively identified whether and what times outdoor field lighting will be used
Or submitted an adequate lighting plan. Insufficient screening is proposed. The
proposed accesses o not meet standards. Inadequate right-of-way for general
traffic circulation is provided. Staff asserts that the burden of mitigating for the
traffic impact resulting from the proposed school use falls on the present
appplicant, the timing of these improvements should be tied to the development
of'the school site, and therefore requiring street right-of-way to be dedicated
and the street to be improved is a warranted condition of development approval.
CONDITIONS:
® Staff recommends the hearings officer consider sound attenuation measures
such as a wall along the south side of the property near the soccer play
field. As mentioned previously, glare from outdoor field lighting may glare
onto abutting properties. Appropriate shielding should be in place if such
lighting is allowed, along wit limitations on the duration of such lighting.
Additionally, staff recommends that the lights be generally oriented towards
the school building and not towards the abutting properties. A complete
sigh 'r 'an ilk p ho rr%nrin ~Pnhf.nn lavalg in[1ira Pd should be required.
11t~. l IL I1 Raj p, trim Fnvavn I-bi- uy.. _
e Staff recommends that the proposed emergency access to SW Bull
Mountain Road be redesigned as a right-in/right-out general use access and
that the eastern access drive to the Alberta Rider life estate be. removed or
consolidated with the school's access. '
Staff recommends that the emergency access to the south be redesigned
and improved as a % public street.
ALBERTA RIDER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PAGE 13 OF 44
7/12/04 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER
Staff recommends that the requirement for screening be imposed on all
sides of the project that abut residential property but allow the applicant to
secure written authorization from these abutting property owners to forgo
this screening if so desired.
ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR CONDITIONAL USE TYPES:
SECTION The a iona eve opment standards are specific criteria that must be considered at
the time of application for a conditional use.
The criteria for schools state that there shall be no minimum lot size requirements
other than what is required for the applicable zoning district;
That the setbacks shall be as follows: Front Yard setback- 20 feet; Corner and through
lot setback- 20 feet on any side facing a street; Side yard setback- 20 feet; and Rear
yard setback- 30 feet.
The minimum lot size for the R-7 zoning district is 5,000 square feet. This site is 10.71 acres.
The net development area is 8 acres (after subtracting area for the reservoir, future
residential development area, and the Alberta Rider life estate). This criterion is satisfied.
With regard to the setbacks, the site primarily fronts SW Bull Mountain Road. The closest
school structure to the front lot line is 240 feet (the Alberta Rider house sits 22 feet from the
front lot line after right-of-way dedication). The rear yard setback is required to be 30 feet.
The actual distance is approximately 184 feet. *The western property line is a side yard
setback. The minimum setback is 20 feet. The closest structure to the western property line
is 60 feet. The eastern property line is the other side yard. The closest structure to the
eastern property is 45 feet. This criterion is satisfied. It should be noted that if a 35-foot-wide
street right-of-way dedication is required along the west boundary, the 20-foot setback would
not be met.
The criteria for basic utilities state that there the minimum lot size shall be 5 000
square feet, that the setbacks shall be per the underlying zone, the height limit shall be
as prescribed by Chapter 18.730, Off street parking shall be in accordance with
Chapter 18.765, and screening shall be per Chapter 18.745;
The lot size is 10.71 acres, and the reservoir area will account for approximately 1 acre. The
setbacks are not applicable as the structure is below grade. Similarly the height limit is met
since the structure will be below grade. The parking standards do not require any parking for
this use. Finally, screening is not required when the use abuts residential uses, there is no
parking, and the structure will be below grade. These standards are met.
FINDING: The additional development standards related to conditional use types are met.
B. APPLICABLE DEVELOPMENT CODE STANDARDS
SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (18.360)
The Site Development eview process is not applicable to projects that are approved
through a conditional use procedure, however, the standards for approval (18.360.090)
are still salient.
18.360.090 Approval Criteria. The Director shall make a finding with respect to each of
the following criteria when approving, approving ri h ~%nriitinns, or deriving an
application:
1. Compliance with all of the applicable requirements of this title including Chapter
18.810, Street and Utility Standards;
This will be addressed in the relevant other sections of this report.
ALBERTA RIDER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PAGE 14 OF 44
7112104 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER
2. Relationship to the natural and physical environment:
a. Buildings shall be:
(1) Located to preserve existing trees, topography and natural drainage where possible
bbased upon existing site conditions;
2 Located in areas not subject to ground slumping or sliding;
133 Located to provide adequate distance between adjoining buildings for adequate light,
air circulation, and fire-fighting; and
(4) Oriented with consideration for sun and wind.
b. Trees shall be preserved to the extent possible. Replacement of trees is subject to the
requirements of Chapter 18.790, Tree Removal.
The applicant has not addressed the remainder of these standards with respect to the proposed
school, instead claiming that they are inapplicable standards. Citing the exemptions clause
which states "site development review shall be applicable to all new developments and major
modification of existing developments, as provided in Section 18.360.060, except it shall not
apply to: Any proposed development which has a valid conditional use approved through the
conditional use permit application process." However, the approval standards specific to the
conditional use process includes "The supplementary requirements set forth in other chapters of
this code including but not limited to Chapter 18.780, Signs, and Chapter 18.360, Site
Development Review, if applicable, are met" Therefore, staff asserts that these standards are
applicable to this proposal, to the extent that they are relevant, as further discussed below.
The supplemental narrative for the proposed reservoir does include findings for these standards.
3. Exterior elevations:
a. Along the vertical face of single-family attached and multiple-family structures...
This is not a single-family or multi-family project. This standard does not apply.
4. Buffering, screening and compatibility between adjoining uses:
a. Buffering shall be provided between different types of land uses, for example, between
single family and multiple family residential, and residential and commercial uses, and
the following factors shall be considered in determining the adequacy of the type and
extent of the buffer...
The applicant has proposed significant separation of the proposed school building from
adjoining properties. Moreover, an existing line of trees and vegetation exists along the western
boundary. The applicant is pproposing to screen service areas. The reservoir will be placed
underground so no further buffenng is necessary for this use.
5. Privacy and noise: multifamily or group living uses:
This is not a multi-family project, therefore this standard is inapplicable.
6. Private outdoor area: multi-family use: °
This is not a multi-family project, therefore this standard is inapplicable.
7. Shared outdoor recreation areas: multi family use:
This is not a multi-family project, therefore this standard is inapplicable.
8. Where landfill and/or development is allowed within and adjacent to the 100-year
floodplain...
This area does not abut or lie within a 100-year fioodplain. Therefore this standard is
inapplicable.
ALBERTA RIDER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PAGE 15 OF 44
7/12/04 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER
9. Demarcation of public, semi-public and private spaces for crime prevention:
a. The structures and site improvements shall be designed so that public areas such as
streets or public gathering places, semi-public areas and private outdoor areas are
clearly defined to establish persons having a right to be in the space, to provide for crime
prevention and to establish maintenance responsibility; and
The site is clearly delineated by a perimeter fence and appropriate signage. Further
demarcation is provided through landscaping treatment and hard surfaced walkways.
10. Crime prevention and safety:
a. Windows shall be located so that areas vulnerable to crime can be surveyed by the
occupants,
b. Interior laundry and service areas shall be located in a way that they can be observed
by others;
c. Mail boxes shall be located in lighted areas having vehicular or pedestrian traffic;
d. The exterior lighting levels shall be selected and the angles shall be oriented towards
areas vulnerable to crime; and
e. Light fixtures shall be provided in areas having heavy pedestrian or vehicular traffic
and in potentially dangerous areas such as parking lots, stairs, ramps and abrupt grade
changes. Fixtures shall be placed at a height so that light patterns overlap at a height of
seven feet which is sufficient to illuminate a person.
Windows on the school building are present on all elevations for monitoring of the school
grounds. The building is situated so that area vulnerable to crime can be surveyed by the
occupants. The reservoir does not have windows, but with a field above it, it will be easily
monitored by ppersons on the property. The applicant has not submitted the lighting plan, so it.
cannot be defermined whether exterior ii hting levels will be sufficient in areas having heavy
pedestrian traffic (such as along pathways. A previous recommended condition addresses this
issue.
Ill- Public transit:
a. Provisions within the plan shall be included for providing for transit if the development
proposal is adjacent to or within 500 feet of existing or proposed transit route...
The nearest transit route is on SW Pacific Highway, well beyond 500 feet from the site. The
school will be utilizing private bus service for some of its students, and the site has been
internally designed to accommodate that bus traffic.
12. Landscaping:
a. All landscaping shall be designed in accordance with the requirements set forth in
Chapter 18.745;
b. In addition to the open space and recreation area requirements of subsections 5 and 6
above, a minimum of 20 percent of the gross area including parking, loading and service
areas shall be landscaped; and
c. A minimum of 15 percent of the gross site area shall be landscaped.
The applicant's plans call for 28.7 percent of the site to be landscaped. Additionally, there are
areas of landscaping in the parking and service areas.
13. Drainage: All drainage plans shall be designed in accordance with the criteria in the
adopted 1981 master drainage plan;
Drainage will be reviewed under 18.810, Utilities. The narrative for the reservoir portion of the
proposal notes that the proposed storm drainage plan has been designed in accordance with
Clean Water Services (CWS) Design and Construction Standards which meet and exceed the
requirements of the 1981 master drainage plan.
14. Provision for the disabled: All facilities for the disabled shall be designed in
accordance with the requirements set forth in ORS Chapter 447; and
ALBERTA RIDER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PAGE 16 OF 44
7!17104 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER
The reservoir is not for general public access; therefore provisions for the disabled are not
required. The school is being designed in accordance with ADA requirements, and will be
reviewed specifically for this conformance during the building permit review process.
15. All of the provisions and regulations of the underlying zone shall apply unless
modified by other sections or this title, e.g., Planned Developments, Chapter 18.350; or a
variance or adjustment granted under Chapter 18.370.
The applicant is seeking four adjustments and a variance to various requirements of the
development code; however, the regulations of the underlying R-7 zone are met by the
proposal.
FINDING: The review criteria of the site development standards are met with the imposition
of the previously recommended condition of approval regarding submittal of a
lighting plan.
VARIANCES AND ADJUSTMENTS (18.370)
Fhe applicanas requested our a )us men s and a variance to accommodate the proposed
plan which is addressed in the following discussion.
Adiustment - Bicycle Parking Standards (18.765.050.E.)
The Director may approve a reduction of required bicycle parkin per Section
18.765.050.E by means of Type 11 procedure, as governed by Section 1890.040, if the
applicant can demonstrate that the proposed use by its nature would be reasonably
anticipated to generate a lesser need for bicycle parking.
The applicant has requested an adjustment to the bicycle parking standards that would be
imposed on the school as dictated by Table 18.765.2 (Minimum Parking Standards). Under
the current requirements, the school would be required to provide -6 spaces for every
classroom because it is an elementary school. Considering that there are 31 classrooms
proposed, the facility is required to provide 186 spaces.
The applicant is proposing to provide 44 spaces on site. As this is a new school, there are no
bicycle rider-ship statistics from which to establish a historical record. Nevertheless, the
applicant's architects, based on demonstrated patterns at other elementary schools in the
Tigard and Tualatin Area, estimate that 44 spaces would be more than adequate for the
approximate 600 students enrolled. The applicant analyzes the criteria for a variance
although; no variance is required for this adjustment. The evidence provided for the variance
criteria does strengthen the applicant's case to reduce the number of bicycle spaces. The
applicant notes that a majority of students will be bussed or driven by parents to the school
site. The school is located in an area of significant terrain. Students riding from the south
would need to climb up a steep hill to get to the school. Students to the north would need to
cross SW Bull Mountain Road. Other factors include the limited bicycle facilities along the
route from student's homes to the school site, the distance traveled, and whether or not the
children even have a bicycle. Based on prior adjustments ranted or bicycle reductions for
elementary school projects, and the tack of negative impacts resulting to the general public
and/or school users from granting those prior adjustments, the applicants request is
reasonable, and supported by staff.
Adiustment - Driveway Spacinq Standards (18.705.030.H.3 and 4.)
In all zoning districts where access and egress drives carinsot be readily deli^^`d to
conform to Code standards within a particular parcel,. access with an adjoining
property shall be considered. If access in conjunction with another parcel cannot
reasonably be achieved, the Director may grant an adjustment to the access
requirements of Chapter 18.705 through a Type 11 procedure, as governed in Section
18.390.030, using approval criteria contained in Subsection 2b.
ALBERTA RIDER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL. PAGE 17 OF 44
7/12104 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER
The applicant has requested an adjustment from the driveway spacing standard of 18.705
which state that on collector streets, driveways are to be spaced no closer than 200 feet from
other driveways and streets. SW Bull Mountain Road is designated as a collector street. An
existing circular driveway is present on the parcel which serves the Alberta Rider residence.
The placement of the proposed "emergency. access" drive is spaced 100 feet from the
driveway to the east and 95 feet from the dveway to the west. It is anticipated that the
driveway to the east will be eliminated with the residential development of the site, and future
extension of SW Greenfield Drive. Homes on this parcel will then be required to take access
from Greenfield and not SW Bull Mountain Road. According to the applicant, the driveway to
the west will eventually be abandoned once Mrs. Alberta Rider no longer resides on the site.
Nevertheless, the two driveways are present and there is no definitive timeline for their
removal. The applicant is seeking the adjustment to facilitate the proposed site layout.
Staff disagrees with the applicant's assertion that 1) access and egress drives cannot be
readily designed to conform to Code standards within a particular parcel, and 2) access in
conjunction with another parcel cannot reasonably be achieved.
1) The applicant has several options to design an access in conformance with Code
standards. It should be noted that access is already provided through "West Access
Street" from SW 133`x. The code requires that for parking areas of up to 99 spaces (76
proposed), one 30-foot-wide access be provided. Staff agrees that a second access is
appropriate if not necessary for the type of use proposed. However, even so, an
emergency access has been called out for the extension of Street "F" from the Summit
Ridge subdivision to the south. Staff believes that this should function as a public street
providing full access to the site. More so, there exists two access points from the Alberta
Rider residence that could be consolidated to provide the requested emergency access or
alternatively a general use access point.
2) Access with another parcel could be reasonably achieved, as it has already been
provided for through Summit Ridge, and moreover, the abutting Bartlett Parcel is in
preliminary discussions for subsequent residential development. Street and/ or access
stubs can be facilitated into that site plan, so that alternate access is obtained via the SW
Greenfield Road extension. While the argument can be made that absent a development
application, there is no assurance that this access will be made available, the fact that
Summit Ridge already provides for alternate access contradicts the criteria for granting
the adjustment.
Staff recommends rejecting the applicant's . request for the adjustment to the access
standards. As discussed later, staff recommends that the eastern access drive for the
Alberta Rider trust be consolidated with a right-in/right-out general use access point where
the emergency access is presently proposed.
Adjustment - Planter Strip Width Standards (18.810.030.A.4. E. and Table 18.810.1)
By means o a Type 11 procedure, as governed by section la. the Director shall
approve, approve with conditions, or deny a request for an adjustment to the street
improvement requirements, based on findings that the following criterion is satisfied:
Strict application of the standards will result in an unacceptably adverse impact on
existing development, on the proposed development, or on natural features such as
wetlands, steep slopes or existing mature trees. In approving an adjustment to the
standards, the Director shall determine that the potential for adverse impacts exceed
the public benefits of strict application of the standards.
The applicant has requested he adjustment to the required 5-iooi-wide J ~iiaiiier suiN
requirements along "West Access Road", due primarily to the lack of available right-of-way
width. The applicant correctly notes that this is a function of the proposed 32-foot-wide paved
width, rather than a 28-foot street section which could accommodate the full planter strip
width. But the applicant asserts that a wider street is more desirable to accommodate the
school bus traffic that will use the street. During events, parking could occur on both sides of
the street without being in violation of Tigard s street standards. The applicant is bound
somewhat by the width of the riaht-of-way based on the acquisition that occurred previously
OVIIIa+~1.1u•
from the owners of Tax Lots 1760 and 1900 which was negotiated in 1998. At that time the
ALBERTA RIDER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PAGE 18 OF 44
7112/04 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER
street standards for a 32-foot-wide street only necessitated 50 feet of right-of-way. Additional
right-of-way could be acquired through a condemnation proceeding, but staff agrees with the
applicant that this process is costly, time consuming, breeds ill-will, and has a diminutive
positive public benefit for the required planter strip width. The question then falls on whether
a wider planter strip, or wider pavement width is more appropriate given the constraints of the
available right-of-way. In these cases, deference is given to measures of safety over
measures of aesthetic design. The applicant's proposal for a narrower planter strip still
provides a public benefit, and the adverse impacts to safety are properly mitigated by a wider
pavement width. Staff concurs with the applicant and recommends granting the adjustment.
AAddaussttment_- Cul-de-sac Lenqth Limit M8.810.030.L)
By means of a'Type 11 procedure, as governs by ection 18.390.040, the Director shall
approve, approve with conditions, or deny a request for an adjustment to the street
improvement requirements; based on findings that the following criterion is satisfied:
Strict application of the. standards will result in an unacceptably adverse impact on
existing development, on the proposed development, or on natural features, such as
wetlands, steep slopes or existing mature trees. In approving an adjustment to the
standards, the Director shall determine that the potential for adverse impacts exceed
the public benefits of strict application of the standards.
The applicant has requested an adjustment to exceed the 200-foot length limit of a cul-de-
sac, and has instead proposed a 560-foot long cul-de-sac. The reason for this adjustment
request is that should the variance to street connectivity standards be granted (discussed
below), the resulting West Access Road will be terminated in a cul-de-sac. This cul-de-sac
will measure 560 feet.from the centerline of the intersecting street (SW 133rd) to the center of
the bulb radius. Strict application of the standard would require that a through street be built
approximately 200 feet from the end of the proposed cul-de-sac or that the cul-de-sac be
extended through the development site. The Transportation System Plan identifies an east-
west connection through the site between the West Access Road and future Street "H". As
staff has previously discussed, siting this street across the school site would bisect the site
and render a large portion (the portion north of the connection) undesireable for the school
campus. Moving the road to the northern edge of the property would significantly impact the
Alberta Rider trust land, and would run parallel to SW Bull Mountain Road, contradicting a
Bull Mountain Community Plan policy.
The applicant has proposed a future street plan that shows a street extending south
approximately 250 feet from the end of the cul-de-sac. Staff recommends that should the
variance to street connectivity be granted, the adjustment to the cul-de-sac length should be
granted predicated on the future southbound street being relocated 50 additional feet to the
east. Actual construction of this street is dependent on a number of factors including the
cooperation of nine (9) separate property owners and the development of. their properties.
There is insufficient right-of-way to create an actual stub for this future street, so physical
improvement of the future street will require that the curb, gutter, sidewalk, and planter strip
be removed in the area where the new street will be located.
The director finds that a cul-de-sac exceeding 200 feet will not have adverse impacts that
exceed the public benefit of strict compliance in this case. The applicant states several
reasons for the resulting cul-de-sac length including:
1) Washington County discouraged the school from having direct access to SW Bull
Mountain Road, and encouraged an access from SW 133. The distance between the
edge of the right-of-way and the school property is approximately 430 feet, preventing
a design using a cul-de-sac that would not violate the 200-foot length limit.
2) The limit on the length of the cul-de-sac serves in part to enhance response times to
emergencies in residential subdivisions as there is no other way to access the homes
than the one street entry. In this case, the school has proposed two other emergency
vehicle accesses (to the north and south of the site) to mitigate this issue.
ALBERTA RIDER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PAGE 19 OF 44
7/12/04 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER
3) The limit on cul-de-sac length may also encourage walking and bicycle riders and may
reduce vehicle trips. This is the result of an interconnected street system. In the
proposed application, the site will be accessed by four other pedestrian and bicycle
access points. These are connected internally and will allow pedestrians and
bicyclists other through routes. Essentially the cul-de-sac will only function as a dead
end for vehicles. Emergency vehicles, pedestrians, and bicycles all have alternate
routes available.
The applicant states that there is no alternate way to access the site except from SW Bull
Mountain Road. However, as staff has previously asserted, a connection via the Summit
Ridge subdivision by extending Street "F" northward would connect to the dead end West
Access Road, completing the road connection providing not only a second full access, but
also partially satisfying the street spacing standards. Nevertheless, staff concedes that if the
variance is granted to allow Street "F" to be terminated at the south property line, then an
adjustment to the length of the cul-de-sac is reasonable and supported.
FINDING: Staff supports the requested adjustment only if the variance to the street
connectivity standards is granted, and only if the future north-south street from
West Access Road is located within 200 feet of the terminus of the cul-de-sac
bulb.
Variance - Street Connectivit Standards
While adjustments to street improvement requirements are authorized by 18.810.020.D.,
.deviations from standards for planned locations of streets, alignments, and extension of
streets require that a variance be granted. The applicant has requested a variance to Section
18.810.030(H) of the Tigard Development Code which requires full street connections with
spacing of no more than 530 feet between connections except where prevented by barriers
such as topography, railroads, . freeways, pre-existing developments, lease provisions,
easements, covenants or other restrictions existing prior to May 1, 1995 which preclude street
connections. A full street connection may also be exempted due to a regulated water feature if
regulations would not permit construction. With the development of SW Greenfield Drive
(shown as "H" street on the applicant's future streets plan, Appendix J~, the approximate
distance between streets without the required connection is 1,250 feet. he code therefore
requires not one but two intervenin streets. The applicant is pro osing that only one of these
two streets be built, and that theuture street be O aced 135 feet off site and further west
through the row of abutting properties along SW 133. The resulting street spacing would be
310 feet and 940 feet instead of 470 feet and 805 feet. In either case, a variance is still
reired. The emphasis of the following analysis will be placed on the applicant's proposal to
shift the burden of the future street to the abutting properties.
Variances shall be processed by means of a Type 11 procedure, as governed by Section
18.390.040, based on funding that the following criteria are satisfied:
a. The proposed variance will not be materially detrimental to the purposes of this title,
to any other applicable policies and standards, and to other properties in the same
zoning district or vicinity;
As a means of promoting the general health, safety and welfare of the public, this title is
designed to set forth the standards and procedures governing the development and use of
land in Tigard and to implement the Tigard Comprehensive Plan. The relevant purposes of
Title 18, from 18.110.020 with respect to the requested variance are: 1. Ensure that the
development of property within the City is commensurate with the physical characteristics of
the land, and in general, to promote and protect the public health, safety, convenience and
welfare; 6. Provide for the orderly and efficient transition from rural to urban land use;
7. Afford an efficient and orderly development and arrangement of public services and
facilities within the City; 8. Provide for and encourage a safe, convenient and economic
transportation system within the City;
Staff disagrees with the applicant's argument that granting a variance to the requirement for
street connectivity will not be detrimental to the purpose of "providing for and encouraging a
safe, convenient, and economic transportation system". These standards were adopted
primarily to further the goals of an interconnected transportation network with various routes
ALBERTA RIDER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PAGE 20 OF 44
7/1204 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER
of travel available, to increase travel route choices, and provide for more direct connections.
Staff understands that to apply universally this standard for street connections every 530 feet
is not in all senses practical, and if applied to this property would in fact create two bisecting
north-south streets, and one bisecting east-west street. With consideration given to the
nature of the proposed institutional use, and its required consolidated land requirements, staff
made provisions for a single street to run along the edge of the property, to maintain a whole
campus, uninterrupted by a bisecting street. In this sense, staff supports the variance for
additional streets beyond "F" street, although the Transportation System Plan (a
subdocument of the Comprehensive Plan, and policy document for transportation
requirements within the City) calls for an east west street between "West Access Road" and
the Greenfield Road extension, also referred to as Street "H".
Moreover, as mentioned previously, a full street connection to SW 133`d through Summit
Ridge is not assured. There is pending litigation that may affect that developmeant from
building the street connection, and corresponding road improvements along SW 133` . If this
is the case, residents within Summit Ridge, Bella Vista, and forthcoming Arlington Heights 111,
and Arbor Summit I and 11 would be required to travel north via the Greenfield Road
extension, turn left onto SW Bull Mountain Road, travel % mile to SW 133` and turn left
again, to the West Access Road, where they would turn left again into the site. Contrast this
with a road system within Summit Ridge and the other developments that can accommodate
residents traveling to the school site without the need to use Bull Mountain Road at all.
The applicant argues that complete absolution of this requirement is required, or at least a
transfer of the requirement from the subject application to forecasted developments to the
west. However, the applicant then goes on to state that "not granting the variance would be.
detrimental to property owners to the west of the school, as they would lose some of the trees
and shrubbery along the property line, and much of the privacy they currently enjoy. They
would also be impacted by increased traffic noise." It is difficult to imagine a scenario where
a road on the border of the applicant's property creates a greater impact to the western
properties than a road running througgh the center of them. Unless the anticipated outcome is'
really that no road could be built at all.
To exact right-of-way, there must be a rational nexus (impacts from trip generation) and the
. exaction should be roughly proportionate. In a 4 lot subdivision, the value of the impact is
approximately $31,625. Half street improvements are valued at roughly $200 a linear foot,
and Sight-of-way dedication is about $3 a square foot. After dedicating right-of-way on SW
133` and improving the street, the lots which average 100 feet in width, will have spent
$20,600 in street im rovements and dedications even before the right-of-way for the
applicant's proposed future street is discussed. A 50-foot-wide street complete with curbs,
gutters, sidewalks and street trees, 100 feet in length is valued at approximately $45.000.
The exaction would not pass muster when applied individually to each property partition.
Also, coordination is a key concern with this proposal. To continue the street, the order in
which the developments occurred would need to be sequential either from the south to the
north or north to the south. Does. this satis~ the purpose of providing for the orderly and
efficient transition from rural to urban land use. Staff finds in the negative.
Compare also, the applicant's trip generation, with the impacts from subsequent residential
development of the western properties. The applicant is generating a significant amount of
traffic (665 daily trips, Applicants Exhibit H, p.18). The applicant's concept plan for future
development of western properties (Exhibit 0) shows that the proposed future street would
create opportunities for 18 additional home sites or roughly 180 additional trips. Clearly the
impact is preponderantly upon the applicant's proposal, and thus the applicant should
shoulder the burden of the mitigation factor.
b. There are special circumstances that exist which are peculiar to the lot size or
shape, topography or other circumstances over which the applicant has no control,
and which are not applicable to other properties in the same zoning district;
ALBERTA RIDER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PAGE 21 OF 44
7/12/04 PUBUC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER
In this case, staff has found that there are circumstances over which the applicant has no
control, namely the operational characteristics of an elementary school. As noted previously,
staff agrees that streets that bisect through a campus could have deleterious impacts on
student safety, make facilities management troublesome, and could in effect render the "other
side of the road" not useable or at least undesirable for school activities.
However, the applicant argues that the site is constrained by topography and lot shape;
however, these are not in and of themselves reasons to not meet code requirements. The
development code provides some guidance in these matters when it comes to street
connection requirements: connections are required "except where prevented, by. barriers such
as topography, railroads, freeways: pre-existing developments, lease provisions, easements,
covenants or other restrictions existing prior to May 1, 1995 which preclude street connections.
A full street connection may also be exempted due to a regulated water feature if regulations
would not permit construction." Even the topographical issue is defined by the standard "Land
is considered topographically constrained if the slope is greater than 15% for a distance of
250 feet or more. In the case of environmental or topographical constraints, the mere
presence of a constraint is not sufficient to show that a street connection is not possible. The
applicant must show why the constraint precludes some reasonable street
connection."[18.810.030.H.2]. There is an elevation increase of 16 feet over the course of
387 feet, for an average slope between control points f"F" street and "West Access Road") of
4%.
The applicant notes other examples where the City has not imposed this requirement. These
examples do not reflect the full set of circumstances and, it should be noted that conditional
use applications are, by definition, "certain uses which due to the nature of the impacts on
surrounding land uses and public facilities require a case-by-case review and analysis." In
these other cases, there were matters of pre-existing developments that prevented the street
connection, the required street would have bisected the school site, which staff has
concurred is not an appropriate remedy in this case either, or existing street networks were
already in place, or the area was largely urban already with less need for requisite street
connections to be established.
c. 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
reasonable economic use of the land;
Staff agrees that a variance to the standards for requiring full compliance with the street
connectivity standards is appropriate, rather than requiring a second north-south street
located to fhe east, as well as an east-west street somewhere on the property. This will allow
the useto be the same as permitted under this title and permit reasonable economic use of
the land. By requiring only a single connecting street along the west property boundary, City
standards will be maintained to the greatest extent that is reasonably possible for this site.
d. Existing physical and natural systems, such as but not limited to traffic, drainage,
dramatic land orms or parks will not be adversely affected an more than would occur
if the development were developed as specified in the title; ana
Traffic would be impacted by shifting the bulk of north-bound traffic onto SW 133rd a
substandard street, rather than restricting the bulk of the trip generation to within the
develo gents that created them. An even greater impact will result should a connection to
SW 13 not be available through Summit Ridge, as discussed previously.
e. The hardship is not self-imposed and the variance requested is the minimum
variance which would alleviate the hardship.
The hardship is the result of a code requirement, and the applicant's desire to develop a
school on the site. The operational characteristics of the school are unique and beyond the
applicant's control. Staff agrees that a variance to the standards for requiring full compliance
with the street connectivity standards is appropriate, and recommends minimizing the degree
of this variance by requiring only a single connecting street along the west property boundary
rather than requiring a second north-south street located to the east, as well as an east-west
street somewhere on the property having the effect of bisecting the site.
ALBERTA RIDER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PAGE 22 OF 44
vivo4 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER
FINDINGS: Staff supports the adjustments to reduce the planter strip width and bicycle
parking requirement.
Staff does not support the adjustment to driveway spacing on SW Bull Mountain
Road as proposed. Staff recommends that the eastern driveway for the Alberta
Rider trust be consolidated into the School's proposed access, and that this
access be redesigned for general use, provided it allows only right in/ right out
movements.
Staff only supports the requested adjustment to cul-de-sac length in the event
that the street connection is not required. In this case, the future street should
be required to be aligned approximately 200 feet from the end of the cul-de-sac,
in order to substantially conform to this requirement.
Staff supports the requested variance to reduce the number of streets required
by the street connectivity and spacing standard;. however, staff recommends
minimizing the degree of the variance and assigning the bulk of the traffic
impact mitigation ation to the subject proposal by requiring a single north south
connection (via an extension of Street "F") from the Summit Ridge Subdivision.
RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS (18.510)
The - oi g district is designed to accommodate detached single-family housing at
a minimum lof size of 5,000 square feet. A wide range of civic and institutional uses
are also permitted conditionally.
Section 18.510.050 states that Development standards in Residential zoning districts are
contained in Table 18.510.2, however, because the proposed use requires conditional use
approval, the stricter standards of the conditional use section apply. The only standards that
are not specifically 'regulated by the Conditional Use chapter are lot coverage and building
height. The maximum lot coverage within the R-7 zoning district is 80%, the applicant has
proposed 71.3% coverage. The maximum height requirement is 35 feet, and the applicant
has proposed that the buildings will not exceed 35 feet in height. The remaining standards
are exceeded by the conditional use requirements.
FINDING: Based on the analysis above, the underlying zone's development standards are
met or exceeded. This criterion is satisfied.
ACCESS, EGRESS AND CIRCULATION (18.705)
No buuil ing or other permit s'ir6e issue until scaled plans are presented and
approved as provided by this chapter that show how access, egress and circulation
requirements are to be fulfilled. The applicant shall submit a site plan.
Because the parking lot will _provide less than 100 spaces, the TDC requires a minimum of
one 30-foot access with 24 et of pavement. The applicant is proposing to Improve "West
Access Road" to a public street standard. Access off of this road is shown as a 30-foot-wide
entry for cars, and a separate 40-foot-wide entry for busses. The site plans show how this
access is provided.
All vehicular access and egress as required in Sections 18.705.030H and 18.705.0301
shall connect directly with a public or private street approved by the City for public use
and shall be maintained at the required standards on a continuous basis.
Tha Sita has frontage onto three public roads; SW Bull Mountain. Road, "West Access Road",
and an approved right-of-way through the Summit Ridge subdivision, Streef. The
applicant bas roposed an emergency access to SW "Bull Mountain Road. Staff has
recommended that the adjustment necessary to establish this access be reejjected and the
access be redesigned for general use consolidating one of the two Alberta Rider accesses
and limiting the turning movements at this access to right In/ right out only. If "F" street is not
extended, this right-of-way may revert to private street ownership, and the applicant would
need to neotia a emergency vehicular access easements. All other access will be to a
public street as required, by this standard; The water reservoir is not required to provide
access as there is no parking area. This criterion is satisfied.
ALBERTA RIDER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PAGE 23 OF 44
7112(04 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER
Required Walkway Location
On-site pedestrian walkways shall comply with the following standards:
Walkways shall extend from the ground floor entrances or from the ground floor
landing of stairs, ramps, or elevators of all commercial, institutional, and industrial
usesi to the streets which provide the required access and egress. Walkways shall
provide convenient connections between buildings in multi-building commercial,
institutional, and industrial complexes. Unless impractical, walkways shall be
constructed between new and existing developments and neighboring developments;
The site plan shows walkways throughout the site from the adjacent streets to the building.
Walkways are not needed to the reservoir, as it Js not an occupiable building and will be
placed below ground. This criterion is satisfied.
Within all attached housing (except two-family dwellings) and multi-family
developments, each residential dwelling shall be connected by walkway to the
vehicular parking area, and common open space and recreation facilities;
This criterion is not applicable to this proposal.
Wherever required walkways cross vehicle access driveways or parking lots, such
crossings shall be designed and located.for pedestrian safety. Required walkways
shall be physically separated from motor vehicle traffic and parking by either a
minimum 6-inch vertical separation (curbed) or a minimum 3-foot horizontal
separation, except that pedestrian crossings of traffic aisles are permitted for
distances no greater than 36 feet if appropriate landscaping, pavement markings, or
contrasting pavement materials are used. Walkways shall be a minimum of four feet in
width exclusive of vehicle overhangs and obstructions such as mailboxes, benches,
bicycle racks, and sign posts, and shall be in compliance with ADA standards;
The applicant's plans show there are no required walkways crossing the vehicular access or
parking area. All proposed sidewalks are concrete. The sidewalks meet or exceed the
minimum width of four feet. This criterion is satisfied.
Required walkways shall be paved with hard surfaced materials such as concrete,
asphalt, stone brick, etc. Walkways may be required to be lighted and/or signed as
needed for safety purposes. Soft-surfaced public use pathways may be provided only
if such pathways are provided in addition to required pathways.
The applicant is proposing to construct all sidewalks with concrete materials. Additional
information regarding lighting will be required to assure that adequate illumination is provided.
Access Managrament (Section 18.705.030.H):
Section 18.705.030.H.1 states that an access report shall be submitted with all new
development proposals which verifies design of driveways and streets are safe by
meetingg adequate stacking needs, sight distance and deceleration standards as set by
ODOT, Washington County, the City and AASHTO.
A Traffic Impact Analysis report by Kittelson addresses sight distance at the intersection of
133 Avenue and Bull Mountain Road. The report indicates that sight distance can be met
by trimming existing hedges along the frontage. Kittelson did not address sight distance at
the intersection of the new east west street and 13Sd Avenue and the proposed new
Ari„o,•,a., ctwtf rarOrnmands that the applicant's engineer provide preliminary certification of
adequa{e sight distance for all of these access points. Along with the preliminary certification,
the applicant's engineer should provide a detailed list of improvements necessary to produce
adequate sight distance at each intersection and driveway. Finally, staff recommends that
the applicant's engineer provide final sight distance certification for all access locations.
The applicant has indicated that visual clearance areas can be met. Staff recommends that
the visual clearance areas for all intersections and access points be clearly indicated.on the
permit drawings for staff review.
ALBERTA RIDER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PAGE 24 OF 44
7/,2104 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER
Section 18.705.030.H.2 states that driveways shall not be permitted to be placed in the
influence area of collector or arterial street intersections. Influence area of
intersections is that area where queues of traffic commonly form on approach to an
intersection. The minimum driveway setback from a collector or arterial street
intersection shall be150 feet, measured from the right-of-way line of the intersecting
street to the throat of the proposed driveway. The setback may be greater depending
upon the influence area, as determined from City Engineer review of a traffic impact
report submitted by the a plicant's traffic engineer. In a case where a project has less
than 150 feet of street frrontage, the applicant must explore any option for shared
access with the adjacent parcel. If shared access is not possible or practical, the
driveway shall be placed as far from the intersection as possible.
Bull Mountain Road is classified as a collector. There are no proposed driveways within the
influence area of a collector intersection.
Section 18.705.030.H.3 and 4 states that the minimum spacing of driveways and
streets along a collector shall be 200 feet. The minimum spacing of driveways and
streets along an arterial shall be 600 feet. The minimum spacing of local streets along
a local street shall be 125 feet.
The applicant has requested an adjustment to the driveway spacing standard for the
proposed emergency access point. Kittelson & Associates, inc. has submitted a Traffic
impact Analysis, dated April 15, 2004, for the proposed development. The proposed access
is intended to be a gated, emergency access and is located approximately 100 feet west of
the driveway to the east of this site and 95 feet east of Alberta Rider's west driveway. The
applicant argues that they should not eliminate one of the Rider driveways and there is not
another location for access that would not require an adjustment: Staff agrees that there is
no other location along the frontage that would not require an adjustment, but that does not
mean that there isn't a better alternative. A driveway or public street connection to Bull
Mountain Road could. be provided at the west end of the project frontage. The private
driveway just west of this property could then share the access point. Also, staff disagrees
with leaving both of the Rider driveways open just because they have always been there.
One of the driveways should be eliminated in an effort to come closer to compliance with the
spacing standards. Staff therefore recommends that the adjustment, as requested, be
rejected. As an alternative, staff would recommend that the applicant eliminate Rider's east
driveway and construct a driveway where proposed, but with restricted movement. The
restriction would be that the driveway functions as a right-in, right-cut only with a raised
median in the driveway throat and that a raised medium be constructed in Bull Mountain
Road to, prevent east-bound left-turn lanes into the site. This driveway would not be gated
and would better serve site circulation by allowing parents dropping off children to exit the site
without returning to the area where the buses are routed.
FINDING: There is inadequate information provided to determine whether the pathways
will be sufficiently lit. The proposed access to SW Bull Mountain Road does not
meet standards for spacing; however, compliance is addressed through a
previous condition.
CONDITION: Provide a final lighting plan that indicates the lighting levels for the pathways on
site. Ensure that all lighting on site will not cause glare (measured as 1-foot
candle at the property line) to adjacent properties.
ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE STANDARDS - CHAPTER 18.725:
Requires t at a era an state environmental aws, rules an regu ations be applied to
development within the City of Tigard. Section 18.725.030 Performance Standards
regulates: Noise, visible emissions, vibration and odors.
Noise. For the purposes of noise regulation, the provisions of Sections 7.41.130 through
7.40.210 of the Tigard Municipal Code shall apply.
ALBERTA RIDER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PAGE 25 OF 44
7/11!04 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER
Visible Emissions. Within the Commercial zoning districts and the Industrial Park I-P)
zoning district, there shall be no use, operation or activity which results in a stack or
other point- source emission, other than an emission from space heating, or the
emission of pure uncombined water (steam) which Is visible from a proper line.
Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) rules for visible emissions (340-21-0ty5 and
340-28.070) apply.
Vibration. No vibration other than that caused by highway vehicles, trains and aircraft is
permitted in an given zoning district, which is discernible without instruments at the
property line of he use concerned.
Odors. The emissions of odorous gases or other matter in such quantities as to be
readily detectable at any point beyond the pproperty line of the use creating the odors is
prohibited. DEQ rules for odors (340-028.090) apply.
Glare and heat. No direct or sky reflected glare, whether from floodlights or from high
temperature processes such as combustion or welding, which is visible at the lot line
shall be permitted, and; 1) there shall be no emission or transmission of heat or heated
air which is discernible at the lot line of the source; and 2, these regulations shall not
apply to signs or floodlights in parking areas or construction equipment at the time of
construction or excavation work otherwise permitted by this title.
Insects and rodents. All materials including wastes shall be stored and all grounds
shall be maintained in a manner which will not attract or aid the propagation of insects
or rodents or create a health hazard.
There is no evidence in the record that would suggest that any problems associated with noise,
emissions, vibrations, odors, glare and heat, or insects and rodents would result from this
specific development, A search of City records does not indicate any code enforcement
issues associated with the existing on going use.
FINDING: Based on the information provided by the applicant, the use of the property will
conform to the above requirements. If for some reason the above standards
were in question, and it was subsequently found that the use was out of
compliance with any of the above standards, the property owner would be
subject to code enforcement, court review, possible fines, and revocation of the
Conditional Use Permit.
CONDITION:The applicant shall place the following note on all construction documents:
The City of Tigard noise ordinance prohibits construction activity in excess of 40
decibels between 9:00 PM and 7:00 AM Monday through Friday, and between
9:00 PM and 8:00 AM on Saturday and Sunday.
LANDSCAPING AND SCREENING - CHAPTER 18.745:
Street trees: Section saes a a evelopment projects fronting on a
public street shall be required to plant street trees in accordance with Section
18.745.040.C Section 18.745.040.0 required that street trees be spaced between 20
and 40 feet apart depending on the size classification of the tree at maturity (small,
medium or large).
The project will be improving "West Access Road" to public street standards, as well as
conducting frontage improvements on SW Bull Mountain Road. Also, if the variance to the
street connectivity standards is denied, Street "F" will be extended through the property. Street
trees will be required along each of these streets. For "F" street and SW Bull Mountain Road,
only one side will require trees, for "Access Road West" trees are needed on both sides.
Land Use Buffering and Screening:
Buffering and Screening is required between different types of land uses.
ALBERTA RIDER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PAGE 26 OF 44
7/12/04 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER
The proposed facility is in a residential zone and is adjacent to residential uses on three sides.
There are no specific buffering requirements for this use. The only requirement applicable to
this development is the screening of the parking area which is discussed in the next segment of
this discussion. This criterion is satisfied.
Screening of parking and loading areas is required. Landscaped parking areas shall
include special design features, which effectively screen the parking lot areas from
view. These design features may include the use of landscaped berms, decorative
walls and raised planters;
The applicant's proposal includes a 76 space parking lot with a bus loading/unloading area.
The bus area abuts residential prope~y to the west. The parking lot will be buffered by the
Alberta Rider life estate on the north, fhe bus area on the west, the school grounds on the
south, and lies near the abutting residential property to the east. For the property to the east,
an approximate-7-foot fill is proposed. This will elevate the lights from cars over any fence
that the abutting properly owner could build. Therefore it is imperative that landscaping and/
or screening be provided at the edge of the parking lot to shield both the cars and headlights.
Staff notes that the applicant has shown an existing tree proposed to be retained in the midst
of five feet of fill. This tree will not be a viable screen. On the vest side, the bus area is
proposed to be screened by a row of Oregon Grape. It should be noted that the proposed
andscape plan does not include a large amount of information related to the quantity of plant
materials and is therefore impossible to determine whether adequate plants are provided.
Generally, Oregon grape is not an adequate screen when planted in a single row, and will
need to be supplemented. However, if F" street is extended, this may impact the layout of
the bus loading area. Likewise, should the emergency access currently proposed to access
SW Bull Mountain Road be relocated, then revisions to the parking lot may result as well. In .
any case, the proposed landscape screening is inadequate.
Trees shall be planted in landscaped islands in all parking areas, and shall be equally
distributed and on the basis of one tree for each seven parking spaces in order to
provide a canopy effect; and
For the proposed 76 spaces, 11 trees are required. The applicant's plan indicates that there
will be twelve trees planted within the interior of the new parking area. The trees are
proposed in a location that, at maturity would meet the standards of the development code by
providing a canopy effect over the parking area. This criterion is satisfied.
The minimum dimension of the landscape islands shall be three feet and the
landscaping shall be protected from. vehicular damage by some form of wheel guard or
curb.
The site plan shows that the new planting will occur in islands within the parking area; however,
no dimensions are evident on the plans and it is therefore not possible to find that this standard
is met. The applicant will need to submit a revised site plan that clearly dimensions the size of
the landscape islands. The islands will be protected gy six-inch curb. This criterion is not
satisfied.
FINDING: The landscaping standards are not met
CONDITION: Prior to issuance of a public facility permit, the applicant shall submit a revised
landscaping plan that shows:
A. Street trees along both sides of West Access Road, and one side of SW Bull
Mountain Road, and F Street if applicable. Species selection shall be as
recommended by the City Forester and planted at the required spacing. Such
trees shall be installed pnor to final building inspection.
B. Additional screening (vegetation or a sight obscuring fence) along the western
edge of the bus loading area and the eastern edge of the parking area.
C. Dimensions of the landscape islands to demonstrate that tree planting areas
have a minimum 3 feet of width.
ALBERTA RUDER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PAGE V OF 44
7t12l04 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER
MIXED SOLID WASTE AND RECYCLABLES STORAGE - CHAPTER 18.755:
Chap er requires a new construction incorporates functional and adequate
space for on-site storage and efficient collection of mixed solid waste and source
separated Recyclables prior to pick-up and removal by haulers.
The. applicant must choose one (1)_ of the following four (4) methods to demonstrate
compliance: Minimum Standard, Waste Assessment, Comprehensive Recycling Plan,
or Franchised Hauler Review and Sign-Off. The applicant will have to submit evidence
or a plan, which indicates compliance with this section. Regardless of which method
chosen, the applicant will have to submit a written sign-off from the franchise hauler
regarding the facility location and compatibility.
The applicant indicates in their narrative that they have selected the "franchised review method"
and that the waste hauler (see letter from Pride Disposal Company, Exhibit 'M') has reviewed
and approved the plans. The narrative further states that due to the contours of the site, a
compact waste enclosure area was required to minimize grading and that the turning radii will
accommodate garbage trucks. The proposed trash enclosure area is near the kitchen, in the
northeast comer of the building.
FINDING: Exhibit'M' shows a fully enclosed trash facility with doors. Gate openings shall be
a minimum of 10 feet wide in compliance with Section 18.755.050. The
applicant's plans do not appear to comply with this standard. A condition is
warranted to meet the standard.
CONDITION: The applicant shall revise the site plan to indicate how Section 18.755.050
compliance will be attained.
OFF-STREET PARKING AND LOADING (18.7651
he time o f the erec ion of a new structure within any zoning district, off-street
vehicle parking will be provided in accordance with Section 18.765.070.
The subject site is located within the Metro Zone B. The maximum number of parkin spaces
that can be provided by the elementary school is 3.5 spaces per classroom. Therefore, the
maximum number of parking spaces for the site based on 31 classrooms would be 109
spaces. The minimum parking standards are as follows: The minimum amount of parking
required by the facility is 2.0 spaces per classroom. As such, the minimum parking
requirement for the elementary school will be 62 parking spaces. The applicant has
proposed 76 on-site spaces. This criterion is satisfied.
With regard to access to public streets from off-street parking:
Access drives from the street to off-street parking or loading areas shall be designed
and constructed to facilitate the flow of traffic and provide maximum safety for
ppedestrian and vehicular traffic on the site; The number and size of access drives shall
be in accordance with the requirements of Chapter, 18.705, Access, Egress and
Circulation;
As discussed earlier in this report, this criterion is satisfied.
Access drives shall be clearly and permanently marked and defined through use of
rails, fences, walls or other barriers or markers on frontage not occupied by service
drives;
The access will be marked by directional arrows and framed by standard concrete apron and
curb returns. This criterion is met.
Access drives shall have a minimum vision clearance in accordance with Chapter
18.795, Visual Clearance;
Vision Clearance is discussed later in this report and the applicant has included a plan
demonstrating compliance (Plan Sheet V1.0). This criterion is satisfied.
ALBERTA RIDER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PAGE 28 OF 44
7/12104 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER
Access drives shall be improved with an asphalt or concrete surface;
The proposed access and parking areas will be paved with asphalt. The applicant has
indicated that all parking areas will be paved and marked accordingly. This criterion is
satisfied.
Excluding single-family and duplex residences, except as provided by Subsection
18.810.030P, groups of two or more parking spaces shall be served b a service drive
so that no backing movements or other maneuvering within a streeror other public
right-of-way will be required.
The parking spaces are serviced by two-way access proposed within this project, and there is
room for service vehicles to turn around and enter the street so that no backing movement
will be required. This criterion is satisfied.
Loading/unloading driveways:
A driveway designed for continuous forward flow of passenger vehicles for the
purpose of loading and unloading passengers shall be located on the site of any
school or other meeting place which is designed to accommodate more than 25 people
at one time.
The applicant has proposed a large loading area in the front of the school building, in addition
to the bus loading area. This criterion is satisfied.
Parking Lot Striping:
Except for single-family and duplex residences, any area intended to be used to meet
the off-street parking requirements as contained in this Chapter shall have all parking
spaces clearly marked; and all interior drives and access aisles shall be clearly
marked and signed to show direction of flow and maintain vehicular and pedestrian
safety.
The applicant's plans show that the parking lot will be striped for carpool, handicapped, and
compact spaces. Travel directional arrows are also indicated. This criterion is satisfied.
Wheel Stops:
Parking spaces along the boundaries of a parking lot or adjacent to interior landscaped
areas or sidewalks shall be provided with a wheel stop at least four inches high located
three feet back from the front of the parking stall. The front three feet of the parking stall
may be concrete, asphalt or low lying landscape material that does not exceed the height
of the wheel stop. This area cannot be calculated to meet landscaping or sidewalk
requirements.
The applicant indicates that they will place 6, inch concrete curbs at the edges of paving
adjacent to planting areas on the drawings. This criterion is satisfied.
Space and Aisle Dimensions:
Table 18.765.1. outlines the minimum dimensions for angled parking.
All parkin. is perpendicuiar. Staff review of the parking plan illustrates compliance with
Figure 18.765.1. This criterion is satisfied.
M n mum Bicycle Parking Requirements:
The total number of required bicycle parking spaces for each use is specified in Table
18.765.2 in Section 18.T65.070.H.
Bicycle parking was discussed previously in this report, and staff has recommended approval of
an adjustment to the bicycle parking standards.. The applicant. has proposed providing 44
bicycle spaces. By granting the adjustment, this standard is satisfied.
ALBERTA RIDER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PAGE 29 OF 44
7112104 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER
Off-street loading requirements:
Off-street loading spaces: Commercial, industrial and institutional buildings or
structures to be built or altered which receive and distribute material or merchandise
by truck shall provide and maintain off-street loading and maneuvering space as
follows:
• A minimum of one loading space is required for buildings with 10,000 gross
square feet or more*
• A minimum of two loading spaces for buildings with 40,000 gross square feet or
more.
Off-street loading dimensions:
e Each loading berth shall be approved by the City Engineer as to design and
location;
o Each loading g space shall have sufficient area for turning and maneuvering of
vehicles on e site. At a minimum, the maneuvering length shall not be less than
twice the overall length of the longest vehicle using the facility site;
e Entrances and exits for the loading areas shall be provided at locations approved
by the City Engineer in accordance with Chapter 18.710;
Screening for off-street loading facilities is required and shall be the same as
screening for parking lots in accordance with Chapter 18.745.
Because of the size of the building, the facility would be required to provide two (2) off-street
loading spaces to meet the standard. The applicant has indicated that the existing bus
loading area in addition to the loading area in front of the school building would be utilized to
satisfy this criterion. This criterion is satisfied.
FINDING: The parking standards are met.
SIGNS (18.780):
Requires a a permit be issued for any sign that is erected, re-erected, constructed,
structurally altered, or relocated within the City Limits.
FINDING: The applicant has not provided the needed information to issue a sign permit
because it is not necessary to do so at this time. It shall be noted that the
applicant's plans show a sign proposed for the center of the cul-de-sac bulb,
which is public right-of-way. This is prohibited by the sign ordinance.
CONDITION: Prior to placement of any signs on site, the applicant shall apply for a sign
permit and supply staff with the appropriate plans to verify compliance with TDC
Chapter 18.780.
TREE REMOVAL - CHAPTER 18.790:
Section 18.790. $ requires a a tree Van for the planting, removal and protection of
trees prepared by a certified arborist be provided for a conditional use application.
The tree plan shall include identification of all existing trees, Identification of a
program to save existing trees or mitigate tree removal over 12 inches in caliper,
identification of which trees are proposed to be removed, and a protection program
defining standards and methods that will be used by the applicant to protect trees
during and after construction.
The applicant has provided a tree survey and removal plan from David Halstead of Halstead
Arboriculture Consultants, Inc. According to the plan, there are 109 trees over 12 inches on
site. Of these 109, 47 trees are considered hazardous. Of the remaining 62 trees, only 9 are
proposed for removal to accommodate the proposed construction. This represents a removal
of less than 25% and thus no mitigation is required; However, depending on the final
outcome of the hearings officer's decision; site plan revisions could result and consequently
changes to the tree plan would be required. Therefore, to address tkis requirement a
condition shall be imposed that the applicant submit a final tree removal and protection plan
prior to commencing site activitgel hat identifies the trees to be removed, and the trees to be
protected. Mitigation will then based on the final tabulation of trees removed to those
retained, per 18.790.030.
ALBERTA RIDER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PAGE 30 OF 44
7117104 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER
The applicant's arborist also submitted several recommendations for treatment of existing
trees to be retained. These recommendations will need to be implemented prior to final
building inspection. Tree protection measures were also outlined. These measures will need
to be followed throughout construction.
FINDING: The applicant's arborist proposed tree protection measures that would be
necessary in order to ensure the viability of those trees that are in close
proximity to the construction areas as required by Section 18.790.030(B)(4).
CONDITIONS:
o Prior to commencing site activity, the applicant shall submit a final tree removal
and protection plan that identifies the trees to be removed, and the trees to be
protected. Mitigation will then be based on the final tabulation of trees removed
to those retained, per 18.790.030.
e Prior to final building inspection, the applicant shall ensure that the
recommendations of the project arborst regarding tree care have been
implemented.
o The applicant shall provide the City Arbodst with a construction sequence
including installation and removal of tree protection devices, clearing, grading,
and paving.
The applicant shall notify the City Arborist when tree protection measures are
in place so that he may verify that the measures will function properly prior to
construction.
VISUAL CLEARANCE AREAS - CHAPTER 18195:
Section ,saes a the provisions of this chapter shall apply to all
development including the construction of new structures, the remodeling of existing
structures and to a change of use which increases the on-site parking or loading
requirements or which changes the access requirements.
Section 18.795.030.8. states that a clear vision area shall contain no vehicle, hedge,
planting, fence, wall structure or temporary or permanent obstruction (except for an
occasional utility pole or tree), exceeding three feet in height, measured from the top
of the curb, or where no curb exists, from the street center line grade, except that trees
exceeding this height may be located in this area, provided all branches below eight
feet are removed.
The applicant has indicated that visual clearance areas can be met. Staff recommends that
the visual clearance areas for all intersections and access points be clearly indicated on the
permit drawings for staff review.
FINDING: Based on the analysis above, the vision clearance standards can be met.
CONDITION: Staff recommends that the visual clearance areas for all intersections and
access points be clearly indicated on the permit drawings for staff review along
with recommendations by the applicant's engineer to achieve clear vision and
adequate sight distance.
STREET AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS STANDARDS CHAPTER-18.810:
Chapter provides construction standards or the imp emen a Ion of public and
private facilities and utilities such as streets, sewers, and drainage. The applicable
standards are addressed below:
Streets:
Improvements:
Section 18.810.030.A.1 states that streets within a development and streets adjacent
shall be improved in accordance with the TDC standards.
ALBERTA RIDER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PAGE 31 OF 44
7/11!04 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER
Section 18,810.030.A.2 states that any new street or additional street width planned as
a _portion of an existing street shall be dedicated and improved in accordance with the
TDC.
Minimum Rights-of-Way and Street Widths: Section 18.810.030.E requires an arterial
street to have a 64 to 128 foot right-of-way width and varied paved .section. Other
improvements required may include on-street parking, sidewalks and bikeways,
underground utilities, street lighting, storm drainage, and street trees.
This site lies adjacent to SW Bull Mountain Road, which is classified as a Collector on the
City of Tigard Transportation Plan Map. At present, there is approximately 20 feet of ROW
from centerline, according to the most recent tax assessor's map. The applicant should
dedicate additional ROW to provide for 35 feet from centerline.
SW Bull Mountain Road is currently partially improved. In order to mitigate the impact from
this development, the applicant should construct half-street improvements along the frontage
in compliance with the City of Tigard standards for a collector.
Street F should be extended from the Summit Ridge development to the new east-west
street. The applicant has not shown this street extension and has applied for a variance to
the connectivity standards. Staff does not support this variance and the applicant should
construct the % street improvements necessary to make this connection.
Future Street Plan and Extension of Streets: Section 18.810.030.E states that a future
street plan shall be filed which shows the pattern of existing and proposed future
streets from the boundaries of the proposed land division. This section also states
that where it is necessary to give access or permit a satisfactory future division of
adjoining land, streets shall be extended to the boundary lines of the tract to be
developed and a barricade shall be constructed at the end of the street. These street
stubs to adjoining properties are not considered to be cul-de-sacs since they are
intended to continue as through streets at such time as the adjoining property is
developed. A barricade shall be constructed at the end of the street by the property
owners which shall not be removed until authorized by the City Engineer, the cost of
which shall be included in the street construction cost. Temporary hammerhead
turnouts or temporary cul-de-sac bulbs shall be constructed for stub streets in excess
of 150 feet in length.
The applicant has provided a future streets plan that shows a north-south street bisecting the
residential lots to the west of the school site. This plan shifts the burden of improvements from a
project generating over 600 daily trips to individual property owners. The improvements should
e done with the development that generates those trips. The Summit Ridge development to
the south has aligned Street F with their west property line in order to provide the alignment that
has the least impact to the school layout. The improvements for F Street would include 35 feet
of ROW in order to provide a minimum 24-foot paved section.
Street Aliggnment and Connections:
Section 18.810.030.H.1 states that full street connections with spacing of no more than
530 feet between connections is required except where prevented by barriers such as
topography, railroads, freeways, pre-existing developments, lase provisions,
easements covenants or other restrictions existing prior to May 1, 1995 which
preclude sheet connections. A full street connection may also be exempted due to a
regulated water feature if regulations would not permit construction.
Section 18.810.030.H.2 states that all local, neighborhood routes and collector streets
which abut a development site shall be extended within the site to provide through
circulation when not precluded by environmental or topographical constraints,
existing development patterns or strict adherence to other standards in this code. A
street connection or extension is precluded when it is not possible to redesign, or
reconfigure the street pattern to provide required extensions. Land is considered
topographically constrained if the slope is greater than 15% for a distance of 250 feet
or more. In the case of environmental or to o ra hical constraints, the mere presence
of a constraint is not sufficient to show that a sheet connection is not possible. The
applicant must show why the constraint precludes some reasonable street connection.
ALBERTA RIDER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PAGE 32 OF 44
7/12/04 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER
The Kittelson report suggests that even if Street F is extended it would not meet the 530-foot
spacing, but their proposal of moving the connection further west makes the spacing fall
further out of compliance rather than moving it 'closer to compliance with the spacing
standard. Staff recommends that the applicant be required to provide a public street
connection between the Summit Ridge development and the new east-west street. This
recommendation is less than is required if strictly adhering to the 530-foot spacing, as
another north-south connection could be required.
Cul-de-sacs: 18.810.0301 states that a cul-de-sac shall be no more than 200 feet long,
shall not provide access to greater than 20 dwelling units, and shall only be used when
environmental or topogra hical constraints, existing development pattern, or strict
adherence to other standards in this code preclude street extension and through
circulation:
• All cul-de-sacs shall terminate with a turnaround. Use of turnaround
configurations other than circular shall be approved by the City Engineer; and
• The len th of the cul-de-sac shall be measured from the centerline intersection
ppoint ofgthe two streets to the radius point of the bulb, and
e If a cul-de-sac is more than 300 feet long, a lighted direct pathway to an adjacent
street may be required to be provided and dedicated to the City.
The applicant's plan shows a cul-de-sac in excess of 200 feet in length. An adjustment has
been requested, to which staff supports only if Street "F° is not extended. Opportunities for
lighted pathways are not available given the constraints of the limited right-of-way width. This
issue is described in greater detail under chapter 18.370, Variances and Adjustments.
Block Designs - Section 18.810.040.A states that the length, width and shape of blocks
shall be designed with due regard to providing adequate building sites for the use
contemplated, consideration of needs for convenient access, circulation, control and
safety of street traffic and recognition of limitations and opportunities of topography.
Block Sizes: Section 18.810.040.B.1 states that the perimeter of blocks formed by streets
shall not exceed 2,000 feet measured along the right-of-way line except:
e Where street location is precluded by natural topography, wetlands or other
bodies of water or, pre-existing development or;
e For blocks adjacent to arterial streets, limited access highways, major collectors
or railroads.
o For non-residential blocks in which internal public circulation provides equivalent
access.
Section 18.810:040.6.2 also states that bicycle and pedestrian connections on public
easements or right-of-ways shall be provided when full street connection is not
possible. Spacing between connections shall be no more than 330 feet, except where
precluded by environmental or topographical constraints, existing development
patterns, or strict adherence to other standards in the code.
This issue is discussed in greater detail under the requested variance for street connections.
However, while related, these two standards are independent of one another.: The
applicant's proposal can be found to meet this particular standard, predicated on the notion
that the application is institutional in nature, thus non-residential, and that the internal public
circulation provides equivalent access. The school site also abuts a collector road which
hampers creation of blocks meeting the 2,000-foot standard. The block formed by the West
Access Road through the school site to SW Bull Mountain Road, and back to SW 133
measures approximately 2,700 feet. As an aside, the Street "F° extension would form a blocA
measuring 3,195 feet but would be anticipated to have intervening connections to SW 133
as properties subsequently develop. There are a total of five (5) pedestrian connections to
this site from the surrounding developments providing connectivity to and through the site.
This criterion is satisfied.
ALBERTA RIDER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PAGE 33 OF 44
7/1204 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER
Lots - Size and Shape: Section 18.810.060(A) prohibits tot depth from being more than
2.5 times the average lot width, unless the parcel is less than 1.5 times the minimum lot
size of the applicable zoning district.
The lot width is 322 feet and the average lot depth is 789 feet. Two and a half times the lot
width is 805 feet. This standard is met.
Lot f=rontage:, Section 18.810.060(B) requires that lots have at least 25 f-a- t of frontage on
ublic or pprivate streets, other tthan an alley. In the case of nd partition
8.42®.050.A.4.C applies which requires a parcel to either have a minimum 5f
too(
frontage or a minimum 18-foot-wide recorded access easement. Incases where the Otis
for an attached single-family dwelling unit, the frontage shalt be at feast 15 feet.
The site has greater than 25 feet of public street frontage.
Sidewalks: Section 18.810.070.A requires that sidewalks be constructed to meet City
design standards and be located on both sides of arterial, collector and local
residential streets.
The applicant's plan indicates that they will construct sidewalks along the Bull Mountain Road
fronta a and on. both sides of the new east-west street. A sidewalk is also required on one
side 61?the F Street extension, as part of the % street improvements.
Sanitary Sewers:
Sewers Required: Section 18.810.090.A requires that sanitary sewer be installed to
serve each new development and to connect developments to existing mains in
accordance with the provisions set forth in Design and Construction Standards for
Sanitary and Surface Water Management (as adopfed by Clean Water Services in 1996
and including any future revisions or amendments) and the adopted policies of the
comprehensive plan.
Over-sizing
Section 15.810.090.0 states that proposed sewer systems shall include consideration
of additional development within the area as projected by the Comprehensive Plan.
The applicant's plan indicates two private sewer laterals, one to the serve the school and one
to serve the Rider residence. The applicant did not show the construction of a public main as
part of the infrastructure associated with the West Access Road. Staff recommends that an
8-inch public sewer line be constructed the full length of the proposed east-west street and
connect to the main in F street on the Summit Ridge site. The placement of the public line
will be in the ROW of the east-west street and the ROW of F. Street. The lateral from the
Rider residence and school would then connect to this public main. Sewer service is not
required for the reservoir.
Storm Drainage:
General Provisions: Section 18.810.100.A requires developers to make adequate
provisions for storm water and flood water runoff.
Accommodation of Upstream Drainage: Section 18.810.100.0 states that a culvert or
other drainage facility shall be large enough to accommodate potential runoff from its
entire upstream drainage area, whether inside or outside the development. The City
Engineer shall approve the necessary size of the facility, based on the provisions of
Design and Construction Standards for Sanitary and Surface Water Management (as
adopted by Clean Water Services in 2000 and including any future revisions or
amendments).
While there are no upstream drainage ways that impact this site, the extension of a public
storm sewer, as part of the infrastructure of the new east-west street,r~ hould be required.
Staff recommends that the storm sewer _be extended west to 133 Avenue. If storm
improvements have been completed in 133 Avenue by the Summit Ridge Development the
storm sewer could then be constructed as shown on theapplicant's plans. The applicant will
also need to receive CWS approval of the proposed public sewer.
ALBERTA RIDER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PAGE 34 OF 44
7!1x04 PUBLIC NEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER
Effect on Downstream Drainage:
Section 18.810.100.D states that where it is anticipated by the City Engineer that the
additional runoff resulting from the development will overload an existing drainage
facility, the Director and Engineer shall withhold approval of the development until
provisions have been made for improvement of the potential condition or until
provisions have been made for storage of additional runoff caused by the development
in accordance with the Design and Construction Standards for Sanitary and Surface
Water Management (as adopted by Clean Water Services in 2000 and including any
future revisions or amendments).
In 1997, Clean Water Services (CWS) completed a basin study of Fanno Creek and adopted
the Fanno Creek Watershed Management Plan. Section V of that plan includes a
recommendation that local governments institute a stormwater detention/effective impervious
area reduction program resulting in no net increase in storm peak flows up to the 25-year
event. The City will require that all new developments resulting in an increase of impervious
surfaces provide onsite detention facilities, unless the development is located adjacent to
Fanno Creek. For those developments adjacent to Fanno Creek, the storm water runoff will
be permitted to discharge without detention.
The applicant has indicated that they are not providing detention because the systems
downstream have been sized for fully developed runoff rates. The applicant will have to
provide CWS approval of their storm sewer system to staff.
Bikeways and Pedestrian Pathways:
Bikeway Extension: Section 18.810.110.A states that developments adjoining
proposed bikeways identified on the City's adopted pedestrian/bikeway plan shall
include provisions for the future extension of such bikeways through the dedication of
easements or right-of-way.
Bull Mountain Road is classified as a bicycle facility. As part of the half-street improvements.
along Bull Mountain Road the developer should provide striping, markers, legends and
mini-arrows associated with the bicycle lane.
Minimum Width: Section 18.810.110.C states that the minimum width for bikeways
within the roadway is five feet per bicyale travel lane. Minimum width for two-way
bikeways separated from the road is eight feet.
The bicycle lane along a collector is designated as 6 feet wide.
Utilities:
Section 18.810.120 states that all utility lines, but not limited to those required for
electric, communication, lighting and cable television services and related facilities
shall be placed underground, except for surface mounted transformers, surface
mounted connection boxes and meter cabinets which may be placed above around,
temporary utility service facilities during construction, high capacity electric lines
operating at 50,000 volts or above, and:
The developer shall make all necessary arrangements with the serving utility to
provide the underground services;
e The City reserves the right to approve location of all surface mounted facilities;
o All underground utilities, includingg sanitary sewers and storm drains installed in
streets by the developer, shall be constructed prior to the surfacing of the
streets; and
o Stubs for service connections shall be long enough to avoid disturbing the
street improvements when service connections are made.
There are existing overhead utility lines along the frontage of SW Bull Mountain Road. If the
fee in-lieu is proposed, it is equal to $35.00 per lineal foot of street frontage that contains the
overhead lines. The frontage along this site is 590.5 lineal feet; therefore the fee would be
$20,667.50.
ALBERTA RIDER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PAGE 35 OF 44
7117104 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER
ADDITIONAL CITY AND/OR AGENCY CONCERNS WITH STREET AND UTILITY
Public Water System:
The Tigard Water District reviewed the proposal and made the following comments regarding
the public water system:
This site is located in Tigard Water District's 713-foot gravity pressure zone. Our water
consultant, Murray, Smith & Associates, Inc. (MSA), performed an analysis of ours stem in
this area and has determined that in order to meet minimum fire flows per the Uniform Fire
Code, a connection is necessary to the existing 10-inch water line in Bull Mountain Road. In
addition, the minimum water line size to feed this site is 12 inches. Therefore, the 8-inch
connection to the 8-inch main line in SW 13P Avenue will not be adequate. The applicant
will need to revise their plan to show that they will extend a 12-inch line from the 10-inch main
in Bull Mountain Road.
On June 17 2004, we were made aware of an easement that encumbers the Rider site, and
is in favor of the parcel immediately to the south (now the Summit Ridge project). Attached is
a copy of the easement documentation that describes a 20-foot-wide utility easement that
can be used for a variety of utilities, including water. The Rider parcel also has ri ghts with
respect to this easement. This easement appears to be transferable to a municipality, if said
municipality will provide the public utility service..
Venture Properties, developer of Summit Ridge, also has a need to tie to the 713-foot zone
water line in Bull Mountain Road in order to serve the upper portion of their development. It
makes sense to require the Rider project to extend a public water line to their southerly
border in order to provide for efficient water connections to adjacent parcels. The presence
of this easement provides the opportunity for the two projects to work together, and Venture
has indicated that they would be willing to transfer their rights to this easement to the City of
Tigard. Obviously, the current configuration of the easement will not work for the applicants
site plan, and they will want to realign the easement such that it makes more sense for their
project. The applicant is strongly encouraged to work with Venture Properties to determine
the best route for this 12-inch public water line so that it works for both projects, and affords
the City the best access to the line for maintenance purposes. Once an agreement has been
reached with respect to a water line alignment, the applicant will need to grant a new public
water line easement to the City.
Overall, the proposed water system plan will need a thorough review by Public Works as a
part of the Public Facility Improvement (PFI) permit review process.
Recommended Conditions:
1. The applicant's construction plans shall show a 12-inch connection to the 10-inch
713-foot zone main line in SW Bull Mountain Road. This new 12-inch water line
will need to be a public line, as it has the ability to serve beyond the borders of this
site. The applicant shall coordinate with Venture Properties with respect to where
to stub the 12-inch line at the southern border.
2. The applicant shall grant a minimum 15-foot-wide public water line easement to the
City to cover the new 12-inch public water line that will cross the site.
ADDITIONAL CITY AND/OR AGENCY CONCERNS WITH STREET AND UTILITY
IMPROVEMENT STANDARDS:
Traffic Stud Finddiins:,
Transportation Impact Analysis was prepared for this project by Kittelson & Associates,
inc., dated April 15, 2004. The report concluded that during both existing weekday a.m. and
p m. peak hours the two existing study intersections at Bull Mountain Road/133` Avenue and
Bull Mountain Road/Greenfield are functioning within acceptable operating parameters.
Under forecast year 2005 total traffic conditions, including the school development, all study
intersections are expected to function within acceptable operating standards for weekday
a.m. and p.m. peak hours.
ALBERTA RIDER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PAGE 36 OF 44
7117104 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER
Analysis indicates that g left-turn lane is warranted on Bull Mountain Road for the west-bound
traffic turning onto 133 Avenue. Kittelson recommends the construction of the west-bound
left-turn lane with 100 feet of vehicle storage. The Summit Ridge development has been
conditioned to construct this turn lane. Staff recommends that if Summit Ridge cannot fulfill
this obligation the applicant should complete the turn lane construction as part of this
development.
Kittelson's analysis shows that traffic signal warrants are not met for the intersection of Bull
Mountain Road and 133 Avenue.
Kittelson recommends that the hedges be trimmed alongg the southwest and southeast
corners of the intersection of Bull Mountain Road and 133 Avenue in order to achieve
adequate sight distance.
Staff recommends that in addition, the applicant provide adequate illumination of the
intersection of 133~d Avenue and Bull Mountain Road, as well as the east-west road and
Street F, if extended.
Storm Water Qualit :
We City as agreed to enforce Surface Water Management (SWM) regulations
established by Clean Water Services (CWS) Design and Construction Standards
(adopted by Resolution and Order No. 00-7) which require the construction of on-site
water quality facilities. The facilities shall be designed to remove 65 percent of the
phosphorus contained in 100 percent of the storm water runoff generated from newly
created impervious surfaces. In addition, a maintenance plan shall be submitted
indicating the frequency and method to be used in keeping the facility maintained
through the year.
Prior to construction, the applicant shall submit plans and calculations for a water quality
facility that will meet the intent of the CWS Design Standards. In addition, the applicant shall
submit a maintenance plan for the facility that must be reviewed and approved by the City
prior to construction.
Prior to the City accepting this facility as a public facility, the developer shall maintain it for a
minimum of three years after construction is completed. The pond shall be placed in a tract
and conveyed to the City on the final plat. The developer will be required to submit annual
reports to the City which show what maintenance operations were conducted on the facility
for that year. Once the three-year maintenance period is completed, the City will inspect the
facility and make note of any problems that have arisen and require them to be resolved
before the City will take over maintenance of the facility. In addition, the City will not take
over maintenance of the facility unless 80 percent of the landscaping is established and
healthy. If at any time during the maintenance period, the landscaping falls below the 80
percent level, the developer shall immediately reinstall all deficient planting at the next
appropriate planting opportunity.
Grading and Erosion Control:
UYS Design and ons ruc In Standards also regulate erosion control to reduce the
amount of sediment and other pollutants reaching the public storm and surface water
system resulting from development, construction, grading, excavating, clearing, and
any other activity which accelerates erosion. Per CWS, regulations, the applicant is
required to submit an erosion control plan for City review and approval prior to
issuance of City permits.
The Federal Clean Water Act requires that a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) erosion control ermit be issued for any development that will
disturb one or more acre of land. Since this site is over five acres, the developer will
be required to obtain an NPDES permit from the City prior to construction. This permit
will be issued along with the site and/or building permit.
ALBERTA RIDER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PAGE 37 OF 44
7112/04 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER
A final grading plan shall be submitted showing the existing and proposed contours. The
plan shall detail the provisions for surface drainage of all lots, and show that they will be
graded to insure that surface drainage is directed to the street or a public storm drainage
system approved by the Engineering Department. For situations where the back portions of
lots drain away from a street and toward adjacent lots, appro riate private storm drainage
lines shall be provided to sufficiently contain and convey runoff frrom each lot.
The applicant will also be required to provide a geotechnical report, per Appendix
Chapter 33 of the UBC, for the proposed grading slope construction. The
recommendations of the report will need to be incorporated into the final grading plan
and a final construction supervision report must be filed with the Engineering
Department prior to issuance of building permits.
The design engsneer shall also indicate, on the grading plan which lots will have
natural slopes between 10% and 20%, as well as lots that will have natural slopes in
excess of 20%. This information will be necessary in determining if special grading
inspections and/or permits will be necessary when the lots develop.
A Geotechnical report was prepared for this development by URS Corporation, dated July
2003.
This project will disturb more than one acre of the site, therefore, an NPDES.1200-C permit is
required.
Site Permit Reauire~d:
The applii'can , st irequired to obtain a Site Permit from the Building Division to cover all on-site
private utility installations (water, sewer, storm, etc.) and driveway construction. This permit
shalt be obtained prior to approval of the final plat.
Address Assignments:
Tfie I of I Igar is responsible for assi ningg addresses for parcels within the City of Tigard
and within the Urban Service Boundary (US' An addressing fee in the amount of $50.00
per address and tract shall be assessed. This fee shall be paid to the City prior to issuance
of the site permit.
D. IMPACT STUDY:
Section a states that the applicant shall provide an impact study to
quantify the effect of development on public facilities and services. For each public
facility system and type of impact, the study shall propose improvements necessary to
meet City standards, and to minimize the impact of the development on the public at
large, public facilities systems, and affected private property users.
In situations where the Community Development Code requires the dedication of real
property interests, the applicant shall either specifically concur with a requirement for
public right-of-way dedication, or provide evidence that supports that the real property
dedication is not roughly proportional to the projected impacts of the development.
The applicant has submitted an impact study addressing the required elements above. The
report substantiates that all services are capable of serving the site. The applicant has
proposed to make the necessary improvements, with the exception of "F" street. The
improvements proposed by the applicant are required to meet minimum standards to comply
with street and utility improvement standards, without which, approval could not be granted.
The applicant will be required to pay TiF's (traffic impact fees) of approximately $68,783.
Based on a transportation impact study prepared by Mr. David Larson for the A-Boy
Expansion/Dolan II/Resolution 95-61, TIF's are expected to recapture 32 percent of the traffic
impact of new development on the Collector and Arterial Street system. Actual final TIF
payment will be assessed at time of building permit submittal. No similar calculations have
been made relative to impact on the locally designated streets which represent an additional
unmitigated impact.
ALBERTA RIDER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PAGE 38 OF 44
7111104 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER
Based on the estimate that total TIF fees cover 32 percent of the impact on major street
improvements citywide, a fee that would cover 100 _percent of this projects traffic impact on
major streets is $214,946 ($68 783 divided by .32). The difference between the TIF paid, and
the full impact, is considered the unmitigated impact on the major street system. The
unmitigated impact of this project on the transportation system is $146,163. Completion of
Street F" helps miti ate for some of the impact to the major streets by providing alternative
routes of travel, andgmoreover offsets the direct impact on local streets which has not been
quantified.
The value of the right if way dedication is approximately:
Street "F": 610'x35'=21,350 s.f. @ $3 per square foot = $64,050
The value of improvements is approximately:
Street "F": 610 t.f. of/2 street improvement @ $200 i.f.= $122,000
While the value of the improvements exceeds the quantified unmitigated impact on major
streets, the exaction is directly the result of mitigating impacts generated by the development
and also mitigates for impacts to local roads, which has not been quantified. The value of
this exaction is roughly proportionate to the level of impact generated.
SECTION VII. OTHER STAFF COMMENTS
The City of Tigard Long Range Planning Division has reviewed the proposal and had no
specific objections to it.
The City of Tigard Police Department has reviewed the proposal and had no specific
objections to it.
The City bf Tigard Engineering Department was sent this proposal for review and the.
comments have been incorporated into this report.
City of Tigard Operations Manager and Water Department has reviewed this application
and provided comments regarding connection and maintenance of any new and upgraded
services. These comments were incorporated into "Additional City and/or Agency Concerns"
under the discussion of Chapter 18.810, Street and Utility Improvements.
City of Tigard Arborist has reviewed this application and has no objections to it.
SECTION VIII. AGENCY COMMENTS
Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue has reviewed this application and offered the following
comments:
Tualatin Valley Fire & Rescue endorses this proposal predicated on the following criteria and
conditions of approval:
1) Access roads shall be within 150 feet of all portions of the exterior wall of the first story of
the building as measured by an approved route around the exterior of the building. An
approved turnaround is required if the remaining distance to an approved intersecting
roadway, as measured along the fire apparatus access road, is greater than 150 feet.
(UFC Sec. 902.2.1)
2) Dead end fire apparatus access roads in excess of. 150 feet in length shall be provided
with an approved turnaround. Diagrams of approved turnarounds are available from the
fire district. (UFC Sec. 902.2.2.4)
3) When buildings are completely protected with an approved automatic fire sprinkler
system, the requirements for fire apparatus access may a modified as approved by the
Chief. (UFC Sec. 902.2.1 Exception 1)
ALBERTA RIDER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PAGE 39 OF 44
7/1204 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER
4) Fire apparatus access roads shall have an unobstructed width of not less than 20 feet (15
feet far one or two dwelling units and out buildings, and an unobstructed vertical
clearance of not less than 13 feet 6 inches. (UFC Sec. 9 2.2.2.1)
Fire apparatus access roadway width may be reduced when approved by the Fire
Code Official.
s) Fire apparatus access roads shall be of an all-weather surface that is easily
distinguishable from the surrounding area and is capable of supporting not less than
12,500 pounds point load (wheel road) and 50,000 pounds live load (gross vehicle
weight). You may need to provide documentation from a registered engineer that the
design will be capable of supporting such loading. Documentation from a registered
engineer that the finished construction is in accordance with the approved plans or the
requirements of the Fire Code may be requested. (Design criteria on back (UFC Sec.
902.2.2)
s) The inside turning radius and outside turning radius shall be not less than 25 feet and 45
feet respectively, measured from the same center point. (UFC Sec. 902.2.2.3) - (See
diagrams on back)
7) Where fire apparatus roadways are not of sufficient width to accommodate parked.
vehicles and 20. feet of unobstructed driving surface, "No Parking" signs shall be installed
on one or both sides of the roadway and in turnarounds as needed. (UFC Sec. 902.2.4)
Signs shall read "NO PARKING - FIRE LANE - TOW AWAY ZONE, ORS 98.810 -
98.812" and shall be installed with a clear space above grade level of 7 feet. Signs shall
be 12 inches wide by 18 inches high and shall have black or red letters and border on a
white background. (UFC Sec. 901.4.5.1)
s) Where required, fire apparatus access roadway curbs shall be painted yellow and marked
.NO PARKING FIRE LANE" at each 25 feet. Lettering shall have a stroke of not less than
one inch wide by six inches high. Lettering shall be white on red or black on yellow
background. (UFC Sec. 901.4.5.2)
Fire lane stripino and "No Parking" signs will be specified upon receipt of final
site acid circulation plans.
9) Private fire apparatus access roadway grades shall not exceed an average grade of 10
percent with a maximum grade of 15 percent for lengths of no more than 200 feet.
Intersections and turnarounds shall be level (maximum 5%) with the exception of
crowning for water run-off. Public streets shall have a maximum grade of 15%. (UFC Sec.
902.2.2.6)
1o) The required fire flow for the building shall not exceed 3,000 gallons per minute (GPM) or
the available GPM in the water delivery system at 20 psi, whichever is less. A worksheet
for calculating the required fire flow is available from the Fire Marshal's Office. (UFC Sec.
903.3)
11) No portion of the exterior of a commercial building shall be located more than 250 feet
from a fire hydrant when measured in an approved manner around the outside of the %
building and along an approved fire apparatus access roadway. Any hydrants that are left
over from the minimum number of hydrant calculations may be full filled by hydrants that
are up to 500 feet from any point of the building. The fire Prevention Ordinance has
further requirements that need to be used for acceptance and placement of fire hydrants.
(UFC Sec. 903.4.2.1)
12) The minimum number of fire hydrants for a building shall be based on the required fire
flow prior to giving credit for fire protection systems divided by 1500. If the answer is
equal to or greater than x.5 the next whole number of hydrants shall be used. There shall
not be less than 2 hydrants per building. (UFC Sec. 903.4.2.1)
ALBERTA RIDER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PAGE 40 OF 44
7112(04 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER
Considerations for placing fire hydrants shall be as follows:
e Existing hydrants in the area may be used to meet the required number of hydrants;
however, hydrants that are over 500 feet away from the nearest point of the subject
building shall not. contribute to the required number of hydrants.
• Hydrants that are separated from the subject building by railroad tracks shall not
contribute to the required number of hydrants.
• Hydrants that are separated from the subject building by divided highway, freeway,
or heavily traveled collector streets shall not contribute to the required number of
hydrants.
e Hydrants that are accessible only by a bridge shall be acceptable to contribute to the
required number of hydrants only if approved by the Chief.
