Loading...
SDR1996-00022 SDR96 - 00022 Triangle Corporate Park South Option A: Office / Hotel NOTICE OF DECISION SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (SDR) 96-0022 I air CITY OF TIOARD TRIANGLE CORPORATE PARK SOUTH Community(Development OPTION A: OFFICE/HOTEL s� �e �"t��°"""" � SECTION I: APPLICATION SUMMARY CASES: FILE NAME: FARMERS INSURANCE Site Development Review SDR 96-0022 PROPOSAL: The applicant has requested Site Development Review approval to allow the construction of a four story, 84,500 square foot office building and a 225 room, 62,000 square foot hotel. APPLICANT: Gerding/Edlen Development OWNER: FIG Holding Company 2525 SW 1st Avenue, Suite 201 4600 Wilshire Boulevard Portland, OR 97201 Los Angeles, CA 90010 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: C-P (Professional Office). ZONING DESIGNATION: C-P (Professional Commercial). LOCATION: West of SW 66th Avenue and on the south sides of SW 68th Avenue; WCTM 2S1 01 DA, Tax Lots 100, 200, 300, 400, and 2200. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.64, 18.100, 18.102, 18.106. 18.108, 18.114, 18.116, 18.120, 18.150, and 18.164. SECTION II: DECISION; Notice is hereby given that the City of Tigard Community Development Director's designee has APPROVED the above request subject to certain conditions of approval. The findings and conclusions on which the decision is based are noted in Section IV. NOTICE OF DECISION SDR 96-0022-FARMERS INSURANCE PAGE 1 CONDITIONS OF APPRO\ PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS, THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED: (Unless otherwise noted, the staff contact shall be Brian Rager, Engineering Department (503) 639-4171.) 1. Prior to issuance of a building permit, a Street Opening Permit will be required for this project to cover the sanitary sewer taps and any other work in the public right-of- way. The applicant will need to submit five (5) sets of the proposed public improvement plans for review and approval. NOTE: These plans are in addition to any drawings required by the Building Division and should only include information relevant to the public improvements. 2. As a part of the public improvement plan submittal, the Engineering Department shall be provided with the name, address and telephone number of the individual or corporate entity who will be responsible for executing the compliance agreement and providing the financial assurance for the public improvements. 3. Building permits will not be issued and construction of proposed public improvements shall not commence until after the Engineering Department has reviewed and approved the public improvement plans and a permit from the Engineering Department has been issued. Financial assurance equal to 100 percent of the cost of the public improvements, a Developer-Engineer Agreement, the payment of a permit fee and a sign installation/streetlight fee (if applicable) are required. 4. The applicant shall obtain a permit from the Tualatin Valley Water District for the proposed water connection prior to issuance of the City's public improvement permit. 5. An erosion control plan shall be provided as part of the site improvement drawings to be reviewed by the Building Division. The plan shall conform to "Erosion Prevention and Sediment Control Plans - Technical Guidance Handbook, February 1994. 6. 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. 7. Plans approved by Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue. 8. Revised site and landscaping plans shall be submitted for review by the Planning Division, Staff Contact: Will D'Andrea (503-639-4171). The revised plans shall include the following: A. Impervious surface/landscaping calculations shall be submitted which demonstrate that a minimum of 15% landscaping will be provided; B. Nine (9) disabled parking spaces; C. Sixteen (16) bicycle parking spaces for Building III and fifteen (15) bicycle parking spaces for Building IV; NOTICE OF DECISION SDR 96-0022-FARMERS INSURANCE PAGE 2 D. Walkway ( -section to SW 68th Parkway; E. Written solid waste hauler approval of facility location and equipment compatibility; F. Compliance with vision clearance criteria; G. Location of property lines; and H. Location and details of underground parking garage. The garage shall provide a minimum of 101 parking spaces. 9 Mitigation plan that provides for mitigation of 710 caliper inches. The City will accept payment of off-site monetary mitigation. The applicant has calculated this to be $28,874.00. Tree removal shall not be allowed prior to the applicant providing resolution to the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) right- of-way property. 10. A letter from the consulting arborist that verifies that tree protection measures have been installed according to the tree protection specifications submitted with the application. 11. Prior to the release of any permits, the applicant shall provide documentation of resolution of the ODOT right-of-way issue. The applicant shall provide proof of ownership of that portion of land which is currently ODOT right-of-way. If the applicant does not obtain ownership of the subject property, the plans shall be revised and a new site development review application shall be submitted. 12. Clarification of the 50 foot utility easement (per Book 1007, Page 125). Building III is partially located within this utility easement. Modification of the plan or removal of the easement may be necessary. THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO A FINAL INSPECTION: 13. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the applicant shall complete the required public improvements. 14. All site improvements shall be installed as approved, per the revised site plan. THIS APPROVAL SHALL BE VALID FOR 18 MONTHS FROM THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS DECISION. NOTICE OF DECISION SDR 96-0022-FARMERS INSURANCE PAGE 3 SECTION III: F KGROUND INFORMATION Site History: In 1996, a Lot Line Adjustment (MIS 96-0011) was approved on tax lots 200, 300, 400, 500 700 and 2200. In 1996, a Site Development Review (SDR 96-0019) was approved to allow the construction of a four (4) building, 191,650 square foot office complex. No other development applications were found to have been filed with the City of Tigard. Vicinity Information: The subject property is located north of Highway 217, south of SW Hampton Street, west of SW 66th Avenue, and on the south side of SW 68th Parkway. Properties to the north, south, and west are zoned C-P (Professional Commercial). Property to the north and south are developed with commercial (office) uses. Site Information and Proposal Description: The site consists of approximately 6.88 acres, is presently vacant, and contains a number of mature trees. There is a forested ravine, with moderate to steep slopes, along the southwest portion of the property. There are approximately 8,937 square feet (.2 acres) of wetlands within the narrow channelized bottom of the drainage swale. The proposal will not encroach into the ravine or wetland area. The applicant is proposing to construct an 84,500 square foot office building and a 62,000 square foot hotel. Access to the site will be provided from SW 68th Parkway and SW 66th Avenue. This 6.88 acre site was involved in a previous Site Development Review (SDR 96-0019), and was referred to as phase 2 in that decision. The applicant is proposing a major modification of phase 2 and the previous plan. SECTION IV: APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA AND FINDINGS COMPLIANCE WITH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTIONS: Use Classification: The applicant is proposing to build a hotel and an office building. These uses are classified in Code Section 18.42 (Use Classifications) as Transient Lodging and Professional and Administrative Services. Code Section 18.64.030 lists Professional and Administrative Services and Transient Lodging as permitted uses in the C-P zone. Dimensional Requirements: Section 18.64.050 states that the minimum lot area is 6,000 square feet and the average minimum lot width is 50 feet for parcels in the C-P zoning district. The site is approximately 6.88 acres and has a width of approximately 500 feet, thereby, exceeding the required minimum lot size and width requirement. Developments within the C-P zone are required to provide a minimum of 15% landscaping. The applicant has not provided calculations regarding the amount of impervious surface and landscaping. Impervious surface/landscaping calculations shall be submitted which demonstrate that a minimum of 15% landscaping will be provided. NOTICE OF DECISION SDR 96-0022-FARMERS INSURANCE PAGE 4 Setbacks: Section 18., 50 states that no front, side, or yard setback is required except 20 feet shall be required where the C-P zone abuts residential zoning district. Except as otherwise provided in section 18.98, no building in the C-P zoning district shall exceed 45 feet in height Setbacks are not applicable as the site does not abut a - residential zone. The proposed height of the hotel is approximately 44 feet, under the maximum height requirement. The proposed height of the office building is approximately 66 feet. As discussed in section 18.98.020 (Building Height Exceptions), the proposed building height of 66 feet is an acceptable and permitted building height. Building Height Exceptions: Section 18.98.020 states that any building located in a nonresidential zone may be built to a maximum height of 75 feet; provided: 1) the total floor area of the building does not exceed 1-1/2 the area of the site; 2) the yard dimensions in each case are equal to at least 1/2 of the building height of the principal structure; 3) the structure is not abutting a residential zoning district. This criteria is satisfied because: 1) the 84,500 square foot office building is only approximately 28 percent of the 6.88 acre site; 2) the 66 foot building provides 33 foot setbacks; and 3) the structure is not abutting a residential zoning district. Site Development Review - Approval Standards; Section 18.120.180(A)(1) requires that a development proposal be found to be consistent with the various standards of the Community Development Code. The applicable criteria in this case are Chapters 18.100, 18.102, 18.106, 18.108, 18.114, 18.120, and 18.164. The proposal's consistency with these Code Chapters is reviewed in the following sections. The proposal contains no elements related to the provisions of Code Chapters 18.80 (Planned Developments), 18.84 (Sensitive Lands), 18.92 (Density Computations), 18.94 (Manufactured/Mobile Home Regulations), or 18.144 (Accessory Use and Structures) which are also listed under Section 18.120.180.A.1. These Chapters are, therefore, found to be inapplicable as approval standards. Section 18.120.180(A)(2) provides other Site Development Review approval standards not necessarily covered by the provisions of the previously listed sections. These other standards are addressed immediately below. The proposal contains no elements related to the provisions of 18.120.180.3 (Exterior Elevations), 18.120.180.5 (Privacy and Noise), 18.120.180.6 (Private Outdoor Areas: Residential Use), 18.120.180.7 (Shared Outdoor Recreation Areas: Residential Use), 18.120.180.8 (100-year floodplain), 18.120.180.9 (Demarcation of Spaces), and are, therefore, found to be inapplicable as approval standards. Relationship to the Natural and Physical Environment: Section 18.120.180.2 states that buildings shall be located to preserve existing trees, topography, and natural drainage and that trees having a six (6) inch caliper or greater, shall be preserved or replaced by new plantings of equal character. There is a forested ravine, with moderate to steep slopes along the southwest portion of the property. There are approximately 8,937 square feet (.2 acres) of wetlands within the narrow channelized bottom of the drainage swale. The proposal will not encroach into the ravine or wetland area. Given the location of the buildings, parking area, and accessways, as well as the grading required to accommodate this proposal, a number of the existing trees will be removed. An arborist report has been submitted that addresses preservation of trees on the property. In accordance with Section 18.150, trees greater than 12-inch caliper will be mitigated. The proposed plan also includes new parking lot and street trees. NOTICE OF DECISION SDR 96-0022-FARMERS INSURANCE PAGE 5 Buffering, Screeni and Compatibility between djoining uses: Section 18.120.108.4(A) state_ _.iat buffering shall be provided between different types of land uses. This criteria is not applicable as this proposal does not abut a use that requires buffering in accordance with the Buffer Matrix (18.100.130). Section 18.120.108.4(B) states that on-site screening from view of adjoining properties of such things as service and storage areas, parking lots, and mechanical devices on roof tops shall be provided. As indicated on the site plan, parking and storage areas shall be screened from adjoining properties. Crime Prevention and Safety: Section 18.120.108.10 requires that exterior lighting levels be selected and the angles shall be oriented towards areas vulnerable to crime and shall be placed in areas having heavy pedestrian or vehicular traffic. The City of Tigard Police Department has reviewed the applicant's lighting plan and has no comments or objections to the plan, thereby, satisfying this criteria. Phased Development: Section 18.120.050 allows approval of a time schedule for developing a site in phases over a period of time of one year, but in no case shall the total time period for all phases be greater than three years without reapplying for site development review. The criteria for approving a phased site development review proposal is that the following are satisfied: 1. The public facilities are constructed in conjunction with or prior to each phase. All public facilities required to serve each phase shall be constructed in conjunction with, or prior to, each phase. Each phase will contain all the site improvements necessary to function as a distinct development. 2. The development and occupancy of any phase is not dependent on the use of temporary public facilities (a temporary facility is any facility not constructed to the applicable City or district standard). The applicant is not proposing the use of any temporary public facilities. 