1992-24138-Minutes for Meeting May 27,1992 Recorded 7/15/199292-24138
PUBLIC HEARING MINUTES
COATS NOISE VARIANCE
DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
May 27, 1992
0118-115'7
i t %J
,,(�}y
s 4 :
# l'i
Chairman Maudlin called the meeting to order at 5 p.m. Board
members in attendance were: Dick Maudlin, Tom Throop, and Nancy
Pope Schlangen. Also present were: Rick Isham, County Counsel and
Dave Leslie, Planner.
The purpose of this meeting was to take testimony regarding a
variance request of noise standards set forth in Deschutes County
Code, Chapter 8.08 to allow operation of a hot mix asphalt plant,
equipment and trucks between the hours of 10 p.m. and 6 a.m.,
Monday through Thursday from June 30, 1992, to September 30, 1992.
Chairman Maudlin opened the public hearing and asked for a staff
report. Dave Leslie gave the staff report which is attached to
these minutes. Chairman Maudlin asked about page three of the
staff report under 19.108.020 Criteria. He questioned if the
applicant was required to establish all four of the criteria
listed. Dave Leslie answered yes and that Mr. Coats had submitted
an amended request which was specifically addressed to those four
criteria.
Commissioner Throop asked that Mr. Leslie review Section B which
stated "that strict interpretation of the provisions of this
Ordinance would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by
other properties in the same zone under the terms of this
Ordinance." Dave Leslie stated that the applicant indicated that
his property was both zoned and designated for surface mining and
that the zone allowed for production of mining resources for those
kinds of projects. He also stated that there was other work that
the applicant would pursue during the normal daytime hours and
weekday hours of operation and that due to the contract
specifications from the state, work would be required outside of
the normal workday time. Mr. Leslie stated that it was only in
this zone that such work would occur since normally Mr. Coats, or
anyone else, was limited to the hours of operation of 7 a.m. to 10
p.m. He stated that the applicant felt that if he was not granted
a variance, he would be deprived of the opportunity of working at
this site.
Chairman Maudlin asked about 467.060 in the staff report regarding
the Environmental Quality Commission and questioned if those
provisions also pertained to the County Commission. Mr. Leslie
stated that the Board of Commissioners should apply relevant
provisions of ORS Section 467.060. Therefore those limitations,
requirements and standards would also be encompassed by the County
Commission.
ChtD
PAGE 1 MINUTES 5-27-92
0118-1158
Robert Coats testified as the applicant for this variance. He
stated that he concurred with the staff report. He stated that he
"could live under lb and 2b" of the Conclusion and Recommendation
portion of the staff report. He stated he would leave it up to the
Commission as to whether he "should do the north end of the project
out the back way or the other way." He also stated that he would
apply all the remaining restrictions such as noise, backup horns,
and lighting the asphalt plant and would minimize the noise as much
as possible.
Commissioner Schlangen asked about the other site which also
contained the rock needed for Mr. Coats' operation. She questioned
if there was a portable plant. Mr. Coats stated that he did have
such a plant and that it could be moved to the other site.
Commissioner Schlangen asked about the expense and inconvenience of
such a plan. Mr. Coats stated it would cost about $80,000 to move
an asphalt plant and a crusher and that cost did not include the
down time of five days. He stated that the down time would mean
lost production which would cost approximately $40,000.
Commissioner Throop referred to page three of the Staff Report,
19.108.020, Criteria B. He asked how Mr. Coats' company would be
deprived of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the zone
under the terms of the Ordinance. Mr. Coats stated his property
had been zoned by the County as an aggregate resource. If it were
not for the special provisions of the Highway Department, he could
have done the project from his resource, but he was not permitted
to do that. Because of this, he was asking for the variance.