• Private hydrants or public hydrants that are on adjacent private property shall not
contribute to the required number of hydrants for the subject building.
e Exception: The use of hydrants located on other private pro erty may be considered
it their locations and access are encumbered in a legal document (such as deed
restriction) by the owners of the involved parcels of property. The encumbrance may
be lifted only after approvals by the Chief on behalf of the fire department and any
other governmental agencies that may require approval.
• When evaluating the placement of hydrants at apartment or industrial complexes the
first hydrant(s) to be placed shall be at the primary access and any secondary
access to the site. After these hydrants have been laced other hydrants shall be
sited to meet the above requirements for spacing and minimum number of hydrants.
(UFC Sec. 903.4.2.1.1)
13) Fire hydrants shall be located not more than 15 feet from an approved fire apparatus
access roadway. (UFC Sec. 903.4.2.4)
14) Fire hydrant locations shall be identified by the installation of reflective markers. The
markers shall be blue. They shall be located adjacent and to~the side of the centerline of
the access road way that the fire hydrant is located on. In case that there is no center
line, then assume a centerline, and place the reflectors accordingly. (UFC Sec. 901.4.3)
15) A fire hydrant shall be located within 70 feet of a fire department connection (FDC). Fire
hydrants and FDC's shall be located on the same side of the fire apparatus access
roadway. (UFC Sec. 903.4.2.5) FDC locations shall be approved by the Chief. (1996
Oregon Structural Specialty Code, Sec. 904.1.1)
16) Approved fire apparatus access roadways and fire fighting water supplies shall be
installed and operational prior to any other construction on the site or subdivision. (UFC
Sec. 8704)
17) A Knox Box for building access is required for this building. Please contact the Fire
Marshal's Office for an order form and instructions regarding installation and placement.
(UFC Sec. 902.4)
18) A building survey and plans, in accordance with TVF&R Ordinance 99-01, Appendix III-F,
shall be submitted. A copy of Appendix III-F, the building survey form and the instructions
are available on the Fire District web site at www.tvfr.com. (UFC Appendix Ili-F)
Please contact me at (503) 612-7010 with any additional questions.
Washington County Department of Land Use and Transportation has reviewed the
proposal and offered lengthy comments (12 pages). These are available in the planning file.
The recommended conditions of approval are repeated here for convenience:
ALBERTA RIDER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PAGE 41 OF 44
7/1204 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORTTO THE HEARINGS OFFICER
1. PRIOR TO THE CITY'S FINAL APPROVAL AND ISSUANCE OF A SULDING
PERM:
A. Submit a written request and obtain approval for a Modification to the access spacing
standards of the W.C.U.R.I.D.S. from the Washington County Engineering Division
for each access point on SW Bull Mountain Road (The Modification Request must be
prepared and stamped by a registered professional engineer and submitted by the
applicant).
B. The following documents shall be executed and recorded:
1. A non-access reservation along the development site's frontage of SW Bull
Mountain Road except at the access location(s) approved by the County
Engineer through the Road Standards Modification process.
Contact Jamil Kamawal, Washington County Survey Division (503) 846-7932
for the above required forms.
C. Submit to Washington County Land Development Services Public Assurance
Staff, (503) 846-3843:
1. Completed "Design Option" form.
2. $2,500.00 Administration Deposit.
NOTE: Any portion of the Administration Deposit not used by Washington
County for plan approval, field inspections, and contract administration wifl be
refumed to the applicant If at any time during the project, the County's costs
are high than the amount deposited, Washington County will bill the applicant
the amount needed to cover its costs.
3. A copy of the City's Land Use Approval with Conditions, signed and dated.
4. Preliminary certification of adequate sight distance for the approved access
locations to SW Bull Mountain Road in accordance with County Code, prepared
and stamped by a registered professional engineer, as well as:
a. A detailed' list of improvements necessary to produce adequate
intersection sight distance at the approved access location(s) to SW Bull
Mountain Road.
5. Three (3) sets of complete engineering plans for construction of the following
public improvements:
MOTE: Improvements shall be constructed to County Standard unless
otherwise modified by the County Engineer.
a. One half-street to County collector street standard (C-3) including a 25-
foot-wide paved section (Including a six-foot) wide bike lane and gutter
section, . z-foot-wide curb, 4-foot-wide planter strip and a 5-foot-wide
sidewalk.
b. Improvements necessary to provide adequate intersection sight distance
at the approved access location(s) to S Bull Mountain o
c. Residential driveway access(es) to SW Bull Mountain Road at the
approved location(s) to County standard.
d. Emergency access to SW Bull Mountain Road at the approved location
to County standard.
e. Any additional on and/or off-site safety improvements found to be
required for compliance with R&O 86-95 following submittal by the
applicant of a complete Modification Request, and completion of the
County Traffic Engineer's review of such.
ALBERTA RIDER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PAGE 42 OF 44'
711204 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER
• 1
These improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the requirements
of the Washington County Uniform Road Improvement Design Standards. They
shall be completed and accepted by the County within the time frame specified
in the public assurance contract, or prior to final building inspection approval
and occupancy of the first dwelling unit; whichever occurs first.
D. Obtain Washington County Departmental approval, provide financial assurance,
and obtain a Facility Permit for:
Construction of the public improvements listed in Conditions I.C.5.
NOTE: The Public Assurance staff of Land Development Services will send the
required forms to the applicant's representative after submittal and approval of the
public improvement plans.
Please note that Washington County's "Facility Permit" differs from an "Access
Permit" An Access Permit is less comprehensive in nature than the Facility Permit
and its associated submittal, review, and monitoring processes. Access Permits apply
to non-complex land use cases in which the County requires limited or. no
improvements of the developer. (Access permits are commonly issued in cases
requiring improvements as minimal as a single driveway cut to an existing house).
This project is not eligible for an Access Permit.
The Facility Permit allows construction work within County tights-of-way and permits
site access after submittal and Departmental approval of engineering plans, and
approval of erosion control permits. Issuances of the Facility Permit is also subject to
the completion of the County Assurances Division requirements including but not
limited to execution of financial and contractual agreements. This process ensures
that the responsibility for construction of public improvements is accepted, and that
improvements in the public right-of-way are monitored, inspected, and built to County
standard in a timely manner.
II. PRIOR TO FINAL BUILDING INSPECTION AND OCCUPANCY OF ANY PORTION
OF THE DEVELOPMENT:
A. The improvements required in condition I.C.5. above, shall be completed and
accepted by Washington County.
B. Final sight distance certification for the approved access location(s) to SW Bull
Mountain Road in accordance with County Code shall be provided by the
applicant's engineer.
Requirements identified within this letter are considered by the County to be minimum
warranted improvements (and/or analyses) that are necessitated by the proposed
development, therefore it is requested that they be conveyed to the applicant within the City's
Approval document.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
1. Construct a westbound left turn refuge lane with storage of 100 feet on SW Bull
Mountain Road at SW 133` Avenue.
2. Prior to final building inspection approval, provide certification from a r
yqis I tered
professional engineer that adequate intersection sight distance at SW 133` Avenue
along SW Bull liAountain Road exists in accordance with the Washington County
Community Development Code.
ALBERTA RIDER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PAGE 43 OF 44
711Z104 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER
3. Provide adequate illumination at SW 133~d Avenue on SW Bull Mountain Road.
Adequate illumination shall consist of at least one 200-watt high pressure sodium
cobra head luminaire mounted at a minimum height of 20 feef on existing utility
poles if available. The fixture shall have a medium semi-cutoff type III distribution.
The pole shall be within the area defined by the radius returns of the intersection. The
fixture shall be oriented at 90 degrees to centerline of the collector or arterial. For
intersections of collectors with arterials, or arterials with arterials, the luminaire fixture
shall be installed at 90 degrees to the higher classified roadway.. If the intersecting
roadways are of the same functional classification, the fixture may be oriented at 90
degrees to either roadway. If no exiting utility poles are available within the .
Intersection area defined by the radius returns the developer shall meet the
requirements of the Department of Land Use ana Transportation 1999 Roadway
Illumination Standards, latest revision. County Traffic Engineer may require
illumination in addition to the above-stated minimums. Direct technical questions
concerning this condition or the 1991 Roadway Illumination Standards to Robert
Morast, County Traffic Engineer at (503) 846-7955.
Clean Water Services, NW Natural Gas, Portland General Electric, and the Tigard
Building Division were given the opportunity to review this proposal and submitted no
comments or objections.
Jul 2 2004
orga racy
Associate Planner
Jul 2_000A'
is arc ewer DATE
Planning Man er
ALBERTA RIDER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PAGE 44 OF 44
7:12104 PUaUC HEAPJNG STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER
OEOORARNIa INFORMATION SYSTEM
m vmcmmlrlr MAP
z
m
r
9 °
CUP2003-00012
3 D VAR2004-00037
y VAR2004-00041
VAR2004-00042
VAR2004-00043
ALBERTA RIDER ELEMENTARY
BI iE SCHOOL & CITY OF TIGARD
WATER RESERVOIR
xA ~ ~A
C
SW WINTERVIEW ,,F
nee. sErID RU
c7, / Tgmd Aron Map
N
0 100 200 300 4W Foot
1
1*- 314 feel
T
InfmmUOn m I rmP k far pelNUd bca0on Orly end
shoWd be veAOed vAh the DsvelopmsM Services oW0Wm
13125 SW ffall Blvd
tiara OR 27223
(503) 014417, -
hlWJ/* -w.al.U2srdarus
Plnf riafa• Mav in 5nngi- r:-1manlnXMAN, f n3.APP
1
-j--==----^-- - } b
0 E~
a,
KY
5 O• . `
1
• i
'a
6tl1RBAN SERVICE AREA -1 1
y OF t CUP2003-00012/VAR2004-00037 41, 42 & 43
ortr or no~tl SITE P ALBERTA RIDER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
(Map is not to scale) CITY OF TIGARD WATER RESERVOIR-
- . ATTACHMENT 5
'Pow
I FILE NAME: ALBERTA RIDER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL ~I
FILE NOS.: CUP2003.00012NAR2004-00037, 41, 42, 43 & 53
RE: 7/12/04 LAND USE HEARING BEFORE THE HEARINGS OFFICER. I
d p
SUPPLEMENTALINFORMATION AND
APPLICANT'S CLOSING ARGUMENTS
eye
t
o
'I
I
K KITTELSON & ASSOCIATES, INC.
TRANSPORTATION PLANNING/TRAFFIC ENGINEERING
610 SW ALDER, SUITE 700 • PORTLAND, OR 97205 • (503) 228-5230 FAX(503)273-8169
July 12, 2004 Project 6041.0
Morgan Tracy
City of Tigard Planning Division
13125 SW Hall Boulevard
Tigard, OR 97223
RE. Supplemental Information Supporting Variance Requests for Alberta Rider Elementary
School
Dear Mr. Tracy:
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. (KAI), on behalf of the Tigard-Tualatin School District, has prepared
this letter for submission into the public record as a response to the staff report prepared by the City
of Tigard Planning Division dated July 2°d, 2004 for the proposed Alberta Rider Elementary School.
The purpose of this letter is to address specific transportation-related issues associated with the
request for variances to the City of Tigard's street connectivity and access spacing standards. It is our
position, as demonstrated in the following sections of this letter, that the criteria for granting the
requested variances in accordance with Section 18.370.010 of the City of Tigard Code are satisfied.
VARIANCE FOR STREET CONNECTIVITY STANDARD - "F" STREET EXTENSION
The Applicant has requested a variance to the 530-foot street connectivity standard due to the
physical limitations of the site (i.e. size, shape, and topography) and the presence of a life tenancy
area for the current residence of Alberta Rider. There are also special circumstances that apply to the
proposed elementary school that are not applicable to the residential properties in the site vicinity.
These include the need for a larger building size and direct connections to adjacent parking and play
areas, all of which create the need for a larger site layout that exceeds the street connectivity standard
limitation.
Staff raised a number of issues in argument against the requested variance for the street connectivity
standard that does not extend F Street. It is important to note that staff s recommendation to extend F
Street will also not result in compliance with the standard, since the alignment of F Street will be
located approximately 750 feet west of the future alignment of "H" Street/Greenfield Drive.
Therefore, evaluation of the City's proposed solution and the Applicant's proposed solution must
take into account other relevant factors, including safety, overall circulation and connectivity
impacts, operational effectiveness, and future needs. The following paragraphs expand on these and
other pertinent issues.
H.~pmifiie\6041\corresp\response letter for public hearing gndraft.doc
Alberta Rider Elementary School Pro/ect A 6041.0
July 12, 2004 Page: 2
System-Wide Circulation Will Not be Improved by the "F" Street Extension
The extension of "F' Street will not improve system-wide traffic circulation because the network of
local streets in the area, including the City's proposed extension of "F' Street, will still funnel to one
outlet at the intersection of SW Bull Mountain Road via SW 133rd Avenue. Thus, circulation,
connectivity, and operational performance are not improved under the City's proposal any more than
what is achieved under the Applicant's proposal.
The "F" Street Extension Has the Potential for Creating Safety and Security Problems
The extension of "F' Street raises credible safety and security issues for the elementary school
students. A significant grade difference will exist between the "F' Street alignment and the school's
soccer field, which will be placed immediately adjacent to F Street if the City Reservoir project is
built. This grade difference will place "F' Street above the soccer field, creating a potential safety
hazard for students if a vehicle were to lose control and careen downhill.
The alignment of "F' Street would also pass directly in front of the play area for kindergarten
students, which, based on feedback from the Architect may create security concerns for school staff
and children's parents.
The "F" Street Extension Is Not Supported by Affected Residents
The community supports the School District's plan to provide an emergency vehicle access and
bike/pedestrian connection along the western property line to the southern site boundary. They do
not support the extension of "F" Street.
Affected residents living between the school site and SW 133`d Avenue are particularly concerned
about the placement of a new street behind their homes when they already have street frontage along
SW 133rd Avenue. They are also concerned about how an extension of F Street would dictate future
development patterns. The two-thirds street improvement that would be required along the school's
west property line would force all adjacent property owners to improve the street to the full urban
standard if their properties were to redevelop. If this were the case, residents would not have the
flexibility to develop their properties in a potentially more efficient and denser pattern. The City's
proposed extension of F Street does not eliminate the need for another parallel road facility
somewhere near the center of the abutting residential properties at such time that they are subdivided
and redeveloped. The Applicant's proposal recognizes this fact and presents a concept showing a
single road facility in the area where it will ultimately be needed for circulation and access purposes,
thereby avoiding unnecessary and redundant roadway construction.
The "F" Street Extension Would Present Challenging Site Circulation Issues
The extension of F Street would require changes in the design configuration for the bus drop off area
on the school property. Based on discussions with the architects of the site plan, the tear drop shape
of the bus drop off area could be reconfigured into a facility which parallels the east side of F Street.
However, buses would only be able to travel one-way in the northbound direction within the drop off
area in order to allow children to exit facing the school.
There are three potential disbenefits in establishing a one-way bus pull out along F Street. One
disbenefit would be a further reduction in the clearance between vehicles and the soccer field.
Secondly, multiple site access driveways would be necessary along F Street to allow buses and cars
will enter and exit the roadway, which may create turn movement issues. Lastly, and most
Kittelson & Assoclates, Inc. Portland, Oregon
Alberta Rider Elementary Schoo, Project A 6041.0
July t2 2004 Page:3
importantly, buses would now have to bypass the east-west connector street leading to the school and
travel south along SW UP Avenue and into the Summit Ridge development in order to get to the
bus pull out area along F Street. This out-of-direction path has the potential to adversely impact the
lives of local area residents, particularly when there will be clusters of eight to ten buses traveling
along these residential streets twice a day. The proposed site plan would minimize bus travel on
these local streets.
Other Schools in the District Are Removing Adjacent Streets
School District staff will present aerial photographs illustrating recent land use actions resulting in
the removal of public streets adjacent to schools. These land use actions indicate that a precedent
exists to use judgment in the application of the street spacing standard in a way that allows it to fit
harmoniously with the particular characteristics of the site and the surrounding land uses.
City Staff Appears to be Leveraging °F" Street to Create Additional Access for Summit
Ridge Development
There is a perception City staff is requiring the "F" Street Extension to solve potential street
connectivity issues for the Summit Ridge development, south of the school site. The City staff report
(page 12, para. 1) asserts that Summit Ridge may not be able to gain access to SW 133`d Avenue, as
proposed, because of an on-going legal dispute over property rights along the right-of-way that will
contain a new street to SW 133`d Avenue. The outcome of this legal proceeding may threaten the
ability for the Summit Ridge developer to construct a new street to the full urban standard. However,
a review of this legal issue indicates the developer still has sufficient right-of-way width to construct,
at a minimum, a two-lane street connection to SW 133`d Avenue by applying skinny street standards.
City staff should know this and acknowledge this.
City staff further states that if a direct access cannot be established to SW 133`d Avenue from Summit
Ridge, then school traffic from new residential developments south of the school site would have to
travel out-of-direction by way of "H" Street to SW Bull Mountain Road and then to SW 133`d
Avenue. It is important to emphasize that the extension of "H" Street to SW Bull Mountain Road is
not an approved roadway because the street extension is part of an on-going land use application for
a separate residential development. The development application is currently in review by the City
and has not been approved. Therefore, it is our impression that the single street connection from
Summit Ridge to SW 133`d Avenue will be made prior to the establishment of the "H" Street
connection.
Assuming a single street connection is established to SW 133`d Avenue from Summit Ridge, the
conditions of approval for this subdivision requires a second external street connection be made
when the subdivision size exceeds 25 units. A second street connection will be available in the near
future through the approved Bella Vista subdivision immediately adjacent to the Summit Ridge
development. This subdivision is now under construction and will ultimately provide access to SW
Beef Bend Road. However, it is unclear when the construction of this new street will be complete.
In conclusion, there is a perception that City staff may be using the "F" Street Extension to provide
an additional access out of Summit Ridge subdivision to meet certain conditions of approval. It is
this argument that pushes the limits of credibility and puts staff more in the position of being an
advocate of a particular plan rather than an objective evaluator of the available options. Additionally,
both the School District and City staff should be able to rely on the conditions of approval of
surrounding developments as they exist or have been conditioned. This should translate into an
x7ttelson & Assoclates, Inc. Portland, Oregon
' Alberta Rider Elementary School Project O. 6041.0
July 12, 2004 Page: 4
understanding that street connections to SW 133`a Avenue and SW Beef Bend Road will be made by
the Summit Ridge and Bella Vista subdivisions and that future street connections not already
permitted are not guaranteed.
VARIANCE FOR ACCESS SPACING STANDARD - ACCESS TO BULL MOUNTAIN
As proposed in the current development application, an ,-nergency access driveway will be
established along SW Bull Mountain Road. City staff have suggested that a locked gate has the
potential to be "inadvertently left open for public use", and have then gone on to suggest that the
establishment of a public-use driveway in lieu of an emergency access would benefit the site, in
terms of circulation. This suggestion appears to support, in a way, the Applicant's request for a
variance to the 200-foot access spacing standard, which applies along SW Bull Mountain Road.
At this time, the School District does not support the views of City staff to establish a public site-
access driveway to SW Bull Mountain Road and requests that the Hearings Officer grant the
requested variance in order to establish an "emergency only" access. The Hearings Officer has the
authority to place conditions on the development to guarantee the access will be used for
emergencies only (i.e. installation of a gate with locking mechanism that can only be unlocked in
times of emergencies).
The location and existence of an emergency access along SW Bull Mountain Road will have no
bearing on the day-to-day function or safety of other existing driveways such as the easternmost
driveway to Alberta Rider's house or the existing driveway to a single family residence east of the
school property. Alberta Rider's home and associated driveways along SW Bull Mountain Road are
located within a life tenancy area and the School District does not want to impose any changes that
will disrupt Albert Rider. There will be no change in volume or use at the two driveways to Alberta
Rider's house, and historical crash records do not suggest there is any existing safety or operational
problem that needs to be addressed.
The School District suggests that the best time to address the closure of the two driveways to Alberta
Rider's house is when the life tenancy area ends and a subsequent land use action occurs. This will
also be an appropriate time to review any changes at the proposed emergency access driveway, such
as a possible transition to public use.
We trust that this letter will be submitted as part of the public record and adequately addresses the
issues associated with the request for variances to the City's street and access spacing standards. If
you have any questions or comments regarding this report, please contact me at (503)-228-5230.
Sincerely,
KITTELSON AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
Brian Dunn, P.E.
Senior Engineer
CC: Rick Rainone - Cornerstone Construction
Sean Scott - Ellis Eslick Architects
Stephen Poage - Tigard/Tualatin School District
AVelson & Associates, Inc. Portland, Oregon
La MURPHY AssaL.-aTES
Land Use Planning and Development Services
July 11, 2004
Larry Epstein, Hearings Officer
City of Tigard
13125 SW Hall Blvd.
Tigard, Oregon 97223
RE: Alberta Rider Elementary School proposed requirement for "sound attenuation
measures"
Dear Mr. Epstein:
The Tigard-Tualatin School District strongly opposes the imposition of Condition #30, which
would require "sound attenuation measures such as a wall along the south side of the
property near the soccer play field". Such a condition is
• Not supported by the standards and requirements set forth in the Tigard Development
Code;
• Not consistent with the requirements on other schools in Tigard; and
• Unnecessary in terms of reducing noise impacts from the bail field on nearby homes.
Such a wall would add little value to the future residential neighbors, the elementary school
campus, or the general public, yet would be expensive for the School District to build and
maintain. Further, visual access to the school from the surrounding neighborhoods is
important from a safety standpoint, as well as from the standpoint of integrating the
elementary school into the neighborhood. As the staff points out, future neighbors may not
even desire screening, let alone a solid wall, separating their property from the school
grounds. Finally, in this case, the school will be under construction by the time the homes
to the south of the school property are built. Anyone buying a home next to the school
would presumably be aware that there will be school children playing on the adjacent play
fields in fact, that may be one of the reasons that they are choosing that location.
CODE REQUIREMENTS.
The following sections review the Tigard Development Code requirements related to
screening, buffering and noise.
Screening. -
Is screening required by the Development Code adjacent to existing or future residential
development? No, it is not, except for screening of parking areas. (TDC Section 18.745)
Nonetheless, the staff indicates that they believe screening may be appropriate anyway
adjacent to residential uses. But even then, staff suggests that the requirement be waived
whenever a property owner agrees to forgoes the screening.
Buffering.
Is buffering required by the Development Code adjacent to existing or future residential
development? No, it is not. Yet the staff is recommending that the Hearings Officer require
a wall or other sound attenuation measures, which would essentially the.same as a buffer as
per TDC Section 18.360.
Noise.
Are any type of sound wall or sound attenuation measures required by the Development
9875 SW Murdock St. Tigard, Oregon 97224
Phone 503. 624.4625 Cellular 503. 314.o677 Fax 503, 968.z674
i
Alberta ftor Elewn ary School
Code adjacent to existing or future residential development, to protect those future
residential neighbors from the noise of children playing? No, they are not. The Code does
not require sound walls or other sound attenuation measures where a school abuts a
residential zone. In fact, the Tigard noise regulations do not even apply to schools. School-
related activities on school grounds are exempt from the noise standards during normal
hours for such activities.
During recess, after school, and weekends, children will use the ball fields at the south side
of the property. During the evenings, when the neighbors are more likely to be home, the
school will generally be closed. The District does not plan on installing lights on the ball
field, so there should be no nighttime activities.
As pointed out in the CUP application, the noise levels from the school building and grounds
will be well within the City's noise standards. Further, the City's noise ordinance, Title 7,
Section 7.40.180, specifically makes an exception for noise coming from normal school
activities. It states the following in Section 7.40.180 "Exceptions":
The following shall not be considered violations of this article, even if the sound limit specified in
Section 7.40. 160 is exceeded:
A. Non-amplified sounds created by organized athletic or other group activities, when such activities
are conducted on property generally used for such purposes, such as stadiums, parks, schools, and
athletic fields, during normal hours for such events.
INCONSISTENCY.
Has the City required sound attenuation measures on other schools? No, it has not. For
C.F. Tigard, Metzger and Templeton Elementary Schools, which all abutting existing or
planned single-family homes, and for which major modifications to a Conditional Use Permit
were recently approved, no sound walls or other measures were proposed or required.
Similarly, sound walls have never been required for Tigard High School, Fowler Middle
School, or Tuality Middle School, which probably have more noise impacts on adjacent
residential uses than an elementary school.
While each school site is unique, there is nothing intrinsically different between the
proposed Alberta Rider Elementary School and other school sites in Tigard. Requiring a
sound wall is inconsistent with the way other schools in Tigard have been developed, and
staff has provided no indication that noise at other schools has been a particular problem.
UNNECESSARY.
The requirement for a noise wall or other sound attenuation measures is unnecessary. The
idea does not seem to be consistently supported even within the staff report. For instance,
staff acknowledges that the Code doesn't require any screening or buffering along the south
property line (let alone a sound wall), but they recommend that District provide screening
(such as a chain link fence with slats) just the same. They also suggest that this
requirement for screening be waived if adjacent property owners do not want it. At the
same time, however, staff is recommending that the District be required to build a wall
along the same property line whether or not the adjacent property owners want it. Staff
seems concerned about the noise impacts of the soccer field, yet at the same time states
that there would be little impact. Staff acknowledges that school activities are exempt from
the ordinance, yet still suggest a sound wall. The staff report seems ambivalent on this
point. Excerpts from the staff report illustrating some of the disparities within the staff
report related to screening, buffering and noise attenuation are attached to this letter.
ednwptryAts&atberbdcaMr ng/epsWnlet'7/!11/04 2
Alberta Rldar Elementary School
CONCLUSIONS
Because sound attenuation measures are not required or even suggested by the Tigard
Development Code; because requiring such measures is not consistent with requirements
on other schools in Tigard; and because the requirement would pose an unnecessary burden
on the School District with no tangible positive consequences, the Tigard-Tualatin School
District respectfully requests that you NOT Impose recommended Condition #30 of the staff
report as a condition of approval.
Sinc 1
Ed urphy, AIC
Principal, Ed Murphy & Associates
cc: Richard Rainone, Comerstone Construction Management, Inc.
Sean Scott, Ellis Eslick Associates Architects P.C.
Dick Bewersdorff, Planning Manager, City of Tigard
edinq~php~d/aThertaridedheadng/aFstelnleflT/f111D4 3 -
Alberta RlderEementary Schod
Excerpts from the staff report related to screening,
buffering and sound attenuation measures
(Underlining added for emphasis)
screening.
Page 5
Prior to issuance of building permits, screening shall be provided on all sides of e Project
that abut residential propty This requirement may be waived for those properties where
the applicant has secured written authorization from these abutting grope owners to
forgo this screening.
Page 12
Screening may be appropriate from off-site residential properties. The applicant has
proposed a perimeter chain link (non sight obscuring) fence, but this use may require
additional screening from abutting properties. Staff acknowledges that the current
properties are developed with such great separation from the proposed development that
screening may not be necessary. Future more intensive density will place structures closer
to the property line, but these sites are typically fenced by the developer and/or
homeowner. Since screening is to benefit off site residences, and these residences may not
desire this screening staff recommends that the requirement for screening _be imposed on
all sides of the project that abut residential property but allow the applicant to secure
written authorization from these abutting property owners to forgo this screening if so
desired.
Page 13
The applicant is proposing new chain link perimeter fencing for the site. This appears
adequate and appropriate for the proposed uses. Screening was previously discussed.
Page 14
Staff recommends that the requirement for screening be imposed on all sides of the project
that abut residential property but allow the applicant to secure written authorization from
these abutting property owners to forgo this screening if so desired.
Buffering.
Page 15
4. Suffering, screening and compatibility between adjoining uses:
a. Buffering shall be provided between different types of land uses, for example, between
single-family and multiple-family residential, and residential and commercial uses, and the
following factors shall be considered in determining the adequacy of the type and extent of the
buffer...
The applicant has proposed significant separation of the proposed school building from
adjoining properties. Moreover, an existing line of trees and vegetation exists along the
western boundary. The applicant is proposing to screen service areas. The reservoir will be
placed underground so no further buffering is necessary for this use.
Page 26-27
Land Use Buffering and Screening:
Buffering and Screening is required between different types of land uses.
The proposed facility Is In a residential zone and is adjacent to residential uses on three sides.
There are no specific buffering reguirements for this use The only requirement applicable to
this vetopment is the screening of the parking area which is discussed in the next segment
of this discussion. This criterion Is satisfied.
edmwpgMswatodwkferArea n o p.WnieV71111 D4 4
Abode ROO Elementary School
Noise.
Page 11
After construction is complete, the proposal would not likely generate any vibration, air
pollution, odor, glare, noise, or dust that would be considered out of character for the use.
The proposed site is adjacent on three sides to noise sensitive units as defined in the Tigard
Municipal Code (TNIC) Chapter 7.40. The proposed soccer field is located 26 feet and uphill
from the property boundary of the future homes to the south. Noise from outdoor events
and recess periods may Impact these properties. The applicant has not submitted a noise
study, nor proposed any noise mitigation measures. Staff recommends the hearings officer
consider sound attenuation measures such as a wall along the south side of the DrogertV
near the soccer Riay field.
Page 25
Noise. nor the ~SposG~ .,f noise rpnulation, the provisions of Sections 7.4 1 130 through
Z.40.210 of the Tigard Municipal Code shall aooiv
Page 26
There Is no GYIdGnce In the record that would suggest that any problems associated with noise
emissions, vibrations, odors, glare and heat, or insects and rodents would result from this
specific development. A search of City records does not indicate any code enforcement
issues associated with the existing on going use.
Finding. Bacon on the information provided by the applicant the use of the 1roperty will
conform to the abc~ye requirements (environmental .performance standards]. If for some
reason the above standards were,in question, and it was subsequently found that the use
was out of compliance with any of the above standards, the property owner would be
subject to code enforcement, court review, possible fines, and revocation of the Conditional
Use Permit.
e&nffO~bftdarlde&eertngrepsWn1eN111IM4 r~
®r LD MURPHY & AsS®CIVrES
Land Use Planning and Development Services
July 14, 2004 ,
Larry Epstein, Hearings Officer
City of Tigard
13125 SW Hall Blvd.
Tigard, Oregon 97223
RE: Alberta Rider Elementary School, additional evidence
Dear Mr. Epstein:
As we said at the hearing Monday, we would like to Introduce documents describing
the life estate of Mrs. Alberta Rider into the record. Such documentation is attached for
your consideration. The life estate is basically the heavily wooded area in the north-central
portion of the property, surrounding Mrs. Rider's home.
Aside from Mrs. Rider's life estate, the wooded grove is also a natural environmental
constraint in its own right. It was described by Mr. Halstead, the arborist who prepared the
Tree Assessment Report for the property, as a large grove of mostly Douglas Fir trees
ranging In age from 60 to 100 years old, and very fragile. His report stated that a grove
like this Is an "environmental tribute to ecology", and growing in an urban area, accessible
to a large population, makes it "priceless". There is also an old log cabin on the site, which
is a historic resource.
We are attaching to this letter an illustration showing the life estate area, as well as
other constraints on the property. This graphic shows that, out of the 10.36 acre site, only
about 5.6 acres are actually available for a school site when all of the constraints of the
property are subtracted from the gross acreage. The shaded areas on the maps show the
areas that are not available for the school, including the life estate, the small areas on both
sides of the life estate, the area set aside for the city water reservoir, the steep slope areas,
and the yard setback areas. Note that the map does not include the proposed "F" Street
right-of-way.
The architects and engineers worked very hard to come up with a land-efficient plan
that accommodates a school building and one soccer field, parking and circulation for cars
and school busses, a water reservoir, and emergency accessways, while preserving as many
trees as possible, minimizing the cut and fill necessary, and maximizing the solar and view
orientation. The proposed site design works very well, but it is obviously a very tight fit.
Subtracting another .54 acres for right-of-way along the west property line adds one more
formidable and perhaps insurmountable constraint, particularly because the proposed bus
loading and unloading/turnaround loop would not be workable.
9875 SW Murdock St. Tigard, Oregon 97224
Phone .503. 624.4625 Cellular ,503. 314.o677 ®Fax 503. 968.1674
Albefia Rider Elementary School
We hasten to add, however, that in explaining the constraints on the property, we
are not saying that the site is unsuitable for an elementary school. It is not fair to say (as
we understood Mr. Tracy to say Monday night), that by using the constraints of the site as
part of the justification for the variance request, the District is essentially arguing that the
site is not adequate. Mr. Tracy basically said that the stronger the case for the variance
under the criterion "special circumstances peculiar to the lot size or shape, topography or
other circumstances", the weaker the case for the conditional use permit under the criterion
"the site size and dimensions provide adequate area for the needs of the proposed use".
The staff is therefore recommending that the Hearings Officer either deny the variance
application because the site is not constrained enough, or deny the conditional use permit
application because the site is too constrained. That is kind of like saying "heads I win, tails
you lose".
We believe that there are special circumstances particular to the site that strongly
support the request for a variance from the street spacing standards. We also believe that,
even with the constraints, the overall site size and dimensions are still adequate for the
needs of the proposed elementary school, as well as the City water reservoir.
We would like to emphasize a few additional points that were brought up at the
hearing:
1. As Dr. Lowder stated, it Is a false assumption that children from the new
subdivisions south of the proposed elementary school would necessarily be going to that
school. Many of the children will come from north of Bull Mountain Road, and to the east
and west of the Alberta Rider site. School attendance boundaries change frequently, and
the School District is currently not assuming that the Alberta Rider School attendance
boundaries will include the new subdivisions south of the proposed school.
2. If the bus turn-around loop could not be built because of the requirement to
build F Street, busses would have to access the school from the south, coming north on F
Street in order to drop off and pick up children on the east side of the street. Otherwise,
children would have to cross traffic. This means busses would have to travel further to get
to the school, children would have to ride the bus longer, and more neighbors would be
disturbed by the school bus traffic, than if the busses could use the West Access Road and
the turn-around loop.
3. The subdivision to the immediate south of the site, Summit Ridge, does not
need 'F' Street. While we understand that staff is concerned that the Summit Ridge
subdivision will need 'F' Street because one of their planned access points, a street
connection to SW 133rd, is currently problematic because of a property dispute over 20' of a
edmurphyNsd/albedaridedhe&#Wepsteinlet2/I/1404 2
Alberta Rider Elementary School
501-wide easement. However, we suggest that there are at least four ways that this will be
resolved: a). The developer of Summit Ridge could win or settle the dispute; b). An interim
narrower street could be built (say 24'-wide with a 6' sidewalk on one side which is, by
the way, more of a street than many of the streets in the older Tigard neighborhoods); c).
The City could use its adverse possession authority to acquire the needed right-of-way (as
you pointed out at the hearing); or d). Other access points will be built by other developers.
On this last point, the traffic analysis submitted by Kittelson & Associates reviewed
the various access roads that will provide access for the Summit Ridge development. We
found out yesterday from the engineering firm working on Belle Vista (Land Tech Engineers)
that they have already started grading, and will have full construction permits within a week
or two. That subdivision provides a link to Beef Bend Road. Summit Ridge does not need
'F' Street In order to develop the property to the south of the Alberta Rider site, regardless
of the outcome of the current property dispute.
4. The properties owners to the west of the school site do not need or
apparently want the F street connection (judging from the testimony). We have already
shown that their properties could be more appropriately developed some day with an
Internal street connecting to West Access Road. A street in this location could not only
make it easier to redevelop those properties, but also increase the likelihood that future
development will meet the minimum density requirements. (It allows three rows of lots
between SW 133rd and the school property, instead of two rows of lots, which would be a
more efficient use of the land).
5. We want to point out that a street in that location would not be "more non-
conforming", as staff asserts. In determining the spacing of streets, one would usually start
with the location of existing streets, not conceptual streets. In this case, one should
measure east from 133rd Avenue, not west from the proposed 'H' Street. Using the staff
recommended requirement that a future street off West Access Road be within 200 feet of
the terminus of the cul-de-sac bulb, the new streets' centerline would be about 315' from
the east right-of-way line of SW 133rd Avenue. This is actually moving the future street
location to wi hi 530 feet, not greater than 530 feet. (The standard, remember, is not "a
street every 530 feet", but "...spacing of no more than 530 feet between connections..."
That is, measuring from the existing street (which is the proper place to measure, especially
when there IJ local street nlan nr final subdivision aparovals) the proposed internal street
conforms to the street spacing standards.
6. I am not sure we made it clear at the hearing or in our written materials, but
staff originally wanted F Street to be extended to Bull Mountain Road. They now accept that
edmwphyAtscValbertanderAbeenng/epsteintet2l7ll4A4 3
Alberta Rider Filamentary School
connecting the road to Bull Mountain Road is not a good idea. So `F' Street really doesn't
provide much connectivity anyway, since the traffic has to go back to SW 133rd Avenue. At
the most, it may reduce a small amount of traffic on SW 133rd by by-passing it for a short
distance but all the evidence suggests that SW 133rd has the capacity to accept additional
traffic.
Mr. Epstein, you said at the meeting that sometimes the regulations don't let you
apply common sense to a situation. We respectfully disagree with that assessment. The
whole point of a variance is to enable a decision-maker to apply common sense when "the
literal interpretation of the provision of the applicable zone would cause an undue or
unnecessary hardship". (TDC 18.370.020). There has to be "special and unusual
circumstances", of course, and we think we have more than adequately shown what those
circumstances are.
One almost has to go back to the purpose of the zoning regulations. The purpose of
the regulations, as stated in TDC 18.110.020, is to promote and protect the public health,
safety, convenience and welfare; to afford an efficient and orderly development and
arrangement of public services and facilities within the city; to provide for and encourage a
safe, convenient and economic transportation system within the City; to conserve needed
open space and protect historic, cultural, natural and scenic resources. The District has
presented a plan that is in alignment with those purpose statements; it has put forth a
responsible plan that allows joint use of the property by two public agencies; it has
presented a plan that carries out both the intent and the requirements of state and regional
land use regulations.
If you look at the purpose statements of the Development Code, look at the evidence
we have presented, review the criteria for an adjustment or a variance, and then apply
common sense, we think that you will agree to grant the adjustment/variance request. The
potential adverse impacts clearly exceed the public benefits of strict application of the
standards.
Thank-you for the opportunity to provide this additional information.
Sin
ftMphury, AIC
Principal, Ed Mufphy & Associates
cc: Richard Rainone, Cornerstone Construction Management, inc.
Sean Scott, Ellis Eslick Associates Architects P.C.
Dick Bewersdorft, Planning Manager, City of Tigard
edmurphyAtscValbodmiderAearirWepsteinietWI14W 4
I_
N~ N.W. CORNER: DIMENSIONS AND SLOPES YEILDS
UNBUILDABLE. -0.55 ACRES
LIFE TENANCY AREA YIELDS UNBUILDABLE.
-1.24 ACRES
\ N.E. CORNER: TOO SMALL EAST-WEST YIELDS
UNBUILDABLE. -0.61 ACRES
10.55 ACRES
-0.55 N.W.
- 1.24 TENANCY _
-0.61 N.E.
-1.00 S.E.
-0.18 RESERVOIR
-0.32 WEST SETBACK
-0.43 SETBACKS / EASEMENTS
r ~
5.62 ACRES LEFT AT 4 TO 129.
SLOPES
GRA G C SETBACK,
ZO G D SETBACK -0.14
E. CORNER: TOO STEEP TO
i 1 \ BUILD UPON, RESERVOIR
f le~ PLACEMENT YIELDS
UNBUILDA LE., -11AC E
TREET F SE BACK
.56 ACRE o
WEST SETBACK -
-032 ACRES
GRADING UBC SETBACK, RESERVOIR WITH CITY REQUIRED SLOPES
REAR SETBACK -029 ACRES YIELDS UNBUILDABLE. -0.18 ACRES
SOCCER FIELD: SMALLER THAN TYPICAL
Life Estate Included
PURCHASE AGREEMENT
DATE: Effective as of April 28, 1997
RECITALS
A. ALBERTA RIDER, as Trustee and/or Trustor of THE ALBERTA
RIDER TRUST, ("Seller"), is the owner of the real property described in Exhibit A
attached hereto (the "Property"), which includes 7.33 acres, more or less.
B. Seller desires that Alberta Rider retain a life estate in 1.25 acres of the
Property in the general area shown in Exhibit B. The portion of the Property that will
henceforth be subject to the life estate is hereinafter referred to as the "Life Estate Parcel."
C. TIGARD-TUALATIN SCHOOL DISTRICT 23J ("Purchaser") is
purchasing the Property, subject to the above-mentioned life estate in favor of Alberta Rider.
D. Purchaser has asserted its right to eminent domain over the Property,
and this agreement is in settlement of the claim of eminent domain.
AGREEMENT
Purchaser agrees to buy the Property from Seller and Seller agrees to sell the
Property to Purchaser on the following terms:
1. Purchase Price. The purchase price for the Property shall be a total of
$828,300. [Purchaser has elected not to reduce the purchase price for the Property based on
the retention of the life estate in favor of Alberta Rider.] The purchase price for the
Property shall be paid in cash at closing. Promptly following the execution of this agreement
by Seller and her delivery to Purchaser of one original of the executed agreement, Purchaser
shall deposit with First American Title Insurance Company of Oregon earnest money in the
amount of $50,000. The earnest money shall be credited toward the purchase price at
closing.
2. Closing. The sale of the Property shall be closed in escrow ("the
j Closing") at First American Title Insurance Company of Oregon, 10260 S.W. Greenburg
Road, Tigard, Oregon 97223, within 30 days following Seller's execution of this agreement
and her delivery to Purchaser of one original of the executed agreement.
- I - MONO
3. Closing hosts. Purchaser shall pay the escrow fee, title insurance
premium, all recording costs, and the Washington County transfer tax (if any). Real
property taxes on the Property for the current tax year shall be prorated as of the Closing.
4. Preliminary Title Report. Purchaser has reviewed First American
Title Insurance Company's preliminary title report dated August 19, 1996 (order
No 806001). Purchaser has approved title exceptions No. 1-5 listed in that report and will
accept title to the Property without the removal of those exceptions.
5. Legal Description for the Life Estate Parcel. Within five business .
days after the effective date of this Agreement, Purchaser shall instruct Chase Jones &
Associates, Inc., its surveyor, to promptly prepare a legal description for the Life Estate
Parcel. The Life Estate Parcel is to contain 1.25 acres of land. Purchaser shall instruct its
surveyor that if the surveyor finds it necessary to deviate from Exhibit B when preparing the
legal description for the Life Estate Parcel, the surveyor shall modify the north/south
dimension of the Life Estate Parcel as necessary to create precisely a 1.25-acre parcel that
abuts Bull Mountain Road, but shall adhere as faithfully as possibly to the east/west
dimension shown in Exhibit B. Purchaser shall furnish a copy of the legal description for the
Life Estate Parcel to Seller promptly after. that legal description becomes available. The
legal description for the Life Estate Parcel prepared by Purchaser's surveyor shall be used in
the deed described in paragraph 6 below.
6. Deed; Maintenance Related to Life Estate Parcel. At the Closing,
Seller will convey and transfer the Property to Purchaser by a statutory special warranty deed
(see ORS 93.855), subject only to title exceptions No. 1-5 mentioned in paragraph 4 above
and the life estate in favor of Alberta Rider. The deed shall expressly state that the Seller
shall (a) maintain the improvements on the Life Estate Parcel at Seller's sole cost and
expense throughout the term of the life estate; and (b) maintain operating smoke detectors in
all dwelling units located on the Life Estate Parcel throughout the term of the life estate; and
(c) maintain all trees on the Life Estate Parcel throughout the term of the life estate without
damaging or cutting any of those trees.
7. Property Included. The Property includes the real property described
in Exhibit 1, the two houses, well, trees, shrubs, all other fixtures, and all water rights
related to the Property.
S. Successor Interests. This agreement is binding upon and shall inure to
the benefit of the parties and their respective successors, successor trustees, personal
representatives, heirs, devisees, grantees, and assigns.
9. - Contingencies. Purchaser's obligation to pay for the Property and
close this transaction is conditioned upon:
-2- XBB030V
a. Purchaser's review and approval of a new Level 1
environmental audit of the Property, to be conducted at Purchaser's sole
expense within four weeks after Seller's execution of this agreement and her
delivery to Purchaser of one original of the executed agreement.
b. Purchaser's review and approval of a survey of the Property, to
be conducted at Purchaser's sole expense within four weeks after Seller's
execution of this agreement and her delivery to Purchaser of one original of
the executed agreement.
The two conditions set forth in this paragraph 9 are exclusively for Purchaser's
benefit and may be waived at any time by written waiver executed by Purchaser. Seller shall
allow Purchaser's environmental inspector and surveyor access to the Property so that the
Level I audit and survey are completed in accordance with the schedule described above.
10. Remedies. Time is of the essence of this agreement. In the event of a
breach of this agreement, the nonbreaching party shall be entitled to all remedies available at
law or in equity.
11. Deferred Taxes. Purchaser is acquiring the Property under threat of
condemnation and will take title subject to deferred Oregon ad valorem property taxes.
Although Purchaser is not assuming these taxes and has not agreed to pay these taxes, there
will be no deduction from the purchase price of the Property due to these deferred property
taxes. Seller shall remain responsible for the payment of these taxes if that becomes
necessary.
12. Name of the New School. Purchaser shall name the new school the
"Alberta Rider School" when the new school is constructed on the Property.
13. Possession.- Seller shall place Purchaser in exclusive possession of the
Property as of the Closing, subject to the life estate covering the Life Estate Parcel.
14. Attorney Fees. In the event an action is instituted to declare, interpret,
or enforce this agreement, the prevailing party shall recover from the losing party costs and
reasonable attorney fees (plus the expenses of expert witnesses and consultants involved in
the prosecution or defense of such action) as set by the trial judge, and, in the event of an
appeal, by the appellate courts.
15. Notices. Any and all notices hereunder shall be sufficient if furnished
in writing and delivered either personally or by deposit in the United States mail as certified
mail with the postage prepaid, addressed as ;:11;,x:
-3-
xss;,,
Seller: Alberta Rider, Trustee
13040 S.W. Bull Mountain Road
Tigard, Oregon 97224
Purchaser: Tigard-Tualatin School District 23J
c/o Dr. Russell Joki and
Mr. George Fisher
13137 S.W. Pacific Highway
Tigard, Oregon 97223
16. EX ration. This agreement shall become void unless executed by
Seller and Purchaser by 11:59 p.m. on Monday, May 12, 1997.
17. Stggbry Disclaimer. THE PROPERTY MAY NOT BE WITHIN A
FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT PROTECTING STRUCTURES. THE PROPERTY IS
SUBJECT TO LAND USE LAWS AND REGULATIONS WHICH, IN FARM OR FOREST
ZONES, MAY NOT AUTHORIZE CONSTRUCTION OR SITING OF A RESIDENCE
AND WHICH LIMIT LAWSUITS AGAINST FARMING OR FOREST PRACTICES AS
DEFINED IN ORS 30.930 IN ALL ZONES. BEFORE SIGNING OR ACCEPTING THIS
INSTRUMENT, THE PERSON ACQUIRING FEE TITLE TO THE PROPERTY SHOULD
CHECK WITH THE APPROPRIATE CITY OR COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT
TO VERIFY APPROVED USES AND EXISTENCE OF FIRE PROTECTION FOR
STRUCTURES.
TIGARD-TUALATIN SCHOOL
DISTRICT 23J, Purchaser
By
Chairperson of the Board
By
Superintendent
Alberta Rider, Trustee of The Alberta
Rider Trust, Seller
Alberta Rider, Trustor of The Alberta
Rider Trust, Seller
-4- XBBME7
~ a
V Order No. 806001
EXHIBIT "A"
Beginning at an iron in the center line of the County Road South 0°35' East 1238.5 feet and South 61°27'
East 1028.5 feet from the 1/4 corner on the North line of Section 9, Township 2 South, Range 1 West, of the
Willamette Meridian, in the County of Washington and State of Oregon; thence South 00°56' East 2271.8
feet to an iron; thence North 89°52' East 403.87 feet to an iron; thence North 00°56' West 2052.1 feet to
an iron in the center line of said County Road; thence in center line of said County Road South 85° 47' West
21.9 feet to an iron; thence North 61"27' West 438.83 feet to the true point of beginning.
EXCEPTING THEREFROM that portion to George N. McBride and Virginia L McBride, recorded July 18,
1966 in Book 608, page 204 more particularly described as follows:
Beginning at an iron pipe at the Southwest corner of the tract conveyed to Charles Rider and Alberta Rider,
husband and wife, as described in Book 277, page 157, Deed Records, and which iron pipe is described
as being South 0°35' East 1238.5 feet, South 61°27' East 1028.5 feet and South 0°56' East 2271.8 feet from
the quarter section comer on the North line of Section 9, Township 2 South, Range 1 West, of the Willamette
Meridian, in the County of Washington and State of Oregon; thence North 89°37' East 404.0 feet to an iron
pipe at the Southeast comer of said Rider tract; thence North 0°53'20' West along the East line of said Rider
tract 1335.6 feet to an iron rod at the Northwest comer of the tract conveyed to Harold S. Hirsch, et ux, as
described in Book 425, page 584, Deed Records; thence South 89°37' West 403.47 feet to an iron pipe on
the West line of said Rider tract; thence South 0°52' East along said West line 1335.57 East to the true point
of beginning.
s
EXHIBIT A
THIS MAP 1S F' rO AS A CONVENIENCE IN LOCATING PROF Y ANO T YiE COMPANY
ASSUI.!cS N0 . .Y FOR ANY VARIATIONS AS MAY BE OISCLI 1 BY ACTUAL SURVEY
First American Title Insurance Company of Oregon
An n111n9c } 1•„<n n°m<o' 711L_ 41SunANCE COMPANY Oa O11E GO,
1700 S.W. FOURTH AVENUE. PORTLAND. OR 97201.5512 j
1.503) 222-3651
--mac-~R - `y1 -
1 < V
1 ~/e
S 1
1 k \ 5r?°::
<.D[f C. x 12L
5E5
p\ zI TAX L_7T4: ON 1<_F 25 I SAE
y _ I < z. ac
9: P,
211 21C~ FQf_ ! r
lot
1•' J~ J'E'T
I I ( 1 24 y - - - - - :100 d 1.
ii 3 1
. f 3 c. {-~9
SES*54'i -U$
~I 220ri
<•.__~< ~ ,f71
11'•'w csa.:• 7 r1. ~ 27i 2
!vlj
Ij tiers"w <02.7 `T _ oI
II 4 I S69<5i oz, <5 P),Eb v
2300 27275 0;
r.69A<,G 2711 c.s
! r.//«,
f - 272 5 i
' my SOfl22 •5:.2: 1 I
1)I 565'S<'g -02.6!
I;rt~c ~-~c r cam.-try- -c- f Y 2707 _I
Y F
89' 5 1,
j I ! 302 at 1- :17.15
2705
CS 12<~~ 2709 <1:
A-
WV c. c C.S.10683
♦ Cry? 'C _-~.15C tic c1.
r a 2 703
I~ 1
2701
I 2S ! r}
\ `r C.5. 10159 H r.
1.
PXHIRIT R
APPLICANTS CLOSING ARGUMt:NTS
CRY OF TIGARD
Community (Development
ShapingA Better Community
E
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
13125 SW Hall Boulevard
Tigard, Oregon 97223
(503) 639-4171
Fax 684-7297
TO: Larry Epstein, Hearings Officer
FROM: Morgan Tracy, Associate Planner
DATE: July 20, 2004
SUBJECT: Alberta Rider Applicant's Additional Evidence
Staff is in receipt of the applicant's additional evidence and summary of their final
arguments. Staff would like to clarify the City's position in regards to some of these
matters.
First, staff understood that the purpose of including the documentation for the Alberta
Rider living trust estate was to show cause for why a change to the existing driveways
would be problematic. One of the stated reasons was that the legal agreement would
need to be altered. It appears from the information submitted that the proposed
configuration of the living estate already differs from what appears in the purchase
agreement. Item 5 under the sales agreement makes mention of a specific
configuration and size for the life estate. "The life estate is to contain 1.25 acres of land.
Purchaser shall instruct its surveyor that if the surveyor finds it necessary to deviate
from Exhibit B when preparing the legal description of the Life Estate Parcel, the
surveyor shall modify the north south dimension of the life estate parcel as necessary to
create precisely a 1.25 acre parcel that abuts Bull Mountain Road, but shall adhere as
faithfully as possible to the east/west dimension shown in Exhibit B." It appears that the
proposed Life Estate Parcel differs not only in a north/south dimension and east/west,
but it is also 1.24 acres as noted in the applicant's exhibit showing site constraints.
Moreover, and more importantly, there is nothing within this document that speaks to
preservation of driveways or access rights. Staff realizes that the private arrangement
is not relevant to the City's decision, but notes the apparent inconsistency between the
applicant's argument and the evidence provided.
MEMO TO HEARINGS OFFICER RE: ALBERTA RIDER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL, CUP 2003-00012 PAGE 1 OF 11
21
APPLICANTS CLOSING ARGUMENTS
RESPONSE' The purpose of submitting the description of the life estate was to document
one of the mq/or constraints of the site. This was in response to the Hearings Officer's
statement that he could not consider the life estate as evidence of a constraint unless we
submitted documentation of the estate for the record. It had nothing to do with the
driveway access As a constraint, it makes little difference if it is 1.24 acres or 1.25
acres, or if the dimensions are slightly altered. As we will explain in more detail below,
however, altering the configuration in order to move the location of the proposed school
building or parking is not something that is easily done. The life estate area boundary
incorporates the wooded area around the two houses, an area Mrs Rider wishes to
protect. The basic fact that the life estate represents a significant constraint on the
property is undisputed.
Second, the applicant has submitted a diagram showing areas of the site that are
"unusable" based on various factors. Staff acknowledges the Life Tenancy Area (but
notes that it is apparently subject to reconfiguration) and the water reservoir (but notes
that reservoir can be located elsewhere, so long as the ground elevation remains at 555
foot elevation), and lastly acknowledges the setbacks as a constraint. However, the
other areas that have been excluded are not relevant to the code requirements. For
instance the areas identified as too steep are less than 25% grade and are at or less
than the grade where other site improvements are proposed. Areas identified as
dimensionally constrained could fit the school building if it were reoriented.
RESPONSE' We are pleased that the staff acknowledges the Life Tenancy Area as a
constraint. Yes, the boundaries of the life Tenancy Area can be reconfigured, but only
through negotiation with Mrs Rider and her family. The boundaries of the estate are
legally established lines, described in condition #6 of the life estate. Mrs Rider is under
no legal or moral obligation to reconfigure the boundaries to fit the schools needs
Further, the north/south dimension is fixed by the location of five large Douglas Fir trees
that Mrs Rider communicated were most valuable to her. These trees, which are just
north of the proposed parking lot area, are shown on the plans as five little dots (see
Sheet C21 and VI.0). Admittedly they are not shown very well on the plans, but the
parking lot is designed to avoid those five specific trees Also, as David Halstead, an
arborist, pointed out in his report (see Exhibit N), the grove of trees is very fragile, and
'all the trees are dependent on the buffer trees located on the south edge of the Section
Two. Any loss of these buffer trees will have a severe effect on the remaining grove.
Therefore, it is essential to protect the trees at all costs' The implication of Me staff's
comment that the tenancy area can be reconfigured is that the school building or parking
tot could be moved further to the north in the boundaries of the estate were simply
changed. It suggests that the life Estate area is really not a significant consiraini, wick
is not the case.
MEMO TO HEARINGS OFFICER RE: ALBERTA RIDER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL, CUP 2003-WO i 2 Per_.c 2 OF 11
APPLICANTS CLOSING ARGUMENTS
We also note that the staff acknowledges the reservoir as a constraint, although we
disagree with the notion that the reservoir can be located "elsewheW Staff does not
provide any support for the claim that the reservoir can be located elsewhere. There
were many factors that went into the location of the reservoir, the most important of
which was the overflow elevation (not the ground elevation) of the reservoir. As Brian
Pager, the City's project manager for the reservoir, reported in our Conditional Use
application on page 37, "the reservoir is to be constructed in order to serve the portion of
the 550 foot pressure zone... The overflow elevation of this reservoir will be at 550
feet..."
As the topographic map illustrates, the 555' elevation occurs only at two locations on site,
which are the northwest and southeast corners The northwest corner was considered too
small in the east-west dimension, as it would have impacted the wooded area. Moving the
reservoir elsewhere on the site so that it would be out of native ground yet still have an
overflow elevation of 550 feet would have required large amounts of structural fill and
would have increased the costs substantially, which was of great concern to the City
Engineering staff.
The 5chool District and the City were both trying to be good stewards of the public trust
when they agreed to share a piece of property acquired by the District. Siting a 3 million
gallon reservoir and a 600-student elementary school together on a sloped property, given
all of the design parameters of each use and the constraints on the property, was an
ambitious and challenging task that took agreat deal of coordination and cooperation. The
reservoir is located where it is shown on the site plan for sound engineering, design and
cost considerations, and to imply that it can easily be moved elsewhere on the site
misrepresents the situation.
Staff is incorrect in stating that Megrades in areas we show as constrained are at or less
than the grade where other site improvements are proposed. The areas shown as
constrained at the northwest and southeast corners of the site diagram of encumbrances
(submitted with the letter from Ed Murphy dated ruly 14, 2004) include slopes of 129. to
15Y., which are steeper than the area where the school is proposed. In addition, these
specific areas were shown not just because of the slope, but also because of their size -
they are too steep and too small to contain a building, reservoir, or sports field.
Finally, we are pleased that the staff acknowledges the setbacks as a constraint, The
District did not request a variance from the setback requirements because the District
aarees that these standards should be the minimum distance between the school buildings
and the property lines
The site diagram was submitted with the Aly 14'1' letter was intended to illustrate the
amount of area constrained through non self-imposed items, which creates a site with a
MEMO TO HEARINGS OFFICER RE: ALBERTA RIDER ELEMEwrARY -SCHOOL, CUP 200-3-M-2 PAGE 3 OF 11
APPLICANTS CLOSING ARGUMENTS
unique size, shape, and topography. We believe it is a fair and accurate depiction of the
constraints on the property, which are special circumstances peculiar to this site.
The applicant has been aware of the City's requirement for a street connection since
August 15, 2003. It is hard to accept an argument that after including all the required
program components, there simply is insufficient area for a street. It would seem that
the applicant and their architect would start out with a program that identified this
constraint in addition to the others, and create a design that satisfied these needs.
Instead, they have proposed a bus turnout that would be "unworkable" and placed the
kindergarten classroom "in harms way" should street "F" go through. Was this the only
design solution? As evidenced by the applicant's own admission, a number of other
alternatives were considered. Perhaps the proposed design is the most advantageous
to the applicant predicated on not having a street on the site, but alas, this design does
not satisfy the code requirements.
RESPONSE, The staff statement above is neither relevant nor accurate. It is not
relevant because it does not matter when the District first learned of the Development
Code requirements, or of the staff's intention to recommend denial of the requested
adjustment/variance. The District has the right to see relief from a hardship resulting
from the strict imposition of any zoning standard by applying for an adjustment/variance.
The statement is not accurate because the School District and design team were not
aware of the potential requirement in August of 2003. The requirement was not brought
up at the pre-application meeting held on July 8, 2003, or mentioned in the pre-application
meeting notes (Exhibit A of the application). Further, the City never sent a letter or
memo to the School District about the requirement. It was not part of the discussions
that took place between the City and the School District when the location of the
reservoir was being evaluated in the fall of 2003. It was not until December 2003 that
the District was made aware of the City staff's desire to have the School District build F
Street between Summit Ridge subdivision and Bull Mountain Road.
But again, even had the School District known about the requirement and the staff's intent
to recommend denial of the variance early on,. it still would have asked for a variance to
the requirement for all the reasons presented in the application.
This is not to say that the applicant has not worked very hard, as Mr. Murphy states, on
a land efficient plan. Nevertheless, they forgot to include an important, nay required,
element of that plan. The applicant argues that street "F" would subtract an additional
.54 acres from the site. Staff disagrees. The applicant has already shown a 10 foot
wide er-nergency access, with a 5 foot wide sidewalk, setback from the western property
line 1210" in the alignment of the "F" street right of way. This is 27'10" of the 35 feet of
right of way that is being required. Seven feet, 2 inches (the width remaining to
complete the right of way) times the 610 foot length between Summit Ridge and the
East West Access Road equals 4,372 square feet or 0.1 acre.
MEMO To HEARINGS OFFICER RE: ALBERTA RIDER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL, CUP 200300012 PAGE 4 OF 11
APPLICANTS CLOSING ARGUMENTS
RESPONSE' The notion that F Street could be constructed along the west property line
and the entire site design could stay substantially the same is incorrect. The proposed
fire lane and sidewalk shown on the site plan are not within a public right-of-way. If a 35-
foot wide right-of-way were dedicated, there would be a 20'side yard setback required
from the right-of-way line. The staff's figures do not include the 204ide side yard
setback from the right-of-way. That creates a 55=wide area. In addition, another five
feet is needed to avoidgrading too close to the property line. Altogether, these factors
create a 60'area that cannot be used forschool buildings, not a 35=wide area.
Further, the distance used in the application from a fire lane and pedestrian pathway
would have to be increased if instead a public street were built alongside the school
building. That is, the side yard setback would actually need to be more than the 20-foot
minimum to make sure that children are not loading or unloading anywhere close to the
street. There needs to be ample separation from the bus loading areas and the street, so
students are not loading and unloading close to the traffic flow. (This is especially
important for the youngest children. The building's internal programmatic requirements
dictate that the kindergartners be nearest the bus area).
Mr. Morgans figures also do not take into account the queuing distance needed for the
busses, or the large turning radiuses needed to maneuver the busses on site. They do not
reflect how F Street would connect to West Access Road, with the wide turning radius
necessary for busses to negotiate that corner.
Finally, the figures used by Mr. Morgan do not consider the significant design impacts of
shifting the school further to the east. On a sloped site with so many design parameters
and constraints, moving the building even 5 feet one way or the other can present a major
challenge. Moving the school far enough to the east to accommodate Fstreet would entail
significant changes to the site plan. It would result in the elimination of the fire lane on
the east side of the school, and in a need for over 12' high retaining walls along some
portions of the east boundary.
Mr. Murphy notes the contradiction staff raised at the hearing between the justification
for the variance and satisfying the criteria for the conditional use. A contradiction
perhaps, but not inherently wrong. If the applicant bases his argument on the fact that
there simply is not enough room to accommodate all the improvements required by City
code, then in essence the site is not appropriate for the conditional use. Staff has
already concurred that the nature of the use prevents full compliance by bisecting the
site with three streets; however, the function of an elementary school is not hampered
by the presence of adjacent streets. If this were the case, would the applicant have
sited the school adjacent to Bull Mountain Road?
RESPONSE- We are pleased to see that staff concurs that the nature of the use
prevents full compliance with all of the Code requirements, which is a point we have made
MEMO TO HEARINGS OFFICER RE: ALBERTA RIDER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL, CUP 2003-00012 PAGE 6 OF I I
APPLICANTS CLOSING ARGUMENTS
in our application. The nature of the use represents a special circumstance in and of
itself, as we stated in our variance application on page 23. The nature of the use is not
something that is applicable to other properties in the same zoning district.
Staff's other point that the function of an elementary school is not hampered by the
presence of adjacent streets, is neither a fact nor a well-founded opinion. Of course
adjacent streets can hamper the function of an elementary school. An elementary school
site needs to be a safe and secure place for children. A street placed next to a building,
play field or bus loading or unloading area increases both the security risks (as in children
being kidnapped) and safety risks (as in children being struck by a vehicle) associated with
elementary school functions Basic school functions and activities --such as outdoor play,
loading and unloading busses, walking to school would be impacted by the presence of an
adjacent street. Schools need to be designed to minimize conflicts between school busses
and personal vehicles, and between children and vehicles Access routes need to be
simple, logical and logicalbus traffic and car traffic should be separated on site, and
children should not have to walk across parking lot aisles or streets The basic functions
of the proposed elementary school would be significantly impacted by the presence of a
public street so dose to it.
As to the other points raised in Mr. Murphy's letter, staff provides the following:
1. It is a false assumption that children from adioining developments will attend the
proposed school.
The applicant is correct; staff presumed that attendees of the proposed school wou!d
include the 300 new homes being developed in the area. We will leave that matter to
the future residents to argue with the School Board. But if students from this area travel
to other schools to the south, isn't it conceivable that other students in the south would
travel north to Alberta Rider? What of other school events and activities? Moreover, if
the applicant's argument is a basis for finding that traffic impacts will not be adverse,
does this rise to the level of necessitating a condition of approval to the effect of limiting
or prohibiting students attending from the abutting properties? Staff does not
recommend such a condition, as limiting this possibility is not in the public interest, and
would instead ask that the Hearings Officer consider this potential development in the
analysis for attendance.
RESPONSE• We are pleased that Mr. Tracy acknowledges that the staff presumptions
about attendance boundaries were made in the absence of any knowledge of current or
proposed attendance boundaries Apparently, staff was presuming that the children from
the estimated 300 homes to the south of the school would be attending this elementary
school, which is not a given. As Dr. Lowder testified at the July 12 * hearing, the school
District did not presume that the area south of the school would be developed nor that
children from these new subdivisions would be attending this school when it was planning
the location of this school. Of course attendance boundaries change, and some children
MEMO TO HEARINGS OFFICER RE: ALBERTA RIDER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL, CUP 2003-=12 PAGE 6 of 11
==a
APPLICANT'S CLOSING ARGUMENTS
from the south of the school may indeed end up attending this school, but that does not
create a rationale for requiring F Street,
As we stated in our application, we understand that the current dead-end stub of F Street
will need to be converted to a private street with a public easement over it, or a public
street with a City-approved turn-around. If the school attendance boundaries do
eventually include some of the homes to the south of the school, parents who choose to
drive their children to school could drop their children off at this point and let them walk
across the school campus. Similarly, parents could drop off their children where the
proposed pedestrian access connects into N Street, and let them use that pathway to walk
to the entrance of the school. Parents could also, of course, use 133''d Street and West
Access Road
2. Reconfiguration of the school bus loading zone would adversely affect safety and
would have to travel further out of route.
Staff believes that the bus turnaround could largely remain intact with the exception that
the return to the East West Access Road would be via a public street versus a private
driveway.
RESPONSE' Staff has no basis for this belief. They have not produced drawings or
described in dimensional terms how the bus turnaround could remain intact. The design
proposed by the School District's design team accommodates busses with the large turning
radius they need, separates the bus traffic from the car traffic, and minimizes conflicts
between vehicular traffic and children walking. The design team members (including
traffic engineers, architects, civil engineers and planners) have studied this issue
extensively, and have determined that the proposed bus turnaround cannot "largely remain
intact" if a public street were connected between the F Street stub and the West Access
Road Other des/gns have also been considered, such as routing all busses to approach the
school from the south (as we mentioned at the hearing), but the other solutions all had
major adverse impacts on safety, convenience, traffic flow, and the ability to queue up
busses
Staff apparently does not take into consideration the need to transition from the full
street dimensions of the West Access Street to the 213rds wide F Street. Kittelson and
Associates illustrated this conceptually in their analysis (Exhibit H, Appendix I), and
explained why such a design was undesirable on page 26 of their report. Connecting the
West Access Road to F Street would require a large turning radius off of West Access
F_oaa and the busses would be on the wrong side of FStreet for loading and unloading. On
the other hand, requiring all of the busses to enter the school site from the south on F
Street would mean greater travel time for children on the busses andgreater impacts on
the neighbors Plus, there would still be major difficulties in terms of bus queuing space,
adequate loading space, and multiple vehicular conflict points
MEMO TO HEARINGS OFFICER RE: ALBERTA RIDER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL, CUP 200199012 PAGE 7 of 11
APPLICANTS CLOSING ARGUMENTS
For all of these reasons, we would dispute the staff's claim that the proposed bus turn-
around design could stay largely intact if F Street were built.
3. Summit Ridge does not need "F" street because there are other access
alternatives.
Staff agrees that "F" street is not essential for Summit Ridge. F street is required for the
school to meet code requirements. The Summit Ridge project was required to realign F
street so that it would minimize impacts to the school property when it was extended by
lining up the street along the western property boundary. Access to Summit Ridge is
provided via Bella Vista. Secondary access to Summit Ridge will lift a 25 unit cap on
building permits, but it is not the position of staff that F street be built simply for the
benefit of Summit Ridge. Additionally there are other alternate access points to Summit
Ridge being proposed by other developments. At issue here is the requirement for
streets to be spaced no greater than 530 feet apart. The purpose for this is to provide a
system of alternate routes of travel to disperse traffic impacts and provide multiple
transportation routes. If one examines this requirement on a project by project basis, it
might appear counterproductive, by requiring stub streets to extend or pass through
developments that do not extend through or provide a full detour route for traffic. But
this is a requirement that is intended to be implemented over the long term, each project
contributing its small part to complete the City's transportation system. What may seem
to make sense today will confound people in the future as our transportation demands
and population in the region grows.
RESPONSE We are pleased that staff acknowledges that F Street is not essential for
the full development of the Summit Ridge subdivision, and that there are other access
paints serving Summit Ridge proposed by other developments We had began to think that
one of staff's primary reasons for wanting F Street built across the school property was
to create a secondary access for Summit Ridge so the 25-home cap could be lifted. We
areglad staff clarified that point.
The rest of Mr. Morgan's statement in this paragraph is simply a commentary about the
purpose of connectivity and the rationale for the street spacing standard. We have
already noted that the State Transportation Planning Rule and the Metro Regional
Transportation Plan do not require schools to meet street spacing standards, and further,
that Washington County does not apply street connectivity standards to school sites
Other agencies and jurisdictions are interested in creating livable neighborhood and
reducing vehicle miles traveled, yet have decided to implement the State and Metro
requirements differently than the City of Tigard did.
The School District has a very strop interest i;, getting chi &wn fn school safely and
conveniently,' in making the school accessible to parents, teachers, vendors and emergency
vehicles, and even in encouraging children and their parents to walk or ride a bicycle
MEMO To HEARINGS OFFICER RE: ALnERTA RiuER ELE *9-NTA.RY $vNO?L, CUP 20034=12 PAGE 8 OF 11
APPLICANTS CLOSING ARGUMENTS
rather than drive to school We maintain that the proposed site design accomplishes
those objectives
4. The groped y owners do not need or apparently want F Street.
This is not a relevant criterion to evaluate the proposal or the requested variance. Staff
received 6 letters from neighbors adjoining proposed F street and 2 other letters from
owners across SW 13P. It should be pointed out that these same neighbors
apparently were unaware that the applicant had proposed that this street instead be
shifted to the middle of their properties.
RESPONSE.- This IS a relevant criterion. We attempted to explain in our application that
granting a variance would not be materially detrimental to adjoining property owners,
either in the short term or the long term which is one of the factors to be considered
when requesting a variance (TDC 18370010C.2.a). We also tried to show that the
transportation system would not be adversely affected any more without F Street than
would occur if F Street were built, which is also a variance criterion. (TDC
18,370010.C2d).
The map we submitted as part of the traffic study (Appendix T of Exhibit H, the
Kittelson report) and the sketch we included in our application (Exhibit 'O') illustrated a
potential future street that could provide a north/south connection, if and when those
properties to the west develop, It was not meant to imply that this street is needed now,
but to show how those properties could be served be served by a street as the properties
are redeveloped.
Contrary to what staff implies in the statement above, no one signed up to speak as an
opponent at the hearing, and no letters were submitted by anyone opposing the Conditional
Use Permit or the request for a variance following the hearing. None of the adjoining
property owners spoke in favor of requiring the School District to build FStreet.
5. Staff mistakenly concluded that the applicant's proposed future street was "more
non-conforming" than staffs recommended location for F street.
Staff concurs with the applicant on this point. A street located within 530 feet of an
existing street would satisfy the requirements of this standard, regardless of its
placement within the 530 foot required distance.
RESPONSE' We are pleased that staff concurs on this point, which we think is a very
i'unportant r i nt: A street placed further to the west of the school site is NOT more non-
conforming, as staff has previously suggested, but would meet the requirements of the
Tigard Development Code. We have tried to show why a street placed further to the
west would be a better location for redevelopment of those parcels, if and when the
MEMO TO HEARINGS OFFICER RE: ALBERTA RIDER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL, CUP 2003.00012 PAGE 9 OF 11
APPLICANTS CLOSING ARGUMENTS
property owners choose to redevelop their properties It would allow a more efficient use
of the land and a more logical street and lot pattern than would be the case if F Street
were built along the property line.
6. Staff now accepts that connecting F street to SW Bull Mountain Road is not a
good idea.
The applicant characterizes staffs position regarding extending "F" street to SW Bull
Mountain Road as being "not a good idea". Quite the contrary, it would be a great idea;
however, the applicant's traffic engineer provided analysis that showed a street
connection in this location would be unsafe. A requirement that the applicant design
and construct mitigation measures for a street connection at this location would be more
appropriate. Such mitigation measures could include a turn lane and/or traffic light
which would additionally permit children and other people to cross Bull Mountain Road
on foot more safely as well.
RESPONSE We had understood that the staff accepted the idea that F street should
not connect to Bull Mountain Road, based on the analysis and evidence we supplied as part
of our application. Staff never indicated in the staff report or at the hearing that they
thought it would be a great idea to connect F Street to Bull Mountain Road, or that they
thought School District should design a connection with mitigation features such as a turn
lane and/or traffic light As we noted in our application, there are several reasons why F
Street should not be extended to gull Mountain Road (page 25 of Exhibit H, Kittelson
report) In addition, Washington County (whose road it is) indicated clearly that they did
not want the access to the new school to come off gull Mountain. Road which is why the
District bought the right-of-way for West Access Road in the first place. Staff did not
present any evidence contrary to the findings on page 25 of the Kittelson report, nor any
indication that Washington County would support a direct connection to Bull Mountain
Road,
The idea that the staff would at this point say that connecting to gull Mountain. Road is a
great idea, and that requiring the School District to design such a connection with
mitigation measures such as a signal is appropriate, is inconsistent with previous
discussions with staff. We have clearly shown why it would not agood idea to connect F
street to gull Mountain Road. Further, we maintain that without such a connection, F
Street would provide very limited value to the overall transportation system.
In conclusion, staff respectfully requests that the hearings officer not be persuaded by
the applicant's self-imposed hardships, and deny the request for the variance to the
requirement for the F street connection.
In conclusion, the applicant respectfully requests that the Hearings Officer not be
persuaded by the staff's unsupported assertions, or by the staff's allegation that the
MEMO TO HEARINGS OFFICER RE: ALBERTA RIDER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL, CUP 200300012 PAGE 10 OF 11
ED l~ URPHY ASSOCIATES
® Land Use Planning and Development Services
July 23, 2004
Larry Epstein, Hearings Officer
City of Tigard
13125 SW Hall Blvd.
Tigard, Oregon 97223
RE: Alberta Rider Elementary School, final arguments
Dear Mr. Epstein:
After you closed the hearing on July 12th, you left the record open at the request of
the school district until 5:00 PM on July 144' in order for the District to submit additional
evidence. We submitted information on the life estate of Mrs. Alberta Rider, together with a
letter. The record was left open an additional seven days, until 5:00 PM July 21st, for any
participant to respond to the new evidence submitted. You gave the District an opportunity
to waive the seven days the applicant is allowed after the record is closed to submit final
written arguments. We declined to waive the seven days at that time, instead wanting to
wait to see if any opponents submitted any response to our July 14th submittal. As you
know, no one responded, which is what we expected.
However, Morgan Tracy, Associate Planner with the City of Tigard, sent you a four-
page memo on July 20"', responding to our July 14th letter, and presenting what were
essentially final arguments from the City staff's perspective. Although the memo was
mostly a recitation of staff's position, we feel that we must respond to several of the
statements made. This letter will respond to Mr. Tracy's remarks and will be the School
District's closing arguments. For ease of reading, I inserted a response to each of Mr.
Tracy's points in the attached memo.
Thank-you for the opportunity to provide these final written arguments in support of
the application. We look forward to receiving your decision.
Since y
Ed Murphy, AICP
Principal, Ed Murphy & Associates
cc: Richard Rainone, Cornerstone Construction Management, Inc.
Sean Scott, Ellis Eslick Associates Architects P.C.
Dick Bewersdorff, Planning Manager, City of Tigard 3
9875 SW Murdock St. Tigard, Oregon 97224.
Aff Phone 503. 624.4625 Cellular 503. 314.o677 ®Fax 503. 968. 1674
ATTACHMENT 6
~ `111
- 1
AGENCIES
RESIDENTS, t
& OTHER STAFF COMMENTS
1
Ell
~t
E
'i W7
VenturePr®perties
I N C OR P OR A T E D
Creating June 18, 2004
Tomorrow's Morgan Tracy
City of Tigard
Communities 13125 SW Hall Blvd.
Tigard, OR 97223
Today
RE: Summit Ridge Water and Alberta Rider School Hearing
Dear Morgan:
On Thursday June 17, 2004 Venture Properties ("Venture") and Alpha
Engineering C'Alpha") met with Tigard Water District, MSA and the City of Tigard
Engineering Department to discuss the proposed water system and Venture's
alternatives to ensure adequate water pressure within the Summit Ridge and Bella
Vista subdivisions. The first alternative presented at that meeting by Alpha was
confirmed by MSA as adequate to serve the 713-service area of Summit Ridge and
was agreed upon as the preferred connection by all those who attended the meeting.
This first alternative includes utilizing Venture's easement rights to an existing
Private Utility Easement, which is located over the Rider/School District Property to
the north of Summit Ridge. Venture intends to install a water line through the
easement to service our subdivision and then dedicate the easement to the public.
The easement also includes a 25-foot private access easement. Please refer to the
attached easement documentation.
Also, we have just recently had an opportunity to preliminarily review the
school's land use application and plans identifying the proposed location of the
school building. According to the easement documents, the easement exists in the
same location that the school is proposing to locate their building. We want to make
sure that the City of Tigard is aware of Venture's easement rights during the land
use decision process. As the easements are depicted on the attached sketch the
location the water line will be built through a portion of the proposed school
building. Unless the easement is relocated or other solution is reached by Venture
and the School District the school cannot not be constructed in its proposed location.
Venture is interested in discussing this matter with the city of Tigard and the School
District in order to resolve the issues that this easement brings to light.
Please call me if you have any questions. I can be reached at 503-387-7600.
Sincerely,
Kelly Ritz
4230 Galewood Street, Suite 100 Lake Oswego, OR 97035 503.387.7600 fax 503.387.7617
President
WKH
Cc: Brian Rager, Tigard Water District
Kim McMillan, City of Tigard Engineering
Tigard-Tualatin School District
-
VOL
~1 1
t-j----------------------------- p0 4~
' 1 f -n. •.r
• ~f
~~Sl.G~l~ v • i s
r- -
a5, !
i
I 1 , 1
SERVICE AREA
"URBAN L._-._-:__._~.-- - e1 •-----•L-•--•- TOM"GARD t CUP2003-00012/VAR2004-00037 41, 42 8k 43
s PLAN ALBERTA RIDER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL &
CITY OF TIGARD WATER RESERVOIR-
(Map is not to scale)
UTILITY EASEMENT
Hrki REAS, BARCLD S. HUSCH and ELIZADETH D. llIRSCH, here -
iuaftar referred to as AI:4SCIMS, arc the owners of the followin,;
described adjoining parcels of real property in Washington County,
• is rc;,an
''V)/ PAXEL I: The West one-half of the Northeast quarter
of the Southeast quarter of Section 5, Township 2 Sontc,
itan;;a 1 West, W.M., Washington County, bragon.
PA?.CEL II: 16 lm-itn& at an iron ai;a at Mort;oonst corner
of Southeast quarter of Southeast quarter of• Section 9,
X Township 2 South, Ranggg 1 West„ W.H., ilashlr3ton County,
Oregon; thence South 00.19' best, along 6:ast line of
Southeast quarter of Southeast quarter,. said Section 5,
for a distance of 250 feet to an iron rod; tberce Noree
670 29' East 706.7 feet to a point on the Norta line of
the said Southeast quarter of Southeast quarter; thence
South 880 11' Hest, along said North line, .6514* feet
to point of beginning.
•k",IEP,EAS, CHARLES W. RIDER and ALBERTA RIDER, hereinafter
referred to as RIDERS, are the owners of the followin„ described
real property in Washington County, Oregon being situate in Section
9, Township 2 South, Range 1 West, Willamette Meridian, in Vashia;;ton
County, Oregon, described'as follows:
BEGINNING at a point in the center of•tbe Count;
Road which point is the Northeast corner of that
certain tract of land conveyed to Clifford W. Bemis
and wife by deed recorded May 12, 1947, in Eoo::'3&
ease 45, Dead 8ecords of Washington County, Cregone
ii'_f s South 35 East 1,23S.5 feet and South 61
27' East 1,028.5 feet from the quarter corne6 on the
North lino of said Section 9; thence Sauth.0 55' EaLt
2,271.8 feet to a point on the North line of the
Southwest quarter Rf Southeast quarter of said Section
9; thence 'North 69 52' East aloe„ the North '_:nc of
said Southwest quarter of the Southeast quarter of
said Section 9, 403.37 feet to the Noreheast corner of
said Southwest quarter of the Southeast quarter of said
Section 9; thence North 00 56` West along the East line
of the Northwest quarter of the Southeast quarter of
said Section 9 and along the West line of that certain
tract, of land conveyed to Fred Strucken by deed recorded
In Book. 681 to records of V ashin;ton County,
Ureoon, 2,052o a point in the center of said
County Road; thence in the center of said road South
350 47' Ilest 21.9 feet to a point- thence continuing
in the center of said road North 910 27' :lest 438,83 feet to the
point of beginning.
soak f1G
?a;;e 1 - Easement
I
/UJ 1 `
-
Ar. .
~3G
+ F$°wREAS, H1ISCRES are desirous of securing an oascmont
for utility purposes to serve the said HIRSCH property;
101, THEREFORE, the parties hereto agree as rollows:
? 1, in consideration of $10.00 and other wood and valuable
caasideration, vaceipt of which is hereby acknowledged, RIDERS
aoroby grant unto HIRSCHES,their heirs and assigns, a ,perpetual
easement for.the purposes of construction, installation, use,
maintenance, repair, and replacing of telephone and electric power.
dines and poles,'water, sewer, and gas pipes under, over and across
a strip of land twenty feet in width along,.westerly of and within
twenty feet of the easterly boundary line of RIDERS' property and
extending southerly from the northeasterly corner of 111DEW property
a distance of twelve hundred (1,200) feet.
2. During a period of fifteen years from Cho date of
execution of this easement, this easement shall be li.aited to
serdin,; not more than five single family residences on HIRSCP.ES'
property.
3. EIRSCHES will bear the expenses of installation, repair,
and maintenance, except as hereinafter provided, and will cause the
surface of the land to be restored as early as possible to its
previously existing condition. RIDERS shall have the ri;,at at r
their own expense to make reasonable connections with any of such
utilities for the purpose of servicing any dwelling on MDERS'
property so long as said servicing does not impede the use of such
utilities by HI_2SCHES; provided,, that the cost of maintenance and
repairing of such utilities, to the extent that the same are used
in coffin by the parties, shall be borne equally insofar as any par
of such util=ties are used in common by the parties. ;h
4. The within grant of easement to Y.IRSCHES shall include
the right of any public or private utility company or corporation
willing to provide the foregLng services to ingress and ag^.ess for
eoac 45-! v2go
Yalta 2 - Easemant
tho installation, operation and maintenance of their lines, poles
or other equipment reasonably incident thereto.