3. The phased development shall not result in requiring the City or other property owners to construct public facilities that were required by an approved development proposal. The applicant shall construct all necessary improvements to serve this development. Landscaping Plan: Section 18.100.015 requires that the applicant submit a landscaping plan. This requirement has been satisfied as the applicant has submitted a plan indicating the number, type, and location of trees and shrubs. Street Trees: Section 18.100.033 states that all development projects fronting on a public street shall be required to plant street trees in accordance with Section 18.100.035. Section 18.100.035 requires that street trees be spaced between 20 and 40 feet apart depending on the size classification of the tree at maturity (small, medium or large). As indicated on the site plan, street trees have been provided in accordance with this section. Street trees will consist of a mix of preserved trees and newly proposed trees. NOTICE OF DECISION SDR 96-0022-FARMERS INSURANCE PAGE 6 Screening: Special P Sions: Section 18.100.110(A) luires the screening of parking and loading Landscaped parking areas . Al include special design features which effectively screen the parking lot areas from view. Planting materials to be installed should achieve a relative balance between low lying and vertical shrubbery and trees. Trees shall be planted in landscaped islands in all parking areas, and shall be equally distributed on the basis of one (1) tree for each seven (7) parking spaces in order to provide a canopy effect. The minimum dimension on the landscape islands shall be three-feet-wide and the landscaping shall be protected from vehicular damage by some form of wheel guard or curb. While the site pla- does not reflect landscape planters within the parking lot areas, the landscape plan shows the provision of planters and parking lot trees. The plan shows that the distribution of parking lot trees will provide for the required canopy effect, thereby, satisfying this criteria. Visual Clearance Areas: Section 18.102 requires that a clear vision area shall be maintained on the corners of all property adjacent to intersecting right-of-ways or the intersection of a public street and a private driveway. A clear vision area shall contain no vehicle, hedge, planting, fence, wall structure, or temporary or permanent obstruction exceeding three (3) feet in height. The code provides that obstructions that may be located in this area shall be visually clear between three (3) and eight (8) feet in height (trees may be placed within this area provided that all branches below eight (8) feet are removed). A visual clearance area is the triangular area formed by measuring a 30-foot distance along the street right-of-way and the driveway, and then connecting these two (2), 30-foot distance points with a straight line. The plans show that parking spaces are within the vision clearance area. A revised plan shall be submitted which provides for vision clearance in accordance with this section. Minimum Off-Street Parking: Section 18.106.030.(C)(1) requires a minimum of one (1) parking space for each 350 square feet of gross floor space for Administrative and Professional Services. Section 18.106.030.(C)(29) requires a minimum of one (1) parking space for each room plus one (1) space for each two (2) employees. The 84,500 square foot office building requires 241 parking spaces. The hotel provides 225 rooms and will have 20 employees. The number of parking spaces required by the hotel is 235 spaces. The total number of parking spaces required by this proposal is 475 spaces. The proposed plan indicates that 490 spaces have been provided, however, the proposed plan shows the provision of only 374 spaces. The applicant has stated that the remaining parking spaces shall be provided in an underground parking structure. A revised plan shall be submitted which shows the location and specifications of the parking garage. The garage shall provide a minimum of 101 parking spaces. The parking provided with the construction of Building Ill will be adequate to serve the building. The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA): Section 18.106.020(M) became effective on January 26, 1992. All parking areas shall be provided with the required numbers and sizes of disabled person parking spaces as specified by applicable State of Oregon and federal standards. All disabled person parking spaces shall be signed and marked on the pavement as required by these standards. This section requires 9 disabled parking spaces if 401 to 500 parking spaces are provided. This proposal requires nine (9) disabled parking spaces. The plan shows the provision of eight (8) disabled parking spaces. A revised plan shall be submitted that provides for nine (9) disabled parking spaces, in accordance with this section. NOTICE OF DECISION SDR 96-0022-FARMERS INSURANCE PAGE 7 Bicycle Parking: SE n 18.106.020(P) requires one (' 'cycle parking rack space for every 15 requirea ..ahicular parking spaces in any dtyelopment Bicycle parking areas shall not be located within parking aisles, landscape areas, or pedestrian ways: Thirty-one (31) bicycle parking spaces will be required for this development. The plan shows that bicycle parking spaces are provided, however, it is not indicated how many- spaces are provided. A revised plan shall be submitted which shows the provision and location of sixteen (16) bicycle parking spaces for Building III and fifteen (15) bicycle parking spaces for Building IV. Off-Street Loading spaces: Section 18.106.080 requires that every commercial or industrial use having floor area of 10,000 square feet or more, shall have at least one (1) off-street loading space on site. The plans show the provision of loading spaces for each of the buildings, thereby satisfying this criteria. Access: Section 18.108.080 requires that commercial and industrial uses which require more than 100 parking spaces provide two (2) accesses with a minimum width of 30 feet and a minimum pavement width of 24 feet or one (1) access with a minimum width of 50 feet and a minimum pavement width of 40 feet. The preliminary plan shows the provision of two (2) access drives, one (1) on SW 68th Avenue and one (1) on SW 66th Parkway. The accesses are a minimum of twenty-four (24) feet wide, thereby, satisfying this criteria. Walkways: Section 18.108.050(A) requires that a walkway be extended from the ground floor entrance of the structure to the street that provides the required ingress and egress. Unless impractical, walkways should be constructed between a new development and neighboring developments. Wherever required walkways cross vehicle access-driveways or parking lots, such crossings shall be designed and located for pedestrian safety. Required walkways shall be physically separated from motor vehicle traffic and parking by either a minimum six (6) inch vertical separation (curbed), or a minimum three (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 (4) 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 plan partially complies with this section. The plan shows the provision of a walkway connection with the existing concrete walk shown to connect with the Farmers Insurance building. The plan does not provide a walkway that connects the Building III entrance to SW 68th Parkway. A revised plan shall be submitted which provides a walkway connection to SW 68th Parkway. Mixed Solid Waste and Recyclables Storage: Section 18.116 requires that new construction incorporates functional and adequate space for on-site storage and efficient collection of mixed solid waste and source separated Recyclables prior to pick-up and removal by haulers. The applicant must choose one (1) of the following four (4) methods to demonstrate compliance: Minimum Standard, Waste Assessment, Comprehensive Recycling Plan, or Franchised Hauler Review and Sign- Off. The applicant will have to submit evidence or a plan which indicates compliance with this section. Regardless of which method chosen, the applicant will have to submit a written sign-off from the franchise hauler regarding the facility location and NOTICE OF DECISION SDR 96-0022-FARMERS INSURANCE PAGE 8 compatibility. The p show the provision of trash en _res. The applicant shall provide a written sign-oft from the hauler regarding these locat..,,Is. Tree Removal: Section 18.150.025 requires that a tree plan for the planting, removal • and protection of trees prepared by a certified arborist shall be provided with a site development review application. The tree plan shall include identification of all existing trees, identification of a program to save existing trees or mitigate tree removal over 12 inches in caliper, which trees are to be removed, protection program defining standards and methods that will be used by the applicant to protect trees during and after construction. This section requires a program to save existing trees or mitigate tree removal for trees over 12 inches in caliper. The applicant's narrative states that the report submitted for the previous Site Development Review (SDR 96-0019) is still valid and can be used for the purposes of this present application. A tree mitigation plan was approved in compliance with a condition of the previous Site Development Review (SDR 96- 0019). This plan identified required mitigation of 710 caliper inches for this south side of SW 68th Parkway. After incorporating on-site tree mitigation, the plan concluded that a total of $28,874.00 for off-site monetary mitigation would satisfy the required mitigation. The applicant's proposal for on-site mitigation and off-site monetary mitigation satisfies the requirements of this section. Signs: Section 18.114.130(D) lists the type of allowable signs and sign area permitted in the C-P Zone. All signs shall conform to the provisions listed in this code section. All signs shall be approved through the Sign Permit process as administered by the City of Tigard Development Services Technicians. PUBLIC FACILITY CONCERNS: Sections 18.164.030(E)(1)(a) (Streets), 18.164.090 (Sanitary Sewer), and 18.164.100 (Storm Drains) shall be satisfied as specified below: TRAFFIC ANALYSIS: A transportation impact analysis was submitted by Mackenzie Engineering, Inc. (MEI), dated January 3, 1997. This report analyzed the potential impact of the proposed driveway locations on 68th Parkway and 66th Avenue, as well as the potential impact on several intersections in the vicinity from additional trip generation from the development. It was found that all proposed driveways will operate at acceptable levels of service (LOS) under the estimated traffic for the year 2001. The major intersections analyzed in the study were: Hampton Street/SW 72nd Avenue Hampton Street/SW 68th Parkway SW 68th Parkway/SW 66th Avenue. Based on the findings of the MEI report, the development of this project will not have a negative impact on any of the three intersections above. All intersections will operate a LOS "C" or better, which is acceptable. Traffic signal and left-turn lane warrants were also considered by MEI for the Hampton Street/SW 68th Parkway intersection. The report NOTICE OF DECISION SDR 96-0022-FARMERS INSURANCE PAGE 9 indicates that for ye 101 traffic volumes, including pr( ed traffic from this project, warrants for a left turn ,.,pie and signal are not met. The intersection of SW 68th Parkway and SW Dartmouth Street was analyzed for signal warrants. The report indicates that the intersection is currently just meeting signal. warrants during the PM peak hour. With the increase in traffic from this development, as well as expected growth in traffic from other approved projects in the area, it is expected that the minimum peak hour warrant volumes will be met for both the AM and PM peak hours for a two-lane by one-lane intersection. However, based on the low average delays currently experienced at this intersection, as well as results from ODOT's "Unsigl0" software calculations that indicate a level of service (LOS) "D" or better with either Option A or B, a signal is not recommended at this time. Staff concurs with the traffic engineer's findings and does not recommend installation of a signal. ODOT submitted comments, dated February 7, 1997, indicating some concern with both options. They are concerned because Option A and B would generate more trips than the original proposal under SDR 96/0019, and there may be "possible congested conditions along 72nd Avenue between OR 217 northbound ramps and Hampton Street. Congested conditions which could cause excessive delays to traffic are likely to occur, especially with the existing capacity constraint at the OR 217-72nd Avenue Interchange. Queue spill back from the OR 217 northbound off-ramp would cause congestion at the intersection of Hampton Street-72nd Avenue during peak hours." Although ODOT's comments are well- taken, Staff had difficulty in supporting them because they were not backed up by data, or information, that would refute the findings of the applicant's traffic study, which clearly indicates the intersection of 68th Avenue/Hampton Street will operate at a LOS "C" or better. . Staff discussed this matter with the ODOT staff and asked them to resubmit their comments to speak directly to the findings of the traffic study and their validity. ODOT staff acknowledged that they had difficulty in backing up their concerns with technical findings, but would possibly resubmit their comments by February 20, 1997. Staff did not receive any other comments from ODOT. In summary, based upon the findings of the transportation analysis submitted by MEI, Staff concurs that off-site street and/or intersection improvements are not warranted or required. STREETS: This site lies adjacent to SW 66th Avenue and SW 68th Parkway. SW 68th Parkway: SW 68th Parkway is classified as a major collector street and is fully improved adjacent to this site, with an existing 5-foot wide walkway on the south/west side of the street meandering inside a 15-foot wide public pedestrian/bicycle easement. No further right-of- way (ROW) dedications or street improvements on this side of the street are required. NOTICE OF DECISION SDR 96-0022-FARMERS INSURANCE PAGE 10 SW 66th Avenue: . SW 66th Avenue is classified as a local commercial & industrial street. It once was a frontage roadway controlled by ODOT, but in 1981 ODOT relinquished its interest in the ROW to the City of Tigard. Since that date, the roadway has been primarily used by local traffic and does not experience heavy traffic loads. As a part of SDR 96-0019, the applicant proposed vacation of a portion of SW 66th Avenue that could be utilized in the site plan for this project. The City concurred, based upon the fact that the ROW is unused, and adopted a resolution on January 28, 1997 to relinquish interest in that portion of the ROW back to ODOT. It is the City's understanding that this ROW is now being sold to the applicant. Prior to construction, the applicant should be required to provide evidence that the property transfer from ODOT has been completed. The remaining ROW for 66th Avenue, south of 68th Parkway, is currently used as access to this and the Farmers Insurance site. The City's Transportation Plan does not call for this