Commissioner Throop stated that Mr. Coats also met the portion of
Criteria C which stated that the special conditions and
circumstances did not result from the actions of the applicant. He
asked Mr. Coats about the conditions and circumstances that did not
merely constitute pecuniary hardship or inconvenience and how his
application/concern addressed that requirement. Mr. Coats said
that these special conditions and circumstances did cause a
financial hardship to his business since he had been granted the
right to operate the pit but other controls had been placed by a
state body. He said he had fixed costs such as property taxes and
was required to do a certain amount of volume to make money. He
also stated that this situation would be occurring more frequently
in the future because of the growth in the area and that due to
traffic conditions in the area, night operation would be occurring
more often. He pointed out that night operation was common in
Portland and other large cities. Commissioner Throop stated that
Section C would require that this be more than a financial hardship
or inconvenience. Mr. Coats stated that if this criteria was
followed no one could ever operate with a variance. He said there
would be a safety factor involved of less traffic and less miles
traveled and therefore a fuel savings. He felt the taxpayer would
also save money. He thought he met the criteria, but if the
criteria was applied as written in the staff report, anything could
be construed.
PAGE 2 MINUTES 5-27-92
0118-1159
Chairman Maudlin stated that no one could meet the criteria because
of the way it was written. He stated that most everyone who would
bid this project would be using the same rock source on Horse
Ridge, and there had not been a request for a variance from anyone
else. He also quoted Criteria D which stated that the "granting of
the variance will be in harmony with the objectives of this
Ordinance and not injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise
detrimental to the public welfare." He felt that since there was
another site available to use, granting this variance would be
injurious to the neighborhood. Mr. Coats stated that since these
special circumstances were not a result of his actions, Section C
would apply to him. Chairman Maudlin said that he agreed that the
first part of Section C was met by Mr. Coats but that the second
portion of Section C, referring to not merely constituting
pecuniary hardship or inconvenience, was not met by Mr. Coats. He
also felt that Section D was not met by Mr. Coats.
Commissioner Schlangen asked about the additional site that could
be used. Mr. Coats stated that the costs would be extremely high
because hauling, pollution, etc. would be doubled. Commissioner
Schlangen said that since Highway 20 already was very noisy, it
would be less detrimental to the neighborhood, but it was
understood that it would cost more to use this site. She stated
she would like to hear testimony from the neighbors. Chairman
Maudlin again stated that Mr. Coats did not meet the criteria, but
he felt something needed to be done since the criteria was written
in such a way as to prevent anyone from obtaining a variance. Mr.
Coats asked why Bend Aggregate was allowed a variance. Chairman
Maudlin responded that the applicant and opponents were in 100%
agreement. Commissioner Throop said the conditions were met in
that instance since there was not an alternate site available.
Chairman Maudlin requested testimony from opponents to the
variance.
Mary Dyer, from Johnson Road in Klippel Acres, Bend, OR, 97701,
came forward to testify. She stated that the greatest cost to the
residents would be if property values were lowered. The mining of
aggregate would cause a profit to the miner at the expense of the
homeowners. Last year at the Board of Equalization she was able to
document lower property values through comparable market analysis
of Klippel Ranch properties compared directly to similar areas in
Boones Borough and Woodside Ranch, and because of this, an across-
the-board property tax reduction of 17% was granted. Even though
taxpayer money may be saved in paving expenses, further property
value loss would occur if the variance were granted. She was an
Oregon realtor and she and other realtors were unable to sell
property in the Klippel area. John Mortarano, a realtor with Frank
Ruegg, documented 51 interested people in the 10 acres adjacent to
the Klippel Ranch pit who stated that they would not buy in a
mining area. She had similar documentation from Coldwell Banker
Realty.
PAGE 3 MINUTES 5-27-92
0118-1160
Victoria T. Frei, 63870 Johnson Road, Bend, OR 97701, stated her
opposition to the variance. She felt that if the plant were
allowed to run all night, the dust and the noise level would be
intolerable and that the business already operated Monday through
Friday from 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. (75 hours/week). Given the number of
trucks and the increase in traffic, the continuous night noise
would be unbearable. She thought that granting a variance, even in
a modified manner, would set a very dangerous precedent. Because
of the Bend Parkway, there would be many summers when paving would
be an issue, and this variance might start a cycle of night work.