5. This a3rcament shall be binding on the heirs, assiuna
and te,reser.:atives of the parties hereto.
IN wIr3ESS WHEREOF the parties above named have hereunto
set their hands and seals on this -A da} of b e e c iub r ,
1961.
STATE OF CRZGOS
'6.*"A-4 h as.
County of Multnomah
ter
On this day of December, 1961, before we, the under-
signed, a Notary P►blid in and for said County and State, personally
appeared the within named Charles W. :cider and Alberta ?ides, 'husband
and wife, who .are known to me to be the identical individuals described
in and who executed the within instrument, and ac?:nowledged to me that
ty a ;eecuted the same freely and voluntarily.
Y, USTII11DNY WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed i;
Co
:g
5;eal the day, and year last above written.
.r, `Notary a LOY Le?On (,dares qey TR. leW
Hy Commission Expires: , ,,•r:a
STATE OF OREG0:1 ss. `
3
County. of All ..lir F
On this S~ day of December, 1961, before me, the under- YJ
signed, a :lotary Public in and for said County and State, personally
nppcared the within named Harold S. Hirsch and Elizabeth B. Hirsch,
1-:usband and wife, who are known to me to be the identical individuals 4T
described in and who executed the within instrument, and acknowled„ed
:age 3 - Easement
1"naE Gt7
. 0j
r
r4Ui?
to mo that they exacutod the same freuly and voluntarily.
IE TESTI qNY WIjEREOF, I have hareunto set tai hand and affixed
my official tool the day and year last above written.
14 L
bury iu io 'oi
My commission Expixea:~^~,;
900- IVL 14 3964
t
Y'
Page 4 - Basement
~,~,'4' s-*da 'w•,+i:.,sa:1.-.raz~k ~J:nt•tiro ..s.~y?.•.a3au<<++1hiF~i:Fw.:i+!•(w",'..'l..u~:l!~:. .~a.:~~+'~t d.a,. nrXtq
• .t
1'.CAO EAMMEM
1^.1::. WAS, HAROU) S. HIRSCH and ELIZABETH B. 111=11, herein
a:tcr rcfcr od to as 11IRSCkiES, are the owrcrs of the following
described adjoining parcels of real property in Washington County,
C=cgon:
PAIICBL 1: The west one-half of the Northeast quarter
of the southeast quarter o Washington County, ,ownship 2 South,
i;an;;e 1 best, tii. M. ,
PARCEL .11: Bo3i.nuing at an iron pipe at Northwoot corner
of Southeast quarter of Southeast quarter of Section 9,
Totzship 2 South, Range 1 hest, W.H. Washington County,
Oregon, thence South O° 19' West, along West line. of
Southeast quarter of Southeast quarter, said Section 9,
for a distance of 250 feet to an iron rod; thence North: .
67° 29' East 706.7 feet to a point on the North line of
the said Southeast quarter of Southeast quarter; thence
South 88° 11' West, along said North line, 651.3 feet
to point of beginning.
1•-niEItEAS, CHARLES W. RIDES and ALBERTA RIDEa, hereinafter .
referred to as RIDERS, are the owners of the following described
real property, in Washington County, Oregon being situate in Section
9, Vionship 2 South, Range 1 West, Willagette Meridian, in 1•lashin;,ton
County, O:eoon, described as follows:
Beginning at a point in the center of the County :toad
which point is the Northeast corner of that certain
tract of land conveyed to Clifford Bemispane wifeDeed
by deed recorded May Orc,; and is South 6°
records of Washington County,
35' East 1,233.5 feet and South 61 27' East 1,028.5
feet from the quarter corner on the North line of said
Section 9; thence South 00 56' East 2,271.0. feet to a
point on the North line.of the Southwest quarter of
Soutle.east quarter of said Section 9; thence North 390
of
52' East along the North line of said Southwest quarter
the Southeast quarter of said Sectioii 9, 403.37 feet to corner
hence to th 00 56theest tb-
of said the quartertof said Section 9;uthwest
east .q
• along 'the East line of the Northwest quarter of the South-
east quarter of said Section 9 and along the Wet lire of
that certain tract of land conveyad Deed d Strdskof by
deed recorded in Book 199, v052.1 feet to a point in the
Washington County, Oregon, 2,
center cS.said County Road; thence in the center of sa% road
outh in the cancer tofssatd'ro deNortha6l°i27i Walt 438.83 feet'
"to the print of beginning.
k Ya3e 1 - Easement
Arta 4.1
• :1' z- : b't'«°.".i:~1S, 11IRSCi1vS are desirous of securing an easement for
roadway Purposes to serve 11.11SCIMS property;
:.")v, r.c.aEFORE, the parties hercto agree as follows.
1. In consideration of one thousand dollars ($1,4GG) and
or~.ar ;gad and valuable consideration, receipt of which is hereby
ac'mowleidsed; :CIDERS hereby Grant unto HIRSCF S, their heirs and
assigns, a perpetual easement, for roadway purposes oven and across
a strip of land on RIDERS' property twenty-five (25) feet in.widta
along, southerly of and within twentj-five (25) feet of R line
extending due East from-'a point .on the westerly line of RIDERS'
property, said point being the 'southeaste* corner of the Eatterson
tract lying adjacent and Eo the West of 1IDERS' property (which point
and tract are ciore fully described in a deed recorded in the
2acorder's office, Washington County, Gregon, at page 261, Deed took
341) to a point on the easterly line of RIDr.RS' property.
2. The cost of construction of said roadway shall be at '
EIRSCHES expense.
3. RIDERS shall have access to, and the right of reasonable
use of, said right-of-way for roadway purposes. RIDERS shall have tine
furt:= ri„at.to build a road or roads across said right-of-way. ,-.e
cost of maintain:-.., and repairing said right-ef-way shall be divid•_3
squally between the parties insofar as a part in common usage is
concerned.
q, (s) Either RIDERS or HIRSCHES may install dlong said
right-of-way a fence suitable for fencing livestock, the expense to be
borne by the parry so installing.
(b) P.t RIDERS' request, HIRSCHES shall install such fence ~
r
7=
along both sides of said right-of--way.
(c) Any fence so installed shall be provided with sdtable
;sates suffiziently wide to enable ligtt trucks and vehicles to pass
thrcu,;h.
?a,e 'L Easement 454 ea294
~KF~~... J. . ..:n .'..rtvJ ...-5 J.. .ari F .i.: ::..n n•:... .u, .~tJ..v_ ...5,: :%,J
t
t;IRSCHL'S will place gates, at ,tjDcRs1 request, across
-ua-way at both 7ta as where said ri;;ilt-of -tQay interSeCCO ti:C
fmtcad lane on the ltidar tract, said lane being situated along rt,e
Easterly side of said tract sad parallel thereto.
6. During a period of fifteen years from tha date of
execution of this instrument, this easement shall be limited to
servicing not more then five sine family residences on 111MCHES yy
Crep~rty, • ' jF~l,(l,,G~i1r
t fro culti anon
1 7. In the event it is necessary to removel any wa~nut trees
in connection with the improvement or use of the right-of-way .=anted
j herein, HIRSCHES shall pay RIDERS for such trees at a price to be set
by an impartial qualified appraiser to be selected by the parties.
i S. 'This agreement shall be binding on the heirs, assigns
and representatives of the parties hereto.
IN 141THESS WHEREOF the parties above named have hereunto.
fi :D~ c<<r ~.tsc 1961.
day of , .
set their hands and seals of this
STATE OF ORECCN ss.
County of
On this '/1! day of December, 1961, before me, the under-
si;ned, a Notary Public in and for said County and State, personall;
appeared the within named Charles H. Rider and Alberta :idar, ltu:oaad
and wife, who are known to me to be the identical individuals daccaaed
in and who executed the within instrument, and ac'.uurwledged to me tnat
they executed the same freely and voluntarily.
Ix TESMONY WY.ERMF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed
tam 454 f7g295-
a a 3 -Easement
a
a:ival:seal the dey and year last above written.
°o tart' e'u L c ror Grogon
My Commission &t~ires:
Aty Coeat;;xn Ezy{10: MX1241961
STATE OF OREGON say
County of M~altnuth
On this day. of December, 196', before me, thu
undersi;ned, A Notary public in and for said'Courty and S;ate,
personally appeared the within named F:arold S. Kirsch and Mizabatlt
A. irseh, husband and wife, who are known to me to be the identical
individuals described in and who executed the within instrument, and c
acknowledged to me that they executed the same freely and voluntarily.
IN TESTIMNX T*IEREOF, I have. hereunto set my hand and
affixe2. my official seal the day and year last above wri ^tgr
~y L c Tor•:•;C•v _
My Commission.Eipires: -
. pycanmhem GptrorSep~,73.195A.'J r.
flop
. e2 ,~,ew.7~acata~v~,:.eE
.=g~; 4 Easement .
.~.m:~w.eu..,t+. 'de:. .:K•~ ...a-w~..~+rf vrre ri
- Page l
From., <dlririe@juno.com>
Td: <morgah@ci.tigard.or.us>
Date;` 6/27/04 7:02AM
Dear Mr. Tracy
I am writing in regards to the new "Alberta Rider" school. It
has come to my attention-that the city of Tigard is planning street F
that would border the west side of the school property. I am against
this street. I support the school district. The street is completely
unnecessary, it will rob the school of land and put unnecessary traffic
in the school area. Please do not force the school district to put in
this street.
.Personally my property borders the west side of the school and I
find the idea of a street in my back yard unfavorable.
Mrs. Mary Lou Ririe at
14920, SW 133rd Ave. Tigard, Or
The best thing to hit the Internet in years Juno SpeedBand!
Surf the Web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today!
•
Morgan Tracy alter to Mr. Tracy re Albs R er School A Y _ Page 1
From: Deborah Olsen <dolsen@linfield.edu>
To: <morgan@ci.tigard.or.us>, <dick@ci.tigard.or.us>, <craigd@ci.tigard.or.us>,
<nickw@ci.tigard.or.us>, <brianm@ci.tigard.or.us>, <sydney@ci.tigard.or.us>, <tomw@ci.tigard.or.us>
Date: 16/111041 0:30AM i
Subject: letter to Mr. Tracy re Alberta Rider School
July 11, 2004
Mr. Morgan Tracy, Associate Planner
City of Tigard, Planning Division
13125 SW Hall Blvd.
Tigard,IR 97223
Dear Mr. Tracy,
As residents of 133rd Ave. on Bull Mt., we are writing about the proposed
Alberta Rider School site. As you know, our neighborhood has been facing
numerous issues regarding the adjacent proposed developments, and we are
eager that the city find solutions to traffic pattern that are best for
the hundreds of children who will attend this new school, for the new
residents of the Bull Mt. area, and for the affected existing
neighborhood.
know that I speak for virtually all my neighbors when I urge the
following:
1) To avoid a serious safety problem at the intersection of 133rd and Bull
Mt. Rd:, change the primary access to the school from 133rd Ave. to "H
Street," and make H street the connector through the new developments to
Beef Bend Rd. Explore all possibilities with the developer affected by
this suggestion to work out a solution.
2) Eliminate, if possible, the entrance to the school from 133rd Ave. If a
second access must be provided, make this the emergency fire access.
3) Do not construct the proposed "F Street." Voters of the Tigard School
District (including ourselves) approved money for a new school, not for a
road that will aid developers and adversely affect a number of residents
on 133rd Avenue. Even more importantly, the proposed F Street would
encroach upon school property, causing the architects to alter their
current plan that maximizes outside play area for children. Adding F
Street would reduce play area in a site that is already half the size of
the average school site. Further, the construction of "F Street" does not
provide another connection to Bull Mt. Rd. at the required 530 feet.
Finally, we urge you to be sensitive to our neighbors. Although we are
actually not opposed to of the proposed annexation of the Bull Mt. area to
Tigard, you will find among our neighbors several leading opponents. I
suggest that working with the residents of 133rd Avenue on this issue
might go a Iona way to dissipate the hostility to the city that has been
so evident in recent months.
Thank you for considering our suggestions.
Pa e 2
M~oraan Tracy IetteP to Mr. Tra re Albs . Rider. School , . - . -
Sincerely yours,
Deborah M. Olsen
George D. Olsen
15165 S.W.133rd Ave.
Tigard, Oregon 97224
phone: 503-639-9026
copies : Tigard Mayor and City Council members
CC: George Olsen <olsenge@ohsu.edu>
15 165 S. W. 133d Ave.
Tigard. Oregon
July 11, 2004
Mr. Morgan Tracy, Associate Planner
City of Tigard, Planning Division
13125 SW Halt Blvd.
Tigard, OR 97223
Dear Mr. Tracy,
As residents of UP Ave. on Bull Mt., we are writing about the proposed Alberta Rider School
site. As you know, our neighborhood has been facing numerous issues regarding the adjacent
proposed developments, and we are eager that the city find solutions to traffic pattern that are best
for the hundreds of children who will attend this new school, for the new residents of the Bull Mt.
area, and for the affected existing neighborhood.
I know that I speak for virtually all my neighbors when I urge the following:
1) To avoid a serious safety problem at the intersection of 133rd and Bull Mt. Rd., change the
primary access to the school from 133'1 Ave. to "H Stmt," and make H street the connector
through the new developments to Beef Bend Rd. Explore all possibilities with the developer
affected by this suggestion to work out a solution.
2) Eliminate, if possible, the entrance to the school from 133A Ave. If a second access must be
provided, make this the emergency fire access.
3) Do not construct the proposed "F Street." Voters of the Tigard School District (including
ourselves) approved money for a new school, not for a road that will aid developers and adversely
affect a number of residents on 133d Avenue. Even more importantly, the proposed F Street
would encroach upon school property, causing the architects to alter their current plan that
maximizes outside play area for children. Adding F Street would reduce play area in a site that is
already half the size of the average school site. Further, the construction of "F Street" does not
provide another connection to Bull Mt. Rd. at the required 530 feet.
Finally, we urge you to be sensitive to our neighbors. Although we are actually not opposed to of
the proposed annexation of the Bull Mt. area to Tigard, you will find among our neighbors
several leading opponents. I suggest that working with the residents of UP Avenue on this issue
might go a long way to dissipate the hostility to the city that has been so evident in recent months.
Thank you for considering our suggestions.
~-Wkf,14 Sincerely yours, 49Xt-,--
Deborah M. Olsen George D. Olsen
copies: the Mayor and City Council members
Pa'e 1
Mor an i'ra -Alberta Rider school he..
From. "Art Stueber" <astueber@woridnet.att.net>
To: <morgan@ci.tigard.or.us>
Date: 6/27/04 2:29PM
Subject: Alberta Rider school hearing
Dear Mr Morgan,
Please register our disapproval of the proposed "Street F" that would come in the "backdoor" of the
Alberta Rider school. We support the school district in opposing this street. The main reason is that it
would add a lot of cost to the school district for NO gain. No one would use this street except for a few
people who live in Summit Ridge.
F Street doesn't meet the "530 feet access rule" because it doesn't join Bull Mt. Rd. Why make the
cash-strapped school district use funds to rotate the footprint of the school unneccessarily? This clearly
doen't make sense.
thanks for your consideration of our viewpoint,
Diane Stueber
Art Stueber
15045 SW 133rd
Tigard,OR 97224
9 7 zz
XAe,)
L6
. 'a~
away24J
~,,~`L~Gq~~W G2.ewi7e;6~6GLG~/> G<'s:dP.,~ec.(
~CeG~ycu~.w.~d~/2en4~z~~I2eY~ G~¢J -
/yam ~t°~~~i e~2J
JUN-28-2004 12:52 FROG- 5036208743 T-347 P.001/002 F-358
June 28, 2004
City of Tigard
Planning & Engineering Dept.
Attention Morgan Tracy
City Hall
Tigard, OR 97223
Reference:. Alberta Rider School
Via Fax 503-684-7297
Dear Mr. Tracy:
I have been advised that your departmentiis insisting that "F" Street
be constructed across the school property, along the west property line,
so as to connect the Summit Ridge housing project to the school bus
turn-around circle.
I am opposed to this proposal. First, it is a waste of the school
district's monies that could be better spent iri other ways. The proposed
street is useless: it will serve no purpose other than to (a) reduce the area
of the school property available for use by the kids (b) increase traffic
noise and disruption near -the school and (c) add congestion at the turn-
around circle, increasing the risk of accidents.
This proposal is another example of the "by the book" mentality that
is the essence of Tigard's planning process: it makes no difference
whether the action degrades livability, increases safety risks, etc., "the
book" says "so and so", and we must "follow the book". In this
instance, the minimum 530 feet street requirem lmt is "the book", so it
must be adhered to - even though this proposed street will not intersect
with Bull Mountain Road and, therefore, does not achieve the purpose
of the 530 feet requirement.
ti
JUN-28-2004 12052 FROG- 5036200743 T-34T 8.002/002 F-356
As one drives around Tigard, one can see numerous examples where
the 530 Feet rule has not been followed, eg. Durham Road near the high
school. Durham Road from the high school to Bones Ferry Road, etc.
These areas are not adversely affected by the lack of intersecting streets.
Bottom line: Put aside "the book", visit the neighborhood, and then
explain bow forcing the school district to build "F" street serves ANY
IUSEFUJ, PURPOSE whatsoever.
Very truly yours,
Richard Franzke
14980 S W 13311 Avenue
Bull Mountain
cc: Cornerstone Management
junE ;8, 2004
Mr. Morgan Tracy, City of Tigard Planninr,; Director
City of Tigard, OR 972f;3
RE: Alberta Bider Elementary School
Dear Mr. Tracy:
Vie are vehemently opposed to the proposed "F" street. We believe
that there is no necessity for this street other than to accommodate
future development.
We feel that the OOT would like to see that all larger parcels of
property that are now held and occupied by single homes be developed
into high density parcels, and that this is the only rationale for
"F1' street.
Further, this proposed street would, as we understand it, empty onto
133 Ave. via the proposed street on the Larsen property, which was
originally to have been for school-bus access to the school. Neighbors
of the school feel that this street is unnecessary, as well--that
the new developments east of Hider school will easily provide access
to the school without needing more, and that the very high density
which is recurring more schools should accept more of the brunt and
responsibility for the school and development traffic.
We do not wish the COT to push high density onto all of Bull Mountain,
nor do we wish there to be no choice in style of housing and property
in our area. Soon there will be no housing available that is not
two-to-three story on tiny little lots; we want the City to accommodate
lifestyles and choices. There are still many people who desire
larger lots and one-story homes close in to Portland and their work,
otherwise these homes would no longer sell. This is obviously.^ligard's
way of getting more taxes.
Further, and perhaps most important, the taxpayers in the school district
who voted for the school bond measure did not intend that the bond
money would be used for the COT wishes to build a street. "ie also
understand t11.at other projects unrelated to the school building are
siphoning off money intended for they school, not to mention that the
street would significantly reduce the size of the property needed
to build the school. The property is already barely large enough to
accommodate the school's needs.
We urge that you seriously consider our many concerns about this and
other developments in our neighborhood. It seems that Tigard is bent
on going ahead with its desires without considering the problems it
will inflict on our neighborhood and without co-ordinating all of the
developments and plans so that all elements will work most efficiently,
most economically for the taxpayer, aid least intrusively for the
neighborhood. Please do not accommodate only the developers!
Thank you for your attention.
Yours truly,
/ 4~
bladalyn A. Utz
Ray Utz
14280 S. i. 3 -9 and
ms :cc
Dianne Hill
14980 S. W. 133rd Avenue
Tigard, OR 97224
June 14, 2004
City of Tigard
Engineering & Planning
13125 S. W. Hall Blvd
Tigard, OR 97223
Attention: Tracy Morgan
Reference: Alberta Ryder School Project
Dear Mr. Tracy,
At a recent neighborhood meeting with the engineers and the school district for the above
referenced project, we were informed that the City of Tigard is requiring a street called F street
to be put on the school site which would run along the play area of the school. It appears that
this road would expose the children to more traffic.
It seems to me that the street is totally unnecessary, except allegedly to meet the city code for
maximum street spacing of 550 feet. First, since it is not prepared to extend "F" street to Bull
Mountain Road, "F" street would not reduce the spacing. It also appears that the City has the
option of offering a variance to exclude this street because residential codes do not always work
in the best interest for safety of the students on a school site. We were informed that if it were a
County code, "F" street would not be required. This school is in unincorporated Washington,
which the City has a contract to oversee construction. I cannot see any advantage to having "F"
street built. The school plans have more than enough entrances, exits and fire roads in place
without adding an additional vehicle access along the areas where children will be playing.
I respectfully request that consideration be given to allowing a variance, but remove the
requirement of "F"street as a condition for the approval of the variance.
Sincerely,
Dianne Hill
arc - lU4z tzAc.
z
• l ~C~ ` L CJ~- t~tT( 0~ S<-~ w'''` ~L ~LC..c f
AA
CC ~ CQA,! -aZC Cc C -7ck c 12~
,~40 Tt ~ E
,L "s
,soc Lr<:A
RAPPC~ -A kb KcaE:--
b '
z -
r zqj= Sul c a lS 3 1s
s
tb
~c~l c2cCS 2 OJD-- pimpEff:
. M
LEfCAL
AN L
ccLaLSF
Kc,
1~U~c~tz- ~~sc is
A S
Lt L St
~ ~tt2cf~ ~t~~-
Acc~~t2oct r s
. cZc . ~s2 p~t~c
FU-
-la
THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS :TIER WILL BE CONDUCTED IN AC RDANCE WITH THE RULES OF
CHAPTER 18.390 OF THE COMMUNI IY DEVELOPMENT CODE AND RULES OF PROCEDURES ADOPTED BY THE
TIGARD CITY COUNCIL AND AVAILABLE AT CITY HALL.
ASSISTNE LISTENING DEVICES ARE AVAILABLE FOR PERSONS WITH IMPAIRED HEARING.. THE CITY WILL ALSO
ENDEAVOR TO ARRANGE FOR QUALIFIED SIGN LANGUAGE INTERPRETERS AND QUALIFIED BILINGUAL
INTERPRETERS UPON REQUEST. PLEASE CALL (503) 6394171, EXT. 2438 (VOICE) OR (503)
684-2772 (TDD - TELECOMMUNICATIONS DEVICES FOR THE DEAF) NO LESS THAN ONE WEEK PRIOR TO THE
HEARING TO MAKE ARRANGEMENTS.
ANYONE WISHING TO PRESENT WRITTEN TESTIMONY ON THIS PROPOSED ACTION MAY DO SO IN WRITING
PRIOR TO OR AT THE PUBLIC HEARING. ORAL TESTIMONY MAY BE PRESENTED AT THE PUBLIC HEARING. AT
THE PUBLIC HEARING, THE HEARINGS OFFICER WILL RECEIVE A STAFF REPORT PRESENTATION FROM THE
CITY PLANNER, OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING, AND INVITE BOTH ORAL AND WRITTEN TESTIMONY. THE
HEARINGS OFFICER MAY CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING TO ANOTHER MEETING TO OBTAIN ADDITIONAL
INFORMATION OR CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND TAKE ACTION ON THE APPLICATION.
IF A PERSON SUBMITS EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT TO THE APPLICATION LESS THAN SEVEN (7) DAYS PRIOR TO
THE PUBLIC HEARING, ANY PARTY IS ENTITLED TO REQUEST A CONTINUANCE OF THE HEARING. IF THERE IS
NO CONTINUANCE GRANTED, AT THE HEARING, ANY PARTICIPANT IN THE HEARING MAY REQUEST THAT THE
RECORD REMAIN OPEN FOR AT LEAST SEVEN (7) DAYS AFTER THE HEARING. A REQUEST THAT THE RECORD
REMAIN OPEN CAN BE MADE ONLY AT THE FIRST EVIDENTIARY HEARING (ORS 197.763(6).
INCLUDED IN THIS NOTICE IS A LIST OF APPROVAL CRITERIA APPLICABLE TO THE REQUEST FROM THE TIGARD
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE AND THE TIGARD COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. APPROVAL OR DISAPPROVAL OF
THE REQUEST BY THE HEA"I &GS OFFICER WILL BE BASED UPON ITIESE CRITERIA AND THESE CRITERIA
ONLY. AT THE HEARING • IT IS IMPORTANT THAT COMMENTS RELATING TO THE REQUEST PERTAIN
SPECIFICALLY TO THE APPLICABLE CRITERIA LISTED.
FAILURE TO RAISE AN ISSUE IN PERSON OR BY LETTER AT SOME POINT PRIOR TO THE CLOSE OF THE
HEARING ON THE REQUEST ACCOMPANIED BY STATEMENTS OR EVIDENCE SUFFICIENT TO ALLOW THE
HEARINGS AUTHORITY AN OPORTUNITY TO RESPOND TO THE ISSUE PRECLUDES AN APPEAL TO THE LAND
USE BOARD OF APPEALS BASED ON THAT ISSUE.
ALL.D000MENTS AND APPLICABLE CRITERIA IN THE ABOVE-NOTED FILE ARE AVAILABLE FOR INSPECTION AT
NO COST OR COPIES CAN BE OBTAINED FOR TWENTY-FIVE CENTS (25t) PER PAGE, OR THE CURRENT RATE
CHARGED FOR COPIES AT THE TIME OF THE REQUEST. AT LEAST SEVEN (7) DAYS PRIOR TO THE HEARING, A
COPY OF THE STAFF REPORT WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR INSPECTION AT NO COST, OR A COPY CAN BE
OBTAINED FOR TWENTY-FIVE CENTS (25t) PER PAGE, OR THE CURRENT RATE CHARGED FOR COPIES AT THE
TIME OF THE REQUEST.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION PLEASE CONTACT THE STAFF PLANNER MORGAN TRACY AT (503)
639-4171, TIGARD CITY HALL, 13125 SW HALL BOULEVARD, TIGARD, OREGON 97223, OR BY E-MAIL TO
morgan@ai.tigard.or.us.
Z VICINNYEMAP
--NP1001-00011
VAR2004-00011
VAP1004-OMI
VAR1004-00041
VM2004-00043
ALBERTA RIDER ELEMENTARY
e SCHOOL IS (TTY OF 116ARD
WATER RESERVOIR
CACt
N
C
a+
ckyrrwd
TUALATIN VALLEY FIRE & RESCUE'* SOUTH DIVISION
COMMUNITY SERVICES a OPERATIONS FIRE PREVENTION
Tualatin Valley
Pyre & Rescue
May 18; 2004
Morgan Tracy, Associate Planner
City of Tigard
13125 SW Hall Blvd
Tigard, OR 97223
Re: Alberta Rider Elementary
Dear Morgan,
Thank you for the opportunity to review the proposed site plan surrounding the above named
development project. Tualatin Valley Fire & Rescue endorses this proposal predicated on the following
criteria and conditions of approval:
1) Access roads shall be within 150 feet of all portions of the exterior wall of the first story of the building
as measured by an approved route around the exterior of the building. An approved turnaround is
required if the remaining distance to an'approved intersecting roadway, as measured along the fire
apparatus access road, is greater than 150 feet. (UFC Sec. 902.2. 1)
2) Dead end fire apparatus access roads in excess of 150 feet in length shall be provided with an
approved turnaround. Diagrams of approved turnarounds are available from the fire district. (UFC
Sec. 902.2.2.4)
3) When buildings are completely protected with an approved automatic fire sprinkler system, the
requirements for fire apparatus access may be modified as approved by the Chief. (UFC Sec.
902.2.1 Exception 1)
4) Fire apparatus access roads shall have an unobstructed width of not less than 20 feet (15 feet for one
or two dwelling units and out buildings), and an unobstructed vertical clearance of not less than 13
feet 6 inches. (UFC Sec. 902.2.2.1)
Fire apparatus access roadway width may be reduced when approved by the Fire Code
Official.
5) Fire apparatus access roads shall be of an all-weather surface that is easily distinguishable from the
surrounding area and is capable of supporting not less than 12,500 pounds point load (wheel load)
and 50,000 pounds live load (gross vehicle weight). You may need to provide documentation from a
registered engineer that the design will be capable of supporting such loading. Documentation from a
registered engineer that the finished construction is in accordance with the approved plans or the
requirements of the Fire Code may be requested. (Design criteria on back) (UFC Sec. 902.2.2)
6) The inside turning radius and outside turning radius shall be not less than 25 feet and 45 feet
respectively, measured from the same center point. (UFC Sec. 902.2.2.3) - (See diagrams on back)
7) Where fire apparatus roadways are not of sufficient width to accommodate parked vehicles and 20
feet of unobstructed driving surface, "No Parking" signs shall be installed on one or both sides of the
roadway and in turnarounds as needed. (UFC Sec. 902.2.4) Signs shall read "NO PARKING - FIRE
LANE - TOW AWAY ZONE, ORS 98.810 - 98.812" and shall be installed with a clear space above
grade l?vel of 7 feet. Sians shall be 12 inches wide by 18 inches high and shall have black or red
letters and border on a white background. (UFC Sec. 901.4.5.1)
8) Where required, fire apparatus access roadway curbs shall be painted yellow and marked "NO
PARKING FIRE LANE" at each 25 feet. Lettering shall have a stroke of not less than one inch wide
7401 SW Washo Court, Suite 101 o Tualatin, Oregon 97062 o Tel. (503) 612-7000 a pax (503) 612.7003 • www.tvfr.com
by six inches high. Lettering shall be white on red or black on yellow background. (UFC Sec.
901.4.5.2)
Fire lane striping and "No Parking" signs will be specified upon receipt of final site and
circulation plans.
9) Private fire apparatus access roadway qrades shall not exceed an average grade of 10 percent with a
maximum grade of 15 percent for lengths of no more than 200 feet. Intersections and turnarounds
shall be level (maximum 5%) with the exception of crowning for water run-off. Public streets shall
have a maximum grade of 15%. (UFC Sec. 902.2.2.6)
10) The required fire flow for the building shall not exceed 3,000 gallons per minute (GPM) or the
available GPM in the water delivery system at 20 psi, whichever is less. A worksheet for calculating
the required fire flow is available from the Fire Marshal's Office. (UFC Sec. 903.3)
11) No portion of the exterior of a commercial building shall be located more than 250 feet from a fire
hydrant when measured in an approved manner around the outside of the building and along an
approved fire apparatus access roadway. Any hydrants that are left over from the minimum number
of hydrant calculations may be full filled by hydrants that are up to 500 feet from any point of the
building. The fire Prevention Ordinance has further requirements that need to be used for
acceptance and placement of fire hydrants. (UFC Sec. 903.4.2.1)
12) The minimum number of fire hydrants for a building shall be based on the required fire flow prior to
giving credit for fire protection systems divided by 1500. If the answer is equal to or greater than x.5
the next whole number of hydrants shall be used. There shall not be less than 2 hydrants per
building. (UFC Sec. 903.4.2.1)
Considerations for placing fire hydrants shall be as follows:
• Existing hydrants in the area may be used to meet the required number of hydrants; however,
hydrants that are over 500 feet away from the nearest point of the subject building shall not contribute
to the required number of hydrants.
• Hydrants that are separated from the subject building by railroad tracks shall not contribute to the
required number of hydrants.
• Hydrants that are separated from the subject building by divided highway, freeway, or heavily traveled
collector streets shall not contribute to the required number of hydrants.
• Hydrants that are accessible only by a bridge shall be acceptable to contribute to the required number
of hydrants only if approved by the Chief.
• Private hydrants or public hydrants that are on adjacent private property shall not contribute to the
required number of hydrants for the subject building.
Exception: The use of hydrants located on other private property may be considered if their
locations and access are encumbered in a legal document (such as deed restriction) by the
owners of the involved parcels of property. The encumbrance may be lifted only after approvals
by the Chief on behalf of the fire department and any other governmental agencies that may
require approval.
• When evaluating the placement of hydrants at apartment or industrial complexes the first hydrant(s)
to be placed shall be at the primary access and any secondary access to the site. After these
hydrants have been placed other hydrants shall be sited to meet the above requirements for spacing
and minimum number of hydrants. (UFC Sec. 903.4.2.1.1)
131 Fire hvdrants shall be located not more than 15 feet from an approved fire apparatus access
roadway. (UFC Sec. 903.4.2.4)
14) Fire hydrant locations shalt be identified by the installation of reflective markers. The markers shall
be blue. They shall be located adjacent and to the side of the centerline of the access road way that
the fire hydrant is located on. In case that there is no center line, then assume a centerline, and
place the reflectors accordingly. (UFC Sec. 901.4.3)
Page 2 of 2
15) A fire hydrant shall be located within 70 feet of a fire department connection (FDC). Fire hydrants
and FDC's shall be located on the same side of the fire apparatus access roadway. (UFC Sec,
903.4,2.5) FDC locations shall be approved by the Chief. (1996 Oregon Structural Specialty Code,
Sec. 904.1.1)
16) Approved fire apparatus access roadways and fire fighting water supplies shall be Installed and
operational prior to any other construction on the site or subdivision, (UFC Sec. 8704)
17) A Knox Box for building access is required for this building. Please contact the Fire Marshal's Office
for an order form and instructions regarding installation and placement. (UFC Sec. 902.4)
16) A building survey and plans, in accordance with NF&R Ordinance 99-01, Appendix III-F, shall be
submitted. A copy of Appendix III-F, the building survey form and the instructions are available on the
Fire District web site at www.tvfr.com. (UFC Appendix III-F)
Please contact me at (503) 612-7010 with any additional questions.
Sincerely,
Eric T. McMullen
Eric T. McMullen
Deputy Fire Marshal
Page 2 of 2
WASHIN®TON COUNTY DEPT. OFF LAND USE
TRANSPORTATION.r LAND D►EV. SVCS. DIV.
155 N. FIRST ST., *3S0-13 • HILLSBORO, OR 97124
PHONE: (503) 846-8761 FAX: (503) 846-2908
htjgj./www. wash ington.or.us
FACSIMILE TRANSMITTAL SHEEN'
TO, r DATE: dd
FAX NUMBER 11118J "j 4V 01 ®OE'
FROM: PHONE:
TOTAL NO. OF PAGES
INCLUDING COYER:
® URGENT OR REVIEW ❑ PLEASE COMMENT
® PLEASE REPLY PLEASE RECYCLE ❑ AS REQUESTED
Recipient; If all page do not arrive in legible fore, please contact us by
telephone at (S03) 846-8761.
M NTS:
gms/com
TO *.d 617;1 :.VOOZ V unr Rf1FT-QbSt_rnc.xea •n~r► rn.r, n, k.~,
WASHINGTON COUNTY, OREGON
Department of Land Use and Transportation, Land Development Services "
e,_ Llille-born
155 North First Avenue, jdllloav335,0:,, . ~~1~...,._, Oregon 97124
(503) 846-8761 FAX: (503) 846-2908
W W W.CO.WASHINGTON.OR.US
June 3, 2004
Morgan Tracy
City of Tigard Planning Division
13125 SW Hall Boulevard
Tigard, OR 97223
FAX: (503) 684.7297
RE: Alberta Rider Elementary School
City File Number(s): (CUP) 2003-00012, (VAR) 2004-00037, 41, 42 and 43
The Washington County Department of Land Use and Transportation reviewed the above listed
proposed development application and provided written comments on May 25, 2004. Staff stated
that the County Traffic Engineer would review the proposed development for compliance with
R&O 86-95 (Determining Traffic Safety Improvements Under the Traffic Impact Fee Ordinance).
The County Traffic Engineer has reviewed the proposal and completed a Traffic Staff Report
(attached) in accordance with R&O 86-95. Therefore, Staff suggests that these recommendations
be incorporated Into the City's Final Decision for the proposed development.
At this time, a request for a Modification to the access spacing standards of the
Washington Uniform Road Improvement Design Standards has not been received for the
site's direct accesses to SW Bull Mountain Road. Requirements, In addition to those
identified In Staff's May 2e, 2004 letter may be identified upon the Traffic Engineer's
review of a complete Modification request.
Staff would also like to correct an omission in the May 25"' letter. Findings were made regarding
dedication of right-of-way along the site's frontage of SW Bull Mountain Road but the
Implementing condition of approval was not included. Therefore, Staff is requesting that the
following Condition be incorporated into the City's Final Decision.
Dedication of additional right-of-way to provide 37 feet from centerline (including curve radius)
to County standard along the development site's frontage on SW Bull Mountain Road.
Please call me at (503) 846.3839 with any questions you may have regarding the County
review of this proposal. Contact Robert Morast (503) 846-7955 or Greg Miller (503) 846-7963
of the County's Engineering Division with technical questions with regard to the Washington
County Uniform Road IMprovement Design Standards.
ris Goodell
Associate Planner
C: Phi rawly, sarkr P" V
Jlnde Zhu, TraffiC Engineer
Rdbart M oms% Trafrlc Engineer
Greg miter. county knew
Jamil Kamawal, Sunray Technician
" 7A'J Gf+•.r MsM7 lint nnc~ n+.n l•nr. vn •wvr r...
NTY OREGON
WASHINGTON C®~~j+~+~! ee.ei!:Pf.VICRS
Depeftent of Land Use and TransportaUon, EngineeringlSurvWng uiviston e
411~~ ° THAN&FGEr-.V!
1400 SW Wainut St., MS 17A, H01sboro, Oregon 97123
(503) 846-7900 - FAX: (503) 846-7910
DATE: May 28, 2004
TO: Chris Goodell, Associate Planner
FROM: Jinde Zhu, P.E., Traffic Engineer
CC: Tracy stone/Joy Chang, Phil Healy, Greg Miller, Robert Morast, Traffic Analysis
File #1222, C/File
RE: TRAFFIC STAFF REPORT
ALBERTA RIDER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
CITY OF TIGARD
This report examines the traffic safety impacts of the proposed Alberta Rider Elementary School
with a total of 650 students. The proposed school lies within unincorporated Washington County
but will be annexed into the City of Tigard, and is expected to be completed by 2005.
Recommendations are provided to ensure an adequate level of traffic safety as defined by R&O
56-95.
The access to the school will be via the existing street, SW 133`d Avenue. Also, an emergency
access onto SW Bull Mountain Road is proposed. Currently, SW 133`d Avenue is a dead-end
street and classified as a neighborhood route by Washington County and planned to be extended
to Beef Bend Road. SW Bull Mountain Road is classified as a collector by Washington County.
An Access Report was submitted by the applicant's traffic engineer a Transportation impact
Analysis, Washington County, Oregon", Kittelson & Associates, Inc., April 15, 2004). The
findings and recommendations given below are based, in part, on the information provided in the
access report.
SINGS:
1. The site trip generation from the developments, based on the report "Trip Generation, 6th
Edition", rM, is as follows:
•1,'•'~c~..'-th~i~'dd...'J::t:n. J!?J,.,.r wrL:. ..y..:.7;la.y..~ ~^.,;4:,}-,1'k'e:.~:.}~ti, r.:i~:~.,;": ':'.::1-:<. :.-c
: r ;'.L•,y:~: ~t.rx-',~7'ri'- : fi:~ i•}'sk: n ' "~-?i, _ •3E.i-^: _
icy
r i~y::.~!.s?„•rr." ; :3;j6 "-E: `'a:a . up ~ =.,rr..x.:., ~:.~::rr~'N~sa. :^•2.'u..r_u-Ji za,;...::=.';'~•r.:.i::
+`'•'•"•;~•`"`aja%~'•J•iT•s•: fix. !F :.i:., ~:~;,,r. - ='pE.,,_
333
333 110 8~/0~
` ~'4'sr -rrlna< 80 90
666 190 170
" All trips during the street PM peak hour are estimated based on the trip generation
infortnation for the school PM peak hour.
2. The site impact on streets under Washington County jurisdiction, based on a 10 percent
increase in average daily traffic or the minimum impact area, is described below.
SW 133 Avenue School Access SW Bull Mountain Road
3. Intersections within the impact area under Washington County jurisdiction were analyzed
(weekday AM and PM peak hours) with the following results.
s<Mai.~-~:,_~`cs=~-,..;_°"a~f~.~,~'' - - - •,x.: - _ - - - - _
ry~v
i
tea. - ••r.: - - -
a -
v~ ill?
SW 133 Avenue/SW Bull Mountain Road C* Yes No N/A
* LOS is for STOP-controlled movements,
4. As indicated in the above table, the traffic movements from SW 133rd Avenue at the
intersection are estimated to operate at level of service C during the weekday AM and PM peak
hours. A westbound left turn lane on SW Bull Mountain Road at the intersection is required.
This intersection is not on the County's 1999-2001 SP1S list
5. As indicated in the submitted access report, the existing sight distance at SW 133'
Avenue to both directions along SW Bull Mountain Road is not adequate.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
1. Construct a westbound left turn refuge lane with storage of 100 feet on SW Bull
' M•°~„ Road at SW 133" Avenue.
LYlvucat..w. _ _
2. Prior to final building inspection approval, provide certification from a registered
professional engineer that adequate intersection sight distance at SW 133rd Avenue along SW
. M.• t J1/•. ~ F./t/~7 4. rmr i+nr•-. J~.r~ nr..-._ vn . ...e r•. .
T D-A avtata iYy florernriAnre with the Washington County CommunityDevelopment
DLL111YSVWa►aaiia aw.w -
Code.
3. Provide adequate illumination at SW 133rd Avenue on SW Bull Mountain Road.
Adequate illumination shall consist of at least one 200-watt high pressure sodium cobra head
luminaire mounted at a minimum height of 20 feet on existing utility poles if available. The
fixture shall have a medium semi-cutoff type III distribution. The pole shall be within the area
defined by the radius returns of the intersection. The fixture shall be oriented at 90 degrees to
owtorline of the collector or arterial. For intersections of collectors with arterials, or arterials
with arterials, the luminaire fixture shall be installed at 90 degrees to the higher classified
roadway. If the intersecting roadways ara of the same functional classification, the fixture may
be oriented at 90 degrees to either roadway. If no existing utility poles are available within
the intersection area defined by the radians returns, the developer shall meet the
requirements of the Department of Land Use and Transportation 1991 Roadway
Illumination Standards, latest revision. County Traffic Engineer may require illumination in
addition to the above-stated minimums. Direct technical questions concerning this condition or
the 1991 Roadway Illumination Standards to Robert Morast, County Traffic Engineer at
(503)846-7955.
JZ:jw-b
Sf1 (K: ww.. tl unr 9xv, '-ot~R-ct`Ic• xP-j 'A--W MKJ-1 m l k-um
SVCS. HIV LAND USE &
WASHINGTON
T f.ANDT®E OF
TRANSPORTATION.,
155 N. FIRST" ST., *350-13 HILLSBORO, OR 57124
PHONE: (503) 846-8761 FAX: (503) 846-2908
htt : /www.co.wa5hin ton.or.us
FACSIMILE TRANSMITTAL SHEET
TO: M o 1 « c . DATE: ~j / 2 5 (3
FAX NUMBER: 5 c 3 (o t Z 9 PHONE
FROM: G g o o d 0- << PHONE:
TOTAL NO. OF PAGES
INCLUDING COVER: -
❑ URGENT 16 FOR REVIEW ❑ PLEASE COMMENT
® PLEASE REPLY ® PLEASE RECYCLE AS REQUESTED
Recipient: H all pages do not 8rrlve in legible form, please contact us by
'telephone at (503) 846-8761.
TES CO MENTS:
3
f
NEWS,
.tixv. qy Y
ar
Alij
s ' ,Ffit` 3rta5~
WASHINGTON COUNTY, OREGON
Department of Land Use and Transportation, Land Development Services
15S North First Avenue, Suite 350, Hillsboro, Oregon 97124
(503) 8468761 FAX: (503) 946-2908
W W W .CO.WASH I NGTON.OR. US
May 25, 2004
Morgan Tracy
City of Tigard Planning Division
13125 SW Hall Boulevard
Tigard; OR 97223
FAX: 503-526.3720
RE! Alberta Rider Elementary School
City File Number(s); (CUP) 2003-00012, (VAR) 2004-00037,41, 42 and 43
Tax Map and Lot Number: 2S1 9AC 2100 and 2S1 9AD 1300
Location: South of SW Bull Mountain Road east of SW 133rd Avenue
Applicant: Tigard-Tuatatin School District 23J
J
BAGWROUND INFORMATION
Washington County Department of Land Use and Transportation has received a copy of the
above noted land use application(s) concerning the above described development site. The
development site fronts on and accesses SW Bull Mountain Road, a collector street. SW Bull
Mountain Road along the development site's frontage is within the incorporated limits of the City of
Tigard but is within the permitting authority of Washington County. Therefore, the proposal is
subject to County review and approval.
The applicant has proposed the construction of a 67,000 square foot elementary school and a 3
million gallon underground water storage reservoir on a 10.7 acre site. A 1.24 acre life estate for
the current property owner is being provided in the northernmost portion of the site, where the
existing residence is located.
RE®UIRED FINDINGS
Section 501-8.5 of the Washington County Community Development Code states that access
onto any County road in the unincorporated or Incorporated urban area shall be permitted only
upon demonstration of compliance with the provisions of the County road standards and the
standards of Section 501.
County Transportation Review
may 25, 2004
nQ~6
The Washington County Traffic Engineer reviews development. applications when
estimated daily trip generation of a project and existing traffio levels (see Tables 1 and 2,
below) on the adjacent County road exceed given limits as determined by R&O 86-95.
* TABLE 1
Access Report. and Review by County Traffic Engineer required if:
Vehid" per Da PD an Calculated Avery a Dal Tri (ADI) of
Adjacent Frontage Road Proposed Use leased an irtstlttt(e ofTa mpatatlaan (nE) carts)
0 - 3,000 VPD and 2,000 AOT or More
3001- 6,000 VPD and 1,000 ADT or More
6,001 VPD or More and 500 ADT or More
TABLE 2
Basic Traffic Safety (Review (Conducted by County Traffic Engineer but no Access Report
Submittal requlred'of Applicant) if:
VehldN D on Calculated Average Dail TriAD of
Ad' tent Fronts Road Proposed Use (Based cn Institute of Transportation (In:) Caw)
Frontage Road VPD. not consistent with
above chart and 00 ADT or More
Calculated *trip generation of this development and current usage levels of SW Bull
Mountain Road at this location require that the County Traffic Engineer review the A
proposed development.
If the Washington County Traffic Engineer's review and resultant Traffic Staff ' .c.S
Report have not been completed prior to issuance of the City's Decision, please
require compliance with any additional on and/or off-site safety improvements
found to be required for compliance with R&O 86-95.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Road improvements required along site frontage shall apply to frontage of all land within
the subject site that abuts the County roadway. The subject site shall be considered to
include: any lot or parcel to be partitioned or otherwise subdivided (regardless of,
whether it contains existing structures or not); and any contiguous lots or parcels that
constitute phases of the currently proposed development.
If the applicant proposes to develop the project In phases, all County-required frontage
improvements must be constructed with the first phase. in addition, oft-site
improvements warranted by the first phase must also be completed with the first phase.
1. PRIQR THE CITY'S FINAL APPROVAL AND ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT:
90 'd Z5: S T M 7~ "ew 806Z-9t/8-9M: XP 4 *A7rT rIKAJ1 n i i lnum
County Transportation Review
May 25, 2004 ~o
e
rose a ` v
d
By obtaining approval for a Facility Permit for the construction of a concrete
sidewalk to County standard along the development sita'a frontage of SW Bull cool.
Mountain Road prior working in the County right-of-way and issuance of a building v~
permit and completing construction prior to final building inspection and
occupancy, the applicant shall satisfy this minimum traffic safety Improvement.
4. RIGHT-OF-WAY.
Section 501-8A of the Washington County CDC states that dedication of right-of-way
shall be required pursuant to the classification of the facility as designated by the
'Washington County Transportation Plan and based upon the County Road Standards.
According to the Washington County Transportation Plan, SW Bull Mountain Road along
the development site's frontage is designated as a County collector street (C-3). The
Road Standards require 74 feet of right-of-way (total) for an C-3 designated roadway.
Existing right-of-way is approximately 20 feet from centerline, required right of way is 37
feet. Existing right-of-way along the development site's frontage of SW Bull Mountain 1~@
Road is inadequate.
To comply with the County standard for an C-3 collector street, additional right-of-
way must be dedicated along the site's frontage on SIN Bull Mountain Road to
provide for 37 feet from centerline.
5. DRAINAGE;
The Washington County Road Improvement Design Standards and Washington County
CDC Section 501-8.1.C require the provision of adequate roadway drainage as a critical
service for developments abutting County or public roads.
Currently, roadway drainage along the site's frontage of SW Bull Mountain Road is
unacceptable. The applicant has proposed a half-street improvement with a curb and
gutter section providing roadway drainage along SW Bull Mountain Road. This proposal
complies with the Road Standards requirement for roadway drainage.
With the construction of the half-street improvement along the site's frontage of
SW Bull Mountain Road, the applicant shall satisfy the CDC and Washington
County Uniform Road Improvement Design Standards requirement for adequate
roadway drainage.
4®iC-< ^ CAQ.r..TV Or_vtt:W! .
So 'd LS: ST tx00Z SZ fill 6[167-qt?t-cnc: xce 4 "AWT MIU-1 f L.t"
County Transportation Review
May 25, 2004
Page 3
proposal shall be in compliance with Washington County Community Development
Cale Section 801-8.5.0.
2. SIGHT DISTANCE :
Resolution and Order 86-95, Section 210.7 of the Washington County Uniform Road
Improvement Design Standards and Washington County Community Development Code
require adequate intersection sight distance be provided at a development site's
access(es) to a County road in accordance with the standards of Section 501-8.5.F of the
Washington County ODO. In brlef, thaea standards rn~qulro a minimum eight distanoo
(measured in feet) equal to ten times the vehicular speed of the road at each proposed
access location t9 a County or public road to ensure that this minimum traffic safety X, improvement is met.
SNP
By providing preliminary sight distance certification for all proposed points of
access prior to issuance of building permits and final certification after completion .w
of the proposed improvements and prior to occupancy, the applicant shall satisfy t'
this minimum traffic safety requirement.
3. SIDEWALKS:
Frontage sidewalk requirements on County Roads within incorporated portions of
Washington County are a function of R&O 86-95 (Determining Traffic Safety
Improvements Under the Traffic Impact Fee Ordinance) and Ordinance 524 (Washington
County Road Improvement Design Standards).
Consistent with statewide pedestrian circulation/linkage goals of the Transportation
Planning Rule and Washington County R&O 86-95, the County requires sidewalk
installation as a minimum traffic safety improvement along a development site's frontage
on County-maintained roads as a condition of approval for development. Sidewalks
provide pedestrian refuge, help to establish future street profiles, demarcate County or
City right-of-way and address drainage issues.
Currently, a sidewalk does not exist along the development site's frontage of SW Bull
Mountain Road. The applicant's plan proposes the construction of a one-half street
improvement with a concrete sidewalk along the site's frontage of SW Bull Mountain
Road. This proposal complies with the County requirement for sidewalks.
Note: The one-half street section proposed by the-applicant consists of 23 feet of paving
(including gutter), 14 foot curb, a 5 foot wide planter strip and a 6 foot wide sidewalk within
a 35 foot right-of-way. This proposal is not consistent with the County standard for a 0-3
coiie~r s..~~
The County standard for a one-half collector street includes 25 feet of paving (including
gutter), 1h foot curb, a 4 foot wide planter strip and a 5 foot wide sidewalk within a 37 foot
wide right-of-way.
4
County Transportation Review
May 25, 2004
Paige 2
1. ACCESS SPACING: G13~ t 1Cc,~'
~r
Primary access to the school is proposed to be taken from a yet unnamed public right-of- Jr~
way "west access road" that is to be constructed to the west of the site. That street 0 Y;5
Intersects with SW 13e Avenue, both of which are under City control. ~J
The applicant has proposed three vehicular access points intersecting with SW Bull
Mountain Road. Two of the accesses are proposed where driveways serving the existin£
single family residence are presently located. These driveways, which are located
approximately 220 and 360 feet from the site's western property line, are proposed to
remain as unrsstnoted full access driveways. The applicant has also proposed the
construction of in emergency access for the school approximately 90 feet to the east of
the easternmost residential driveway.
SW Bull Mountain Road, along the development site's frontage is a County Collector
Street. CDC 501-8.5.A(3) states that uses with less than 150 feet of frontage shall not be
permitted direct access to Collector streets. The required minimum spacing requirement
between driveways is 100 feet. In all instances, access points near an intersection with a
Collector or Arterial shall be located beyond the Influence of standing queues of the
intersection in accordance with AASNTO standards. Additionally, access shall be located
to provide adequate left turn refuge as required by Resolution and Order 86-95. This
requirement may result in an access spacing greater than 100 feet. w~' ~5 Y'` ,y r
Residential uses are not permitted direct access to collector streets. Therefore, the two
existing driveways are subject to approval (from the County Engineer) of a Modification of
the *ashington County Uniform Road Improvement Design Standards. The proposed
emergency access location does not comply with the 100 foot spacing requirement.
Therefore, that access is also subject to approval of a Modification to the Road Standards.
The applicant must request a modification to the access spacing standards of the
Washington County Uniform Road Improvement Design Standards to granted
'access to SW Bull Mountain Road. Access to the site from SW Bull Mountain Road
must be restricted to those access point(s) which are approved by the Engineering
Division through the Modification process. A Modification request has not been
received by the County. The County reserves the right to Impose additional
requirements for access and impacts to County Roads following the Road
Standards Modification request.
CDC Section Sol-8.5.G. requires that a motor vehicle access restriction be recorded (on a
property's "chain of title") along a development site's frontage on a collector or arterial road
excepi at approu-± access point(s) to Implement the access restriction.
With the recordation of a motor vehicle access restriction along the development
site's frontage of SW Bull Mountain Road except at approved access point(s) the
cn•a TC:CT bnn7 C7 601 SM7-000-Cnc-xp-1 'n'3rr rren-n rn ucum
County Transportation Review
May 25, 2004
Page 5
A. Submit a written request and obtain approval for a Modification to the access
spacing standards of the W.C.U.R.I.D.Sinfrom SW Washington
n(The
Mountain Road
Engineering Division for each access po b Mountain professional
Modiflcation Request must be prepa~ndand stamped y registered
engineer and submitted by the applicant),
B. The following documents shall be executed and recorded: of SW 1, A non-access reservation along the development site's fr by the County Bull
Mountain Road except at the access location(s) approved
Engineer through the Road Standards Modification process.
Contact Jamy Kamawat, Washington County Survey Division (503) 846-
7932 for the above required forms.
C. Submit to Washington County Land Development Services Public Assurance
Staff, (508) 84$-13543:
1. Completed 'Design Option" form.
2. $2,500.00 Administration Deposit.
NOTE: Any portion of the Administration Deposit not used by Washington
County for plan approval, field inspections, and contract administration will
be retumed to the applicant. N at any time during the project, the County's
amount the ato cover mount deposited, Washington County will bill the
costs are higher than
applicant th
3. A copy of the City's land use Approval with Conditions, signed and dated.
4. Preliminary certification of adequate sight distance for the approved access
locations to SW Bull Mountain Road In accordance Huth County Code,
prepared and stamped by a registered professional engineer, as well as:
a. A detailed list of improvements necessary to produce deq adequate SW
intersection sight distance at the approved access
Bull Mountain Road.
5, Three (3) sets of complete engineering plans for construction of the
} following public improvements:
o Co ty Standaro
NOTE; improvO nts shall
byte (constructed the Engineer.
unless othentr
lf1'J::. 1C- CT . ttrIA7 r7 AVU elle -7 ~1 ^^1
_ County Transportation Revlow
May 25, 2004
Dona 7
a. One half-street to county collector street standard (0-3) Including a
25 foot wide paved section (including a six foot) wide bike lane and
gutter section, A foot wide curb, 4 foot wide planter strip and a 5
foot wide sidewalk.
b, Improvements necessary to provide adequate
disttance at the approved access location(s) to SW Bull Mountain
Road.
C. Residential driveway access(®s) to SW Bull Mountain Road at the
approved location(s) to County standard.
d. Emergency access to SW Bull Mountain Road at the approved
location to County standard.
e. Any additional on and/or off-site safety improvements found to be
required for compliance with R&O 86-95 following submittal by the
applicant of a complete Modification Request, and completion of
the County Traffic Engineer's review of such.
These improvements shall he constructed in accordance with the
requirements of the Washington County Uniform Road Improvement
Design Standards. They shall be completed and accepted by the County
within the time frame specified in the public assurance contract, or prior to
final building inspection approval and occupancy of the first dwelling unit,
whichever occurs first.
D. Obtain Washington County Departmental approval, provide financial
assurance, and obtain a Facility Permit for:
Construction of the public improvements listed in Conditions I.C.5.
NOTE. The Public Assurance staff of Land Development Services will send the
required fonts to the applicant's representative after submittal and
approval of the public Improvement plans.
Please note that Washington County's "Facility Permit" differs from an
"Access Permit". An Access Permit is less comprehensive in nature
than the Facility Permit and Its associated submittal, review, and
monitoring processes. Access Permits apply to non-complex land use
cases in which the County requires limited or no improvements of the
developer. (Access permits are commonly issued in cases requiring
unp!0VA-Ments as minimal as a single driveway cut to an existing
house). This project is not eligible for an Acc®ss i-ermrt.
QAk7-Qt7Q-MC-XPJ 'AY► Inan m iw4-m
'.4 7.(Z:ct MW c7 fiat,
County Transportation Review
May 25, 2004
Perm 0
The Facility Permit allows construction work within County rights-of-way
and permits site access after submittal and Departmental approval of
engineering plans, and approval of eroslon control permits. Issuance of
the Facility Permit is also subject to the completion of the County
Assurances Division requirements including but not limited to execution
of hnanclal and contractual agreements. This process ensures that the
responsibility for construction of public Improvements Is accepted, and
that Improvements in the public right-of-way are monitored, inspected,
and built to County standard in a timely manner.
If. PRIOR TO FINAL BUILDING INSPECTION AND OCCUPANCY OF ANY. PORTION OF
THE DEVELOPMENT:
A. The improvements required in condition I.C.5; above, shall be completed and
accepted by Washington County.
S. Final sight distance certification for the approved access location(s) to SW Bull
Mountain Road in accordance with County Code shall be provided by the
applicant's engineer.
Requirements identified within this letter are considered by the County to be minimum
warranted improvements (and/or analyses) that are necessitated by the proposed development,
therefore it is requested that they be conveyed to the applicant within the City's Approval
document. Please send a copy of the subsequent Final City Notice of Decision and any appeal
information to the County. Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
Please call me at (503) 846.3839 with any questions you may have regarding the County
review of this proposal. Contact Robert Morast (503) 846-7955 or Greg Miller (503) 846-7963
of the County's Engineering Division with technical questions with regard to the Washington
County Road Improvement Design Standards.
Chris Goodell
Associate Planner
c: Phl Healy, Senior Planner
Bill Avery, Principal Planner
joy charg, Aseocinte Planner
Jinde Zhu. Traffic Engineer
Robert Morast Traffic Enow
Greg Wier. Co" Engineer
Jamil KamwaG surveyTemnician
M'A CC: qT WW.. c7 6W 5ZfY7_0ts12-CnC•YPJ •n~rr /ih Y.Yi m lj<,Ljm
REQUEST FOR COMMENTS CITY Of MAN
Community (Devefopment
SrwpingA (Better Community
OATS: May 112004
TO: Man SOne Urban Forester/PublicWcrks Annex RECEIVED PLANNING
FROM: C. of Tigard Planning Division MAY 2 6 2004
STAFF CONTACT: Wale Planner [x24261 CITY OF TIGARD
39-41n/W. (5031664.1291
CONDIT(ONAL USE PERMIT (CUP) 2003-00012/0 OPMENT ADJUSTMENTS (OAR) 2004-00031,41,42 a 43
➢ ALBERTA RIDER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL & CITY OF TI D WATER RESERVOIR Q
REQUEST: The applicant is requesting Conditional Use approval to construct a 67,000 square foot elementary school, a
3-million gallon water reservoir, and associated improvements on a 10.71 acre site. The applicant is also requesting four (4)
Variances/Adjustments to the Tigard Development Code (TDC). The Variances and Adjustments are as follows: (1) Section
18.810.030(H) of the Tigard Development Code requires full street connections with spacing of no more than 530 feet between
connections is required except where prevented by barriers such as topography, railroads, freeways, pre-existing developments,
lease provisions, easements, covenants or other restrictions existing prior to May 1, 1995 which preclude street connections. A
full street connection may also be exempted due to a regulated water feature if regulations would not permit construction. The
District is proposing not to fully connect the street; (2) An Adjustment to the minimum bicycle parking requirements (proposing
44 spaces instead of the required 186); (3) An Adjustment to the driveway spacing standards along SW Bull Mountain Road
'(the minimum spacing between driveways is required to be 200 feet, the District is asking for three driveways within 200 feet)
and; (4) An Adjustment to the street improvement standards to the unnamed street from SW 133" to the school site (they are
proposing a 3.5 foot planter strip instead of the required 5.5 foot planter strip). LOCATION: The subject site is located on the
south side of SW Bull Mountain Road, east of SW 133d Avenue; WCTM 2S109AC, Tax Lot 2100 & 2S109AD, Tax Lot 1300.
ZONE: R-7: Medium-Density Residential District. The R-7 zoning district is designed to accommodate attached single-family
homes, detached single-family homes with or without accessory residential units, at a minimum lot size of 5,000 square feet, and
duplexes, at a minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet. Mobile home parks and subdivisions are also permitted outright. Some
civic and institutional uses are also permitted conditionally. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code
Chapters 18.330, 18.360, 18.370, 18.390, 18.510, 18.705, 18.725, 18.745, 18.755, 18,765, 18.780, 18.790, 18.795 and 18.810;
and the Bull Mountain Community Plan.
Attached are the Site Plan, Vicinity Map and Applicant's StatementlPlans for your review. From information supplied by various
departments and agencies and from other information available to our staff, a report and recommendation will be prepared and a
decision will be rendered on the proposal in the near future. If you wish to comment on this application, WS: . 3. J 9
You may use the space provided below or attach a separate fetter to return your
comments. If are unable to respond by the above date, please phone the staff contact noted above with your comments and
confirm your comments in writing as soon as possible. If you have any questions, contact the Tigard Planning Division, 13125 SW
Hall Boulevard, Tigard, OR 97223.
fi0t, O f( j#E ~ APPLY:
We have reviewed the proposal and have no objections to it.
Please contact of our office.
Please refer to the enclosed letter.
Written comments provided below:
Name & Number of Person(s) Commenting: T
COUNTYWIDE Date: Plans Check No.
TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE Proiect Title, A(b . kde-rNmed "
WORKSHEET
(FOR NON-SINGLE FAMILY USES)
Applicant:
Mailing Address:
Tax Map No.
Site Address:
Land Use Cate o Rate Per Trip Payment Method
❑ RESIDENTIAL $ 253.00 ❑ CASHICHECK
❑ BUSINESS/COMMERCIAL $ 64.00 ❑ CREDIT
❑ OFFICE $ 233.00 ❑ BANCROFT (PROMISSORY NOTE)
❑ INDUSTRIAL $ 244.00 ❑ DEFER TO OCCUPANCY
INSTITUTIONAL $105.00
LAND USE CATEGORY DESCRIPTION OF USE WEEKDAY AVG TRIP RATE WEEKEND AVG TRIP RATE (institutional)
BASIS / civ1
goo
CALCULATIONS f
I 6q, gqb
ADDITIONAL NOTES c)
PROJECT TRIP GENERATION ROAD AMOUNT TRANSIT AMOUNT TOTAL FEE
iD`~ °0 v~
~Ig
PREPARED BY
REQUEST FOR COMMENTS cfPY Of TIGARD
Community rDevefopment
Shaping A Better Community
NATE: May 11, 2004
T0: Barbara Shields, Long Range Piannin manager
FROM: CIN of Tigard Planning Division
STAFF CONTACT: Morgan Traci, Associate Plannef [X24281
Phone: [5031639-4111/ Fax: (5031684-1291
COIADITIOIiAL USE PERMIT (CUP) 2003-00012/DEVELOPMENT ADJUSTMENTS (OAR) 2004-00031,41.42 trr 43
ALBERTA RIDER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL & CITY OF TIGARD ATE RESERVOIR Q
REQUEST: The applicant is requesting Conditional Use approval to construct a 67,000 square foot elementary school, a
3-million gallon water reservoir, and associated improvements on a 10.71 acre site. The applicant is also requesting four (4)
Variances/Adjustments to the Tigard Development Code (TDC). The Variances and Adjustments are as follows: (1) Section
18.810.030(H) of the Tigard Development Code requires full street connections with spacing of no more than 530 feet between
connections is required except where prevented by barriers such as topography, railroads, freeways, pre-existing developments,
lease provisions, easements, covenants or other restrictions existing prior to May 1, 1995 which preclude street connections. A
full street connection may also be exempted due to a regulated water feature if regulations would not permit construction. The
District is proposing not to fully connect the street; (2) An Adjustment to the minimum bicycle parking requirements (proposing
44 spaces instead of the required 186); (3) An Adjustment to the driveway spacing standards along SW Bull Mountain Road
(the minimum spacing between driveways is required to be 200 feet, the. District is asking for three driveways within 200 feet)
and; (4) An Adjustment to the street, improvement standards to the unnamed street from SW 133`d to the school site (they are
proposing a 3.5 foot planter strip instead of the required 5.5 foot planter strip). LOCATION: The subject site is located on the
south side of SW Bull Mountain Road, east of SW 133rd Avenue; WCTM 2S109AC, Tax Lot 2100 & 2S109AD, Tax Lot 1300.
ZONE: R-7: Medium-Density Residential District. The R-7 zoning district is designed to accommodate attached single-family
homes, detached single-family homes with or without accessory residential units, at a minimum lot size of 5,000 square feet, and
duplexes, at a minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet. Mobile home parks and subdivisions are also permitted outright. Some
civic and institutional uses are also permitted conditionally. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code
Chapters 18.330, 18.360, 18.370, 18.390, 18.510, 18.705, 18.725, 18.745, 18.755, 18,765, 18.780, 18.790, 18.795 and 18.810;
and the Bull Mountain Community Plan.
Attached are the Site Plan, Vicinity Map and Applicant's Statement/Plans for your review. From information supplied by various
departments and agencies and from other information available to our staff, a report and recommendation will be prepared and a
decision will be rendered on the proposal in the near future. If you wish to comment on this application, fff"E
1 You may use the space provided below or attach a separate letter to return your
comments. If are unable to respond by the above date, please phone the staff contact noted above with your comments and
confirm your comments in writing as soon as possible. If you have any questions, contact the Tigard Planning Division, 13125 SW
Hall Boulevard, Tigard, OR 97223.
77
Efl °t ~~~L`OtIVIIVG;)'i'fI~S;HAT~ PLX
We have reviewed the proposal and have no objections to it.
Please contact of our office.
Please refer to the enclosed letter.
Written comments provided below:
TVla J
Name & Number of Person(s) Commenting:
MEMORANDUM
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
DATE: June 18, 2004
TO: Morgan Tracy, Associate Planner
FROM: Brian Rager, Public Works Engineering Managerll?"~
RE: CUP 2003-00012, Alberta Rider Elementary School/City Reservoir
Morgan, below are some comments we have for this project:
Water
This site is located in our 713-foot gravity pressure zone. Our water consultant, Murray, Smith
Associates, Inc. (MSA), performed an analysis of our system in this area and has determined that
in order to meet minimum fire flows per the Uniform Fire Code, a connection is necessary to the
existing 10-inch water line in Bull Mountain Road. In addition, the minimum water line size to
feed this site is 12 inches. Therefore, the 8-inch connection to the 8-inch main line in SW 133rd
Avenue will not be adequate. The applicant will need to revise their plan to show that they will
extend a 12-inch line from the 10-inch main in Bull Mountain Road.
On June 17, 2004, we were made aware of an easement that encumbers the Rider site, and is in
favor of the parcel immediately to the south (now the Summit Ridge project). Attached is a copy
of the easement documentation that describes a 20-foot wide utility easement that can be used
for a variety of utilities, including water. The Rider parcel also has rights with respect to this
easement. This easement appears to be transferable to a municipality, if said municipality will
provide the public utility service.
Venture Properties, developer of Summit Ridge, also has a need to tie to the 713-foot zone water
line in Bull Mountain Road in order to serve the upper portion of their development. It makes
sense to require the Rider project to extend a public water line to their southerly border in order to
provide for efficient water connections to adjacent parcels. The presence of this easement
provides the opportunity for the two projects to work together, and Venture has in that
they would be willing to transfer their rights to this easement to the City of Tigard. Obviously, the
current configuration of the easement will not work for the applicant's site plan, and they will want
to realign the easement such that it makes more sense for their project. The applicant is strongly
encouraged to work with Venture Properties to determine the best route for this 12-inch public
water line so that it works fu` both projects, and affords the City the best access to the line for
maintenance purposes. Once an agreement has been reached with respect to a water line
alignment, the applicant will need to grant a new public water line easement to the City.
Overall, the proposed water system plan will need a thorough review by Public Works as a part of
the Public Facility Improvement (PFI) permit review process.
Recommended Conditions:
1. The applicants construction plans shall show a 12-inch connection to the 10-inch 713-
foot zone main line in SW Bull Mountain Road. This new 12-inch water line will need to
be a public line, as it has the ability to serve beyond the borders of this site. The
applicant shall coordinate with Venture Properties with respect to where to stub the 12-
inch line at the southern border.
2. The applicant shall grant a minimum 15-foot wide public water line easement to the
City to cover the new 12-inch public water line that will cross the site.
Please let me know if you have questions.
Attachment: Easement documentation
PAGE 2
REQUEST FOR COMMENTS QRY Of TniAQD
Community Development
ShapingA Better Community
DATE: May 11, 2004
TO: Dim Wolf, Tigard Police Department Crime Prevention Officer
FROM: City of Tigard Planning Division
STAFF CONTACT: Morgan Tracy, Associate Planner 104281
Phone: 15031639.41T1/ Fax: (5031684-7291
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP) 2003-00012/DEVELOPMENT ADJUSTMENTS (VAR) 2004-00037,41,42 & 43
ALBERTA RIDER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL & CITE OF TI D WATER RESERVOIR 4
REQUEST: The applicant is requesting Conditional Use approval to construct a 67,000 square foot elementary school, a
3-million gallon water reservoir, and associated improvements on a 10.71 acre site. The applicant is also requesting four (4)
Variances/Adjustments to the Tigard Development Code (TDC). The Variances and Adjustments are as follows: (1) Section
18.810.030(H) of the Tigard Development Code requires full street connections with spacing of no more than 530 feet between
connections is required except where prevented by barriers such as topography, railroads, freeways, pre-existing developments,
lease provisions, easements, covenants or other restrictions existing prior to May 1, 1995 which preclude street connections. A
full street connection may also be exempted due to a regulated water feature if regulations would not permit construction. The
District is proposing not to fully connect the street; (2) An Adjustment to the minimum bicycle parking requirements (proposing
44 spaces instead of the required 186); (3) An Adjustment to the driveway spacing standards along SW Bull Mountain Road
(the minimum spacing between driveways is required to be 200 feet, the District is asking for three driveways within 200 feet)
and; (4) An Adjustment to the street improvement standards to the unnamed street from SW 133rd to the school site (they are
proposing a 3.5 foot planter strip instead of the required 5.5 foot planter strip). L OCATlON: The subject site is located on the
south side of SW Bull Mountain Road; east of SW 133rd Avenue; WCTM 2S109AC, Tax Lot 2100 & 2S109AD, Tax Lot 1300.
ZONE: R-7: Medium-Density Residential District. The R-7 zoning district is designed to accommodate attached single-family
homes, detached single-family homes with or without accessory residential units, at a minimum lot size of 5,000 square feet, and
duplexes, at a minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet. Mobile home parks and subdivisions are also permitted outright. Some
civic and institutional uses are also permitted conditionally. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code
Chapters 18.330, 18.360, 18.370, 18.390, 18.510, 18.705, 18.725, 18.745, 18.755, 18,765, 18.780, 18.790, 18.795 and 18.810;
and the Bull Mountain Community Plan.
Attached are the Site Plan, Vicinity Map and Applicants Statement/Plans for your review. From information supplied by various
departments and agencies and from other information available to our staff, a report and recommendation will be prepared and a
decision will be rendered on the proposal in the near future. If you wish to comment on this application, INONE
You may use the space provided below or attach a separate letter to return your
comments. If are unable to respond by the above date, please phone the staff contact noted above with your comments and
confirm your comments in writing as soon as possible. If you have any questions, contact the Tigard Planning Division, 13125 SW
Hall Boulevard, Tigard, OR 97223.
L ~1111~G,1T001S ~ A~'APPl'
✓ We have reviewed the proposal and have no objections to it.
Please contact of our office.
Please refer to the enclosed letter.
Written comments provided below:
Name & Number of Person(s) Commenting: J V~atT
MEMORANDUM
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
DATE: 8130/04
TO: Morgan Tracy, Associate Planner
FROM. Kim McMillan, Development Review Enginee4M
RE: CUP2003-00012 Alberta Rider Elementary School
Access Management (Section 18.705.030.H)
Section 18.705.030.H.1 states that an access report shall be submitted with
all new development proposals which verifies design of driveways and
streets are safe by meeting adequate stacking needs, sight distance and
deceleration standards as set by ODOT, Washington County, the City and
AASHTO.
A Traffic Impact Analysis report by Kittelson addresses sight distance at the
intersection of 133`d Avenue and Bull.Mountain Road. The report indicates that
sight distance can be met by trimming existing hedges along the frontage.
Kittelson did not address sight distance at the intersection of the new east-west
street and 133`d Avenue and the proposed new driveway. Staff recommends that
the applicant's engineer provide preliminary certification of adequate sight
distance for all of these access points. Along with the preliminary certification the
applicant's engineer should provide a detailed list of improvements necessary to
produce adequate sight distance at each intersection and driveway. Finally, staff
recommends that the applicant's engineer provide final sight distance certification
for all access locations.
The applicant has indicated that visual clearance areas can be met. Staff
recommends that the visual clearance areas for all intersections and access
points be clearly indicated on the permit drawings for staff review.
Section 18.705.030.H.2 states that driveways shall not be permitted to be
placed in the influence area of collector or arterial street intersections.
Influence area of intersections is that area where queues of traffic
commonly form on approach to an intersection. The minimum driveway
setback from a collector or arterial street intersection shall be150 feet,
measured from the right-of-way line of the intersecting street to the throat
of the proposed driveway. The setback may be greater depending upon the
Mfuence area, as determined from City Engineer review of a traffic impact
report submitted by the applicant's traffic engineer. In a case where a
project has less than 150 feet of street frontage, the applicant must explore
any option for shared access with the adjacent parcel. If shared access is
ENGINEERING COMMENTS CUP2003-00012 Alberta Rider Elementary School PAGE 1
not possible or practical, the driveway shall be placed as far from the
Intersection as possible.
Bull Mountain Road is classified as a collector. There are no proposed
driveways within the influence area of a collector intersection.
Section 18.705.030.H.3 and 4 states that the minimum spacing of driveways
and streets along a collector shall be 200 feet. The minimum spacing of
driveways and streets along an arterial shall be 600 feet. The minimum
spacing of local streets along a local street shall be 125 feet.
The applicant has requested an adjustment to the driveway spacing standard for
the proposed emergency access point. Kittelson & Associates, Inc. has
submitted a Traffic Impact Analysis, dated April 15, 2004, for the proposed
development. The proposed access is intended to be a gated, emergency
access and is located approximately 100 feet west of the driveway to the east of
this site and 95 feet east of Alberta Rider's west driveway. The applicant argues
that they should not eliminate one of the Rider driveways and there is not another
location for access that would not require an adjustment. Staff agrees that there
is no other location along the frontage that would not require an adjustment, but
that does not mean that there isn't a better alternative. A driveway or public
street connection to Bull Mountain Road could be provided at the west end of the
project frontage. The private driveway just west of this property could then share
the access point. Also, staff disagrees with leaving both of the Rider driveways
open just because they have always been there. One of the driveways should be
eliminated in an effort to come closer to compliance with the spacing standards.
Staff therefore recommends that the adjustment, as requested, be rejected. As
an alternative, staff would recommend that the applicant eliminate Rider's east
driveway and construct a driveway where proposed, but with restricted
movement. The restriction would be that the driveway functions as a right-in,
right-out only with a raised median in the driveway throat and that a raised
medium be constructed in Bull Mountain Road to prevent east-bound left-turn
lanes into the site. This driveway would not be gated and would better serve site
circulation by allowing parents dropping off children to exit the site without
returning to the area where the buses are routed.
Street And Utility Improvements Standards (Section 18.810):
Chapter 18.810 provides construction standards for the implementation of
public and private facilities and utilities such as streets, sewers, and
drainage. The applicable standards are addressed below:
Streets:
Improvements:
ENGINEERING COMMENTS CUP2003-00012 Alberta Rider Elementary School PAGE 2
a
Section 18.810.030.A.1 states that streets within a development and streets
adjacent shall be improved in accordance with the TDC standards.
Section 18:810.030.A.2 states that any new street or additional street width
planned as a portion of an existing street shall be dedicated and improved
in accordance with the TDC.
Minimum Rights-of-Way and Street Widths: Section 18.810.030.E requires a
Collector street to have a 70 right-of-way width and 46-foot paved section.
Other improvements required may include on-street parking, sidewalks and
bikeways, underground utilities, street lighting, storm drainage, and street
trees.
This site lies adjacent to SW Bull Mountain Road, which is classified as a
Collector on the City of Tigard Transportation (Plan Map. At present, there is
approximately 20 feet of ROW from centerline, according to the most recent tax
assessor's map. The applicant should dedicate additional ROW to provide fo; 35
feet from centerline.
SW Bull Mountain Road is currently partially improved. In order to mitigate the
impact from this development, the applicant should construct half-street
improvements along the frontage in compliance with the City of Tigard standards
for a collector.
Street F should be extended from the Summit Ridge development to the new
east-west street. The applicant has not shown this street extension and has
applied for a variance to the connectivity standards. Staff does not support this
variance and the applicant should construct the % street improvements
necessary to make this connection.
Future Street Plan and Extension of Streets: Section 18.810.030.E states
that a future street plan shall be filed which shows the pattern of existing and
proposed future streets from the boundaries of the proposed land division.
This section also states that where it is necessary to give access or permit a
satisfactory future division of adjoining land, streets shall be extended to the
boundary lines of the tract to be developed and a barricade shall be
constructed at the end of the street. These street stubs to adjoining
properties are not considered to be cul-de-sacs since they are intended to
continue as through streets at such time as the adjoining property is
developed. A barricade shall be constructed at the end of the street by the
property owners which shall not be removed until authorized by the City
Engineer, the cost of which shall be included in the street construction cost.
Temporary hammerhead turnouts or temporary cul-de-sac bulbs shall be
constructed for stub streets in excess of 150 feet in length.
ENGINEERING COMMENTS CUP2003-00012 Alberta Rider Elementary School PAGE 3
The applicant has provided a future streets plan that shows a north-south street
bisecting the residential lots to the west of the school site. This plan shifts the
burden of improvements from a project generating over 600 daily trips to individual
prop^ y w...nerro The improvements should be done with the development that
generates those trips. The Summit Ridge development to the south has aligned
Street F with their west property line in order to provide the alignment that has the
least impact to the school layout. The improvements for F Street would include 35
feet of ROW in order to provide a minimum 24 foot paved section.
Street Alignment and Connections:
Section 18.810.030.H.1 states that full street connections with spacing of
no more than 530 feet between connections is required except where
prevented by barriers such as topography, railroads, freeways, pre-existing
developments, lease provisions, easements, covenants or other
restrictions existing prior to May 1, 1995 which preclude street
connections. A full street connection may also be exempted due to a
regulated water feature if regulations would not permit construction.
Section 18.810.030.H.2 states that all local, neighborhood routes and
collector streets which abut a development site shall be extended within
the site to provide through circulation when not precluded by
environmental or topographical constraints, existing development patterns
or strict adherence to other standards in this code. A street connection or
extension is precluded when it is not possible to redesign, or reconfigure
the street pattern to provide required extensions. Land is considered
topographically constrained if the slope is greater than 15% for a distance
of 250 feet or more. In the case of environmental or topographical
constraints, the mere presence of a constraint is not sufficient to show that
a street connection is not possible. The applicant must show why the
constraint precludes some reasonable street connection.
The Kittelson report suggests that even if Street F is extended it would not meet
the 530 foot spacing, but their proposal of moving the connection further west
makes the spacing fall further out of compliance rather than moving it closer to
compliance with the spacing standard. Staff recommends that the applicant be
required to provide a public street connection between the Summit Ridge
development and the new east-west street. This recommendation is less than is
required if strictly adhering to the 530 foot spacing, as another north-south
connection could be required.
Grades and Curves: Section 18.810.030.14 states that grades shall not exceed
ten percent on arterials, 12% on collector streets, or 12% on any other street
de :~rPt thant local Pr residential access streets may have segments with
grades up to 15% for distances of no greater than 250 feet). Centerline radii
of curves shall be as determined by the City Engineer.
ENGINEERING COMMENTS CUP2003-00012 Alberta Rider Elementary School PAGE 4
The proposed street grades do not exceed this standard, thereby meeting the
criterion.
Access to Arterials and Major Collectors: Section 18.810.030.Q states that
where a development abuts or is traversed by an existing or proposed
arterial or major collector street, the development design shall provide
adequate protection for residential properties and shall separate residential
access and through traffic, or if separation is not feasible, the design shall
minimize the traffic conflicts. The design shall include any of the following:
• A parallel access street along the arterial or major collector;
• Lots of suitable depth abutting the arterial or major collector to provide
adequate buffering with frontage along another street;
• Screen planting at the rear or side property line to be contained in a
non-access reservation along the arterial or major collector; or
• Other treatment suitable to meet the objectives of this subsection;
• If a lot has access to two streets with different classifications, primary
access should be from the lower classification street.
Primary access is proposed from the new east-west street that connects to 133`d
Avenue, thereby meeting the criterion.
Block Designs - Section 18.810.040.A states that the length, width and shape
of blocks shall be designed with due regard to providing adequate building
sites for the use contemplated, consideration of needs for convenient
access, circulation, control and safety of street traffic and recognition of
limitations and opportunities of topography.
Block Sizes: Section 18.810.040.6.1 states that the perimeter of blocks
formed by streets shall not exceed 1,800 feet measured along the right-of-
way line except:
• Where street location is precluded by natural topography, wetlands or
other bodies of water or, pre-existing development or;
• For blocks adjacent to arterial streets, limited access highways, major
collectors or railroads.
• for non-residential blocks in which internal public circulation provides
equivalent access.
PLANNING
Section 18.810.040.6.2 also states that bicycle and pedestrian connections
on public easements or right-of-ways shall be provided when full street
connection is not possible. Spacing between connections shaii be no
more than 330 feet, except where precluded by environmental or
topographical constraints, existing development patterns, or strict
adherence to other standards in the code.
ENGINEERING COMMENTS CUP2003-00012 Alberta Rider Elementary School PAGE 5
M MENEENEEMMM
PLANNING
Lots = Sipe and Sh?;fe: Section 18.810.060(A) prohibits lot depth from being
more than 2.5 times the average lot width, unless the parcel is less than 1.5
times the minimum lot size of the applicable zoning district.