section of 66th Avenue to be improved. Therefore, no additional dedications or improvements are required for this project. WATER: This site lies within the Tualatin Valley Water District (TVWD) service area. There is an existing 8-inch public water line in SW 68th Avenue that the applicant proposes to serve the new buildings from. Any connections to the water line in 68th Avenue shall be approved and permitted through TVWD. SANITARY SEWER: There is an existing 8-inch sanitary sewer line that lies adjacent to the south edge of SW 68th Avenue and along the eastern boundary of this site where the applicant intends to provide service to the new buildings (in either option). This sewer line should have adequate capacity to serve either option. STORM DRAINAGE: Storm water from this site naturally flows to the south and east toward 1-5. There are two locations where storm pipes enter the ODOT ROW of 1-5. The first location is just south of where 68th Parkway intersects with 66th Avenue. Storm water from 68th Avenue is collected in a public storm pipe that discharges into an existing 18-inch storm pipe that crosses 1-5. The other location is further south where an existing drainage area (between this site and the Farmer's Insurance building site) is collected and discharges into a 24- inch storm pipe that enters the ODOT ROW; from there, the water enters a much larger 84-inch diameter pipe. The applicant has coordinated with the ODOT hydraulics engineer with respect to the potential impact generated from this development. The applicant proposes to convey the on-site storm water to the southern end of the development area and detain it in an on-site water quality/detention pond before discharging the water into the existing 24-inch storm pipe. ODOT has indicated that they do not have a concern with this concept but the applicant should limit their peak discharge volume to the undeveloped 50-year storm NOTICE OF DECISION SDR 96-0022-FARMERS INSURANCE PAGE 11 event. The prelimina 3Iculations indicate that the pror d pond site will have more than enough capacity . .1andle the storage of the 50-year s...,m event. • The applicant's plan proposes to convey storm water from the site north of 68th Parkway (which was approved under SDR 96-0019 and is under construction) to reach the. southern portion of the site and the pond. The plan shows a new private storm pipe that would need to cross SW 68th Parkway. Staff reviewed this option as a part of SDR 96- 0019 and recommended approval. A Street Opening Permit was issued to cover the installation of the private storm line crossing. STORM WATER QUALITY: The City has agreed to enforce Surface Water Management (SWM) regulations established by the Unified Sewerage Agency (USA) (Resolution and Order No. 91-47, as amended by R&O 91-75) 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. As stated previously, there will be a pond located near the southern end of the development area. This pond will act as a water quality and storm water detention facility. The pond has been designed as a part of SDR 96-0019 and will adequately treat the anticipated storm water runoff. There will be no change to the pond design with either option because the overall hard surface area that the pond will treat will not change significantly. GRADING AND EROSION CONTROL: USA R&O 91-47 also regulates 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 R&O 91-47, the applicant is required to submit an erosion control plan for City review and approval prior to issuance of City permits. The Federal Clean Water Act requires that a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) erosion control permit be issued for any development that will disturb five or more acres 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. EXISTING OVERHEAD UTILITY LINES: There are no existing overhead utility lines adjacent to this site. SECTION V: AGENCY COMMENTS The City of Tigard Building Division states there shall be removal of all underlying land divisions prior to the issuance of building permits. The City of Tigard Police Department and Maintenance Services Department have reviewed this application and have offered no comments or objections. NOTICE OF DECISION SDR 96-0022-FARMERS INSURANCE PAGE 12 SECTION VI: AC 'CY COMMENTS Unified Sewerage Agency has reviewed the proposal and has offered the following • comments: Sanitary Sewer: Each lot within the development shall be provided with a means of disposal for sanitary sewer. The means of disposal should be in accordance with R&O 96-44 (Unified Sewerage Agency's Construction Design Standards, July 1996 edition). Engineer should verify sanitary sewer is available to up-hill adjacent properties, or extend service as required by R&O 96-44. Storm Sewer: Each lot within the development should have access to public storm sewer. Engineer should verify that public storm sewer is available to up-hill adjacent properties, or extend storm service as required by R&O 96-44. Hydraulic and hydrological analysis of storm conveyance system is necessary. If downstream storm conveyance does not have the capacity to convey the volume during a 25-year, 24-hour storm event, the applicant is responsible for mitigating flow. Water Quality: Developer should provide a water quality facility to treat the new impervious surface being constructed as part of this development. Sensitive Area: A "Sensitive Area" may exist, developer must preserve a 25-foot corridor as described in R&O 96-44 separating the sensitive area from the impact of development. Erosion Control: A joint 1200-C erosion control permit is required. Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue has reviewed the proposal and has offered the following comments: Plans are not approved at this time. The applicant shall address the following plan notes and re-submit plans for review and approval: The inside turning radius and outside turning radius shall not be less than 25 feet and 45 feet respectfully, as measured from the same center point (UFC Sec. 902.2.2.3). Where fire apparatus access roadways are not of sufficient width to accommodate parked vehicles, "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" and shall be installed with a clear space above ground level of seven (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.(l)(2) & (3)). 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 (1) inch wide by six (6) inches high. (UFC Sec. 901.4.5.2). The minimum number of fire hydrants for a building shall be based on the required fire flow prior to giving any credits for fire protection systems. There shall not be less than one NOTICE OF DECISION SDR 96-0022-FARMERS INSURANCE PAGE 13 (1) fire hydrant for thr t 2,000 gallons per minute (GPI■ quired fire flow and one (1) additional fire hydran, .Jr each 1,000 GPM or portion tb,_.eof over 2,000 GPM. Fire hydrants shall be evenly spaced around the building and their locations shall be approved by the Chief (UFC Sec. 903.4.2.1). 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 (UFC Sec. 903.4.2.1). Fire hydrants shall not be located more than 15 feet from an approved fire apparatus access roadway (UFC Sec 903.4.2.4). 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 per square inch (psi). A worksheet for calculating the required fire flow is available form the Fire Marshal's office (UFC Sec. 903.3). 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). A Knox Box for building access is required for this building. Please contact the Fire Marshal's office for an application and instructions regarding installation and placement. GTE states that the developer/owner to place conduit/manholes as per GTE's specifications. PGE and the Tualatin Valley Water District have reviewed this application and has offered no comments or objections. SECTION VII: PROCEDURE AND APPEAL INFORMATION Notice: Notice was posted at City Hall and mailed to: X The applicant and owners X Owner of record within the required distance X Affected government agencies NOTICE OF DECISION SDR 96-0022-FARMERS INSURANCE PAGE 14 Final Decision: THE DECISION SHALL BE FINAL ON MARCH 12, 1997 UNLESS AN APPEAL IS FILED. Appeal: Any party to the decision may appeal this decision in accordance with Sections 18.32.290(A) and Section 18.32.340 of the Community Development Code which provides that a written appeal must be filed. The deadline for filing an appeal is specified below. The appeal fee schedule and appeal form are available from the Community Development Department or Planning Division at Tigard City Hall, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon 97223. THE DEADLINE FOR FILING OF AN APPEAL IS 3:30 P.M. ON MARCH 12, 1997. Questions: If you have any questions, please call the City of Tigard Planning Division or Community Development Department of Tigard City Hall, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon at (503) 639-4171. w� ✓_J , C !� February 26, 1997 PREPARED BY: William D'Andrea DATE Associate Planner _ f - - February 26. 1997 APPROVED BY: Richard Bewersdorff ', DATE Planning Manager \curpin1wi111SDR96-22 Gac NOTICE OF DECISION SDR 96-0022-FARMERS INSURANCE PAGE 15 ill i III A fa. I; ill E ill ..._.._._— -. •• ti ^ r _... M X , • H �-- i SW eeru PU Ay Z D 1/~ _ / rte. 1 10 S 1 G}1111( s , ..._. ___ 1 i • 111111\nal I 1 • - ' . -- _ 1111 - --" n>> LAO ICI rtm o0a2 n r a 1 0%2 )::* ■ A = a _ .,. o ` 1111 O III 2 iAiM ArENrE INTERSTATE 5 0.5) INTERSTATE 5(1-5) ____..._._..______ _._._ ae . err 0 I - CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING DIVISION L, \ 1 _ 1 _ _ , ,_ X11■ 1 sr l -- / - t "1111411/ ' '--- ' / I Illrial Izapi ion -IT mill •ST 1 ap sT i I‘111161.- Inil c 0. i I IINfir I,Amlk m a) 5 SUB1E' \ 1■\ -- =I ARCELS-- 1 2 ■■ ■■■■■ l maw 'E2_1 L._ ili. 1, Aijillp• ■ co RR C-Thrn lP k‘it E .. 2 1 !111JH IIIIQ cm 1 1-7 ---„u .. .:.,, : o >1 —7.311 *Ok 0 4,.",,,,,, 3...N 1 _ 751zs : -i_ . .., .s.. 0, .t. %, Vicinity Map A SDR 96-0022 Triangle Corporate Park South Mete:Map Is oat tsscale N Option A: Office/Hotel REQUEST FOR COMMENTS Oregon February 7, 1997 DEPARTMENT OF City of Tigard Planning Department 13125 SW Hall Boulevard TRANSPORTATION Tigard, OR 97223 Region 1 Att: Will D-Andrea Re: Triangle Corporate Park South FILE CODE: SDR 96-0022: Option A: Office/Hotel PLA9-2A-TIG-1/144 SDR 96-0023: Option B: Office/Office Proposed Modification to SDR 96-0019: Farmers Insurance We have reviewed the traffic impact analyses prepared for Options A & B of Triangle Corporate Park South, and compared these to the development which was previously approved for this site. ODOT has the following comments: • Both Options A and B would generate more trips to the study area than the original approved proposal. We are concerned with the possible congested conditions along 72nd Avenue between OR 217 northbound ramps and Hampton Street. Congested conditions which could cause excessive delays to traffic are likely to occur, especially with the existing capacity constraint at the OR 217-72nd Avenue interchange. Queue spill back from the OR 217 northbound off-ramp would cause congestion at the intersection of Hampton Street-72nd Avenue during peak hours. • ODOT has no planned operational improvements to the 72nd Avenue interchange. Therefore, congestion will continue to grow with projected background traffic growth, and be exacerbated with Options A or B traffic generation. • In light of these concerns, ODOT recommends that the original approved Farmers Insurance property site plan (SDR-96-0019) remain unmodified. Please contact me at 731-8282 if you have questions regarding the above recommendations. We request receipt of the notice of decision, with conditions of approval, for this case. Thank you. r S•` ya szen, Development Review Coordinator cc: Simon Eng, Trans. Analysis, ODOT Region 1 Martin Jensvold, Trans. Analysis, ODOT Region 1 Jane Estes, Bob Schmidt, ODOT District 2A 123 NW Flanders Portland,OR 97209-4037 (503) 731-8200 734-1850(11-94) FAX (503) 731-8259 Ait Abi ik Ail • CITY OF TIGARD Community,Devefopnent ' Shaping Better Community REQUEST FOR COMMENTS DATE: January 14,1991 TO: Brian Roger,Development Review Engineer FROM: City of Tigard Planning Department STAFF CONTACT: William D'Andrea(x3151 Phone:[503)639-4111 Fax:[503)684-129/ RE: SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW MDR]96-0022 r TRIANGLE CORPORATE PARK SOUTH - OPTION A: OFFICE/HOTEL 4 A request for Site Development Review approval to allow the construction of an 84,500 square foot office building and a 62,000 square foot hotel. LOCATION: West of SW 66th Avenue and on the south side of SW 68th Avenue. WCTM 2S101 DA, Tax Lots 00100, 00200, 00300, 00400 and 02200. ZONE: Professional Commercial (C-P). The C-P zone allows public agency and administrative services, public support facilities, professional and administrative services, financial, insurance, real estate services, business support services, and transient lodging, among others. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.64, 18.100, 18.102, 18.106, 18.108, 18.114, 18.116, 18.120, 18.150, and 18.164. Attached is the Site Plan, Vicinity Map and Applicant's Statement for your review. From information supplied by various departments and agencies and from other information available to our staff, a report and recommendation will be prepared and a decision will be rendered on the proposal in the near future. If you wish to comment on this application, WE NEED YOUR COMMENTS BACK BY: Friday - January 24, 1997. You may use the space provided below or attach a separate letter to return your comments. If you are unable to respond by the above date, please phone the staff contact noted above with your comments and confirm your comments in writing as soon as possible. If you have any questions, contact the Tigard Planning Department, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, OR 97223. PLEASE CHECK THE FOLLOWING ITEMS THAT APPLY: We have reviewed the proposal and have no objections to it. Please contact of our office. Please refer to the enclosed letter. Written co ments provided below: Lo l UnlLoti,1107 /j> APL . -G, , ,( e-1) . f?