She asked that some sort of communications begin with the
Department of Transportation requesting them to modify their
contract process so that companies bidding on jobs have to ask for
a variance. She thought the noise study should make no difference
since the activity in question was prohibited from 10 p.m. to 7
a.m. by law. She felt 75 hours of operation was an adequate amount
of time to do business and make a profit, and that granting this
variance would be a significant infringement on her personal rights
and the rights of hundreds of other people in that area. She felt
that granting the variance should be based on the strict provisions
set by the Deschutes County zoning ordinances, and that Mr. Coats
had not met the four criteria. Granting a variance should not be
for the convenience of the applicant or because of financial
concerns. She felt these County rules were established to protect
the quality of life.
Terry Kimple, 63890 Johnson Road, Bend, OR 97701, stated that she
lived directly across from Mr. Coats' operation. She and her
husband were aware when they built their home that the gravel
operation was next door, but felt it was acceptable because of the
hours of operation'. Regarding the noise issue, she said that even
the normal operating hours were an unpleasant nuisance. Her
greatest concern ( four telephone calls to the Bend Police) was that
the trucks had become a severely dangerous issue, because they
traveled 45 mph not the 34 mph speed limit and were in the middle
of the road around curves. On May 26, at 7:45 a.m. in less than a
mile from her home, she met five trucks each traveling faster than
35 -miles -per -hour coming from Tumalo Reservoir Road. She no longer
felt safe riding her bicycle at 4 p.m. or later because of this
situation. She stated that we all had the responsibility of
protecting the quality of life in Central Oregon.
Ken Roadman, 2322 N.W. Marken Street, Bend, OR 97701, testified
that he was a runner who frequently ran on Shevlin Park Road at
different times during the day. He had noticed the high level of
truck traffic and noise on that road even at 6 a.m. There were
three homes for sale which adjoined Shevlin Park Road and two of
them were because of the noise pollution. The road was frequently
in need of repair, especially in the winter. If the variance was
allowed, it would be even worse. It would be an infringement upon
everyone's right to enjoy a peaceful setting/environment.
PAGE 4 MINUTES 5-27-92
0118-1161..
Kris Cranston, 63850 Johnson Road, Bend, OR 97701 pointed out that
there were two parks in this area which had visitors from outside
the area, so residents near the site would not be the only ones
affected.
Chairman Maudlin asked for any further comments.
Mr. Coats stated that he was in the business of building the area
to make it a better place to live. However, every time he tried to
do something, there were a number of people who protested, even
though they wanted to live in nice homes and drive on safe
highways. These people raised property taxes because of the
increased cost of these projects. Commissioner Throop asked about
the Bend Aggregate and Paving variance and if there were any
provisions which limited the plant operation. Commissioner
Schlangen stated that the batch was mixed in the afternoon because
only a trench was being filled and therefore, they did not need
large amounts of asphalt. Mr. Coats stated that rules and
regulations always cost people money.
Being no further testimony, the public hearing was closed.
MAUDLIN: I would entertain a motion that we deny the
variance request, and if a variance is needed for
the Horse Ridge site, that we will grant it.
SCHLANGEN: So moved.
THROOP: Second.
Under further discussion, Commissioner Throop stated that this
issue had brought up the need for the County to engage the State
Highway Department and find out what projects were included in
their six-year highway improvement program, what their expectations
were, and what provisions needed reanalyzing in the Ordinance.
Chairman Maudlin agreed with this and added that it would be
necessary to readdress the criteria in the Variance Ordinance since
no one could qualify for a variance under these criteria. Dave
Leslie stated he would communicate that to the Planning Director.
He also stated that the variance criteria in this discussion was
under Title 19 in the Urban Area Zoning Ordinance and that changes
in these standards would also need to be considered by the Urban
Area Planning Commission in addition to the County Planning
Commission.