PLANNING
Lot Frontage: Section 18.810.060(B) requires that lots have at least 25 feet of
frontage on public or private streets, other than an alley. In the case of a land
partition, 18.420.050.A.4.c applies, which requires a parcel to either have a
minimum 15-foot frontage or a minimum 15-foot wide recorded access
easement. In cases where the lot is for an attached single-family dwelling
unit, the frontage shall be at least 15 feet.
PLANNING
Sidewalks: Section 18.810.070.A requires that sidewalks be constructed to
meet City design standards and be located on both sides of arterial,
collector and local residential streets. Private streets and industrial streets
shall have sidewalks on at least one side.
The applicant's plan indicates that they will construct sidewalks along the Bull
Mountain Road frontage and on both sides of the new east-west street. A
sidewalk is also required on one side of the F Street extension, as part of the %
street improvements.
Sanitary Sewers:
Sewers Required: Section 18.810.090.A requires that sanitary sewer be
installed to serve each new development and to connect developments to
existing mains in accordance with the provisions set forth in Design and
Construction Standards for Sanitary and Surface Water Management (as
adopted by Clean Water Services in 1996 and including any future
revisions or amendments) and the adopted policies of the comprehensive
plan.
Over-sizing: Section 18.810.090.0 states that proposed sewer systems
shall include consideration of additional development within the area as
projected by the Comprehensive Plan.
The applicant's plan indicates two private sewer laterals, one to the serve the
school and one to serve the Rider residence. The applicant did not show the
construction of a public main as part of the I i~frast~ ucture ated with the new
east-west street. Staff recommends that an 8-inch public sewer line be
constructed the full length of the proposed east-west street and connect to the
main in F street on the Summit Ridge site. The placement of the public line will
ENGINEERING COMMENTS CUP2003-00012 Alberta Rider Elementary School PAGE 6
be in the ROW of the east-west street and the ROW of F Street. The lateral from
the Rider residence would then connect to this public main.
Storm Drainage:
General Provisions: Section 18.810.100.A requires developers to make
adequate provisions for storm water and flood water runoff.
Accommodation of Upstream Drainage: Section 18.810.100.0 states that a
culvert or other drainage facility shall be large enough to accommodate
potential runoff from its entire upstream drainage area, whether inside or
outside the development. The City Engineer shall approve the necessary
size of the facility, based on the provisions of Design and Construction
Standards for Sanitary and Surface Water Management (as adopted by
Clean Water Services in 2000 and including any future revisions or
amendments).
While there are no upstream drainage ways that impact this site, the extension of
a public storm sewer, as part of the infrastructure of the new east-west street,
should be required. Staff recommends that the storm sewer be extended west to
133`d Avenue. If storm improvements have been completed in 133`d Avenue by
the Summit Ridge Development the storm sewer could then be constructed as
shown on the applicant's plans. The applicant will also need to receive CWS
approval of the proposed public sewer.
Effect on Downstream Drainage: Section 18.810.100.1) states that where it
is anticipated by the City Engineer that the additional runoff resulting from
the development will overload an existing drainage facility, the Director and
Engineer shall withhold approval of the development until provisions have
been made for improvement of the potential condition or until provisions
have been made for storage of additional runoff caused by the
development in accordance with the Design and Construction Standards
for Sanitary and Surface Water Management (as adopted by Clean Water
Services in 2000 and including any future revisions or amendments).
In 1997, Clean Water Services (CWS) completed a basin study of Fanno Creek
and adopted the Fanno Creek Watershed Management Plan. Section V of that
plan includes a recommendation that local govemments institute a stormwater
detention/effective impervious area reduction program resulting in no net
increase in storm peak flows up to the 25-year event. The City will require that
all new developments resulting in an increase of impervious surfaces provide
onsite detention facilities, unless the development is located adjacent to Fanno
Creek. For those developments adjacent to Fanno Creek, the storm water runoff
will be permitted to discharge without detention.
ENGINEERING COMMENTS CUP2003-00012 Alberta Rider Elementary School PAGE 7
The applicant has indicated that they are not providing detention because the
systems downstream have been sized for fully developed runoff rates. The
applicant will have to provide CWS approval of their storm sewer system to staff.
Bikeways and Pedestrian Pathways:
Bikeway Extension: Section 18.810.110.A states that developments
adjoining proposed bikeways identified on the City's adopted
pedestrian/bikeway plan shall include provisions for the future extension of
such bikeways through the dedication of easements or right-of-way.
Bull Mountain Road is classified as a bicycle facility. As part of the half-street
improvements along Bull Mountain Road the developer should provide striping,
markers, legends and mini-arrows associated with the bicycle lane.
Minimum Width: Section 18.810A 10.C states that the minimum width for
bikeways within the roadway is five feet per bicycle travel lane. Minimum
width for two-way bikeways separated from the road is eight feet.
The bicycle lane along a collector is designated as 6 feet wide.
Utilities:
Section 18.810.120 states that all utility lines, but not limited to those
required for electric, communication, lighting and cable television services
and related facilities shall be placed underground, except for surface
mounted transformers, surface mounted connection boxes and meter
cabinets which maybe placed above ground, temporary utility service
facilities during construction, high capacity electric lines operating at
50,000 volts or above, and:
• The developer shall make all necessary arrangements with the serving
utility to provide the underground services;
• The City reserves the right to approve location of all surface mounted
facilities;
• All underground utilities, including sanitary sewers and storm drains
installed in streets by the developer, shall be constructed prior to the
surfacing of the streets; and
• Stubs for service connections shall be long enough to avoid disturbing
the street improvements when service connections are made.
Exception to Under-Grounding Requirement: Section 18.810.120.C states
that a developer shall pay a fee in-lieu of under-grounding costs when the
development is proposed to take place on a street where existing utilities
which are not underground will serve the development and the approval
ENGINEERING COMMENTS CUP2003-00012 Alberta Rider Elementary School PAGE 8
authority determines that the cost and technical difficulty of under-
grounding the utilities outweighs the benefit of under-grounding in
conjunction with the development. The determination shall be on a case-
by-ease basis. I lie most common, but not the only, such situation is a
short frontage development for which under-grounding would result in the
placement of additional poles, rather than the removal of above-ground
utilities facilities. An applicant for a development which is served by
utilities which are not underground and which are located across a public
right-of-way from the applicant's property shall pay a fee in-lieu of under-
grounding.
There are existing overhead utility fines along the frontage of SW Bull Mountain
Road. If the fee in-lieu is proposed, it is equal to $ 35.00 per lineal foot of street
frontage that contains the overhead lines. The frontage along this site is 590.5
lineal feet; therefore the fee would be $ 20,667.50.
ADDITIONAL CITY AND/OR AGENCY CONCERNS WITH STREET AND
UTILITY IMPROVEMENT STANDARDS:
Traffic Study Findings:
A Transportation Impact Analysis was prepared for this project by Kittelson &
Associates, Inc., dated April 15, 2004. The report concluded that during both
existing weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hours the two existing study intersections
at Bull Mountain Road/133`d Avenue and Bull Mountain Road/Greenfield are
functioning within acceptable operating parameters. Under forecast year 2005
total traffic conditions, including the school development, all study intersections
are expected to function within acceptable operating standards for weekday a.m.
and p.m'. peak hours.
Analysis indicates that a left-turn lane is warranted on Bull Mountain Road for the
west-bound traffic turning onto 133`d Avenue. Kittelson recommends the
construction of the west-bound left-turn lane with 100 feet of vehicle storage.
The Summit Ridge development has been conditioned to construct this turn lane.
Staff recommends that if Summit Ridge cannot fulfill this obligation the applicant
should complete the turn lane construction as part of this development.
Kittelson's analysis shows that traffic signal warrants are not met for the
intersection of Bull Mountain Road and 133`d Avenue.
Kittelson recommends that the hedges be trimmed along the southwest and
jVU""A.7 -""101 e o v^f M46e int®reer#inn
U I G t w1 1 of Rill Mn~tntain Road and 133`d Avenue in
order to achieve adequate sight distance.
ENGINEERING COMMENTS CUP2003-00012 Alberta Rider Elementary School PAGE 9
OEM
Staff recommends that in addition, the applicant provide adequate illumination of
the intersection of 133`d Avenue and Bull Mountain Road, as well as the east-
west road and Street F, if extended.
Public Water System:
See Morgan's narrative... change recommended condition #1 to stub the water
line to F Street as shown on the approved Summit Ridge plans.
Storm Water Quality:
.The City has agreed to enforce Surface Water Management (SWM)
regulations established by Clean Water Services (CWS) Design and
Construction Standards (adopted by Resolution and Order No. 00-7) which
require the construction of on-site water quality facilities. The facilities
shall be designed to remove 65 percent of the phosphorus contained in 100
percent of the storm water runoff generated from newly created impervious
surfaces. In addition, a maintenance plan shall be submitted indicating the
frequency and method to be used in keeping the facility maintained
through the year.
Prior to construction, the applicant shall submit plans and calculations for a water
quality facility that will meet the intent of the CWS Design Standards. In addition,
the applicant shall submit a maintenance plan for the facility that must be
reviewed and approved by the City prior to construction.
Prior to the City accepting this facility as a public facility, the developer shall
maintain it for a minimum of three years after construction is completed. The
pond shall be placed in a tract and conveyed to the City on the final plat. The
developer will be required to submit annual reports to the City which show what
maintenance operations were conducted on the facility for that year. Once the
three-year maintenance period is completed, the City will inspect the facility and
make note of any problems that have arisen and require them to be resolved
before the City will take over maintenance of the facility. In addition, the City will
not take over maintenance of the facility unless 80 percent of the landscaping is
established and healthy. If at any time during the maintenance period, the
landscaping falls below the 80 percent level, the developer shall immediately
reinstall all deficient planting at the next appropriate planting opportunity.
Grading and Erosion Control:
CWS Design and Construction Standards also regulate erosion control to
reduce the amount vI seun.~c..a o..........-• r---__-- 'edlient .-nd other pollutants reaching the public
storm and surface water system resulting from development, construction,
grading, excavating, clearing, and any other activity which accelerates
erosion. Per CWS regulations, the applicant is required to submit an
ENGINEERING COMMENTS CUP2003-00012 Alberta Rider Elementary School PAGE 10
erosion control plan for City review and approval prior to issuance of City
permits.
The Federal Clean Water Act requires that a National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) erosion control permit be issued for any
development that will disturb one or more acre of land. Since this site is
over five acres, the developer will be required to obtain an NPDES permit
from the City prior to construction. This permit will be issued along with
the site and/or building permit.
A final grading plan shall be submitted showing the existing and proposed contours.
The plan shall detail the provisions for surface drainage of all lots, and show that
they will be graded to insure that surface drainage is directed to the street -or a
public storm drainage system approved by the Engineering Department. For
situations where the back portions of lots drain away from a street and toward
adjacent lots, appropriate private storm drainage lines shall be provided to
sufficiently contain and convey runoff from each lot.
The applicant will also be required to provide a geotechnical report, per Appendix
Chapter 33 of the UBC, for the proposed grading slope construction. The
recommendations of the report will need to be incorporated into the final grading
plan and a final construction supervision report must be filed with the Engineering
Department prior to issuance of building permits.
The design engineer shall also indicate, on the grading plan, which lots will have
natural slopes between 10% and 20%, as well as lots that will have natural slopes
in excess of 20%. This information will be necessary in determining if special
grading inspections and/or permits will be necessary when the lots develop.
A Geotechnical report was prepared for this development by URS Corporation,
dated July 2003.
This project will disturb more than one acre of the site, therefore, an NPDES
1200-C permit is required.
Site Permit Required:
The applicant is required to obtain a Site Permit from the Building Division to
coverall on-site private utility installations (water, sewer, storm, etc.) and
driveway construction. This permit shall be obtained prior to approval of the final
plat.
Address Assignments:
The City of Tigard is responsible for assigning addresses for parcels within the
City of Tigard and within the Urban Service Boundary (USB). An addressing fee
ENGINEERING COMMENTS CUP2003-00012 Alberta Rider Elementary School PAGE 11
in the amount of $ 50.00 per address and tract shall be assessed.. This fee shall
be paid to the City prior to issuance of the site permit.
Recommendations:
THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO
ISSUANCE OF THE SITE PERMIT:
Submit to the Engineering Department (Kim McMillan, 639-4171, ext. 2642)
for review and approval:
Prior to issuance of a site permit, a Public Facility Improvement (PFI) permit
is required for this project to cover street improvements and any other work
in the public right-of-way. Eight (8) sets of detailed public improvement
plans shall be submitted for review to the Engineering Department. NOTE:
these plans are in addition to any drawings required by the Building Division
and should only include sheets relevant to public improvements. Public
Facility Improvement (PFI) permit plans shall conform to City of Tigard
Public Improvement Design Standards, which are available at City Hall and
the City's web page (www.ci.tigard.or.us).
The PFI permit plan submittal shall include the exact legal name, address
and telephone number of the individual or corporate entity who will be
- designated as the "Permittee", and who will provide the financial assurance
for the public improvements. For example, specify if the entity is a
corporation, limited partnership, LLC, etc. Also specify the state within which
the entity is incorporated and provide the name of the corporate contact
person. Failure to provide accurate information to the Engineering
Department will delay processing of project documents.
Additional right-of-way shall be dedicated to the Public along the frontage of
Bull Mountain Road to increase the right-of-way to 35 feet from the
centerline. The description shall be tied to the existing right-of-way
centerline. The dedication document shall be on City forms. Instructions are
available from the Engineering Department.
The applicant shall submit construction plans to the Engineering Department
as a part of the Public Facility Improvement permit, which indicate that they
will construct a half-street improvement along the frontage of Bull Mountain - 4k 11VAU. 1 1 IV iii IF, V Yel enw aujat.cl It tv a n0 sitc 01 Iau 11 incIuuc.
A. City standard pavement section for a Collector street from curb to
centerline equal to 23 feet;
ENGINEERING COMMENTS CUP2003-00012 Alberta Rider Elementary School PAGE 12
B. pavement tapers needed to tie the new improvement back into the
existing edge of pavement shall be built beyond the site frontage;
C. concrete curb, or curb and gutter as needed;
D. storm drainage, including any off-site storm drainage necessary to
convey surface and/or subsurface runoff;
E. 6 foot concrete sidewalk with a planter strip;
F. street trees in the planter strip spaced per TDC requirements;
G. street striping;
H. streetlight layout by applicant's engineer, to be approved by City
Engineer;
1. underground utilities;
J. street signs (if applicable);
K. driveway apron (if applicable); and
L. adjustments in vertical and/or horizontal alignment to construct SW
Bull Mountain Road in a safe manner, as approved by the
Engineering Department.
The applicant's plans shall show installation of bicycle striping, markers,
legends and mini-arrows along the Bull Mountain Road frontage.
Prior to commencing onsite improvements, the applicant's design plans shall
include the left-turn lane with 100 foot of storage for west-bound traffic on
Bull Mountain Road at the intersection of 133`d Avenue, if the design has not
already been completed by others.
The applicant's Public Facility Improvement permit construction drawings
shall indicate that three-quarter width street improvements, including traffic
control devices, mailbox clusters, concrete sidewalks, driveway aprons,
curbs, asphaltic concrete pavement, sanitary sewers, storm drainage, street
trees, streetlights, and underground utilities shall be installed to complete the
extension of F Street from the Summit Ridge development to the new east-
west street. Improvements shall be designed and constructed to local street
standards.
The applicant's plan shall show the east Rider driveway eliminated.
The applicant's plans shall show the proposed access onto Bull Mountain
' Road as a restricted right-in/right-out only with a raised median (pork chop).
The plan shall also indicate the construction of a raised median in Bull
Mountain Road at this driveway to prevent left turn movements.
The applicant's Public Facility Improvement permit construction drawings
shall indicate that 3M width street improvements for F Street, inciuding traffic
control devices, mailbox clusters, concrete sidewalks, driveway aprons,
curbs, asphaltic concrete pavement, sanitary sewers, storm drainage, street
trees; streetlights, and underground utilities shall be installed within the
ENGINEERING COMMENTS CUP2003-00012 Alberta Rider Elementary School PAGE 13
interior subdivision streets, Improvements shall be designed and
constructed to local street standards.
A profile of Bull Mountain Road shall be required, extending 300 feet either
side of the subject site showing the existing grade and proposed future
grade.
Sanitary sewer and storm drainage details shall be provided as part of the
Public Facility Improvement (PFI) permit plans. Calculations and a
topographic map of the storm drainage basin and sanitary sewer service
area shall be provided as a supplement to the Public Facility Improvement
(PFI) permit plans. Calculations shall be based on full development of the
serviceable area. The location and capacity of existing, proposed, and
future lines shall be addressed.
The applicant shall provide connection of proposed buildings to the public
sanitary sewerage system. A connection permit is required to connect to the
existing public sanitary sewer system.
The applicant shall provide a public sanitary sewer main from the
intersection of 133`d Avenue and the new east-west street to the stub shown
in F Street on the approved Summit Ridge subdivision plans.
The applicant shall extend the public storm sewer in the east-west street to
the intersection with 133`d Avenue.
Prior to construction, the applicant's design engineer shall submit
documentation, for review by the City (Kim McMillan), of CWS approval of
the proposed storm sewer system.
Any extension of public water lines shall be shown on the proposed Public
Facility Improvement (PFI) permit construction drawings and shall be
reviewed and approved by the City's Water Department, as a part of the
Engineering Department plan review. NOTE: An estimated 12% of the
water system costs must be on deposit with the Water Department prior to
approval of the PFI permit plans from the Engineering Department and
construction of public water lines.
The applicant's plans shall be revised to show a new, public 12-inch line
connecting to the 10-inch line in Bull Mountain Road. This 12-inch line will
need to be public in order to serve properties beyond the borders of this site.
The 12-inch line needs to be connected to the water line shown in F Street
on the approved Summit Ridge plans. A public water line also needs to be
. extended the full length of the new east-west street, from the site to 133`d
Avenue. A minimum 15 foot public easement will be required where the
water line is located outside of public ROW.
ENGINEERING COMMENTS CUP2003-00012 Alberta Rider Elementary School PAGE 14
The applicant shall provide an on-site water quality facility as required by
Clean Water Services Design and Construction Standards (adopted by
` Resolution and Order No. 00-7). Final plans and calculations shall be
submitted to the Engineering Department (Kim McMillan) for review and
approval prior to issuance of the site permit. In addition, a proposed
maintenance plan shall be submitted along with the plans and calculations
for review and approval. The applicant shall also provide the City with
approval from CWS for the water quality facility.
An erosion control plan shall be provided as part of the Public Facility
Improvement (PFI) permit drawings. The plan shall conform to the "Erosion
Prevention and Sediment Control Design and Planning Manual, February
2003 edition."
A final grading plan shall be submitted showing the existing and proposed
contours. The plan shall detail the provisions for surface drainage of all
impervious areas, and show that they will be graded to insure that surface
drainage is directed to the street or a public storm drainage system
approved by the Engineering Department. For situations where the back
portions of the lot drains away from a street and toward adjacent lots,
appropriate private storm drainage lines shall be provided to sufficiently
contain and convey runoff.
The applicant shall incorporate the recommendations from the submitted
geotechnical report by URS Corporation, dated July 2003, into the final
grading plan. The geotechnical engineer shall be employed by the applicant
throughout the entire construction period to ensure that all grading, including
cuts and fills, are constructed in accordance with the approved plan and
Appendix Chapter 33 of the UBC.
The applicant shall obtain a 1200-C General Permit issued by the City of
Tigard pursuant to ORS 468.740 and the Federal Clean Water Act.
The applicant shall submit preliminary sight distance certification for all
driveways and intersections related to this development. Included with the
preliminary certification shall be a detailed list of improvements required to
produce adequate sight distance.
THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO
ISSUANCE OF THE BUILDING PERMIT:
nie~ mm _~a•__ 639-4,411711,
Submit to the Engineering Department tnom 1ncIni1oi~an, ena t. 6A°2
for review and approval:
ENGINEERING COMMENTS CUP2003-00012 Alberta Rider Elementary School PAGE 15
i
Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall pay an addressing
fee according to the rate at time of payment. (STAFF CONTACT: Shirley
Treat, Engineering).
During issuance of the building permit, the applicant shall pay the standard
water quantity fee (fee amounts will be the latest approved by CWS).
THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO A FINAL
BUILDING INSPECTION:
Submit to the Engineering Department (Kim McMillan, 639.4171, ext. 2642)
for review and approval:
Prior to a final building inspection, the applicant shall complete the required
public improvements, obtain conditional acceptance from the City, and
provide a one-year maintenance assurance for said improvements.
The applicant shall either place the existing overhead utility lines along SW
Bull Mountain Road underground as a part of this project, or they shall pay
the fee in-lieu of undergrounding. The fee shall be calculated by the
frontage of the site that is parallel to the utility lines and will be $ 35.00 per
lineal foot. If the fee option is chosen, the amount will be $ 20,667.50 and it
shall be paid prior to final building inspection.
To ensure compliance with Clean Water Services design and construction
standards, the applicant shall employ the design engineer responsible for
the design and specifications of the private water quality facility to perform
construction and visual observation of the water quality facility for
compliance with the design and specifications. These inspections shall be
made at significant stages, and at completion of the construction. Prior to
final building inspection, the design engineer shall provide the City of
Tigard (Inspection Supervisor) with written confirmation that the water
quality facility is in compliance with the design and specifications. Staff
Contact: Hap Watkins, Building Division.
Prior to final inspection, the applicant's geotechnical engineer shall submit a
final report to the Building Division that indicates all grading work on this site
was inspected by said geotechnical engineer, and that it was completed in
accordance with Appendix Chapter 33 of the Uniform Building Code.
Final sight distance certification for all intersections and driveways
associated with this development shall be provided by the applicant's
engineer.
ENGINEERING COMMENTS CUP2003-00012 Alberta Rider Elementary School PAGE 16
ADDITIONAL PUBLIC COMMENTS
SUBMITTED TO STAFF,
PROVIDED TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER
AT THE 7/12/04 PUBLIC HEARING
Danny M. Bush
15905a SW Stratford Lp.
Tigard, Or 97224
July 7, 2004
Tigard Hearings Officer
Town Hall
13125 SW Hall Blvd.
Tigard, Or 97223
CUP 2004-00001
Tigard High School Expansion
Sir: I am conserved that reducing the amount of bicycle parking will increase the use of
cars by the students. This would increase traffic and parking problems impacting the local
neibhborhood.
Right now the parking lots are at capacity during the school day and during any special
event. -
Those students that don't drive to school, do drive to after school events,and when the lots
arefull `they simplely park in the neighborhood. Also non-student special events also have
a major impact on the parking and traffic problems.
My suggestion. is that if the bicycle parking is to be reduced, then the number of parking
spots for cars must be increased. I suggest that the construction access road and 40
parking, spots by the soccer field be made permanent by paving and possibly widened to
80 spots. This would solve several problems. It would increase the parking available and it
would add a seperate exit for the staff/swimcenter/soccer field parking lot. ( Left hand turns
are almost immposible from 88th when cars are turning left from the staff parking lot.)
I also think that the school does not support bicycle programs or emphasize cycling to
the students.
Thank you
Dan Bu
Mor an 7rac -Keeping ours ace, but' agood neighbors Page 1
Y
From: <sean@edgemtg.com>
To: <morgan@ci.t!gard.or.us>
Date: 7/1104 6:28AM
Subject: Keeping our space, but being good neighbors
Tracy,
am writing you concerning the recent proposal that Tigard is
submitting to add a street through the back of the neighborhood off SW
- 133rd. Avenue. This use to be the most cherished street on the mountain,
now with Don Monsette's "under-handed" possession of the land at the
end of the street and the school going in down in front of the homes on
this street - well it certainly is no longer the envy at all!
My wife and I saved for some time to be able to live in this wonderful
neighborhood, hoping we could keep from seeing any more development or
use of our low key street!! What the city of Tigard is doing with this
proposed street is completely unknown, although it appears initially
that they want to encourage people to divide up their land. I am all for
trying to work within the urban growth development plan, but folks in
the neighborhood have been here most of their lives and love the thought
of having a little land and the peace and serenity that comes with that.
There seems to be plenty of people that can live on 5000 sq. foot lots
and be on top of their neighbors - these homes seem to have no problem
selling. Me and my wife, we grew up on farm land and cherish the spread
between neighbors and the low key feeling in this beautiful
neighborhood. To have trucks all day this week rumbling up and down this
little street hauling dirt out and rock in is really tough (7AM start
time is ridiculous and questionable to the law)- and I'm a relatively
new comer - I really feel sad for the old timers who mad this area what
it is today!
Please help us preserve this awesome little neighborhood and stop the
madness of development. We understand the needs of the new school and it
looks like it's going to be a thing of beauty that our infant will
someday attend. But, to try to capitalize on the school development by
proposing this street is somehow needed is ludicrous! If there is
anything else we can do as" very concerned" citizens of Bull Mtn. please
let me know!
Sincerely,
Sean & Brenda Killingsworth
670-7263
ATTACHMENT 7
7
d~ ementa0chool
ater Reservoir
.r
,
,P ;Qa
a at
V~
All Qj
< xK
4,
n
sl
tau t 'ro ~
vi.
i
r$A7 lf111n \
T~ AA~~
I~~anAvenjent,ylnc.
Alberta Rider Elementary School and City of Tigard Water
Reservoir Conditional Use Permit Applications
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION 1 ELEMENTARYSCHOOL
KEY INFORMATION 1
SUMMARY 3
BACKGROUND INFORMATION 5
RESPONSE TO CUP CRITERIA - SCHOOL 9
VARIANCE TO STREET CONNECTIVITIY STANDARDS 17
MINIMUM BICYCLE PARKING ADJUSTMENT 29
MINIMUM DRIVEWAY SPACING ADJUSTMENT 27
MINIMUM PLANTER STRIP WIDTH ADJUSTMENT 33
CONCLUSIONS 35
SEC77ON 2 - WATER RESERVOIR
RESPONSE TO CUP CRITERIA - RESERVOIR 37
SECTION 3 - EXHIBITS 49
Exhibit'A' Pre-application Conference Notes
Exhibit'B' Tax Assessor's Maps showing the location and dimensions of the tax
lots
Exhibit 'C' Aerial Photographs
Exhibit'D' Zoning Map
Exhibit'E' Utilities Maps
Exhibit'F' Service Provider Response - Clean Water Services Agency
Exhibit'G' Neighborhood Meeting Documentation
Exhibit 'H' Transportation Impact Analysis Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
Exhibit,'I' Memo from TriMet
Exhibit']' Preliminary Storm Drainage Study - Westlake Engineering Inc.
Exhibit'K' _ Landscape Plan for Water Quality Swale - Beighley & Associates
Exhibit `L Luminaire Specifications
Exhibit `M' Letter from Pride Disposal Company
Exhibit'N' Tree Assessment Report - Halstead's Arboriculture Consultants, Inc.
Exhlbit'O' Sketch - future development option, properties west of school site
Exhibit'P' Figure 8-16 from the City's Transportation System Plan
Exhibit 'Q' Plan Sheets
A1.0 Cover Sheet
A2.0 Overall Site Plan
A4.0 Exterior Elevations Overall
A4.1 Exterior Elevations
HA.2 Exter floor Elevatinns
C1.I Existing Conditions Plan
C1.2 Demolition Plan
C2.0 Overall Grading/Erosion Control Plan
C2.1 North Grading Plan
C2.2 South Grading Plan
C2.3 West Access Grading Plan and Sections
C3.0 Master Utility Plan
C3.1 North Utility Plan
C3.2 South Utility Plan
C3.3 Public Storm Drain Profile
C3,4 West Access Utility Plan
E2,0 Electrical Site Plan
L1.1 Landscape Concept Plan - Sleeving Plan
1-1.2 Landscape Concept Plan - Planting Plan (North and West)
1-1.3 Landscape Concept Plan - Planting Plan (East)
1-1.4 Landscape Concept Plan - Planting Plan (South)
T1.0 Arborist Map A
T1.1 Arborist Map B
A2.1 Enlarged Plans and Site Details
A2.2 Site Details
C5.0 Sewer Details
C5.1 Sewer and Water Details
C5.2 Street Details
V1.0 Visual Clearance Areas
S R
OEOORAP XIC INFORYATIONf YETEY
swGAMARDEST VICINITY MAP
SW MMES LANE
W
f
N
E SW CHAN LE RIVE
tP
0
z
ALPINE VI T19.1d
AL VIEW DU H CT 4f Urb.n SRrvkf Arff
z
m
m
x
co CT
Z
S ~EM~ Y N
'k~
-
W WI V - : - -7 -
Alberta Rider Site
RHETT TJW" ANN hbP
N
4 a
'n F- FF
400 Btm Fwft
11500 bat
M
A
r City ofTigard
x OR
r y ~N Nnamauan aR a" nap 1. Mm gwrxd Wcwon any and
ft.M W wind w hh the O WIW-P-d Ssniua 014do ,
13125 SW HO BMd
TIgg4 OR OM
(w3)&'.%4171
tepji ww.d-dc.rd.oF.Nf
Plot date: Mar 24, 2004; CAn1agicXMAGIC03-APR
Community Development
Alberta Elementary School/City Reservoir CUP
Project Name: Alberta Rider Elementary School and City Water
Reservoir Conditional Use Permit
property Description: 2S109AC02100 and 2S109AD01300
Location: Bull Mountain Road, east of SW 133rd
Parcel size: 10.71 acres
Zoning: R-7
Applicant: Tigard-Tualatin School District 231
6960 SW Sandburg Street
Tigard, Oregon 97223
Attention: Stephen Poage
Telephone 503-431-4003
Fax 503-431-4047
Property Owner: Same
Applicant's Representatives:
Project Manager
Rick Rainone, Senior Project Manager
Cornerstone'Construction Management
5410 SW Macadam Avenue, Suite 250
Portland, Oregon 97210
Telephone 503-295-0108
Fax 503-295-1896
Architect
Dick Eslick or Sean Scott
Ellis, Esiick Associates/Architects P.C.
1230 SW First Avenue, Suite 300
Portland, Oregon 97204-3236
Telephone 503-223-6963
Fax 503-294-0827
Civil Engineer
Len Schelsky or Pat Tortora
Westlake Consultants
15115 SW Sequoia Parkway, Suite 150
Tigard, Oregon 97005-4862
Telephone 503-684-0652
Fax 503-624-0157
Landscape Design
Harold Beighley
Beighiey & Associates
12840 NW Cornell Road
Portland, Oregon 97229
Telephone 503-643-4796
Fax 503-643-4798
edmurphy&associaleslusd/aibdder/eupapp/4/l4/04 t
Alberta Elementary School/City Reservoir CUP
Arborist
David Halstead
Halstead's Arboriculture Consultants, Inc.
P.O. Box 1182
Tualatin, Oregon 97062
Telephone 503-245-1383
Fax 503-295-1896
Traffic Engineer
Wayne Kittelson or Brian Dunn
Kitteison & Associates, Inc.
610 SW Alder, Suite 700
Portland, Oregon 97205
Telephone 503-228-5230
Fax 503-273-8169
Land Use Planner
Ed Murphy
Ed Murphy & Associates
9875 SW Murdock St.
Tigard, Oregon 97224
Telephone 503-624-4625
Fax 503-968-1674
edmuoy&aswiaw tt &albridedc wapp/4/14/04
2
Alberta Elementary School/City Reservoir CUP
e The Tigard-Tualatin School District plans to build a new elementary school that it will
name "Alberta Rider Elementary School". A Conditional Use Permit is required.
s The expected enrollment in the school is expected to be 600 students. In addition,
there will be approximately 46 teachers and support staff working at the school.
e Public sewer, water, roads and storm water systems are available to the site and
have the capacity to serve the school. The School District will be making on-site and
off-site improvements to the transportation and utility systems.
♦ The total amount of impervious surface will be increased by 132,597square feet.
The storm water plans call for the construction of an on-site water quality feature.
♦ Concurrent with the Conditional Use Permit application, the School District is
applying for a variance to the street spacing standards, and adjustments to the
minimum required number of bicycle parking spaces, the driveway spacing standards
along Bull Mountain Road, and the planter strip width for "West Access Road" (a
temporary name).
o This CUP application also includes a 3 million gallon city water reservoir on the site.
ed..Oy &gAt-ida/o4Wp/4/14/04 3
7~
Alberta Elementary School/City Reservoir CUP
Thls page Intentlonally left blank
4 edmurphy&msociatcs/as&albridedcupapp/4/14/04
Section 1
Elementary School
Conditional Use Permit
Alberta Elementary School/City Reservoir CUP
'BACK -R JATOIN
H/story.• The City staff and representatives of the Tigard-Tualatin School District
("District") met on 3uiy 8, 2003 in a pre-application conference to discuss the proposed
school. The notes of that meeting are attached as Exhibit `A'. The property is made up
of two tax lots, comprising a 10.71-acre parcel with frontage only on SW Bull Mountain
Road. (Please refer to the Tax Assessor's maps, Exhibit 'B'). The site is sloping
generally towards the southeast. There is a grove of trees on the northern portion of
the property, surrounding the only two structures on the site. One of the structures is
an historic log cabin. The other is the house that Mrs. Alberta Rider lives in. The School
District granted Mrs. Rider a life estate to the houses and about 1.24 acres surrounding
them. Other than the two houses, the property is vacant. The school property and the
surrounding areas are clearly shown on the Aerial Photographs, Exhibit `C'.
Adjacent uses The property is zoned R-7, as is the surrounding neighborhood. (Please
refer to Zoning Map, Exhibit 'D'). The property is bordered by single-family homes on
the west side, some vacant residentially zoned land on the south side and east sides,
and Bull Mountain Road on the north. There is also one single-family home one of the
properties to the east, and another house on the property near northwest corner of the
school site.
Description of Proposal. The new elementary school will be a two-story, approximately
67,000 square feet, structure. Major on-site improvements will be made, including
construction of a parking area and bus loading area in the front of the school; pedestrian
walkways connecting to existing streets to the west and north, and proposed streets to
the east and south; afire lane along the west side of the property; construction of a
soccer field; construction of a water quality feature; and landscaping. Concurrently, the
City of Tigard will be constructing a water reservoir on the site. Anticipated off-site
improvements include constructing a full-section street from SW 133rd Avenue to the
school site, and dedicating right-of-way and making improvements to Bull Mountain
Road along the entire frontage of the site.
The site plan shows four potential residential lots along the east boundary, east of the
water quality feature. The portion of the property is "left over" due to the awkward "L"
shape of 2S109AD01300, and does not appear to be needed for the school buildings,
parking lots, playfields, water reservoir or water quality feature. This area will front on a
proposed street in an adjoining subdivision. At this time, the District has not decided
whether or not this portion of the property is even "surplus", and if so, exactly what to
do with it and when. The District is not requesting preliminary subdivision approval for
these four lots at this time. They are shown only as a conceptual idea of a potential
future use of the property.
The school property is already served or will be served with adequate sewer, water and
storm water services. There is an existing water line in SW 133rd Avenue. The sewer
and storm drainage facilities will tie into proposed subdivisions south of the school site.
The school is coordinating its application with the adjoining subdivisions to the east and
south of the school site, (Please refer to the Existing Utilities Maps, Exhibit 'E'). The
traffic impact on Bull Mountain Road and SW 133`" is relatively minor.
There are no sensitive lands that will be impacted by the proposed use, i.e. wetlands,
steep slopes (slopes over 25%), floodplains, or wildlife habitats. (Slopes in the
cdmurphy&wsociato/asd/albrider/cupapp/4/14/04 5
Alberta Elementary School/City Reservoir CUP
northwest corner of the site approach 25%, but no facilities are planned in that
location). There is a grove of mostly Douglas Fir trees on the north part of the property,
but nearly all of those trees will be retained. The Washington County Clean Water
Services (CWS) Agency has provided a Service Provider Letter, included as Exhibit'F'.
Neighborhood participation. Representatives of the School District met with about 32 of
the surrounding property owners on September 8, 2003. There was much discussion
about the intersection of SW 133rd and Bull Mountain Road; emergency access to the
school; improvements planned to Bull Mountain Road; the future of H Street; the access
for heavy construction equipment; fencing planned for the property; alternative
locations on the site for the reservoir; the width and design of West Access Road; and
bus service to get children across Bull Mountain Road. (Please refer to the Neighborhood
Meeting Documentation, Exhibit 'G'). Over the past few months, the School District
representatives have coordinated their plans closely with the engineers for the planned
subdivisions to the east ("Arbor Ridge") and to the south ("Summit Ridge").
Chapter 18.390.040.B.2.e Impact Analysis: This section requires an impact study as
part of the Type II procedure. The proposed design minimizes the impact of the
development on the public at large, the public facilities systems, and the adjacent
private property owners. Following are comments regarding the impact of the proposed
development on public facilities and services.
Transportation System: The impacts to the transportation system are evaluated in the
Transportation Impact Analysis by Kittelson & Associates, attached as Exhibit 'H'. The
frontage improvements on Bull Mountain Road will bring that street up to city and
county standards, at least along the south side. The new street connecting the school
site to SW 133rd Avenue will be to City standards, except for the width of the planter
strip a deviation for which the District is requesting approval of an adjustment.
The District Is requesting a variance to the street spacing standards. The District is also
requesting approval of an adjustment to the minimum driveway spacing standards, since
the proposed driveway connection to Bull Mountain Road will not meet the minimum
spacing standards between the new proposed driveway and the existing driveways to
the west and east. Both of those driveways should be considered temporary, and will
eventually be closed. The District is will close the driveway to the west as soon
practical after Mrs. Rider no longer resides on the property. The driveway to the east
will very likely be closed when that property is redeveloped, as the property will have
access to the proposed "H" Street.
There is no public transit system operating along Bull Mountain Road, and no impact to
the transit system. TriMet is not requesting any facilities associated with a bus stop as
part of the school project, as noted in the memo from Ben Baldwin at TriMet, Exhibit'I'.
Storm Water System: Storm water will be collected from the site starting about halfway
down West Access Road, continuing through the parking area, down the east fire lane,
and into a water quality swale along the east side of the reservoir. From there, it will be
discharged into the storm system in the proposed Summit Ridge subdivision to the
south. It will connect to that system in "Tract 3", a proposed private street in Summit
Ridge. (There will be a ptib111c utility easement over Tract 3.) The storm water system in
Summit Ridge and any other developments to the south of the school will be sized to
accept runoff from the school site. No on-site detention of storm water is necessary.
Please see the Preliminary Storm Drainage Study by Westlake Engineering Inc., Exhibit
'J', and the Water Quality Swale Landscape Design by Beighley & Associates, Exhibit'K'.
6 edmwphy&associatc-dmd/albrider/cupapp/4/14104
Alberta Elementary Sehool/City Reservoir CUP
Parks S, stem: No impact to the park system will occur as a result of this proposed site
development. The school will have outdoor recreation facilities available, including a
proposed soccer or multipurpose field and a playground. The stand of trees on the north
portion of the property will be retained as a natural wooded area.
Water System,: The water will come from an existing 8" water line in SW 133'a Avenue.
The plans tali for an 8"water line to be constructed in West Access Road to the center of
the cul-de-sac. The domestic water meter will be placed near the northwest corner of
the bus loop. Fire flow water will be connected to the main water line near the north
end of the bus island. The water system has adequate capacity for the school.
Sewer System: A private 6" sewer line serving the school will extend underneath the
soccer field, and connect to the sewer system in the subdivision to the south (Summit
Ridge) through Tract 2, a proposed private street. There will be a utility easement over
Tract 2. Another private 6" sewer line serving the existing home on the property will be
extended down the west fire lane to connect to Summit Ridge sewer system through
what is now shown as the stubbed-out "F" Street.
Noise impacts: Most activities will take place indoors. During recess, the children will
use the playground on the east end of the building, as well as the ball fields at the south
side of the property. During the evenings, when the neighbors are more likely to be
home, the school will generally be closed. The overall noise level should not change as
a result of this modification.
The noise levels from the school building and grounds will be well within the City's noise
standards. Further, the City's noise ordinance, Title 7, Section 7.40.180, specifically
makes an exception for noise coming from normal school activities. It states the
following in Section 7.40.180 "Exceptions":
The following shall not be considered violations of this article, even if the sound limit
specified in Section 7.40.160 is exceeded:
A. Non-amplified sounds created by organized athletic or other group activities, when
such activities are conducted on property generally used for such purposes, such as
stadiums, parks, schools, and athletic fields, during normal hours for such events.
Lighting: The school building, school grounds and parking lot will be illuminated in the
same manner as other new or remodeled schools in Tigard. The parking lot lights and
any lighting along the pedestrian pathways will be shielded to prevent light from
impacting the neighbors, as shown on the Electrical Site Plan, Exhibit 'Q', sheet E2.0.
When the building is unoccupied, most if not all exterior lights will be turned off. The
lights will be on timers, which will lessen the amount of energy used, provide better
security, and reduce the impact to the neighbors from light intrusion.
Police, Fire and other Emergency Services: The proposed school will have only a minor
impact to police, fire or other emergency services. the entire school building will have a
modern sprinkler system, and the site will be accessible to emergency vehicles from
three different entry points - one to the south, one to the west and one to the north.
Emergency vehicles will be able to access all sides of the school, and the playground and
T'-~~~c
pixy field. ld. - s:.~ ~ "oo..! nail be built to modern building and fire and life safety code
standards.
edmuoy&associates Md(albrida/cWapp/MiM04
7
ww~
Alberta Elementary ScliooMty Reservoir CUP
This page intentlonally left blank
8 edmurphy&A -iatcs/as&albridedeVapp/an4/oa
Alberta Elementary School/City Reservoir CUP
Chapter 18.330 of the Tigard Development Code (hereinafter "Code") contains the
standards and procedures under which a conditional use may be permitted. Section
18.330.030 contains the approval standards, which are as follows:
18330.030 Approval Standards and Conditions of Approval
A. Approval Standards. The Hearings Officer shall approve, approve with conditions, or
deny an application for a conditional use or to enlarge or alter a conditional use based on
findings of fact with respect to each of the following criteria:
1. The site size and dimensions provide adequate area for the needs of the proposed use;
2. The impacts of the proposed use of the site can be accommodated considering size,
shape, location, topography, and natural features;
3. All required public facilities have adequate capacity to serve the proposal;
4. The applicable requirements of the zoning district are met except as modified by this
chapter;
5. The applicable requirements of 18.330.050; and
6. The supplementary requirements set forth in other chapters of this code including but
not limited to Chapter 18.780, Signs, and Chapter 18.360, Site Development Review,
if applicable, are met.
Section 18.330.050 contains additional development standards applicable to schools,
which are as follows:
18330.050 Additional Development Standards for Conditional Use Types
B. Additional development standards. The additional dimensional requirements and
approval standards for conditional use are as follows
8. Schools:
a. There shall be no minimum lot size requirements for schools other than what is
required for the applicable zoning district;
b. Setbacks:
(1) The front yard setback shall be a minimum of 30 feet;
(2) On corner lots and through lots, the setback shall be a minimum of 20 feet
on any side facing a street, plus meet visual clearance areas, Chapter
18.795;
(3) The side yard setback shall be a minimum of 20 feet; and
(4) The rear yard setback shall be a minimum of 30 feet.
RESPONSE TO CRITERIA
1. The site size and dimensions provide adequate area for the needs of the proposed
r
use;
ii e total parcel size is 466,Oo? sqitara feet, and the footprint of the school building will
occupy 44,826 square feet, or approximately 11.4% of the site. The parcel is large
enough for the school building. However, approximately 54,014 square feet of the site
k area has been set aside as the estate of Mrs. Alberta Rider. Although eventually that
portion of the site will be usable to the District, at this time it is not. Even if it were
edm"phy&assmiatedtts&Wbri&r/wpapp/4/14/04 9
Alberta Elementa q School/City Reservoir CUP
available, that portion of the property Is heavily wooded, and the District intends to
preserve It as a natural area.
In addition to the school building and parking areas, the site plan calls for a soccer or
multi-use field, and a water reservoir. The site is sloped, requiring substantial cut and
fill to create level areas. The school building itself is located on the flattest portion of
the property to minimize grading. Even though the 10.7-acre site Is large enough for an
elementary school, the site poses significant challenges. The architects are proposing to
use the site as efficiently as possible by designing a two-level school, with a reduced
area for outdoor playing fields.
The dimension of the property is a little awkward. Tax lot 2100 is a rectangular shape.
Tax lot 1300, however, is an "L" shape. Because of the requirements for the placement
of the reservoir, the east end of the "L" is not useful to the District. Therefore, the
District may eventually sell this portion of the property for residential development.
The site where the school building Is proposed is not an area that is subject to ground
slumping or sliding. There is adequate distance between the school building and any
surrounding buildings, which provides for adequate light and air circulation, and
accessibility to fire-suppression equipment. The solar access and distant views to the
south are excellent. All the regular classrooms will have windows, which will provide an
abundance of natural light.
2. The impacts of the proposed use of the site can be accommodated considering size,
shape, location, topography, and natural features.
The school building will be a maximum of 35-feet in height, the maximum height allowed
in the R-7 zone. The building design takes advantage of the slope, stepping down the
hill with a two-story, south facing side that is mostly windows. The parking lot is at the
same level as the upper story, and the soccer field is the same level as the lower story.
There is about a 68 foot elevation difference from the high point near the northwest
corner of the site, and the low point in the southeast corner. The topography is such
that the storm water will flow towards the southeast, where it will be channeled into a
water quality swale. Many of the existing trees on the property, particularly the fragile
and environmentally significant grove of trees on the northern part of the property, will
be retained and protected.'
The lighting from the school building and parking lot will be designed and managed to
minimize the impact on the neighborhood.
3. All required public facilities have adequate capacity to serve the proposal.
The public sewer, storm water and water systems have adequate capacity for the new
school. The transportation system, once the new west access street is built to provide
access from SW 133`d Avenue, will be adequate to support the new school.
Other semi-public facilities and services, including electrical, natural gas, cable, and
garbage disposal are available, and the construction of the new school will not
significantly change the impact on those services and facll t.-s.
I According to Halstead's Tree Assessment Report, this large grove of mostly Douglas Firs has trees ranging in
age from 60 to 100 years old, and is very fragile. The report states that a grove like this Is an "environmental
tribute to ecology", and growing in an urban area, accessible to a large population, makes it "priceless".
10 edmurphy&associates/ttsd/albrider/cupapp/4/14/04
Alberta Elementary School/City Reservoir CUP
4. The applicable requirements of the zoning district are met except as modified by
this chapter.
The property is zoned R-7. The proposed elementary school improvements are in
compliance with all of the applicable requirements of R-7 zone. Following is a summary
of how the proposed school and site comply with the zoning district regulations.
Minimum lot size. The requirement is 5000 square feet per single-family detached unit.
The lot size exceeds this minimum lot size requirement.
Average lot width: The requirement is 50 feet. The lot width exceeds this average lot
width requirement.
Minimum building setbacks: The setback requirements ordinarily applicable in the R-7
zone are superceded by Section 18.330.050.B.8 of the Development Code. The school
will exceed those minimum setback requirements. Since the school faces SW Bull
Mountain Road, the north side of the building is the front. The yard setbacks will be:
♦ Front yard setback 240 feet (minimum 30 feet required)
West side yard setback 60 feet (minimum 20 feet required).
East side yard setback 45 feet (minimum 20 feet required)
Rear yard setback 190 feet (minimum 30 feet required).
Maximum Building Height: The maximum allowable building height is 35 feet. The
proposed elementary school building will not exceed the maximum allowed building
height.
Maximum percentage of lot coverage: The maximum percentage of lot coverage in the
R-7 zone is 80%. The lot coverage of the school building and all other impervious
surfaces will be 28.7%, which is far less than the maximum allowed.
Streets: The school will be served by a new 32-foot wide city street connecting from SW
133rd Avenue to the school. Bull Mountain Road will be improved to city or county
standards.
Pedestrian and handicapped accessibility: Pedestrian accessibility to the elementary
school will be from the west access street, which will have sidewalks on both sides. It
will also be provided via concrete walkways along the west fire lane, along the east
driveway, between Bull Mountain Road and the west access street cul-de-sac, and
between the east side of the school and the subdivision to the east (Arbor Ridge).
Pedestrians will be able to access the school from all directions. The pathway to the
entrance of the school from the accessible parking spaces will meet ADA standards.
Handicapped parking: The proposed site plan calls for 85 parking spaces. Out of those,
four will be handicapped accessible (with one of those van accessible), as per the
accessibility standards set forth in the State of Oregon Uniform Building Code.
Bicycle parking: The Code requires six spaces per classroom. Since there are 31
classrooms, the Code requires 186 bicycle spaces. Based on actual experience, only
about 44 bicycles parking spaces are needed. The District is applying for an adjustment
to the minimum number of required bicycle parking spaces concurrently w it'll th.°. CUP
application.
edmuoy&associates/Usd/albrider/cupaW4/14/04 1 ]
Alberta Remen ory &hooll0ty Reservoir CUP
Utilities: All utilities will meet City standards. All new on-site utilities will be
undergrounded. The District will either underground the overhead wires along its Bull
Mountain Road frontage, or pay a fee-in-lieu of undergrounding.
Parking lot landscaping. The parking area will exceed the City standard of one parking
lot tree per seven parking spaces. Since the parking lot is not sited next to a public
roadway, screening from the street is not required.
Parking lot lighting: The lighting from the parking lot light fixtures will be directed
downward so as not to interfere with any neighbor's properties. The parking lot lighting
will be controlled by a time device per District standards. Please see Luminalre
Specifications, Exhibit W.
Minimum percentage of site landscaping. There is a 20% minimum landscape
requirement in the R-7 zone. Of the 466,528 square feet property, everything that is
not hard-surfaced will be landscaped, with the exception of the 1.24-acre life estate area
(which is a densely wooded area).
Buffering and Screening: Buffering and screening is not required in this case.
Nonetheless, there are several mature trees in place along the west property line that
provide a solid vegetative screen. There will be about 13 feet between the school site's
west property line and the western edge of the pedestrian walkway, which is enough
distance to allow much of this vegetative screen to remain in place.
5. The applicable requirements of 18330.050.
This has been addressed above, under minimum building setbacks.
6. The supplementary requirements set forth in other chapters of this code
including but not limited to Chapter 18.780, Signs, and Chapter 18.360, Site
Development Review, if applicable, are met.
The following information addresses the other chapters of the Code.
Chapter 18.360 Site Development Review. This proposed use is not subject to the Site
Development Review Chapter of the Code. Section 18.360.020.A.5, under "applicability
and exemptions", says site development review shall not apply to "any proposed
development which has a valid conditional use approved through the conditional use
permit application process". However, many of the submission requirements and
development standards applicable to a Conditional Use Permit application are the same
as for a Site Development Review application.
Chapter 18.705 Access, Egress and Circulation. The most applicable section is
18.705.030.F, "Required walkway location." The walkways from Bull Mountain Road will
not cross the parking lot.
Chapter 18.710 Accessory Residential Units. The Chapter is not applicable.
Chapter 18.715 Density Computations. The Chapter is not applicable.
Chapter 18.720 Design Compatibility Standards. The Chap r. tuer is not wr^^licahiP
12 edmurphy&associates/ttsdtalbdder/cupappt4/14104
Alberta Elementary School/C4 Reservoir CUP
Chapter 18.725 Environmental Performance Standards. This Chapter applies the
federal and state environmental laws, rules and regulations to development within the
City of Tigard.
♦ Noise. As noted previously in this application, the City's noise ordinance makes an
exception to the noise regulations for schools, in Section 7.40.180.
o Visible emissions. This applies only to areas zoned commercial or industrial, and is
not applicable to schools.
a Vibration. There will not be any vibrations emanating from the school property that
will be discernible without instruments at the property line.
o Odors. There should not be any odorous gases or other matter generated from the
school property in such quantities as to be readily detectable at any point beyond the
property line.
® Glare and heat. The will be no direct or sky-reflected glare visible at the property
line, or any emission or transmission of heat or heated air which is discernible at the
property line.
o Insects and rodents. The materials that might attract rodents will be located near
the kitchen and loading area. All wastes will be stored in closed containers on the
east side of the school building, and the grounds will be maintained in a manner that
will not attract or aid in the propagation of insects or rodents or create any type of
health hazard. Because this is an elementary school, it is extremely important that
the waste disposal and recycling area be kept as clean as possible at all times.
Chapter 18.730 Exceptions to Development Standards. This Chapter is not applicable.
Chapter 18.740 Historic Overlay. This Chapter is not applicable.
Chapter 18.742 Home Occupations. This Chapter is not applicable.
Chapter 18.745 Landscaping and Screening.
Buffering and screening.
The buffering and screening matrix (Table 18.745.1) does not show a requirement for
buffering and screening between existing detached single-family units and institutional
uses such as schools. The school building is set back from the property lines by large
distances, and from the existing surrounding homes by an even greater distance.
Therefore, no additional buffering and screening of the building is necessary.
Street Trees.
The District plans to plant street trees along both sides of West Access Road, and along
the south side of Bull Mountain Road.
Screening.
Screening and landscaping of parking lot and loading areas is required as per Section
18.745.050.E. The new parking lot areas will be screened from view, particularly from
the residences to the west, with a chain link fence and a 5' high vegetative hedge where
needed. (On the west side, there will be 20' between the property line and the bus loop.
On the east side, there will be Oregon Grape planted in the eastern-most island in the
parking lot, which will screen it from view from the neighbor to the east. The new
parking lot will also include parking lot trees, which will provide some screening from
riai°.w.
Proposed Plant Selections - (derived from soil conditions)
All proposed plant material have been selected for their adaptability to local climate
conditions and ability to thrive under a range of conditions including heat and cold
edmtu0y&associatWasd(olMda/cWWp/4/14/04 13
Alberta Elementary School/CityReservoir CUP
hardiness, low water needs use after establishment, and tolerance of a range of soil
conditions.
Soil Treatment
Topsoil derived from the site during construction will be stockpiled on site and used for
proposed landscape areas. Soil amendments (i.e., compost) will be used to improve the
soil conditions and create an environment for plants to thrive.
Erosion Control Measures
Exhibit 'Q', Sheet C2.0 shows the Erosion Control Plan. During landscape construction,
erosion control measures will be implemented to prevent degradation of the site and
contain landscape materials on site.
Chapter 18.750 Manufactured/Mobile Home Regulations. This Chapter is not applicable.
Chapter 18.755 Mixed Solid Waste and Recyclable Storage. The "franchised review i
method" was selected. The waste hauler has reviewed and approved the plans (please
see letter from Pride Disposal Company, Exhibit'M'). Due to the contours of the site, a '
compact waste enclosure area was required to minimize grading. The turning radii will
S
accommodate garbage trucks. The trash enclosure area is near the kitchen, in the
northeast corner of the building.
Chapter 18.760 Nonconforming Situations. Since the site is mostly vacant at this time,
there are no non-conforming situations, with the exception of the distance between the
two existing driveways serving Mrs. Rider's home.
Chapter 18.765 Off Street Parking and Loading Requirements.
Vehicular parkino. For an elementary school, two parking spaces per classroom are
required. The proposed school has 31 standard Classrooms, therefore a minimum of 62
off-street parking spaces is required, and a maximum of 108 is allowed. The proposed
Site Plan, Exhibit 'Q', Sheet A2.0, shows 85 parking spaces. The design of the new
parking lot meets the regulations of this Chapter in terms of landscaping, lighting,
drainage, width of access aisles, and dimensions of the parking spaces. The parking
spaces, as shown on the plan, meet the dimensional standards and aisle width
standards, and the landscaping and lighting standards. Of the 85 parking spaces, 4 are
required to be "accessible", and 4 are reserved for car pools. The site plan shows that
the four spaces that are closest to the front door are designated accessible parking
spaces. The four carpool spaces are conveniently located just north of the accessible
spaces.
For loading and unloading passengers (18.765.040.C), the plan proposes' a circular
driveway where school busses can queue for loading children. Parents picking up or
unloading children will be directed to do so using the parking lot to the east of the bus
parking area to minimize conflict Ath the bus loading/unloading areas.
There will also be 17 on-street parking spaces along the proposed West Access Road.
These will be available for any "overflow" parking. Also, since the site will be easily
accessible to pedestrians from all directions, it is expected that many parents and
teachers will walk to school from the surrounding neighborhoods.
Bicycle parking. The site plan shows 44 bicycle-parking stalls installed on the north side
of the school. The Code requires 6 bicycle-parking stalls per classroom, which would
14 edmuMhy&as=iatestus&albdder/mMp/4/14/04
Alberta !Elementary SchooWity Reservoir cup
mean that 186 parking stalls would be required for the 31 classrooms. The District is
requesting an adjustment to the bicycle parking standards.
Chapter 18.775 Sensitive Lands. There are no sensitive lands affected by this proposal.
Chapter 18.780 Signs. The District is not proposing any new signs at this time.
Chapter 18.785 Temporary uses. This Chapter is not applicable.
Chapter 18.790 Tree removal. The existing trees over 6" in caliper are shown on the
Arborist Maps, Exhibit'Q', Sheets T1.0 and T1.1. There are a total of 109 trees that are
over 12" in caliper on the site. Of those, 47 trees are hazardous and/or undesirable and
will be removed. Of the remaining 62 trees, only 9 need to be removed because of the
construction activity; that is, 85% of the preservable trees over 12 inches in diameter at
4.5 inches above the ground will be retained. Since over 75% of the larger, healthy
trees are being retained, no mitigation is required. Note that there are also two large fir
trees on the neighboring property to the west of the school site, south of West Access
Road, that will require tree protection fencing and a therapeutic treatment program.
The District will work with the adjoining property owner to accomplish this. (Please refer
to the Tree Assessment Report by Halstead's Arboriculture Consultants, Inc., Exhibit
Chapter 18.795 Visual Clearance Areas. The primary area where this standard applies
to this site is where West Access Road connects to SW 133`d Avenue. This area is clear
of vegetation and will meet the visual clearance requirements. The other area is the
east driveway connection to Bull Mountain Road. Both intersections look like they will
meet the visual clearance standards of TDC Section 18.795.040.B., as illustrated in
Exhibit 'Q', Sheet V1.0. If not, any trees or shrubs in the visual clearance area will be
trimmed or removed as necessary to meet those requirements. Care will be taken to
initially establish adequate visual clearance and then maintain that visual clearance over
time.
Chapter 18.797 Water Resources (WR) Overlay District. This Chapter is not applicable.
Chapter 18.798 Wireless Communication Facilities. This Chapter is not applicable.
Chapter 18.810 Street and Utility Improvement Standards.
The recently adopted block length standards found in Section 18.810.040.B.I. and the
street spacing standards found In Section 18.630.040 cannot reasonably be applied in
this case.
There is no practical way that the School District can meet the maximum block length
standard for this site. To strictly meet the block length requirement, a school site could
be no larger than roughly 5.7 acres, and would have to have streets on all four sides
(500'/side equals a 2000' perimeter, which results in a 5.7-acre area). That is not an
adequate building site for new elementary schools, which typically require a 7-10 acre
site. Further, Bull Mountain Road is a major collector street, which is one reason cited
by the Code for granting an exception to the requirements. The proposed public street
connection co S`rv•' 1JJ "'"d /~^•.a.aw~.•~^-a, a!oR~ with the emergency access lanes from Bull
Mountain Road and from the Summit Ridge subdivision, provides a safe and convenient
transportation system.
+n
n
edmuoy&associates ttWalbridedcupapp/4t14/04 15
Alberta Elementary School/City Reservoir CUP
Similarly, creating formal pedestrian connections that would meet the City standard of
one connection per 330 feet. Is not feasible (Section 18.810.040.6.2). However, the plan
proposes four pedestrian access routes into the school site plus the west access street,
which will adequately serve the neighborhoods to the west, east and south.
parents to h-e from north of Bull Mountain Road will most likely LOW-- LIM. - V. _r V
school,
pedestriant cIf they do walk or onnections to Bull dMountaini Road. they two access the
are spa ed
P
approximately 460 feet apart).
While the District is always concerned about security and vandalism, it does not intend
to fence the school site completely off from the public. Neighbors will be able to walk
across the grounds after normal school hours. Therefore, while not strictly meeting the
pedestrian connectivity standards, the proposed site design will provide a high level of
pedestrian connectivity with the surrounding neighborhoods.
16 edmur*&aswciatesltts&albridedcupaW4/14104
Alberta Elementary School/City Reservoir CUP
Background. There are three sections in the Development Code that establish street
and pedestrian connectivity standards. TDC Section 18.810.040.6.1 sets a maximum
block length standard of 2000 lineal feet. Section 18.810.040.B.2 sets a maximum
spacing between pedestrian and bicycle connections of 330 feet. Section 18.630.040
sets a maximum distance of 530 feet between street connections. These standards,
adopted in 1998, were primarily geared to subdivisions or other residential
developments. However, the regulations make no specific exception for school sites,
parks, sewer or water treatment plants, racetracks or other public facilities, or private
uses requiring large land areas such as shopping malls, golf courses, or hospitals.
The School District acquired this 10.7-acre parcel from Mrs. Alberta Rider. It is a
beautiful site for an elementary school, and fits the District's need for a school site in
this area exceptionally well. However, the site is extremely challenging due to the
Constraints of a life estate granted to Mrs. Rider;
♦ Environmentally sensitive grove of trees;
s Topography and shape of the parcel;
♦ Access restrictions along Bull Mountain Road;
o Requirement for a street access to the site from SW 133`d Avenue, with a cul-de-sac
turn-around.
In addition to the other challenges, the District is trying to accommodate a 3-million
gallon city water reservoir on the site. The District's design team has come up with an
admirable design that works very well in spite of all of those constraints. The design
solutions include making the school a two-story structure to minimize the size of the
footprint, keeping the amount of parking to a minimum considered necessary, and
reducing the play field area to just one soccer field.
The City of Tigard planning and engineering staff members have stated that the
standard they are most concerned about is the 530-foot street spacing standard. They
have indicated that they thought a public street should be extended through the
property along the west property line, extending what is tentatively planned as a
stubbed out street in Summit Ridge to Bull Mountain Road (or at least to West Access
Road). Staff has advised the District that, unless a variance is granted to the street
spacing standards, F Street would have to be constructed through the school site.
On the face of it, the connectivity regulations would not appear to be applicable to
school sites. In fact, the Code states that proposed streets shall be located to provide
direct access to existing or planned neighborhood facilities, such as schools. That is,
streets should lead to schools sites, not through schools sites. Further, if the block
length requirements are applicable to schools, a school site could be no larger than 5.7
acres and would need to have streets on all four sides to strictly meet those
requirements. This is neither practical nor sensible.
There is a legitimate argument that the standard should not apply to school sites. The
City's connectivity standards are related to the requirements of the Transportation
Planning Rule (TPR), found in OAR 660-012. The Transportation Planning Rule requires
that the local transportation systems provide for more "connectedness" than had
typically been the case in the past. In particular, the Transportation Planning Rule
requires that provisions be made for pedestrian and bicycle connections, which may
edmuoydtassmiatedmWalbridedapapp/4/14104 17
I
i
Alberta Elementary School/City Reservoir CUP
thereby encourage more trips via walking and bicycling rather than by private vehicle,
The Transportation Planning Rule does not spell out what the exact standards for
connectivity are, but rather leaves that up to the local jurisdiction's discretion.
The TPR Is Implemented In the Metro region through the Regional Transportation Plan,
which sets out the requirements for cities and counties within the region. Section 6,4.5
of the 2000 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP), Design Standards for Street
Connectivity, establishes those requirements. Specifically, it states:
"Cities and counties within the Metro region are required to amend their comprehensive
plans, Implementing ordinances and administrative codes, if necessary, to comply with
or exceed the following mapping requirements and design standards". It then lists two
requirements. The first deals with mapping requirements. The second makes the
following statement: In addition to preparing the above conceptual street plan map,
cities and counties shall require new residential or mixed-use development involving the
construction of new street(s) to provide a site plan that reflects the following..." It goes
on to require street connections with spacing of no more than 530 feet between
connections, except where precluded by barriers or other restrictions.
The important thing to note is that the requirement applies to new residential and
mixed-use developments, not to institutional developments such as schools. This
understanding of the RTP was confirmed by led, -Leyboid, Principal Transportation
Planner at Metro, who said he did not believe that the RTP street spacing requirements
would apply to new institutional development like schools.
The City's Transportation System Plan, completed by DKS in January 2002, gives no
indication that F Street should be extended through the school site. The TSP contains
several goals and action statements, which are general in nature, and provides some
conceptual street maps of different areas within the City and unincorporated areas
around the City.
One related policy is Goal 2 - Balanced Transportation System, Policy 6z, which states:
"Local streets shall be designed to encourage a reduction in trip length by providing
connectivity and limiting out-of-direction travel. Provide connectivity to activity centers
and destinations with a priority for bicycle and pedestrian connections."
The policy has an action statement following it, which reads:
"The purpose of this policy is to provide accessibility within Tigard, with a focus on
pedestrian connectivity. Pedestrian connectivity can be provided via pedestrian/bike
paths between cul-de-sacs and/or greenways where auto connectivity does not exist or
Is not feasible. Wherever necessary, new streets built to provide connectivity shall
incorporate traffic management design elements, particularly those which inhibit
speeding. As a planning standard, require local streets to have connections every 530
feet in planning local and neighborhood streets. "
Another related policy is found in Goal 3 - Safety, Policy 43, which states:
"Safe and secure routes to schools shall be designated for each school and any new
residential project shall identify the safe path to school for children".
2 Tigard Transportation System Plan Final Report, DKS, January 2002, page 24
3 ibid, page 2-5
18 edmurphy&associatesfttsdtalbrider/cupapp/4/14/04
Alberta Elementary School/City Reservoir CUP
The focus of the requirement is getting pedestrians and bicyclists safely and securely to
and from residential areas to activity centers, such as schools.
Finally, there is a policy found in Goal 5 - Accessibility, Policy 2°, which states:
"Develop neighborhood and local connections to provide adequate circulation in and out
of the neighborhoods". The following action statement follows this policy:
"Work toward the eventual connectlon of streets identified on the plan as development
occurs, as funds are available and opportunities arise. As a planning guideline, require
residential streets to have connections every 530 feet for local and neighborhood
streets. "
The goal is to provide adequate circulation. One of the methods. used to achieve the
goal is to require street connections for residential streets at 530 foot intervals. For
residential subdivisions, which by their nature are developed with streets to access the
Individual lots, such a guideline or standard is appropriate. For schools and other major
activity centers, applying the same standard is not appropriate, practical or desirable.
There Is no specific local street plan in the TSP that shows F Street extending through
the school site. The closest thing to a local street connectivity plan is Figure 8-16, which
shows a potential east-west street connection across the school property, connecting
West Access Road with SW Winterview Drive. This connection would go right through
the significant grove of trees and Mrs. Alberta Rider's home. The arrows are not to be
taken too literally, as they show only potential connections and the general direction for
the placement of the connection.5 But it is noted that the arrows show only an east-
west connection, (which Is not feasible or desirable due to environmental and other
constraints) and not a north-south connection. (See Exhibit `P', TSP, Local Street
Connectivity map, Southwest Tigard). The staff has never indicated to the School
District representatives that the District would have to construct an east-west street
across the property.
As a side note, Washington County appears to have implemented the TPR and RTP
differently than Tigard did. Section 408-5.1 of Article IV of the Washington County
Development Code contains similar standards for block lengths and street spacing
standards as the Tigard Development Code does, except it states that the requirements
are for "single-family or duplex residential development". Further, the only thing the
Washington County Code says about connectivity for development other than single-
family or duplex residential Is that "on-site streets shall connect to all existing and
approved stub streets which abut the development site" (Section 408-5.3). Further, the
County Code provides exemption for certain types of uses, including "campus
development uses", "public buildings" and "parks" (Section 4x08-2.1). While the County
standards do not apply to this site under the City/County intergovernmental agreement
and the City's annexation policies, they are provided here for comparison.
What Is apparent from the above references is that neither state law nor the Metro
Regional Transportation Plan requires the City of Tigard to apply street connectivity
standards to institutional uses or activity centers, such as schools. It is also clear that
the standards should apply to residential and mixed-use developments, and not
necessarily to other developments that happen to be located in a residential zone.
Finally, it appears that the City could specifically exempt school sites without violating
the Transportation Planning Rule requirements, the Regional Transportation Plan, or
4 ibid, page 2-7
J Tigard Transportation System Plan Final Report, DKS, January 2002, page 8-22
edmwrphy&-sociatc~albridfs/ewapp/4/14104
19
Alberta Elementary &hoollOty Reservoir CUP
Washington County standards. In fact, as will be shown below, the City has essentially
exempted other school sites within the City by either granting a variance to those
connectivity standards or simply deciding that the standards were not applicable.
Standards
As mentioned above, there are three standards related to connectivity. These are as
follows:
18.810.040 Blocks
A. Block design. The length, width and shape of blocks shall be designed with due regard to
providing adequate building sites for the use contemplated, consideration of needs for
convenient access, circulation, control and safety of street traffic and recognition of
limitations and opportunities of topography.
B. Sizes.
1. The perimeter of blocks formed by streets shall not exceed 2,000 feet measured along the
centerline of the streets except:
a. Where street location is precluded by natural topography, wetlands or other bodies of
water, or pre-existing development; or
b. For blocks adjacent to arterial streets, limited access highways, collectors or railroads.
c. For non-residential blocks in which internal public circulation provides equivalent access.
2. Bicycle and pedestrian connections on public easements or right-of-ways shall be provided
when full street connection is exempted by B.1 above. Spacing between connections shall be
no more than 330 feet, except where precluded by environmental or topographical
constraints, existing development patterns, or strict adherence to other standards in the code.
18.810.030 Streets
H. Street alignment and connections.
1. Full street connections with spacing of no more than 530 feet between connections is
required except where prevented by barriers such as topography, railroads, freeways, pre-
existing developments, lease provisions, easements, covenants or other restrictions existing
prior to May 1, 1995 which preclude street connections. A full street connection may also be
exempted due to a regulated water feature if regulations would not permit construction.
Criteria
The Code recognizes that there may be many reasons to vary from the strict application
of the standards. It states specifically that block lengths need to be "designed with due
regard to providing adequate building sites for the use contemplated, consideration of
needs for convenient access, circulation, control and safety of street traffic and
recognition of limitations and opportunities of topography". (TDC 18.810.040.A). The
Development Code also allows an exception to the block length standards for "non-
residential blocks in which internal public circulation provides equivalent access" (TDC
Section 18.810.040.B.1.c). The school is an institutional use, not a residential use. The
proposed site plan provides equivalent access for emergency vehicles and pedestrians.
It also provides equivalent alternative access with the secondary driveway onto Bull
Mountain Road, should West Access Road or SW 133rd Avenue be closed for some
reason.
The City can approve deviations from the strict application of the Development Code
standards by granting variances or adjustments. It appears that all that is required to
20 edmurphy&associates/ttsd/albrider/cupapp/4/14/04
Alberta Elementary School/City Reservoir CUP
vary from the standards to the street connectivity standards is a simple adjustment.
Specifically, the Code states:
18.810.20.D. Adjustments. Adjustments to the provisions in this chapter related to street
improvements may be granted by means of a Type II procedure, as governed by Section
18.390.040, using approval criteria in Section 18.370.030.C.9.
The reference to C.9 appears to be in error, as that subsection relates to tree removal.
It should reference C.11 instead, which reads:
18.370.020 Adjustments
C. Special adjustments.
11. Adjustments for street improvement requirements (Chapter 18.810). By means of a
Type II procedure, as governed by Section 18.390.040, the Director shall approve, approve
with conditions, or deny a request for an adjustment to the street improvement requirements,
based on findings that the following criterion is satisfied: Strict application of the
standards will result in an unacceptably adverse impact on existing development, on the
proposed development, or on natural features such as wetlands, steep slopes or existing
mature trees. In approving an adjustment to the standards, the Director shall determine that
the potential adverse impacts exceed the public benefits of strict application of the standards
(underlining added).
Proposal
In order to provide an adequate building site for the elementary school and related play
field, a variance to the block length standards and street spacing standards is necessary.
The alternative of building a pubic street for vehicular traffic along the west side of the
school, connecting F Street with Bull Mountain Road, would be impractical and unsafe.
Moreover, it is unnecessary and undesirable from many standpoints, and the adverse
impacts of such a street would far outweigh any public benefits.
The District is proposing instead to build the school on the site with one public street
access, which will come off of SW 133`d Avenue. However, as can be seen on the site
plan, the District proposes a secondary access driveway to Bull Mountain Road, which
will be used only for emergency access. It also proposes a narrow 10'-wide, fire lane
(constructed out of drivable landscape pavers) along the west side of the property,
connecting #o the F Street stub out. (The District recognizes that the preliminary design
of the stub out may have to be modified).
In addition, the District proposes a sidewalk connection to the proposed Arbor Ridge
subdivision to the east, connecting to a proposed street adjacent to the school property
(H Street). It also proposes two sidewalk connections between Bull Mountain Road and
the elementary school, one on either side of Alberta Rider's life estate area. Finally, it
proposes another sidewalk alongside of the fire lane on the west side of the school
property, connecting to the proposed Summit Ridge subdivision. These access points,
together with West Access Road, make the school very accessible to pedestrians and
emergency vehicles, without creating the hazard of through traffic. The intent is to
create a safe, secure, q get school serving the neighborhood.
Response to ctitet7a
eftuq*y&assocides/us&Wbci ierlcupWp✓4114loa 21
Alberta Elementary School/City Reservoir CUP
Because the staff has inferred that a variance would be required (not a simple
adjustment) and because the variance criteria was used in similar applications for other
schools, this request will respond to the variance criteria of TDC 18.370.010.0.2.
a. The proposed variance will not be materially detrimental to the purposes of this title,
to any other applicable policies and standards, and to other properties in the same
zoning district or vicinity;
The "purposes of this title" (TDC 18.110.020) include only one purpose statement that is
directly relevant, which is #8: Provide for and encourage a safe, convenient and
economic transportation system within the City. The School District provides much of
the transportation services needed to get children to and from school safely. Children
who do not take the bus either walk or ride a bicycle, or their parents drop them off.
Granting a variance to the street spacing standards Is a safer alternative than running a
street through the school campus. If F Street had to be extended along the west border
of the school site, it would place moving vehicles in close proximity to the children. This
could not only lead to accidents between pedestrians and vehicles, but also increases
the risk of kidnapping and abductions. The proposed design keeps all of the automobile
and bus traffic out in front of the school, visible from the offices of the receptionist and
principal and to attendants. It will be a much safer, more secure campus without the
street extension than with it.
Granting the variance will not be materially detrimental to the provision of a safe,
convenient and economic transportation system within the City of Tigard. Nor will it be
materially detrimental to any other applicable standards or policies, or to any other
properties in the R-7 zone or the vicinity of the school. Most importantly, granting the
variance will not negatively impact the surrounding neighborhood. The developer of the
property owner to the south is not negatively impacted, and in fact, has indicated that
they are willing to convert the proposed dead-end F Street in the preliminary subdivision
to a private street. The property owners to the west are not negatively impacted, as
they do not want or need a public street adjacent to their back yards. Over the long
term, if and when they develop their properties, they can construct a street in a more
suitable location (see Exhibit'O', sketch showing one possible layout).
The properties to the west are large, deep lots, approximately 100-feet wide by 440-feet
deep. If F Street were built, it would make it very awkward to develop the interior of
these long lots. Most likely, these long parcels would be split in half to create new lots
of about 100' X 220', with the new houses facing F street. Some of the parcels could be
further divided using flag lots or shared private driveways off SW 133`d Avenue or F
Street. The. resulting pattern would be an inefficient use of the land.
A new street constructed through the back portion of these long parcels, on the other
hand, would result in a double-sided street, more new lots, and a more logical
development pattern. As the drawing illustrates, there could be three parcels and a
street between 133rd Avenue and the school site. The new homes would face each other
across the street, and several homes would back up to the school site, which is
preferable In terms of residents keeping an eye on the school grounds. It is a much
more efficient, rational and desirable layout than could be achieved with an extension of
F Street. Moreover, the street could be constructed using a Local Improvement District
when and if a majority of the property owners wanted to develop their properties.
22 c(hnurphy&associates/ttsd/a(bddedcupapp/4/14104
Alberta Elementary School/City Reservoir CUP
Granting the variance will not make the neighborhood less convenient for pedestrian or
vehicular traffic. Traffic from the south of the school site can use SW 133rd or SW H
Street to access Bull Mountain Road and Beef Bend Road. Connecting a street only
between the east-west street in the Summit Ridge development with West Access Road
would not save drivers any time, or be a more direct route.
The school site will be accessible to pedestrians from all directions, with two direct
connections to Bull Mountain Road. During non-school hours, pedestrians can walk
across the school site in both a north-south and east-west direction, providing safe and
convenient connections for walkers and runners. Formal pedestrian connections to and
through the school site are feasible and acceptable during those times of the day when
school is not in session. While the District will discourage non-school pedestrians from
crossing the school grounds when school is in session, at any other times pedestrians
will be welcome to use the pathways.
Granting a variance is consistent with the goal of providing an economic transportation
system. That is, the transportation system needs to be reasonably affordable to the
community, and transportation facilities should add value at least equal to their cost.
The proposed F Street extension would be very expensive compared to its limited
benefit. It provides little or no benefit to the school, or to the residential development
to the south of the school site, or to any future residential development of the parcels to
the west of the school site.
Not granting the variance would be materially detrimental to property owners to the
west of the school, as they would lose some of the trees and shrubbery along their
property line, and much of the privacy they currently enjoy due. They would also be
impacted by increased traffic noise.
b. There are special circumstances that exist which are peculiar to the lot size or shape,
topography or other circumstances over which the applicant has no control, and which
are not applicable to other properties in the same zoning district;
One special circumstance is the use itself, i.e., an elementary school. Typically,
elementary schools are built on 7-10 acres, even if they are two-story buildings with a
tight layout and minimum playing field areas. The street spacing standards are not
appropriately applied to certain types of public uses, such as schools, golf courses,
parks, sewerage treatment plants, and open spaces. Street connections across schools
and parks are contrary to and incompatible with the special nature of and function of the
use. -
The Development Code seems to acknowledge this. In TDC Section 18.810.030.6.4 it
states "Proposed street or street extensions shall be located to provide direct access to
existing or planned transit stops, commercial services, and other neighborhood facilities,
such as schools, shopping areas and parks." Note that it says access to, not through.
neighborhood facilities. The point of the regulation is to make it relatively easy to get to
activity centers, such as schools, particularly for pedestrians. Although neighborhood
facilities are not specifically exempted from meeting the street spacing standards,
common sense suggests that there is no need to require streets at regular intervals
through park sites (such as Cook Park), through school sites (such as Tigard High
School), through sewerage treatment plants (such as the Durham Wastewater Plant), or
through golf courses (such as the Summerfield Golf Course).
edmurphy&associates/ttsd/albri&rtcupapp/4114/04 23
Alberta Elementary School/City Reservoir CUP
In fact, this issue has come up before, in the Conditional Use Permit applications for
Metzger Elementary School and C.F. Tigard Elementary School. In both of those
applications, the School District applied for a variance to the street connectivity
standards, and in both cases the Hearings Officer granted the variances.
In the case of C.F. Tigard Elementary School, the Hearings Officer could have required a
street connection between the two dead-end segments of SW Grant Street. The street
would have separated the school building from the play fields, which would not have
been desirable but there was no physical reason that it could not have been
constructed In that area. (See Case File #CUP2003-00002). Instead of a street
connection, the site plan called for a pedestrian connection across the school site
connecting the two ends of SW Grant Street. The Hearings Officer decided that a public
street was not appropriate, considering the use of the property as an elementary school,
and found that the pedestrian connection was sufficient to satisfy the connectivity
requirements of the Development Code. In fact, without even specifically addressing the
requested variance to the maximum block length standard, the Hearings Officer found
that "the proposed conditional use permit and associated adjustments do or will comply
with the applicable criteria and standards of the Community Development Code".
Similarly, in the case of Metzger Elementary School (Case File #CUP 2003-00003), the
Hearings Officer could have required a street to be constructed either within the existing
right-of-way of Mapleleaf Street, which was vacated by the City Council in 2003, or
along the south side of the property. Again, there was no physical reason why it could
not be done (although that site was quite small, and it would have been difficult to
squeeze in a street). The staff recognized that the construction of Mapleleaf Street
through the school site "would not serve any public benefit, and would create an unsafe
situation at the school".6 The School District instead proposed a pedestrian connection
across the school site in the same general location as the vacated Mapleleaf Street right-
of-way.
In this case, the Hearings Officer apparently agreed that a street running though an
elementary school site would not be safe or appropriate. As a matter of fact, the
Hearings Officer never directly addressed the request for a variance to the block length
standards. Instead, the Hearings Officer stated that an adjustment to the standard was
not required. Specifically, he made the following finding: At the hearing, the applicant
proposed to provide a pedestrian connection between SW 90th Street and SW Lincoln
Street between the north side of the new school building and the playfields. This
pedestrian path location complies with the block length standards of TDC 18.810.040.13.
Therefore an adjustment to this standard is not required."
Templeton Elementary School was also subject to major modification of a conditional use
permit (see Case File CUP2003-00011). In that particular case, the City did not require
the District to even apply for a variance to the maximum block length standard or street
spacing standards, recognizing that the school was surrounded by existing development
that precluded through circulation. They also found that the seven pedestrian access
points provided connectivity to and through the site. In this case, the Headrips Officer
could have required a street connection between SW Murdock and SW 92" Avenue,
between Templeton Elementary School and Tuality Middle School. It would have been
physically possible (albelt difficult and expensive), and would have required the
acquisition of one vacant parcel along 92nd Avenue. However, the significant cost of
such a street connection, the impact on the neighborhood, and particularly the safety of
6 From Metzger Conditional Use Permit staff report
24 admurphy&associates/usd/albrider/cupapp/4/14/04
i
Alberta Elementary School/City Reservoir CUP
the children clearly took precedence over the literal application of the street spacing and
block length standards.
There are many other examples of schools in the Tigard Tualatin School District, as well
as in other school districts, that are served by only one access road. Most schools at
all levels of education simply do not have a lot of public streets connections through
their campuses. Schools are often developed as a "campus", where through vehicular
traffic is restricted.
Another special circumstance is the size and shape of the site, and the constraints
particular to the site. The site presented many challenges to the design team, who
looked at many (118!) different design options before settling on the proposed site plan.
The previous owner, Alberta Rider, has a lifetime estate on about 1.24 acres of the
property. The area around her home is also a forested area with high-quality open
space values that should not be disturbed. The site is significantly sloped towards the
southeast, with about a 68' drop between the high point in the northwest corner and the
low point in the southeast corner.
The safety and security of the students is the number one priority. The building
provides a barrier from vehicular traffic. The building plus the fence line extending out
to the east and west of the building provide a safe outdoor area that can be easily
observed and controlled. Retaining walls, which are undesirable features on an
elementary school site, have been minimized due to safety concerns. With the
kidnappings, shootings, drug dealing and other issues associated with schools these
days, the school design has to strive to create a safe and secure campus.
The elementary school building was designed to take advantage of the site
characteristics. The building is laid out parallel to the contours. The classrooms and
library are oriented down-slope towards the south, providing excellent solar access and
distant views of the valley. The building will have a low profile from the neighboring
homes, especially the existing homes to the west of the school site. The administration
offices, main entry, kindergarten entry, gym, and multipurpose rooms are all right next
to the parking and bus loading/unloading areas, with easy access to the main entry
road. The topography and economics dictated the finish floor elevation.