- qz4 bri V ., (4'fease provide the folTawing information) Name of Person(s) Commenting: IPhone Number(s): t SDR 96-0022 TRIANGLE CORPORATE PARK SOUTH-OPTION A: OFFICE/HOTEL PROPOSAL/REQUEST FOR COMMENTS MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON DATE: February 25, 1997 TO: Will D'Andrea, Planning Division FROM: Brian Rager, Development Review Engineer RE: SDR 96-0022, Triangle Corporate Park South (Option A: Office/Hotel) SDR 96-0023, Triangle Corporate Park South (Option B: Office/Office) Description: This proposal is a major modification to a previous SDR approval (SDR 96-0019) to allow the following on the portion of property south of SW 68th Parkway: Option A: an 84,500 sf office building and a 62,000 sf hotel, Option B: a two-building, 138,000 sf office complex. This site is located west of SW 66th Avenue, on the south side of SW 68th Parkway (WCTM 2S1 01 DA, Tax Lots 100, 200, 300, 400 and 2200). Findings: 1. Traffic Analysis: A transportation impact analysis was submitted by Mackenzie Engineering, Inc. (MEI), dated January 3, 1997. This report analyzed the potential impact of the proposed driveway locations on 68th Parkway and 66th Avenue, as well as the potential impact on several intersections in the vicinity from additional trip generation from the development. It was found that all proposed driveways will operate at acceptable levels of service (LOS) under the estimated traffic for the year 2001. The major intersections analyzed in the study were: Hampton Street/SW 72nd Avenue Hampton Street/SW 68th Parkway SW 68th Parkway/SW 66th Avenue. Based on the findings of the MEI report, the development of this project will not have a negative impact on any of the three intersections above. All intersections will operate a LOS "C" or better, which is acceptable. ENGINEERING COMMENTS SDR 96-0022 Triangle Corp. Park South PAGE 1 • Traffic signal and left-turn lane warrants were also considered by MEI for the Hampton Street/SW 68th Parkway intersection. The report indicates that for year 2001 traffic volumes, including projected traffic from this project, warrants for a left turn lane and signal are not met. The intersection of SW 68th Parkway and SW Dartmouth Street was analyzed for signal warrants. The report indicates that the intersection is currently just meeting signal warrants during the PM peak hour. With the increase in traffic from this development, as well as expected growth in traffic from other approved projects in the area, it is expected that the minimum peak hour warrant volumes will be met for both the AM and PM peak hours for a two-lane by one-lane intersection. However, based on the low average delays currently experienced at this intersection, as well as results from ODOT's "Unsigl0" software calculations that indicate a level of service (LOS) "D" or better with either Option A or B, a signal is not recommended at this time. Staff concurs with the traffic engineer's findings and does not recommend installation of a signal. ODOT submitted comments, dated February 7, 1997, indicating some concern with both options. They are concerned because Option A and B would generate more trips than the original proposal under SDR 96/0019, and there may be "possible congested conditions along 72nd Avenue between OR 217 northbound ramps and Hampton Street. Congested conditions which could cause excessive delays to traffic are likely to occur, especially with the existing capacity constraint at the OR 217-72nd Avenue Interchange. Queue spill back from the OR 217 northbound off- ramp would cause congestion at the intersection of Hampton Street-72nd Avenue during peak hours." Although ODOT's comments are well-taken, Staff had difficulty in supporting them because they were not backed up by data, or information, that would refute the findings of the applicant's traffic study, which clearly indicates the intersection of 68th Avenue/Hampton Street will operate at a LOS "C" or better. . Staff discussed this matter with the ODOT staff and asked them to resubmit their comments to speak directly to the findings of the traffic study and their validity. ODOT staff acknowledged that they had difficulty in backing up their concerns with technical findings, but would possibly resubmit their comments by February 20, 1997. Staff did not receive any other comments from ODOT. In summary, based upon the findings of the transportation analysis submitted by MEI, Staff concurs that off-site street and/or intersection improvements are not warranted or required. ENGINEERING COMMENTS SDR 96-0022 Triangle Corp. Park South PAGE 2 • 2. Streets: This site lies adjacent to SW 66th Avenue and SW 68th Parkway. SW 68th Parkway: SW 68th Parkway is classified as a major collector street and is fully improved adjacent to this site, with an existing 5-foot wide walkway on the south/west side of the street meandering inside a 15-foot wide public pedestrian/bicycle easement. No further right-of-way (ROW) dedications or street improvements on this side of the street are required. SW 66th Avenue: SW 66th Avenue is classified as a local commercial & industrial street. It once was a frontage roadway controlled by ODOT, but in 1981 ODOT relinquished its interest in the ROW to the City of Tigard. Since that date, the roadway has been primarily used by local traffic and does not experience heavy traffic loads. As a part of SDR 96-0019, the applicant proposed vacation of a portion of SW 66th Avenue that could be utilized in the site plan for this project. The City concurred, based upon the fact that the ROW is unused, and adopted a resolution on January 28, 1997 to relinquish interest in that portion of the ROW back to ODOT. It is the City's understanding that this ROW is now being sold to the applicant. Prior to construction, the applicant should be required to provide evidence that the property transfer from ODOT has been completed. The remaining ROW for 66th Avenue, south of 68th Parkway, is currently used as access to this and the Farmers Insurance site. The City's Transportation Plan does not call for this section of 66th Avenue to be improved. Therefore, no additional dedications or improvements are required for this project. 3. Water: This site lies within the Tualatin Valley Water District (TVWD) service area. There is an existing 8-inch public water line in SW 68th Avenue that the applicant proposes to serve the new buildings from. Any connections to the water line in 68th Avenue shall be approved and permitted through TVWD. 4. Sanitary Sewer: There is an existing 8-inch sanitary sewer line that lies adjacent to the south edge of SW 68th Avenue and along the eastern boundary of this ENGINEERING COMMENTS SDR 96-0022 Triangle Corp. Park South PAGE 3 site where the applicant intends to provide service to the new buildings (in either option). This sewer line should have adequate capacity to serve either option. 5. Storm Drainage: Storm water from this site naturally flows to the south and east toward I-5. There are two locations where storm pipes enter the ODOT ROW of I-5. The first location is just south of where 68th Parkway intersects with 66th Avenue. Storm water from 68th Avenue is collected in a public storm pipe that discharges into an existing 18-inch storm pipe that crosses 1-5. The other location is further south where an existing drainage area (between this site and the Farmer's Insurance building site) is collected and discharges into a 24-inch storm pipe that enters the ODOT ROW; from there, the water enters a much larger 84-inch diameter pipe. The applicant has coordinated with the ODOT hydraulics engineer with respect to the potential impact generated from this development. The applicant proposes to convey the on-site storm water to the southern end of the development area and detain it in an on-site water quality/detention pond before discharging the water into the existing 24-inch storm pipe. ODOT has indicated that they do not have a concern with this concept but the applicant should limit their peak discharge volume to the undeveloped 50-year storm event. The preliminary calculations indicate that the proposed pond site will have more than enough capacity to handle the storage of the 50-year storm event. The applicant's plan proposes to convey storm water from the site north of 68th Parkway (which was approved under SDR 96-0019 and is under construction) to reach the southern portion of the site and the pond. The plan shows a new private storm pipe that would need to cross SW 68th Parkway. Staff reviewed this option as a part of SDR 96-0019 and recommended approval. A Street Opening Permit was issued to cover the installation of the private storm line crossing. 6. Storm Water Quality: The City has agreed to enforce Surface Water Management (SWM) regulations established by the Unified Sewerage Agency (USA) (Resolution and Order No. 91-47, as amended by R&O 91-75) 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. As stated previously, there will be a pond located near the southern end of the development area. This pond will act as a ENGINEERING COMMENTS SDR 96-0022 Triangle Corp. Park South PAGE 4 • water quality and storm water detention facility. The pond has been designed as a part of SDR 96-0019 and will adequately treat the anticipated storm water runoff. There will be no change to the pond design with either option because the overall hard surface area that the pond will treat will not change significantly. 7. Grading and Erosion Control: USA R&O 91-47 also regulates 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 R&O 91- 47, the applicant is required to submit an erosion control plan for City review and approval prior to issuance of City permits. The Federal Clean Water Act requires that a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) erosion control permit be issued for any development that will disturb five or more acres 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. 8. Existing Overhead Utility Lines: There are no existing overhead utility lines adjacent to this site. Recommendations: THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF THE BUILDING PERMIT: Note: Unless otherwise noted, the staff contact for the following conditions will be Brian Rager, Engineering Department (639-4171). 1. Prior to issuance of a building permit, a Street Opening Permit will be required for this project to cover the sanitary sewer taps and any other work in the public right-of-way. The applicant will need to submit five (5) sets of the proposed public improvement plans for review and approval. NOTE: these plans are in addition to any drawings required by the Building Division and should only include information relevant to the public improvements. 2. As a part of the public improvement plan submittal, the Engineering Department shall be provided with the name, address and telephone ENGINEERING COMMENTS SDR 96-0022 Triangle Corp. Park South PAGE 5 number of the individual or corporate entity who will be responsible for executing the compliance agreement and providing the financial assurance for the public improvements. 3. Building permits will not be issued and construction of proposed public improvements shall not commence until after the Engineering Department has reviewed and approved the public improvement plans and a permit from the Engineering Department has been issued. Financial assurance equal to 100 percent of the cost of the public improvements, a Developer- Engineer Agreement, the payment of a permit fee and a sign installation/streetlight fee (if applicable) are required. 4. The applicant shall obtain a permit from the Tualatin Valley Water District for the proposed water connection prior to issuance of the City's public improvement permit. 5. An erosion control plan shall be provided as part of the site improvement drawings to be reviewed by the Building Division. The plan shall conform to "Erosion Prevention and Sediment Control Plans - Technical Guidance Handbook, February 1994. 6. 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. t\ENG'BRLANR\COMMENTS\SDR96-22.BDR ENGINEERING COMMENTS SDR 96-0022 Triangle Corp. Park South PAGE 6 • RECENED PLANt.. .' 4 JAN 2 7 1997 CITY OF TIGARD • Community Development FT10 SfapingA Better Community REQUEST FOR COMME 1Y DATE: January 14,1991 11E1 5 tyy TO: Lee Walker,USA/SWM Program By -- FROM: City of Tigard Planning Department STAFF CONTACT: William D'Andrea(x315) Phone:[5031639-4171 Fax:15031684-7297 RE: SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW[SDR]96-0022 TRIANGLE CORPORATE PARK SOUTH -OPTION A: OFFICE/HOTEL A request for Site Development Review approval to allow the construction of an 84,500 square foot office building and a 62,000 square foot hotel. LOCATION: West of SW 66th Avenue and on the south side of SW 68th Avenue. WCTM 2S101 DA, Tax Lots 00100, 00200, 00300, 00400 and 02200. ZONE: Professional Commercial (C-P). The C-P zone allows public agency and administrative services, public support facilities, professional and administrative services, financial, insurance, real estate services, business support services, and transient lodging. among others. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.64, 18.100.. 18.102, 18.106, 18.108, 18.114, 18.116, 18.120, 18.150, and 18.164. Attached is the Site Plan, Vicinity Map and Applicant's Statement for your review. From information supplied by various departments and agencies and from other information available to our staff, a report and recommendation will be prepared and a decision will be rendered on the proposal in the near future. If you wish to comment on this application, WE NEED YOUR COMMENTS BACK BY: Friday - January 24, 1997. You may use the space provided below or attach a separate letter to return your comments. If you are unable to respond by the above date, please phone the staff contact noted above with your comments and confirm your comments in writing as soon as possible. If you have any questions, contact the Tigard Planning Department, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, OR 97223. PLEASE CHECK THE FOLLOWING ITEMS THAT APPLY: We have reviewed the proposal and have no objections to it. Please contact of our office. Please refer to the enclosed letter. Written comments provided below: ■ (Please provide the following information) Name of Person(s) Commenting: 1 Phone Number(s): -,A-4 — li csz 4— I SDR 96-0022 V TRIANGLE CORPORATE PARK SOUTH-OPTION A. OFFICE/HOTEL PROPOSAL/REQUEST FOR COMMENTS t in UNIFIED SEWERAGE AGENCY OF WASHINGTON COUNTY MEMORANDUM DATE: January 23, 1997 TO: William D'Andrea, City of Tigard FROM: Julia Huffman, USA SUBJECT: Triangle Corporate Park South, 96-0022 SANITARY SEWER Each lot within the development shall be provided with a means of disposal for sanitary sewer. The means of disposal should be in accordance with R&O 96-44 (Unified Sewerage Agency's Construction Design Standards,July 1996 edition). Engineer should verify public sanitary sewer is available to up-hill adjacent properties,or extend service as required by R&O 96-44. STORM SEWER Each lot within the development should have access to public storm sewer. Engineer should verify that public storm sewer is available to up-hill adjacent properties,or extend storm service as required by R&O 96-44. Hydraulic and hydrological analysis of storm conveyance system is necessary. If downstream storm conveyance does not have the capacity to convey the volume during a 25-year, 24-hour storm event, the applicant is responsible for mitigating the flow. WATER QUALITY Developer should provide a water quality facility to treat the new impervious surface being constructed as part of this development. SENSITIVE AREA A"Sensitive Area"may exist,developer must preserve a 25-foot corridor as described in R&O 96-44 separating the sensitive area from the impact of development. EROSION CONTROL A joint 1200-C erosion control permit is required. 