VOTE: SCHLANGEN: YES
THROOP: YES
MAUDLIN: YES
PAGE 5 MINUTES 5-27-92
DATED this 13LJ' day of
Commissioners of Deschutes Co4fity,
ATT T: Nancy Pope
ecording Secretary D a 1
PAGE 6 MINUTES 5-27-92
0118-1162
1992, by the Board of
0118-1163
PUBLIC HEARING SPEAKERS' LISTING
,
PUBLIC HEARING TOPIC:0
DQ,D
DATE: 5 — c I TIME' S
NAME ADDRESS CITY ZIP
3 Ms-bh
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
DESCHUTES COUNTY PLANNING DIVISION
STAFF REPORT
DATE: May 20, 1992
TIME: 5:30 p.m.
PLACE: Room A
Juvenile Justice Center
1128 NW Harriman
Bend, OR 97701
r.
g t
MAY 2 ® 1992
AQ5'd.........
0118-1164
APPLICANT: R.L. Coats
2975 N.W. Skyline Ranch Road
P.O. Box 1008
Bend, Oregon 97709
SUBJECT: Variance request to Noise Standards set forth in
Deschutes County Code Chapter 8.08 to allow
operation of a hot mix asphalt plant, equipment and
trucks between the hours of 10:00 p.m and 6:00
a.m., Monday through Thursday from June 30, 1992 to
September 30, 1992.
REVIEWER: David B. Leslie, Associate Planner
LEGAL CRITERIA: The standards and criteria applicable to the
application are Chapters 8.08 and 19.108, Deschutes
County Code; Chapter 467, Oregon Revised Statutes;
and Title 22, Deschutes County Code.
PRELIMINARY FINDINGS:
1. The subject property is located at 2975 N.W. Skyline Ranch Road,
Bend, Oregon. The hot asphalt plant is located on Tax Lot #100 on
on Assessor's map #17-12-18 and is located approximately 3.3 miles
west and 2.7 miles north of Shevlin Park Road.
2. The subject property is zoned SM (Surface Mining) and is
designated Surface Mining on the Bend Urban Area General Plan map.
Coats -Noise Variance Hearing
May 27, 1992 Page 1
0118-1165
The owner has operated surface mining activities, including the
hot mix asphalt plant, for many years at this location.
3. Surrounding land uses include RR -10 (Rural Residential) and SM on
the west side of Tumalo Creek, UAR-10 (Urban Area Reserve) on the
east side of the creek, EFU-20 (Exclusive Farm Use) and SM to the
north and northwest, and RS (Urban Standard Residential) in the
City of Bend to the south (in the Awbrey Glen, Valhalla Heights
and Fawnview subdivisions) adjacent to the east side of where the
proposed haul route connects with Shevlin Park Road.
4. Applicant proposes to use the hot mix asphalt plant, associated
equipment and trucks to transport material for resurfacing Highway
97 (Third Street) between Powers Road on the south end and Norwood
Road at the north end, a distance of approximately 4.2 miles.
Applicant is specifically requesting a variance to Chapter 8.08 of
the Deschutes County Code, Noise Control, to allow operations to
occur between 10:00 p.m and 6:00 a.m on Monday through Thursday
from June 30, 1992 to September 30, 1992.
5. Applicant has submitted the following material in support of this
application:
- Variance request dated May 4, 1992
- Amended request dated May 20, 1992
- Environmental Noise Analysis by A. G. Duble dated May 19, 1992
- Site map
6. At a public hearing held on May 20, 1992, the Deschutes County
Board of County Commissioners (the "Board") heard from staff, and
took testimony from the applicant, the applicant's noise engineer
and four residents who reside near the site or haul road who spoke
in opposition to the variance request.
7. The Board continued the hearing to May 27, 1992 in order to allow
staff and other interested parties time to evaluate the noise
analysis and other information (amended variance request)
submitted at the hearing. Applicant indicated that a later
hearing date would not be possible because ODOT (Oregon Department
of Transportation) would be letting the contract on May 28, 1992.