There are no other locations on the site where the elementary school building could be
placed. Based on the shape and size of the parcel, and the significant topography, the
design team determined that the only area in which it was practical to build the school
was in the middle of the site, where the property was the flattest and largest. (Slopes in
this area are generally less than 10%). They located the play fields below the school, at
the same grade as the lower elevation of the building. This design minimizes the
amount of grading necessary, and, as mentioned above, the use of retaining walls. The
water reservoir had to be located at a specific elevation, and the design team tried to
make the play fields as even as they could with the top of the reservoir. (The reservoir
elevation is actually five-feet higher than the play field, but it will work). These and
other constraints of the site dictated the location of the school building.
Separating the cars and busses on the site was another overarching programmatic
concern given the access from the cul-de-sac to the main entry of the building. In
addition, the Fire Code requires that fire-fighting apparatus have access to the southeast
and southwest corners of the building. The circulation system proposed is safe and
logical, and works for cars, school busses, fire trucks and other emergency vehicles,
pedestrians and bicyclists.
edmurphy&assoc6t&asd/albrider/cupapp/4/14/04 25
Alberta Elementary School/City Reservoir CUP
There Is not enough room for the school to be shifted further east without acquiring
additional property. The property immediately adjacent to the east (tax lot
2S109AD01400) has a single-family home on it, which is built close to that parcel's
western property line.
Yet another special circumstance Is the traffic patterns that are associated with an
elementary school. Tile school site has to accommodate both vehicles and school
busses. There will be approximately 10 school busses entering and leaving the site
every school day. For safety reasons, the site plan keeps the busses, cars and
pedestrian/bicycle traffic separated as much as possible. Connecting F Street through
the school site to Bull Mountain Road, or even just connecting It to West Access Road,
would create many conflicts between through traffic, bus traffic, and traffic from parents
dropping off or picking up their children. In addition, there will be a high amount of
pedestrian traffic to and from school, further exacerbating the safety problems.
c. 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
reasonable economic use of the land;
The proposed use is an elementary school, which is a permitted use, subject to
Conditional Use approval. The other city standards will be maintained, except for the
three minor adjustments the District is requesting. The pedestrian spacing standards
are not exactly at 330' spacing, but are reasonable and appropriate for the site, given
the constraints of the site. The spacing of pedestrian walkways along Bull Mountain
Road is approximately 460 feet.
d. Existing physical and natural systems, such as but not limited to traffic, drainage,
dramatic land forms or parks will not be adversely affected any more than would occur
if the development were developed as specified in the title;
Existing physical and natural systems, including traffic, parking, energy and
environmental systems, would not be adversely affected any more if the variance were
granted than if it is not. In fact, the opposite is true. Building a street along the west
property line would require removing several significantly sized trees along the property
line. (These•.are not shown specifically on the tree inventory because they are either
right on the property line or on the adjoining properties. The outer drip line of these
trees is shown, however.) These trees help provide screening and buffering between
the school site and the homes to the west of the school site.
e. The hardship is not self-imposed and the variance requested is the minimum variance
which would alleviate the hardship.
The hardship is not self-imposed. The school building has to be located on the site
precisely where it is shown. It cannot be shifted further north or it would impact the
fragile grove of trees. It cannot be shifted further south because of the need for a soccer
field and reservoir. There needs to be fire access around both ends of the school, and
room for busses and cars to maneuver on the site. Redesigning the school building and
school site to accommodate a through street, let alone the cost of constructing such as
street, would result in a hardship that would outweigh whatever meager public benefit
would result from such a street. The hardship would be the result of the City strictly
applying new regulations that were Intended to apply more to subdivision design than to
school sites.
26 edmurphy&associatestusdtalbrider/cupappt4/14104
Alberta Elementary School/City Reservoir CUP
Summary. The requested variance to the connectivity standards should be granted
because:
o Bull Mountain Road is a collector street, where access should be limited wherever
possible;
o Meeting the maximum block length standards Is difficult when a site Is adjacent to a
major collector or arterial street;
e From a transportation circulation standpoint, the F Street extension is not needed;
o The use of a property Is an elementary school, which requires not only a certain
sized parcel but also a parcel insulated from through traffic for safety and security
reasons;
o The site, while adequate, barely has enough room for a 2-story school, one soccer
field and the city reservoir, and is constrained by the "L" shape of the parcel, the
slopes (which approach 25% in the northwest corner), the sensitive and significant
grove of trees, and the life estate of Mrs. Rider;
o There will be excellent internal public pedestrian circulation, and more than adequate
emergency vehicle access;
o The variance is necessary for the proper design and function of the site as an
elementary school facility;
o None of the neighboring property owners or the subdivision developers are
requesting the extension of F Street, or need it for future development of their
properties;
o The regulations, when written, apparently did not taken into consideration the affect
the regulations would have on schools, parks and other public facilities;
o The granting of the variance will not set a precedent for other uses allowed in the R-
7 zone, since an elementary school is a unique and special use;
The granting of a variance is consistent with recent past decisions on other
elementary and middle school Conditional Use Permit applications;
o The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, and
welfare or injurious to the rights of other property owners;
o The literal interpretation and application of the provisions of the Development Code
would cause an undue and unnecessary hardship, and any public benefit would be
outweighed by the pubic harm.
Wmwphy&msocia &Us&albri&/mpaW4/!4/04 27
Alberta ElementarySchool/City Reservoir CUP
This page intentionally left blank
edmurphy&assoa atesft&albrider/aupapp/an4104
28
Alberta Elementary School/City Reservoir CUP
Background. Chapter 18.765 of the Code sets forth the standards for bicycle parking.
Specifically, Table 18.765.2 requires a minimum of six parking spaces per classroom.
There are 31 regular classrooms. That means the District would have to install 186
bicycle-parking spaces to meet the Code requirements. Since this is a new school, there
are no records on the number of bicycles ridden to school. The architects, based on the
experience of other schools in the Tigard and Tualatin area, estimated that 44 bicycle
spaces would be more than adequate to meet the bicycle parking demand.
Pmoposa/. The District supports bicycle usage, and plans to install 44 bicycle spaces at
this school, near the front door. All but 8 of these will be covered.
Response to Adjustment Criteria. Section 18.370.020.5.e. allows the Director to
approve an adjustment of the required bicycle parking by means of a Type II procedure
if the applicant "can demonstrate that the proposed use by its nature would be
reasonably anticipated to generate a lesser need for bicycle parking." A school by its
nature is expected to generate bicycle traffic, and therefore there is a need for parking
for the bicycles. However, it is reasonable to expect that the needs for bicycle parking
at a new school would be similar to the current needs at existing schools. Based on
their experience designing schools throughout the metropolitan area, the architects are
proposing 44 bicycle parking spaces at this school.
Although the Director may approve an adjustment, this application also reviewed the
criteria for a variance, found in Chapter 18.370 of the Code. Responses to each of the
variance criterion are as follows:
a. The proposed variance will not be materially detrimental to the purposes of this title,
to any other applicable policies and standards, and to other properties in the same
zoning district or vicinity;
The "purposes of this title" (18.110.020) include only one purpose statement that is
directly relevant, which is #8: "Provide for and encourage a safe, convenient and
economic transportation system within the City". The School District provides much of
the transportation services needed to get children to and from school safely. Children
who do not take the bus can walk or ride a bicycle, or their parents drop them off. The
number of children expected to ride a bicycle to school is very limited - out of
approximately 600 students, perhaps only 10 to 20 will regularly ride their bicycles to
school.
If over time, the demand for more bicycle parking increases significantly, the District can
relatively easily provide additional bicycle parking spaces. On the other hand, if the
District installed 186 bicycle spaces, and only a few are actually used, it becomes wasted
space and a nuisance.
Granting the adjustment will not be materially detrimental to the provision of a safe,
convenient and economic transportation system within the City of Tigard. Nor will it be
other applicable standards or policies or to any other
materially detrimental to any o~••~• -r
properties in the R-7 zone or in the vicinity of the school. Most importantly, granting the
adjustment, and requiring 44 instead of 186 bicycle parking spaces, will not impact the
surrounding neighborhood. It is not likely that children would leave their bicycles on
eftuMhy iatmta:&glbtiani p/a/lar0a 29
Alberta Elementary Schooll0ty Reservoir CUP
someone else's property because they could not find a parking space on the school
property.
b. There are special circumstances that exist which are peculiar to the lot size or shape,
topography or other circumstances over which the applicant has no control, and which
are not applicable to other properties in the same zoning district;
The special circumstance is that this elementary school is located on a sloped site, and is
adjacent to Bull Mountain Road. Riding a bicycle uphill from homes to the south of the
school may be difficult. Crossing Bull Mountain Road could be somewhat hazardous, so
most parents who live north of that arterial would not allow their children to ride a
bicycle to school. Further, based on the actual experience in other schools in Tigard, the
requirement of six bicycle spaces per classroom is excessive. How many children ride to
school depends on how safe their parents think their children are, how far away from
school they live, what type of bicycle facilities exist along the route to school, and even
whether or not the child has a bicycle. The School District has no control over these
variables. However, experience clearly suggests that the demand for bicycle parking
spaces will not be anywhere near six per classroom, which in this case represents about
one bicycle parking space for every three students.
c. 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
reasonable economic use of the land;
The proposed use is an elementary school, which is a permitted use, subject to
Conditional Use approval. The other city standards will be maintained (other than those
for which a variance or adjustment is granted). Installing 44 bicycle stalls can be
reasonably accommodated within the site and building plans of the new school.
Installing 186 stalls, however, is problematic in terms of space availability, as it would
consume a substantial amount of land, and more importantly, would not bene fit'the
children, their parents or the teachers and staff.
d. Existing physical and natural systems, such as but not limited to traffic, drainage, .
dramatic land forms or parks will not be adversely affected any more than would occur
if the development were developed as specified in the title;
Existing physical and natural systems are not affected one way or the other.
e. The hardship is not self-imposed and the variance requested is the minimum
variance, which would alleviate the hardship.
The hardship is not self-imposed. The District is not claiming that there is no room on
the site for 186 bicycle parking spaces (although space is certainly an issue, given the
constraints of the site), or that there is some physical reason why it cannot be done. It
is claiming that the number of bicycle parking spaces required is much greater than the
need, and that installing the required number of spaces takes up valuable space that
could be better used for other activities, and requires the use of financial resources that
could be better used for other improvements. It creates a hardship on the District
because of the amount of space such facilities would require and because of the on-
going maintenance requirements of those facilities.
30 edmurpt y&acsociwcstttsd/Wbeidedcupapp/4/l4(04
Alberta Elementary School/City Reservoir CUP
Oki
TDC 18.370.020 allows the City to grant an adjustment on the driveway spacing
standards. The proposed driveway on the east side of the school site, if built as shown
on the plans (see the Overall Site Plan, Exhibit 'Q', Sheet A2.0) would be between two
existing driveways, and would be closer to both of them than the 200 foot minimum
distance for major collector streets required by TDC 18.705.030.H.3 and 4. The
distance between the proposed driveway and the existing driveway to the east would be
approximately 100 feet, and the distance between the proposed driveway and the
existing driveway to the west would be about 95 feet.
1. The driveway to the west of the proposed driveway is part of Mrs. Rider's circular
driveway. Mrs. Rider is elderly, and has lived on this property for many years. To
close her driveway would be a hardship on her, even though she could still use the
west end of her circular driveway. It would also be confusing to family and friends
who come visit her to find her driveway all of a sudden blocked off. Mrs. Rider has a
life estate on the property. Once she no longer lives on the property, the District will
close the driveway.
2. The driveway to the east serves one property, tax lot 2S109AD01400. This driveway
cannot be closed, as it is the only access to the house on the property. However,
over time, this 2.13 acres property will almost certainly be redeveloped. It will have
access onto a proposed new street adjacent on the east, which will intersect with Bull
Mountain Road across from Greenfield Drive.
3. The proposed access drive is for emergency use only, and will be gated. Providing a
secondary access point will improve the overall safety of the school. Fire trucks and
ambulances could use this access to get into or out of the school site if they ever
needed to. It could also be opened up to other vehicles if the main entrance to the
school was ever blocked. The school driveway will be gated, and very seldom used.
4. The School District could not share a driveway with Mrs. Rider, as it would require
the removal of several trees that are within a sensitive tree grove. The proposed
driveway is planned in a location where almost no trees that would have to be
removed. Similarly, while it may be possible to share the driveway access with the
property owner to the east, it would be disruptive and unnecessary, considering that
the proposed driveway is for emergency use only and the neighbor's driveway will
very likely be eliminated when that property redevelops.
5. There is no other area along the school site's frontage on Bull Mountain Road where
this driveway could be located where it would not require an adjustment to the
driveway spacing standards.
6. The request is the minimum required to provide adequate emergency access to the
school site. Although there will be another fire lane along the west boundary of the
site connecting to the east-west street in the Summit Ridge subdivision to the south,
It is not as direct of a route to the front of the school building.
7. The access will be safe for its intended use. The visual clearance standards of TDC
Chapter 18.795 will be met. The visual clearance areas have been marked on a
landscape plan, Exhibit'Q', Sheet V1.0.
edrnu hy&associates/it &Wbridet/cupaW4/14!04 31
Alberto Elementary SchoWCtry Reservoir CUP
This page Intentlonally left blank
:e
i
32 - edmuq*y&associatesift& ibridatcupq*4l14/04
Alberta Elementary SchoollCity Reservoir CUP
West Access Road is planned to be 32-feet wide, with parking on both sides and 5-foot
wide sidewalks on both sides. When the District purchased the right-of-way from the
Larson's (the property owners of tax lot 2S109AC01600 Immediately to the west of the
school site), they only bought a 50'-wide right-of-way. At that time, the School District
and the Larson's agreed that the street would be 32 feet wide. It the street was 2W-
wide, the planter strips could have been 5.5 feet wide (including the curb) as shown in
TDC Figure 18.810.5. A 32'-wide street would normally be constructed in a 54'-wide
right-of-way, as shown in TDC Figure 18.810.4. The District is proposing to reduce the
,,planter strips to 3.5 feet on each side (including the curbs). The Tigard Development
Code allows adjustments to street improvement requirements in 18.370.020.C.11.
1. The property was acquired by the School District by adverse possession. The
Larsons did not want the street placed in this location at all. However, the District
and the Larsons negotiated the details of the location, right-of-way width and street
width. The strict application of the standards would require the School District to go
back to the Larsons and ask for another four feet of property, and possibly have to
use condemnation again. This would take a lot of time, be costly, and probably
cause hard feelings.
2. There is no adverse impact of having a 3.5-foot instead of a 5.5-foot wide planter
strip. The sidewalks will remain the same width. The street will remain the same
width. The type of trees that will be planted, Red Sunset Maples, was selected with
the width of the planter strip in mind.
3. There will be no adverse impact to the adjacent property owners. The Larson's own
the property on either side of West Access Road (2S109AC01700 and 2S109AC01800
shown on the Tax Assessor's Maps, Exhibit 'B'). If and when they sell the property
for residential development, which is a reasonable expectation, the narrower planter
width will not affect the future development.
4. On the other hand, a wider planter strip, within a 54-foot wide planter strip, would
adversely affect the future development. The width of the remnant parcel north of
West Access Road varies between 70 feet and 100 feet. Some of these future lots
would already be fairly shallow lots. Reducing this distance by another 2 - 4 feet
would make it more difficult to design a subdivision with lots of sufficient depth.
5. Widening the right-of-way would result in an unacceptably adverse impact on both
the School District and the Larsons, and one that exceeds any public benefit resulting
from the strict application of the street width standards.
6. The only other reasonable alternative would be to narrow the street width. The
plans call for a 32'-wide street, with parking on one side only, as shown on the West
Access Grading Plan, Exhibit °Q', Sheet C2.3. The street could be reduced to 28' feet
in width, resulting in a 20'-wide driving lane with an W-wide parking area, and 5.51-
wide planter strips. If this were a normal residential street, that might be a good
option. However, because of the school bus traffic on this street, it would be safer to
make the street a little wider. That Is, there would be less adverse impacts from
narrower landscape strips than from a narrower street.
edmw*& mciata/tteNalbddcdci4Wp/4/14!04 33
Alberta Elementary SchOWCity Reservolr CUP
7. One practical advantage of the 32'-wide street Is that if no parking is available in the
parking lot or along the south side of West Access Road (as might be the case for a
rare evening event) cars could park Informally on the north side of the street. A 32'-
wide street is wide enough to handle parking on both sides.
a
1
1
34 ,dmurphyeraumiatcsto&aM&-rtc gpJan4/04
Alberta Elementary School/Ciry Reservoir CUP be a The planned Alberta Rider Elementary School Scroposed will
new elermentary emendousschooladditionandtowatethe
neighborhood and the entire city. P with almost
reservoir meet the criteria for a Conditional Use Permit, including complying
all of the applicable development standards, except for three relatively minor
adjustments and a variance.
The site has several development constraints that had to be taken into consideration the
the design. The proposed layout takes advantage of the site topography; protects
significant grove of treest incorporates a new water reservoir in a way that is
the City and the School District; limits vehicular access onto Bull
advantageous to bo and
future Mountain Road - a major collector street;
rovides integrates
new s holol'that hs attractve, effic ent,
neighborhoods; a most importantly, p
safe, secure, economical to build and operate, and accessible.
The School District respectfully requests that the Hearings Officer approve the School
District's application for a Conditional Use Permit for an elementary school and a city adjust
drive pacing
and thehm nimum number' of sbicycle
water reservoir, including the
nimum requested
strip widths,ments
standards, the
parking spaces required, and the request for a variance to the maximum street spacing
standards.
35
edmeu y&gscocW &aibrida/wPa 14/14/04
Alberta Elementary SchooUCity Reservoir CUP
This page Intentionally left blank
edmurphyt mmiat,/dsd/alb idu/,"p/4/14/04
36
Section 2
Water Reservoir
Conditional Use Permit
Alberta Elementary School/City Reservoir CUP
September 18, 2003
CITY RESERVOIR PORTION OF NARRATIVE:
In May 2000, the City of Tigard completed a Water Distribution System Hydraulic Study (Hydraulic Study)
which developed and recommended water system improvements for completion over a 20-year period.
Under.this Hydraulic Study, it was recommended that two new reservoirs be constructed in the City's 550-
foot service zone. Reservoir No. 2 was originally scheduled for construction in 2007.2005, and was
planned for construction at the subject school site. In anticipation of securing funding for school
construction, the School District requested that the City review its water system improvement construction
schedule In an effort to coordinate construction- of the reservoir structure with construction of their new
school.
The result of this review was the identification of all improvements needed in effort to construct 550-foot
Reservoir No, 2 and integrate it into the City's existing distribution system. A new three million gallon (3
MG) reservoir is to be constructed in order to serve the portion of the 550-foot pressure zone on the
easterly slopes of Bull Mountain. This reservoir will serve areas presently supplied through existing
pressure reducing valves (PRV) connections from the 713-foot pressure zone and areas presently served
by City Pump Station No. 1. Supply to the reservoir will be provided though an upgrade and expansion of
the Transfer Pump Station at the City's 10 MG Reservoir, which is located just east of this site at 1.2475
SW Bull Mountain Road. The overflow elevation of this reservoir will be 550 feet and the capacity is to be
3 MG.
The City has been coordinating with the School District with regard to site planning and the plans
submitted for City staff review have been jointly reviewed and approved by both the School District and
City Public Works staff for Conditional Use Permit (CUP) submittal. The reservoir will be a completely
buried structure and the fill above the structure will be planted with grass to enable use by the School
District for a play area.
Since the reservoir is to be located on the school site, there is a need to provide for construction
coordination to ensure that school construction traffic and reservoir construction traffic do not conflict.
The City will work closely with the School District to develop a construction traffic flow plan prior to
construction.
Since the new school is scheduled for opening in September 2005, it is important that the City's new
reservoir be completed by June 2005 to enable the School District to complete their landscaping around
the school and over the top of the reservoir.
Access to the reservoir will be via two routes. The most frequently used access will be via a. private
access road that will lead from the proposed public street to be constructed as a part of the Summit Ridge
project immediately to the south. This access will be used roughly twice per week to reach some valve
and control vaults that will be located near the southeast comer of the site. The other access need is to
reach the top of the reservoir for routine cleaning that takes place once every three years. For this
access, it is not necessary to have a formal driveway. The District will allow the City to access the top of
the reservoir by driving across their play fields from the parking area along the west side of the property.
The reservoir cleaning will take place during the summer months which will eliminate any rutting across
the fields.
The reservoir overflow and drainage piping will be tied into the onsite storm drainage system that will exit
the school site.
18.330.030.A. Conditlonal Use Approval Standards
1. The site size and dimensions provide adequate area for the needs of the proposed use;
edmucphy&associates usd/albriderlmMp/4/14/04 37
Alberta Elementary SchooUCity Reservoir CUP
Response: The overall school site is roughly 10.7 acres and the proposed easement area for the
City's reservoir is approximately 2.3 acres. A 3 MG reservoir can easily be constructed within this
proposed easement area. Therefore, this criterion is met.
2. The impacts of the proposed use of the site can be accommodated considering size, shape,
location, topography, and natural features;
Response: Since the reservoir will be a buried structure at the location shown, there will be fill slopes
that will be visible along the south and east exposures, These fill slopes will be a maximum 2:1 (two
feet horizontal to one foot vertical).
The proposed grading plan clearly shows that the necessary fill slopes are easily accommodated
within the confines of the easement area and will not adversely impact the adjacent properties.
Therefore, this criterion is met.
3. All required public facilities have adequate capacity to serve the proposal;
Response: The installation of this reservoir is necessary for support of the City's 550-foot zone
service area. The reservoir installation will ensure that adequate water supply can be delivered to
residents in that zone, as projected by the Hydraulic Study. Therefore, this criterion is met.
4. The applicable requirements of the zoning district are met except as modified by this
chapter;
Response: See separate section related to 18.510.050, residential development standards. The
reservoir project will meet all applicable requirements of that section.
5. The applicable requirements of 18.330.050; and
Response: See below for discussion. The applicable criterion is under 18.330.050.6.16, Emergency
Services and Basic Utilities.
6. The supplementary requirements set forth in other chapters of this code including but not
limited to Chapter 18.780, Signs, and Chapter 18.360, Site Development Review, if applicable,
are met.
Response: See separate section related to 18.360, Site Development Review.
13.330.050.8, Additional Development Standards for Conditional Use Types
16. Emergency Services and Basic Utilities:
a. Minimum lot size shall be 5,000 square feet;
Response: The size of the school site is over 10 acres and the City's easement area is over two
acres. Therefore, this criterion is met.
b. Minimum setbacks shall be those in the applicable zone;
s
Response: See response to 18.510.050. All applicable setbacks will be met.
c. Height limitation shall be in accordance with Chapter 18.730;
Response: The provisions of 18.730 are met because this structure will be comipletely bunted.
d. Off-street parking and loading requirement shall be in accordance with Chapter 18.765; and
Response: Table 18.765.2 exempts 'Basic Utilities" from vehicle and bicycle parking requirements.
38 edmuMhy&msmiataft(/atbrider/aipapp/4114104
Alberta Elementary School/Ciry Reservoir CUP
18.765.080.A, Off-Street Loading Requirements, states that commercial, industrial and institutional
buildings or structure to be built or altered which receive and distribute material or merchandise by
truck shall provide and maintain off-street loading and maneuvering space. Since the reservoir will
not distribute material or merchandise, this criterion does not apply.
e. Screening shall be in accordance with Chapter 18.745.
Response: 18.745.050.A.2 states that buffering and screening is required to reduce the impacts on
adjacent uses which are of a different type in accordance with the matrices in Tables 18.745.1 and
18.745.2. Table 18.745.1 lists uses which do not coincide with the proposed reservoir use. In
addition, the matrix does not consider a structure that is buried. But since the zone of the subject site
is residential, the applicant can at least provide a buffer to coincide with that type of use; therefore, a
buffer of type °A" is provided.
Table 18.745.2 provides the specific measurements of an A-type buffer. A minimum 10-foot wide
buffer, planted with lawn or living ground cover shall be provided. The entire surface over the buried
reservoir will be planted with grass. The reservoir itself is set back from the south property line by
105 feet, the east property line by 180 feet; these are the closest property lines to the reservoir. The
entire setback area will also be planted in grass. Therefore, this criterion is met.
18.360.090.A, Site Development Review Approval Criteria
1. Compliance with all of the applicable requirements of this title including Chapter 18.810,
Street and Utility Standards;
Response: See separate section pertaining to 18.810.
2. Relationship to the natural and physical environment:
a. Buildings shall be:
(1) Located to preserve existing trees, topography and natural drainage where
possible based upon existing site conditions;
(2) Located in areas not subject to ground slumping or sliding;
(3) Located to provide adequate distance between adjoining buildings for adequate
light, air circulation, and fire-fighting; and
(4) Oriented with consideration for sun and wind.
b. Trees shall be preserved to the extent possible. Replacement of trees is subject to the
requirements of Chapter 18.790, Tree Removal.
Response: The buried reservoir will result in a stable fill slope that will tie back into existing
grades. Based upon the findings of the URS geotechnical report (dated July 2003) the existing
site is not prone to ground slumping or slides. Since the tank will be below ground, there will be
no air circulation issues between it and other buildings. Sun and wind factors will also not apply
since the tank is below ground.
3. Exterior elevations:
a. Along the vertical face of single-family attached and multiple-family structures, offsets
shall occur at a minimum of every 30 feet by providing any two of the following:
(1) Recesses, e.g., decks, patios, entrances, floor area, of a minimum depth of eight
feet;
(2) Extensions, e.g., decks, patios, entrances, floor area, of a minimum depth of eight
feet, a maximum length of an overhang shall be 25 feet; and
(3) Offsets or breaks in roof elevations of three or more feet in height.
Response: This criterion does not apply since the tank will be below ground.
39
edmiuphY&a mifft &atbrider/cwappt4/14/04
Alberta Elementary School/City Reservoir CUP
4. Buffering, screening and compatibility between adjoining uses:
a. Buffering shall be provided between different types of land uses, for example,
between single-family and multiple-family residential, and residential and commercial
uses, and the following factors shall be considered in determining the adequacy of the
type and extent of the buffer:
(1) The purpose of the buffer, for example to decrease noise levels, absorb air
pollution, filter dust, or to provide a visual barrier,
(2) The size of the buffer required to achieve the purpose in terms of width and
height;
(3) The direction(s) from which buffering is needed;
(4) The required density of the buffering; and
(5) Whether the viewer is stationary or mobile.
b. On site screening from view from adjoining properties of such things as service areas,
storage areas, parking lots, and mechanical devices on roof tops, i.e., air cooling and
heating systems, shall be provided and the following factors will be considered in
determining the adequacy of the type and extent of the screening:
(1) What needs to be screened;
(2) The direction from which it is needed;
(3) How dense the screen needs to be;
(4) Whether the viewer is stationary or mobile; and
(5) Whether the screening needs to be year around.
Response: It is the applicant's position that this criterion does not fully apply, as the structure
will be below ground. However, the applicant will provide at least a grass buffer that complies
with an 'K standard, as directed by 18.745.
Screening will not be necessary as the structure will be completely below ground.
5. Privacy and noise: multi-family or group living uses:
a. Structures which include residential dwelling units shall provide private outdoor areas
for each ground floor unit which is screened from view by adjoining units as provided in
Subsection 6.a below;
b. The buildings shall be oriented in a manner which protects private spaces on
adjoining properties from view and noise;
c. On-site uses which create noise, light, or glare shall be buffered from adjoining
residential uses; and
d. Buffers shall be placed on the site as necessary to mitigate noise, light or glare from
off-site sources.
Response: This criterion does not apply as the structure will be below ground.
6. Private outdoor area: multi-family use:
a. Private open space such as a patio or balcony shall be provided and shall be designed
for the exclusive use of individual units and shall be at least 48 square feet in size with a
minimum width dimension of four feet; and
(1) Balconies used for entrances or exits shall not be considered as open space
except where such exits or entrances are for the sole use of the unit; and
(2) Required open space may include roofed or enclosed structures such as a
recreation center or covered picnic area.
b. Wherever possible, private outdoor open spaces should be oriented toward the sun;
and
c. Private outdoor spaces shall be screened or designed to provide privacy for the users
of the space.
Response: This criterion does not apply since the reservoir is not a multi-family use.
T. Shared outdoor recreation areas: multi-family use:
40 edmwphy&associates/ttsd/aibrider/cupappl4/14104
Alberta Elementary School/City Reservoir CUP
a. In addition to the requirements of subsections 5 and 6 above, usable outdoor
recreation space shall be provided In residential developments for the shared or
common use of all the residents In the following amounts:
(1) Studio up to and including two-bedroom units, 200 square feet per unit; and
(2) Three or more bedroom units, 300 square feet per unit.
b. The required recreation space may be provided as follows:
(1) It may be all outdoor space; or
(2) It may be part outdoor space and part indoor space; for example, an outdoor
tennis court, and indoor recreation room; or
(3) It may be all public or common space; or
(4) It may be part common space and part private; for example, it could be an
outdoor tennis court, indoor recreation room and balconies on each unit; and
(5) Where balconies are added to units, the balconies shall not be less than 48
square feet.
c. Shared outdoor recreation space shall be readily observable to promote crime
prevention and safety;
Response: This criterion does not apply since the reservoir is not a multi-family use.
8. Where landfill and/or development is allowed within and adjacent to the 100-year
floodplain, the City shall require consideration of the dedication of sufficient open land
area for greenway adjoining and within the floodplain. This area shall include portions at
a suitable elevation for the construction of a pedestrianibicycle pathway within the
floodplain in accordance with the adopted pedestrian/ bicycle plan.
Response: This criterion does not apply since the site is not affected by the 100-year
floodplain.
9. Demarcation of public, semi-public and private spaces for crime prevention:
a. The structures and site improvements shall be designed so that public areas such as
streets or public gathering places, semi-public areas and private outdoor areas are
clearly defined to establish persons having a right to be in the space, to provide for
crime prevention and to establish maintenance responsibility; and
b. These areas may be defined by, but not limited to:
(1) A deck, patio, low wail, hedge, or draping vine;
(2) A trellis or arbor;
(3) A change in elevation or grade;
(4) A change in the texture of the path material;
(5) Sign; or
(6) Landscaping.
Response: The School District's plan will show that the grass area above the reservoir will be
open to the public, as are other field areas on the school site, after school hours.
10. Crime prevention and safety:
a. Windows shall be located so that areas vulnerable to crime can be surveyed by the
occupants;
b. Interior laundry and service areas shall be located in a way that they can be observed
by others;
c. Mail boxes shall be located in lighted areas having vehicular or pedestrian traffic;
d. The exterior lighting levels shall be selected and the angles shall be oriented towards
areas vulnerable to crime; and -
e. Light fixtures shall be provided in areas having heavy pedestrian or vehicular traffic
and in potentially dangerous areas such as parking lots, stairs, ramps and abrupt grade
changes. Fixtures shall be placed at a height so that light patterns overlap at a height of
seven feet which is sufficient to illuminate a person.
edmurphy&associates/m&albrida/cWapp/4/14/04 41
Alberta Elementary SchoollCity Reservoir CUP
Response: This criterion does not apply in the given context, since the structure will be below
ground. However, there will be at least one access hatch into the reservoir that will be relatively
flush with the finish grade elevation. These access hatches are completely secured and only
accessible to City maintenance staff.
11. Public transit:
a. Provisions within the plan shall be included for providing for transit If the
development proposal is adjacent to or within 500 feet of existing or.proposed transit
route;
b. The requirements for transit facilities shall be based on:
(1) The location of other transit facilities in the area; and
(2) The size and type of the proposal.
c. The following facilities may be required after City and Tri-Met review:
(1) Bus stop shelters;
(2) Turnouts for buses; and
(3) Connecting paths to the shelters.
Response: This criterion does not apply as there will be no impact to the transit system from
this development.
12 Landscaping:
a. All landscaping shall be designed in accordance with the requirements set forth in
Chapter 18.745;
b. In addition to the open space and recreation area requirements of subsections 5 and 6
above, a minimum of 20 percent of the gross area including parking, loading and service
areas shall be landscaped; and
c. A minimum of 15 percent of the gross site area shall be landscaped.
Response: The landscape plan indicates the area above and around the reservoir will be
planted with grass, thereby complying with this criterion.
.13. Drainage: All drainage plans shall be designed in accordance with the criteria in the
adopted 1981 master drainage plan;
Response: The proposed storm drainage plan has been designed in conformance with Clean
Water Services (CWS) Design and Construction Standards, adopted by CWS Resolution and
Order 00-7. These standards meet and exceed the provisions of the 1981 master drainage
plan. Therefore, this criterion is met.
14. Provision for the disabled: All facilities for the disabled shall be designed in accordance
with the requirements set forth in'ORS Chapter 447; and
Response: This criterion does not apply as the reservoir is not intended to be accessible to the
disabled.
15. All of the provisions and regulations of the underlying zone shall apply unless modified
by other sections or this title, e.g., Planned Developments, Chapter 18.350; or a variance
or adjustment granted under Chapter 18.370.; (Ord. 02-
Response: See separate section related to 18.510.050, Residential Development Standards.
18.390.050.13, Type tli Procedure/Application Requirements
18.380.050.B.2.3, Include an impact study.
42 edmuoy&associates/ttsd/albrider/mpapp/4/14/04
Alberta F.lementary.School/City Reservoir CUP
Response: The reservoir is fitted with an overflow pipe in the unlikely event that an overflow would
occur. The downstream storm drainage line has adequate capacity to accommodate the 8.7 CFS
overflow rate if this were ever to occur. There will be minimal storm drainage contribution from the
footing drains around the reservoir.
18.510.050, Residential Development Standards
Table 18.510.2 requires:
e Minimum lot size: 5,000 sf
e Average Minimum Lot Width: 50 feet
• Maximum Lot Coverage: 80%
• Minimum Setbacks:
o Front Yard: 15 feet
o Side Yard Facing StreetfComer: 10 feet
o Side Yard: 5 feet
o Rear Yard: 15 feet
o Side/Rear abutting More Restrictive Zone: 20 feet
o Dist. Between Prop. Line and Garage: 20 feet
• Maximum Height: 35 feet
• Minimum Landscape Requirement: 20%
Response: The lot size is far and above the 5,000-square foot minimum, as well as the average lot
width. The applicant is not sure that setbacks apply, since the structure is below ground. However,
even if they do apply, the structure will be several hundred feet to the south of the front property line.
It will be well over 5 feet away from either side property lines and will be well over 15 feet away from
the south (rear) property line. The property is not on a comer and does not lie adjacent to a more
restrictive zone. There will be no garage. The maximum height requirement is met because the
structure is below ground. The overall School District site will be developed with a minimum
landscape area of 20%. In summary, the criteria found under 18,510 are met.
18.705, Access, Egress, and Circulation
18.705.030.1-1, Access Management
1. An access report shall be submitted with all new development proposals which verifies
design of driveways and streets are safe by meeting adequate stacking needs, sight
distance and deceleration standards as set by ODOT, Washington County, the City and
AASHTO (depending on jurisdiction of facility.)
Response: The formal routine access to the vaults adjacent to the reservoir site will be via a
proposed private street from the Summit Ridge development (shown as Tract 3). That project is
currently obtaining approval for their roadway intersection locations. The City's use of this access
location will not substantially impact the safety of that proposed intersection. One other access
will be to the top of the reservoir, but will be taken through the school site, across the play fields.
2. Driveways shall not be permitted to be placed in the influence area of collector or arterial
street intersections. Influence area of intersections is that area where queues of traffic
commonly form on approach to an Intersection. The minimum driveway setback fronta
collector or arterial street intersection shall be 150 feet, measured from the right-of-way
line of the intersecting street to the throat of the proposed driveway. The setback may be
greater depending upon the influence area, as determined from City Engineer review of a
traffic impact report submitted by the applicant's traffic engineer. In a case where a project
has less than 150 feet of street frontage, the applicant must explore any option for shared
access with the adjacent parcel. If shared access is not possible or practical, the driveway
shall be placed as far from the intersection as possible.
Response: The location of Tract 3 of Summit Ridge is currently under review by the City and
does not fall within 150 feet of a collector or arterial street intersection.
edmurphy&associa mVsaarbrider/wpapp/4/14/04 43
' a
Alberta Elementary School/City Reservoir CUP
3. The minimum spacing of driveways and streets along a collector shall be 200 feet. The
minimum spacing of driveways and streets along an arterial shall be 600 feet.
Response: N/A because Tract 3 of Summit Ridge is proposed as a private street intersecting
with a public local residential street.
4. The minimum spacing of local streets along a local street shall be 125 feet.
Response: The proposed Tract 3 of Summit Ridge is currently under review by the City. It
appears that the proposed intersection spacing along the northerly east/west street of Summit
Ridge all exceed 200 feet. Therefore, this criterion will be met.
Table 18.705.1, Vehicular Access/Egress Requirements: Residential Use
Minimum Access Width: 15 feet
Minimum Pavement Wdth: 10 feet
Response: The reservoir does not seem to fall cleanly under a residential use, although it will be
constructed within a residential zone. However, the applicant will provide an access drive from
the reservoir site to a public street. The proposed paved width of this access roadway is 12 feet,
which exceeds the code minimum. Therefore, this criterion is met.
18.745, Landscaping and Screening
18.745.050, Buffering and Screening
Response: 18.745.050.A.2 states that buffering and screening is required to reduce the impacts on
adjacent uses which are of a different type in accordance with the matrices in Tables 18.745.1 and
18.745.2. Table 18.745.1 lists uses which do not coincide with the proposed reservoir use. In
addition, the matrix does not consider a structure that is buried. But since the zone of the subject'site
is residential, the applicant can at least provide a buffer to coincide with that type of use; therefore, a
buffer of type "A° is provided.
Table 18.745.2 provides the specific measurements of an A-type buffer. A minimum 10-foot wide
buffer, planted with lawn or living ground cover shall be provided. The entire surface over the buried
reservoir will be planted with grass. The reservoir itself is set back from the south property line by
105 feet, the east property line by 180 feet; these are the closest property lines to the reservoir. The
entire setback area will also be planted in grass. Therefore, this criterion is met.
18.745.050, Re-vegetation
18.745.060.A btates that where natural vegetation has been removed through grading in areas not
affected by the landscaping requirements and that are not to be occupied by structures, such areas
are to be replanted as set forth in this section to prevent erosion after construction activities are
completed.
Response: All disturbed areas around and over the new reservoir will be replanted in accordance
with 18.745.060.6 and C.
18.790, Tree Removal
There are two trees along the south border (#397 & 399) marked for preservation in the District's tree
report by Halstead's Arboriculture Consultants, Inc., dated September 15, 2003. These trees will likely be
removed as a part of the reservoir construction. The District's portion of the narrative will cover the details
of the overall tree removal of the site.
44 odWMhy&associateslttsd/albridedaipapp/4114104
1
Alberta Elementary School/City Reservoir CUP
18.795, Visual Clearance Areas
18.795.030, Visual Clearance Requirements
B. Obstructions prohibited. A clear vision area shall contain no vehicle, hedge, planting,
fence, wall structure or temporary or permanent obstruction (except for an occasional
utility pole or tree), exceeding three feet in height, measured from the top of the curb, or
where no curb exists, from the street center line grade, except that trees exceeding this
height may be located in this area, provided all branches below eight feet are removed.
18.795.040, Computations
B. Non-arterial streets.
1. Non-arterial streets 24 feet or more in width. At all intersections of two non-arterial streets,
a non-arterial street and a driveway, and a non-arterial street or driveway and railroad
where at least one of the streets or driveways is 24 feet or more in width, a visual
clearance area shall be a triangle formed by the right-of-way or property lines along such
lots and a straight line joining the right-of-way or property line at points which are 30 feet
distance from the intersection of the right-of-way line and measured along such lines.
Response: The site plan for the school and reservoir projects show that the driveway into the
reservoir area will meet and exceed these criteria.
18.810.100, Storm Drainage
General Provisions: Section 18.810.100.A requires developers to make adequate provisions
for storm water and flood water runoff.
Accommodation of Upstream Drainage: Section 18.810.100.C states that a culvert or other
drainage facility shall be large enough to accommodate potential runoff from its entire
upstream drainage area, whether inside or outside the development. The City Engineer shall
approve the necessary size of the facility, based on the provisions of Design and Construction
Standards for Sanitary and Surface Water Management (as adopted by Clean Water Services
in 2000 and including any future revisions or amendments).
Response: There are no upstream public drainage areas that impact this site.
Effect on Downstream Drainage: Section 18.810.100.D states that where it is anticipated by
the City Engineer that the additional runoff resulting from the development will overload an
existing drainage facility, the Director and Engineer shall withhold approval of the
development until provisions have been made for improvement of the potential condition or
until provisions have been made for storage of additional runoff caused by the development in
accordance with the Design and Construction Standards for Sanitary and Surface Water
Management (as adopted by Clean Water Services in 2000 and including any future revisions
or amendments).
Response: The storm drainage contribution from the reservoir site will be minimal. Since there will
be no hard surface exposed, and the reservoir will be buried with approximately three feet of fill on
top, the surface area will be completely pervious. The storm drainage contribution is only a safety
factor in the unlikely event of an overflow. This safety feature must be built into the design of the
reservoir and any overflow water must be directed into the public storm drainage system. The
amount of the overflow flow rate is roughly 8.7 CFS. With this low flow rate, and the fact that it only
applies in the case of an emergency, CWS does not require detention for a reservoir overflow.
edmurphy&aswiatedasdtalbridedcupepp/4/14/04 45
Alberta Dementary School/City Reservoir CUP
As was stated in the School District's portion of the narrative, the overflow pipe from the reservoir will
be tied into the District's discharge pipe that will exit the site near the southeast comer of the site.
The size of the downstream storm pipes in Summit Ridge and Bella Vista must be sized to
accommodate the build-out of the school and this reservoir.
Submitted by:
Brian D. Rager, Engineering Manager
City of Tigard, Public Works
46edffnv&y&associateshtsd(albridedwpaW4/14/04
Section 3
Exhibits
Alberta Elementary SchooUCity Reservoir CUP
Exhibit'A' Pre-application Conference Notes
Exhibit'B' Tax Assessor's Maps showing the location and dimensions of the tax lots
Exhibit'C' Aerial Photographs
Exhibit'D' Zoning Map
Exhibit'E' Utilities Maps
Exhibit'F' Service Provider Response - Clean Water Services Agency
Exhibit'G' Neighborhood Meeting Documentation
Exhibit'H' Transportation Impact Analysis - Kitteison & Associates, Inc.
Exhibit'I' Memo from TriMet
Exhibit']' Preliminary Storm Drainage Study - Westlake Engineering Inc.
Exhibit'K' Landscape Plan for Water Quality Swale - Beighley & Associates
Exhibit'L Luminaire Specifications
Exhibit'M' Letter from Pride Disposal Company
Exhibit'N' Tree Assessment Report - Halstead's Arboriculture Consultants, Inc.
Exhibit'O' Sketch - future development option, properties west of school site
Exhibit'P' Figure 8-16 from the City's Transportation System Plan
Exhibit'Q' Plan Sheets
A1.0 Cover Sheet
A2.0 Overall Site Plan
A4.0 Exterior Elevations Overall
A41 Exterior Elevations
A4.2 Exterior Elevations
C1.1 Existing Conditions Plan i
C1.2 Demolition Plan
C2.0 Overall Grading/Erosion Control Plan
C2.1 North Grading Plan
C2.2 South Grading Plan
C2.3 West Access Grading Plan and Sections
C3.0 Master Utility Plan
C3.1 North Utility Plan
C3.2 South Utility Plan
I C3.3 Public Storm Drain Profile
II C3.4 West Access Utility Plan
E2.0 Electrical Site Plan
L1.1 Landscape Concept Plan - Sleeving Plan
L1.2 Landscape Concept Plan - Planting Plan (North and West)
L1.3 Landscape Concept Plan - Planting Plan (East) •
L1.4 Landscape Concept Plan - Planting Plan (South)
T1.0 Arborist Map A
Ti.1 Arborist Map B
A2.1 Enlarged Plans and Site Details
A2.2 Site Details
C5.0 Sewer Details
C5.1 Sewer and Water Details
C5.2 Street Details
V1.0 Visual Clearance Area
edmurphy&associates/tt &albrider/a pp/4/14/04 47
Alberta Elementary Schooll0ty Reservoir CUP
This page Intentionally left blank
1
48 edmurphy&,associatesttts&albridu/agwp/4/14104
Exhibit 'A'
CH
PPplicaee6« ` i%e e al Q:
:~v t 1
NON-RESIDENTIAL
Ryl BPI.
FAPPLICANT: ~±P~oarF'~.fr.D~no~C~~~~c1 Q's~ AGENT: SGAt~ S~e1;
31 - ` yn Phon e: (s,)s) - t99&3 -
PROPERTY LOCATION:
ADDRESS/GENERAL LOCATION: W?.••rr'e 136L4o ~o Bn~l ~1Qo!JTn~~.l
TAX HAP(WLOT #(S): ')3 , o Fc- --f L- a too p s i coq ()p -rL B 0
NECESSARY APPLICATIONS: C o c~,al ~Fftm; ' !~r.~riC+*!
PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION: pro„n., l AC) co s- !4 a 6!50 S} ,k1 30 r•t ass V.Oem VO A
II~ ` ~
Q
LJi-It. ~ts6c.lfitP[t Irn, ~r1tlP.MO.rt~C. -TO _CitSO C.aos-1ryL4 mAt. ck
GaL,c,,) Oa\er RF «E c.~ -
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN &60r"
MAP DESIGNATION: ~E1JS~y F SDEi~ t!`~L
ZONING MAP DESIGNATION: R-~
CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT TEAM (C.I.T.) AREA: k~ C~Z
r {L`
ZONING DISTRICT DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS [Refer to Code Section 18. l G.0
MINIMUM LOT SIZE: sq. ft. Average Min. lot width: 'SO ft. Max. building height: 3~ ft. r
Setbacks: Front 30 ft. Side PO ft. Rear _ 0 ft. Comer X_ ft. from street.
MAXIMUM SITE COVERAGE: 30 %o Minimum landscaped or natural vegetation area: W
VNE11GROORROODMEETHIG [Refer to the Neighborhood Meeting Nandou0 -
THE APPLICANT SHALL NOTIFY ALL PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 500 FEET, THE MEMBERS
OF ANY LAND USE SUBCOMMITTEE(S), AND THE CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING DIVISION of
their proposal. A minimum of two (2) weeks between the mailing date and the meeting date is
required. Please review the Land Use Notification handout concerning site posting and the meeting
notice. Meeting is to be held prior to submitting Vour application or the application will not be
accepted.
' NOTE: 'In order to also preliminarily address building code standards, a meeting with a Plans
Examiner is encouraged prior to submittal of a land use application.
CITY OF TIGARt) Pre-Appr ! Conlererxe Notes Page 1 of 8
[ NARRATIVE [Beier to Code Chapter 18.3901
The APPLICANT SHALL SUBMIT A NARRATIVE which provides findings based on the applicable
approval standards. Failure to provide a narrative or adequately address criteria would be reason to
consider an application incomplete and delay review of the proposal. The applicant should review
the code for applicable criteria.
IMPACT STUDY (Refer to Code Sections 18.390.040 and 18.390.0501
As a part of the APPLICATION SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS, applicants are required to INCLUDE
IMPACT STUDY with their submittal package. The impact study shall quantify the effect of .the
development 5n_ public facilities and services. The study shall address, at a i the
tra Ro_rtation.systern including bikeways, the drainage system, the parks system, :the.w_ater system,
the sewersystem and the noise impacts.of the development. For each public facility system and type
of impact; tfie study shall propose improvements necessary to meet City standards, and to minimize
the impact of the development on the public at large, public facilities systems, and affected private
property users. In situations where the Community Development Code requires the dedication of real
property interests, the applicant shall either specifically concur with the dedication requirement, or
provide evidence which supports the conclusion that the real property dedication requirement is not
roughly proportional to the projected impacts of the development.
ACCESS [Refer to Chapters 18.705 and 183651
Minimum number of accesses: l Minimum access width: " 3eY
Minimum pavement width:
All driveways and parking areas, except for some fleet storage parking areas, must be paved.
Drive-in use queuing areas:
WALKWAY REQUIREMENTS [Refer to Code Section 18.705.0301
WALKWAYS SHALL EXTEND FROM THE GROUND FLOOR ENTRANCES OR FROM THE
GROUND FLOOR LANDING OF STAIRS, ramps, or elevators of all commercial, .institutional, and
industrial uses, to the streets which provide the required access and egress. Walkways shall provide
convenient connections between buildings in multi: building commercial, institutional, and industrial
complexes. Unless impractical, walkways should be constructed between a new development and
neighboring developments.
❑ SPECIAL SETBACKS (Refer to Code Chap r 18.730)
➢ STREETS: feet om the centerline of
➢ LOWER INTENSITY ZON S: feet, along the site's boundary.
➢ FLAG LOT: 10-FOOT E YARD SETBACK.
❑ SPECIAL BUILDING HEIGHT PROVISIONS [Refer to Code Section 18.730.0]O.BJ
BUILDING HEIGHT EXCEPTI S - Buildings located in a non-residential zone may be built to a
height o 75 feet provided tha •
➢ A maximum building fl r area to site area ratio (FAR) of 1.5 to 1 will exist;
➢ All actual building set acks will be at least half of the building's height; and
➢ The structure will n abut a residential zoned district.
Q(RUFFERINGANDSCREENING (Refer to Code Chapter 187451
In order TO INCREASE PRIVACY AND TO EITHER REDUCE OR ELIMINATE ADVERSE NOISE
• •~A, tlAOAl~T0 bel.ueen 7ltincent Ate it I nmentC es erially between different land uses, the
OR VIOSUf1 IMFr% J vGtw CaT u...~uv... r....... ,
City requires landscaped buffer areas along certain site perimeters. Required buffer areas are
described by the Code in terms of width. buffer areas must be occupied by a mixture of deciduous
and evergreen trees and shrubs and must also achieve a balance between vertical and horizontal
plantings. Site obscuring screens or fences may also be required; these are often advisable even if
not required by the Code. The required buffer areas may only be occupied by vegetation, fences,
utilities, and walkways. Additional information on required buffer area materials and sizes may be
found in the Development Code.
Cffy OF TrAM heAppGc4on Conference Notes Page 2 of 8
The ESTIMATED REQUIRED BUFFER WIDTHS applicable to your proposal area are:
feet along north boundary. _ feet along east boundary.
feet along south boundary. feet along west boundary.
IN ADDITION, SIGHT OBSCURING SCREENING IS REQUIRED ALONG: Plrlc'ne, er-~ S
[ANDSCAPIH6 [Refer to Code Chapters 18.745,18365 and 18.1051
STREET TREES ARE REQUIRED FOR ALL DEVELOPMENTS FRONTING ON A PUBLIC OR
PRIVATE STREET as well as driveways which are more than 100 feet in length. Street trees must
be placed either within the public right-of-way or on private property within six (6) feet of the right-of-
way boundary. Street trees must have a minimum caliper of at least two (2) inches when measured
four (4) feet above grade. Street trees should be spaced 20 to 40 feet apart depending on the
branching width of the proposed tree species at maturity. Further information on regulations
affecting street trees may be obtained from the Planning Division.
A MINIMUM OF ONE (1) TREE FOR EVERY SEVEN (7) PARKING SPACES MUST BE PLANTED
in and around all parking areas in order to provide a vegetative canopy effect. Landscaped parking
areas shall include special design features which effectively screen the parking lot areas from view.
These design features may include.the use of landscaped berms, decorative walls, and raised
planters.
EJ RECRUNC (Refer to Code Chapter 187551
Applicant should CONTACT FRANCHISE HAULER FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF SITE .
SERVICING COMPATIBILITY. Locating a trash/recycling enclosure within a clear vision area such
as at the intersection of two (2) driveways within a parking lot is prohibited. Much of Tigard is within
Pride Disposal's Service area. Lenny. Hing is the contact . person and can be reached at (503)
625-6177.
d?ARVJHG (Refer to Code Section 18365.040)
REQUIRED parking for this type of use: (o(} b,;eo &0 S6 classrroo ns '
Parking SHOWN on preliminary plan(s):
SECONDARY USE REQUIRED parking:
Parking SHOWN on preliminary plan(s):
NO MORE THAN 50% OF REQUIRED SPACES MAY BE DESIGNATED AND/OR DIMENSIONED
AS COMPACT SPACES.
PARKING STALLS shall be dimensioned as follows:
➢ Standard parking space dimensions: 8 feet, 6 inches x 18 feet, 6 inches.
➢ Compact parking space dimensions: 7 feet, 6 inches x'16 feet, 6 inches.
Note: Parking space width includes the width of a stripe that
separates the parking space from an adjoining space.
Note: A maximum of three (3) feet of the vehicle overhang area in front of a wheel stop or curb can
be included'as part of required parking space depth. This area cannot be included as
landscaping for meeting the minimum percentage requirements.
HANDICAPPED PARKING:
➢ All parking areas shall PROVIDE APPROPRIATELY LOCATED AND DIMENSIONED
DISABLED PERSON PARKING spaces. The minimum number of disabled person parking
spaces to be provided, as well as the parking stall. dimensions, are mandated by the Americans
sc, n:sabili figs Atr tAnm A hnnrlnfit ig va~lah Q croon request. A handicapped parking space
Yl1U 1 vIJ4v _ I v
s b an an
~~4y BICYCLE RACKS ARE REQUIRED FOR MULTI-FAMILY, COMMERCIAL AND 1NDUSTRI
DEVELOPMENTS. Bicycle racks shall be located in areas protected from automobile traffic and
in convenient locations.
LOADING AREA REQUIREMENTS [Refer to Code Section 18365A801
Every COMMERCIAL OR INDUSTRIAL BUILDING IN EXCESS OF 10,000 SQUARE FEET shall be
provided with a loading space. The space size and location shall be as approved by the City
Engineer.
Cff Y OF TIGW Pre•Applicaon Conf..rence Notes Page 3 of 8
[ta'BICYCtE RACKS (Refer to Code Section 18.765)
BICYCLE RACKS are required FOR MULTI-FAMILY, COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL
DEVELOPMENTS. Bicycle racks shall be located in areas protected from automobile traffic and in
convenient locations.
SENSITIVE [ANDS (Refer to Code Chapter 18.715)
The Code provides REGULATIONS FOR LANDS WHICH ARE POTENTIALLY UNSUITABLE FOR
DEVELOPMENT DUE TO AREAS WITHIN THE 100-YEAR FLOODPLAIN, NATURAL
DRAINAGEWAYS, WETLAND AREAS, ON SLOPES IN EXCESS OF 25 PERCENT. OR -ON
UNSTABLE GROUND. Staff will attempt to preliminary identify sensitive lands areas at the pre-
Mpplication conference based on available information. HOWEVER, the res nsibility to weciselly
identt sensitive land areas, and their boundaries, is the responsibility of`~t p (cant. _ Areas
meeting the definitions of sensitive lands must be dearly indicated on Glans submitted with the
development application.
Chapter 18.775 also provides regulations for the use, protection, or modification of sensitive lands
areas. RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IS PROHIBITED WITHIN FLOODPLAINS.
f
[/SMP SLOPES [Refer to Code Section 187I51180.C]
When STEEP SLOPES exist, prior to issuance of a final order, a geotechnical report must be
submitted which addresses the approval standards of the Tigard Community Development Code
Section 18.775.080.C. The report shall be based upon field exploration and investigation and shall
include specific recommendations for achieving the requirements of Section 18.775.080.C.
CLEANWATER SERVICES 1CWSI BUFFER STANDARDS (Refer to R a 0 96441USA Regulations -Chapter 3)
LAND DEVELOPMENT ADJACENT TO SENSITIVE AREAS shall preserve and maintain or create a
vegetated. corridor for a buffer wide enough to protect the water quality functioning of the sensifive
area.
Design Criteria:
The VEGETATED CORRIDOR WIDTH is dependent on the sensitive area. The following table
identifies the required widths:
TABLE 3.1 VEGETATED CORRIDOR WIDTHS
SOURCE: CWS DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS MANUAURESOLUTION & ORDER 96-44
~OJ~A`C~^-EN,T . UY QTH OF -GExT`ATED ' -
ISIS t... E . E ItY :IQN -
:EI!ISIT li 1V7~~ y G0RRIDOR ,E S~DE~ „O,
e Streams with intermittent flow draining: <251A
10 to' <50 acres 15 feet
> 50 to < 100 acres 25 feet
e Existing or created wetlands <0.5 acre 25 feet
♦ Existing or created wetlands > 0.5 acre <25% 50 feet
e Rivers, streams, and springs with year-round flow
s Streams with intermittent flow draining >100 acres
♦ Natural lakes and ponds
♦ Streams with intermittent flow draining: > 25%
10 to <50 acres 30 feet
1 >50 to .<100 acres 50 feet
9
♦ Existing or created wetlands >25% Variable from 50-200 feet. Measure
♦ Rivers, streams, and springs with year-round flow in 25-foot increments from the starting
♦ Streams with intermittent flow draining > 100 acres point to the top of ravine (break in
♦ Natural lakes and ponds <25%slope), add 35 feet past the top
of ravine'
Starting pant for measurement = edge of the defined channel (bankful flow) for streams/rivers, delineated wetland boundary, delineated spring
boundary, and/or average high water for rakes or ponds, whichever offers greatest resource protection. Intermittent springs, located a minimum of 15
• feet within the dvertstream or wetland vegetated corridor, shall not serve as a starting point for measurement.
5vegetated maldor averaging or reduction is allowed only when ft vegetated conidor is certified to be in a marginal or degraded condition.
671ne vegetated corridor extends 35 feet from the by of the ravine and sets the outer boundary of the vegetated corridor. The 35 feet may be reduced to
15 feevif a stamped geotechnkxl report confirms slope stability shall be maintained with the reduced setback from the top of ravine.
CITY OF Tlf ARD Pr Co ifemmem Notes Page 4 of 8
Restrictions in the Vegetate Corridor.
structures, development, construction activities, gardens, lawns, application of chemicals,
dumping of any materials of any kind, or other activities shall be permitted which otherwise detract
from the water quality protection provided by the vegetated corridor, except as provided for in the
CHIS Design and Construction Standards.
Location of Vegetated Corridor:
I AN RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT WHICH CREATES MULTIPLE PARCELS or lots intended
for separate ownership, such as a subdivision, the vegetated corridor shall be contained in a
separate tract, and shall not be a part of any parcel to be used for the construction of a dwelling unit.
CWS Service Provider Letter.
PRIOR TO SUBMITTAL of any land use applications, the applicant must obtain a CWS Service
Provider Letter which will outline the conditions necessary to comply with the R&O 9644 sensitive
area requirements. If there are no sensitive areas, CWS must still issue a letter stating a CWS
Service Provider Letter is not required.
[SIGNS (Refer to Code Chapter 18.7801
SIGN PERMITS MUST BE OBTAINED PRIOR TO INSTALLATION OF ANY SIGN in the City of
Tigard. A "Guidelines for Sign Permits" handout is available upon request. Additional sign area or
height beyond Code standards may be permitted if the sign proposal is reviewed as part of a
development review application. Alternatively, a Sign Code Exception application may be filed for
Director's review.
O/ REE REMOVAL PLAN REQUIREMENTS (Refer to Code Section 18.790.030.CJ
A TREE PLAN FOR THE PLANTING, REMOVAL AND PROTECTION OF TREES prepared by a
certified arborist shall be provided for any lot, parcel or combination of lots or parcels for which a
development application for a subdivision, partition, site development review, planned development,
or conditional use is filed. Protection is preferred over removal where possible.
THE TREE PLAN SHALL INCLUDE the following:
Identification of the location,' size and species of all existing trees including trees designated
as significant by the City;
A Identification of a program to save existing trees or mitigate tree removal over 12 inches in
caliper. Mitigation must follow the replacement guidelines of Section 18.790.060.1) according
`to the following standards and shall be exclusive of trees required by other development code
provisions for landscaping, streets and parking lots:
f Retainage of less than 25% of existing trees over 12 inches in caliper requires a mitigation
program according to Section 18.150.070.D. of no net loss of trees;
0 Retainage of from 25 to 50% of existing trees over 12 inches in caliper requires that two-
thirds of the trees to be removed be mitigated according to Section 18.790.060.1).;
$ Retainage of from 50 to 75% of existing trees over 12 inches in caliper requires that 50%
of the trees to be removed be mitigated according to Section 18.790.060.D.;
} Retainage of 75% or greater of existing trees over 12 inches in caliper requires no
mitigation;
➢ Identification of all trees which are proposed to be removed; and
➢ A protection program defining standards and methods that will be used by the applicant to
protect trees during and after construction.
TREES REMOVED WITHIN THE PERIOD OF ONE (1) YEAR PRIOR TO A DEVELOPMENT
APPLICATION LISTED ABOVE will be inventoried as part of the tree plan above and will be
replaced according to Section 18.790.060.D.
[J~MIi1GAT10N (Refer to Code Section 18 790.060.0
REPLACEMENT OF A TREE shall take place according to the following guidelines:
➢ A replacement tree shall be a substantially similar species considering site characteristics.
If a replacement tree of the species of the tree removed or damaged is not reasonably
available, the Director may allow replacement with a different species of equivalent natural
resource value.
Coy OF TWM Pm Appficgon Conference Notes Page 5 of 8
It dv" Appk4woFl vigDvWmSedw
If a replacement tree of the size cut is not reasonably available on the local market or would
not be viable, the Director shall require replacement vnth more than one tree in accordance
with the following formula:
The number of replacement trees required .shall be determined by dividing the estimated
caliper size of the tree removed or damaged, by the caliper size of the largest reasonably
available replacement trees. If this number of trees cannot be viably located on the
subject property, the Director may require one (1) or more replacement trees to be planted
on,other property within the city, either public property or, with the consent of the owner,
private property.
➢ The planting of a replacement tree shall take place in a manner reasonably calculated to
allow growth to maturity.
IN LIEU OF TREE REPLACEMENT under Subsection D of this section, a party may, with the
consent of the Director, elect to compensate the City for its costs in performing such tree
d replacement.
CIEAR VIISION AREA (Refer to Code Chapter 18195)
'VISION FY' EAS BE MAINTAINED BETWEEN THREE (3) AND
The Ci requires that CLrr
EIGtiT8) FEET IN HEIGHroad/drivroad/railroad, and road/road intersections. The size
s n the abutting street's functional dassification and any
of the required dear vision depend
existing obstructions vrithin the dear vision area.
ADDITIONAL LOT DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS (Ref to Code Section 18.810.0601
MINIMUM LOT FRONTAGE: 25 feet unl s lot is created through the minor Iand partition process.
Lots created as part of a partition must ave a minimum of 15 feet of frontage or have a minimum
15-foot wide access easement.
The DEPTH OF ALL LOTS S NOT EXCEED 2% TIMES THE AVERAGE WIDTH, unless the
parcel is less than 1'h times the minimum lot size of the applicable zoning district.
CODE CHAPTERS
.18.330 (ccodfionai use) 18.620 (rgamTdangie oms n standards) 18.765 (oasueet Pa*kviLoad v Reyduenwts)
18.340 pimci rs interpreta5on) 8.630 (was*bn square Regiow Center) ? 18.775 (sensffive Lands Review) $s~
18.350(Plannedoevebpmwq _)C 18.705(Acrossx9ressJCiraiwm) 18.780 (signs) I
18.360 (sae mmbiwag Review) _ 18.710 (Accessory Residmu ur&) /18.785 (Temp wy use Pem&) c, . rv
L 18.370 (vadarrc Adt.ho ;b) _ 18.715 (ow* cawAa5am) 8.790 (Tree Rw-4 Y "
_ 18.380 gwm MapReAAmendmonts) 18.720 (oesgn campawy standards) 18.795 (va w clearance km)
18.385 (M=9armw Perm b) 18325 p wautmw Pertamram sw dar&) 798 (wuelezs cortmn imrmn facries)
18.390(oecisimmaidrgPmm wArpaastudy) 18.73 pmpd=Tooevebpmeotstwar&) :A 8.8 10 powt & uftkvmvefnentstandards)
_ 18.410(wLk*A4ztm nts) 18.740(1 t*oveday) >Gf?r '«WC"'
18.420 (Land Pa akw) 18.742 (Horne ooa m&m Pem6ts)
/18.430 pb&m.) 18.745 (Landscaping d saeerf g standards) 'f CAI->
_LC 18.510 (Residensa! zonug Lhstric>s) 18350 Wwddmdnvw Home Regubtim) ~ . . ~j
18.520 (eommer at zo* owcb) 18355 Q& d SM Wa* Regckq storage)
_ 18.530 t za* DwKt) 18.760 pw=ftn*q siwawm)
Cff OF Tr" PreAppfrafiw Cofdw me Notes Page 6 of 8
ADDITIONAL CONCERNS OR COMMENTS:
Co`9,
~~crs c'u,rc~
( » !1 F P
,n iS g a e t O ,^,;4 >
o Rt\rex '~nEc ~1,e e~ ~ -xa~'i o ~ ~ rc, -Sec 1$.3x(3
RCrs a - NE: irl,4,c3r~cct~ fc~e~' n~
StF ?J~(~ ~'taG1's
7_F 1~F'GU~52 1JG^SYa"C~,Je ~r~ ar~ltr~5c~< r" Gnni^(1ilC1~ C~,~an~r,3 tar G~,~r~~rc ihr~
0 t
~aae 11P.pn C'4,ec1k on !OacP (0 A1~ ~1,P Se. hn4P5
%►-~~F~ ~~cin iron. a Cerk:~",e.U ~Q~oP ~s~- .
A~,I (rn~ ~1er•i~ }6 C~erno~5 t~ntE 4A na c C k c 11 h hPec~~~ On zmp{'5 Over 25%
(C sn ~54!ey. '%s RG6 u;ec-IDP
'i~'~(A~[ ~A2k~ ~JCr ~ S nF^ C~csS rQn n. I At~„f~ nra 30 ~~ass~con, C 1G5 ~s Mq
PROCEDURE
Administrative Staff Review.
Public hearing before the Land Use Hearings Officer.
Public hearing before the Planning Commission.
Public hearing before the Planning Commission with the Commission making a
recommendation on the proposal to the City Council. An additional public hearing shall be
held by the City Council
APPLICATION SUBMITTAL PROCESS
All APPLICATIONS MUST BE ACCEPTED BY A PLANNING DIVISION STAFF MEMBER of the
Community Development Department at Tigard City Hall offices. PLEASE NOTE: Applications
submitted by mail or dropped off at the counter without Planninq Division acceptance may be
returned. i he iiarring cou.nEr c oses at -00 PM.
Maps submitted with an application shall be folded IN ADVANCE to 8.5 b 11 inches. One 1
81/z" x 11 ''ma o a ro ose to ect should be submitted or attachment to the staff re ort or
administrative decision. Application with unfolded maps shall not be accepted
The Planning Division and Engineering Department will perform a preliminary review of the
application and will determine whether an application is complete within 30 days of the counter
submittal. Staff will notify the applicant if additional information or additional copies of the submitted
materials are required.
CITY OF TOM ReApp ion Conkmroe Notes Page 7 of 8
i
The administrative decision or public hearing will t ically occur approximately 45 to 60 days after an
application is accepted as being complete by the Planning Division. Applications involving difficult or
W tracted issues or requiring review by other jurisdictions may take additional time to review.
tten recommendations from the Planning staff are issued seven (7) days prior to the public
hearing. A 10-day public appeal period follows all land use decisions. An appeal on this matter
would be heard by the Tigard _ C i,,., Caurn:.l . A basic flowchart
which illustrates the review process is vailable from the Planning Division upon request.
Land use applications requiring a public hearing must have notice posted on-site by the
applicant no less than 10 days prior to the public hearing.
This PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE AND THE NOTES OF. THE CONFERENCE ARE
INTENDED TO INFORM the prospective applicant of the'primary Community Development Code
requirements applicable to the potential development of a particular site and to allow the City staff
and prospective applicant to discuss the opportunities and constraints affecting development of the
site.
1119IIDING PERMITS
PLANS FOR BUILDING -AND OTHER RELATED PERMITS WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED FOR
REVIEW UNTIL A LAND USE APPROVAL HAS BEEN ISSUED. Final inspection approvals by
the Building Division will not be granted until there is compliance with all conditions of
development approval. These pre-application notes 'do not include comments from the
Building Division. For proposed buildings or, modifications to existing buildings, it is
recommended to contact a Building Division Plans Examiner to determine if there are
building code issues that would prevent the structure from being constructed, as proposed.
Additionally, with regard to Subdivisions and Minor Land Partitions where any structure to be
demolished has system development charge (SDC). credits and the underlying parcel for that
structure will be eliminated when the new plat is recorded, -the Cit s olic is to a I those system
development credits to the first buildin ermit issued in the development (UNLESS ER WISE
DIRECTED BYTE DEVELOPER AT THE TIME IN WHICH THE DEMOLITION PERMIT IS
OBTAINED).
The con erence an noes canno cover a e requirements an aspects related to
site planning that should a pl to the development of your site plan. Failure of. the staff to provide
information required by the e shall not constitute a waiver of the applicable standards or requirements.
It is recommended that a pros ective applicant either obtain and read ttte Community Development Code or
ask any questions of City. staff relative to Code requirements prior to submitting an application.
AN ADDITIONAL PRE-APPLICATION FEE: AND CONFERENCE WILL BE REQUIRED IF AN
APPLICATION PERTAINING TO THIS PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE IS SUBMITTED AFTER A
PERIOD OF MORE' THAN SIX (6) MONTHS FOLLOWING THIS CONFERENCE (unless deemed as
unnecessary by the Planning Division).
PREPARED K &A[)
0 OF TIGARD PLANN G DIV91ON - STAFF PERSON HOLDING PRE-APP. HEFTING
PHONE: (S03) 6394171 FAX: (503) 6841297
E-HAIL• ror w a @atigard.orus
MR 18 (0 OF TIGARD'S COMMUNITY DEYELOPHENT CODE) INTERNETABORESS: WININ i tigardOUIS
l:Ipahpnasterslfte•App k!:!tes Coaneraai.doc updated: 344.02 `
(Engineering soon: preapp ewg)
CITYOF TIG" PreAppikabon Canferenoe Notes Page 8 of 8
t M'.C a T t~~`y r' a n1 k1 ayt"t .y#~ k s~? 1 t v ,r~2~ S x 7
4
Y `RE' -A 1CUIDNCONFERENCE'NQTE
;,P~
~ , .
j} ter, mti
7"r 1p •f L r e4
JCEICFACIUTIES TaxMap(sh 2S109AC
Tax tolls): 2100
N W& Instiwticnal
The extent of necessary public improvements and dedications which shall be required of the applica
will be recommended by City staff and subject to approval by the appropriate authority. There will
no final recommendation to the decision making authority on behalf of the City staff until all concern
commenting agencies, City staff and the public have had an opportunity to review and comment
the application. The following comments are a projection of public improvement related requiremen
that may be required as a condition of development approval for your proposed project.
Right-of-way dedication:
The City of Tigard requires that land area be dedicated to the public:
(1.) , To increase abutting public rights-of-way to the ultimate functional street classification
right-of-way width as specified by the Community Development Code; or
(2.) For the creation of new streets.
Approval of a development application for this site will require right-of-way dedication for.
® SW Bull Mountain Road to 37 feet from centerline
❑ SW to feet
❑ SW to feet
❑ SW to _ feet
Street improvements:
® Half street improvements will be necessary along SW Bull Mountain Road, to include:
® 23 feet of pavement from centerline
® concrete curb
® storm sewers and other underground utilities
® 8-foot concrete sidewalk with planter strip
® street trees
® street signs, traffic control devices, streetlights and a two-year streetlight fee.
❑ Other.
48FTi D vIR s CS NOW hga1
1
0 street improvements will be necessary along SW , to include:
❑ feet of pavement
❑ concrete curb
❑ storm sewers and other underground utilities
❑ 'foot concrete sidewalk
❑ street trees
❑ street signs, traffic control devices, streetlights and a two-year streetlight fee.
❑ Other:
❑ street improvements will be necessary along SW , to include:
❑ feet of pavement
❑ concrete curb
❑ storm sewers and other underground utilities
❑ -foot concrete sidewalk
❑ street trees
street signs, traffic control devices, streetlights and a two-year streetlight fee.
❑ Other:
❑ street improvements will be necessary along SW , to include:
❑ feet of pavement
concrete curb
❑ storm sewers and other underground utilities
❑ . -foot concrete sidewalk
street trees
❑ street signs, traffic control devices, streetlights and a two-year streetlight fee.
❑ Other:
❑ street improvements will be necessary along SW , to include:
❑ feet of pavement
❑ concrete curb
❑ storm sewers and other underground utilities
foot concrete sidewalk
❑ street trees
street signs, traffic control devices, streetlights and a two-year streetlight fee.
' P3982
NTQFII>«Qo
s
❑ Other:
Agreement for Future Street Improvements:
In some cases, where street improvements or other necessary public improvements are not curren
practical, the improvements may be deferred. In such cases, a condition of development approv
may be specified which requires the property owner(s) to provide a future improvement guarante
The City Engineer will determine the form of this guarantee. The following street improvements m
be eligible for such a future improvement guarantee:
0
(2-)
Overhead Utility Lines:
® Section 18.810.120 of the Tigard Municipal Code (TMC) requires all overhead utility lin
adjacent to a development to be placed underground or, at the election of the developer,
fee in-lieu of undergrounding,can be paid. This requirement is valid even if the utility iin
are on the opposite side of the street from the site. If the fee in-lieu is proposed, it is equal
$ 27.50 per lineal foot of street frontage that contains the overhead lines.
There are existing overhead utility lines which run adjacent to this site along SW B
Mountain Road. Prior to final occupancy, the applicant shall either place these utiliti
underground, or pay the fee in-lieu described above.
Sanitary Sewers:
The nearest sanitary sewer tine to this property is a(n) inch line which is located T
proposed development must be connected to. a public sanitary sewer. It is the develope
responsibility to
The applicant will need to contact Clean Water Services for sewer requirements.
Water Supply:
The City of Tigard (Phone:(503) 639-4171) provides public water service in the area of this site. Th
service provider should be contacted for information regarding water supply for your propos
development.
Fire Protection:
Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue District (South Division) [Contact: Eric McMullen, (503) 612-701
provides fire protection services within the City of Tigard. The District should be contacted
information regarding the adequacy of circulation systems, the need for fire hydrants, or oth
questions related to fire protection.
Storm Sewer improvements.
All proposed development within the City shall be designed such that storm water runoff is convey
to an approved public drainage system. The applicant will be required to submit a proposed sto
WHIM 019111Ca ilPNG 3
dr inage plan for the site, and may be required to prepare a sub-basin drainage analysis to ensu
that the proposed system will accommodate runoff from upstream properties when fully developed.
The applicant will need to contact Clean Water Services for storm water requirements.
Storm Water Quality:
The City has agreed to enforce Surface Water Management (SWM) regulations established by t
Unified Sewerage Agency (USA) (Resolution and Order No. 00-7) which requires the construction
on-site water quality facilities. The facilities shall be designed to remove 65 percent of the phosphor
contained in 100 percent of the storm water runoff generated from newly created impervious surface
The resolution contains a provision that would allow an applicant to pay a fee in-lieu of constructi
an on-site facility provided specific criteria are met. The City will use discretion in determining wheth
or not the fee in-lieu will be offered. If the fee is allowed, it will be based upon the amount of ne
impervious surfaces created; for every 2,640 square feet, or portion thereof, the fee shall be $21
Preliminary sizing calculations for any proposed water quality facility shall be submitted with t
development application. It is anticipated that this project will require:
® Construction of an on-site water quality facility.
❑ Payment of the fee in-lieu.
Other Comments:
All proposed sanitary sewer and storm drainage systems shall be designed such that C
maintenance vehicles will have unobstructed access to critical manholes in the systems. Maintenan
access roadways may be required if existing or proposed facilities are not otherwise - read
accessible.
TRAFFIC IMPACT FEES -
In 1990, Washington County adopted a county-wide Traffic Impact Fee (TIF) ordinance. The Traf
Impact Fee program collects fees from new development based on the development's project
impact upon the City's transportation system. The applicant shall be required to pay a fee based up
the number of trips which are projected to result from the proposed development. The calculation
the TIF is based on the proposed use of the land, the size of the project, and a general use based f
category. The TIF shall be calculated at the time of building permit issuance In limit
circumstances, payment of the TIF maybe allowed to be deferred until the issuance of an occupan
pe"it. Deferral of the payment until occupancy is permissible only when the TIF is greater th
$5,000.00.
Pay the TIF.
Cffyo O m eaderenc9 tt P2964
D tettlo®
"IEBMITS
Public Facility Improvement (PFI) Permit:
Any work within a public right-of-way in the City of Tigard requires a PFI permit from the Engineeri
Department. A PFI permit application is available at the Planning/Engineering counter in City Ha
For more extensive work such as street widening improvements, main utility line extensions
subdivision infrastructure, plans prepared by a registered professional engineer must be submitted
review and approval.
The Engineering Department fee structure for this permit is considered a cost recovery system.
deposit is collected with the application, and the City will track its costs throughout the life of t
permit, and will either refund any remaining portion of the deposit, or invoice the Permittee in cas
where City costs exceeds the deposit amount. The Permittee will also be required to post
performance bond, or other such suitable security. Where professional engineered plans a
required, the Permittee must execute a Developer/Engineer Agreement, which will obligate the desi
engineer to perform the. primary inspection of the public improvement construction work. The P
permit fee structure is as follows:
DOTE: If an PH Permit is required, the applicant must obtain that
permit prior to release of any permits from the Building Division.
Building Division Permits:
The following is a brief overview of the type of permits issued by the Building Division. For a mo
detailed explanation of these permits, please contact the Development Services Counter
503-639-4171, ext. 304.
Site Improvement Permit (SIT). This permit is generally issued for all new commerci
industrial and multi-family projects. This permit will also be required for land partitions where
grading and private utility work is required. This permit covers all on-site preparation, gradi
and utility work. Home builders will also be required to obtain a SIT permit for grading work
cases where the lot they are working on has slopes in excess of 20% and foundati
excavation material is not to be hauled from the site.
Building Permit (BUP). This permit covers only the construction of the building and.is issu
after, or concurrently with, the SIT permit.
Maste a it (MST). This permit is issued for all single and multifamily buildin s. It covers
wor necessary for building construction, including sub-trades (excludes grading, etc.). Th
permit can not be issued in a subdivision until the public improvements are substantia
complete and a mylar copy of the recorded plat has been returned by the applicant to the Ci
For a land partition, the applicant must obtain an Engineering Permit, if required, and return
mylar copy of the recorded plat to the City prior to issuance of this permit.
Other Permits. There are other special permits, such as mechanical, electrical and plumbi
that may also be required' Contact the Development Services Counter for more information.
CON TMW ~Cttd t~aoi~t pa"5
TRADING PLAN REQUIREMENTS FOR SUBDIVISIONS Ian by the design engineer.
All subdivision projects shall require a proposed grading p prepared have
This slopes
between engineer wilt also be required to indicate which t of 20n%.atural
neessary
ormation will1 be° c
well as lots that have natural slopes in excess design determining if special grading inspections will b f'~I areas on then the lots ton plans.h In add tion9ea
will also be required to shade all structural an for each
lot. ' homebuilder will be required to submit a specific site and floor elevations of thelcomers of the IotT The s hei builder sh
include topographical contours and indicate the also indicate the proposed elevations at the four comers of the building. 75
PREPARED BY: DATE
ENGINE ING DEPARTMENT STAFF
Phone: 15031639-4111
Fax: 15031624-0152
: nNarWesV=Pnotes'eng.m
Revised: March 21, 2002
Ong ~
t4'~/6F~f€t~~~1 SrIIeOaA
Exhibit `B'
. •r.• X,60 ,C'
KNI
Z07 AC
n + ,'137. ,
002 w 113, 2.a
23 ffti 14
k
a3~w ~ °~9 6 2006'<
2000 X257 ab 7
1.05 AC m ~J ~O ♦2ifaW10''•
2sl
,''tb;' ,'19•x' ,`,i
100 3 58.27.' •x.8175 6ry
H66o4s7E n,017- ' ;sa FOR ADD
,•J„ ..x'1`855. Fi
16.06 toeb5
.28 10355
;c ~ a: ,213AC <;c
2100 4):,
7.36 AC ' "
138.25 •r,'~"
"I" X
N8462-0OE
IV=
m a •.1188-1a75E~C
13383
$ o, 1300 0 ' r<
,Y m .31 AC m dA C
p 127.13 „ ,J ;~Y v a
FOR
403.67 n'12> e~♦ JA 'ida s'` Mapareasi
59§a .6dW,^ y :.•t ,♦,y "•`Y l ,T, palmma7
curmntprop
%
y ( x < 21 2700 Va V d
tieb2800
20
1 • I a : 88.27 A6. ♦ 1.2
104.34 91.75 Q
R'e1T i
MOUNTA'
218.85:.
v 127.08
/ ♦ / \
1400
.Y" Y o 4 0 213 AC
rak
300 I i
r 3.38 AC I 1500
0 6.77 AC
23=78 0 9
z
nl
_ 127.00 211.71 I .
339.71
N89-10.35E
\vI
w
X N
n
N I H
I` .x/
IV, I
338.19 \ 410.30
n 12° 99
a - ~9 33 313.5
A A
A A
i }}ll ~ r y, Exhibit 'C'
y ~ lapY: g • ~ i
F ~ BI I T•
041
E
a~
Jill
Y J1! I
Q~l F f P
41
51,
Pnn,vd !242004
N6erta Rider Elementary School Aerial Map
'R'te'
h r i
- 'S r.
i%ln
r~~ t aar1.' 074 r
t
Exhibit `D'
m
m
z
m '
P
v
w v
D
C
i
BI IE
- - - -
SW WINTERVI
' CTnI ~1ijF
~L
Alberta Rider
Elernmtary School Site
ER
MMER
T
won%
City of Tigard Zoning Map
7f q,4 I56 .39 33 67 1 57: ~g-5g s
O
II l tr W
63 64 2 6 t-J5 ./r' Sq f\ a/ 9 I~-~I s.L Ell
112 49
4 2 1 / -
64 6 -
. 4 I - _ - 4. r 3~? I ~ - ~ X89
5 r
PRINTED
6 I65 - 17 13 9 O 09/20/02
- l -
1 7 ? S6 I -1 6 is 19 - _ MAGIC PRT
1 _ w 1 ' - - O I 11/01/02
;ILIRP S 41
6 68
Is 6 I 3-I 42
11 '7 ~ 37 7 ~ 6 p
t _I-~ r ~m - _ - - - -
2E0
38 8
-
` 2-8-
4
22 44
I~ -
30
_ 3 SV.IEF- 3T 53
2 2
VTTI-
Ell
Alberta Rider ,
Elementary School Site
I ~
~,Mi52
X ? <
r
l h0il ~~\106t 1 4 1 } l 5• ~ / J
\3 j .102. Ol I4'd 1 11i~~D~; y Bt % 9
1 1
` 10 61 49-- / I 1
05
9
10 03 06 ~118~i`l3
C p
24 2 07- 1I 614
91 e7 PRINTED
r 1..