155 North First Avenue, Suite 270,MS 10 Phone:503/648-8621 Hillsboro,Oregon 97124 FAX:503/640-3525 H 1 jLi '11 i A 13009 Y ui In LL Parcel 4 ` W CO 4409 006 >., Q 1 -10-4 � F- Q B I - ` = Cn 00 r F- \'''''.........'s--------------___/ Parcel 3 1- Z 13100 Parcel 2 X32= . � - ,.5 6- 9NOTE: Highlighted ■ addresses have been qtm �` changed. Please �, - i vi c) ''� adjust your records to show this change. 'fir ,A e' t.� I Parcel 1 �, 7120 ,� 13009, 13010, 3315 13190, 13221 , 13315 _ t �� _ a 68th Parkway a 0 7130 `•0 c3c6Peic � ci -5 • q(0 7140 , F- �� , fn M ER S I N 9 ct 0 co ..... E .' �ISo c �� 2S101 DA - FL 1/40 `° `° �Z SDR9G-0019 -21.--- L7) r. o in o W (.5 r°� rr q9 RE ED PLANNING JAN 2 7 1997 CITY OF TIGARD C��(`TIGARD Sh Community,De;cCopment shaping (Better Community REQUEST FOR COMMENTS DATE: January 14,1991 TO: Michael Miller,Operations Water Dept.Manager FROM: City of Tigard Planning Department STAFF CONTACT: William D'Andrea 1x3151 Phone:(503)639-4171 Fax:15031684-7297 RE: SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW MDR]96-0022 TRIANGLE CORPORATE PARK SOUTH - OPTION A: OFFICE/HOTEL A request for Site Development Review approval to allow the construction of an 84,500 square foot office building and a 62,000 square foot hotel. LOCATION: West of SW 66th Avenue and on the south side of SW 68th Avenue. WCTM 2S101 DA, Tax Lots 00100, 00200, 00300, 00400 and 02200. ZONE: Professional Commercial (C-P). The C-P zone allows public agency and administrative services, public support facilities, professional and administrative services, financial, insurance, real estate services, business support services, and transient lodging, among others. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.64, 18.100, 18.102, 18.106, 18.108, 18.114, 18.116, 18.120, 18.150, and 18.164. Attached is the Site Plan, Vicinity Map and Applicant's Statement for your review. From information supplied by various departments and agencies and from other information available to our staff, a report and recommendation will be prepared and a decision will be rendered on the proposal in the near future. If you wish to comment on this application, WE NEED YOUR COMMENTS BACK BY: Friday - January 24, 1997. You may use the space provided below or attach a separate letter to return your comments. If you are unable to respond by the above date, please phone the staff contact noted above with your comments and confirm your comments in writing as soon as possible. If you have any questions, contact the Tigard Planning Department, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, OR 97223. PLEASE CHECK THE FOLLOWING ITEMS THAT APPLY: We have reviewed the proposal and have no objections to it. Please contact of our office. Please refer to the enclosed letter. Written comments provided below: ff ■ (1Pkase provide the fotrawing infonnation) Name of Person(s) Commenting: V■A t IC-ei Val I u y( Phone Number(s): X <2)i5" I SDR 96-0022 TRIANGLE CORPORATE PARK SOUTH-OPTION A OFFICE/HOTEL PROPOSAL/REQUEST FOR COMMENTS RECEIVED PLANNING JAN 17 1997 �' �� CITY OF TIGARD ��p�Community,Ueve[opment CITY OF TIG�pingA Better Community REQUEST FOR COMMENTS DATE: January 14,1997 TO: Brian Moore,PGE FROM: City of Tigard Planning Department STAFF CONTACT: William D'Andrea[x3151 mom:[5031639-4171 Fax:[5031684-7291 RE: SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW MSDRI 96-0022 TRIANGLE CORPORATE PARK SOUTH - OPTION A: OFFICE/HOTEL A request for Site Development Review approval to allow the construction of an 84,500 square foot office building and a 62,000 square foot hotel. LOCATION: West of SW 66th Avenue and on the south side of SW 68th Avenue. WCTM 2S101 DA, Tax Lots 00100, 00200, 00300, 00400 and 02200. ZONE: Professional Commercial (C-P). The C-P zone allows public agency and administrative services, public support facilities, professional and administrative services, financial, insurance, real estate services, business support services, and transient lodging, among others. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.64, 18.100, 18.102, 18.106, 18.108, 18.114, 18.116, 18.120, 18.150, and 18.164. Attached is the Site Plan, Vicinity Map and Applicant's Statement for your review. From information supplied by various departments and agencies and from other information available to our staff, a report and recommendation will be prepared and a decision will be rendered on the proposal in the near future. If you wish to comment on this application, WE NEED YOUR COMMENTS BACK BY: Friday - January 24, 1997. You may use the space provided below or attach a separate letter to return your comments. If you are unable to respond by the above date, please phone the staff contact noted above with your comments and confirm your comments in writing as soon as possible. If you have any questions, contact the Tigard Planning Department, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, OR 97223. PLEASE CHECK THE FOLLOWING ITEMS THAT APPLY: k 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: (Pease provide the following information) Name of Person(s) Commenting:, Phone Number(s): ko- SDR 96-0022 TRIANGLE CORPORATE PARK SOUTH-OPTION A OFFICE/HOTEL PROPOSAL/REQUEST FOR COMMENTS �Pt1NVA JP „••`�� TUALATIN VALLEY FIRE & RESCUE C .1 FIRE PREVENTION ,,„ 4755 S.W.Griffith Drive . P.O.Box 4755 . Beaverton,OR 97076 . (503)526-2469 . FAX 526-2538 u 'RF&RES° January 22, 1997 Will D'Andrea City of Tigard Planning Department 13125 S.W. Hall Blvd. Tigard, Oregon 97223 Re: Triangle Corporate Park South (Office/Hotel) West of SW 66 Avenue SDR 96-0022 File Number: 1320-97 Dear Will: This is a Fire and Life Safety Plan Review and is based on the 1991 editions of the Uniform Fire Code (UFC) and those sections of the Uniform Building Code (UBC) and Uniform Mechanical Code (UMC) specifically referencing the fire department, and other local ordinances and regulations. Plans for the above noted project are not approved. Please address the following items and resubmit plans to the City of Tigard Planning Department for routing to this office for review and approval. The inside turning radius and outside turning radius shall not be less than 25 feet and 45 feet respectfully, as measured from the same center point. (UFC 902.2.2.3) Where fire apparatus access roadways are not of sufficient width to accommodate parked vehicles and maintain the minimum 20 foot wide 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" and shall be installed with a clear space above ground 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)(2)&(3)) "Working"Smoke Detectors Save Lives Will D'Andrea January 22, 1997 Page 2 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. (UFC Sec. 901.4.5.2) The minimum number of fire hydrants for a building shall be based on the required fire flow prior to giving any credits for fire protection systems. There shall not be less than one (1) fire hydrant for the first 2,000 gallons per minute (GPM) required fire flow and one (1) additional fire hydrant for each 1,000 GPM or portion thereof over 2,000 GPM. Fire hydrants shall be evenly spaced around the building and their locations shall be approved by the Chief. (UFC Sec. 903.4.2.1) 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. (UFC Sec. 903.4.2.1) Fire hydrants shall not be located more than 15 feet from an approved fire apparatus access roadway (UFC Sec. 903.4.2.4) 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. A worksheet for calculating the required fire flow is available from the Fire Marshal's office. (UFC Sec. 903.3) 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) A Knox Box for building access is required for this building. Please contact the Fire Marshal's office for an application and instructions regarding installation and placement. If I can be of any further assistance to you, please feel free to contact me at 526-2469 referring to the above noted file number. Sincerely, Gene Birchill, DFM Plans Examiner GB:kw cc: Group Mackenzie P.O. Box 69039 Portland, OR 97201-0039 RECEIVED PLANNING PZ IN I/4 �P`' f e l <<�L JAN 2 2 1997 TUALATIN VALLEY FIRE & RESCUE \.4 \ FIRE PREVENTION G OFTIGARD .c' 4755 S.W.Griffith Drive . P.O. Box 4755 . Beaverton,OR 97076 . 503 526-2469 . i� �R SGJJ ( ) FAX 526-2538 1 To: 1 I L c_ tJ VZ`�-L�— �, /� Date: 2 /Z 0 WC 0 CC MC 0 BV ,TI 0 TU 0 DU 0 SH 0 WI 0 KC Jurisdiction File Number: '(-i —D©2,2- � ? . � Gw.-4 ice- 5 cam' Project Name: < <ci-/t`t^r'-4- 772 I•') �.C- Project Address:- �� 5 4. � _ TVF&R File Number:[ 0 -5 2 (Whenever referring to this project please include the TVF&R File Number) Project approved Project not approved-Please address items checked below and re-submit plans for review and approval to the: TVF&R Fire Marshal's Office 0 Planning Department having jurisdiction for routing to the TVF&R Fire Marshal's Office Project conditionally approved subject to correction of items checked below. — This is a Fire and Life Safety Plan Review and is based on the 1994 Editions of the Uniform Fire Code(UFC)and those sections of the Uniform Building Code(UBC)and Uniform Mechanical Code(UMC)specifically referencing the fire department,and other local ordinances, regulations and guidelines. 1) FIRE APPARATUS ACCESS ROAD DISTANCE FROM BUILDING AND TURNAROUNDS: Access roads shall be within 150 feet of all portions of the exterior wall of the first story of the building as measured by an approved route around the exterior of the building. An approved turnaround is required if the remaining distance to an approved intersecting roadway, as measured along the fire apparatus access road,is greater than 150 feet.(UFC Sec.902.2.1) - 2)FIRE APPARATUS ACCESS ROAD EXCEPTION FOR AUTOMATIC SPRINKLER PROTECTION: When buildings are completely protected with an approved automatic fire sprinkler system, the requirements for fire apparatus access may be modified as approved by the Chief.(UFC Sec.902.2.1 Exception 1) 3)ADDITIONAL ACCESS ROADS: Where there are 20 or more dwellings,an approved second fire apparatus access roadway must be provided to a city/county roadway or access easement.(UFC Sec.902.2.2) 4)FIRE APPARATUS ACCESS ROAD WIDTH AND VERTICAL CLEARANCE: Fire apparatus access roads shall have an unobstructed width of not!ass than 20 feet(15 feet for not more than two dwelling units),and an unobstructed vertical clearance of cot less than 13 feet 6 inches.(UFC Sec.902.2.2.1) 5) SURFACE AND LOAD CAPACITIES: Fire apparatus access roads shall be of an all-weather surface that is easily distinguishable from the surrounding area and is capable of supporting not less than 12,500 pounds point load(wheel load) and 50,000 pounds live load(gross vehicle weight).(UFC Sec.902.2.2.2) Please provide documentation from a registered engineer that the design will be capable of supporting such loading. Please provide documentation from a registered engineer that the finished construction is in accordance with the /� approved plans or the requirements of the Fire Code. 6) TURNING RADIUS: The inside turning radius and outside turning radius shall not be less than 25 feet and 45 feet respectfully,as measured from the same center point.(UFC Sec. 902.2.2.3) 7) DEAD END ROADS: 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) 8) BRIDGES: Bridges shall be designed, inspected and final construction approved by a registered engineer. The bridge shall be designed in accordance with the American Association of Highway and Transportation Officials "Standard Specifications for 1 Highway Bridges." The bridge shall be designed for a live load sufficient to carry 50,000 pounds. (UFC Sec.902.2.2.5) 9) NO PARKING SIGNS: Where fire apparatus access roadways are not of sufficient width to accommodate parked vehicles, "No Parking" signs shall be installed on one or both sides of the roadway an:' in turnarounds as needed. (UFC Sec. 902.2.4) Signs shall read"NO PARKING - FIRE LANE - TOW AWAY ZONE, ORS 48.810"and shall be installed with a clear space above ground 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)(2)&(3)) 1 "Working"Smoke Detectors Save Lives Pane 1 of 2 TVF&R File Number(�, 10) GRADE; 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. (UFC Sec. 902.2.2.6). Intersections and turnarounds shall be level (maximum 5%) with the exception of crowning for water run-off. l l) PAINTED -U BS: Fire apparatus access roadway curbs shall be painted yellow and marked"NO PARKING FIRE LANE"at r each 25 feet. Lettering shall have a stroke of not less than one inch wide by six inches high. (UFC Sec. 901.4.5.2) 1 12)COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS - MINIMUM NUMBER OF FIRE HYDRANTS; The minimum number of fire hydrants for a building shall be based on the required fire flow prior to giving any credits for fire protection systems. There shall not be less than one (1) fire hydrant for the first 2,000 gallons per minute (GPM) required fire flow and one (1) additional fire hydrant for each 1,000 GPM or portion thereof over 2,000 GPM. Fire hydrants shall be evenly spaced around the building and their locations shall be approved by the Chief.(UFC Sec.903.42.1) 13) COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS - FIRE HYDRANTS; 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 appatatus access roadway. (UFC Sec. 903.4.2.1) 14) SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS - FIRE HYDRANTS; Fire hydrants for single family dwellings and duplexes shall be placed at each intersection. Intermediate fire hydrants are required if any portion of a structure exceeds 500 feet from a hydrant as measured in an approved manner around the outside of the structure and along approved fire apparatus access roadways. Placement of additional fire hydrants shall be as approved by the Chief.(UFC Sec.903.4.2.2) 15) FIRE HYDRANT DISTANCE FROM AN ACCESS ROAD: Fire hydrants shall not be located more than 15 feet from an approved fire apparatus access roadway. (UFC Sec.903.4.2.4) 16) FIRE HYDRANT / FIRE DEPARTMENT CONNECTION: 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 as approved by the Chief.(1996 Oregon Structural Specialty Code, Sec. 904.1.1) 17)FIRE DEPARTMENT CONNECTIONS ON BUILDINGS; Fire department connections shall not be located on the building that is being protected.(UFC Sec.903.4.2.5) X 18) COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS - REQUIRED FIRE FLOW: The required fire flow for the building shall not exceed 3,000 gallons per minute(GPM)or the available GPM in the water delivery system at 20 psi. A worksheet for calculating the required fire flow is available from the Fire Marshal's office. (UFC Sec.903.3) 19)SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS-REQUIRED FIRE FLOW; The minimum available fire flow for single family dwellings and duplexes shall be 1,000 gallons per minute. If the structure(s)are 3,600 square feet or larger, the required fire flow shall be determined according to UFC Appendix Table A-III-A-1.