8. Seven letters have been received by the county in opposition to
applicant's request for a variance. Opponents are concerned with
the amount of noise that will be generated from the plant and from
trucks during the nighttime, making it difficult to sleep and
impractical to keep windows open during the summer to help with
ventilation and cooling and making it unpleasant to enjoy a quiet
evening outdoors on an outside deck. One opponent states that
eighteen hours of operation should be sufficient, another
indicates that sixteen hours should suffice. Another indicates
there are other sources of material that would not be a nuisance
to residents. Several specific types of noise have been
identified as being particularly bothersome, including: the
back-up beepers on trucks, braking and accelerating of trucks and
the horn indicating the hot mix asphalt plant is full. Finally,
several neighbors testified or wrote that noise associated with
Coats -Noise Variance Hearing
May 27, 1992 Page 2
0118-1166
industrial activity already emanates from operations on
applicant's property prior to 7:00 a.m. in the morning.
9. ODOT staff have informed the county that the state contract
specifically prohibits any lane restrictions on Third Street
between the hours of 7:00 a.m and 6:00 p.m., Monday through
Thursday, or between 7:00 a.m. Friday and 8:00 p.m. Sunday. ODOT
staff have also indicated that this project must be completed by
September 15th to ensure meeting temperature requirements for the
paving material. ODOT staff estimate that 30 to 45 work days will
be required to complete this project.
APPLICABLE REGULATIONS
Section 8.08.080 of the Deschutes County Code provides:
8.08.080 Variances.
The board of county commissioners may grant personal
nonassignable variances of expressly limited duration and
covering a defined geographical area from the operation of
this chapter after public hearing following the procedures of
Division 1 of Title 18 of this code and satisfy the variance
burden of proof under the current county zoning ordinance.
In addition to the standards provided therein, the board of
commissioners shall apply the relevant provisions of Oregon
Revised Statutes Section 467.060.
Deschutes County Code 19.108 provides:
19.108.010 Authorization to Grant or Deny Variances.
Except as provided in Section 19.108.030, the Planning
Director or hearings Body may authorize variances from the
standards of this Ordinance where it can be shown that, owing
to special and unusual circumstances related to a specific
piece of property, the literal interpretation of the
Ordinance would cause an undue or unnecessary hardship;
except that no variance shall be granted to allow the use of
the property for purposes not authorized within the pertinent
zone or to alter any procedural requirements of this
Ordinance. In granting a variance, the Planning Director or
Hearings Body may attach conditions necessary to protect the
best interest of the surrounding property or neighborhood and
to otherwise achieve the purposes of this Ordinance.
19.108.020 Criteria.
No variance shall be granted pursuant to the provisions
of Section 19.108.010 unless the applicant can establish:
A. That special conditions exist which are peculiar to
the land, structure or building involved and which are not
applicable to other lands, buildings or structures in the
same zone; and
B. That strict interpretation of the provisions of
this Ordinance would deprive the applicant of rights commonly
Coats -Noise Variance Hearing
May 27, 1992 Page 3
0118-116'7
enjoyed by other properties in the same zone under the terms
of this Ordinance; and
C. That the special conditions and circumstances do
not result from the actions of the applicant and such
conditions and circumstances do not merely constitute
pecuniary hardship or inconvenience; and
D. That granting the variance will be in harmony with
the objectives of this Ordinance and not injurious to the
neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare.
ORS 467.060 provides:
467.060 Issuance, revocation or modification of specific
variances; grounds.
(1) The Environmental Quality Commission by order may
grant specific variances from the particular requirements of
any rule or standard to such specific persons or class of
persons or such specific noise emission source, upon such
conditions as it may consider necessary to protect the public
health, safety and welfare. the specific variance may be
limited in duration. The commission shall grant a specific
variance only if it finds that strict compliance with the
rule or standard is inappropriate because:
(a) Conditions exist that are beyond the control of the
persons applying for the variance;
(b) Special circumstances render strict compliance
unreasonable, unduly burdensome or impractical due to special
physical conditions or cause;
(c) Strict compliance would result in substantial
curtailment or closing down of a business, plant or
operation; or
No other alternative facility or method of
operating is yet available.