0 U 'IN - ,m • ` % m ~2MAGIC PRT
j '66 I, j 11104102
2 p,_...
7 8.. 0 O 91 M 6 79 nY
FediH
4 9 E _..._.13F 43~ 2 79 76 PMrateWWrQ1Wlh' Fod1W
g.. PJ VIEW 9 ' - - \ -
4 s ~
LL
2-- 7
~ ~ UR EDI
4 14 7
sz ao 33 ~ i
_ 16 -39 D 77 1
_V 3 j' 69 r 6q r~ 69F 6
9 69\ 67
- EL
79 - 67
i IJ
s6 z s T_.!
2 -
4 33--
I--
)1. 14
31, 0
'IT
~l
_ L_.
1
_
® ~RHEn -
Alberta Rider
D - Elementary School Site
) .
- 1 %
7`77
m
VI V
e
IE S C! tSl 'AE 6
~ o N
C
H1A 1 a
P' E
u
u W
~a cv
VIE I
>br
4
13 lb 1
'Ib p1~ M
90-ZI a
AS yy J ~D
- p t
~ u18~ •ra's
rrt ,
a ry, ~ pp _
•
I
a, L QDyI~
0
_ _ 3a WATER SYSTEM
TIGARD WATER DISTRICT APRIL 2004
• Exhibit `F'
CleanWater Services
Our commitment is clear.
•
•
® June 12, 2003
•
•
• Pacific Habitat Services, Inc.
Attention: Michele Eccleston
® 9450 SW Commerce Circle, Suite 180
Wilsonville, OR 97070
® Tigard - Tualatin School District
Attention: Stephen Poage
6960 SW Sandburg St.
Tigard, OR 97223
Re: Albert Rider Elementary School located on SW Bull Mt. Rd. in Tigard, OR
CWS file 3123 (Tax maps 2S109AC, 2S109AD Tax lots 02100, 01300) '
Clean Water Services has reviewed your proposal for the above referenced site.
Staff has conducted a pre-screen review and requested completion of a Sensitive
Areas Certification Form. Following the review of submitted materials and CWS file
3005 it appears that sensitive area southeast of the site would only require a 30'
buffer. Staff concurs that your property is beyond the 30' maximum.buffer.. ln:light of
this result, this document will serve as your Service Provider letter as required 6y
Resolution and Order 03-11, Section 3.02.1, and your Stormwater Connection
authorization from Clean Water Services as required by Ordinance 27, Section 4.6.
All required permits and approvals must be obtained and completed under
applicable local, state, and federal law.
This concurrence letter does NOT eliminate the need to protect sensitive areas if
they are subsequently identified on your site.
If you have any questions, please feel free to call me at 503-846-3553.
Sincerely,
Sys r tx 3w •
L%'i~" "yn t
Chuck Suckallew
Environmental Plan Review
• E:\Develop =t SvcASP 00-Moncurtcnce Lettcrs\=09AC, AD lots 02100, 01300 -Alberta Rider Elementary School.doc
® 955 N First Avenue, Suite 270 • Hillsboro, Oregon 97124
• p} (503) 846-8621 • Fax: (503) 846-3525 • www.deanwaterservices.org
Exhibit `G'
August 15, 2003
INTERESTED PART(
Owner within 500 feet of proposed property
RE: ALBERTA RIDER ELEMENTARY
ELLIS ESLICK
ASSOCIATES
ARCHITECTS P.C. Dear Interested Party:
EEA is the representing the Owner of the property located on Bull Mountain
Road near 133rd tax lots 2S109AC, 2100 & 2S109AD, 1300. We are proposing a
new elementary school at this location, that will be going through the City's
P R I N C I P A L S Conditional Use Permit process..
FRANK E. ELL15,. AIA Prior to applying to the City of Tigard for the necessary permits, we would like to '
RICHARD H. ESLICK, AIA discuss the proposal in more detail with the surrounding property owners and
GREGORY N. WEILER. AIA residents. You are invited to attend a meeting on-.'
A S S O C. I A T E S Thursday, September 8th, 2003
7:00 pm
LINDA C. WALL, AIA at
FRANCIS X. MCBRIDE Deer Creek Elementary School
16155 SW 131` Avenue
Tigard, Oregon 97224
Please notice this will be an informational meeting on relimina plans. These
plans may be altered prior to the submittal of the application to the City.
We look forward to more specifically discussing the proposal with you. Please
call me at 503 223 6963 if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Sean K Scott
Architect
Ellis Eslick Architects
1230 SW FIRST AVENUE, SUITE 300, PORTLAND, OREGON 97204 1503.223.6963 (S03.294.0827 e-mail eea®eearchitects.com
O[OOaa•YIC IaIOaY•TID■ •MaT[Y
a AREA NoTIFIE®
VfD A Du T (5001)
„rY•Nw• 1!1
T
„.xNln. FOR: -Sean
rx•fa c 00 CT
Nr
rY1 ~
„ .Y•• RE: 2S 109AC, 2100
Y ' „ nw
rYN ®"FK' • • x001 tll 1
1, "Y & 2S109AD9 1300
2 „r 1 „ MAMA 0
AIAAAANAWA -MIA
n „rYNNM „t001N1••• YNI ~ r
m
K YN N { MN „HYNYN
nrYNt•N „ YN/ 1 n Nf N
n N
AMM.- Property owner Information
RVI Is valid for 3 months from
„ „w1.nw the date printed on this map.
n IN
'nHwsHx „NUNN"
„ YN•
RHETT „rxetaw „rxa1HN
„ faro
„rKum"
„rrN•M
„t{xe•HN „
nrNtlfwe „Hywtr• n Y w
F
N
_ „Hn•w/N „HNUtW „ M
'„rU1NIM .
T UM
O „rNl••Iw
:SI „rxtnN/ „rn••rN
A
r D N
~T „rxnnu
LIV „rN.mN
„tnNnL•
o woo SDAI Foal
' _ ' „rxxfr•
"unarm ""am" J'- 512 f.01
City of Tigard
V ~
Imam wn an "a map to f« 2'"0101 bnlbn aN, and
.h.ld b•..-irwd wm th• Dow-'W"14 S"w"'s DWUbn.
13125 SW Hal aNd
Tlp A OR 97223
(503)63"17t
nnp2Nnavd.6gard.«.ua
Plot date: Jul 11, 2003; C:UrtagicWfAGIC03.APR
{mss;... T ~1~1..:7~•.r - -
cL~z c /gf.Yo Scgi 133' 03-63v-?Z3-J
r e
y` Cl.`3v~rc~c. l5aoo ~Cr 503 670-d~
P~Q~c~RxlDi AC7ZLE-e 1320 sci t3ix!( wl6j Po( 6LY-Z-1-2.k~
M? 2td4-r` c~ 71 z.~f ! ~f
S-'~ 1 /3lv? 3 SW
[s/65 cS !33 ~d Sa3-632_go
z cwt T ~?f- IWO5-Jn W RAY, kd. 6z0 - 5f$~
e 7 qd-
jale -r Jan, 6orc6n. ►533 0 ~c,J (33 ~v~ 68`I-1S 17
Ste C5 A., I
rir1+2 (L(`OIS SW f 33f01 ~7-0'~l ~l q
IS"qor s~-f 13 6.3
v in Q~Q - YN S' S S• W t.~ p~2` j'.Itc) /3C~7j 61)3
;04-dolo
qC,l~¢l~ 13aso - 70 - 8v SW 8t4 Sv3 - S`t~-S'S o2
POIt e- fu4k.A/.,^c il. Treti/~Lid
l arlil /51x5 sp 133riAllc, ~a3 -(Zb ~752:
Svc
J-ep~ &rry (317 S S'iv Qull tiff l~! 5o3 6zY IBIS
/ .,C'.c., sh3 -!003 - d90
Cjvb~t r' e4 kA-ru.~ /3'/00 scv r3uu.
f/i ®a/ l y3 s7 SH/ l3 3. A -d~ 3 _ S 2 Lf S~
sa3w d Z//
0gTH /Y9*S- SK! 133a3 &20
NEIGHBOR MEETING NOTES No. 006 - Agency
ELLIS, ESLICK ASSOCIATES / ARCHITECTS P.C.
1230 SW FIRST AVENUE, SUITE 300
PORTLAND, OREGON 97204-3236
(503)223-6963/FAX(503)294-0827
PRESENT: NEIGHBORS WAN 500'- See attendance list MEETING DATE: September 8, 2003
CM - Rick Rainone
CITY -Brian Rager, Ed Wagner
WESTLAKE - Pat Tortora
EEA - Richard Eslick, Sean Scott
KITTLESON - Brian Dunn
PROJECT: Alberta Rider Elementary - CITY REQUIRED MEETING PROJECT NO.: 0208.00
INTRODUCTION:
All team members were introduced.
EEA read the required "Statement of Purpose (see attached).
EEA presented a site diagram showing block diagram of building and parking locations. It showed half-
street improvement and full street improvement to west. See attached diagram R02.
NEIGHBORHOOD CONCERNS:
1. 133RD SCOPE:
What scope (widening, turn-lane, etc) will the City require on 133rd for the Alberta Rider
Site?
2. BULL MOUNTAIN LEFT TURN LANE:
What is the City's requirements on Bull Mountain regarding a turn lane for the Alberta
Rider Site?
3. BEEF BEND CONNECTION:
Is the City requiring a street connection to Beef Bend Road for emergency access
(accident at 133rd/Bull Mtn could isolate area) for the Alberta Rider Site?
4. EAST ACCESS:
Is it possible to access the site from the East?
EEA / CM stated condemnation timelines were not available.
5. 133RD @ BULL MOUNTAIN ROAD SIGHT-LINES:
What scope would be required to provide adequate site lines on 133' d at Bull Mountain
Road?
Kittleson stated landscape pruning would.be required, but no more scope than this. Kittleson to
investigate with City.
OTHER DISCUSSIONS:
a. BULL MOUNTAIN WIDTH:
What will be the lane widths on Bull Mountain Road at Bull Mountain Road?
Westlake stated 12' east bound, 12' westbound, 12' turning onto 133rd.
b. H-STREET:
What is the future of H-Street?
Development is being reviewed by the City.
c. 2 ALBERTA HOUSES:
What will happen to the 2 houses on her property?
In this project; nothing. The property Owner has a life estate.
d. BULL MOUNTAIN STREET SCOPE:
What will the scope of the Bull Mountain street be?
EEA explained that a half-street improvement is required. This includes: widening the pavement
east bound lane, adding bike lane pavement, Concrete curb, 5' of landscaping including street
trees from City list, 5' sidewalk, 6" of grass to new right-of-way. This means dedicating
approximately 15' of school property to City to accommodate this half-street improvement.
e. WEST-ACCESS ROAD SCOPE:
What will the scope of the West Access Road be?
Page 1 of 2
EEA explained that a full-street improvement is required.
IF. EQUIPMENT ROUTE:
What will route be of the heavy construction equipment?
EEA explained this was unknown at the time, the Contractor will develop a plan.
g, TRAFFIC SIGNAL:
Will a traffic signal be Installed at 133rd and Bull Mountain?
Kittleson explained this was not warranted (required) due to projected traffic loads, and
requirements are not met to require a traffic signal.
h. BUILDING HEIGHT / AREA:
What will the building height and area be?
EEA explained two stories due to function of gymnasium and available space on tot. The area
will be approximately 87,000 square feet.
I. CHILDREN ACROSS BULL ROAD:
What is the district's plan for getting children across bull mountain?
The transportation plan will be prepared by the School District.
j. SCHOOL BOUNDARY:
What is the current area this school will serve?
A boundary process will be completed by the School District.
k. SCHOOL OPENING:
When is the school to be occupied?
EEA stated September 2005.
1. BOND EXPIRATION:
When will school Bond money expire?
CM stated federal tax begins to effectively reduce amount soon after September 2005 (3 years).
m. FENCING:
What is the fencing plan?
EEA stated around entire property, including tenancy area to be chain link fence, near or on the
property line.
WATER RESERVOIR:
a. RESERVOIR LOCATION:
Could the reservoir be located at the N.W. corner?
EEA stated they would investigate; but felt the east-west dimension of buildable land prohibited
due to excavation slopes and retaining. City stated the footprint was not the extents of the area
required. EEA also stated that the flat area created by the City was advantageous to the school
district financially, and a softball field would not fit in the N.W. corner.
b. RESERVOIR SCHEDULE:
When is the reservoir to be constructed?
City stated approximately Spring/Summer 2004 to Summer 2005.
NEXT MEETING:
TBD
END OF MEETING NOTES
These meeting notes are prepared by Ellis, Estick Associates / Architects P.C. and are subject to correction
and/or change by notification by attendees prior to each meeting, to record conclusions.
Page 2 of 2
Exhibit `H'
WAF K KITTELSON & ASSOCIATES, INC.
TRANSPORTATION PLANNINGITRAFFIC ENGINEERING
610 SW ALDER, SUITE 700 • PORTLAND, OR 97205 • (503) 228.5230 FAX(503)273-8169
April 15, 2004 Project # 6041.0
Stephen Poage
Tigard-Tualatin School District
6960 SW Sandburg St.
Tigard, OR 97223
RE: Transportation Impact Analysis for the Proposed Alberta Rider Elementary School
Development- Washington County, Oregon
Dear Mr. Poage:
This letter report presents the results of the transportation impact analysis prepared for the proposed
Alberta Rider Elementary School development along the south side of SW Bull Mountain Road in
Washington County, Oregon. The proposed school property lies within unincorporated Washington
County but will be annexed into the City of Tigard. As such, the site's impact on the transportation
system was analyzed in accordance with Washington County and City of Tigard traffic impact
study guidelines. The methodology used to prepare the transportation impact analysis as well as
pertinent findings and recommendations are documented herein.
INTRODUCTION
The Tigard-Tualatin School District is proposing to develop a new 650-student elementary school
facility located along the south side of SW Bull Mountain Road and east of SW 133`d Avenue. The
site location is illustrated in Figure 1 with Figure 2 illustrating the site plan for the new elementary
school facility. The site property currently consists of a vacant open field. As shown in the site plan,
there is a life tenancy boundary on the property containing the residence of Alberta Rider. The
proposed. school site is just outside the southern boundary of the city limits of Tigard but the school
property will be annexed into the city limits as part of the development process. Depending upon
the development review and approval timeline, construction of the new elementary school would
likely begin in early 2005 with full build-out and occupancy of the school occurring in September
2005.
Scope of the Report
The analysis documented within this study provides a detailed summary of the transportation-
a ..t 1M.- .,fumy intersections and overall
related impacts associated with the proposed elemie Lary schooll. ~ .o- .,fumy ._study area for this project were selected based on a review of existing roadways, travel patterns and
traffic volumes within the site vicinity, and direction provided by City of Tigard and Washington
County staff. Based on the identified impact area of the site development, two existing intersections
have been selected for analysis in this study. They include the intersections of SW Bull Mountain
Road at SW 133`d Avenue and SW Bull Mountain Road at SW Greenfield Drive.
H.-IFRO✓RLEI60411REPOR7IWAYNES ED17SIALBERTA REPORT F/NAL2.DOC
Apol2004
Alberta R/der Elementary SchaOl
O '
(NO SCALE)
0
w
tun w o 99
SW BULL MOUNTAIN RD w
0: I
C7
T w ~ PO
T 81TIE
X 3:
3 SW WOODHUE ST w 5 Z
I
f
0
\ I
\ I
\ \ I
\ 47
\ I
\ I
6
26
\ 8
WASMGTON COLWY \ 8
\ 19
47 \ 17
\ 10 I
\ 10
SITE
SITE VICINITY MAP, g
WASHINGTON COUNTY, OREGON
Kq KITfELSON m ASSOCIATES, INC.
7 T(A ION
April 2004
Alberta Rider Elementary School
O
(NO SCALE)
EXISTING -
FAMILY
AMILY DRIVEWAYS
)
PROPOSED EMERGENCY
_ ACCESS DRIVEWAY
(GATED)
O o
EXISTING SINGLE-
PROPOSED SITE ACCESS AMILY DRIVEWAY
~y TENANCY AREA
O
O 6
0o O e
56
50-
• e '
CITY
RESERVOIR
S E 555' GRADE o
O
PROPOSED SITE PLAN
WASHINGTON COUNTY, OREGON
NJ
K KffTELSON & ASSOCIATES, INC-
A
Alberta Rlder Elementary School Project A' 6041.0
Apd'/ 15, 2004
This report addresses the following transportation issues:
• Year 2004 existing land use and transportation system conditions within the site vicinity;
• In-process developments and planned transportation improvements in the study area;
• Forecast year 2005 background traffic conditions during the weekday a.m. and p.m. peak
hours;
• Trip generation and distribution estimates for the proposed development;
• Forecast year 2005 total traffic conditions with full build-out of the site during the
weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hours;
• Evaluation of multiple site-access and circulation scenarios for on-site vehicles,
pedestrians, and bicyclists;
• Assessment of compliance with City of Tigard's access spacing standards and requested
variance;
• Identification of transportation deficiencies and necessary mitigation measures; and
• Conclusions and recommendations.
EXISTING CONDITIONS
The existing conditions analysis identifies current land uses and traffic conditions in the vicinity of
the site, including current operational and geometric characteristics of roadways within the study
area. The purpose of this section is to set the stage for a basis of comparison to future conditions.
The site of the proposed elementary school development was visited and inventoried in February
2004. At that time, information was collected regarding site conditions, adjacent land uses, current
traffic volumes, and an inventory of transportation facilities and services in the study area.
Site Conditions and Adjacent Land Uses
The location of the proposed elementary school development is along the south side of SW Bull
Mountain Road and east of SW 133`d Avenue. The site currently lies within unincorporated
Washington County but will ultimately be annexed into the city limits of Tigard when development
occurs. Figure 3 illustrates an aerial'view of the site showing the site property boundary. The site
property is currently vacant and clear, except the residence of Alberta Rider.
Established neighborhoods are located along the north side of SW Bull Mountain Road and the area
west of the site. Rural residences on large parcels form the east and south sides of the site.
Construction has been approved for a new subdivision along the southern border of the site. The
Summit Ridge development will consist of new single-family detached homes. A smaller residential
subdivision, Arbor Ridge, is currently proposed immediately east of the site but has not yet been
approved by the City. A network of public streets will be constructed as part of these two new
subdivisions. The effects of these new streets and their connections with other existing streets are
discussed later in this study.
Roadway Facilities
The primary roadway facilities that will provide access to the proposed site include SW Bull
Mountain Road and SW 133`d Avenue. SW Bull Mountain Road is designated a Collector roadway
and is under the jurisdictional control of the City of Tigard. This road forms the northernmost
KITTELSON A ASSOCIATES, INC. 4
TRANSPORTATION PLANNING/TRAFFIC ENGINEER11
~p4i1 ;'1l1 Id
rill t ♦ tl YS A~ r' 'I'
ALE) i
r ~ r r
lAx®r
RF ` ~ ~ I
.I , i} ; aql Yri1 t\ Y y °1'e%! ~ .t3 ~ ~ ~
40.
IN,
t 77-'
b toq t , OF
-d~~~q '
w
f
~ fA
. ~ Ste' Y, ' Y r
5
r q•
~ b
~n
AERIAL OF SITE
WASHINGTON COUNTY, OREGON
I
KITTELSON & ASSOCIATES. INC.
Alberta RlderElementwy School Pmlect A 6041.0
April 15, 2004
boundary of the proposed development. It has two travel lanes with open shoulders and drainage
ditches. There is no posted speed limit but a speed survey conducted on June 12th, 2003 indicates
that the 85 h percentile speed is approximately 40 mph along a straight section of roadway east of
the site frontage. The results of the speed survey are presented in Appendix A of this study. There is
a horizontal curve along the site frontage of SW Bull Mountain Road with 25 mph yellow hazard
speed signs posted in advance of this curve in both directions. SW Bull Mountain Road provides
access to the major arterial Highway 99W to the northeast towards the downtown area of Tigard
and the rest of the Portland Metropolitan area. To the west, SW Bull Mountain Road leads to other
residential areas and eventually terminates at its intersection with SW Roy Rogers Road.
SW 133rd Avenue is a north-south roadway that has two lanes of travel with open shoulders for
drainage. It is under the jurisdictional control of the City of Tigard. The posted speed is 25 mph.
SW 133rd Avenue creates a T-shaped intersection at its northern terminus with SW Bull Mountain
Road. SW 133rd Avenue is currently a dead-end road at its southern terminus, but there is a narrow
non-traversable public right-of-way that continues south to SW Beef Bend Road. SW 133rd Avenue
is designated by the City of Tigard as a Neighborhood Route and designated a Minor Collector by
Washington County, presumably because both Ion Frange transportation system plans of the City
and County show the future extension of SW 133' Avenue to SW Beef Bend Road. But for now,
this dead-end facility serves the residences which abut the roadway. All other roadways in the
immediate site vicinity are considered local streets and serve the surrounding residential
neighborhoods.
Table 1 provides a summary of the street facilities in the site vicinity.. Figure 4 illustrates the lane
configurations and traffic control devices associated with the study intersection at SW Bull
Mountain Road and SW 133rd Avenue.
Table 1
Existing Transportation Facilities and Roadway Designations
Cross Posted Side- Bicycle On-Street
Roadway Classification Section Speed walks? Lanes? Parking?
SW Bull Mountain Rd Collector 2-Lanes None Partial 2
(40 mph 1) (North) No No
Neighborhood Route3
SW 1331' Avenue 2-Lanes 25 mph No No No
Minor Collector 4
Notes: 1. The 851' percentile speed of traffic was measured to be 40 mph ai the east end of the horizontal
curve along the site frontage. The posted speed through the curve Is 25 mph...
2. Wide shoulders are delineated by striping along SW Bull Mountain Road with the intent to promote
bicycling and walking along the paved shoulder.
3. The City of Tigard TSP Identifies this street as a Neighborhood Route.
4. The Washington County TSP identifies this roadway as a minor collector.
Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities
Within the immediate vicinity of the project site, there are no sidewalks along SW Bull Mountain
Road except along the north side of the road, east of the horizontal curve in the road. There are four-
to five-foot asphalt shoulders striped along both sides of SW Bull Mountain Road presumably two
promote bicycling and pedestrian use. Field observations in the site vicinity revealed a low level of
pedestrian and bike activity. No sidewalks or bicycle facilities are present along 133rd Avenue.
KITTELSON & ASSOCIATES, INC. 6
TRANSPORTATION PLANNING/TRAFFIC ENGINEERII
April 2004
Alberta Rider Elementary School
(NO SCALE)
KAS
Y
o
w
cow o 99
SW BULL MOUNTAIN RD W
rt
0
W PO
a 3 c cri
SITE
U N 0
SW WOODHUE ST W
(L U
~ U
Q~
C
CO
0
4
STOP SIGN EXISTING LANE CONFIGURATIONS g
AND TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES ,
WASHINGTON COUNTY, OREGON
k TELSON & ASSOCIATES, INC
~ r
Alberta Rider Elementary School Project 6041.0
April 15, 2004
Transit Facilities
There are currently no public transit routes operating within the site vicinity. The closest transit
route is the Tri-Met Route #12 and Tri-Met Route #45. Route #12 provides frequent service along
Highway 99W. Route #45 provides regular service to SW 12151 Avenue and SW Walnut Street
north of the site. The nearest stop on either route is about one mile from the proposed elementary
school site. It is unlikely, therefore, that any significant volume of site-generated person trips will
be made via transit, and so this analysis assumes that no transit-based trips will be made to or from
the site during the analyzed hours.
Existing Traffic Volumes
Based on conversations with Washington County staff, the weekday a.m. and p.m. commuter peak
hours represent the most critical periods for evaluating traffic operations on the surrounding
transportation system. Therefore, manual turning movement counts were obtained at the two study
intersections along SW Bull Mountain Road at SW 133d Avenue and at SW Greenfield Drive
during the weekday morning (7:00 - 9:00 a.m.) and afternoon (4:00 - 6:00 p.m.) periods on a mid-
week day in February, 2004. Based on the results of the traffic counts, the weekday morning peak
hour was found to occur between 7:00 and 8:00 a.m., while the weekday evening peak hour was
found to occur between 5:00 and 6:00 p.m. Existing weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hour traffic
volumes are shown in Figure 5. All numbers shown in this figure were rounded to the nearest five
vehicles per hour and then balanced with upstream and downstream traffic counts. Appendix A also
contains the traffic count sheets used in this study.
Although elementary school traffic generally peaks over a very short period sometime between the
hours of 2:00 p.m. and 4:00 p.m., the analysis of weekday p.m. peak hour traffic conditions
documented in this study was based on the weekday p.m. peak hour (5:00-6:00 p.m.) of the adjacent
street of SW Bull Mountain Road, when the combination of background and site-generated traffic
places the greatest stress on the surrounding transportation system.
Existing Peak Hour Operations
All level-of-service analyses described in this report were performed in accordance with the
procedures stated in the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (Reference 1). A description of level of
service and the criteria by which they are determined is presented in Appendix B. Appendix B also
indicates how level of service is measured and what is generally considered the acceptable range of
level of service. -
To further ensure that this analysis was based on a reasonable worst-case scenario, the peak 15-
minute flow rates during the weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hours were used in the evaluation of all
intersection levels of service. For this reason, the analyses reflect conditions that are only likely to
occur for 15 minutes out of each average peak hour. Traffic conditions during all other weekday
hours will likely be better than those described in this report.
Depending on the standards of the reviewing jurisdiction, intersection operations are typically
evaluated based on a Level-of-Service (LOS) rating A through F and/or measurements of the
volume-to-capacity (v/c) ratio. Although the City of Tigard will perform a review of this traffic
study, the City typically defaults to Washington County operating standards for intersections along
SW Boll Mountain Road. Washington County standards require a LOS D or better and a v/c ratio of
0.95 or less be maintained at all signalized intersections. The County also requires a LOS E or better
and a v/c ratio of 0.95 or less be maintained for all unsignalized intersections.
KITTELSON & ASSOCIATES, INC. B
TRANSPORTATION PLANNINO?RAFFIC ENGINEERIi
Alberta Rider Elementary School April 2004
•
N N
(NO SCALE)
CM=NB 5 ~ CM=SB '-10
LOS=B LOS=B
530 ~P Del=13.2 ~ 205 545 Del=14.9 r 175
5 •,4 V/C=0.06 ~r 5 V/C=0.13
N N '
Q
w
z Q 99
NW0
SW BULL MOUNTAIN RD W
Q
O
w ¢ O
a Q v SfiE ~~OP
Iz- _ ~F0
r SW WOODHUE ST W
U
U
Q~
so
•
JN O
i
CM=NB 15CM=SB X-30
LOS=B LOS=C ~510
295 - 0- Del=13.4 4-- 515 265--► Del=15.7
5 V/C=0.02 r 10 V/C=0.10
W
N N E °C 99
(W 0
SW BULL MOUNTAIN RD W
>
v2 ¢
0 0
_ w SITE O~~OPO
in F
o v in 0~0
SW WOODHUE ST W
y N QU
U
Qe
S~
7=CRITICAL MOVEMENT
L MOVEMENT LEVEL OF SERVICE
eLMOVEMENTDELAY 2004 EXISTING TRAFFIC CONDITIONS
WEEKDAY AM & PM PEAK HOURS
arc-c mCN voLU~aE•TacnPACmrRATIO WASHINGTON COUNTY, OREGON
KITTELSON & ASSOCIATES, INC.
/
Alberta Rider Elementary School Project 0: 604 1. 0
April 15, 2004
For unsignalized two-way stop controlled intersections, such as the two study intersections along
SW Bull Mountain Road, the LOS and v/c ratios presented in this report are only for the critical
movement (typically the minor street approach). It is assumed herein that, if the critical movement
for the intersection does not violate either the LOS or the v/c ratio thresholds established by
Washington County, then the intersection itself will also operate acceptably. This is a conservative
assumption because it sets the standard that is to be met at a higher level than would be necessary
when following the Highway Capacity Manual analysis procedures.
Using the existing weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hour traffic volumes and the current lane
configurations and traffic control devices, both study intersections operate at acceptable levels of
service and v/c ratios during the weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hours, as shown in Figure 5. Appendix
C includes the 2004 existing conditions intersection operations worksheets.
Traffic Safety
The crash histories of the study intersections along SW Bull Mountain Road were reviewed in an
effort to identify potential safety issues. Crash records were obtained for the intersection of SW Bull
Mountain Road/SW 133d Avenue from Washington County for the three-year period from January
1, 1999 through December 31, 2001. A summary of the crash data for this three-year period is
provided in Table 2, including the severity and type of crashes. Crash data could not be collected for
the intersection of SW Bull Mountain Road/SW Greenfield Drive because the intersection did not
exist prior to December 31, 2001.
Table 2
Stud Intersection Crash Histor (1999-2001)
Collision Type Severity
Number Property
of Rear- Side- Pod/ Damage Personal
Intersection Crashes Turning End swipe bike Only Injury
SW Bull Mountain 2 0 1 0 0 1 1
Road/SW 133rd Avenue
As illustrated in Table 2, only two accidents occurred over the three-year period, with no
discernable pattern or key characteristic. This finding suggests the intersection of SW Bull
Mountain Road and SW 133`d Avenue does not have a significant crash history. The crash rate for
this intersection was also calculated and is presented in Table 3. The crash rate is expressed in
crashes per million entering vehicles (MEV). As shown, the intersection of SW Bull Mountain
Road and SW 133`d Avenue has a low crash rate of 0.22 crashes/1VIEV. Intersections with crash
rates in this range are usually not considered to warrant further detailed examination.
Table 3
Study Intersection Crash Rates
Number of Crashes per Peak Hour Crashes/
Intersection Crashes Year YEV MEW Tear M=v
SW Bull Mountain 2 .7 843 3.08 0.22
Road/SW 133rd Avenue
TEV = Total Entering Vehicles
MEV = Million Entering Vehicles
KtTTE1.SON & ASSOCIATES. INC. 10
TRAN9PORTATpN PLAN NINGURAFFIC ENGINEEMI '
Alberta Rlder Elementary School Fiolact 6041.0
April Y5, 2004
Nevertheless, further investigation was conducted into the safety histories of both study
intersections along SW Bull Mountain Road. Washington County maintains it list high accident
locations and a review of the most recent 1999 - 2001 Safety Priority Improvement System (SPIS)
list revealed neither study intersection is a SPIS intersection, mainly due to the low frequency of
accidents. On this basis, it is concluded that there is no apparent and inherent safety issue that needs
to be mitigated at either intersection.
Sight Distance
Sight distance was evaluated at the study intersection of SW Bull Mountain Road and SW 133 d
Avenue. This intersection represents the point at which all site traffic traveling along SW Bull
Mountain Road (eastbound and westbound directions) will enter or exit the site. The purpose of
measuring sight distance at this intersection is to identify if any existing limitations or deficiencies
exist under current conditions.
Intersection sight distance, as defined by Washington County criteria, is measured from a distance
of 15 feet behind the edge of the,traveled way, and conducted at an elevation of 3.5 feet above the
ground looking at an object 4.25 feet in height. Washington County standards also require that
intersection sight distance (in feet) be a minimum of ten times the observed 851" percentile speed (in
mph) of traffic on the major street. At the study intersection of SW Bull Mountain Road and SW
133`d Avenue, the minimum intersection sight distance requirement was determined to be 400 feet
based on the observed 851h percentile speed of 40 mph. Measurements conducted in the field
indicate available intersection sight distance is less than the minimum requirement of 400 feet in
both the eastbound and westbound directions along SW Bull Mountain Road.
Currently, • there are landscaped hedges on both the southeast and southwest corners of the
intersection of SW 133`d Avenue and SW Bull Mountain Road which limit intersection sight
distance. These hedges are located on private property and outside the public right-of-way.
Observations in the field show that many drivers accessing SW Bull Mountain Road creep forward
past the stop bar in order to see around the existing hedges to observe traffic approaching in both
directions along SW Bull Mountain Road. These observations indicate the drivers' viewpoint is as
close as 10 feet from the edge of the traveled way. Additional intersection sight distance
measurements made from a point 10 feet behind the edge of the traveled way indicate drivers are
able to see more than 750 feet in the westbound direction along SW Bull Mountain Road and
greater than 850 feet in the eastbound direction. In both cases, available sight distance from 10 feet
behind the edge of the traveled way is significantly greater than the Washington County
requirement of 400 feet.
The results of this sight distance analysis indicates if the landscaped hedges on the private
properties located on the southwest and southeast corners of the intersection were trimmed back,
adequate intersection sight distance can be achieved when measured at a point 15 feet behind the
edge of traveled way. Of course, trimming these hedges will require the approval of the property
owners.
TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ANALYSIS
The transportation impact analysis identifies how the study area's transportation system will operate
in the year that the proposed development will be fully built-out. The impacts of traffic generated by
the proposed elementary school development during the weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hours were
examined as follows:
KrrTELSON &.ASSOCIATES, INC. »
TRANSPOHTATION PLANNING?NAFFIC ENGINEEAII
Alberta R/der Elementary School Project 6041.0
April 15, 2004
• In-process developments and planned transportation improvements in the site vicinity
were identified and reviewed;
• Year 2005 background weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hour traffic conditions (without the
site development) were analyzed;
• Future daily and weekday morning and evening peak hour site-generated trips were
estimated for the proposed development;
• A trip distribution pattern was derived through a review of existing travel patterns in the
study area and the assumed district boundary of the school; %
• Predicted site-generated traffic volumes from the development were added to the
background traffic volumes to evaluate total traffic operations at all study intersections
during the weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hours;
• Turn lane warrants and signal warrants were evaluated;
• Off-site mitigation treatments were identified;
• Site circulation, street connectivity, and safety issues were evaluated for vehicles,
pedestrians and bicyclists; and
• Conclusions and recommendations were made.
The methodology summarized above and the results of the analysis are presented in detail in the
remainder of this report.
YEAR 2005 BACKGROUND TRAFFIC CONDITIONS
The background traffic conditions analysis identifies how the study area's transportation system
will operate in the year 2005. The analysis of background conditions includes traffic growth due to
known in-process developments within the study area and regional growth, but does not include
traffic from the proposed elementary school development.
In-Process Developments
As part of this analysis, Kittelson & Associates, Inc. identified all known in-process developments
within the site vicinity that could affect traffic passing through the study intersections. For this
study, all developments currently approved, in review, or anticipated to be under review by the City
of Tigard or Washington County were considered to be in-process developments. Based on
information collected from these jurisdictions, several in-process development projects were
identified including:
• Bella Vista Subdjvision - Small subdivision approved for development along north side of
SW Beef Bend Road, southeast of the site.
• Summit Ridge Development - The development application for this 123 single-family unit
subdivision has been approved by the City of Tigard. The site is located along the southern
boundary of the proposed elementary school site. Traffic from the development will use a
single street access to SW 133`d Avenue exclusively until either the a new street is
constructed through the approved Bella Vista Development to SW Beef Bend Road or an
alternative street access is provided to SW Bull Mountain Road by a new residential
subdivision presumed to be developed east of the school site along what is known as the `H'
Street alignment.
KITTELSON & ASSOCIATES. INC. 12
TRANSPORTATION PtANNING/7RAFFIC ENGINEER[$
Alberta Rlder Elementary School Project 6041.0
April 15, 2004
• Bull Mountain Heights Phase III - This development is under construction (assumed 0%
occupied). It located at the intersection of SW Bull Mountain Road and the Oregon Highway
99W east of the site.
• Eagles View Development - This residential development is under construction (assumed
50% occupied). It is located on SW 141" Avenue and SW Woodhue Street.
• Meyer's Farm Subdivision - This residential development is close to being completed
(assumed 90% occupied). This development is located at SW 1615` Avenue and SW Bull
Mountain Road.
• Thornwood Subdivision - Site is currently under construction (assumed 0% occupied). The
development site is located at the intersection of SW Hazeltree Terrace and SW Bull
Mountain Road.
• Hillshire Development - In 2003, this small residential development was close to
completion. (A trip generation was prepared for the 10 vacant lots remaining.)
• Arbor Ridge (West Hills Development) - This small 30-lot subdivision is in the planning
stages. It is located along the most easterly property boundary of the school site. Traffic
from this development would access SW Bull Mountain Road from a new public street
extension (H Street), across from SW Greenfield Drive. Although a development application
has not been filed with the City of Tigard, the effects of constructing this subdivision are
considered in this study.
The percentage of completeness and occupancy of the above developments determined the amount
of traffic that was added along SW Bull Mountain Road and SW 133`d Avenue to account for all in-
process developments. The trip generation, distribution, and assignment of site-related traffic for
these developments is provided in Appendix D.
Planned Transportation Improvements
There are no public transportation improvement projects planned for the roadways in the site
vicinity over the next two years. However, a variety of public streets will be constructed as part of
the Bella Vista and Summit Ridge residential developments, south and southeast of the proposed
site. Completion of both subdivisions will result in a continuous public street connection between
SW Bull Mountain Road and SW Beef Bend Road via SW 133`d Avenue and a network of new
local streets within these subdivisions. Another public street linking SW Bull Mountain with SW
Beef Bend Road may be established as part of the planned Arbor Ridge development. This
development will extend the H Street alignment from within the Summit Ridge development to a
new intersection with SW Bull Mountain Road directly across from SW Greenfield Drive. Given
the alternative street connection through to SW Beef Bend Road has been approved, the background
and total traffic analysis findings presented in this study account for this connection. The H Street
connection to SW Bull Mountain Road has not been approved. Therefore, two traffic scenarios have
been analyzed for this study; one without the H Street connection and one with the H Street
connection.
A long-term project is identified in the 2020 Washington County Transportation System Plan
(Reference 2) to extend SW 133`d Avenue south along the current unimproved right-of-way to
connect with SW Beef Bend Road. Such an improvement was not considered for this study since it
is beyond the analysis year of 2005.
IUrTELSON &ASSOCIATES. INC. 13
TRANSPORTATION PUWNINWRAFPIO ENGINEERII
Alberta Rlder Elementary School Project O: 61141.0
April 15, 2004
Background Traffic Volumes and Operations
Year 2005 background traffic volumes were developed to account for the in-process developments
within the site vicinity and traffic growth in the region. Background traffic volumes were
determined by increasing existing traffic volumes by one percent to account for regional growth
over the next year, and adding to this, all traffic associated with identified in-process developments.
Two different scenarios were analyzed for background traffic conditions to account for the
possibility of a future H Street 'connection to SW Bull Mountain Road upon completion of the
planned Arbor Ridge subdivision. Under one scenario, an assumption was made that this H Street
connection would not be constructed by the site build-out year 2005. Under this scenario, all the
traffic associated with the Summit Ridge subdivision would be directed to use the SW 133`d Avenue
and SW Bull Mountain Road intersection. Under the second scenario, an assumption was made that
the H Street connection would be constructed prior to the completion of the proposed school. Under
this scenario, a significant portion (approximately 80 percent) of the Summit Ridge traffic would be
drawn away from the intersection of SW 133`d Avenue and SW Bull Mountain Road and over to the
new intersection of SW Bull Mountain Road and SW Greenfield Drive/'H' Street. The distribution
of all in process traffic for both scenarios is provided in Appendix D.
Figures 6 and 7 illustrates the resulting forecast year 2005 background traffic volumes during the
weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hours, under the two traffic scenarios, respectively. Using the weekday
a.m. and p.m. peak hour turning movement volumes shown in these figures, operational analyses
were conducted at the two study intersections along SW Bull Mountain Road to determine year
2005 background traffic operations. As shown in Figures 6 and 7, traffic operations at the two SW
Bull Mountain Road study intersections will continue to function at acceptable levels of service
during the weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hours without any improvements, even with the new H
Street connection across from SW Greenfield Drive. Appendix E contains the year 2005
background level-of-service worksheets.
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT PLAN
The Tigard-Tualatin School District is proposing to develop a new 650-student elementary school
facility as shown in the site plan in Figure 2. The site surrounds life tenancy area containing the
home of Alberta Rider. Depending upon the development review and approval timeline, full build-
out and occupancy of the school is expected to occur in September 2005.
Proposed Site Access Locations and Frontage Improvements
A new local street extending east from SW 133`d Avenue will provide the only public vehicular
access to the site. The Tigard-Tualatin School District has already acquired the right-of-way for this
new street extension. The new street will terminate with a cul-de-sac ending on the school property.
School buses will be able to enter and exit the cul-de-sac from one driveway signed for exclusive
bus use. Another driveway will allow the general public to access the site for picking up or
dropping off students. This driveway will also be used for general parking needs. The proposed
east-west local street connecting the site with SW 133`d Avenue will be designed for two lanes of
travel and on-street parking on one side of the street with sidewalks provided along both sides of the
street.
An emergency vehicle access will be provided in the northeast corner of the site accessing SW Bull
Mountain Road. This gated access will not be open for public use. The proposed location of the
emergency access driveway as shown in Figure 3 will be west of an existing driveway to a single
WTELSOa & ASSOCIATES. INC. 14
- TRANSPORTATION PIANNMOn'RAFFIC ENQINEERII
April 2004
Alberta Rider Elementary Sch00l
I
N N O
1 (NO SCALE)
CM=NB cM=SB *-10 LOS= LOS=C 4-230 620-Y Del %7 ~210
565~► Del=15.1
10 VIC-0.18 15 Vic=0.15
r N
w
99
N W LL Cc
SW BULL MOUNTAIN RD W
Q
C7 '
m ¢ ¢
W Q0
w co WE
SW WOODHUE ST w I
of ` FUTURE U
rn CONNECTION U
Qe
•
N O
N1\.
i
CM=NB 151 CM=SB Ik- 30
LOSS 330 LOS=C F 580
325--> Del=162 ~550 Del=17.6
20-.,4 VAC=0.12 r 45 VIC-4.11
N N W o 99
SW BULL MOUNTAIN RD W
rt
C7
m o 0
r W P~
a 3 r ~2 SITE
o rn x ~gF
SW WOODHUE ST ¢ I ~~6 Z
1 FUTURE U
vii a
cn CONNECTION ~j
o
CM = CRITICAL MOVEMENT
LOS = CRITICAL MOVEMENT LEVEL OF SERVICE q .
Del=CRITICAL MOVEMENT DELAY 2005 BACKGROUND TRAFFIC CONDITIONS WEEKDAY AM &
PM PEAK HOURS, WITH BEEF BEND RD ROAD CONNECTION
WASHINGTON COUNTY, OREGON
VIC = CRITICAL VOLUME -TO-CAPACITY RATIO
LC lCIT'TELSON & ASSOWATTES, INC.
A
April 2004
Alberta Rider Elementary Sch001
• O
v co
NO SCALE)
CM--NB 5 --.0 CM=SB %-10
LOS=B 585 LOS--C
200
570--► =14.5 ~235 Del=21.7
W
10-x vic=0.0~9v 5 RVIC=0.21
1 t to
c a ~Va
w
• W
cn W o 99
SW BULL MOUNTAIN RD w
C7 '
F- ¢ ¢ 1
> W ¢ 1 ~~OPO
¢ ¢ SITE/
SW WOODHUE ST 1¢ i 5
a FUTURE U
U) (n I CONNECTIONS U
Q~ .
co
•
N N O
/ VN
CM=NB 15~ CM=SB Ik- 30
LOS=C ~.._.560 315 -t DLO =C a- 550
330 Del=16.1
20 V1C=0.06 1s VAC=0.15
~ ~t/w
w ou o
~zo VN 99
w
SW BULL MOUNTAIN RD w
¢
>
- F- 0C ¢ 1
W ¢ 1 ~~OQO
~F0
3 SITE
x ~ t- 1 6~
16
SW WOODHUE ST w 1 ?
3 a 1 FUTURE p
1 CONNECTIONS U
co co
Q.
3.
CM = CRITICAL MOVEMENT
LOS = CRITICAL MOVEMENT LEVEL OF SERVICE a
Dd=CWICALMOVEMENT DELAY 2005 BACKGROUND TRAFFIC CONDITIONS WEEKDAY AM &
PM PEAK HOURS, WITH H ST AND BEEF BEND RD CONNECTIONS
VIC=CRMCALVOLUME_70•CAPACITYRATIO WASHINGTON COUNTY, OREGON
Kn TELSON & ASSOCIATES, INC.
~ rlu+nv+orrnn~~c
Alberta Rlder Elementary School Project 6041.0
April 15, 2004
family home and east of one of the driveways to the Alberta Rider home. The proposed emergency
access is located equidistant between the adjacent driveways creating a driveway spacing of
approximately 115 feet measured from centerline to centerline. Considering that the City of Tigard
has jurisdiction of SW Bull Mountain Road in the vicinity of the site, the City's access spacing
standard of 200 feet for collector streets like SW Bull Mountain Road will not be satisfied. An
adjustment to the access spacing standard justifying the proposed emergency access driveway will
be necessary.
Frontage improvements will be made on SW Bull Mountain Road continuously along the site
frontage and along the property containing the Alberta Rider home. Improvements will be
consistent with. Washington County's design standards for a collector street and will include
pavement widening, curb and gutter, a planting strip and sidewalk along the south side of the
roadway. The exact location of the edge of pavement and degree of curvature at the existing
horizontal curve along SW Bull Mountain Road will be determined during the design-review
process.
Other pedestrian 'amenities include the construction of pedestrian/bicycle connections in the
northwest and northeast corners of the site connecting the school with SW Bull Mountain Road.
Another pedestrian/bicycle connection will extend down the west side of the school property to the
future dead-end street stub of the Summit Ridge Development (F Street). This connection will also
be designed to accommodate emergency vehicles and a gate will be constructed at the dead-end
street to prevent public use by vehicles. Another pedestrian/bicycle connection will extend from the
school to the eastern property boundary to connect with the planned extension of a new street (H
Street).
The City of Tigard is proposing to construct a water storage facility on the School District's
property. This facility will be located adjacent to the playing field. Also, the School District is
considering the idea of parceling off a total of four tax lots along the eastern property boundary for
the future construction of residential homes. These homes will have direct access to the planned H
Street extension.
Trip Generation
Estimates of daily and weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hour vehicle trip ends for the proposed
elementary school were calculated based on empirical observations at similar facilities. These
observations are summarized in the standard reference Trip Generation, 6th Edition, published by
the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE, Reference 3). Table 4 summarizes the estimated site
trip generation during a typical weekday as well as during the weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hours.
All trip ends shown in the table have been rounded to the nearest five trips.
Table 4
Estimated Site Trip Generation
Weekday AM Peak Hour Weekday PM Peak Hour
rrE Daily Trips' Trlps2
Land Use Code Units Trips Total In Out Total In Out
Elementary School 520 Stu6d50 665 190 110 80 170 80 90
'Weekday AM peak hour site trip generations based on peak hour of adjacent street traffic between 7-9 a.m.
2Weekday PM peak hour site trip generation based on more critical PM peak hour generator for elementary
school.
KITTELSON & ASSOCIATES, INC. 17
TRANSPORTATION PLAWNGfrRAFFIC ENGINEERII
Alberta RlderElementary School Project A 6041.0
April 15, 2004
As shown in Table 4, the proposed elementary school development is estimated to generate
approximately 665 daily trips, with 190 trips (110 in, 80 out) estimated during the weekday a.m.
peak hour and 170 trips (80 in, 90 out) shown to occur during the weekday p.m. peak hour. It should
be emphasized that the weekday p.m. peak hour trip generator for an elementary school, which
typically occurs between 2:00 p.m. and 4:00 p.m. on a typical weekday, was used to reflect site
conditions during the weekday p.m. peak hour of adjacent street traffic, which has been
demonstrated to be the critical time period occurring between 4:00 p.m. and 5:00 p.m. Application
of the p.m. peak hour trip generator of the school site to the weekday p.m. peak hour traffic of the
adjacent street should not be considered standard practice. This assumption was made in this study
to produce a conservative analysis of worst-case traffic operating conditions.
Trip Distribution
The distribution of site-generated trips onto the study area roadway system was based on existing
travel patterns observed in the traffic counts conducted in the vicinity of the site and anticipated
travel patterns for vehicles traveling to/from the elementary school. The estimated trip distribution '
is illustrated in Figure 8 and shows 40% of site-generated traffic traveling to/from the west along
SW Bull Mountain Road, 50% of site traffic traveling to/from the east along SW Bull Mountain
Road, and a 10% distribution of trips to the adjacent residential areas south of the site. Trips
assigned to the area immediately south of the site reflect the construction of new homes in the
Summit Ridge and Bella Vista subdivisions as well as existing homes along SW 133`d Avenue. It is
also conceivable that a small proportion of school trips will be made to/from the new street
connection to SW Beef Bend Road, but the magnitude of site trips is expected to be nominal under
the assumption that the future Alberta Rider school district boundary will not extend south of SW
Beef Bend Road. Assignment of 90% of the site traffic to/from SW Bull Mountain Road will create
a conservative analysis of worst-case conditions at the SW 133`d Avenue intersection. Based on the
estimated trip distribution pattern shown in Figure 8, Figure 9 shows the assignment of the site-
generated traffic during the weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hours, respectively.
2005 TOTAL TRAFFIC CONDITIONS
The total traffic analysis forecasts how the study area's transportation system will operate with the
inclusion of traffic from the proposed elementary school development and all other in-process
developments, including regional traffic growth.
Year 2005 background traffic volumes for the weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hours shown in Figures
6 and 7 were added to the site-generated traffic shown in Figure 9 to arrive at the total traffic
volumes shown in Figures 10 and 11. The results shown reflect two traffic scenarios showing traffic
conditions without and with the planned H Street extension to SW Bull Mountain Road. Both traffic
scenarios assume a connection through to SW Beef Bend Road through the Summit Ridge and Bella
Vista subdivisions, south of the site.
Figures 10 and 11 also provide a summary of the forecast total traffic levels of service and volume-
to-capacity analyses associated with full build-out of the proposed development during the weekday
a.m. and p.m. peak hours, under both scenarios. As shown in the associated figures, this analysis
determined that all study intersections will operate with acceptable levels of service and v/c ratios
during the weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hours, under both scenarios without and with the H Street
extension to SW Bull Mountain Road. Appendix F contains the 2005 total traffic level-of-service
worksheets.
KrrTELSON & ASSOCIATES, INC. 18
TRANSPORTATION PLANNIN04TRAFFIC ENGWEERII
April 2004
Alberta Rider Elementary School
O
(NO SCALE)
0
J
W
40% t W o ss
SW BULL MOUNTAIN RD w
50%
a >
a Q ¢ SITE ~OPO
co 0
SW WOODHUE ST a r 5~ Z
U
aQ
C
NOTE.
*-10% OF SrrE TRIP DISTRIBUTION ASSIGNED TO/ FROM ADJACENT
RESIDENTIAL AREAS SOUTH OF SITE.
ESTIMATED TRIP DISTRIBUTION PATTERN
WASHINGTON COUNTY, OREGON s
~q ICiTTi:LSON ASSOCIATES, INC.
April 2004
Alberta Rider Elementary School
(NO SCALE)
40--0- a-55
45~ R ~55
1
J
• W
a~i w O 99
SW BULL MOUNTAIN RD W
¢
a >
¢ ¢
W 3
¢ SITE
F
16 C.) cn
SW WOODHUE ST
3
(n
to U
QQ
o
0
45-► f-40
30-%4 or40
1 W
z 99
Ewa
SW BULL MOUNTAIN RD W
>
W PO
a ¢ V SITE
3 SW WOODHUE ST W m ~~0 Z
a.
cn U
w U
QQ
o
NOTE:
-10% OF SITE TRIP ASSIGNED TO RESIDENTIAL AREAS SOUTH OF
SITE
SITE-GENERATED TRAFFIC VOLUMES
WEEKDAY AM & PM PEAK HOURS •
WASHINGTON COUNTY, OREGON
a a WTELSON & ASSOCwTES, INC.
April 2004
Alberta Rider Elementary School
N N O
/ (NO SCALE)
CM=NB 5-'Jo CM=SB ~10
LOS=C 660--r LOS=C -*--265
565-► Del=224 .4-'230 Del=18.8
551- VIC=0.43 or 70 WC=0.18
v m ~
' J
W
vi w 99
SW BULL MOUNTAIN RD W
X
C
>
QO
v w ¢
¢ SCTE
3: cc
SW WOODHUE ST w 1
1 FUTURE U
CONNECTION U
C~
co
Jw 0
a
CM=NB 15-'4 CM=SB ~30
LOS=C 375--► L05=C 4-620
325 Del=22.3 550 Del=19.2 .
50 -,x VIC=0.38 r 85 VIC=0.13
0
w
W 99
o
SW BULL MOUNTAIN RD to
O
W ~ PO
a 3 ~2 SITE
SW WOODHUE ST w 1 5~ S
1 FUTURE o
CONNECTION
U
Qz
co
CM = CRITICAL MOVEMENT
LOS = CRITICAL MOVEMENT LEVEL OF SERVICE q
Del = CRITICAL MOVEMENT DELAY 2005 TOTAL TRAFFIC CONDITIONS WEEKDAY AM &
g
PEA PEAK HOURS, WITH SW BEEF BEND RD CONNECTION
VIC=CRMCALVOLUME-TO-CAPACm'RATIO WASHINGTON COUNTY, OREGON
® KITTELSON & ASSOCIATES, INC.
A PLAfMAN(1/
Alberta Rider Elementary School April 2004
•
WAIT=
N N O
eJ I (NO SCALE)
CM=NB 5 _j CMi='SB R„ 10
LOS=C 625-► LOS=D -4-255
570 Del=20.7 235 Del=25.6 60 55 V/C--0.33 V/C==0.244
I /
v ~ ° Vv
O
J
• W_
LL ¢ 99
N w
SW BULL MOUNTAIN RD w
C7 '
v W Q I ~P~
Q SITE/ FO~~
s
0 U)
SW WOODHUE ST W I Z
~ o I FUTURE U
U I CONNECTIONS U
Q~ 1
ro
vN
CM=NB 15-~4 CM=SB 30
LOS---C _ 360--b- LOS=C 4-590
50-, De1=19.8 f 560 Del=24.9
50 V/C=0.30 je- 55 V/C=an
Jo 4 A
1
O O ~jw ~VN
N N ~z ¢
U)w o 99
SW BULL MOUNTAIN RD w
I- ¢ ¢ \
> a W Q / `c~oPa
F N _ SREi 5~~~~F
* SW WOODHUE ST ¢ I
w r
n ♦ I FUTURE
N I CONNECTIONS 4
U
Q~
o
0
CNl cRmCAL MOVEMENT
LOS = CRITICAL MOVEMENT LEVEL OF SERVICE
Del=CRMrALL40VEMMDELAY - 2005 TOTAL TRAFFIC CONDITIONS WEEKDAY AM&
PM PEAK HOURS, WITH H ST AND BEEF SEND RD CONNECTIONS NJ m
v0 c=~paLyOLUMETOCaPACmrRAn0 WASHINGTON COUNTY, OREGON
A KMLSON & ASSOCIATES, INC.
vo oxi+n
Alberta Rlder Elementary School Project #.-,6041.0
Ap/il 15, 2094
The total traffic conditions analysis results account for the following assumptions which were made
regarding traffic control and lane configurations at the existing study intersections:
SW Bull Mountain Road at SW 133`d Avenue:
• Stop-control maintained on the SW 133`d Street approach.
• All existing lane configurations maintained.
SW Bull Mountain Road at SW Greenfield Drive/H Street:
• Stop-control on north and south street approaches.
• Single lane approaches maintained or established on all four approaches.
Turn Lane Warrant Analysis
Year 2005 total traffic volumes under both traffic scenarios were used to determine if exclusive left-
turn lanes would be warranted on the westbound approach of SW Bull Mountain Road at SW 133`d
Avenue and the eastbound approach of SW Bull Mountain Road at SW Greenfield Drive. The need
for an exclusive left-turn lane was also tested for the westbound approach of SW Bull Mountain
Road for future left-turn movements onto H Street.
The procedures used to determine if left-turn warrants are satisfied were based on a queuing model
developed by M.D. Harmelink titled Volume Warrants for Left-Turn Storage Lanes at Unsignalized
Grade Intersections (Reference 4). The procedures take into account left-turn arrival rates, the
volume of advancing and opposing traffic, and the time interval required to make a left-turn
maneuver. Based on the results of the analysis, it was determined that left-turn lanes would be
warranted at the following locations under the following conditions:
Beef Bend Road Connection Only:
• Westbound left-turn at SW Bull Mountain Road/SW 133`d Avenue during weekday a.m. and
p.m. peak hour periods.
• Eastbound left-turn at SW Bull Mountain Road/SW Greenfield Drive during the weekday
a.m. peak hour.
H Street and Beef Bend Road Connections
• Westbound left-turn at SW Bull Mountain Road/H Street during the weekday p.m. peak
hour under only the second traffic scenario that includes the new H Street connection.
Further investigation was done to determine the amount of storage distance needed to accommodate
vehicles in the warranted left-turn lanes. This was done using the queuing model developed by
M.D. Harmelink as referred to previously. The results of this analysis are as follows:
Beef Bend Road Connection Only:
• 100 feet for the westbound left-turn at SW Bull Mountain Road/SW 133`d Avenue
• 75 feet for the eastbound iei -tum at Sjx' Ball Mountain Road/SW Greenfield Drive
H Street and Beef Bend Road Connections
• 75 feet for the westbound left-turn at SW Bull Mountain Road/H Street
Appendix G contains the results of the left-turn lane warrant and queuing analyses worksheets for
2005 total traffic conditions.
KE ELSON & ASSOCIATES, INC. 23
TpAN5PGR1'ATION PLMNiNGl Krikr G C-INEER11
Alberta Rlder Elementary School Project 0: 6041.0
Apr# 15, 2004
In addition to reviewing the potential need for left-turn lanes at the study intersections along SW
Bull Mountain Road, the potential need for right-turn lanes at both study intersections was also
examined. The analysis procedure was based on guidelines described in National Cooperative
Highway Research Program Report 279: Intersection Channelization Design Guide (Reference 5).
Based on the results of the analysis, it was determined that a right-turn lane will only be warranted
at one location during the weekday a.m. peak hour. This would be for the eastbound right-turn
movement from SW Bull Mountain Road onto SW 133`d Avenue. However, considering the right-
turn lane warrant would only be triggered during one and not both of the peak hour analysis periods
indicates the warrant will not likely be satisfied for any other hours of the day. Also, as stated in the
2005 Total Traffic Conditions section of this study, this study intersection is forecast to function
adequately without any additional turn lanes. For these reasons, a right-turn lane is not
recommended on the eastbound approach to this intersection. Appendix G also contains the right-
turn lane warrant analysis worksheets for 2005 total traffic conditions,
Signal Warrant Analysis
A signal warrant analysis was conducted for both study intersections along SW Bull Mountain Road
based on the procedures described in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD,
Reference 6). To perform the analysis, forecast year 2005 total traffic volumes for the critical
weekday p.m. peak hour and the hourly variations in traffic volumes observed in the speed survey
conducted along SW Bull Mountain Road were used as a basis for estimating the 1S`, 4`h, and 8`h
highest weekday peak hours. Appendix H contains the traffic signal warrant analysis worksheets for
the 2005 total traffic conditions.
At the intersection of SW Bull Mountain Road and SW Greenfield Drive, analysis results indicate
signal warrants will not be satisfied even when the H Street connection is made. Tws is due to the
low traffic demand expected on the side street approaches of this intersection.
At the intersection of SW Bull Mountain Road and SW 133`d Avenue, signal warrant criteria are
projected to be satisfied under traffic conditions with and without the H Street connection. Without
the H Street connection, Warrant #1 (Eight-Hour), Warrant #2 (Four-Hour), and Warrant #3 (Peak
Hour) are projected to be satisfied. Under traffic conditions with the H Street connection, only
Warrants #1 (Eight-Hour) and Warrant #3 (Peak Hour) are projected to be satisfied. The analysis
results for this intersection are based on several assumptions including a 40% reduction of right-turn
volumes on the northbound approach of SW 133`d Avenue to account for drivers' ability to make a
right-turn with relative ease at this T-shaped intersection. Another assumption was that all existing
single approach lanes to this intersection will be maintained.
There are two factors that should be considered regarding the decision to recommend a signal
installation at the intersection of SW Bull Mountain Road and SW 133`d Avenue. First of all, it was
stated earlier in this study that this intersection is expected to operate at an acceptable LOS C or
better during the weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hours with stop control maintained on the SW 133rd
Avenue approach. Additionally, it was stated earlier the traffic forecast prepared for this study
reflects a conservative, or worst-case estimate of traffic conditions during the critical weekday p.m.
peak hour of adjacent street traffic, and yields higher traffic volumes than what may actually occur
during this travel period. Under these circumstances, it would not be appropriate to install a traffic
signal at the intersection of SW Bull Mountain Road and SW 133`d Avenue, until traffic operations
exceed jurisdictional standards and critical signal warrants become satisfied.
KrrTELSON & ASSOCIATES, INC. 24
TRANSPORTATION PLANNING/TRAFFIC ENGMEERII
Alberta Rider Elementary School Project 6041.0
Apol 15, 2004
Evaluation of Alternative Street/Site Access Connections
City staff has raised concerns that the proposed site plan does not meet Section 18.810.030(H) of
the Tigard Development Code that defines a maximum 530-foot spacing between public street
connections. To address the street connectivity issue, City staff has expressed support for a new
street extending along the western boundary of the school site and connecting the end of F Street in
the Summit Ridge Development to a new intersection with SW Bull Mountain Road. The project
development team has evaluated this concept in exhaustive detail. The following points summarize
the findings of this evaluation.
1. Even if F Street were to be extended in accordance with the City's suggestion, the resultant
street spacing would still not comply with the City's 530-foot public street spacing standard.
The new street would be approximately 500 feet east of SW 133'd Avenue and 750 feet west
of the future alignment of H Street.
2. In the area where F Street would connect with SW Bull Mountain Road, the slope of the
landscape is severe and approaches a 25-percent grade. This creates significant approach and
landing issues that are likely to adversely affect the safety and operational characteristics of
the proposed new intersection.
3. If constructed, the new street connection to SW Bull Mountain Road would violate other
access spacing standards established by both Washington County and City of Tigard, since it
will connect to SW Bull Mountain Road within within 100 feet of another existing access
drive.
4. It might be possible to design F Street so that it intersects with SW Bull Mountain Road in
the northwest corner of the site, directly across from an existing private drive. However, the
orientation of the two intersecting streets would create a skewed intersection angle of
approximately 60-degrees. The degree of skew for this new intersection would be less than
the established minimum skew of 75 degrees required by the City of Tigard's intersection
design standards. ,
5. Attempts to align F Street such that it intersects SW Bull Mountain Road at a 90-degree
angle within the confines of the Alberta Rider School property will create an intersection
sight distance deficiency. Intersection sight distance was measured to be only 360 feet in the
eastbound direction along SW Bull Mountain Road, from the location of the new street
centerline, which was determined to be 100 feet east of the single-family driveway just
beyond the western sight boundary. The resulting intersection sight distance measurement of
360 feet does not meet the Washington County standard of 400 feet. The limitation in sight
distance is created by the existing horizontal curve in SW Bull Mountain Road to the
southeast.
For these reasons, we do not support the concept of extending F Street through the site and
connecting it to SW Bull Mountain Road.
KITTELSON & ASSOCIATE% INC. 25
TRANSPORTATION PLANNMOlT WFIC ENOINEER11
Alberta Rlder Elementary School Project 0.• 6041.0
April 15, 2004
As an alternative, the project development team considered another concept of extending F Street
only up to the proposed east-west street accessing SW 133`d Avenue. A scaled drawing, presented in
Appendix I illustrates how this would be achieved along with a modified site plan layout. To minimize
the impacts to the school building and parking areas, an assumption was made that the F street extension
would. be designed as a three-quarter street improvement using skinny street standards (i.e., travel lanes
that are 10-feet wide instead of the standard of 12-feet), leaving the remaining street section to be
constructed as adjacent properties develop west of the site. However, the full design standard for a local
street would still be needed at the north and south terminal points of the street extension to achieve
continuous connections with adjacent streets. The horizontal alignment of the F Street extension
including all internal school access driveways, as shown in Appendix 1, were established using
minimum turning radii for both school buses and single unit trucks to ensure proper circulation flows.
The following points summarize the findings of this evaluation.
1. The proposed F Street connection will result in multiple driveways, with some being private
residential driveways and others being associated with school access by bus and/or private
vehicle. This mixture may cause some confusion, and will certainly create multiple points of
conflict between traffic entering and exiting the site and traffic related to other uses along F
Street. Good signing and striping are candidate mitigation measures, but the ability to
provide appropriate signing is a concern for the proposed environment. The proximity of
multiple access drives, the resultant signing issues, and the mixing of school-related traffic
with non-school-related traffic are undesirable outcomes.
2. There are potential safety issues created by the proximity of the F Street extension and the
recreational field adjacent to this street. Vehicles will be above the grade of the recreational
field and devices will be needed to ensure that the safety of children playing on the field will
be protected. A barrier system of some type will be needed to ensure children's safety,
resulting in additional construction costs and right-of-way requirements.
3. The proposed F Street extension will mandate the reconfiguration of the school building,
resulting in a significant degradation in the quality of classroom locations and building
orientation.l Kindergarten classrooms will need to be located at the front of the building,
creating both security and safety concerns for the youngest children. As well, the building
must be reoriented relative to the sun, and this will create classroom lighting issues that are
generally considered to be disadvantageous to the learning and teaching environments
desired for both students and teachers.
For these reasons, we do not support the concept of extending F Street into the site.
City staff has also raised concerns regarding the potential for future access to the F Street extension
from the development or redevelopment of residential properties west of the site. As discussed in
the narrative related to the variance to the connectivity standards, an alternative to the F Street
alignment has been devised for those properties west of the site in an effort to meet the needs of the
property owners. A Future Street Plan has been created illustrating how an adequate system of
interconnecting streets can be established in the vicinity of the school site. A Site Access and
Circulation Plan map has also been prepared to illustrate how vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrians
will access the site. Both maps have been attached to this study as Appendix J.
1 Source. Ellis Eslick Architects.
KITTELSON & ASSOCIATES, INC. 26
TRANSPORTATION PW4NING?RAFFIC ENGINEERII
Alberta Rider Elementary School Project A 6041.0
April 15, 2004
Site Access and On-Site Circulation
As part of this study, internal circulation was evaluated to ensure that the site plan provides
sufficient circulation for vehicle and pedestrian movements. Kittelson & Associates, Inc. worked
with the project development team to enhance the operational and safety aspects of the site.
Specifically, passenger cars and buses are separated by providing two distinct driveways to the
proposed cul-de-sac street. As shown in the site plan in Figure 2, buses and passenger cars will have
convenient tum-around areas for dropping off and picking up students.
Emergency vehicles will have three points of access to the site: (1) From the proposed east-west
street leading to SW 133rd Avenue, (2) From a gated access to SW Bull Mountain Road, and (3)
From a gated access to the dead-end section of SW F Street in the Summit Ridge Development. Fire
lanes will run along the west and east sides of the school building to access the rear of the building
in case of an emergency.
Pedestrians will have five points of access to the site: (1) Along both sides of the proposed east-west
street connection to SW 133`d Avenue, (2) From the northwest corner of the site along SW Bull
Mountain Road, (3) From the northeast corner of the site along SW Bull Mountain Road, (4) From
the eastern site boundary accessing the future H Street alignment, and (5) From the southwest
corner of the site property via the dead-end section of F Street at the site property boundary with the
Summit Ridge Development. All sidewalks will have continuous connections to the school
building.
The Alberta Rider school will be located adjacent to SW Bull Mountain Road, which is a high-
volume collector roadway with average travels speeds around 40 mph. Due to the existing traffic
conditions along this roadway, traffic control measures (i.e., signs, pavement markings, and school
speed zones) consistent with the guidelines set forth in Chapter 7 of the 2000 MUTCD should be
considered. It is also recommended that the Tigard-Tualatin School District require all students
residing north of SW Bull Mountain Road to ride the school bus in order to limit pedestrian
movements across SW Bull Mountain Road. If children are bused across SW Bull Mountain Road,
there is no need to establish safety enhancements, such as a signalized and/or striped pedestrian
crossing, across this roadway. However, if there are planned events or school activities that will
attract students at times other than regular school busing hours, the need for some form of traffic
control should be considered across SW Bull Mountain Road to protect the safety of children
crossing this roadway. Potential remedial measures include the implementation of warning signs
and flashers along the road. Another effective measure would be to use school crossing guards. The
safest location to establish any school crossing measures would be at the intersection of SW Bull
Mountain Road and SW 133`d Avenue, which is on a straight section of road in clear view of all
approaching traffic.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on the results of the transportation impact analysis, the proposed Alberta Rider Elementary
School can be developed while maintaining adequate levels of service and safety on the surrounding
transportation system. The analysis developed the following findings and recommendations:
Findings
• During both the existing weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hours, the two existing study
intersections at SW Bull Mountain Road at SW 133`d Avenue and SW Greenfield Drive
are functioning within acceptable operating parameters.
K KrrTELSON & ASSOCIATES. INC. 27
TMNSPORTATION PUINNINGlfRAFFt. ENGWEERII
Alberta R/der Elementary Schw/ Pro/ect 0. 6041.0
Apt# 15, 2004
• A review of Washington County's most recent (1999 - 2001) Safety Priority
Improvement System (SPIS) list revealed that the existing study intersections are not
listed in the SPIS and a review of the crash histories of both intersections indicate there
are no perceived safety issues.
• Available intersection sight distance from the minor street approach of SW 133`d Avenue
at SW Bull Mountain Road is deficient. The sight distance restriction is created by the
presence of landscaped hedges on the private properties located on the southwest and
southeast comers of the intersection. In order to achieve adequate intersection sight
distance these hedges would need to be trimmed back. The consent of the property
owners would be needed to do this.
• Year 2005 background conditions (without construction of the proposed elementary
school) were estimated assuming one year of continued regional growth along with the
traffic generated by all identified in-process developments. Operational analyses indicate
that the study intersections will continue to function within acceptable operating
standards during both the weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hours.
• The proposed development is estimated to generate approximately 665 net new daily trip
ends, of which approximately 190 trips (110 in, 80 out) will occur during the weekday
a.m. peak hour and 170 trips (80 in, 90 out) are estimated for the weekday p.m. peak
hour.
• Under forecast year 2005 total traffic conditions (with the proposed elementary school
development), all study intersections are forecast to function within acceptable operating
standards during both the weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hours.
• Based on the estimated 2005 total traffic conditions, a left-turn lane will be warranted on
the westbound approach of SW Bull Mountain Road at SW 133`d Avenue and on the
eastbound approach of SW Bull Mountain Road at SW Greenfield Drive. The warranted
left-turn lane on the approach to SW 133`d Avenue should be constructed prior to the
school opening to serve traffic related to existing homes in the neighborhood, future
residents of the Summit Ridge Development and traffic related to the proposed school. If
deemed necessary by the City of Tigard, the appropriate time to construct the warranted
eastbound left-turn lane on the approach to SW Greenfield Drive would be upon the
completion of the H Street extension, whereby, a left-turn lane will be warranted on the
opposing westbound approach of SW Bull Mountain Road.
• A right turn lane will be warranted for the eastbound approach of SW Bull Mountain
Road and SW 133`d Avenue under 2005 total traffic conditions. However, aright-turn
lane does not appear to be justified as the warrant will only be satisfied during one hour
of the day (weekday a.m.. peak hour) and the intersection is forecasted to function within
acceptable operating parameters without any changes.
• A traffic signal installation is not necessary at the intersection of SW Bull Mountain
Road and SW 133`d Avenue until both the intersection Level-of-Service becomes
- -.__~__J mu and cri Yticnlal nl•iirarrah}~ am, CAt1Cfie
substa-M uigiaw -
• An adjustment to the City of Tigard's access spacing standard of 200 feet will be
necessary to justify the location of the proposed gated emergency access driveway to
SW Bull Mountain Road.
• A variance to the City of Tigard's street connection spacing standard of 530 feet will be
necessary.
W% ELSON L ASSOCIATES, INC. 28
TRANgPCRTATbN P.NINGfTRAFFIC ENOINEERII.
Alberta Rlder Elementary School project 0.- 6041.0
April 15, 2004
To guarantee the safety of children, it is recommended that the Tigard-Tualatin School
District bus all students who reside north of SW Bull Mountain Road. If planned events
or school activities will attract students at times other than regular school busing hours,
the need for some form of traffic control, such as a school crossing guard, should be
considered to help children cross SW Bull Mountain Road safely. The best location for
any school crossing control would be at the intersection of SW 133`d Avenue.
Recommendations
e Construct a westbound left-turn lane along SW Bull Mountain Road at SW 133`d Avenue
with 100 feet of vehicle storage to serve existing residents who live along SW 133`d
Avenue, future residents of the Summit Ridge Development, and traffic related to the
proposed school. It should be noted that the City of Tigard has placed a condition of
approval on the Summit Ridge Development to construct a left-turn lane on the
westbound approach to this intersection.
e Trim back the hedges on the southwest and southeast corners of the intersection of SW
Bull Mountain Road and SW 133`d Avenue to achieve more than 400 feet of sight
distance from the SW 133`d Avenue approach, when measured from a point 15 feet
behind the edge of the travel lane.
• Construct an emergency site-access driveway to SW Bull Mountain Road. The access
shall have a gate and be locked at all times except during emergencies.
e Construct site frontage improvements along the south side of SW Bull Mountain Road
including additional pavement width, a planting strip, and a sidewalk.
• Construct a new local street extending east from SW 133`d Avenue and terminating on
the school site with a cul-de-sac. Two driveways should be established to the cul-de-sac:
one serving buses and the other serving normal traffic needs.
Construct two pedestrian/bicycle connections to SW Bull Mountain Road in the
northwest and northeast corners of the site. Construct an additional pedestrian/bicycle
connection to the east property boundary accessing the future H Street alignment. Extend
a pedestrian/bicycle connection along the western property boundary to the future F
Street stub of the Summit Ridge Development. This connection should also be designed
to accommodate emergency vehicles.
e School area traffic controls (i.e., signs, pavement markings, and school speed zones) are
recommended for SW Bull Mountain Road to alert drivers to the presence of the school.
e It is recommended the Tigard-Tualatin School District bus all students who reside north
of SW Bull Mountain Road to and from school. In the event that students need to cross
SW Bull Mountain Road with regard to school activities outside the normal busing
. hours, safety measures such as a school guard crossing should be implemented at the
intersection of SW 133`d Avenue.
eibght-distance, any landscaping should be limited to
_.t_,.....a..
o To enSUlc auoaiuaw :nwrseCtinn.
low-lying ground cover and City of Tigard approved street trees along the SW Bull
Mountain Road site frontage.
29
KITTELSON & ASSOCIATES INC.
TRANSPORTAiftN PLANN WQ FF1C ENG NEER4
Alberta Rider Elementary Sch001 project 0: 604 1. 0
Apn7 15, 2004
We trust this letter adequately addresses the traffic impacts associated with the proposed Alberta
Rider Elementary School development. Please contact us if you have any questions or comments
regarding the contents of this report or the analysis performed.
PRO&.
~ s
Sincerely, ~~GIWEF9 /may
KITTELSON & ASSOCIATES, INC. Qz 6002 Pe
EOON
Brian Dunn, P.E.
Senior Engineer ~y ~OSEPN~
E,cPtpss:~a- 3i- os~
REFERENCES
1) Transportation Research Board. Highway Capacity Manual. 2000.
2) DKS Associates. 2020 Washington County Transportation System Plan. 2002.
3) Institute of Transportation Engineers. ITE Trip Generation Manual, Sixth Edition. 1997.
4) M.D. Harmelink. Volume Warrants for Left-Turn Storage Lanes at Unsignalized Grade
Intersections.
5) Transportation Research Board. National Cooperative Highway Research Program, Report
No. 279, Intersection Channelization Design Guide. 1985.
6) Federal Highway Administration. Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. 2000.
APPENDICES
Appendix A: Traffic Count Data
Appendix B: Description of Level-of-Service Methods and Criteria
Appendix C: 2004 Existing Traffic Operations Worksheets
Appendix D: In-Process Development Traffic
Appendix E: 2005 Background Traffic Operations Worksheets
Appendix F: 2005 Total Traffic Operations Worksheets
Appendix G: Turn Lane Warrant Worksheets
Appendix H:- Signal Warrant Analysis Worksheets
Appendix I: F Street Extension Concept
Appendix J: Future Street Plan and Site Access and Circulation Plan Maps
cc: Sean Scott, Ellis-Eslick Architects
Rick Rainone- Cornerstone Construction
Ed Murphy - Ed Murphy & Associates
30
KITTELSCN ~ ASSOCI~►TES. INC.
WNW TRANSF CM.- F-IN-11-- FIC ENOiNEERII
Appendix
Traffic Cunt Data
m
Wdd yJ }Vy V J ~ W}J~ W Wya myy }C. }W~ W3 W W m pWp mpp I-4 tJn V V -J~ tJ -yl V V V ~di dV *52 ~ Z
O iA S N 9pp Uy y Np O (J. yOy tk >Oa Nyy O N yOy IA b~ O Gpp s Nyy. yNy Oy 1yA O 9...444q
A ~ O ~ O 1 p
O O O O O O O 'O O Q O 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 IC O s 2
a~ o =
0 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0-0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0t 9 3 ,t 0 ~i
g y s ra'~
a y 0 r 0 Z
0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 9
0 000 0
ff le
x
o0 Oo o~ o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0~ ~ m~ r
5 r' C 3
NN NN NyC _ g
({pp p tWp mm fJ N Ol m+ N fJ N N A O O A 4l N N J N fD N+ W ~ Oi C p~ $ G N
~ Y
! ~ V O N~fJ. ~ C _ N
CL 3
m N O.V ~ 0.+ O O O O W O N+ ~ W O,O O O'O 0 0 0+ O~
S O O A O+ N++++ O+ O W W A W O+ N O S
41 O ® m m + = n
` r 1
0 0 0 o c o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -0- 0 0 00 0 2 g ,o
N O O O O O O O O O O O+ 0 0 0 0 0+ 0 0 0 0+ ` Z% °
N++ N 0~ = r 8 ~ r ~ D 0
a -I s m m ;
~ N o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0++ 0 0 0+ 0 0 0 0 0+~ m ~ ~O ~ g ~ 0% = m m m
N N W W A I ym--► ° fT' 6 6
21
tJ 4f to 4a t(~~ A f,~ Ap t~oA Ap !J MyGG
W A A N+~iJ W N A 41 ~ N N Go N V~~~ N O) i N iJ + O fAp
r ~ N m O ~ ~ gCCCp ~r N, .o ~ y "LL
G v W
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 OO O P 0 0 0 0 0 0 -.00 Q
0000 0 ' ~~ye
2
3
m O o 0 0 0 0 0. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0_
+ b in M
~n ~ o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o a
0000-,~ mm + o
w $ F ~ 8
m
0 0 0 0 0 0+ o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o c_ 3
06
. ° S Y C 41 gN 3
~a
Ov.
00 + + 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ` O ° O 9 2 Q g N
Cm IF,
IF,
4}
y O ' g °
~{pp pA~ pp p p p (A A A N {A A p1 ~~AA N pp~~ A O ppff V t~oA N 2p~ A A pp m w N b
< W W A O ~ W N. f~l O~ J <O tp V V O A W Ll O+ N O~ A+ W tG V ~ O + "
Y ~ ~0 0 0 0 0 0+ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0+ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 + N
+ N N
N
> pp yy p yj~~ ~~33 dd d m
' dm Jy }J~ JJy ~ m fpD mP m m mn my my my my m Jy J Vy Jy J Jy J J V V Vy J ~
N O N i11 O N O N O~ ~ N O C!1 O tJ1 ~ N O 01 O?
m
Q
o a p ry9~ i Z
~ N > 4
9 r O W W W W r W O O r. . A N O ^ ~ 4 N
• v N o m N~ O ~ ~ ~ S~
o m o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 L t5
Q 3Z
0 y ~T r 0
n G1 Q
Jv j~ ~N~4INNNOW WmNW N~NNN mOWWWO~ .bl.:N S n
J g;. g 38 6p
0 r G
p N+ 0 • O N O O N O O N W N r 0 0 0 m -1 t 1 Zm
m m. A N N ~ ~ ~
mm~ J ~ o y
p ' A UN m 8 O t Au N W O A V m A 0 tO W m+ m N W A~ Fjr O u~i N
a ~ a Zt
~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 ~
0 0 0 0 0
9
m 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0'0 0 0 0 0 0 o u o a n
0 0 0 0 0 = N
3 ~ ~J N
o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o a o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o a o~ S n ~ + $
0 0 0 0 0 ~ ~
0 r 51 °fl9i
0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 c• o
0 0 0 0 0= Z
x y ~ HV= 0% ao HV= O% z m m m
0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o s c ~ ~ 18 0 o v
L x
ooooda~ m 0 ~
W N A v N N fAJ A W rfl W N V O Oj A N N 2 0 V J M ; 'Z
N m CGS ~•tlj'.~ N
m O N
-,""00000000-
'T n
N-.00000-0--
V m m V Of
2
}
f o 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o S
00
o o a o 0 0 0 0 o as o 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 m~ g3
. 40*
0 0 0 0 0 ,g ~ d {f
c c m ~S
.g o 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a
z~ v
0 it
' S p O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o p o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o N V O 9
0 0 0 0 0
O tJ ~ YI O 41 N tND A O fJ N A N O~~ m+ ~ A N W~ ~ V
tp m -i
' S' m N. N tm0 O S O D
top
oooo.~oo-~ooo oo00000000000 L
w N N- o° n
a
m $
n z
N' A},~ a A N N N A N N N~ N tT N A A A A A A A A A A A A Q
•avrorovvtrororo~rovvv•vv•nv•a•o-ovv a~
rororororo so$
m
o° o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0° o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0~ ~t l
~oooo x J r~ ~ 4 ~ W
o 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 ~ a 2 .1 L p
R arm
0 0 0 0 0 y
o o g
O OO O O R 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O~ V p~' N T
6
A o o0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 m m
0 0 0 0 0
a 9
N++ O N O N O O O N W O O O O 0 0 0 O, O S
r O D m N
a T~
n
0 0 0 0 0 0+ 0 0 0 O
o"0000000 Z to
A A O! N W I ~ ~ t
~~3 J11 A
0 0 0 0 0~~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Oo 0 0 2 D j ~
CC ° x= >
p C C
N a- is
N N 0 0 0~ O O O O N 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0` ;
HV= 0% HVB 0% z m m m
a N O O O+ N N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ^ m N -C ~~a11 ~5 d
Flo p 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 gro
m ~ Q
° o o o o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 a
' 0000.0 ~ ~
g
a C O
~ aro -ro-~
m 00
AV 'S
o 0 00 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
999 ~ ~ 0 ~ m 9 ~
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C m ~ s~~~~
0 0 0 0 0
V~~ G ~ V O O O A J ho O r Oi. ~ Of ~ N N V N N W N O ° N N
P. V O S y
a 1
r 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O w
r ~ r o 0
N A }A~yy 'R P ~ FFNnn t, N. N N N. N w N~ 1. N~ N Ln N N' .A3, u A A P A t Pt•,, 1. A~ A A A A P p 9
~ii O tip i N a in O o g W O g D to m C
$ ; p rorororororororororororororororororo mmvv.0.0
Iy
' Q
O
W O O P® + 1V N O O O N W N+ 0 0 0 O N O O O O O+ N N+ t0 cb Y '7 0 p O
.S. Q 4 62L
'*J 4L x
0 o a o o o ono 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0~ 7 3
S° 9 0 L 13 9
C C
fD V W O+ CL N W O+ W N O A+ O N+ W O O -00 0- 4"- O s -f a 8
m N 0 R D z
g ~ .S O ty7
A~ N O A W O N W W A W W W+ N N N N W N 10 ~ 3 ; ~ ~ ~ Vi
m m g
W W+ N~~ N fl N Qi ~C N~~ (Ali fA0 N m O m tN0 A Y tND P N (D m !O ~G ~ g~ ~ 1
CL = d^ o
s s s
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 b o O O o O O O O O O O b A 17 7
`r g
O O O O O g O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O g O 0 0 0 0 0 0 1SS
a
00000
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o g o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o q o N
6 c
8 0 ~ ~
r .g 7aC y
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O o O O O O O o O O O o o p O O O~ N 7C -1
...TTT 1-- D e- 32 O O
y_ S o a
oooooa, oooooooooo00000000000000 3~m y NV= 0% ~a HV~ 0% = minm
ImNmt Ny SRI p N W N 0 r 45 p a pa
P t!~ O N A N N t0 O O ONi W N Y A N N tO Oi m 2 p N N C O
r O ro O ro an N
e+.. O O m + W+ N N O O N++ 0-0 - - -
N O O O O N 1f
j M ID r
0 0~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0+ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~
S
'O
0 0 0 0 0 000=000 O O O O O O O 0 O O O O o~ b g
a ~ f
q
Kn O ~ O A
0 0 0 0 0~~ O O O O O O O O O O O g O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0~ p m 4J0~® S IG u
S d ro T y
7 v y ® t~ m
0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1~D O+ C C K pp
P7
~ln
~O N O fA0 S ST N m A 0 JN A m N Co 10 1. O W (J ~ N N N V
V ~ W A
O O w o
O O a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0+ 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O O C
N N
1
Quality Counts, LLC Site Code: 10009801
16285 SW 85th Ave, Ste 105 Site Code: 10009801
Tigard, OR 97224 Station ID:
Tubes were placed 60 feet
west of Greenfield on Bull Mt Rd
Latitude: 0' 0.000 Undefined
Westbound on Bull Mt Pace Number
start 1 30 33 36 39 42 45 48 51 54 57 60 63 66
The 29 32 35 38 41 44 47 50 53 58 59 82 65 999 Total Seed in Pace
06112/03 7,77m-may
02:00
.77
N=. MUM
0600 xr --r^-*^" - S
- f~4 { a,dL 1.1 _ r ...:n_~ SFI r _Y cu"L.. • e • • e
. ~ • 'rya
MIMEMMIMME"
167777
. xt
MIN -117T
12 PP.1 _ 0` 0 306 32 41+ 235
14:00 23 47 89 89 17 _ e 5-.