(UFC Appendix III-A,Sec. 5) 20)RURAL BUILDINGS - REQUIRED FIRE FLOW; Required fire flow for rural buildings shall be calculated in accordance with National Fire Protection Association Standard 1231. Please contact the Fire Marshal's office for special help and other requirements that will apply.(UFC Sec. 903.3) ' 21) ACCESS AND FIREFIGHTING WATER SUPPLY DURING CONSTRUCTION; 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) 22) KNOX BOX: A Knox Box for building access is required for this building. Please contact the Fire Marshal's Office for an application and instructions regarding installation and placement. 23)REQUIRED INSPECTIONS: Please contact the Fire Marshal's office at the appropriate times for inspection of the following: 24) 25) Plan Reviewer Signature Title cc: APeL ) e__ Anl-1--- Page 2 of 2 RECEIb_ 'LANNING JAN 2 2 1997 '° .��I CITY OF TIGARD Community Development CITY OF TIGARD Shaping A Better Community REQUEST FOR COMMENTS DATE: January 14,1991 TO: Paul Mt,GTE Engineering FROM: City of Tigard Planning Department STAFF CONTACT: William D'Andrea 1x3151 Phone:(5031639-4171 Fax:(5031684-7297 RE: SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW MDR)96-0022 TRIANGLE CORPORATE PARK SOUTH -OPTION A: OFFICE/HOTEL A request for Site Development Review approval to allow the construction of an 84,500 square foot office building and a 62,000 square foot hotel. LOCATION: West of SW 66th Avenue and on the south side of SW 68th Avenue. WCTM 2S101 DA, Tax Lots 00100, 00200, 00300, 00400 and 02200. ZONE: Professional Commercial (C-P). The C-P zone allows public agency and administrative services, public support facilities, professional and administrative services, financial, insurance, real estate services, business support services, and transient lodging, among others. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.64, 18.100, 18.102, 18.106, 18.108, 18.114, 18.116, 18.120, 18.150, and 18.164. Attached is the Site Plan, Vicinity Map and Applicant's Statement for your review. From information supplied by various departments and agencies and from other information available to our staff, a report and recommendation will be prepared and a decision will be rendered on the proposal in the near future. If you wish to comment on this application, WE NEED YOUR COMMENTS BACK BY: Friday - January 24, 1997. You may use the space provided below or attach a separate letter to return your comments. If you are unable to respond by the above date, please phone the staff contact noted above with your comments and confirm your comments in writing as soon as possible. If you have any questions, contact the Tigard Planning Department, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, OR 97223. PLEASE CHECK THE FOLLOWING ITEMS THAT APPLY: We have reviewed the proposal and have no objections to it. Please contact of our office. _ Please refer to the enclosed letter. Written comments provided below:( r l - 1 = - ! - - , q- `� � 0 V �. (P&aseprav ize the foffwinginfo►nation) Name of Person(s) Commenting: 4,ATLA/t P _ ,L.66/ Phone Number(s): SDR 96-0022 r TRIANGLE CORPORATE PARK SOUTH-OPTION A: OFFICE/HOTEL PROPOSAL/REQUEST FOR COMMENTS V RFk 7=QED PLANNING JAN 2 2 1997 CITY OF TIGARD CRY OF TIGARD CommunitykDevelopment Shaping A Better Community REQUEST FOR COMMENTS DATE: January 14,1991 TO: John Roy,Properly Manager FROM: City of Tigard Planning Department STAFF CONTACT: William D'Andrea[x3151 Phone:15031639-4171 HM(503)684-7291 RE: SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW[SDRI 96-0022 TRIANGLE CORPORATE PARK SOUTH -OPTION A: OFFICE/HOTEL A request for Site Development Review approval to allow the construction of an 84,500 square foot office building and a 62,000 square foot hotel. LOCATION: West of SW 66th Avenue and on the south side of SW 68th Avenue. WCTM 2S101 DA, Tax Lots 00100, 00200, 00300, 00400 and 02200. ZONE: Professional Commercial (C-P). The C-P zone allows public agency and administrative services, public support facilities, professional and administrative services, financial, insurance, real estate services, business support services, and transient lodging. among others. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.64, 18.100, 18.102, 18.106, 18.108, 18.114, 18.116, 18.120, 18.150, and 18.164. Attached is the Site Plan, Vicinity Map and Applicant's Statement for your review. From information supplied by various departments and agencies and from other information available to our staff, a report and recommendation will be prepared and a decision will be rendered on the proposal in the near future. If you wish to comment on this application, WE NEED YOUR COMMENTS BACK BY: Friday - January 24, 1997. You may use the space provided below or attach a separate letter to return your comments. If you are unable to respond by the above date, please phone the staff contact noted above with your comments and confirm your comments in writing as soon as possible. If you have any questions, contact the Tigard Planning Department, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, OR 97223. PLEASE CHECK THE FOLLOWING ITEMS THAT APPLY: ' We have reviewed the proposal and have no objections to it. Please contact of our office. Please refer to the enclosed letter. Written comments provided below: 11 00 (Treace provide t fie farming information) Name of Person(s) Commenting: IPhone Number(s): 1 SDR 96-0022 J TRIANGLE CORPORATE PARK SOUTH-OPTION A: OFFICE/HOTEL PROPOSAL/REQUEST FOR COMMENTS • RECEIVED PLANNING AO- AV JAN 16 1997 CITY OF TIGARD Community Development ShapingA Better Community REQUEST FOR COMMENTS CITYOFTIGARD DATE: January 14,1991 TO: David Scott,Building Official FROM: City of Tigard Planning Department STAFF CONTACT: William D'Andrea[x3151 Phone:(503)639-4171 Fax:(503)684-7297 RE: SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW[SORT 96-0022 TRIANGLE CORPORATE PARK SOUTH - OPTION A: OFFICE/HOTEL A request for Site Development Review approval to allow the construction of an 84,500 square foot office building and a 62,000 square foot hotel. LOCATION: West of SW 66th Avenue and on the south side of SW 68th Avenue. WCTM 2S101 DA, Tax Lots 00100, 00200, 00300, 00400 and 02200. ZONE: Professional Commercial (C-P). The C-P zone allows public agency and administrative services, public support facilities, professional and administrative services, financial, insurance, real estate services, business support services, and transient lodging, among others. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.64, 18.100, 18.102, 18.106, 18.108, 18.114, 18.116, 18.120, 18.150, and 18.164. Attached is the Site Plan, Vicinity Map and Applicant's Statement for your review. From information supplied by various departments and agencies and from other information available to our staff, a report and recommendation will be prepared and a decision will be rendered on the proposal in the near future. If you wish to comment on this application, WE NEED YOUR COMMENTS BACK BY: Friday - January 24, 1997. You may use the space provided below or attach a separate letter to return your comments. If you are unable to respond by the above date, please phone the staff contact noted above with your comments and confirm your comments in writing as soon as possible. If you have any questions, contact the Tigard Planning Department, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, OR 97223. PLEASE CHECK THE FOLLOWING ITEMS THAT APPLY: We have reviewed the proposal and have no objections to it. Please contact of our office. Please refer to the enclosed letter. Written comments provided below: X2<m0t' / of ft sr /rp /^ .0: rte/ iv' ,#Jivesj 000.0^/4.?)- Jte, V ►► ((Yleaseprovide the fo ,:nng information) Name of Person(s) Commenting: 11,7 1 Phone Number(s): SDR 96-0022 / TRIANGLE CORPORATE PARK SOUTH-OPTION A OFFICE/HOTEL PROPOSAL/REQUEST FOR COMMENTS CITY OF TIGARD Community,Development SFiapingA Better Community REQUEST FOR COMMENTS DATE: January 14,1991 TO: Per Attached FROM: City of Tigard Planning Department STAFF CONTACT: William D'Andrea(x3151 Phone:(5031639-4111 Fax:(5031684-7297 RE: SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW[SDR196-0022 TRIANGLE CORPORATE PARK SOUTH -OPTION A: OFFICE/HOTEL A request for Site Development Review approval to allow the construction of an 84,500 square foot office building and a 62,000 square foot hotel. LOCATION: West of SW 66th Avenue and on the south side of SW 68th Avenue. WCTM 2S101 DA, Tax Lots 00100, 00200, 00300, 00400 and 02200. ZONE: Professional Commercial (C-P). The C-P zone allows public agency and administrative services, public support facilities, professional and administrative services, financial, insurance, real estate services, business support services, and transient lodging, among others. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.64, 18.100, 18.102, 18.106, 18.108, 18.114, 18.116, 18.120, 18.150, and 18.164. Attached is the Site Plan, Vicinity Map and Applicant's Statement for your review. From information supplied by various departments and agencies and from other information available to our staff, a report and recommendation will be prepared and a decision will be rendered on the proposal in the near future. If you wish to comment on this application, WE NEED YOUR COMMENTS BACK BY: Friday - January 24, 1997. You may use the space provided below or attach a separate letter to return your comments. If you are unable to respond by the above date, please phone the staff contact noted above with your comments and confirm your comments in writing as soon as possible. If you have any questions, contact the Tigard Planning Department, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, OR 97223. PLEASE CHECK THE FOLLOWING ITEMS THAT APPLY: We have reviewed the proposal and have no objections to it. Please contact of our office. Please refer to the enclosed letter. Written comments provided below: (lease provide the foil-wing information) Name of Person(s) Commenting: IPhone Number(s): I SDR 96-0022 TRIANGLE CORPORATE PARK SOUTH-OPTION A: OFFICE/HOTEL PROPOSAL/REQUEST FOR COMMENTS RL_ UEST FOR COMMENTS r NOTIFICATION LIST FCR LAND USE&DEVELOPMENT APPLICATICtvS Jb /„ 2r.)() CIT Area: (W) (S) (E) (C) CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT TEAMS Q Placed for review in Library CIT Boor CITY DEPARTMENTS -'BLDG.DEPT./David Scott.w..,o d _PQLICE DEPT./Keiley Jennings.o....,,........on.. OPERATIONS/Donn Roy.p.o,.w,,.o„o,., _CITY ADMIN./Cathy wheotley,c#,.....« `;'ING. DEPT./Brian Roger.o...........i......t,,,.,.. _COM.DEV.DEPT./D.S.T.S ADV.PLNG.;Nedine Smith. p........,eo., ,WATER DEPT./Michael Miller.0. 0,...,.o,00-on.....o.eo. SPECL%I.DISTRICTS .FIRE MARSHALL .,- UNIFIED SEWERAGE AGENCY _TUALATIN VALLEY WATER 01ST. Gene Birched SWM Program/lee walker PO Box 745 'we.County Fire District 155 N.First Street Beaverton,CR 97075 (pick-uo box) Hillsboro.CR 97124 AFFECTED JURISDICTIONS WA.CO. DEPT.OF LAND USE&TRANSP. _METRO AREA BOUNDARY COMMISSION _METRO-GREENSPACES 150 N.First Avenue 800 NE Oregon St. #16.Suite 540 Mel Huie (CPA's/ZOA's) Hillsboro.CR 97124 Portland.OR 97232-2109 600 NE Grand Avenue Portland.OR 97232-2736 Brent Curtis(CPA's) _STATE HIGHWAY DIVISION —Jim rice(IGA•S) Sam Hunaidi _METRO _Mike 3orreson(Engineer) PO Box 25412 Mary Weber _Scott King(CPA's) Portland.OR 97225-0412 600 NE Grand Avenue _Tom Harry(Current Plonning App's) Portland.OR 97232-2736 Lynn Briley(Current Planning App's) _OREGON OLCD(CPA's/ZOA's) 1175 Court Street.N.E. OT/REGION 1 CITY OF BEAVERTON Salem.OR 97310-0590 Transportation Planning Larry Conrad.Senior Planner 123 N.W.Flanders PO Box 4755 _CITY OF PORTLAND Portland.CR 97209-4037 11205W 5th CITY OF BEAVERTON Portland.OR 97204 -_ DOT/REGION 1,DISTRICT 2-A Mike Matteucci.Neighborhood Coordinator Bob Schmidt/Engineering Coord. PO Box 475.5 _CITY OF DURHAM 2131 SW Scholis/PO Sox 25412 Beaverton,OR 97076 Planning Director Portland.OR 97225 Beaverton,OR 97076 City Manager PO Box 23483 _CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO _CITY OF TUALATIN Tigard.OR 97281-3483 City Manager PO Box 369 PO Box 369 Tualatin,OR 97062 _BOTHER% Lake Oswego.OR 97034 _CITY OF KING CITY City Manager 15300 SW 1 16th King City.CR 97224 SPECIAL AGENCIES ,GENERAL TELEPHONE ELECTRIC - PORTLAND GENERAL ELECTRIC _COLUMBIA CABLE CO. Paul Koff.Engineering Brian Moore Craig Eyestone PO Box 23416 14655 SW Old Scholls Ferry Rd. 14200 SW Brigodoon Court Tigard.CR 97281-3416 Beaverton,OR 97007 Beaverton.OR 97005 ./NW NATURAL GAS CO. n o.r.nwi nnT.w METRO AREA COMMUNICATIONS _TRI-MET TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT Scott Palmer fax um,721•Z1102 Jason Hewitt Kim Knox.Project Planner 220 NW Second Avenue Twin Oaks Technology Center 710 NE Holladay Street Portland,CR 97209-3991 1815 NW 169th Place 5-6020 Portland.OR 97232 Beaverton.CR 97006-4886 _TCI CABLEVISION OF OREGON _US WEST COMMUNICATIONS _SOUTHERN PACIFIC TRANS.CO. Linda Peterson Pete Nelson Clifford C.Cabe,Const.Engineer 3500 SW Bond Street 421 SW Oak Street 5424 SE McLoughlin Portland.CR 97201 Portland.OR 97204 Portland.OR 97202 _BONNEVILLE POWER ADMINISTRATION _BURLINGTON NORTHERN RAILROAD PO Box 3621 Attn: Administrative Offices Routing TTRC-Attn: Renee Ferrero 1313 W. 11th Street Portiend.OR 97208-3621 Vancouver.WA 98660-3000 STATE AGENCIES FEDERAL AGENCIES _AERONAUTICS DIVISION(000T) _DIVISION OF STATE LANDS _US POSTAL SERVICE COMMERCE DEPT.-M.H.PARK _FISH t WILDLIFE Randy Hammock.Growth Cord. PUC DOGAMI Cedar Mill Station _DEPT.OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY _U.S.ARMY CORPS.Of ENGINEERS Portland.CR 97229-9998 _OTHER 1.4\o4nrVm30444 vrrno4cm.. •ou va.1...1 City of Tigard,Oregon • AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING STATE OF OREGON ) County of Washington ) ss. City of Tigard ) I, Patricia L Lunsford, being first duly sworn/affirm, on oath depose and say: that I am an Administrative Specialist II for The City of Tigard, Oregon. That I served NOTICE OF (AMENDED C) PUBLIC HEARING FOR: ta+.c+m.,ew.i•PVr�•d•1 (crock aponoonefe box oetav) (Enter Pudic Hwang Pate above) ❑ City of Tigard Planning Director ❑ Tigard Planning Commission ❑ Tigard Hearings Officer ❑ Tigard City Council ' That I served NOTICE OF (AMENDED ❑) DECISION FOR: ••••••......v..., City of Tigard Planning Director ❑ That I served NOTICE OF (AMENDED ❑) FINAL ORDER FOR: cam•e�•a••.a'°plcJ°le► lcne k wprt7prvae boot betty) ❑ City of Tigard Planning Director ❑ Tigard Planning Commission ❑ Tigard Hearings Officer ❑ Tigard City Council That I served OTHER NOTICE OF FOR: A copy of the PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE/NOTICE OF DECISION/NOTICE OF FINAL ORDER/OTHER NOTICE(S) of whi • is attached, marked Exhibit "A", was mailed to each e person(s) at the address(s) shown on the attached 'st(s), marked Exhibit "B", on he al/.1 day of 199 , and deposited in the U ted States Mail •n` e f' , day of r4/L,_fidct41 199_ postage prepaid. ( or) Pr:paared Notice m7 w • Subscribed and swom/affirmed before me on the oal 7 day of 19 `.