(2) The commission by rule may delegate to the
Department of Environmental Quality, on such conditions as
the commission may find appropriate, the power to grant
variances and to make the finding required by subsection (1)
of this section to justify any such variance.
(3) In determining whether or not a variance shall be
granted, the commission or the department shall consider the
equities involved and the advantages and disadvantages to
residents and to the person conducting the activity for which
the variance is sought.
(4) A variance may be revoked or modified by the
commission. The commission may revoke or modify a variance
if it finds.
(a) Violation of one or more conditions of the
variance;
(b) Material misrepresentation of fact in the variance
application or other representations of the variance holder;
(c) Material change in any of the circumstances relied
upon by the commission or department in granting the
variance; or
(d) A material change or absence of any of the
circumstances set forth in paragraphs (a) to (d) of
Coats -Noise Variance Hearing
May 27, 1992 Page 4
subsection (1) of this section. 011.8--1168
(5) The procedure for denial, modification, or
revocation of a variance shall be the procedure for a
contested case as provided in ORS 183.310 to 183.550.
CONCLUSIONARY FINDINGS
1. If applicant is to utilize a hot mix asphalt plant and other
equipment a variance is required because operation of the
machinery and equipment is otherwise prohibited between the
hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. pursuant to Section
8.08.060, Deschutes County Code. The necessity for operating
at the hours requested are that paving on Third Street in the
City of Bend is required to occur during the nighttime hours
and be completed prior to 6:00 each morning. According to
ODOT, lane restrictions are not allowed during hours
specified above in paragraph 19, Preliminary Findings.
2. The nighttime noise standard for the subject property is 50
dBA, as indicated in applicant's noise study. This study
indicates that, "With a well designed burner platform
enclosure, nose barrier, or both, is should be possible to
meet the nighttime DEQ 50 dBA standard across the canyon."
3. Applicant was requested by planning staff to submit noise
data for the trucks operating on the subject property and
entering the pubic road at the Skyline Ranch Road - Shevlin
Park Road intersection. Data have yet to be submitted
concerning this source of noise. The type of mufflers on the
existing trucks is not known at this time. However, if these
mufflers are of standard grade, then a higher grade muffler
could substantially reduce the noise generated by the trucks.
Because there will be an estimated 10 to 15 trucks per hour,
each making a round trip, there will be from 20 to 30 trucks
passing any one residence per hour, or one truck every two to
three minutes. Reduction in truck noise could therefore
significantly reduce the adverse noise impact that might
otherwise result from this variance.
4. Applicant's amended request states that an alternative site
by ODOT is located 14 miles east of Bend. Staff believes
this to be the Horse Ridge site located adjacent to Highway
20. Applicant estimates that using this site would increase
project costs by approximately $200,000.00. No breakdown in
cost estimates for equipment, labor or other reasons
documenting this estimate were submitted.
5. Although the plant noise itself may be mitigated by berming
or a burner enclosure, there are several other sources of
noise at the plant site which could be eliminated, further
reducing the adverse impact from nighttime operations on
nearby residents. Applicant has indicated that the horn on
the batch plant can be changed to a light to indicate when
the plant is full, thus eliminating that source of noise.
Staff believes that applicant could construct an access way
Coats -Noise Variance Hearing
May 27, 1992 Page 5
0118-1169
at the plant to allow the loaders to drive in -only a forward
direction, thus eliminating another source of noise that
would be a disturbance to nearby residents.
6. The majority of opponents to applicant's request are
primarily concerned with truck noise during nighttime hours
when most people are sleeping and evening hours when people
are outside their residences. Applicant has indicated to
staff that truck drivers will be instructed to not use air
brakes in order to reduce noise. Staff believes that drivers
should also be instructed to minimize all truck noise,
especially by reducing acceleration and deceleration rates,
particularly on and near public roads.