0
X42 21 70 149 112 42 3 ..p .1 . 0 _ O . 0 0 0 440 33 42
10.00 -
p 418 33-42 3368
a. . M :s
1f3:o0 24 20 66 111 145 41 a 10 OMMUM 1111M, M M;
g2 92 3B y 10 5 U 0 0 0 0 0 304 3342 Y227
20:00 17 21 41
IM MM
52 43 1 « 1 0 0 0 0 0 139 33 42 116
16 3
r =M.
22:00 4
~f a f 0 3329
23 3 0 0 0 p
Total 246 201 491 1028 928 330 79
Percent 7.490 6.0% 14.7% 30.990 27..9% 9.9% 2.4% 0.7% 0.1% 0.0% 0.09° 0.0% 0.090 0.0%
AM Peak
17:00
Volume _
pM peak 16:00 14:00 16:00 97:00 1 145 17:00 19:13 19:05 14:01 453
Volume 42 30 70 161 145 53 13
Page 1
Quality Counts, LLC Site Code: 110009B01
16285 SW 85th Ave, Ste 105 Site Code: 10009801
Tigard, OR 97224 Station ID:
Tubes were placed 60 feet
west of Greenfield on Bull Mt Rd
Latitude: 0' 0.000 Undefined
Westbound on Bull Mt 57 60 63 66 Pace Number
Start 1 30 33 36 39 42 45 48 51 54
Time 29 32 35 36 41 4 47 500 53 566 51 620 650 9990 Tots ' Speed 35 44 in Pe 2
06113103 3 2 5 12 9} 101111M I
p 0 0 0 23 32-41 17
2 3 0 - 0
u.- Tu„.W 4 70 1
0 5
7-777-11- 0200 1
1 0 1 1 x~ 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 32-41 7 FEW
04 00 2 4 0
j u~ 5
0 0 0 0 0 62 35-44 49
21 1 111
~7 ~s 1 ':1 11 2 0 0
0600 0 .7 15 20 11
~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 167 32-41 119
U M no am MM Pq
0800 30 ,13 43 46 25 10 0
150
r1.4*' ~
10:00 41 :25 43 50 48 26 5 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 242 2-41
"
12 FM 30 111111 g !11 111111 vic g~,-~,77 -77
1111i MIMI!
14.00 S
IM;
Loa
• S~iSSeat24lS,i 4 F
101 111111,111%11111111111110 1
r
10- 2-1.5 • _
, r... .
1600
mill 907. 1 1
- -
20:00
ri 17 11-11717 =77'111 W. FWWRIMR
22:00 9 2 2 1 1 0 0 896
185 205 185 86 21
Total 123 T6
Percent 13.7% 8..5% 20.8% 22.9% 20.6% 9.8% 2.3% 0.2% 0.1% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 10:00
AM Peak 10:00 1(1:00 09:00 • 10:00 10:00 10:00 10:00 10:00 00:00 03:00 00:00 03:00 242
52 50 ' 48 26 5 3
Volume 41 25
PM Peak 0 4225
Volume 5 2 1 1 0
Total 369 277 876 1233 1113 416 100 32
.4% 0.8% 0.1% 0.0
Percent g.7% 6.6% 16.0% 29.2% 26.3% 9.8% 2°/, 0.0°/, 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
15th Percentile : 32 MPH
both Percentile : 37 MPH
85th Percentile : 41 MPH
95th Percentile : 44 MPH
Slats 10 MPH Pace Speed : 33-42 MPH a
Number In Pace : 3161
Percent In Pace : 74.8%
Number of Vehicles > 55 MPH : 2
Percent of Vehicles > 55 MPH : 0.0% Page 2
Quality Counts, LLC
16285 SW 85th Ave, Ste 105 Site Code: 10009801
Tigard, OR 97224 Site Code: 10009801
Station ID:
Tubes were placed 60 feet
west of Greenfield on Bull Mt Rd
Eastbound on Bull Mt Latitude: 0'0.000 Undefined
Start 1 30 33 36 39 42 45 48 51 54 57 60 63 68 Pace Number
Time 29 32 35 38 .41 44 47 50 53 56 59 62 65 999 Total Speed in Pace
08/12103
02:00
ai m
04:00 W
06.00
08. 0
_.7_. 1777 MUM,
,;nom e. w...~....J`.s
10:00
MEW,
12F~1 y
14:00 11 6 33 90 83 28 12 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 265 33-42 216
L 16:00 32. 8 29 84 88 51 X11 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 3D6 35-44 233
11-9171 T
18:00_ 28 6 25 72 92r 51 11 4 0 0 0 1 0 0 290 35-44 224
20A0 19 3 14 32 32 23~ 9 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 137 35-44 92
22:00 4 3 11 13 25 16 6 4 0 1 0 0 0 0 83 35-44 5B
Total 234 66 248 615 656 338 100 29 8 4 1 1 0 0 2310
Percent 10.1% 2.9% 10.7% 26.6% 28.8% 14.6% 4.3% 1.3% 0.3% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
AM Peak
VOILM
PM Peak 17:00 13:00 15:00 14:00 17:00 16:00 17:00 19:00 17:00 19:00 21:00 18:00 17:00
Volume 51 14 35 90 95 51 19 5 2 2 1 1 344
Page 4
Quality Counts, LLC
16285 SW 85th Ave, Ste 105 Site Code: 10009801
Tigard, OR 97224 Site Code: 1
ID:
Station ion ID:
Tubes were placed 60 feet
west of Greenfield on Bull Mt Rd
Latitude:9 0.000 Undefined
Eastbound on Bull Mt Pace Number
Start 1 30 33 36 39 42 45 48 51 54 57 60 63 66
Ttne 29 32 35 38 41 44 47 50 53 56 59 62 65 999 Total Seed in Pace
06113103 1 0 4 6 8 6 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 28 35 44
n: - I . e . . -
0 0 0 0 15 35 44 11
02:00 1 3 0 2 6 3 0 0 00
~cx r ,1 ,
I jig in, 11 22 35'44 19p
g 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
04100 W 0 0 r:_ 1, . 5 7
Will
9 2 0 p 0 0 0 0 235 35-44 208
06:00 d 2 16 80 78 44
r ',•tTys•l4CR'7. mrr+.-~{w•".,.T..l'1'~-.r*."ie^!^„ - _ _
0 0 0 0 0 0 378 3342 313
08 00 25 1 5T 136 111 27 5 0 _ 11
0 '0 0 p: ; p a 0 . 299 32-41 242
10:00 17 19 49 97 89 19 5 4
,asr~ c ~:P^ c K
12 PM Rill ''Ill lil
A
14:00
10A0 s ~r
.1 ~~.u.6u~m'`~.. F ~:.:±L. - 1 r ♦ 5fier «.tv ♦nb •Y • , , ♦ • ♦ •
2ooa
2' oo - ! G
MGM-
0 0 0 1780
Total 95 71 231 597 518 204 45 17 0 1
Percent 5.3% 4.0% 13.0% 33.5% 29.1% 11.5% 2.5% 1.0% 0.1% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0%' 0.0% 0700
AM Peak 09:00 10:00 08:00 08:00 07;00 06:00 07:00 03:00 04:00 01:00 391
Volume 28 19 57 136 121 44 10 4
PM Peek
Volume 2 1. 0 0 4090
5
Total 329 137 479 1212 1184 542 145 46 8
Percent 6.0% 3.3% 11.7% 29.6% 28.9% 13.3% 3.5% 1.1% 0.2% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
15th Percentile : 33 MPH
50th Percentile : 38 MPH
+ 85th Percentile : 42 MPH
95th Percentile : 45 MPH
Slats 10 MPH Pace Speed : 35-44 MPH
Number in Pace: 3098
Percent in Face: 75.7%
Number of Vehicles > 55 MPH : 4
Percent of Vehicles > 55 MPH : 0.1% Page 5
Appendix
Description of Level-of-Service
Methods and Criteria
Appendix B
Level of Service Concept
Level of service (level of service) is a concept developed to quantify the degree of comfort (including
such elements as travel time, number of stops, total amount of stopped delay, and impediments caused
by other vehicles) afforded to drivers as they travel through an intersection or roadway segment. Six
grades are used to denote the various level of service from A to F.t
Signalized Intersections
The six level of service grades are described qualitatively for signalized intersections in Table B1.
Additionally, Table B2 identifies the relationship between level of service and average control delay
per vehicle. Control delay is defined to include initial deceleration delay, queue move-up time,
stopped delay, and final acceleration delay. Using this definition, level of service D is generally
considered to represent the minimum acceptable design standard.
Table B1
Level of Service Definitions (Signalized Intersections)
Level of
Service Average Delay per Vehicle
Very low average control delay, less than 10 seconds per vehicle. This occurs when progression is
A extremely favorable, and most vehicles arrive during the green phase. Most vehicles do not stop at
all. Short cycle lengths may also contribute to low delay.
Average control delay is greater than 10 seconds per vehicle and less than or equal to 20 seconds per
B vehicle. This generally occurs with good progression and/or short cycle lengths. More vehicles stop
than for a level of service A, causing higher levels of average delay.
Average control delay is greater than 20 seconds per vehicle and less than or equal to 35 seconds per
C vehicle. These higher delays may result from fair progression and/or longer cycle lengths. Individual
cycle failures may begin to appear at this level. The number of vehicles stopping is significant at
this level, although many still pass through the intersection without stopping.
Average control delay is greater than 35 seconds per vehicle and less than or equal to 55 seconds per
vehicle. The influence of congestion becomes more noticeable. Longer delays may result from some
D combination of unfavorable progression, long cycle length, or high voiume%apacity ratios. Many
vehicles stop, and the proportion of vehicles not stopping declines. Individual cycle failures are
noticeable.
Average control delay is greater than 55 seconds per vehicle and less than or equal to 80 seconds per
E vehicle. This is usually considered to be the limit of acceptable delay. These high delay values
generally (but not always) indicate poor progression, long cycle lengths, and high volume/capacity
ratios. Individual cycle failures are frequent occurrences.
Average control delay is in excess of 80 seconds per vehicle. This is considered to be unacceptable
F to most drivers. This condition often occurs with oversaturation. It may also occur at high
volumetcapacity ratios below 1.0 with many individual cycle failures. Poor progression and long
cycle lengths may also contribute to such high delay values.
1 Most of the material in this appendix is adapted from the Transportation Research Board, Highway Capacity
Manual, Special (2000).
KtTTELSON & ASSOCIATES. INC- B-1
TPmsPOtTAPON PLANNWOMMFFIC ENGINEER"
Table B2
Level of Service Criteria for Signalized Intersections
Level of Service Average Control Delay per Vehicle (Seconds)
A 510.0
B >10 and 520
C >20 and <_35
D >35 and 555
E >55 and <_80
F >80
Unsignalized Intersections
Unsignalized intersections include two-way stop-controlled (TWSQ and all-way stop-controlled
(AWSQ intersections. The 2000 Highway Capacity Manual provides models for estimating control
delay at both TWSC and AWSC intersections. A qualitative description of the various service levels
associated with an unsignalized intersection is presented in Table B3. A quantitative definition of
level of service for unsignalized intersections is presented in Table B4. Using this definition, level of
service E is generally considered to represent the minimum acceptable design standard.
Table B3
Level of Service Criteria for Unsi alized Intersections
Level of
Service Average Delay per Vehicle to Minor Street
A • Nearly all drivers find freedom of operation.
• Very seldom is there more than one vehicle in queue.
B • Some drivers begin to consider the delay an inconvenience.
• Occasional) there is more than one vehicle in queue.
C _ • Many times there is more than one vehicle in.queue.
• Most drivers feel restricted, but not objectionably so.
D • Often there is more than one vehicle in queue.
o Drivers feel quite restricted.
• Represents a condition in which the demand is near or equal to the probable maximum
E number of vehicles that can be accommodated by the movement.
• There is almost always more than one vehicle in queue.
• Drivers fend the delays approaching intolerable levels.
• Forced flow.
F . Represents an intersection failure condition that is caused by geometric and/or operational
constraints external to the intersection.
KITTELSON & ASSOCIATES, INC. B 2
TRAMPORTATION PLANNINQMtA FIO ENOINEERII
~k
Table B4
Level of Service Criteria for Unsi alized Intersections
Level of Service Average Control Delay per Vehicle (Seconds)
A :510
B >10 and <_15
C >15 and <25
D >25 and <35
fi >35 and <_50
F >50
It should be noted that the level of service criteria for unsignalized intersections are somewhat
different than the criteria used for signalized intersections. The primary reason for this difference is :i
that drivers expect different levels of performance from different kinds of transportation facilities. }
The expectation is that a signalized intersection is designed to carry higher traffic volumes than an
unsignalized intersection. Additionally, there are a number of driver behavior considerations that ;
combine to.make delays at signalized intersections less onerous than at unsignalized intersections.
For example, drivers at signalized intersections are able to relax during the red interval, while
drivers on the minor street approaches to TWSC intersections must remain attentive. to the task of
identifying acceptable gaps and vehicle conflicts. Also, there is often much more variability in the
amount of delay experienced by individual drivers at unsignalized intersections than signalized
intersections. For these reasons, it is considered that the control delay threshold for any given level
of service is less for an unsignalized intersection than for a signalized intersection. While overall
intersection level of service is calculated for AWSC intersections, level of service is only
calculated for the minor approaches and the major street left turn movements at TWSC
intersections. No delay is assumed to the major street through movements. For TWSC
intersections, the overall intersection level of service remains undefined: level-of-service is only
calculated for each minor street lane.
In the performance evaluation of TWSC intersections, it is important to consider other measures of
effectiveness (MOE's) in addition to delay, such as v/c ratios for individual movements, average
queue lengths, and 95a'-percentile queue lengths. By focusing on a single, MOE for the worst
movement only, such as delay for the minor-street left turn, users may make inappropriate traffic
control decisions. The potential for making such inappropriate decisions is likely to be particularly
pronounced when the HCM level-of-service thresholds are adopted as legal standards, as is the case
in many public agencies.
- H-3
KMTELSON' & ASSOCIATES, INC.
!MF7FOFfAT1ONPtAN WWTAAFFIG ENGINEERN
Appendix C
2004 Existing Operations
Worksheets
am Fri Apr 9, 2004 11:52:57 Page 1-1 am Fri A r 9- 2004 11.52:57 Page 2-1
-
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. -.Project #(6041)
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Project #(6041) Alberta Rider Elementa
-Alberta Rider Elementary School 2004 Existing Condition, Weekday AM Peak Hour
2004 Existing Condition, Weekday AM Peak Hour ry School
Scenario Report I~LevelnOfyServRGport
Scenario: am
Intersection Base Future Change
Volume: am Det/ V/ Del/ V/ in
Geometry: am LOS Veh C LOS Veh C
em # 1 Bull Mtn. Rd/SW 133rd Ave B 1.4 0.000 B 1.4 0.000 + 0.000 V/C
Fact Fee: Default Impact Fee
Trip Generation: am # 2 Bull Mountain Road/ Greenfield B 3.3 0.000 B 3.3 0.000 + 0.000 V/C
Trip Distribution: em
Paths: Default Paths
Routes: Default Routes
Configuration: Default Configuration
i
ix 7.5.0715 (c) 2002 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to DOWLING ASSOCIATES, INC. Traffix 7.5.0715 (e) 2002 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to DOWLING ASSOCIATES, INC.
Treff
S
Page 1 of 2
ERAM.WT 4-9-104 11:52a
am Fri Apr 9, 2004 11:52:57 Page 3-1 am Fri Apr 9, 2004 11:52:57
Page 4-1
Kittelson & Associates Inc.. -Project #(6041) Rider Elementary School Kittelson & Associates, Inc, - Project #(6041)
Alberta
2004 Existing Condition, Weekday AM Peak Hour Alberta Rider Elementary School
2004 Existing Condition, Weekday AM Peak Hour
Level Of Service Computation Report Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Base Volume Alternative) 2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Base Volume Alternative)
Intersection #1 Bull Mi:n. Rd/SW 133rd Ave Intersection #2 Bull Mountain Road/ Greenfield Drive
Average Delay (see/veh): 1.4 worst Case Level Of Service: B Average Delay (sec/veh): 3.3 worst Case Level Of Service: B
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement: L- T- R L- T- R L- T- R L- T- R Movement: L- T- R L- T- R L- T- R L- T R
Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign
Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Control: ( Stop Sign Stop Sign Uncontrolled Uncontrolled
Rights: Include Include Include Include Rights: Include Include Include Include
Lanes: 0 0 if 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0- 1 -0- 0 0 Lanes: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
Volume Module: Count Date: 26 Feb 2004 << NOD a.m. - 9:00 a.m. Volume Module: Count Date: 26 Feb 2004 « t-OD 8:00 AM
Base Vol: 5 0 20 0 0 0 0 530 5 5 205 0 Base Vol: 0 0 0 35 0 15 5' 545 0 0 175 10
Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Initial Bse: 5 0 20 0 0 0 0 530 5 5 205 0 Initial Bse: 0 0 0 35 0 15 5 545 0 0 175 10
User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Adj: 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 PHF Adj: 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
PHF Volume: 5 0 22 0 0 0 0 576 5 5 223 0 PHF Volume: 0 0 0 39 0 17 6 606 0 0 194 11
Reduct Vol: 0 C, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
final vol.: --5--- 0 22 0 0 0 0 576 5 5 223 0 Final Vol.: 0 0 0 39 0 17 6 606 0 0 194 11
Critical Gap Module: Critical Gap Module: -11
Critical Gp: 6.4 xxxx 6.3 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 4.2 xxxx xxxxx Critical Gp:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 6.4 xxxx 6.2 4.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
_ FollowUpTim: 3.5 xxxn 3.3 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 2.3 xxxx xxxxx FollowUpTim xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 3.5 xxxx 3.3 2.2 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
11
Capacity Module: Capacity Module:
Cnflict Vol: 813 xxxx 579 xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 582 xxxx xxxxx Cnflict Vol: xxxx xxxx xxxxx 817 xxxx 200 206 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx
Potent Cap.: 344 xxxx 509 xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 968 xxxx xxxxx Potent Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx 346 xxxx 841 1360 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx
Move Cap.: 343 xxxx 509 xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 968 xxxx xxxxx Move Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx 345 xxxx 841 1360 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx
-
Level Of Service Module: If if ( Level Of Service Module:
Stopped Del:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 8.7 xxxx xxxxx Stopped Del:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 7.7 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
LOS by Move: * * * * * * * * * A * * LOS by Move: * * * * * * A
Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT
Shared Cap.: xxxx 464 xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx 419 xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx
Shrd StpOel:xxxxx 13.2 xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 8.7 xxxx xxxxx Shrd StpOel:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx 14,9 xxxxx 7,7 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
Shared LOS: * B * * * * * * * A * * Shared LOS: * * * * B * A * * * * #
Approach0et: 13.2 xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx ApproachDel: xxxxxx 14.9 xxxxxx xxxxxx
ApproachLOS: 8 * * * ApproachLOS: * 8
Traffix 7.5.0715 (c) 2002 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to DOWLING ASSOCIATES, INC. Traffix 7.5.0715 (c) 2002 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to DOWLING ASSOCIATES, INC.
EXAM.OUT 4-9-104 11:52a Page 2 of 2
Fri Apr 9, 2004 11:53:00 Page-2-1---
Fri Apr 9, 2004 11:53:00 eg@"1''
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. - Project #(6041)
Kittelson 6 Associates, Inc. Project #(6041) Alberta Rider Elementary School
Alberta Rider Elementary School 2004 Existing Condition, ----Weekday - PH Pea: Hour------------------
2004 Existing Condition, Weekday PM Peak Hour
Impact Analysis Report
Scenario Report Level 0 Service
Scenario: I Base Future Change
Intersection Del/ V/ pet/ V/ in
Command; ?m LOS ,eh C LOS Veh C + 0.000 V/C
Volume.' Pm # 1 Bull Mtn. WSW 133rd Ave B 2.6 0.000 B 2.6 O.DOQ
Geometry: .fault Impact Fee
comet Fee: # 2 Bull Mountain Road/ Greenfield C 1.9 0.000 C 1.9 0.000 + 0.00 V
Trip Generation: Fm
Tripp Distribution: Default Paths
Pat 9: Routes: Default Routes Configuration: Default Configuration
2002 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to DOWLING ASSOCIATES, INC. Tr affix 7.5.0715 (c) 2002 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to DOWLING ASSOCIATES, INC. _
Traffix 7.5.0715 (c) $
Page 1 of 2
EXPH.OUT 4-9-104 11:53a
PM Fri Apr 9, 2004 11.53.00 Page 3-1 Pm Fri Apr 9, 2004 11:53:00 Page 4-1
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. - Project #(6041) Kittelson & Associates, Inc. - Project #(6041)
Alberta Rider Elementary School - Alberta Rider Elementary school
2004_ Existing Condition, Weekday PM Peak Hour 2004- Existing Condition, Weekday PM Peak Hour
Level Of Service Computation Report Level Of Service computation Report
2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Base Volume Alternative) 2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Base Volume Alternative)
Intersection #1 Bull Mtn. WSW 133rd Ave Intersection 02 Bull Mountain Road/ Greenfield Drive
Average Delay (sec/veh): 2.6 Worst Case Level Of Service: B Average Delay (sec/veh): 1.9 Worst Case Level Of Service: C
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement: L- T- R L- T- R L- T- R L- T- R Movement: L- T- R L- T- R L- T- R L- T- R
Control: 1 11 Stop Sign Stop Sign Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign- Uncontrolled Uncontrolled
Rights: Include include include include Rights: Include Include include include
Lanes: 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 Lanes: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
I--------------- 11--------------- 11--------------- I1---------------1 ------------1---------------11---------------11---------------J1--------- -----I
Volume Module: Count Date: 24 Feb 2004 << :00 pm - 6:00 pm Volume Module: Count Date: 26 Feb 2004 « 100 - 6:00 PM
ease Vol: 5 0 5 0 0 0 0 295 5 10 515 0 ease Vol: 0 0 0 20 0 15 15 285 0 0 510 30
Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Growth Ad!: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Initial Bse: 5 0 5 0 0 0 0 295 5 10 515 0 Initial Bse: 0 0 0 20 0 15 15 285 0 0 510 30
User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1..00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Adj: 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 PHF Adj: 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94
PHF Volume: 5 0 5 0 0 0 0 314• 5 11 548 0 PHF Volume: 0 0 0 21 0 16 16 303 0 0 543 32
neduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Final Vol.: 5 0 5 0 0 0 0 314 5 11 548- ---0 Final Vol.: -0-_--0 0 21 0 16 16 303 0 0 543 32
11 11
Critical Gap Module: Critical Gap Module:
Critical Gp: 6.4 xxxx 6.2 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 4.1 xxxx xxxxx Critical Gp:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 6.4 xxxx 6.2 4.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
FollowUpiim: 3.5 xxxx 3.3 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 2.2 xxxx xxxxx FollowUpTim:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 3.5 xxxx 3.3 2.2 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
-----.--°---J---------------Ji---------------11---------------iJ--------- J 1---------------JJ--------------- 11--------------- 11---------------J
Capacity Module: Capacity Module:
Cnflict Vol: 886 xxxx 316 xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 319 xxxx xxxxx Cnflict Vol: xxxx xxxx xxxxx 894 xxxx 559 574 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx
Potent Cap.: 315 xxxx 724 xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 1247 xxxx xxxxx Potent Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx 312 xxxx 529 999 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx
Move Cap.: 313 xxxx' 724 xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 1247 xxxx xxxxx Move Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx 308 xxxx 529 999 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx
------------I---------------11---------------11---------------11-------------- I - --=-------1--------------11---------------11---------------11---------------1
Level Of Service Module: Level Of Service Module:
Stopped Del:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 7.9 xxxx xxxxx Stopped Del:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 8.7 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
LOS by Move: * # - + * # * . * + + A + * LOS by Move: * # + + + + A * + * # #
Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT_ Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT
Shared Cap.: xxxx 437 xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx 375 xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx
Shrd StpDel:xxxxx 13.4 xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 7.9 xxxx xxxxx Shrd StpDel:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx 15.7 xxxxx 8.7 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
Shared LOS: * 8 * * * * * * * A * * Shared LOS: * * * * C * A
Approach0el: 13.4 xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx ApproachDel: xxxxxx 15.7 xxxxxx xxxxxx
ApproachLOS: 8 * * * ApproachLOS: * C
Traffix 7.5.0715 (c) 2002 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to DOWLING ASSOCIATES, INC. Traffix 7.5.0715 (c) 2002 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to DOWLING ASSOCIATES, INC.
E%PH.OUT 4-9-104 11:53a Page 2 of 2
i
Appendix D
a In-Process Development Traffic
in-Process DevelopmentTrip Assignment
(With 'H" Street Connection to Bull Mountain Road and Summit Ridge Connection to Beef Bend Roaad)
- RPoak SW Bull Mountain Road at SW 133rd Avenue SW Bull MouMaIn Road at SW Cireadleld Drtw
P13 ound Westbound Northbound Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
RIht Left Throu h LeRIM Lori Throw hRIM Left Throw h RI ht Throw h R Lett Throu RI M
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 4 0 32 0 0 0
St. and Nief Bend Connections' 7 t 4 4 5 0 8 0
0
0 0 to 0 0 0 0 O
0 0 4 0 0 0 13 4 11 0 0a 0 0 2 0 0 8 0 0 2
0 0
0 3 0 0 9 0 0 0
3 0 0 0 10 0 0 3 0 7 0 73 0 0 0
Thomwood mshire 0 0
H
Atbor RI a lul developed) 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 8 0 0'
0
14 29 0
Total in-Process 95 7 1 28 4 6 0 38 4 0 11 45 0 0
SW Bull Mountain Road at SW 193rd Avenue goudrbound
PM Peak Hour SW Bull Mountain Road at SW 133rd Ave Northbound Northbound
Eastbound Westbound NNorthbound Eadbound Westbound M
Oevelo ment old h RI ht Lett Throw h Lett RIM Lett Throe h RI ht Lett Throw h RIOM Lett Thrown RIpM Lett Th o 0
Bella Vista 0 0 0 0 0 0 -0 0 0 0 0 19 p 0 p 0
0 31 3 0 7 0 0 0 0
Ems. a w/ H St: and Beef Bend Connectitafs• 0 17 3 7 S 2 0 2 p 0 2 0 0 0
8 0 0 0 p p: p 0
Bull Mtn Phase 111 3 0 0 2' 0 0 0 3
Ee lea View 0 1a. 0 8 0 0 t4 0 0 0 0 D p 0
4 0 0 B 0 0 0
0 p 0
M_y ses Farm 4 ' 8 0 0 4 p D 2 0 p 0 0 0 0 0
Thomwood 4 0 0 2 0 7 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
HtUaNre 4 0 8 0 0 0
8 0 0 0 0' 0 0 0 B 17 0 0
Arbor RI a lull tlavelo etl p
- 0 28 8 48 34 0 11 0 19 0 0
Totalln-Proeaas 94 17 9 98 S 2
Note: -Traffic assignment represents the 'H- Street connection to SW Suit Mountain Road and Beal Bend Road. Connection via Summit Ridge/Bella Vista developments.
In-Process Development Trip Assignment
(With Summit Ridge Connection to Beef Bend Road)
A Peak Ho SW Bull Mountain Road at SW 139rd Avenue SW Bull Mountain Road at SW Oroentteld Drive Southbound
Un-d Bastho Westbound Northbound Eastbound Westbound Northbound
rou h RI ht oR Th roOU h Right
Qoval Through -Right Lett Thro ugh Lett Right Left Through 'RI ht Left Throu h =Ri ht Lett Th
Bona Vista 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 '0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
- Summit Rid a w/ cormectlan t0 Beef Bend' 0 7 9 0 B 37 0 37 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Bull Mtn Phase III 1 0 0. 10. 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 p 0
6 q 0 0 0. 13 0 0 4 0 0
Ea Is* View 0 0 2 0 0 0 6 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Me sea Farm B 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Thomwood 1 0 0 3 0 0 0 1 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0
10 0 0 3 0 0 0 10 0 0 3 0 0 0 0
_ Hiltahke
Arbor Ride not constructed
0 0 0 0 0
Total In-Process 91 7 e 22 a 37 0 as - 0 0 91 0 0
SW, 11 Mountain Road at SW 139rdAvenue Southbound
PM Peak Hour SW Bull Mountain Road at SW 133rd Avenue Westbound Northbound
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Eastbound
Devito mast Throu h RI ht Lett Thtau It Lett RI ht Lett Throu h RI ht Lett Throu h RI ht LeR ThroOU h RIOht Ott in
Sawa Vista roOu h RIO
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0, 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Summit Rki Owl Connection to Beef Bend' 0 17 34 0 15 15 0 15 0
Bus Mtn Pturae III 3 0 0 2 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0
14 0 0 6 0 0 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0
Eagles View 9 0 0 0 4 0 0 8 0 0 O 0
M 1'a Farm 4 0 0 g ThORIW00d 2 0 0 0. 4 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0
7 0 0 7 0 0 7 0 0 7 0 0 0 0
Hllishlre 0
i' Arbor Ridge not cotlshuCle
- 0 65 00 0 0 0 0 0
Tottlln•Prtrcase. 26 17 94 31 15 15 0 Al 0
Note:' • Traffic assignment represents a street connection to Beet Bend Road Via Summit Ridge/Bella Vista developments.
--CITy--o F-Tl GAR BULL MOUNTAIN ROAD .
2ES f \
4 & 2S109DA -
,
0, 2000, 22001
30 I Ili 1
f ~ I
1.0
:RETE .ry R PE''';
Et
-=1
AGE PLAN SITE
N
}
LAN I I
AND 1 f
PLAN
PROFILES ono
kN f 4
VICMTY
SCALE: I" = 409.
5.
25' 25'
f 1 II l II I
11 95 a I! 102 I i 103 I I I 110
x 1 I I 6,585 x,
! i 607 s~, i I ! 6-7x8 SF ! I 4406
J L__ t o E-{) . I [J---me!---J L---- mss' ----0 f- -
f o f 96 I - 11 101 t o I 104 61~ 25' ° I 10~
I III I i SF 1 U, ! 5 500 ~ i I I 5,250
J L._. 5' --u 1 1 tee=--J L_--tee' ---C L---,or.
I n -,----n
v r- i®~►
lb ~n
5500 ~ .
Project Name: 3 K17TELSON & ASSOCIATES, INC.
Project 610 SW Alder, Suite 700
Scenario: Portland, Oregon 97205
Analyst: u + (503) 226-5230
File Name: H:\projfile\6041\exce1\trip gen\[Summit Ridge Trip Gen.xis]Main KN6, Fax: (503) 273-6169
Trip Generation Spreadsheet
Weekday AM Peak Hour Weekday PM Peak Hour Saturday Peak Hour
Land Use Size Units ITE Code Dail Trips Total In Out Total In Out Total In Out
Single Family Housing units 210 LN SL LN SL WJM
Trip Rate 11.41 1.02 25% 75% 1.21 64% 36% 1.25 54% 46%
340 30 10 20 35 25 10 40 20 20
Total Tri s r L
`r q~ a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
None square feet IM-Aqw.
Trip Rate 0.00 0.00 0% 0% 0.00 0% 0% Total Tri s 3 a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ?i 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 None s are feet 0F1 a 5001,
lTrip Rate 0.00 0.00 0% 0% 0.00 0%
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
o% Total Tii s
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 00% 0 I 0 0
0 0
None r square feet 0 - VAK
Trip Rate v> 0.00 0.00 0% 0% 0.00 0% 0% 0.00 0% 0%
Total Tri s 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
~r 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
None square feet 0 . 7111 xyPr y. lV`
Trip Rate rt,r` 0.00 0.00 0% 0% 0.00 0% 0% 0.00 I 0% 0%
Total Tri s.• 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I 0 0
ro 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
G'.;CMt7F'?' a '
N-10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I 0 0
None s uare feet 0 ~R,,2
Trip Rate . Y 4 0.00 0.00 0% 0% 0.00 0% 0% 0.00 0% I 0%
Total Tri S ir7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
3 s 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I 0
0 0 0 0 0 I 0 0 0 0 0
340 30 10 20 35 705 10 40 20 20
Total Trips 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total Internal Trips Total Pass-By Trips 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
NET NEW TRIPS 340 30 10 20 10 40 20 20
Notes: LN = Logarithmic Equation; SL = Straight-line Equation; WA = Weighted Average; NA = Not Available use upd red., september27, 2002
City of Tigard 0006
/2003 10:48 FlIZ 5036847297 = . _ • , „ • -
AM PEAK HOUR
Q o00
wow
O M O M
Bull.1`96untain Road
PM 'PEAK HOUR
. gars:
L 000
CI~ N O ~
1
SITE TRIPS
Thom wood Subdivision
. ENG ~6 .
.
$UM1~ ~ i {~~vb~
1 1
0
f 1 20 io
~•0 y May ~yy V V22
°o~ °o~ mom
4-Q,,
2 2
V5 X86
~l
o 4
o_ ; 0-) ' °_1•
i
150th Avenue 3 3
w
1 - oo rno
f <j
-T T 22.E ~ T
1 m 11 _o o,o
I ® 6427-, o
m
4 4 10 c w r _o o v E-09
y y
133rd 2 A_ venue 3 54 21-4
----J AM PEAK PM PEAK
PROJECT- m
SITE
rt
Wa 8 n.
9W
Not to Scale
TRAPf=1C VOLUMES
Situ Trips Before 133rd Avenue Connection
AMM, & P Peak Hours gtfZCI.dwg
i
I SUmrn ~T ~E.tDfoE + •
i
Beef fend Ro_ad 1
1 1 `
ao0 E-0 000 ~2
(i L> ~G2 ~ ~ y ~7
~.;o~ ~Tt> o'` ~T0
0- 00(A 3~ 0000
0.1
I 2 2 r
.C 16 x-51
o r:
I 9~ o w . .35-11
150th Avenue
3 3 1
r-
i
NO Zao
0.
m 8~ El T ' t5'
o
3 ' <-I r
coo Ao f
7-~ 15~
r
a.
4 4
0 0, E-2 N w <-10
EJ y E~ 4 t
133rd Avenue
2 3
\\II`J I `t 1D~ 4->
1 '
PROJECT ` ® AM PEAK PM PEAK
SITE
. o
o
H' hwc 9g
' 4
Not to Scale
TRAFIC VOLUMES
Site Trips. (After 133rd Avenue Connection)
AM P Peak Hours
C2
-15-
J/urn lYe iJ a•M VVV V7M Iv~v rrwr+~•v.rr...r~ r......r...
Bud Mcv~laM ~d
o0o F-P
b00
.03
11: ooD E-0 e ~
0 yy X28
f
pQ.7` E'ITf~ 4'
4 Nod a
V
•~y, b16~ p- 26
2
a T r)
PROJECT
SITE '
Woodhue Sheet i
L----------
DU 0 0o f-- 14
Ei y
't p ~~4^ Glosto^bu+Y 8 ~
E j ol.' E- 0 We i
a °
0
R~ e
1 O5 °
' o ~ F n
No Soda
5 View ar awtc aiv
TRAMC VOLUMES
Site Trips
E~Gt SIG PM Peak Hour
Bull Bounto/n koad
000 E- 0
*44 ~ 33
20
3 boo
n 4.
p ~1 T & r
0 Mom a
oM 3
J.y •C r-------------
o
PROJECT
In
SITE
Woodhue Street
4
~~a o
Tna EJ y F5
qs -
loednbJ 14-~
a
CJ tone rb'
all
end
Bent
~i4Gdy`$ V1CW A7 614ZZ M9unrt-glv No. o
TRAFFIC VOWMES
She Trips
' 'DER ENGINEERING AM Peak Hour
-16-
w
- r
e.+
NCRT!! r
(NOT TO SCALE) 'p
• w
u
i
w
S~ r7D
la K-70
sw~oE Rn l' P
Q
0
. ~ 3
F
m
w 9UL.t UNTAIN F;
a1
9W
w
1t,$ gse.p. ~--BD
95-
o
Y
SITE-GENERATED TRAFFIC VOLUMES
WEEKDAY P&f PEAK HOUR
MEYERS FARM SUBDIVISION FIGURE a
TIGARD OR 1 Ke,
APRIL 1999
vvr
_ (-2.
oaa E-o
(44 v
o~ 0 0-t ~1'ra AM PEAK
W 9~ N~Dh 144 <o 0
~ 14 ood
r-> 01, ~i T t> . 4i PM PEAK
o~ N o 10~ ®oM 13~ o, a d1
sun Moor fl
R _
t~
1
00,
`Yl✓
AVAT to
C YOWMES
Site Trips
AM & PM Peak Hours
i
i•
I
i
I
. i
t.
• I
1
;
i
r
{
i
1
Appendix E
1
2005 Background Operations
Worksheets !
1543 Page 2-1
Page 1-1 am Mon Apr 12, 2.........48
am man Apr 12, 2004 15:43:48
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. - Project #(6041)
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. - Project #(6041) Alberto Rider Elementary School
Alberta Rider Elementary school 2005 Background Condition, Weekday AM Peak,Hour-----------------
2005 Background Condition. Weekday AM_Peak-Hour
Impact Analysts Report
• Scenario Report Level of Service
scenario: am Base Future Change
I
Command: am Del/ V/ Del/ V/ in
Volums. am LOS Veh C- LOS Veh C 0.000 V/C
em # 1 Bull Mtn. Rd/SW 133rd Ave B 1.4 0.000 C. 1.9 0.000 +
Geometry: Default Impact Fee
Impact Fee:
# 2 Bull Mountain Road/ Greenfield C 3.3 0.000 C 3.3.0.000 + 0.00 V
Trip Generation: am
Tripp Distribution: em
-
Paths: Default Paths
Routes: Default Routes
Configuration: Default Configuration
I
Traffix 7.5.0715 (c) 2002 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to DOWLING ASSOCIATES, INC. Traffix 7.5.0715 (c) 2002 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to DOWLING ASSOCIATES, INC.
S
Page 1 of 2
BKAMBB.ol1T 4-12-104 3:43p
am Mon Apr 12, 2004 15.43.48 Page 3-1 am Mon Apr 12, 2004 15:43:48 page 4-1
...........................-------------------_----j-----------------------------
Kittelson 8 Associates, Inc. Pro ect #(6041) Kittetson 8 Associates- Inc. Project #(6041)
!Alberta Rider Elementary School Alberta Rider Elementary School
2005 Background Condition, Weekday AM Peak Hour 2005 Background Condition, Weekday AM Peak Hour
Level Of Service Computation Report Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Future Volume Alternative) 2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Future Volume Alternative)
i***at***********#.t**t*t $*t}*#********t*****t***t#**********}#***************** **##***#***#**#*****#******##***#}*#***#**#***#**#*#***####*#}*##****#t*#*#***#*
Intersection #1 Bull Mtn. Rd/SW 133rd Ave Intersection #2 Bull Mountain Road/ Greenfield Drive
ot***$*#***##*#**##**t*!#A**t#********t*#***t**#******t***}***}**********#******* *****t**##***#***##*****#*****************t********t*****#**##***#**#*#*}******#
Average Delay (sec/veh): 1.9 Worst Case Level Of Service: C Average Delay (sec/veh): 3.3 Worst Case Level Of Service: C
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement: L- T- R L- T- R L- T- R L- T- R Movement: L- T- R L- T- R L- T- R L- T- R
Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Uncontrolled Uncontrolled
Rights: Include Include Include Include Rights: Include Include Include Include
Lanes: 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 Lanes: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 if 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
------------i---------------ii-------------- •-~!---------------ii---------------i
Volume Module: Count Date: 26 Feb 2004 :00 am. - 9:00 a.m. Volume Module: Count Date: 26 Feb 2004 « :OD - 8:00 AM
Base Vol: 5 0 20 0 0 0 0 530 5 5 205 0 Base Vol: 0 0 0 35 0 15 5 545 0 0 175 10
Growth Adj: 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 Growth Adj: 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1,01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01
Initial Bse: 5 0 20 0 0 0 0 535 5 5 207 0 Initial Bse: 0 0 0 35 0 15 5 550 0 0 177 10
Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 G 0 0
- PasserByVol: 8 0 37 0 0 0 0 31 7 9 22 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 68 0 0 31 0
Initial Fut: 13. 0 57 0 0 0 0 566 12 14 229 0 Initial Fut, 0 0 0 35 0 15 5 618 0 0 208 10
User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 .1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Ad : 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0,92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 PHF Adj: 0.90 0.90 0,90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
PHF Vo ume: 14 0 62 0 0 0 0 616 13 15 249 0 PHF Volume: 0 0 0 39 0 17 6 687 0 0 231 11
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Final Vol.: 14 0 62 0 0 0 0 616 13 15 249 0 Final Vol.: . 0 0 0 39 0 17 6 687 0 0 231 11
Critical Gap Module: Critical Gap Module:
Critical Gp: 6.4 xxxx 6.3 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 4.2 xxxx xxxxx Critical Gp:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 6.4 xxxx 6.2 '4.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
FollowUpTim: 3.5 xxxx 3.3 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 2.3 xxxx xxxxx FollowUpTim:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 3.5 xxxx 3.3 2.2 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
I--------------- ~---------------11-
Capaci ty Module: Capacity Module:
Cnflict Vol: 902 xxxx 622 xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 629 xxxx xxxxx Cnflfct Vol: xxxx xxxx xxxxx 935 xxxx 236 242 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx
Potent Cap.: 305 xxxx 481 xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 930 xxxx xxxxx Potent cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx 295 xxxx 803 1319 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx
move Cap.: 301 xxxx 481 xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 930 xxxx xxxxx Move Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx 294 xxxx 803 1319 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx
I ----------i~--------------- ----------11------------- - -I---------------
Level Of Service Module: Leval of Service Module:
Stopped Del:xxxxx xxxx :Kxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 8.9 xxxx xxxxx Stopped Del:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 7.7 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
LOS by Move: * * * * * * * * * A * * LOS by Move: * * * * * * A * *
Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT
Shared Cap.: xxxx 433 xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx 363 xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx
Shrd StpDel:xxxxx 15.1 xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 8.9 xxxx xxxxx Shrd StpDel:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx 16.7 xxxxx 7.7 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
Shared LOS: * C * * * * * * * A * * Shared LOS- * * * * C * A * * * *
ApproachDel: 15.1 xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx ApproachDet: xxxxxx 16.7 xxxxxx xxxxxx
ApproachLOS: C * * * ApproachLOS: * C
Traffix 7.5.0715 (c) 2002 Dowling Assoc, Licensed to DOWLING ASSOCIATES, INC. Traffix 7.5.0715 (c) 2002 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to DOWLING ASSOCIATES, INC.
BXAMBB.OUT 4-12-104 3:43p Page 2 of 2
Page 2-1
Mon Apr-12, 2004-15:43:50-
Mon Apr 12, 2004 15:43:50 Page 1-1 pm
Kittelson b Associates, Inc. - Project #(6041)
Kittetson & Associates, Inc, Project #(6041) Alberta Rider Elementary School
lktberta Rider Elementary School 2005 Background Condition, Weekday PM Peak Hour•________________
2005 Backkground Condition, Weekday PM Peak _Hour
Import Analysis Report
Scenario Report Level of Service
Scanario:, Pm Be..
Future Change
Intersection Del/ V/ Del/ V/ in
Command: Prti LOS Veh c LOS Veh C
0.000 C 3.0 0,000 + 0.000 V/C
volume- pill
Geometry: pn # 1 Bull Mtn. Rd/SW .133rd Ave B 1 2.6 9 0
:fault impact Fee
Impact Fee: Dei
Trip Geneaticn: # 2 Bull Mountain Road/ Greenfield C . ..000 C 1.9 O.ODO + 0.000 V/C
Trip Distribution: pm
Paths: Default Paths
Routes: Default Routes
Configuration: Default Configuration
2002 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to DOWLING ASSOCIATES, INC. Traffix 7.5.0715 (e) 2002 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to DOWLING ASSOCIATES, INC. _
Treffix 7.5.0715 (Co) $
Page 1 of 2'
BKPMBB.OUT 4-12-104 3:43p
PM Mon Apr 12, 2004 15.43.50 Page 3-1 Pm Mon Apr 12, 2004 15:43:50 Page 4.1
Kittelson 8 Associates, Inc. - Project #(6041) Kittetson 8 Associates, Inc. - Project #(6041)
Alberta Rider Elementary School Alberta Rider Etementary school
2005 Background Condition, Weekday PM Peak Hour 2005 Background Condition, Weekday PM Peak Hour
Level Of Service Computation Report Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Future Volume Alternative) 2000 HCM Unsignatized Method (Future Volume Alternative)
Intersection #1 Bull Mtn. Rd/SW 133rd Ave intersection #2 Bull Mountain Road/ Greenfield Drive
Average Delay (sec/veh): 3.0 Worst Case Level Of Service: C Average Delay (sec/veh): 1.9 Worst Case Level of Service: C
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement: L- T- R L- T- R L o- T- R L- T R Movement: L- T- R L- T- R L- T- R L- T- R
--.---..-J
Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Uncontrolled Uncontrolled
Rights: include include Include Include Rights: Include Include Include Include
'Lanes: 0 0 it 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 Lanes: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 11-
11- 11
Votume Module: Count Date. 24 Feb 2004 < 4:00 pm - 6:00 pm Volume Module: > -Count Date: 26 Feb 2004 << 6100 - 6.00 PM
Base Vol: 5 0 5 0 0 0 0 295 5 10 515 0 Base Vol: 0 0 0 20 0 15 15 285 0 0 510 30
Growth Adj: 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 Growth AdJ: 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01
Initial Bse: 5 0 5 0 0 0 0 298 5 10 520 0 Initial Bse: 0 0 0 20 0 15 15 288 0 0 515 30
Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 . 0
in-Process: 15 0 15 0 0 0 0 26 17 34 31 0 In-Process: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 41 0 0 65 0
Initial Fut: 20 0 20 0 0 0 0 324 22 44 551 0 Initial Fut: 0 0 0 20 0 15 15 329 0 0 580 30
User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Ad': 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 PHF Adj: 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94
PHF Vo~ume: 21 0 21 0 0 0 - 0 345 23 47 586 0 PHF Volume: 0 0 0 21 0 16 16 350 0 0 617 32
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Final Vol.: 21 0 21 0 0 0 0 345 23 47 586 0 Final Vol.: 0 0 0 21 0 16 16 350 0 0 617 32
Critical Gap Module: Critical Gap Module:
Critical Gp: 6.4 xxxx 6.2 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 4.1 xxxx xxxxx Critical Gp:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 6.4 xxxx 6.2 4.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
FollowUpTim: 3.5 xxxx 3.3 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 2.2 xxxx xxxxx FollowUpTim:xxxxx xxxx-xxxxx 3.5 xxxx --3.3 2.2 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
Module: (I'--- ( ( -----ll" II" "II"'""" -
Capacity I
Capacity Module:
Cnflict Vol: 1037 xxxx 356 xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 368 xxxx xxxxx Cnflict Vol: xxxx xxxx xxxxx 1015 xxxx 633 649 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx
Potent Cap.: 256 xxxx 688 xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 1196 xxxx xxxxx Potent cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx 264 xxxx ' 480 937 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx
Move Cap.: 248 xxxx 688 xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 1196 xxxx•xxxxx Move Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx 260 xxxx 480 937 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx
Level Of Service Module: Level of Service Module:
Stopped Det:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 8.1 xxxx xxxxx Stopped Det:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 8.9 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
LOS by Move: * * * + + * * # * A * + LOS by Move: * # # * # + A } + # #
Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT
Shared Cap.: xxxx 365 xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx 324 xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx
Shrd Stppet:xxxxx 16.2 xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 8.1 xxxx xxxxx Shrd StpDel:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx 17.6 xxxxx 8:9 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
Shared LOS: * C * * * * * • * * A * * Shared LOS: * * * * C * A
ApproachDel: 16.2 xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx ApproachDel: xxxxxx 17.6 xxxxxx xxxxxx
ApproachLOS: C * * * ApproachLOS: * C
Traffix 7.5.0715 (c) 2002 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to DOWLING ASSOCIATES, INC. Traffix 7.5.0715 (c) 2002 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to DOWLING ASSOCIATES, INC.
BKPMBB.OUT 4-12-104 3:43p Page 2 of 2
am Tue Apr 13, 2004 07:55:48 Page 1-1 am Tue Apr 13, 2004 07:55:48 Page 2-1
- Kittelson 8 Associates, Inc.* - Protect #(6041)
Kittel:on & Associates, Inc. - Protect #(6041) Alberta
Alberta Rider Elementary School Rider Elementary School
2005 Background Condition, Weekday AM Peak Hour 2005 Background Condition, Weekday.AM Peak Hour
Scenario Report Impact Analysis Report
Level.Of Service
Scenario: em
Command am intersection Base Future Change
Colman: am Del/ V/ Del/ V/ in
LOS Veh C LOS Veh C
Geometry: am # 1 Bull Mtn. Rd/SW 133rd Ave B 1.4 0.000 B 1.5 0.000 + 0.000 V/C
Impact Fee: Default Impact Fee
-Trip Generation: am # 2 Bull Mountain Road/ Greenfield C 3.3 0.000 C 3.9 0.000 + 0.000 V/C
Tripp Distribution: am
P,ath0: Default Paths
Routes: Default Routes '
Configuration: Default Configuration
Traffix 7.5.0715 (c) 2002 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to DOWLING ASSOCIATES, INC. Traffix 7.5.0715 (c) 2002 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to DOWLING ASSOCIATES, INC.
Page 1 of 2
0 KAMH.04IT 4-13-104 7:55a
am "_""Tue Apr 13, 2004 07:55:48 Page 3-1 am "-"----""-_"--"Tue Apr 13, 2004 07:55:48"---"""""-"---"-•Page 4-1
...............-------j-----------------------------
Ki.ttel.son & Associates, Inc. Pro ect #(6041) Kittelson & Associates, Inc. - Project #(6041)
Alberta Rider Elementary School Alberta Rider Elementary School
_2005 Background Condition, Weekday AM Peak Hour 2005 Background Condition, Weekday AM Peak Hour
Level Of Service Computation Report Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Future Volume Alternative) 2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Future Volume Alternative)
Intersection #1 Bull Mtn. Rd/SW 133rd Ave Intersection #2 Butt Mountain Road/ Greenfield Drive
Average Delay (sec/veh): 1.6 Worst Case Level Of Service: B Average Delay (sec/veh): 3.9 Worst Case Level Of Service: C
Approach: North (Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement: L- T- R L T- R L T R L- T- R Movement: L- T- R L' - T- R L- T- R L- T- R
II" II-- II- I I" II- Il- LI-•----"--------
Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Uncontrolled Uncontrolled
'Rights: include include include Include Rights: include include Include include
Lanes: 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 Lanes: 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 "0--0-"1. 0
- I
-
-
-
- Dat--
- e: 26 Feb 2004 « ~;00 a.m. - 9:00 a.m. Volume Module: Count Date: 26 Feb 2004 << 7:00 - 8:00 AM
Volume Module: »--Count--
Base Vol: 5 0 20 . 0 0 0 0 530 5 5 205 0 Base Vol:' 0 0 0 35 0 15 5 545 0 0 175 10
Growth Adj: 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 Growth Adj: 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01
Initial Bse: 5 0 20 0 0 0 0 535 5 5 207 0 Initial Bse: 0 0 0 35 0 15 5 550 0 0 177 10
Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
In-Process: 4 0 5 0 0 0 0 35 7 1 26 0 In-Process: 11 0 45 0 0 0 0 36 4 14 23 0
Initial Fut: 9 0 25 0 0 0 0 570 12 6 233 0 Initial Fut: 11 0 45 35 0 15 5 586 4 14 200 10
User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PH; Adj: 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 PHF Adj: 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
PHF Volume: 10 0 27 0 0 0 0 620 13 7 "253 0 PHF Volume: 12 0 50 39 0 17 6 652 4 16 222 11
Reduct Vol: 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Final Vol.: 10 0 27 0 0 0 0 620 13 7 253 0 Final Vol.: 12 0 50 39 0 17 6 652 4 16 222 11
Critical Gap Module: Critical Gap Module:
Critical Gp: 6.4 xxxx 6.3 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 4.2 xxxx xxxxx Critical Gp: 7.1 xxxx• 6.2 7.1 xxxx 6.2 4.1 xxxx xxxxx 4.2 xxxx xxxxx
FoIIowUpTim: 3.5 xxxx 3:3 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 2.3 xxxx xxxxx FollowUpTim: 3.5 xxxx 3.3 3.5 xxxx 3.3 2.2 xxxx xxxxx 2.3"xxxx-xxxxx
Capaeity Module:. Capacity Module:
Cnflict Vol: 893 xxxx 626 xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 633 xxxx xxxxx Cnflict Vol: 932 xxxx 654 949 xxxx 228 233 xxxx xxxxx 656 xxxx xxxxx
Potent Cap.: 308 xxxx 478 xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 926 xxxx xxxxx Potent Cap.: 247 xxxx 467 240 xxxx 812 1328 xxxx xxxxx 908 xxxx xxxxx
Move Cap.: 307 xxxx 478 xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 926 xxxx xxxxx Move Cap.: 238 xxxx 467 211 xxxx 812 1328 xxxx xxxxx 908 xxxx xxxxx
level Of Service Module. LeveL Of Service Module:
Stopped Del:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 8.9 xxxx xxxxx stopped Del:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 7.7 xxxx xxxxx 9.0 xxxx xxxxx
LOS by Move: * * * * * * * * # A * * LOS by Move: * * * * * # A * * A * #
Movement: LT LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT . LT - LTR RT LT - LTR - RT Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT
Shared Cap.: xxxx 417 xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Shared Cap.: xxxx 392 xxxxx xxxx 271 xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx
Shrd StpDel:xxxxx 14.5 xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 8.9 xxxx xxxxx Shrd StpDel:xxxxx 15.9 xxxxx xxxxx 21.7 xxxxx 7.7 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
Shared LOS: * S * * * * * * . * A * * Shared LOS: * C * * C * A
ApproachDel: 14.5 xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx ApproachDel:' 15.9 21.7 xxxxx*x xxxxx
ApproachLOS: S * * * ApproachLOS: C C
Traffix 7.5.0715 (c:) 2002 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to DOWLING ASSOCIATES, INC. Traffix 7.5.0715 (c) 2002 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to DOWLING ASSOCIATES, INC.
BKAMH.CUT 4-13-104 7:55a Page 2 of 2
Apr 12, 2004 14:57:13 ----..Page 2-1
Mon
-
Mon Apr 12, 2004 14:57:13
Page-1-1---------------•---•--
Kittelson 8 Associates, Inc. - Project #(6041)
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. - Project #(6041) Alberta Rider Elementary School
Alberta Rider Elementary School 2005 Background Condition, Weekday PM_Peak-Hour-----------------
2005 Background Condition, Weekday PM Peak Hour---- Iaet Analysis Report
-------•-------------'-----o
Scenaricenario Report Level Of Service
io: pci Base Future Change
FROUt":
Intersection Del / V/ Del/ V/
d PXn LOS Veh C LOS Yeh ' C
ume
~y:# 1 Bull Mtn. Rd/SW 133rd Ave B 2.6 0.000 C 2.7 0.000 + O.OOD Y/C
C 1.9 0.000 C 2.4 0.000 + 0.000 V/C
fee: Dfault Impact Fee ,
eneeation: ps # 2 Bull Mountain Roed/ Greenfield
istribution: ~~feult Peths
: Default Routes
s: Default Configuration
guration:
2002 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to DOWLING ASSOCIATES, INC. Traffix 7.5.0715 (c) 2002 bowling-Assoc. Licensed to DOwL1NG ASSOCIATES, INC. _
Traffix 7.5.0715 (c ) $
Page 1 of 2
gKPMN.OUT 4-12-104 2:57p
Pm Mon Apr 12, 2004 14:57:13 Page 3-1 Pm Mon Apr 12, 2004 14:57:13 Page 4-1
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. - Project #(6041) Kittelson & Associates, Inc. - Project #(6041)
Alberta Rider Elementary School Alberta Rider Elementary School
--------2005-Background Condition, Weekday PM Peak Hour -------2005 Background Condition, Weekday PM Peak Hour
Level Of Service Computation Report Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Future Volume Alternative) 2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Future Volume Alternative)
####x#*#w*#xw#**xxxrw*x#xx##x##xxx*xxxx###***##*w*x#****#x#w***#**##****#*#x#**x w*xx#**wx**#x##*#xxx**##x*xxxxx**#x#**#xxx#x#xx*#xxxxxx#x#wxxx#*xx#xwxr*######x#
Intersection #1 Butt Mtn. Rd/SW 133rd Ave Intersection #2 Bull Mountain Road/ Greenfield Drive
##******#*#*#**#****#*######*##**#***##x##*x*******#*****x***************x****** #****#xx**x#**xx#**xxx#*xxw***xx*#xxx***x#**#wxx##*xxxx#x#xxxx#xxxx*xxwrxx#rwxxx
Average Delay (see/veh): 2.7 Worst Case Level Of Service: C Average Delay (sec/veh): 2.4 Worst Case Level Of Service: C
*#*x##*x#xx##*wx*r#r*x#x*x#xwxwx*x#**#x#xx#xx#*##xx*xxx##x*w*#***##*x#x*x*xx#xxx xxx**#x#xx*wx**xxx#*xxw**xxxx#xxx#*xxxx*#*xxxwxxx*xwxx*#x#xxxxxxxw#*x#xx##x*r#*x
Approach: North Bound South Bound Ebst Bound West Bound Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement; L- T- R L- T - R L- T- R L- T- R Movement: L- T- R L- T- R L- T- R L- T- R
Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign---
ign Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Control; Stop Sign Stop Sign Uncontrolled Uncontrolled
Rights: Include include include include Rights: Include Include Include Include
Lanes: 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 Lanes: 0 0 if 0 0 0 0 if 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
---I~--------------- 11--------------- ~
Volume Module: Count Date: 24 Feb 2004 « 4;00 pm - 6:00 pm Volume Module: Count Date: 26 Feb 2004 « 00 6.00 PM
Base Vol: 5 0 5 0 0 0 0 295 5 10 515 0 Base Vol: 0 0 0 20 0 15 15 285 0 0 510 30
Growth Adj: 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 Growth Adj: 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01
Initial Bse: 5 0 5 0 0 0 0 298 5 10 520 0 Initial- Bse: 0 0 0 20 0 15 15 288 0 0 515 30
Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
In-Process: 8 0 2 0 0 0 0 34 17 3 38 0 In-Process: 11 0 19 0 0 0 0 28 8 48 34 0
Initial Fut: 13 0 7 0 0 0 0 332 22 13 558 0 Initial Fut: 11 0 19 20 0 15 15 316 8 48 549 30
User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PH; Al 4 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 PHF Adj: 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94
PHF Volume: 14 0 8 0 0 0 0 353 23 14 594 0 PHF Volume: 12 0 20 21 0 16 16 336 9 51 584 32
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Final Vol.: 14 0 8 0 0 0 0 353 23 14 594 0 Final Vol.: 12 0 20 21 0 16 16 336 9 51 584 32
Critical Gap Module: Critical Gap Module:
Critical GO: 6.4 xxxx 6.2 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 4.1 xxxx xxxxx Critical GO: 7.1 xxxx 6.2 7.1 xxxx 6.2 4.1 xxxx xxxxx 4.1 xxxx xxxxx
FollowUpTim: 3.5 xxxx 3.3 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 2.2 xxxx xxxxx FoilowUpTim: 3.5 xxxx 3.3 3.5 xxxx 3.3 2.2 xxxx xxxxx 2.2 xxxx xxxxx
------------{---------------{1---------------{{---------------{--------- {{---------------II---------------i
Capacity Module: Capacity Module:
Cnflict Vol: 987 xxxx 365 xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 377 xxxx xxxxx Cnflict Vol: 1083 xxxx 340 1085 xxxx 600 616 xxxx xxxxx 345 xxxx xxxxx
Potent Cap.: 275 xxxx 680 xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 1187 xxxx xxxxx Potent Cap.: 195 xxxx 702 194 xxxx 501 963 xxxx xxxxx 1214 xxxx xxxxx
Move Cap.: 272 xxxx 680 xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 1187 xxxx xxxxx Move Cap.: 180 xxxx 702 180 xxxx 501 963 xxxx xxxxx 1214 xxxx xxxxx
I 11- { 1----------- { { i { {
Level Of Service Module: Level Of Service Module:
Stopped Det:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 8.1 xxxx xxxxx Stopped Det:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 8.8 xxxx xxxxx 8.1 xxxx xxxxx
LOS by Move: * * * * * * * * * A * * LOS by Move: * * * * * * A * * A
Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT Movement: LT LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT
Shared Cap.: xxxx 345 xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Shared Cap.: xxxx 340 xxxxx xxxx 248 xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx
Shrd StpDel:xxxxx 16.1 xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 8.1 xxxx xxxxx Shrd StpDel:xxxxx 16.7 xxxxx xxxxx 22.1 xxxxx 8.8 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
Shared LOS: * C * * * * * * * A * * Shared LOS: * C * * C * A
ApproachDel: 16.1 xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx ApproaehDel: 16.7 22.1 xxxxxx xxxxxx
ApproachLOS: C * * * ApproachLOS: C C
Traffix 7.5.0715 (c) 2002 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to DOWLING ASSOCIATES, INC. Traffix 7.5.0715 (c) 2002 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to DOWLING ASSOCIATES, INC.
S
BKPMH.OUT 4-12-104 2:57p Page 2 of 2
Appendix F
2005 Total Traffic Operations
Worksheets
em Mon Apr 12, 2004 15:50:28 Page 1-1 am' Mon Apr 12, 2004 15:50:28 Page 2-1
Kittelson 8 Associates, Inc. - Project #(6041) Kittelson & Associates, Inc. - Project #(6041)
Alberta Rider Elementary School Alberta Rider Elementary School.
2005] Total Condition, Weekday AM Peak Hour 2005 Total Condition, Weekday-AM-Peak-Hour
Scenario Report. Impact Analysis Report
Scenario- am Level Of Service
Command: am Intersection Base Future Change
volume: am Del/ V/ Del/ V/ in
Geometry: am LOS Veh C LOS Veh C
Impact Fee: Default Impact Fee # 1 Bull Mtn. Rd/SW 133rd Ave B 1.4 0.000 C 3.2 0.000 + 0.000 V/C
Trip Generation: am '
Trip Distribution: am # 2 Bull Mountain Road/ Greenfield C 3.3 0.000 C 3.2 0.000 + 0.000 V/C
Paths: Default Paths
Routes: Default Routes
Configuration: Default Configuration
Traffix 7.5.0715 (c) 2002 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to DOWLING ASSOCIATES, INC. Traffix 7.5.0715 (c) 2002 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to DOWLING ASSOCIATES, INC.
ii
TTAMBB.OUT 4-12-104 3:50p Page 1 of 2
r
am Mon Apr 12, 2004 15:50:28 Page 3-1 am - _ Mon Apr 12,-2004.15:50:28 ---_-Page 4-1
Kittetson 8 Associates, Inc. - Project #(6041) Kittelson 8 Associates, Inc. - Project #(6041)
Alberta Rider Elementary School Alberta Rider Elementary school
2005 Total Condition, Weekday AM Peak Hour 2005 Total Condition, Weekday AM Peak Hour
level Of Service Computation Report Level Of Service Conputation Report
2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Future Volume Alternative) 2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Future Volume Alternative)
Intersection #1 Bull Mtn. Rd/SW 133rd Ave Intersection #2 Bull Mountain Road/ Greenfield Drive
Average Delay (sec/veh): 3.2 Worst Case Level of Service: C Average Delay (sec/veh): 3.2 Worst Case Level of Service: C
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement: L- T- R L- T- R L--- T- - R L- T- R- Movement: L- T- R L- T- R L- T- R L- T- R
Control: Stop Sign--- 11-'- Stop - Sign--- 11-- Uncontrolled 11--
- Uncontrolled Control: Stop - Sign--- Stop - Sign--- 11-- Uncontrolled -11--Uncontrolted '1
Rights: Include Include ' Include Include Rights: Include Include Include Include
Lanes: 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 Lanes: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
---------------11 I1--------------- 11--------------- ~ 1--------------- 11---------------~
Volume Module: Count Date: 26 Feb 2004 << 7:00 a.m. - 9:00 a.m. Volume Module: Count Date: 26 Feb 2004 << 100 - 8:00 AM
Base Vol: 5 0 20 0 0 0 0 530 5 5 205 0 Base Vol: 0 0 0 35 0 15 5 545 0 0 175 10
Growth Adj: 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 Growth Adj: 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01
Initial Bse: 5 0 20 0 0 0 0 535 5 5 207 0 Initial Bse: 0 0 0 35 0 15 5 550 0 0 177 10
Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
IP + Site: 38 0 77 0 0 0 0 31 52 64 22 0 IP + Site: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 108 0 0 86 0
Initial Fut: 43 0 97 0 0 0 0 566 57 69 229 0 Initial Fut: 0 0 0 35 0 15 5 658 0 0 263 10
User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Adj: 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 PHF Adj: 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
PHF Volume: 47 O 106 0 0 0 0 616 62 75 249 0 PHF Volume: 0 0 0 39 0 17 6 732 0 0 292 11
Reduct Vol: 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Final Vol.: 47 0 106 0 0 0 0 616 62 75 '249 0 Final Vol.: 0 0 0 39 0 17 6 732 0 0 292 11
Critical Gap Module: Critical Gap Module:
Critical Gp: 6.4 xxxx 6.3 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 4.2 xxxx xxxxx Critical Gp:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 6.4 xxxx 6.2 4.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
FollowUpiim: 3.5 xxxx: 3.3 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 2.3 xxxxxxxxx FollowUpTim:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 3.5 xxxx 3.3 2.2 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
11--------------- ----::------I---------------
Capacity Module: Capacity Module:
Cnflict Vol: 1046 xxxx 647 xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 678 xxxx xxxxx Cnflict Vol: xxxx xxxx xxxxx 1040 xxxx 298. 303 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx
Potent Cap.: 250 xxxx 466 xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 891 xxxx xxxxx Potent Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx 255 xxxx 742 1252 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx
Move Cap.: 233 xxxx 466 xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 891 xxxx xxxxx Move Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx 254 xxxx 742 1252 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx
I--------------- ---------------~I---------------~
Level of Service Module: Level Of Service Module:
Stopped Del:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 9.4 xxxx xxxxx Stopped Del:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 7.9 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
LOS by Move: * * * * * * * * * A * * LOS by Move: * * * * * * A
Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR -.RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT
Shared Cap.: xxxx 357 xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx 317 xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx
Shrd StpDel:xxxxx 22.4 xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 9.4 xxxx xxxxx Shrd StpOel:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx 18.8 xxxxx 7.9 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
Shared LOS: • C * * * * * * * A * * Shared LOS: * * * * C * A
ApproachDel: 22.4 xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx Approach0el: xxxxxx 18.8 xxxxxx xxxxxx
ApproachLOS: C * * * ApproachLOS: * C
Traffix 7.5.0715 (c:) 2002 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to DOWLING ASSOCIATES, INC. Traffix 7.5.0715 (c) 2002 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to DOWLING ASSOCIATES, INC.
3
TTAMBB.OUT 4-12-104 3:50p - - Page 2 of 2
Mon A r 12 2004 15.50.30 Page 1-1 Pm Mon Apr"12:-2004-15:50_30--"--.-_-"-------Page
Kittelson 8 Associates, Inc. - Project #(6041)
--------------------------------P------------_----------------
Kittelson 8 Associates Inc. Project #(6041)
Alberta Rider Elementary School Alberta Rider Elementary School
2005 Total Condition, Weekday PM Peak Hour 2005 Total Condition, Weekday PM Peak Hour
Scenario Report Impsict Analysis Report
Scenario: FM" Level of Service
Change
Comm nd: i Intersection Base DFutureV/ in
a
Vo:ume: in Del/ V/ LOS Veh C LOS Veh C + 0.000 V/C
# 1 Bull Mtn. Rd/SW 133rd Ave B 2.6 0.000 C 4.0 0.000
ImpaetrFee: Default Impact fee
Trip Generation: Ipm # 2 Bull Mountain Road/ Greenfield C 1.9 0.000 C 2.0 0.000 + 0.000 V/C
Trip Distribution: IPm
Paths: !Default Paths
Routes: IDefault Routes
Configuration: Default Configuration
Traffix 7.5.0715 (c) 2002 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to DOWLING ASSOCIATES, INC. Traffix 7.5.0715 (c) 2002 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to DOWLING ASSOCIATES, INC.
- Page 1 of 2
~ - 7TPMBB.OUT 4'12-104 3:50p
pn Mon Apr 12, 2004 15:50:30 Page 3-1 pm Mon Apr 12, 2004 15:50:30 Page 4-1
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. - Project #(6041) Kittelson & Associates, Inc. - Project #(6041)
Alberta Rider Elementary School Alberta Rider Elementary School
2005 Total Condition, Weekday-PM Peak Hour 2005 Total Condition, Weekday PM Peak Hour
Level Of Service Computation Report Level of Service Computation Report
2000 RCM Unsignalized Method (Future Volume Alternative) 2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Future Volume Alternative)
Intersection #1 Butt Mtn. Rd/SW 133rd Ave Intersection #2 Bull Mountain Road/ Greenfield Drive
Average Delay (sec/veh): 4.0 Worst Case Level Of Service: C Average Delay (sec/veh): 2.0 Worst Case Level of Service: C
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement: L- T- R L- T- R L- T- R L- T- R Movement: L- T- R L- T- R L- T- R L- T- R
Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Uncontrolled Uncontrolled
Rights: Include Include Include include Rights: Include Include Include Include
Lanes: 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 Lanes: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
11
Volume Module: » Count Date: 24 Feb 2004 << :00 pm - 6:00 pm Volume Module: » Count Date: 26 Feb 2004 << 100 - 6:00 PM
Base VOL.- 5 0 5 0 0 0 0 295 5 10 515 0 Base Vol: 0 0 0 20 0 15 15 285 0 0 510 30
Growth Adj: 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 Growth Adj: 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01
Initial Bse: 5 0 5 0 0 0 0 298 5 10 520 0 Initial Bse: 0 0 0 20 0 15 15 288 0 0 515 30
Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D 0 0
IP + Site: 50 0 60 0 0 0 0 26 47 74 31 0 IP + Site: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 86 0 0 105 0
Initial Fut: 55 0 65 0 0 0 0 324 52 84 551 0 Initial Fut: 0 0 0 20 0 15 15 374 0 0 620 30
User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Adj: 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 PHF Adj: 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94
PHF Volume: 59 0 69 0 0 0 0 345 55 89 586 0 PHF Volume: 0 0 0 21 0 16 16 398 0 0 660 32
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Final Vol.: 59 0 69 0 0 0 0 345 55 89 586 0 Final VOL.: 0 0 0 21 0 16 16 398 0 0 660 32
Critical Gap Module: Critical Gap Module:
Critical Gp 6.4 xxxx 6.2 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 4.1 xxxx xxxxx Critical Gp:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 6.4 xxxx 6.2 4.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
FollowUpTim: 3.5 xxxx 3.3 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 2.2 xxxx xxxxx FollowUpTim:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 3.5 xxxx 3.3 2.2 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
I--------------- 11--------------- II--------------- - I
Capacity Module: Capacity Module:
Cnftict Vol: 1138 xxxx 372 xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 400 xxxx xxxxx Cnflict Vol. xxxx xxxx xxxxx 1106 xxxx 676 692 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx
Potent Cap.: 223 xxxx 674 xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 1164 xxxx xxxxx Potent Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx 233 xxxx 454 903 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx
Have Cap.: 209 xxxx 674 xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 1164 xxxx xxxxx Move Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx 230 xxxx 454 903 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx
11 -
Level Of Service Module: Level Of Service Module:
Stopped Det:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 8.3 xxxx xxxxx Stopped Del:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 9.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
LOS by Move: * * * * * * * * « A * + LOS by Move: * * * * * * A * * * * "
Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT
Shared Cap.: xxxx 334 xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx 291 xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx
'Shrd S-t~el:xxxxx 22.3 xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 8.3 xxxx xxxxx Shrd StpDel:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx 19.2 xxxxx 9.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
Shared IOS: * C * * * * * * * A * * Shared LOS: * * * * C * A * « # #
ApproachDel: 22.3 xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx ApproachDel: xxxxxx 19.2 xxxxxx xxxxxx
ApproachLOS: C * * * ApproachLOS: * C
Traffix 7.5.0715 (c) 2002 Dowling ASSOC. Licensed to DOWLING ASSOCIATES, INC. Traffix 7.5.0715 (c) 2002 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to DOWLING ASSOCIATES, INC.
S
TTPMBB.OUT 4-12-104 3:50p - - Page 2 of 2
am Tue Apr:13, 2004 08:01:55 Page 1-1 em ----Tue Apr 13, 2004 08:01:55 -__----Page 2-1
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. -'Project #(6041) Kittelson & Associates, Inc. - Project #(6041)
Alberta Rider Elementary School Alberta Rider Elementary School-
2005 Total Condition, Weekday AM Peak Hour 2005 Total Condition, Weekday AM Peak Hour
Scenario Re rt Impact Analysis Report
Scenario: am LeveL Of Service
Commend: am Intersection Base Future Change
Volume: am Del/ V/ DeL/ V/ in
Geometry: am LOS Veh C LOS Veh C
Impact Fee: Default Impact Fee # 1 Bull Mtn. Rd/SW 133rd Ave B 1.4 0.000 C 2.7 0.000 + 0.000 V/C
Trip Generation: am
Tripp Distribution: am # 2 Bull Mountain Road/ Greenfield C 3.3 0.000 D 3.9 0.000 + 0.000 V/C
Paths: Default Paths
Routes: Default Routes
Configuration: Default Configuration
Traffix 7.5.0715 (c) 2002 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to DOWLING ASSOCIATES, INC. Traffix 7.5.0715 (c) 2002 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to DOWLING ASSOCIATES, INC.
TTAHH.OUT 4-13-104 8:01a Page 1 of 2
am -Tue Apr 13,_2004-08:01:55 "--Page 3-1 am -"-----Tue-Apr 13, 2004 08:01:55 Page 4-1
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Project #(6041) Kittelson & Associates Inc. Project #(6041)
Alberta Rider Elementary School Alberta Rider Elementary School
-_-_-'2005 Total Condition, Weekday AM Peak Hour 2005 Total ConditionWeekday AM Peak Hour
Level of Service Computation Repori Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Future Volume Alternative) 2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Future Volume Alternative)
tnt*erseetion #1 Butt Mtn. Rd/SW 133rd Ave Intersection #2 Butt Mountain Road/ Greenfield Drive
Average Delay (sec/veh): 2.7 Norst Case Level Of Service: C Average Delay (sec/veh): 3.9 Worst Case Level of Service: D
Approach: North Bound South Bound Edst Bound West Bound Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement: L- T- R L- T- R L- T- R L- T- R Movement: L- T- R L- T- R L- T- R L- T- R
11
Control: Stop Sign stop sign Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Uncontrolled Uncontrolled
Rights: Include Include Include Include Rights: Include Include Include Include
Lanes: 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 Lanes: 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
......------I------------ ---II--------------- I--------------- II--------------- I I--------------- II--------------- ;I--------------- II---------------I
Volume Module: Count Date: 26 Feb 2004 << :00 a.m. - 9:00 a.m. Volume Module: Count Date: 26 Feb 2004 <1 :00 - 8:00 AM
Base Vol: 5 0 20 0 0 0 0 530 5 5 205 0 Base Vol: 0 0 0 35 0 15 5 545 0 0 175 10
Growth Adj: 1.01 1.01 •1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 Growth Adj: 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01
Initial Ban: 5 0 20 0 0 0 0 535 5 5 207 0 Initial Bse: 0 0 0 35 0 15 5 550 0 0 177 10
Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
IP + Site: 34 0 45 0 0 0 0 35 52 56 26 0 IP + Site: 11 0 45 0 0 0 0 76 4 14 78 0
Initial Fut: 39 0 65 0 0 0 0 570 57 61 233 0 Initial Fut: 11 0 45 35 0 15 5 626 4 14 255 10
User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Ad!: 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 PHF Ad!: 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
PHF Volume; 42 0 71 0 0 0 0 620 62 66 253 0 PHF Volume: 12 0 50 39 0 17 6 696 4 16 283 11
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Final Vol.: 42 0 71 0 0 0 0 620 62 66 253 0 Final Vol.: 12 0 50 39 0 17 6 696 4 16 283 11
Critical Gap Module: Critical Gap Module:
Critical Gp: 6.4 xxxx 6.3 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 4.2 xxxx xxxxx Critical Gp: 7.1 xxxx 6.2 7.1 xxxx 6.2 4.1 xxxx xxxxx 4.2 xxxx xxxxx
FollowUpTim: 3.5 xxxx 3.3 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 2.3 xxxx xxxxx FotiowUpTim: 3.5 xxxx 3:3 3.5 xxxx 3.3 2.2 xxxx xxxxx 2.3 xxxx xxxxx
+I--------------- II--------------- II--------------- I I--------------- II--------------- II--------------- II---------------I
Capacity Module: Capacity Module:
Cnflict Vol: 1037 xxxx 651 xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 682 xxxx xxxxx Cnflict Vol: 1038 xxxx 698 1054 xxxx 289 294 xxxx xxxxx 701 xxxx xxxxx
Potent Cap.: 253 xxxx 463 xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 888 xxxx xxxxx Potent Cap.: 209 xxxx 440 204 xxxx 750 1262 xxxx xxxxx 874 xxxx xxxxx
Move Cap.: 238 xxxx 463 xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 888 xxxx xxxxx Move Cap.: 201 xxxx 440 178 xxxx 750 1262 xxxx xxxxx 874 xxxx xxxxx
I -
I II------ ------II------------
Level Of Service Module: Level of Service Module:
Stopped Del:xxxxx xxxx, xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 9.4 xxxx xxxxx Stoppped Del:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 7.9 xxxx xxxxx 9.2 xxxx xxxxx
LOS by Move: * * * * * * * * * A * * LOS by Move: * * * * * * A * * A
Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT LTR - RT Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT
Shared Cap.: xxxx 342 xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Shared Cap.: xxxx 357 xxxxx xxxx 230 xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx
Shrd StpDel:xxxxx 20.7 xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 9.4 xxxx xxxxx Shrd StpDel:xxxxx 17.2 xxxxx xxxxx 25.6 xxxxx 7.9 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
Shared LOS: * C * * * * * * * A * * Shared LOS: * C * * D * A
ApproachDel: 20.7 xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx ApproachDel: 17.2 25.6 xxxxxx xxxxxx
ApproachLOS: C * * * ApproachLOS• C D
Traffix 7.5.0715 (c) 2002 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to DOWLING ASSOCIATES, INC. Traffix 7.5.0715 (c) 2002 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to DOWLING ASSOCIATES, INC.
S
TTAMH.OUT 4-13-104 8:01a ---w~ ---Page 2 of 2 -
pin Peg. 2-1
- Page 1-1 pm Mon Apr 12, 2004 15:55...