+�, OFFICIAL SEAL // `'�' ' DIANE M JELDERKS s `_ - ! vit �� NOTARY PUBLIC-OREGON �;;∎ COMMISSION NO.046142 NOTARY PUBLIC • ' •REGO MY COMMISSION EXPIRES SEPTEMBER 07,1999 My Commission Ex.'res: FILE INFO.:Sr NANE(s):/'r /00701- —J frir n g qroiet/,W CASE NO.(S): /� 1 T�"v_vv_.',� -YPE OF NOTICE&DATE: NOTICE OF DECISION SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (SDR) 96-0022 b- CITY OF TIOARD TRIANGLE CORPORATE PARK SOUTH Community(Development OPTION A: OFFICE/HOTEL Shaping Better Community SECTION I: APPLICATION SUMMARY CASES: FILE NAME: FARMERS INSURANCE Site Development Review SDR 96-0022 PROPOSAL: The applicant has requested Site Development Review approval to allow the construction of a four story, 84,500 square foot office building and a 225 room, 62,000 square foot hotel. APPLICANT: Gerding/Edlen Development OWNER: FIG Holding Company 2525 SW 1st Avenue, Suite 201 4600 Wilshire Boulevard Portland, OR 97201 Los Angeles, CA 90010 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: C-P (Professional Office). ZONING DESIGNATION: C-P (Professional Commercial). LOCATION: West of SW 66th Avenue and on the south sides of SW 68th Avenue; WCTM 2S1 01 DA, Tax Lots 100, 200, 300, 400, and 2200. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.64, 18.100, 18.102, 18.106. 18.108, 18.114, 18.116, 18.120, 18.150, and 18.164. SECTION II: DECISION: Notice is hereby given that the City of Tigard Community Development Director's designee has APPROVED the above request subject to certain conditions of approval. The findings and conclusions on which the decision is based are noted in Section IV. NOTICE OF DECISION SDR 96-0022-FARMERS INSURANCE PAGE 1 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS, THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED: (Unless otherwise noted, the staff contact shall be Brian Rager, Engineering Department (503) 639-4171.) 1. Prior to issuance of a building permit, a Street Opening Permit will be required for this project to cover the sanitary sewer taps and any other work in the public right-of- way. The applicant will need to submit five (5) sets of the proposed public improvement plans for review and approval. NOTE: These plans are in addition to any drawings required by the Building Division and should only include information relevant to the public improvements. 2. As a part of the public improvement plan submittal, the Engineering Department shall be provided with the name, address and telephone number of the individual or corporate entity who will be responsible for executing the compliance agreement and providing the financial assurance for the public improvements. 3. Building permits will not be issued and construction of proposed public improvements shall not commence until after the Engineering Department has reviewed and approved the public improvement plans and a permit from the Engineering Department has been issued. Financial assurance equal to 100 percent of the cost of the public improvements, a Developer-Engineer Agreement, the payment of a permit fee and a sign installation/streetlight fee (if applicable) are required. 4. The applicant shall obtain a permit from the Tualatin Valley Water District for the proposed water connection prior to issuance of the City's public improvement permit. 5. An erosion control plan shall be provided as part of the site improvement drawings to be reviewed by the Building Division. The plan shall conform to "Erosion Prevention and Sediment Control Plans - Technical Guidance Handbook, February 1994. 6. 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. 7. Plans approved by Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue. 8. Revised site and landscaping plans shall be submitted for review by the Planning Division, Staff Contact: Will D'Andrea (503-639-4171). The revised plans shall include the following: A. Impervious surface/landscaping calculations shall be submitted which demonstrate that a minimum of 15% landscaping will be provided; B. Nine (9) disabled parking spaces; C. Sixteen (16) bicycle parking spaces for Building III and fifteen (15) bicycle parking spaces for Building IV; NOTICE OF DECISION SDR 96-0022-FARMERS INSURANCE PAGE 2 D. Walkway connection to SW 68th Parkway; E. Written solid waste hauler approval of facility location and equipment compatibility; F. Compliance with vision clearance criteria; G. Location of property lines; and H. Location and details of underground parking garage. The garage shall provide a minimum of 101 parking spaces. 9 Mitigation plan that provides for mitigation of 710 caliper inches. The City will accept payment of off-site monetary mitigation. The applicant has calculated this to be $28,874.00. Tree removal shall not be allowed prior to the applicant providing resolution to the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) right- of-way property. 10. A letter from the consulting arborist that verifies that tree protection measures have been installed according to the tree protection specifications submitted with the application. 11 . Prior to the release of any permits, the applicant shall provide documentation of resolution of the ODOT right-of-way issue. The applicant shall provide proof of ownership of that portion of land which is currently ODOT right-of-way. If the applicant does not obtain ownership of the subject property, the plans shall be revised and a new site development review application shall be submitted. 12. Clarification of the 50 foot utility easement (per Book 1007, Page 125). Building III is partially located within this utility easement. Modification of the plan or removal of the easement may be necessary. THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO A FINAL INSPECTION: 13. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the applicant shall complete the required public improvements. 14. All site improvements shall be installed as approved, per the revised site plan. THIS APPROVAL SHALL BE VALID FOR 18 MONTHS FROM THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS DECISION. NOTICE OF DECISION SDR 96-0022-FARMERS INSURANCE PAGE 3 SECTION III: BACKGROUND INFORMATION Site History: In 1996, a Lot Line Adjustment (MIS 96-0011) was approved on tax lots 200, 300, 400, 500, 700 and 2200. In 1996, a Site Development Review (SDR 96-0019) was approved to allow the construction of a four (4) building, 191,650 square foot office complex. No other development applications were found to have been filed with the City of Tigard. Vicinity Information: The subject property is located north of Highway 217, south of SW Hampton Street, west of SW 66th Avenue, and on the south side of SW 68th Parkway. Properties to the north, south, and west are zoned C-P (Professional Commercial). Property to the north and south are developed with commercial (office) uses. Site Information and Proposal Description: The site consists of approximately 6.88 acres, is presently vacant, and contains a number of mature trees. There is a forested ravine, with moderate to steep slopes, along the southwest portion of the property. There are approximately 8,937 square feet (.2 acres) of wetlands within the narrow channelized bottom of the drainage swale. The proposal will not encroach into the ravine or wetland area. The applicant is proposing to construct an 84,500 square foot office building and a 62,000 square foot hotel. Access to the site will be provided from SW 68th Parkway and SW 66th Avenue. This 6.88 acre site was involved in a previous Site Development Review (SDR 96-0019), and was referred to as phase 2 in that decision. The applicant is proposing a major modification of phase 2 and the previous plan. SECTION IV: APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA AND FINDINGS COMPLIANCE WITH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTIONS: Use Classification: The applicant is proposing to build a hotel and an office building. These uses are classified in Code Section 18.42 (Use Classifications) as Transient Lodging and Professional and Administrative Services. Code Section 18.64.030 lists Professional and Administrative Services and Transient Lodging as permitted uses in the C-P zone. Dimensional Requirements: Section 18.64.050 states that the minimum lot area is 6,000 square feet and the average minimum lot width is 50 feet for parcels in the C-P zoning district. The site is approximately 6.88 acres and has a width of approximately 500 feet, thereby, exceeding the required minimum lot size and width requirement. Developments within the C-P zone are required to provide a minimum of 15% landscaping. The applicant has not provided calculations regarding the amount of impervious surface and landscaping. Impervious surface/landscaping calculations shall be submitted which demonstrate that a minimum of 15% landscaping will be provided. NOTICE OF DECISION SDR 96-0022-FARMERS INSURANCE PAGE 4 Setbacks: Section 18.64.050 states that no front, side, or rear yard setback is required except 20 feet shall be required where the C-P zone abuts a residential zoning district. Except as otherwise provided in section 18.98, no building in the C-P zoning district shall exceed 45 feet in height. Setbacks are not applicable as the site does not abut a residential zone. The proposed height of the hotel is approximately 44 feet, under the maximum height requirement. The proposed height of the office building is approximately 66 feet. As discussed in section 18.98.020 (Building Height Exceptions), the proposed building height of 66 feet is an acceptable and permitted building height. Building Height Exceptions: Section 18.98.020 states that any building located in a nonresidential zone may be built to a maximum height of 75 feet; provided: 1) the total floor area of the building does not exceed 1-1/2 the area of the site; 2) the yard dimensions in each case are equal to at least 1/2 of the building height of the principal structure; 3) the structure is not abutting a residential zoning district. This criteria is satisfied because: 1) the 84,500 square foot office building is only approximately 28 percent of the 6.88 acre site; 2) the 66 foot building provides 33 foot setbacks; and 3) the structure is not abutting a residential zoning district. Site Development Review - Approval Standards: Section 18.120.180(A)(1) requires that a development proposal be found to be consistent with the various standards of the Community Development Code. The applicable criteria in this case are Chapters 18.100, 18.102, 18.106, 18.108, 18.114, 18.120, and 18.164. The proposal's consistency with these Code Chapters is reviewed in the following sections. The proposal contains no elements related to the provisions of Code Chapters 18.80 (Planned Developments), 18.84 (Sensitive Lands), 18.92 (Density Computations), 18.94 (Manufactured/Mobile Home Regulations), or 18.144 (Accessory Use and Structures) which are also listed under Section 18.120.180.A.1. These Chapters are, therefore, found to be inapplicable as approval standards. Section 18.120.180(A)(2) provides other Site Development Review approval standards not necessarily covered by the provisions of the previously listed sections. These other standards are addressed immediately below. The proposal contains no elements related to the provisions of 18.120.180.3 (Exterior Elevations), 18.120.180.5 (Privacy and Noise), 18.120.180.6 (Private Outdoor Areas: Residential Use), 18.120.180.7 (Shared Outdoor Recreation Areas: Residential Use), 18.120.180.8 (100-year floodplain), 18.120.180.9 (Demarcation of Spaces), and are, therefore, found to be inapplicable as approval standards. Relationship to the Natural and Physical Environment: Section 18.120.180.2 states that buildings shall be located to preserve existing trees, topography, and natural drainage and that trees having a six (6) inch caliper or greater, shall be preserved or replaced by new plantings of equal character. There is a forested ravine, with moderate to steep slopes along the southwest portion of the property. There are approximately 8,937 square feet (.2 acres) of wetlands within the narrow channelized bottom of the drainage swale. The proposal will not encroach into the ravine or wetland area. Given the location of the buildings, parking area, and accessways, as well as the grading required to accommodate this proposal, a number of the existing trees will be removed. An arborist report has been submitted that addresses preservation of trees on the property. In accordance with Section 18.150, trees greater than 12-inch caliper will be mitigated. The proposed plan also includes new parking lot and street trees. NOTICE OF DECISION SDR 96-0022-FARMERS INSURANCE PAGE 5 Buffering. Screening and Compatibility between adjoining uses: Section 18.120.108.4(A) states that buffering shall be provided between different types of land uses. This criteria is not applicable as this proposal does not abut a use that requires buffering in accordance with the Buffer Matrix (18.100.130). Section 18.120.108.4(B) states that on-site screening from view of adjoining properties of such things as service and storage areas, parking lots, and mechanical devices on roof tops shall be provided. As indicated on the site plan, parking and storage areas shall be screened from adjoining properties. Crime Prevention and Safety: Section 18.120.108.10 requires that exterior lighting levels be selected and the angles shall be oriented towards areas vulnerable to crime and shall be placed in areas having heavy pedestrian or vehicular traffic. The City of Tigard Police Department has reviewed the applicant's lighting plan and has no comments or objections to the plan, thereby, satisfying this criteria. Phased Development: Section 18.120.050 allows approval of a time schedule for developing a site in phases over a period of time of one year, but in no case shall the total time period for all phases be greater than three years without reapplying for site development review. The criteria for approving a phased site development review proposal is that the following are satisfied: 1. The public facilities are constructed in conjunction with or prior to each phase. All public facilities required to serve each phase shall be constructed in conjunction with, or prior to, each phase. Each phase will contain all the site improvements necessary to function as a distinct development. 