7. Applicant has indicated to staff that trucks could travel
north from the plant site to Tumalo Park Road, then enter
onto Johnson Road one-quarter mile south of the Johnson Road
- Tyler Road junction and enter the project area from the
north on Highway 20. Applicant indicated that this travel
direction would increase the overall travel distance, time
and cost to complete the project.
Staff has measured the following distances on a map from the
asphalt plant to the north end of the project at Norwood, the
Highway 97 and Highway 20 intersection and to the south end
of the project at Powers Road:
Via Skvline Ranch Rd. and_Shevlin Park Rd.
Norwood: 7.9 mi.
3rd St./Hwy 20: 6.0 mi.
Powers: 8.3 mi.
Via Tumalo Park Rd. and Johnson Rd. and Highway 20
Norwood: 7.8 mi.
3rd St./Hwy 20: 9.7 miles.
Powers: 12.0 mi.
Using applicant's distance of 14 miles to the ODOT site, the
corresponding distances are:
Norwood: 15.9 mi.
3rd St./Hwy 20: 14 mi.
Powers: 16.3 mi.
Based on the mileage calculations it appears that the ODOT
site would approximately double the travel distance each way.
The travel distances are more similar between the proposed
route and the Johnson Rd./Hwy 20 alternative. The north end
of the project is essentially the same distance from either
of these two routes, while the south half is approximately
four miles closer (one way) from the proposed route.
8. There are recognizable advantages and disadvantages to all
Coats -Noise Variance Hearing
May 27, 1992 Page 6
01.18-1170
three alternatives. The -brief summary below compares the
proposed route to the Johnson Rd./Hwy 20 and Hwy 20 East
alternatives.
Proposed Route
The proposed route would involve the shortest travel distance
and travel time, but would cause the greatest amount of truck
noise to residential areas, including Fawnview, Valhalla
Heights subdivisions and many residences fronting on Newport
Ave. for two miles west of the 3rd St./Hwy 20 intersection.
Johnson Rd./Hwy 20 Route
The Johnson Rd./Hwy 20 alternative would involve about the
same travel distance to the north end of the project as the
proposed route, but would increase travel time due to
topography and a route with more.curves. Travel distance and
time to the south end of the project would be greater than if
the proposed route were used. However, this route would have
less impact on the number of residents, since the density of
development on Johnson Road is much less than along Shevlin
Park Road and Newport Avenue. Also, the last 4.1 miles would
be along Highway 20, already used by heavy trucks during the
night travelling through Central Oregon. Plant noise on the
subject property would be identical to the noise generated
under the proposed route.
Highway 20 East Route
The Highway 20 East alternative, using the prospective ODOT
site, would have virtually no noticeable noise impact at the
plant site because the nearest residence is located miles
away. Also, trucks already use Highway 20 at night and there
are far fewer residences immediately adjacent to the Highway
(most development is commercial or light industrial), thus
there would be less noticeable increase in truck noise due to
applicant's operation. The disadvantage to this site is the
increased travel distance and time to travel between the ODOT
site and Bend. Also, applicant would need to relocate the
portable asphalt batch plant and other equipment to this
location. However, because project work will not begin for
two to three weeks from the time of bid opening, applicant
would have time to move the equipment should that be
necessary.
The original estimate by ODOT for the work proposed by
applicant was a project cost of two million dollars.
Applicant's estimate of a $200,000.00 increase by using the
state's site is therefore an approximate increase of 10$ to
the the total estimated cost of the project. Staff has not
been able to determine how precisely applicant has estimated
this increase. ODOT staff have indicated that any bid for
this project can be modified until 9:00 a.m. Thursday, May
28, 1992. Therefore, applicant will be able to adjust his
Coats -Noise Variance Hearing
May 27, 1992 Page 7
0118-1171
bid with ODOT if the -Board makes a decision on May 27, 1992
that applicant believes will result in an adverse financial
impact to his previously submitted bid.