Mon Apr 12. 2004 24
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. - Project #(6041)
~
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. - Project #(6041) Alberta Rider Elementary School
Alberta Rider Elementary School 2005 Total Condition, Weekday PM Peak Hour
2005 Total Condition, Weekday PM Peak Hour
Impact Analysis Report
Scenario Report Level Of Service pril Scenario: pm Base Future Change
Intersection Del/ V/ DeL/ V/ in
Commend: pn; LOS Veh C LOS Veh C
Geometry: Lp~r eanetry: Default Impact Fee # 1 Bull Mtn. Rd/SW 133rd Ave B 2.6 0.000 C 3.5 0.000 + 0.000 V/C
Il~act Fee: ,
Tr1;p Generation: pin # 2 Bull Mountain Road/ Greenfield C' 1.9 0.000 C 2.5 0.000 + 0.000 V/C
Tripp Distribution: pn
Paths: Default Paths
Routes: Default Routes
Configuration: Default Configuration
Traffix 7.5.0715 (c) 2002 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to DOWLING ASSOCIATES, INC. Traffix 7.5.0715 (c) 2002 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to DOWLING ASSOCIATES, INC. IS
_ Page 1 of 2
TTTpnH OUT 4-12-104
pm Mon Apr 12, 2004 15:55.24 Page 3-1 pm Mon Apr 12, 2004 15:55:24 Page 4-1 -
Kittelson 8 Associates, Inc. - Project #(6041) Kittelson 8 Associates, Inc. - Project #(6041)
Alberta Rider Elementary School Alberta Rider Elementary School
---2005 Total Condition, Weekday PM Peak Hour 2005 Total Condition, Weekday PM Peak Hour
Level^Of Service Computation Report--------------------------- - - - -Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Unsignatized Method (Future Volume Alternative) 2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Future Volume Alternative)
Intersection #1 Butt Mtn. Rd/SW 133rd Ave Intersection #2 Bull Mountain Road/ Greenfield Drive
Average Delay (see/veh): 3.5 Worst Case Level Of Service: C Average Delay (sec/veh): 2.5 Worst Case Level Of Service: C
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement: L- T- R L- T- R L- T- R L- T- R Movement: L- T- R L- T- R L- T- R L- T- R
Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Uncontrolled Uncontrolled
Rights: Include Include Include Include Rights: Include Include include include
Lanes: 0 0 it 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 Lanes: - 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 if 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
I--------------- II--------------- I--------------- ~I--------------- I. I-----------II--------------- I--------------- II---------- I
Volume Module: Count Date: 24 Feb 2004
:00 pm - 6:00 pm Volume Module: Count Date: 26 Feb 2004 << 6100 - 6:00 PM
Base Vol: 5 0 5 0 0 0 0 295 5 10 515 0 Base Vol: 0 0 0 20 0 15 15 285 0 0 510 30
Growth Adj: 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 Growth Adj: 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01
Initial Bse: 5 0 5 0 0 0 0 298 5 10 520 0 Initial Bse: 0 0 0 20 0 15 15 288 0 0 515 30
Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
IP . Site: 43 0 47 0 0 0 0 34 47 43 38 0 In-Process: 11 0 19 0 0 0 0 73 8 48 74 0
Initial Fut: 48 0 52 0 0 0 0 332 52 53 558 0 Initial Fut: 11 0 19 20 0 15 15 361 8 48 589 30
User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 ,1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Ad': 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 PHF Adj: 0.94 0.94 '0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94
PNF Volume: 51 0 55 0 0 0 0 353 55 56 594 0 PHF Volume: 12 0 20 21 0 16 16 384 9 51 627 32
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Final Vol.: 51 0 55 0 0 0 0 353 55 56 594 0 Final Vol.: 12 0 20 21 0 16 16 384 9 51 627 32
Critical Gap Module: Critical Gap Module:
Critical Gp: 6.4 xxxx 6.2 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 4.1 xxxx xxxxx Critical Gp: 7.1 xxxx 6.2 7.1 xxxx 6.2 4.1 xxxx xxxxx 4.1 xxxx xxxxx
FollowUpTim: 3.5 xxxx 3.3 xxxxx. xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 2.2 xxxx-xxxxx FollowUpTim: 3.5 xxxx 3.3 3.5 xxxx 3.3 2.2 xxxx xxxxx 2.2 xxxx xxxxx
--------I---------------II---------------II---------------II--------- I I------------------------------------------------------------
Capacity ~
Module: Ca acit Module.
Cnflict Vol: 1088 xxxx 381 xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 409 xxxx xxxxx Cnflict Vol: 1173 xxxx 388 1175 xxxx 643 659 xxxx xxxxx 392 xxxx xxxxx
Potent Cap.: 239 xxxx 666 xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 1156 xxxx xxxxx Potent Cap.: 169 xxxx 660 168 xxxx 474 929 xxxx xxxxx 1166 xxxx xxxxx
Move Cap.: 230 xxxx 666 xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 1156 xxxx xxxxx Move Cap.: 155 xxxx 660 155 xxxx 474 929 xxxx xxxxx 1166 xxxx xxxxx
I---------------II---------------il---------------II--`------------L I II--------------- II--------------- II---------------I
Level Of Service Module: level Of Service Module:
Stopped Del:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 8.3 xxxx xxxxx Stopped Del:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 8.9 xxxx xxxxx 8.2 xxxx xxxxx
LOS by Move: * * * * * * * * * A * * LOS by Move: * * * * * * A * * A
Movement: LT LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT
Shared Cap.: xxxx 340 xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx shared cap.: xxxx 301 xxxxx xxxx 218 xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx
Shrd Strel:xxxxx 19.8 xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 8.3 xxxx xxxxx Shrd StpDeL:xxxxx 18.4 xxxxx xxxxx 24.9 xxxxx 8.9 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
Shared LOS: * C * * * * * * * A * * Shared LOS: * C * * C * A
Approach0el: 19.8 xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx ApproachOet: 18.4 24.9 xxxxxx xxxxxx
ApproachLOS: C * * * ApproachLOS: C C
Traffix 7.5.0715 (c) 2002 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to DOWLING ASSOCIATES, INC. Traffix 7.5.0715 (c) 2002 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to DOWLING ASSOCIATES, INC.
TTPMH.OUT 4-12-104 3:55p Page 2 of 2
a
pend~ix
Turn Lane Warrant Worksheets
~ooS 7_07n FF«
(w~',7t 8~ 8c IoA_b con11111-
I 10 Pm 9gAr A r )33P-D_
COB)
ep Grade, Unsignalized Iniersectioly
L- % LaH Turm in VA
S-Storage Length Required
Too V' - B0 mph
L -15 %
i
v~: i
~I
3 ~e ~ I I ~ I
N Le t-tees La i •e.N re . - /
too
100 .0
-1 H
" eoo Noe »o eeo too eNM rwo
a o . No : "a No *W
V,L .eV.NCN,t VOLume IV#NI
Figure 4. Warrant for left-turn storage lanes on two-lane highways.
--qm PpkK µov/L - IVL>_, MT0 AT ►33 PZ W 8
1 I
i eoo
Grade, Unsignalixed Inlerseelions
L- % Lafl Turns in V '
d i
S-Storage Length Required
V". 40 mph
v : L -20%
eoo Z I 1 1 I !
ix;
s
I It I 1_1
- I
= I
'.oo' I
I ~
m~; I I i
c too ^....r
INS
sL9it hre l~n Meulrad i° t i - -
i 1
z.. I
y i 1 I •
~ I I I _
~tA
I'll I
0
• -o ao tao too .oo too ~ eoo roo too wa eNM iao
t V4 .eV.Ne1Nt V.LNYe IVrNI
Figure 5. Warrant for left-turn storage lanes on two-lane highways.
a•oas- i o ~t2 ~F 1C-
62 F1~~ ~~8~
k /tXp goum-rrJ AT Pln P77
Lanes at Unsignaliyed ' ee0 Grad Unsignalized Intersections
jut of Highways, L- Lett Turns in V.
leering. McGraw_ } +oo i S-St Length eq*td
L~ •k
_854. 1
1 w
I
1
;(rnh ; .ee i
1 let -tam Ue Ile ke
atovz)
aI
.I
~ ~ Inn i I I
1
i
•o Na no goo Fm eoo eM rao son sno 000 luo
V, ~OYONCIM VOIaaC lVOlll
I Figure 2. Warrant for left-tum storage lanes on two-lane hi ways.
AO P&?k HOUP _
gO Lt- m-r1J A-r 6kr KleZD
I q~
te, Unsignolited Intarsgctimn lrij~ s°n Grade, Unsignalired I rsections
a-storage Length Recom L. % Left Tur in VA
S-Storage qth Required
a.4C mph
oa
3.
, L-10 %
1
O
• OoC '
• 5.
30a:~
Ro eft-taro LdM Its lead ,
0
.moo
J
I
r. I
Na eM RO M n
O r 100 C00 g00 000 en0 COO T00 eoo Ono 00o INq
VA eoVINCINO VOUMC tYON/
,e highways. I Figure 3. Warrant for left-turn storage lanes on two-lane highways.
A.
rv1`7 "/''S7~~z7D
C
10
° Grade, UlnignOOZe nlersectioN
L• % Leff in Vp
S•Sl length Re(Ou6ed
soo V' • 40 mph
L ■IS %
1
eoo I : ~
i•
e
so* ~
i I
I
i 400
a
I
o so0 ~ i I
o _I-1
~LO •IerR Le ° ° ro • 1
too
I
w0 t
woo Iwo
. e00 w0 s00 100 No to
. 0°~ q0 e0° e00 VA .eWOCIM "Lwc (V►RI
Figure 4. Warrant for left-tum storage lanes on two-lane highways.
_ A/r► PQW H,00)2- 8~r l /=trnl A,,- 133RD
Grade, Unsignalized Inlerseclions
j L- % LaN Turns in VA i
S=Staroge Length Required
TO0 V- • 40 mph
n
• L =20%
wo 1 l 1 I I
I
I
_ sae ,
1
•l 1
Y soo 1
o Lill IerR L6a Re viro ,j_ ' . i
Coo
I I 1 i ' 1
1pO I
1 I _
ry 1 t
°ro wo too boo .oo wo sea roo sea Ieo woo Iwo
VA "VAN"S V""C tv"'
Figure 5. Warrant for left-tum storage lanes on two-lane highways.
1
7.fL 79,4F
L w / 7k K 1, ST12E f~11/~ 307 11T1,OA)S)
AA Pme mT) M ~kL H LWB~
PM PFF}K Hot1R - 60c 1. 14, N A r bl2aWF14 LEB~
Pm PW HoOP-' gou- MTnJ 6gawF1&D (W B)
'rates at Unsignaiiyed c>i~) ep Gr Unapnali>ed Intersections
-ant of Highways, L•,•r,,utt rarnS in V„
S•Stor Length Required
.veering. McGraw. '•40mph
L Y.
054. 1 '
I -
, Let -lurn Use RI d
i
i _
too t Soo 1 400 ee0 w0 r00 eoa too eo0 Iq0
Va .OY.IICINI YOlalle (YrNI
Figure 2. Warrant for left-tum storage lanes on two-lane highways.
1
e Pin P&-AV kpt)R-- O e LW$4~1
1 q~ 1 . 1
H. Unsignolized Intersections (Y•~~ ree Grade, Unsignalized Intersections
eta Storage Length Required L• % Lett Turns in Vs
S-Slorage Length Required
- ~•pD o 1G. -40 mph
L -10 %
(00
°
1
300: MI
r
> No 111-lere Lone Req Ind
•i sr
r. I
'
w eon ae ° e ee eao sea Ioe ~ / iea eo/ "o cea "Do
V4 eeme1Ne VOW lV>NI
me highways. i Figure 3. Warrant for left-turn storage I es on two-lane highways.
{}m Pik z%Wp g jI t fn
(ES
.P
,
r
. 0-)X2 kj~Fi c oivD % rl dw5
aDoS -1 64 OAA Cp'NAJ Ecn,DA) o AI
2- LANE HIGHWAYS
100
~ FULL. WIDTH TURN LANE
a~
Cr- 90 TAPER
0
x
X PEt! eC Hov2 6OLL MTN•
z 60 Am A--r 133RD LEB~
40 RADIUS ONLY REQUIRED ~ 133e
-r
x x ~n1 BULI. 40
oc A.-1- fly '
NOTE: For posted speeds at or under 45 Tph, 6WS)
20 peak hour right turns greater than 40 vph,
and total peak hour proach les~ than aQ.o VBh,
just peak hour t turns I
Peak hour right to 20
200 300 400 500 600. 700
100
' TOTAL PE K HOUR APPROACH VOLUME (VPH) Cwe)
- ' ~}p1. PE>~iG fto~i2- aqLt_.r1rN A T ~
• ago .
4 - LANE HIGHWAY
_ 100 FULL- IDTH TURN LANE
or
a
0
x
TAPER
a
z 60
cc
..i
Co
a 40.
RAD S
20
NOTE: For application on high speed highways
20o 400 600 600 1000 1200
TOTAL PEAK HOUR APPROACH VOLUME (VPH)
2rlgure 4.23. Traffle voliimc gutdeUnea for design of right turn (cams. (Source: Ref 4 3~
i
aOOs- -p7W& i 1~tc .cD~Jt7~ vs ~„I,~e:!--n~vs
)
64
Awl)
L .
2 LANE HIGHWAYS
100
FULL-WIDTH TURN LANE
C 80 TAPER
a Am PAY- 44UP S~~c >n
W
60
PM Pg*v- 61a"= B ~ mTN
t- RADIUS ONLY REQUIRED per l 33 eD L6B)
41 -
a
c~
20 NOTE: For posted speeds at or under 45 ph,
peak hour right turns Greater then 0 vph,
and total peak hou; .,roach lesj an.19.0;.lh.
aoLL mTN
Adjust peak h fight turns AM FMK Wp-_ ~1 5f1L CE$~
Peak our ri ms - 20
100 200 300 400 500 600
TOTAL PEAK HOUR APPROACH VOLUME (VPH)
Pm pen
Rm' P61EK. FtO BULL mT~
UP r (IL CMTN f~ G Ar k 5-r>PaT (a
120
4 - LANE HIGHWAYS
100 FULL-WIDTH TURN LANE _
7
x 60'
TAPER
z 60
Cr
s
is 40.
RADIUS
20 •
4
NOTE: For application on high speed highways
200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
TOTAL PEAK HOUR APPROACH VOLUME (VPH1
fta t 4.23 Tra& volume guldellm for de*n of right--turn lanes (Son= Rd. 4-11)
Signal Warrants Analysis
Worksheets
„ 4N
19
~ ~ 3 "1- ~ ~ ~ ~ z s 3~ z 3• ~ s s 3• s 's i 3. e - s u 3 ~ ~ ~ 3 z 3s ~ 's 3. 3• 3
x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x a 3
P ~
~Ny {f~ ~~pp N w U p J~ H m a^ N u tuff V V b O l N P~
N V N b O j N P~ ~ ~ u m A D U O - b N
A t tT m A A tT N N m b- N lT t0 ~ ""'TTTIIT"It~
y D ♦ C
yy .p ~lpT A N a P D a a~ P to P f
i A tT O V m w~ r y ru- g ~ N P N~ A V u b~ D U~ OC A A U O V m W V V j .u.. O .N• W N P .w• j V b D D to m
w P U ~ N
N pp
a Z D D A D m b tw)I N m N u 4Pi tPi+ + i u V N i m A
„D,• W J v A D P - ;
a a a a m t0 A P U N m N w w a a U m 3
m '
U O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O m
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o m
C
r ~a
.eu+®~ - n m loon
T
Wo ✓~N
S x x x x x x x x ax ax. x s`s ax ax ~ x= x x x x x x x x_ x x x x x x x= x x x x x
x= x 3 x. ,a x. ~d x x x a 'E 9
t 3 3' ` ' - '0- `r 'a3- S `9 19 s 'a' 'S' s s s s '1 '1 4' R, 4' 4' mg MR MR §x =R
yp yy~~ (J~
. UI G P b lJ1 P V m laT W lil b~ ~O A. P V~ O P~ b m~ N~ tT U P b tT P V m laT a lT ~p m V~ .P.. J P V V O~~ V~
a
J
tf~ pp~~ ~~pp y u g +y a + ~1 p~ a ~p p Jp. W J+~ + Jp~ {p~ v pp.. ~~j1 „
~ 1 P b 0 U~ m N O~ ~ W P P^ A v P O ~..Om xl O A> P ~ ~G O tT r N O O fwi, T P~+ V ` V~ W m
N
3 ~
N
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o Z 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
N N
~ N' N W w tT O w tT V N W W W w A a A tT V F W
.N W W an O W y, :p N W W W w A a A ♦n V o w
fill
999 ~~~_~a
y 3 a' ~
r W
3 3 3 x~ r m i 3 r s i~ s~ s s~ s z~~ i a s 3~ x~ z s s r ~ s s;~
2 _
5
0
N {~1 V ~p
i t~i a ~o m m N - a iw m w tWT O` ~ W P N o m_ {Y i Y P~ v±~
i > u1 m w aWT V u ~ N u'~ ~ m m - u ~ ~ ~
9 ya jN n
Y~ m~< u u~ ~o w g~ m Q m c~ {'v o o w ^m 'd' m= x~ w p
f.~i u u~i ~ uwi ~ g~ m$ m a~ ~ o o u m p. m a ~ ~ p
c to
Y i e N w W w X Y Y `3 P o i u u a N N$ i i$ w W W W Y Y Y 9=; A ~p
w or w a. v v G ;
N V
N 2
m 1C
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o~~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
G
Q L
P
FAN
- H N N N N N N r w 0 n n N-
N~ N O m Ih M N_ _ VI In 1~1 N N N
m ~ OI N N N N N N N w-^
y n
VI
N ~
~ ~i .my N^ r- w N N H N N ~ m ~ m m r w N
Z N N N N N
N Y~ .p p
~ h f V' O~ a m Or ~ N. H~ N .D S ei N N N
s n a0 N N~ $ n n N m u 3~ .NO $ m< r v v$~~ g~~
j 3^° a ~i m~♦ r a s
N
g 4S45sg, ySfa,
W~} W R 2 S 2 S 2== S S 2 S 2 S S S 2 2 2 'S 2
_ = t F Y d F m m ho m £ L s€ S N N•
: : S£ £ S m sSw. S 8' q r r w.
f £ r E
N
~i
3
g 3
gs _gs ss k _ rpe y~ ~ re
~ T } G ~ ~ 4 L~ ~ 4 r T Z h -1~ ~ ~ < .
r < 3 iS
~sy~ y
37 n 7 OP
s v o tm
Appendix 1
F Street Extension Concept
~ ®sSA
L ~
~q(ZK t P.l y ~
r
Gh f4
X f3US .
9
a 'q+ yr.mr
1~' 5
Y
e ,
f
Orr
r : .
e
Appendix J
Future Street Plan and Site
Access and Circulation Plan Maps
April 2004
Alberta Rider Elementery School
t
I
6~,~~ .-.-r--'-• ~l (NO SCALE)
BULL MOUN~AIN
- o IN E VIEW l - -
-
I I e
1-77 L -T
310' I 940' t
~ I
E V► 1
I ~ I s I
1 I I i
9 ~I 1 I ` -
I EL I I
1 I I I
I L -
I I I ~
® I \ \ 1
I !--~X
f
- F-
1 I r, ' Li
LIJ
o
e EXISTING STREET
no PROPOSED STREET `
E
° BEEP BEND
FUTURE STREET m
(AS PROPOSED MOTHERS)
ma ® FUTURE STREET
(AS PROPOSED BY SCHOOL DISTRICT)
FUTURE STREET PLAN
TIGARD, OREGON
KrrrELSON & ASSOCIATES, INC.
A
March 2004
A&erta AlderElamentery Sdwl,
(NO SCALE)
PEDESTRIAN I BICYCLE
ACCESS -
EMERGENCY VEHICLE
ACCESS
I
BULL MOUNTAIN
mg
1 1 1 -1-
PUBLIC STREET ACCESS ACCESS IAN I BICYCLE
(SERVES PEDESTRIANS = t
AND BICYCLISTS) 1 i
. 1 ® I
0 1 1
a
1 t®m®
1 1
o'
1 I 1
a
1 ® BICYCLE t PEDESTIAN F 0 ~ `
® ® AND EMERGENCY
VEHCILE ACCESS =1 \
1 0 ~ ® ~
_ 1 1 1
1
mm® ~ mmm mm mmmm® mL® m mmiw®
1 1 1 1 ®
1 ® ® 1
1 ® ® 1 ~
1 1 ® 1 ~
1 1 1 ~
1 ® 1 1
® ® I I 1 1 9
c
1 n
0
SITE ACCESS AND CIRCULATION PLAN MAP
TIGARD, OREGON
ICITTELSON & ASSOCIATES INC.
Exhibit `I'
•
• 'Sean Scott
® From: Baldwin, Ben [BaldwinB@trimet.org]
® Sent: Friday, July 25, 2003 9,26 AM
To: Sean Scott
® Cc: Park, Young
® SU61ect:. Alberta Rider Elementary
•
Dear Mr. Scott:
• Since TriMet does not provide bus service along Bull Mountain Road, TrlMet
® does not request or require any facilities associated with a TriMet bus stop
as part of the Alberta Rider project.
• Sincerely,
• Ben Baldwin
•
•
1
Exhibit `J'
Westlake i l.tillPIYPIt? I IiNta7NV-h111NG+ I GU RVEYTIJG
consultants,inc 1
Preliminary Storm Drainage Study
for
RIDER
ALBERTA ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
March 23, 2004
r~.
s
t~
Pacific Corporate Center 1n 15 sN soqunia parkway,
. CADI,'Glw.MI65803SdnRep It ocsijtr. 150, sirgard, Oregon 97224
wwwo v rsll7Recunautkanio,corn I PH 503,vJ4.061 2 1 FX 503.6iA•t1157
4..
Purpose:
This report is a preliminary analysis for the storm water runoff predicted from
an assumed commercial development, being 9.3 acres in size. The
development includes a new elementary school building.
Soils:
The Soil Survey for Washington County, September 1982, published by the Soil
Conservation Service, was used to determine the soil type.
On site soils consist of the following: Cornelius and Kinton silt Loams, 2 to 7
percent slopes being in Hydraulic Group 'C.'
Water Quality Pond:
- The water quality Swale is designed using 100 percent of the impervious
surfaces of the proposed development during the 0.36 inch 4 hour storm event,
while the excess will bypass the system. The required water quality flow rate
is 0.28 cfs, having a required length of 185 tf. See attached bio-filtration swale
calculations.
Detention Pond:.
A detention facility is not required for this project as the down stream
developments are sized to accept the storm drainage runoff from this site.
r
CAD W G\work11658035 trnReport.doc
00 'OP
ALBERTA RIDER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL Date: 2/25/2004 Job 1658-03
~~ra~ s p Q1`iV~~; . ~;~v~.~t~,'~'. `r ~ ~;t:.y~` }'~'~`•i~~~~au~~x~~.,.3.::c~rk. T. ` -
A = 133763 sf
I = 0.36 inches
WOF = 0.28 cfs
-jpg
a S.
Igg PINWORM
M NUM
Q= 0.28 Design flow rate (c.f.s.)
n = 0.24 manning's n
S = 0.090 longitudinal slope ofswale (ft/ft)
b = 10.00 width of bottom (ft.)
Z = 4.00 side slope (ft//ft) } s
0.1000 6.60 7.40
0.2000 1.40 3.00
0.1500 2.96 4.16
0.3550 -0.58 2.26
0.0790 10.06 10.69
x
y = 0.079 found from trial and error
A = 0.81 sq. ft.
V=O/A
V = 0.34 ft/s < 0.9 ft/s OK
v
01- MIX 53
L=(V)(t)(60)
I= 9.00 min (minimum required)
V = 0.34 ft/s
L= 184.65 ft ok
This swaTe is based on Clean Water Services Design Standards Appendix B section 4.0
A Exhibit `K'
mAy-23-04 10:04A
1a 11 \ 1 \1111
® ~ 1 ; 111 1\ \ 1
®'1 \1\~ ~ ~~`1 1`\1 11 ~ 1\\1 ~ ~ 1 X11 ~ 1 1
1`~\ `11`\\~` ~\\`\1\11\\\ 1\ \1\\ ; \ 11 I
t\ % `1\ 1+ 1 \ 11 1 \ \ 11 1111 Il 1 1\ 11 1 + /
11` +1\ 111 ~I ; ; jl 11 ; tl ~ ; ~ tl
1~~~1+111 ~t\11 ►111 +111 i
9 Red Alder
s+++++•++ s~iiliilltlltll►It
alk sl,s+l++11, t1,1►1tl~l~tl~!
i;i~i~l;s;l' ~Il~i~i~il+i►, 13 Snowberry
s s!! 1 1 1 1 /
~!i!'~'~i'i!rlflllllll111 1! r
20 Redtwig Dogwwod
® 1'L~1j1'l'II!Ir Ijljllj 111 /
II I f r~lrlil {11~
iii~i~~i';~iriirrr►ij~i! i~ V
~~~~~~~lri~r►lrr~ ~►~rr~~r 24 Oregon Grape
! r rr r r
! ,rrrrrrr r r rr
irr/r'r'r~rrrr'r rr it rr1i 111111111
) rlrr' 1r1 i 1 % i i` 1 1 i Pro-Time #500 Seed Mix
1 ~ r l it / r ; [if I r r 1 .r r r r J To Be Used on the Bottom
r 1 S 6 & Sides of Bio-Swale
i i/ r,/ i r e r fill I
1 01
AIN 01
AOL
L'uminaire'Specifications Exhibit T'
CC/CCS Arm Mount Models
Dimensions Housing: Spun aluminum. (Rollformed linear reveals; CC: Three
equally spaced reveals, '/z wide, separated by 'rh' ribs, Ya' deep.
CCS: One Yi groove, Ya deep.) Sidewalls have a maximum. l° of
taper, and are free of welds or fasteners. A rollformed aluminum
flange is hemmed into the bottom providing support for the reflector
Tf4& module. An internal aluminum casting provides for mounting of the
electrical module plus reinforcing for side-arm mounting of the fixture.
Lens Frame Assembly: One piece cast aluminum lens frame is
attached to the housing bya zinc plated cold rolled steel hinge with
a stainless steel pin. Closure is by self-retained stainless steel
screws; four provided for the 25' and 29' models, three provided for
the 21' model, and a single screw for the 17' model. A stainless
r- steel self-locking stop arm is provided to hold the lens frame in the
6• open position while servicing. A 3/,e' thick clear flat tempered glass
lens is fully gasketed by a one piece extruded and vulcanized
silicone gasket. Lens is retained in the frame by removable zinc
plated steel clips.
Arm Section Standard; Arm Mounting: Arm is one piece extruded aluminum with
internal bolt guides and fully radiussed top and -bottom.
Luminaire-to-poie attachment is by internal draw bolts, and includes
a pole reinforcing plate with wire strain relief. Arm is circular cut to
mate with specified round pole.
Wa) l" J Reflector Module: Specular Alzaks optical segments are rigidly
i mounted within a die-cast aluminum enclosure that attaches to
IMil~la l the housing as a one piece module. Reflectors are field rotatable
in, 90° increments. All sockets are factory prewired with a
?Cl7A CC21A quick-disconnect plug for the ballast module. Wire penetrations
to the socket are sealed by a silicone gasket to create a totally
sealed optical chamber. The optical segments are positioned
so- that reflected light does not pass through the lamp arc
tube. The metal halide lamp reflectors are equipped with
17'aw." 4'h' 21'om 4Yz pin-oriented mogul base socket with a molded silicone lamp
stabilizer. All HPS and PMH horizontal reflectors are equipped with a
8. T mogul base socket rated 4KV or 5KV. 750 and 1000 watt lamps utilize
~ 10' a lamp vibration stabilizer that braces the neck of the lamp with
L'
two-prong stainless steel- clamp extending from the socket mount
CCS17A _ CCS21 A Electrical Module: All electrical components are UL and CSA
recognized, mounted on a single plate and factory prewired with
quick-disconnect plugs. Module_ attaches inside the housing using
keyhole slots. All ballasts are: high power factor with starting
temperatures of -40°F, for HPS and -20`F for MH lamp modes.
Finish: Super TGIC thermoset polyester powder coat paint, 2.5 mil
;C25A CC29A nominal thickness, applied over a chromate conversion coating;
5000 hour salt spray test endurance rating. Standard colors are
Black, Dark Bronze, Light Gray, Platinum Silver, or White. Custom
colors are available and subject to additional charges, minimum
quantities and longer lead times. Consult representative.
25' ou 29' c~ Certification: UL Listed to U.S. and Canadian safety standards for
wet locations. Fixture manufacturer shalt employ a quality program
r that is certified to meet the ISO 9001:2000 standard.
10 11' ( }
.1L p;S25A CC529A. ~l t'Aj1l.t ~UVYi t/1 [3i i'" !ply"~~
1 ~ _ t ?U101f tu+LYlin-alrc f p~,li✓
CALrWN: Fmctures_ must be grounded in accordance with local.
code or the National Electrical Code. Failure to do so may result in
serious personal injury.
esa soma uaFmNo.
Option Specifications
See pages 10-11 for complete ordering information
wall Mounting: (For poured concrete walls only). Modified support oo .
arm-whh side access :hole for field splicing. Zinc electro-plated steel
embedment bracket for casting around a Junction Box, coverplate for , s J-box
Junction Box finished to match fixture. 81 x 6H .x 2'W. (by others),
Photocell: Factory installed photocell inside housing with a fully Photocell Sensor
gasketed sensor on the side wall. For multiple fixture mountings, one
fixture 'is supplied with a photocell to. operate the .others.
(Exceptions: Four 400 watt fixtures where two fixtures will have
photocells. 750w att fixtures and above will have individual photocells).
convex Glass Lens: The 3/,s'thick clear convex tempered glass lens _
replaces. the standard flat glass lens. Provides increased lens 17' = 13/4'
presence and. provides a subtle, improvement in uniformity where 21' = 31/4'
pole spacing is extreme. Increases' effectiveness of houseside 25+ _ 25/e
shielding' 29' = 33/4' T-
Convex Glass Lens
Polycarbonate Lens: (1r, .21 and 25' models). Clear UV
stabilized convex polycarbonate replaces standard flat glass lens,
gasketed and integral with 'lens frame. 250 Watt maximum. 17' ` 13/4
For 21 "and 25' models, 400 Watt HPS is allowable in locations where 21'= 3'/4' ~
ambient air temperature will not exceed 85'F during operation: 25'= 25/8 T~
I "Ir"ON: Use* only when vandalism is anticipated to be high.
Useful life is limited by UV discoloration from sunlight and metal Polycarbonate Lens
halide lamps.
Houseside Shield: (types II, 111, and IV only). Fixtures with the a
standard flat glass lens are available with stamped aluminum lowers 311
-
that pass.streetside light and block houseside light, and a black panel
added to the, reflector. to reduce houseside reflections. Fixtures with
the optional convex glass lens are available with a formed aluminum
shield that passes streetside light and blocks houseside light, and a
black panel added to the reflector to reduce houseside reflections. Houseside.Shield for Houseside Shield for
Use with clear lamps ally, as coated lamps reduce effectiveness. fiat lens only convex lens or
polycarbonate lens
Vertical Slipfitter Mount: Allows standard fixture and arm to be. Vertical Slipfitter Mount
mounted to steel. poles having a 2' pipe-size. steel tenon
(23/s' O.D: x 41N min: length). 4' round or square cast aluminum with nothers) flush cap, secured by four 3/a stainless steel set point allen screws. Stainless
Pole tenon•must be field drilled at one set screw location to insure steer -
againstfucfure rotation. Fnished to match fixture. Pole set screws
te4' Round 4' Square
HorLwntal Slipfitter Mount:-Replaces standard mounting arm with - Horizontal Slipfitter Mount
a slipfitter w Nch allows CGCCS Arm Mount model to be mounted to
a horizontal pole davit-arm with 2' pipe-size mounting end
;(23/8 O.D.). Cast.-aluminum clamp-type slipfitter with set screw
anti-Mtation lock. Bolts to housing from inside the electrical.
compartment using mounting holes for the standard support arm., Davit arm with 2' pipe-size
Davit-arm must be field drilled at a set screw location to insure. fixture mount (by others)
against"fxture rotation. Finished to match fixture and arm.
Accent Reveals: (CC series only). Three aluminum bands riveted
inside the housing reveals. -Available in five standard Kim powder
coat find-ies. Custom colors available.
.BUM.UGFfr1NQ 19
Ordering Inf®rmati®n
cc/ccs.
- 29' Arm Mount
Curvilinear. Arm Mount 70 to loon watt
AOL
MW" fire [Electrical Module Fnish Options Accent Reveals l-- Pole --I
Ordering E am. ple:. 1A /CC25A3 /400MH277 / LG-P/ A-t33 / BL-REV/ PRA3M250A / LG-P
For Standard Fixture and Pole 1 2 3 4 5-10 11 12
For cc only. See separate Kim Pole Catalog.
Omit for 1W Wall Mount
1 Mounting: wall
Plan View:
3Y configuration is available" ' Mount
for round poles only.
Cat No., to 2B 2L 3T 3Y 4C 1W
EPA 17': " . 0.9. 1.8 1.6 2.5 2.5 2.8
21': 1.2 2.4 2.2 3.4 3.4 3.9
'25': 1.5 3.0 2.7 4.3 . 4.3 4.9
..29': .1.8 3.6 3.3 5.2 S.2 5.9
.2 Fixture: Fixture
.:Cat. No. designates CClCCS
fixture and right distribution.,
CC CCS Light Distribution: Type II Type III Type IV Type V'
Full Cutoff Full Cutoff Full Cutoff Square
Full Cutoff
1T Cat. No.: CC17A2 CC17A3 CC17A4 CC17A5
CCS17A2 CCS17A3 CCS17A4 CCS17A5
CC fixtures have 3 horizontal,
reveals. " CC - CCS Light Distribution: Type ll Type III Type IV Type V
Full Cutoff Full Cutoff Full Cutoff . Square
Full Cutoff
21' Cat. No.: CC21A2 CC21A3 CC21A4 CC21A5
k CCS21A2 CCS21A3 CCS21A4 CCS21A5
CC CCS Ught Distribution: Type 11 Type III Type IV Type V
CCS fixtures have l horizontal Full Cutoff Full Cutoff Full Cutoff Square
groove. Full Cutoff
25, ` Cat No.:. CC25A2 CC25A3 CC25A4 CC25A5
CCS25A2 CCS25A3 CCS25A4 CCS25A5
Seethe Kim. Site/Roadway
-.Optical Systems Catalog for cc CCS
detailed information on reflector Light Distribution: "Type 11 Type III Type IV Type V
design and application, - Full Cutoff Full Cutoff Full* Cutoff Square
Full Cutoff
Cat No::. CC29A2 CC29A3 CC29A4 CC29A5
CCS29A2 CCS29A3 CCS29A4 CCS29A5
3 : Electrical Module:" CC/CCS 17' CCICCS 21' and 25' CCICCS29'
70HPS120 ;11)0HPS120 15HPS120.:150HPS120 250HPS120 400HPS120 750HPS120 1000HPS120
HPS High PressureSodium . 70HPS208.100HPS208 .150HPS208 150HPS208 250HPS208400HPS208 750HPS208 1000HPS208
,:11111H-MetalHaiide: ",70HPS240 .100liPS240 150HPS240 150HPS240. 250HPS240 400HPS240 750HPS240 .1000HPS240
70HPS277?;100HPS277 150HPS277 ,150HPS277.25DHPS277 400HPS277 750HPS277 1000HPS277
PMH; Pulse Start" 70HPS347.100HPS347 150HPS347.15MPS347. 250HPS347 400HPS347.750HPS347 -1000HPS34T
Metal Halide` " 150HPS480 .250HPS480 400HPS480 `750HPS480 1000HPS480
70MH1120 `,100MH720 :150MH120.. ,
7OMH208 100MH208 ' " 150MH2O8 175MH120.:. 250MH120 400MH120 1000MH120
70m'w `100MH240...1SOMH240:. 175MH2O8 2SOMH208 "400fn'nco
1 70MH277 100MH277 150MH27T 175MH340. 250MH240-' 40OMH240 • 1OWMH240
70MH347 100MIIWT 150MH347' 175111H277•-,250MH277 40OMHW :1000MH277
175MH720 175NIH347 '250MH347 40OMH347. 1000MH347 1
1751A4208 • 175MH480 .2SOMH48G 40OMH480. 1000MH480
lamp. tamp :Line 17SMH244 250PMH120 40oPMH12o 750PMH120 loooPMH120 .
Watts Type Volts 175MH2T7 250PMH208 40OPMH208 750PMH208 1000PMHM
HPS 1175110047 25WMH200.400PMH240 75"H240 1000PMH240
4W W
2WIIII12n. 400P&*IM 75OPMH227" 4000PMH277
250PMH347."'400PMH347 75OPMH347' 100®PMH347,
M MH480:400PMH480 150PMH480.•1000PMH4
vo wan ucat•mNG
4 F1nISh Color Black Dark bronze. r.Ught Gray PS-PPlatinum Silver W~tP ACP Colors
Cat No.: BL-P" DB-P. `LG-P
Super TGIC powder coat paint Consult representative - '
for custom colors
corners>a! oaating• .
oVerdhrorrelo
Mounting (see page 10) Wattage per fixture Voltage Cat No..
30
o' 7W & 1
20 A A 3t
al Photocell::
5 Opti y
150 to 100pyy 208
%
Factory Installed photocell in 400W Each 240 A-32
g . asketed : " p 1A 1W 28 2L .3T, 3Y 277- A-33'
houstn with fully g fixture.'
sensor on side wall: hotocell s f 480 A-34
iJ 15b to has a 347:. A-35
.250W photocell
Fnchue wittt.photocell 120 :2A-30:
s slave'uf a) •208 2A-31
240 2A-32
s 4C 40OW -33
' J as 2A.
0
7 2A-35
34
Glass Cat No:: CGL" Tempered convex glass lens replaces standard flat: lens.
Optional Convex Changes Full Cutoff to Cutoff.
Lens:
' ;Coirvex Lens. .
" Cat. No.: Polycarbonate Lens replaces standard" tempered glass ens."
"ca
. L17 for 1T r" mtodels. 250 watt maximum. May be used with' 4WHPS in outdoor
7 `optional PoIYrbonate
Lens: 121 for 21' models "locations were ambient air temperature during fixture.operation
arbonate Lens . L25 for 25, models. will not exceed 85°F, See "CAUTIOW on page 13.
P
$ Optional Houseside Car No.: Hs for 17', 21', and 25-models with Types 11, 111, or"N.distnbutions only.
Recommended for use :with clear lamps only. Effectiveness is
reduced for coated lamps.
.'Shield:
1 HS for flat lens only
" A Cat No.: HSC For fixtures with optional convex glass lens or polycarbonate-lens.
{ Not for use with Type V light distributions.
~ rVl i HSC for convex tens or
r ~ycarbonate tens .
Cat No. Cat. No. vys Mounting Configuration
tional Vertical " Q SVSF-1A 1A.- Single arm mount
9 Op VSF-1A
S!lpfitter Mounts: VSF-2B _ SVSF-2B 2B - 2 at 180°
VSF-2L : SVSF-2L 2L 2 at 90
VSF-3T SVSF-3T 3T - 3 at 90
Slipfitter, VSF-3Y 3Y 3 at 120°' "
VSF-4C :'4' Round SVSF-4C a Square . 4C - 4 at 90°
Allows standard fixture and arm . to :be mounted to poles having a
2, pipe size steel terwn(2W O.D. x 4'1YT minimum. length).
Cat No . HSF Replaces standard mounting arm with a" sli erg r mounting end
.10 Optional I IOrIZOntal ':to a horizontal pole davit-arm. with 2' pipe-size
pfitter t srpfiner (233' o.D.)
Sli Moun
Color" Black Dark -B;= grt Gray PlaUruan S'Ner Wrriie ; fro Colors
1.1; Opti0nai A~CCent
Cat. No:.: BL~iE1/ ` w REV LG REV PS FIEV W
Reveais: r: Consult
For CC series only. faacustorn colors.
Reveals .
See Ktm Pole Catalog fora complete setection of mind and square poles in alLon or steel:
12 Potes;,.
. samw uorrnnaG : .ti'
Exhibit `M'
~r #
DISPOSAL COMPANY
P.O. Sox 820 Sherwood, OR 97140
Phone: (503) 625-6177 Fax: (503) 625-6179
March 11, 2004
Sean Scott
Ellis, Esiick Associates / Architects P.C.
1230 SW First Avenue, Suite 300
Portland, Oregon 97204-3236
Bear Sean,
I have reviewed the plans you submitted by fax on February 25, 2M4, for new
construction at Alberta Rider Elementary- I have included copies of Al, A2 and A3 that
you provided me for review.
The enclosure meets our recommendations for size and access for garbage and recycling
service. Due to the overhang present, we will require that containers not exceed 4 -yard
capacity. This will allow containers to have wheels; necessary in order for our driver's to
roll the container out past the ovetirang, before unloading the contents. Our trucks are
unable to directly access the containers due to the overhang.
This approval does not address possible code issues concerning fully enclosed garbage
enclosures, and the possible combustion of trash. Tabs issue will need to be addressed
separately,With the appropriate authorities.
Sincerely,
Julia Fletcher
Pride Disposal Company
503-6256177 ex 170
03/11/2004 09:30 5036256179 PRIDE: DISPOSAL. COMPM PAGE. 03/05
02/2512004 15:22 5032940827 EEA ARCHITECTS PAGE 02/04
. a P
d
• o a
• 8Ee A2 .
' SHNET
a o I ,
Ida- 6 b 6 6 19
b
1 ,
a 1
0 Q
16
`}~f Iock
03/11/2004 09:30 5036256179 PRIDE DISPOSAL COMPM PAGE 04/05
riu to/lAM 16:22 5032940827 EEA ARCHITECTS PAGE 03/04
O ,
LWOW , WYMN tovawoo toy ~ovdWa 13v®wa
. 1`
0C F0MFA0 Pao'
I.ANDSC-An ISLAND WITP (V
CONCRETE CURES WiRMOUND
V' BRICK FULLY liENCLOSc17 TR4614
EKCl.A5URE WITH SECTIONAL @
DOORS ACCESSED 15Y CODE
CONTINUOUS FLUGW CONC(ET5
SIpEW,ALK WITH ASPHALT EDCzE
ONDIUV-d ON
BNOZ JNICIV07
CHAIN-L1NI~ GATES
m
rA
E UILDING
(2) "xS ":k4' IBC 45T p
CON RETE RSS
cc
Z,7)
03%11/2004 09;30 5036256179 PRIDE DISPOSAL COMPM PAGE 05/05
62/25/2004 16:22 5032940927 EEA,ARCHITECTS PAGE 04104
OPEN WEE STEEL JOISTS
AND pool= GON6T UCTION •
5EOT I ONAL
COOP
i~i~~
~N~~ 0~~ ! ON
' ALTS.
mom
Exhibit 'N'
HALSTEAD'S "Specialists in the care and
ARBORICULTURE preservation of trees"
CONSULTANTS, INC.
David Halstead, Consultant, B.S.
Phillip Whitcomb, Consultant
P.O. Cox 1182 • Tualatin, OR 97062
db (503) 245-1383
•
September 15, 2003
Ellis Eslick Associates/Architects P.C.
ATTN.: Mr. Sean K. Scott
1230 SW First Avenue
Suite 300
Portland, OR 972043236
e
Ph 503.223.6963
Fx 503.294.0827
Reference: Tree Assessment
Location: Alberta Rider Elementary
¢ Subject: Cityof Tigard Tree Mitigation
Per your instructions we have inspected the entire site, each individual tree
located on the south side of Bull Mountain Road, Tigard, Oregon, block 13000
and the site plan "Preliminary A2.1" dated April-2003. The purpose of this
e inspection was to identify all trees six inches in trunk diameter and evaluate the
preservation potential of all trees 12 inches in diameter (measured at 4.5 feet
above ground) and larger that will be affected by the forthcoming construction in
d accordance with the City of Tigard's Tree Ordinance Chapter 18.150.
We have divided the entire area into two sections; Section One for this report will
be called "Remaining Property" and Section Two, "Residential Section". We have
A tagged and numbered all trees, both in the field, on the enclosed site plan and in
t141 this report that will be affected by the forthcoming development using JK96301-
i 347-and JK96351-JK96402, (Numbers JK96348-350 do not exist.) series tags for
Section One, "Remaining Property". and JK96403-503 series tags for Section
EZi Two, "Residential Section". For this report, only the last three digits will be used.
Due to the size and number of trees involved we have divided the site plan in to
two sections and four segments. They are called Section One and Section Two
Segments, "A, B, C" and V.
SECTION ONE:
Location: Seament "A" are those trees numbered 301.347, -starting in the
northwest comer of the property, at Bull Mountain Road and zigzags south.
Location: Segment "B" are those trees numbered 351-402 starting in the
northeast comer of the property, at Bull Mountain Road and zigzags south.
"mail hac@spidtone.com
www.halsteadsarbodculture.com
cex 00615646
Page 2
September 15, 2003
Reference: Tree Assessment
Location: Alberta Rider Elementary
Subject: City of Tigard Tree Mitigation
SECTION ONE TREE ASSESSMENT:
The entire Section One site is an abandoned orchard of cherry, walnut, apple
and filbert trees. The trees have not received any formal. care for several years
and the destruction from previous storms, disease, insect infestation and
neglect has rendered the trees hazardous, useless and/or a nuisance.'
Most of the trees are dead, dying and/or hazardous due to a condition called
"Black Line" in the walnut trees, "Brown Blossom Blight" in the cherry trees
"Cottonwood Borer" in the willows trees and/or from poor structure caused by
codominant stems, included bark and non-repairable breakage.
Several of the trees have reverted to their original graphs and have undesirable
fruiting and/or severe structural problems. The remaining hazardous trees are a
mixture of seedlings and water shoots with little or no root structure, poorly
structured suckers from broken storm damaged trunks and/or the trees have
severe decay throughout their trunks and major limbs.
There are fifty nine (59) trees within the Section One area that are less than
twelve inches in trunk diameter measured at 4.5 feet above ground, are not
significant, except for seven (7) trees and are not required to be part of the City
of Tigard's "Tree Mitigation Identification Program", therefore they are not
numbered and/or located.
In addition, there are ten (10) clumps of filbert trees (brush) within Segment "A"
that fall under Oregon State Agriculture Ordnances that states the trees can be
removed including the stumps but cannot be removed from the site until June
2004.
There are a total of forty one (41) trees over 12 inches in trunk diameter
measured at 4.5 feet above ground located within Section One and two trees
very near the neighboring property that are located within the Segment "A°
boundaries. Twenty eight (28) of the trees are hazardous and/or are undesirable,
which leaves a total of thirteen (13) trees within Section One and the two
neighboring trees to be preserved and are listed in the `Tree Table.
Page 3
September 15, 2003
Reference: Tree Assessment
Location: Alberta Rider Elementary
Subject: City of Tigard Tree Mitigation
SECTION ONE TREE ASSESSMENT:
Hazardous tree within Section One over 12" in diameter at 4.5 feet above ground
are numbered:
Tree 302, 303, 304, 305, 306, 307, 320, 322, 327, 336, 342, 345, 346, 347,
351, 365, 367, 374, 379, 383, 388, 389, 390, 391, 392, 394, 395 and 401.
Neighboring Preservable trees within Section One: There are two (2) Douglas-fir
trees on the east neighboring property line directly west from Tree Numbered
305 in Segment "A" that will require tree protection fencing and a therapeutic
treatment program. (See Tree Care and Preservation Guidelines).
SECTION TWO:
Residential Section: JK96403-503 series tags
Location: Segment "C" are those trees numbered 403-465, numbers starting at
the northwest comer of the residential property, at Bull Mountain Road and
zigzag south, east and north around the existing gravel road.
Location: Segment "D" are those trees numbered 466-503 starting in the
northeast comer of the Residential Property, at Bull Mountain Road and zigzags
east to west then south and east, ending inside of the gravel road.
Before individualizing the trees within the Residential Property it needs to be
noted that this large grove of mostly Douglas-fir trees is very fragile. All of the
trees are dependent on the buffer trees located on the south edge of the Section
Two. Any loss of these buffer trees will have a severe effect on the remaining
grove. Therefore, it is essential to protect the trees at all cost.
Page 4
September 15, 2003
Reference: Tree Assessment
Location: Alberta Rider Elementary
;
Subject: City of Tigard Tree Mitigation
This grove of trees that ranges in age from 60 to 100 years old growing r
anywhere would be an environmental tribute to ecology, growing within this
urban area and accessible to a large population the grove is priceless.
The trees in Section Two like Section One have not had any formal care, and the
trees have been left to survive as nature directs. There are several trees within
this area that are hazardous due to there structural condition caused by storms
and never repaired. There are trees that are so overwhelmed with English ivy
that they are being defoliated. For several of the smaller trees this means the
trees are destroyed. For the larger trees and most of the undergrowth trees that
are not a threat and have significant value it means they will require former
arboriculture care in order to survive.
Recommendation:
Regardless of what efforts are put into the survival of this grove a chain link fence
needs to be erected around the entire site of Section Two in order to protect
person and property from the possibly of severe damage from hanging limbs,
falling decayed and structurally unstable trees.
If the grove is to be left undisturbed and unattended then only those trees that
are on the outer perimeters that could fall or do damage outside the protected
area need to be cared for. However, it needs to be known that the trees are now
a threat to anyone within this area.
If the grove is used as an out door classroom and a excellent example of an
undisturbed revolving natural native forest then measures will need to be taken to
make it safe for persons within the area.
i
y Residential Section: JK96403-503 series tags
s
There are twenty six (26 ) trees within the Section Two area that are less than
twelve inches in trunk diameter measured at 4.5 feet above ground, are not
significant and are not required to be part of the City of Tigard's "Tree Mitigation
Identification Program". However, many of these under story trees could play an
important part in the preservation of the greater forest.
Page 5
September 15, 2003
Reference: Tree Assessment
Location: Alberta Rider Elementary
Subject: City of Tigard Tree Mitigation
SECTION TWO CONTINUED: Residential Section: A96403-503 series tags
SECTION TWO TREE ASSESSMENT:
There are twenty six (26 ) trees within the Section Two area that are less than
twelve inches in trunk diameter measured at 4.5 feet above ground, are not
significant and are not required to be part of the City of Tiigard's "Tree Mitigation
Identification Program". However, many of these under story trees could play an
important part in the preservation of the greater forest.
In addition, there are forty two (42) clumps of filbert trees (brush) within 5eament
"C and "D" that fall under Oregon State Agriculture Ordnances that states the
trees can be removed including the stumps but cannot be removed from the site
until June 2004.
There are a total Sixty fight (68) trees located within Section Two that are over
12 inches in diameter at 4.5 feet above ground and nineteen (19) of these trees
are hazardous and/or are undesirable.
Hazardous tree within Section Two over 12" in diameter at 4.5 feet above ground
are numbered:
Tree M 403, 404, 405, 407, 408, 410, 412, 414, 418, 423, 426, 430, 431, 465,
466, 467, 468, 472 and 478.
Page 6
September 15, 2003
Reference: Tree Assessment
`
Location: Alberta Rider Elementary
Subject: City of Tigard Tree Mitigation
The forthcoming table will consist of TR# (tree number), Species (common j
name), Dia DGL (diameter at ground level) HGT (height of tree), LMB (diameter
of limb spread), HLT% {(health rated 20%-80%) 40% or less is dead/dying and/or.
uncorrectable), STR% (structure rated 20%-80%) 40% or less is dead/dying
and/or uncorrectable), LOC (location) trees' location in perspective to the
"existing land marks. Haztree are those trees with extremely poor structure
and/or are diseased and need to be removed, regardless of whether they are a
threat or not. REMARKS ((brief comments). If more details are needed they will
be added to the statistics).
Preservable trees within Section One and Two,
TR#NSpecies _Dia_DBH Dia DGL HGT LMBNSPD HLT°.G STRO/9 LOC_ REMARKS
D-fir (Douglas-fir tree)
312 D-fir 13' 17" 30' 25' 60 70 Center east Sec #1-Seg A
OR-Maple (Oregon Big Leaf Maple).
318 OR Maple dbl 14X12' 33' 60' 35' 60 50 Center east Sec #1-Seg A
319 OR Maple 12' 19' 45' 20' 70 60 Center east Sec #1-Seg A
324 OR Maple IT 24" 60' 30' 70 70 Center east Sec #1-Seg A
333 OR Maple td 12,10,X10' 36' 60' 50' 80 70 Center east Sec #1-Seg A
353 13-fir 38" 58' 90' 50' 70 40 Northeast Sec #1 Seg'B'
360 D-fir 24" 36' 55' 35' 90 80 Northeast Sec #1 Seg'B"
384 D-fir 30' 48' 55' 45' 90 80 Center Sec #1 Seg'B'
W-Cedar (Western Red Cedar).
386 W-Cedar 16' 27' 35' 25' 90 90 Center Sec #1Seg 'B'
387 D-fir 24' 38" 50' 40' 80 80 Center Sec #1 Seg 'B'
Page 7
September 15, 2003
Reference: Tree Assessment
Location: Alberta Rider Elementary
Subject: City of Tigard Tree Mitigation
Preservable trees within Section One and Two:
TR# Species Dia DBH Dia DGL HGT LMB SPD HLT% STR°1_ LOCREMARKS
M-Ash (Mountain Ash. Tree).
70 70 South Sec#1Seg'B"
' 397 M-Ash 13" 15' 25' 18'
70 70 South Sec #1 Seg'B'
399 M-Ash 12" 16' 30' 25'
SECTION TWO:
4e6 D-fir 48' 60' 100' 80' 70 . 80 Mid west Sec #2 Seg 'C'
all
REMARKS: trees numbered 411, each 415-17 other asla group. Some of these trees have structural
working together and dependent nt on
flaws that will need to be e corrected for the safety of the forthcoming development. (See Tree
Protection and Therapeutic Care).
70 60 Low west Sec #2 Seg 'C"
411 D-fir 25' 36" 100' 30'
413 D-fir 38' 48' 100' 40' 70 50 Low west Sec #2 Seg'C'
415 D-fir 32' 46' 100' 70' 80 70 Low west Sec #2 Seg 'C'
•
80 80 Low west Sec 42 Seg'C"
416 Or-fir 32' 48' 100' 80'
80 80 tow west See #2 Seg 'C"
417 D-fir 42' 60' 100' 80'
20" 40' 80' 60' 90 90 Low South Sec 42 Seg'C'
419 D-fir
14" 22' 69 49 90 90 Low South Sec #2 Seg'C'
420 D-fir
421D-fir 14' 21' 60' 30' 70 70 Low South See#2 Seg'C"
70 70 Low South Sec #2 Seg'C'
r ' 60' 30'
422 D-fir 14' 22
c 14' 22" 60' 40' 80 80 Low South Sec #2 Seg'C'
- 424 D-fir
Page 8
September 15, 2003
Reference: Tree Assessment
Location: Alberta Rider Elementary
Subject: City of Tigard Tree Mitigation
Preservable trees within Section One and Two:
TO species Dia DBH Dia DGL HGT LMB SPD HLT°/a STR°k_ LOC____ _REMARKS
427 D-fir 46' 60' 100' 80' 60 50 Low South Sec #2 Seg'C°
428 D-fir 36' 40' 100' 50' 70 70 Low South Sec #2 Seg'C'
429 D-fir 36° 60' 100' 50' 80 60 Low South See #2 Seg'C°
438 D-fir 46' 70" 100' 60' 70 70 Low South See #2 Seg'C'
439 D-fir 24' 48' 80' 40' 70 50 Low South Sec #2 Seg'C°
440 D-fir IF 22" 70' 30' 50 50 Low South Sec #2 Seg'C'
441 D-fir 40' 60" 100' 50' 60 40 Low South See #2 Seg'C"
442 D-fir 40" 60' 100' 60' 60 50 Low South Sec #2 Seg'C"
443 D-fir 16' 36' 50' 30' 50 40 Low South Sec #2 Seg'C°
444 D-fir 44" 84' 100' 60' 70 60 -Low South See #2 Seg'C'
445 D-fir 54° g0' 100' 80' 80 60 Low South Sec#2 Seg'C'
N-Maple (Norway Maple Tree.
446 N-Maple 20' 30" 60' 50' 50 50 Mid East Sec #2 Seg'C'
447 N-Maple 24' 36' 60' 50' 60 50 Mid East Seek SegV
North Section Two, Segment *D'. (Between wdsting house and Bull Mountain Road).
470 D-fir 28' 36' 100' 50' 70 60 North Sec #2 Seg "D"
471D-fir 28' 36' 80' 40' 50 60 North See#2 Seg'D'
Page 9
September 15, 2003
Reference: Tree Assessment
Location: Alberta Rider Elementary
Subject: City of Tigard Tree Mitigation
Preservable trees within Section One and Two:
TR# Species Dia DBH Dia DGL HGT LMB SPD HLT"/u STR% LOC REMARKS
.SD-Cherry (Seedling Cherry).
477 SD-Cherry 18' 36' 60' 40' 60 60 North Sec #2 .Seg'D'
479 D-fir 34' 46" 60' 40' 30 30 North Sec #2 Seg'D'
481 D-fir 44' 60' 80' 50' 60 50 North Sec #2 Seg 'D'
482 D-fir 40' 60' 100' 50' 70 70 Mid Sec #2 Seg'D'
483 D-fir 30' 40" 100' 40' 70 70 Mid See #2 Seg'D"
484 D-fir 32" 46' 100' 40' 70 70 Mid Sec #2 Seg 'D'
485 D-fir 24' 38" 100' 40' 70 70 Mid See #2 Seg'D"
486 D-fir 28' 40' 100' 40' 70 70 Mid Sec #2 Seg'D'
487 D-fir 20" 40' 60' 30' 50 50 Mid See #2 Seg'D'
488 D-fir 42" 60' 100' 50' 70 70 Mid See #2 Seg'D'
489 D-fir 18' 28' 50' 10' 20 40 Mid See #2 Seg'D"
490 D-fir 25' 36" 100' 40' 40 50 South Sec #2 Seg 'D"
491D-fir 48' 60" 100' 50' 70 80 SouthSee#2 Seg'D'
493 D-fir 24" 34' 80' 40' 60 60 South Sec #2 Seg'D'
S-Berry (Snow Berry).
494 S-Berry 12' 24' 25' 25' 60 40 South Sec 02 Seg'D"
Page 10
September 15, 2003
Reference: Tree Assessment
Location: Alberta Rider Elementary
Subject: City of Tigard Tree Mitigation
Preservable trees within Section One and Two:
TR# Species Dia DBH Dia DGL HGT LMB SPD HLT% STR°/a LOC REMARKS
-
495 D-fir 18' 28' 70' 30' S0 50 South Sec #2 Seg'D"
496 D-fir 26' 36" 100' 50' 60 60 South Sec #2 Seg T"
497 D-fir 26' 36' 100' 50' 50 50 South Sec #2 Seg'D'
499 D-fir 34' 48' 100' 50' 70 80 South Sec #2 Seg'D"
500 D-fir 38' 46" 100' 50' 80 80 South Sec #2 Seg 'D'
501 D-fir 30' 40' 100' 50' 80 80 South See #2 Seg V
502 D-fir 42' 60' 100' 50' 70 70 South Sec #2 Seg 'D'
503 D-fir 30" 60" 90' 40' 90 90 South Sec #2 Seg'D'
"Retained percentage of 75% or greater of existing trees over 12 inches in caliper
requires no mitigation" according to City Ordinance 18.150.025 - 2b.
At the time of inspection and this report dated September 15, 2003, 85% of
preservable trees over 12 inches in diameter at 4.5 feet above ground will be
retained. If more than 11 percent of the aforementioned preservable trees are
removed due to any proposed construction they will need to be mitigated.
Tree Care and Preservation Guidelines
Before construction begins, Section One preserved tree root zones will need to
be protected by the installation of orange colored Tree Protection Fencing out to
the canopy dripline of the preserved tree. Tree protection fencing needs to be
attached to 7-foot tall steel fence posts placed eight feet apart on center farming
a protective line around the preserved trees. The fence posts need to be securely
anchored in the soil to a depth of two feet. The fencing, as described, will need to
be maintained throughout the entire project.
Page II
September 15, 2003
Reference: Tree Assessment
Location: Alberta Rider Elementary
Subject: City of Tigard Tree Mitigation
Section Two needs to be therapeutically treated, pruned and cabled as
necessary to provide protection for person and property both in and outside of
the area. Chain link fence needs to be erected around Section Two area, per the
consulting arborists instructions.
Before any work within the protected area and/or if the fencing needs to be
adjusted due to hardscape construction, it will first require the approval of the
consulting arborist who will then supervise the work on-site.
Structural and deadwood tree pruning will also need to be completed during
construction site preparation/site clearing in order to make these trees safe for
surrounding persons and property. The arboriculture technicians working within
the trees will also need to inspect the tree/s very carefully to make sure that
preserved trees are well prepared for the forthcoming construction.
Hazardous and nusiance tree removal within project boundaries needs to be
completed in a careful manner as to not damage any preserved tree. Any tree or
existing stump removed within 15 feet of a preserved tree needs to have the
stump groundout rather than excavated to reduce overall root trauma.
After project completion, therapeutic fertilization may be necessary for all
preserved trees to help stimulate new root growth from roots damaged during
construction and replenish any loss of soil nutrients for optimum tree growth.
As stated we have extensive field notes pertaining to each tree and if we can be
of additional assistance and/or if more technical information is needed, please.
contact me immediately.
Sincerely,
\N V r
David Halstead BS, CA
Scott Plamondon BA, CA, Section One Field Inspector
Jeremiah Sanson CA Section Two Field Inspector
oN OaE
Fvff; ( - r(~ SEEN
9EC_IIQII~MO.
- I . ~ ~ ~?nt• a`r t wrnu '/'la•I~, a Fyn ♦ t
r I 1 '
I 1 91 i~2J- / f~~ _
/
3 c.Ql^I } 4J / / / / f
f,/i~fTV•rT,rT"9 T-•--r'i,
I, t,4
.
• jrjl f/ ' ~j lli il,/f_~/~l~i :~i 1~(~11~1w ~!t)
1 ] 1 I % /l / j / / 1. I":/ r r• ys. ell l l 1
G~V ~ V• ~"J~i r
7 OA
s
-C. A
0
a ~ ht E a
*jj
U` I I
Exhibit `O'
zr
. eV~ 17a~ fl -ra
gill,, , I k MI6
pll 7,i w I 9264"7E Y.
I
200
.09 AC 2
q~ o 80AC }
.7aAC..
~ . I . zoo 1:6At
m~
W 287 AC ♦ l
76 AC 00 Q t 686000,
® 4
3-74
C
2M 2
® 1.06 AC
® x866sooW In~aOOE ~e V
® ~ IJB►U77E ~
n6a rt.ax
I i. 1 g~ J i
i
76 AC
0 6172• 'a1
~ n
.66 1 1 as
'fi
'rm
„j 7 m6"West Access Road
3B 10646
Q ( 1700 I 1
'yj .et AC
t M M6702LOe • I ,
t- i
I 1.13 3® I I
2100
nva 7.35 Aa ~
,.7 Alberta Rider
I
,emu I >6~ Elementary School Site
1.00 AC
t AC S.A y'.
( :I l AC' E .
1
Uw)
' I I 17711
41001~7f f'
h
I 1 I .44:hh MA
i I ASa~
1100
L77 AC
~
It Y
1 x ~t
Mi%~ t ;%vs i{ftti~ }I [ s. y$ ~5+ b a'pp4Pf 9 f a"
o J a a ~.d 9 ~efey
r l{~i''I t e ..,,;r„d;, 1 i ~7rI. ,.fir iz~"1~•"e' 1 >~FA a~X"
1 1 g~~ j k `1'Sv x4~h~~i3~ 2t~{ ~ t tlt ~u~.'r ~ ~ r
i y
1 74:• ~1.: 1212fAG'rf4~f))k ai:'S'~w'v~+y~I t i Ir.w .,+'~f.~1S~~~~~"~5 t.
I TO 4et Ldt S~. Lot SC lido)
o, IZS, S I25 Concept Plan for Future
Development of West Side
Properties
a cmr OF nGARD
DKSAssodates
L Tram ion
M System Plan
S
To S&E
" WALNUT EME9 8
GAARDE vi ST
E2EEB
C
~ 99W
o
D
Z
~ ® o-ll~J~-iuu
J
LLa
LU
EN
Figure 8-16
end LOCAL STREET CONNECTIVITY a:
_ smn End Street Southwest Tigard
- Direction of Access o-,d
_ pedestrian Connection
- School Site
IM MI MM MI MI
!ice
ae i .E I E ~t
~ 11~! ~ El§1~~ ~ ~~m1~ ~~E1~~ E~I11 ~ 111.• ~ ~11I E Es1'{~ ~f'I~ m r
lii ~ ESI~ ~ (iacl~ I'S~I !{'i~f d~lE'~ €~Il~!! €'~I! € 1~t!' €1'f 1i11 ~ w
€ liE~ €1!€ €ii~ilb `~~~iPl € I~iib E~i`~ ~i I' ~(lii fi€ ~ X01 m
!S R SEEEEEE EEEt EEEEE EEEE EE EE EEE EEE Eli file FEE 1111 111 It It
~ 1 I ; -E ~ ; 1 ~I I EE E 11 EEE FEE eF1 E1 1~
Jill 6I6
(P I., Ee! 513111i ill
i 11(iil( FtF! S 1 1 ii
~ DII~ ~ w ~ ilillll ppEE ~~1 ~iI11~ 6! 611 ii~ 1~ ~ ~~91 ~ ; ii11~9l1~ E
R, R 1 , , a s i fi B1EE ( ~ y i1E{ E ~
14
a
0
n
e = 11 ii 1! !E 1! 1F "Hill [lilt it is jumill
,{;t} ilia ! 11 ~iafi m s( It 111! EE ii 11 1110.1111 Ill 11~11111 I1 a
~6 i "II 1 i~ €1 0k
~
1 1FE3F
4~ ~F 6t~~ ° gE$6 11 1111 it i@@E ii sE if it
1 i ko a Be 6i 6! 6! i( E9 ~~~1
EF 1 1 9 1 el g EE C 1 co i{ cl m
l E a 1 ai is a 61 m
~ x
ca
0
r
co
t
eee:eeeee !1111111111 It IE 1111 E-11 111111
c o o p o 1- 1i ~ 11 ii llitF~ 11(1 1111 F 1 @ 1111 11 f(1
1~1111~1 EE1 EE n EE "u 6181
m! 11 n
6811 It 11 it
E EI 61 6!
u L m
1 a ~ a
lgFFlCF......Fl+ ESP SSE ci€sSFPRP~ PlCICFS€! b~F ~ 1~ ~ ~ ~ ,
11 e, S' Liss➢R 1" i fi {i i6 ~ 1 ` ~
11 , ~
i 7 ~3ao, (1~ € ~ ! 1 116 x (16 ` sg ; ~ { 1 i m z
! W iE1a $1 ; a m F Y z
W € D D
~~1a{i3:C:1€1:iRl1F6!!{1b6ibliE°-a;a S1R€ iYsRE1tE€EEEii€1F E ~Fd EpEE a zo ® ' 1 ( !it D
c1~{I~1SOa~b11i1~#{(I~E1iN Si 6 ~gg N 1 IF(~ a
It 1111111 1 1~
1 1,, 11 a 1 1 { = f
n~ €1 i 1 1
ALBERTA RIDER ELEMENTARY
1 i i~ I ! [ i ~~iE hu~i~ ~W 190TH en0 !W 9ULL MOUNTAM ROAD TIOARD, ORiOC
® e ~R#
o i i j:~ n~ ii!1 i !I ! R RIE it ! i i a 7a ~ed
PHI
i R
f 1, ~ d; ~ p{€ ~I(; ~ dl d~~lF~; gi, !f ~ ~ I i ~ !I 1 !fi
0 i d B!e E E ,:.f 1 ~ de 4 ! e , ! ~f ,E~
i ~ ; R tit ,i I d ieg~ ' ; ~ !G ~ , { ~ .I ~ i! _ .r '
d ~ie I!IIt~d4d~ ;t ri 1t1 't I i j• !
®HANAAA®®A®AAAOA A~C•®.AAAAAAA 007n. w;t I s
dd[t tli4 tsitti!~ d ~ e Af#~~ ~i!`~et~ ~
d i # B! i1 e R!i I f d I I
t Y'!EiliiR
~i fl ii I 1
4 f6~l~~~ t ti ®I °i t'@@ ~6® ~ i I I
! I ~ I
® i
t
I I
I
t
0
6 I
N
' ~ ~i at dtil % %
l N! l
ED
I ~'t' !e I i i
I
i
m I --•_L.__.
-•t
I Ie!~' f ~ ALBERTA RIDER ELEMENTARY
9W OM rid BW OLAl MOLWAN R0}D TOM OFOOM OM,
Iele i E
I I.
o PI
o
E•
iz
-O
Elm
.i
E
mmm
E.
441
1 ---o '1t6r
v
ALBERTA RIDER ELEMENTARY
ow 130TH 600 40 /ULL MOUNTAN ROAD . Item, ONIQON 9722
a
i ~
1
®®®®®000000000000000000000
$~~al~ ~~ildl~d~i~d dddd 1
v:. ~o II~AA~jii IF
~ i ~ a~ EE o~gg~il
~n
rn
I i 1!!p~ ii( ALBERTA RIDER ELEMENTARY
J ~ 01 h~ tlW 180TH ertA BW 61A.L MOIAI7AM ilOAD TI6AR0, OA600N 678!•
s.:
WEI)
EE
1 Fa--@ L
_-o
v-
W m _ - r
N'Q
0
Z4
®m®®®®®®®®®4®00®®®®m®®0®®A
II! la~~l' i j 1A~Ill a
i I I it -i v
m~
ALBERTA RIDER ELEMEN~'ARY_
N ~ Is ~I! ~ ~~tl ®W 7®OTH !MI aW 9ULL MOUfRAM ROAD TgAPD. enseon nas
~ w
Jq%sari
-
-ammm
~r
saw"
jjjjl~
S
531VfJOSSV
No S3 SITD : i : J i : i i ' -
' - • ; x. - iii ~ ;
gam
i/ ,
ti.
OZO
v~ w o y, P, A N
=was
MOM
x7179 51',13 r
f s i i .
ZO DOE~ - „ 1 I 1
7e I
ZID
> ;
III -
i -
-
,
~ Qy ~l i .~4•/ a ~j
' ` ' M[W4ttl'M. '/fPA1f'' I 1 ~ , / ~ 1 Ili,'
,
II I _ - ;J Pt it ,•I
1 I
BUILDING PERMIT SET
ALBERTA RIDER
TIGARD, OREGON 9722
e> 9W 130TH AND BULL MOUNTAIN ROAD
LGT/ - _
f e if' w
r' -
I II
I
I a. I ,
- - _ - - g--_-_`
Riz-
676,
14
15
ZI,
-r-
It"
28
t'R It1; Ig BUILDING PERMIT SET
a{~ Y§ALBERTA RIDER
A4 ! 3 C I ~ ThI ® SW 130TH AND BULL MOUNTAIN ROAD 71CARD, OREGON 97224
qR
~9 6
s ~K
6
~ ~ " ~ ~ 696 r-,~,",F, ;
a.
CONDIT10NAL USE PERMIT
Ig AL6ERTA RIDER
w~
ID SW B AND BULL MOUNTAIN ROAD 71CAR0, diEGON 9743
~ i a a I ~E6i n~~
- 11
U
! I = = - - -
i I 1 - - ¢ Lim
! i ! n aw wnl P alc aul awl 1 i ,1 1 \ \ 9 gn
1 , _ _ T ztoLU,gya•_%
71
ASSOCIATES
ROOM 71
- ~ m m 1i w le 1 oe 1
N 1< 1 b 1 ~ O 1 b 0 ~
WTaI a~ E .w. Ou C3.0
- - '
-111 t I I✓ ,1
-
I~ i 41 I '~Q-I
4.
I I, I i - - - - - - - - - - s 1..'. I f
Q, /I
-
I` F II`
CJ
BUILDING PERMIT SET
Pe!;~ ~t~~ALBERTA RIDER
SW 130TH AND BULL MOUNTAIN ROAD TIGARD, OREGON 9725
,.l 13 E I I sA
_
j
o~
,
5
1 7j a~
- -
11 10 -
14
13
12 ~ i o
?Rr't
17 I 16 I 15
26 j 27 28
1
BUILDING PERMIT SET
gj ALBERTA RIDER TCARD, OREGON 97
~~{f SW 130TH AND BULL MOUNTAIN ROAD
IV a c l i ~lli
161101 LIE WAS O
4
r
Y~ 77
~I b
' g
~ ! ~9 g
g
t 3
C 4 a
t..
i
n ~
i ~
1 F i
6 p
1 i M E 1 1
i
WA"LMffAWW
BUILDING PERMIT SET
w i!!E6~ ALBERTA RIDER
~N SW 1JOTH AND BULL MOUNTAIN ROAD TIGARD, OREGON 9722
W El~~ '
-
-
IIII
I
,,'1111 1 1 1, I -
1 1 I ~ 1
1 1 ' r
v i W
1 % I
• ~ ~ I'rf 1! 1 r, t~ ~ ~pfl
q 1
cDNOrnoNAL USE PERMIT
M
ALBERTA RIDER
11E 1 h Q SIN 130TH AND BVLL MOUNTAIN ROAD TIGARD, OREGON 9722/
f!1 ~~r~~er. _
00
II
~ 98 •
6; ~R
0
a ~
n
y
1
.mod 6
o.
o Q
N . 6 10}p a fill yyE ALDERTA RIDER ELEMENTARY
. . ® B 6 6 ~ ~ ~~il hW~ 9W pOTH nd 8W aw. AIOINTAN FD ORE'O~N 0171
1
o
2
2 3 2 /
4
a
5
7 8 2
U, =2
L '
10 9 ,2 I
! 'I
3 14 } j I
2 _
r
_ 1 • 16
28
N
m
m
e 9
e i i~
CONSTRUCTION OF:
" ALBERTA HER ELEMENTARY
6 } a> SW 130TH AND BULL MOUNTAIN ROAD TIGARD, OREGON 97224
- I
i
j
i
i
i
i
. I
i
I
i
mix,
4iE I
RR~
I.
j
i
i
i .
R ~ R
R I
b
p
.:ice i. •
i
i
9
Z
E CONSTRUCTION M
ALBERTA RIDER ELEMENTARY
-1 ~ * 4g QN TIGARD, OREGON 9725
6 9 t1 SW 130TH AND DULL,MWrflNN ROAD
;4t
R,
v 0
e
a
4
h.
e • ~
s`ff~~rP rrr(r#~r• ~ ~r~i~ C~
.c
r{i#i r~~{~ Cjr~~e t trCFl Rt tR
ff~ [ CI~fCr~i{`~[>1~~iI E~irrflig~~Etljtr g~ ~
_ IRa~g'og ~ iE Pay ~ B
~Ea ~1! g R* r r t gtI } I I I I 4
~ gR , e v r r {t~ ' 0 R R 5q ; R t R t R t ¢ t R R
Z Ra rr ~ ~ ~Iif t r fe r l P P (t t e e e P P e t r t l ~ t t r
~ tl 2 ra~ h
t CONSTRUCTION OF:
ALBERTA RIDEL" ELENTARY
1 hOm SW 1JOTH AND BULL MOUNTAM ARD, OREGON 99124
t r~ ~ R ~ 1
x
r '
.E
~D
a
a
(f•ij +~ll { 111
Il~jl jli III~II~~It
z Yes
i r x e e
Jill
~ z III F
CONSTRUCTION OF:
i.. p
g0E ALBERTA RIDER ELEMENTARY
p 4 l~ VI> SW 130TH AND BULL MOUNTAIN ROAD TiCARD. ORECON•97224
e
a
- , ~
LEJ
1; 1
<
Lli
CX3
1, m / % j r--TOPOOAA PHY 9UAYEV. L
.u..awwo ~eaooc a/wTr/woo
an:
t / i % / %/A l p880Gw7E0
"o(
_ ii_c ~'l 1~~,:/ i,✓/// is / i////i;i - W
/ i /i
ttt
PRELIMINARY TIA
=sue
ram-`w T4
-PIP
' E-
Et r,l. t
e a
i~
E, ~ _uc__,
E' 1 # y
"ip-
71
II II ~ ~ ~I.
t` i S 4 S -1'. ~t
s gp i , i~ (!8 k, T i
lv'
s II IIIIII 4 I f
N ~ ~ BE!~~ s~~ ~ e1{~ ~m ALEERTA RIDER ELEMENTARY
Llr BW gOTH nd 6W BUl MOUITFN ROI~D TWNiD. OREGON i7~ld
j a° ¢ 1 R+v 9
1
E• e
a° E ait W .
[ z it +
t~ ; s~ i 9g N ~i
D N
N i
D .I
• ~~g ze Ig ~ ~~i ~ ~ Isis' ;
E= E
~p o ~ge,~ j49 0 D
D
! N 1~
w; S eeeeo\ M~ ` Z 0j
00!00
0000 ~
gg
E_ ~e ~E II E' 12,
i
o! I 9"~ lip 'E~ N
oil
{ E_
E E
i G RI! I ~ ~o ! !o eT ~~e 9 ~
;3 !
E°
!r ttl ~Ii t~I I9 E ° , D
{a
r ! IT
-9 ! Z ~ R 'l~II iR
I~ gib k j O m
i! ~i ~ 9 t y~
Et e; n m i
m L
ALBERTA RIDER ELEMENTARY
t i! '`HMO d~~ 'i aw r~n+.,a sw eau nautr►i+ nc+w , a~oa+ orne
.l SCCIHM A-A • p~G C
fBr a;r~~o m .
SANITARY 'STOI+M
SE.-
¢ z
a
DITCH INLET SUBURBAN AND STANDARD m' -c:x- 3
STANDARD MANHOLE _y FRAME AND GRATE a~txa<so MANHOLE FRAME AND COYER 4°0O
(@n wrc w no-sNsr
.a va CLASS 'B' CLASS 'A'
ASS'S TS
•1!+: ASSOCIATES ia"
'.PLAN NEW ® rIa la.~vliHrn[i[ raASnc ~ ~ran,m , rrrZ ARC HTEM P.C
rwm v ~y {y{yv.+~~a.s ream .A it TOM'
MATERIALS:
SECTION A-A SECTION B-B
'rGUTTER dt CURB MANHOLE STEP C.. TREN DETAILS
INLET CATCH BASIN ' CI®t~~Sevim -
CG-2 CS_O
r
® ~¢r me M,G[lI smc ~l
r i of i
I PLAN A
{ 1 ro
y Noes BgBply? t o 1 4
w i 3 trs-s~' •~'•..ryes ~Q ~ { p e~ ' ~
ELEVATION E P 1
alb { ~ ~ e.
II i ~~@~~e '3 l i
.
I {
31R till al
a l e ggt
C 9a 1,1w: r >
All M
l p g ■
I ! l l ° r'~ 3 3 = : ill . ~ ~ 1 ~qR %vaa~ 4It
j
Filliiiililfl.; { r {
111 Et11.1t i~ Lall {il!31 1 ;e{ E► a!Rllli EeEElE1,6 J
I!l l,° Iq ~ q,a!q eEEEE ~I R
!i ~ g3 Ef E ~ ~ yi B~! ~9 O ~ R ~~i !E E! I ~ k . i
!p ~ 3~ I t ~ !EI■ I
NEE CCC
BUILDING PERMIT BET
Al~A RTA RIDER
n 1 {I ,3 ~3 r
TICARD, OREGON 97
e
`p{~ 5yl 130TH AND BULL MOUNTIJN ROAD
~ . I ~ l a l! j9zE.t'
Td Si~l4~~r
s3tvoossr -
~arsa srro
. a
f
t'
Z ® •jw ~ ,M m~smnm®M~~vi~ w~ iom s ~ m~~ ~wmion. s1°+w~
p ~i ea..R~b ~-.N~eaw.rssa4.9wan.r~s a,.w atom, to °0 ~°1O~wn Ci ® 0~p°°trY.Y~.+♦ -
>.a 7lrr CW r4neR m~vs ~_.SR v4. • -
F _ 0 s s lYa4Y YO WYd M/CtlSimd wm4o-s ss-a~a4.e_ora ae~4• •
i ® au ~ Ra°~R_re s -
saw
z ~ e... o'~v °•~10~'~ m..s xrw'ww.efc' • .
o
r-r xauaa ~ ~ T - rt
1
o
, r p
R R R R ~ R R R"
P e P P E F E t t t t
1" R" 1
x ; ; t
Jill
E j[
~ Q i~r4 .R R R f R R R R E II "f
qx;q-. J
P P IEEE P P P e P P P P '!p I
¢ 4. X X y 5 + 7
rv
• s~
F
t
S
z" IF E f~f ~i
ItrEt s
t. i
D CONSTRUCTION OF:
j R o,"t ALBERT
RIDER EL MENTARY
°i tim TIGARD, OREGON 97224
qD SW 130TH AND BULL MOUNTAIN ROAD
Many serious concerns have already been raised about the proposed Goal Five program.
Among them are concerns about losses of property values, loss of development capacity,
mapping errors, the impact of measure 37, regulation of backyards, and others. We share
all of these concerns. However, none of them is in direct opposition to the program
goals. There is broad support for the goal of protecting more of the basin's natural
resources. The concerns stem only from the means of protecting them. Therefore we
must find a different means.
We believe that there are a number of issues that cannot be addressed by making
adjustments to the existing proposal without so severely weakening it as to make it
ineffective. We would like to see a fundamental shift from a reliance on regulatory
measures to incentives. We believe that an opportunity exists to establish an innovative
and highly effective program that makes use of incentives through the transfer of
development rights. Recognizing that enormous wealth is transferred by merely moving
a political boundary (i.e. the Urban Growth Boundary), and enormous wealth may be
wiped out through a stroke of the regulatory pen, it would seem prudent to us to find a
way to transfer these property values in such a way as to preserve the wealth of existing
property owners, and accomplish a significant public objective at the same time. Such a
program would not be impacted by the passage of Measure 37. We have spoken to Kelly
Ross of the Homebuilders Association and Jim Labbe of the Audubon Society. Both
indicated a willingness to explore alternatives to a regulatory program.
We would put forth the following proposal for consideration.
1. Metro designates Urban Reserves
Metro would establish urban reserves at the edges of the UGB evenly distributed
throughout the basin to compensate for lost development capacity under the proposed
program. These lands would remain outside the boundary until they are brought in
incrementally as the program is implemented.
2. Resource Land traded for UGB Expansion Rights from Willing Participants
A property owner who has resource land which is developable under existing regulations
may dedicate the land to the local park service provider in exchange for UGB expansion
certificates. These certificates would entitle the bearer to expand the boundary anywhere
within the Urban Reserve area by a specific acreage.
These "expansion certificates" could be freely bought and sold. A developer could buy
the certificates from the original owner, acquire property in reserve areas and bring them
into the UGB. In order to maintain the value of these certificates, the expansion would be
automatic so long as specific non-discretionary criteria are met.
Certificates would be issued at the following rates:
Strictly limit: 1.5 acres of expansion for each acre of resource land dedicated.
Moderately limit: 1 acre of expansion for each acre of resource land dedicated.
Lightly limit: 0.5 acres of expansion for each acre of resource land dedicated.
Entered into the Record on 9 / 0~1
By: d6urletlar 1161111KM I
Agenda Item# 10 Exhibit
3., Land Purchased to Prevent Development from Unwilling Participants
Since some property owners will decide not to participate in the program, a fund would
be established for property purchases. It could be funded through SWM fees or some
other source. It would only be used when a development application is submitted. If a
development application is submitted that would destroy significant Goal 5 resources, the
local agency would have the power to acquire the property through eminent domain if
sufficient funds are available.
If the development proposal is within the strictly limit category, the purchase would be
assumed to be automatic since the goal is to prohibit all development. If the development
is in the moderately limit zone, the property would be acquired only if the development
proposal failed to protect at least 50'/0 of the resource. If the development is in a lightly
limit zone, the property cannot be purchased.
4. Owners may request map corrections to remove the resource designation from
their property.
Any owner may request a map correction. The map correction could be to remove, add,
upgrade or downgrade a resource designation. Metro would develop specific criteria for
such designations.
5. Owners may create resource land and become eligible for the program.
In the case where an area is not currently mapped or is of low quality habitat because of
degraded conditions, an owner could submit a mitigation plan for approval. If the
mitigation is successful the owner could then dedicate the land to receive expansion
certificates. Metro would develop specific criteria for participation in the program. It
could apply only to stream corridors. There may be places where important linkages are
needed but do not currently exist.