10. Applicant indicated at the May 20 hearing that the time frame
for the project could be reduced, in part due to the fact
that work can commence at 7:00 p.m Monday through Thursday,
instead of at 10:00 p.m. Applicant has not indicated to
staff any specific reduction in project duration that would
result from this increase in daily work hours. Staff
believes the applicant must complete all project work by
September 15th, per ODOT temperature requirements.
Therefore, it appears that any variance beyond this date is
unnecessary. The Board may wish to consider the impact of
reducing the number of hours each night during which a
variance would be granted. For example, restricting the
variance between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 3:00 a.m. would
allow for some limited hours of quiet for affected neighbors,
but the overall duration of the project would increase.
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
Staff finds that due to the necessity of paving during hours when
the operation of the equipment would be prohibited, the applicant
has no control over the hours of operation in order to accomplish
the public work project. These circumstances render strict
compliance with the noise standards applicable to this application
as being unduly burdensome and impractical as there is no other
way to produce the hot mix asphalt for the Third Street paving
project without operating a plant during the hours requested.
Staff finds that there are two possible sites for the hot mix
asphalt plant to operate, one on applicant's property on Skyline
Ranch Road, and an alternative location on state property east of
Bend. Staff recommends that the variance application be approved
to allow a batch plant, equipment and trucks to operate between
the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m, Monday through Thursday if
the Highway 20 East (ODOT) site is selected.
If a variance is granted to allow applicant to use the plant site
at Skyline Ranch Road, staff recommends the Board include in its
decision the following conditions:
la. Limit the daily hours for which a variance will be allowed
(for example between 10:00 p.m. and 3:00 a.m), or
Clb) Proceed with as short a project duration as possible, thereby
granting a variance between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 6:00
a.m., Mondays through Thursday.
2a. Restrict the travel route to the north exit from the plant
site onto Tumalo Park Road, then Johnson Road (heading
north), then Highway 20. (This restriction could be for the
entire project, or limited to the work on that section of 3rd
Coats -Noise Variance Hearing
May 27, 1992 Page 8
0118-1172
Street between the Highway 20/Highway 97 intersection in the
middle of Bend and the north end of the project at Norwood.),
or
2. Permit applicant to use the proposed route (Skyline Ranch
Road to Shevlin Park Road to Newport Ave.) for the entire
project or limit use of this route for the 2.3 mile section
south of the Highway 20/Highway 97 intersection to the south
end of the project at Powers Road.
3. The horn on the hot mix asphalt plant shall not be used to
indicate when the hopper is full.
4. Loaders and all other equipment shall travel in only a
forward direction to eliminate the noise from back-up
beepers.
5. All truck drivers shall be instructed by applicant to
minimize truck noise, particularly on and near pubic roads,
by accelerating and decelerating in a prudent manner and by
eliminating use of air brakes.
6. The variance is limited to only that equipment and truck
operation necessary to complete the resurfacing of 3rd Street
between Norwood and Powers Road. Operation of the hot mix
plant or any other equipment or trucks not expressly
authorized by this variance decision is strictly prohibited
and shall upon complaint be enforced to the extent provided
under the laws of Deschutes County.
7. All noise from the site shall comply with DEQ noise standards
at all times. Within one week of commencing nighttime
operations an evaluation by a noise engineer, of the actual
noise resulting from all operations between 10:00 p.m. and
7:00 a.m. on the subject property, shall be submitted by
applicant to the county. This report shall indicate the
actual methods used by applicant to meet the DEQ standards.
8. The terms of this variance shall begin on June 30, 1992 and
end on September 15, 1992.
Staff recommends that the Board consider requiring applicant to
install a higher grade muffler, such as a Harco type VCS muffler,
on all trucks that will travel from the Skyline Ranch Road site to
Bend if the proposed site is approved for a variance.
Coats -Noise Variance Hearing
May 27, 1992 Page 9