2. The development and occupancy of any phase is not dependent on the use of temporary public facilities (a temporary facility is any facility not constructed to the applicable City or district standard). The applicant is not proposing the use of any temporary public facilities. 3. The phased development shall not result in requiring the City or other property owners to construct public facilities that were required by an approved development proposal. The applicant shall construct all necessary improvements to serve this development. Landscaping Plan: Section 18.100.015 requires that the applicant submit a landscaping plan. This requirement has been satisfied as the applicant has submitted a plan indicating the number, type, and location of trees and shrubs. Street Trees: Section 18.100.033 states that all development projects fronting on a public street shall be required to plant street trees in accordance with Section 18.100.035. Section 18.100.035 requires that street trees be spaced between 20 and 40 feet apart depending on the size classification of the tree at maturity (small, medium or large). As indicated on the site plan, street trees have been provided in accordance with this section. Street trees will consist of a mix of preserved trees and newly proposed trees. NOTICE OF DECISION SDR 96-0022-FARMERS INSURANCE PAGE 6 Screening: Special Provisions: Section 18.100.110(A) requires the screening of parking and loading areas. Landscaped parking areas shall include special design features which effectively screen the parking lot areas from view. Planting materials • to be installed should achieve a relative balance between low lying and vertical shrubbery and trees. Trees shall be planted in landscaped islands in all parking areas, and shall be equally distributed on the basis of one (1) tree for each seven (7) parking spaces in order to provide a canopy effect. The minimum dimension on the landscape islands shall be three-feet-wide and the landscaping shall be protected from vehicular damage by some form of wheel guard or curb. While the site plan does not reflect landscape planters within the parking lot areas, the landscape plan shows the provision of planters and parking lot trees. The plan shows that the distribution of parking lot trees will provide for the required canopy effect, thereby, satisfying this criteria. Visual Clearance Areas: Section 18.102 requires that a clear vision area shall be maintained on the corners of all property adjacent to intersecting right-of-ways or the intersection of a public street and a private driveway. A clear vision area shall contain no vehicle, hedge, planting, fence, wall structure, or temporary or permanent obstruction exceeding three (3) feet in height. The code provides that obstructions that may be located in this area shall be visually clear between three (3) and eight (8) feet in height (trees may be placed within this area provided that all branches below eight (8) feet are removed). A visual clearance area is the triangular area formed by measuring a 30-foot distance along the street right-of-way and the driveway, and then connecting these two (2), 30-foot distance points with a straight line. The plans show that parking spaces are within the vision clearance area. A revised plan shall be submitted which provides for vision clearance in accordance with this section. Minimum Off-Street Parking: Section 18.106.030.(C)(1) requires a minimum of one (1) parking space for each 350 square feet of gross floor space for Administrative and Professional Services. Section 18.106.030.(C)(29) requires a minimum of one (1) parking space for each room plus one (1) space for each two (2) employees. The 84,500 square foot office building requires 241 parking spaces. The hotel provides 225 rooms and will have 20 employees. The number of parking spaces required by the hotel is 235 spaces. The total number of parking spaces required by this proposal is 475 spaces. The proposed plan indicates that 490 spaces have been provided, however, the proposed plan shows the provision of only 374 spaces. The applicant has stated that the remaining parking spaces shall be provided in an underground parking structure. A revised plan shall be submitted which shows the location and specifications of the parking garage. The garage shall provide a minimum of 101 parking spaces. The parking provided with the construction of Building Ill will be adequate to serve the building. The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA): Section 18.106.020(M) became effective on January 26, 1992. All parking areas shall be provided with the required numbers and sizes of disabled person parking spaces as specified by applicable State of Oregon and federal standards. All disabled person parking spaces shall be signed and marked on the pavement as required by these standards. This section requires 9 disabled parking spaces if 401 to 500 parking spaces are provided. This proposal requires nine (9) disabled parking spaces. The plan shows the provision of eight (8) disabled parking spaces. A revised plan shall be submitted that provides for nine (9) disabled parking spaces, in accordance with this section. NOTICE OF DECISION SDR 96-0022-FARMERS INSURANCE PAGE 7 Bicycle Parking: Section 18.106.020(P) requires one (1) bicycle parking rack space for every 15 required vehicular parking spaces in any development. Bicycle parking areas shall not be located within parking aisles, landscape areas, or pedestrian ways. Thirty-one (31) bicycle parking spaces will be required for this development. The plan shows that bicycle parking spaces are provided, however, it is not indicated how many spaces are provided. A revised plan shall be submitted which shows the provision and location of sixteen (16) bicycle parking spaces for Building III and fifteen (15) bicycle parking spaces for Building IV. Off-Street Loading spaces: Section 18.106.080 requires that every commercial or industrial use having floor area of 10,000 square feet or more, shall have at least one (1) off-street loading space on site. The plans show the provision of loading spaces for each of the buildings, thereby satisfying this criteria. Access: Section 18.108.080 requires that commercial and industrial uses which require more than 100 parking spaces provide two (2) accesses with a minimum width of 30 feet and a minimum pavement width of 24 feet or one (1) access with a minimum width of 50 feet and a minimum pavement width of 40 feet. The preliminary plan shows the provision of two (2) access drives, one (1) on SW 68th Avenue and one (1) on SW 66th Parkway. The accesses are a minimum of twenty-four (24) feet wide, thereby, satisfying this criteria. Walkways: Section 18.108.050(A) requires that a walkway be extended from the ground floor entrance of the structure to the street that provides the required ingress and egress. Unless impractical, walkways should be constructed between a new development and neighboring developments. Wherever required walkways cross vehicle access-driveways or parking lots, such crossings shall be designed and located for pedestrian safety. Required walkways shall be physically separated from motor vehicle traffic and parking by either a minimum six (6) inch vertical separation (curbed), or a minimum three (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 (4) 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 plan partially complies with this section. The plan shows the provision of a walkway connection with the existing concrete walk shown to connect with the Farmers Insurance building. The plan does not provide a walkway that connects the Building III entrance to SW 68th Parkway. A revised plan shall be submitted which provides a walkway connection to SW 68th Parkway. Mixed Solid Waste and Recyclables Storage: Section 18.116 requires that new construction incorporates functional and adequate space for on-site storage and efficient collection of mixed solid waste and source separated Recyclables prior to pick-up and removal by haulers. The applicant must choose one (1) of the following four (4) methods to demonstrate compliance: Minimum Standard, Waste Assessment, Comprehensive Recycling Plan, or Franchised Hauler Review and Sign- Off. The applicant will have to submit evidence or a plan which indicates compliance with this section. Regardless of which method chosen, the applicant will have to submit a written sign-off from the franchise hauler regarding the facility location and NOTICE OF DECISION SDR 96-0022-FARMERS INSURANCE PAGE 8 compatibility. The plans show the provision of trash enclosures. The applicant shall provide a written sign-off from the hauler regarding these locations. Tree Removal: Section 18.150.025 requires that a tree plan for the planting, removal and protection of trees prepared by a certified arborist shall be provided with a site development review application. The tree plan shall include identification of all existing trees, identification of a program to save existing trees or mitigate tree removal over 12 inches in caliper, which trees are to be removed, protection program defining standards and methods that will be used by the applicant to protect trees during and after construction. This section requires a program to save existing trees or mitigate tree removal for trees over 12 inches in caliper. The applicant's narrative states that the report submitted for the previous Site Development Review (SDR 96-0019) is still valid and can be used for the purposes of this present application. A tree mitigation plan was approved in compliance with a condition of the previous Site Development Review (SDR 96- 0019). This plan identified required mitigation of 710 caliper inches for this south side of SW 68th Parkway. After incorporating on-site tree mitigation, the plan concluded that a total of $28,874.00 for off-site monetary mitigation would satisfy the required mitigation. The applicant's proposal for on-site mitigation and off-site monetary mitigation satisfies the requirements of this section. Signs: Section 18.114.130(D) lists the type of allowable signs and sign area permitted in the C-P Zone. All signs shall conform to the provisions listed in this code section. All signs shall be approved through the Sign Permit process as administered by the City of Tigard Development Services Technicians. PUBLIC FACILITY CONCERNS: Sections 18.164.030(E)(1)(a) (Streets), 18.164.090 (Sanitary Sewer), and 18.164.100 Drains) shall be satisfied as specified below: TRAFFIC ANALYSIS: A transportation impact analysis was submitted by Mackenzie Engineering, Inc. (MEI), dated January 3, 1997. This report analyzed the potential impact of the proposed driveway locations on 68th Parkway and 66th Avenue, as well as the potential impact on several intersections in the vicinity from additional trip generation from the development. It was found that all proposed driveways will operate at acceptable levels of service (LOS) under the estimated traffic for the year 2001. The major intersections analyzed in the study were: Hampton Street/SW 72nd Avenue Hampton Street/SW 68th Parkway SW 68th Parkway/SW 66th Avenue. Based on the findings of the MEI report, the development of this project will not have a negative impact on any of the three intersections above. All intersections will operate a LOS "C" or better, which is acceptable. Traffic signal and left-turn lane warrants were also considered by MEI for the Hampton Street/SW 68th Parkway intersection. The report NOTICE OF DECISION SDR 96-0022-FARMERS INSURANCE PAGE 9 indicates that for year 2001 traffic volumes, including projected traffic from this project, warrants for a left turn lane and signal are not met. The intersection of SW 68th Parkway and SW Dartmouth Street was analyzed for signal warrants. The report indicates that the intersection is currently just meeting signal warrants during the PM peak hour. With the increase in traffic from this development, as well as expected growth in traffic from other approved projects in the area, it is expected that the minimum peak hour warrant volumes will be met for both the AM and PM peak hours for a two-lane by one-lane intersection. However, based on the low average delays currently experienced at this intersection, as well as results from ODOT's "Unsigl0" software calculations that indicate a level of service (LOS) "D" or better with either Option A or B, a signal is not recommended at this time. Staff concurs with the traffic engineer's findings and does not recommend installation of a signal. ODOT submitted comments, dated February 7, 1997, indicating some concern with both options. They are concerned because Option A and B would generate more trips than the original proposal under SDR 96/0019, and there may be "possible congested conditions along 72nd Avenue between OR 217 northbound ramps and Hampton Street. Congested conditions which could cause excessive delays to traffic are likely to occur, especially with the existing capacity constraint at the OR 217-72nd Avenue Interchange. Queue spill back from the OR 217 northbound off-ramp would cause congestion at the intersection of Hampton Street-72nd Avenue during peak hours." Although ODOT's comments are well- taken, Staff had difficulty in supporting them because they were not backed up by data, or information, that would refute the findings of the applicant's traffic study, which clearly indicates the intersection of 68th Avenue/Hampton Street will operate at a LOS "C" or better. . Staff discussed this matter with the ODOT staff and asked them to resubmit their comments to speak directly to the findings of the traffic study and their validity. ODOT staff acknowledged that they had difficulty in backing up their concerns with technical findings, but would possibly resubmit their comments by February 20, 1997. Staff did not receive any other comments from ODOT. In summary, based upon the findings of the transportation analysis submitted by MEI, Staff concurs that off-site street and/or intersection improvements are not warranted or required. STREETS: This site lies adjacent to SW 66th Avenue and SW 68th Parkway. SW 68th Parkway: SW 68th Parkway is classified as a major collector street and is fully improved adjacent to this site, with an existing 5-foot wide walkway on the south/west side of the street meandering inside a 15-foot wide public pedestrian/bicycle easement. No further right-of- way (ROW) dedications or street improvements on this side of the street are required. NOTICE OF DECISION SDR 96-0022-FARMERS INSURANCE PAGE 10 SW 66th Avenue: SW 66th Avenue is classified as a local commercial & industrial street. It once was a frontage roadway controlled by ODOT, but in 1981 ODOT relinquished its interest in the ROW to the City of Tigard. Since that date, the roadway has been primarily used by local traffic and does not experience heavy traffic loads. As a part of SDR 96-0019, the applicant proposed vacation of a portion of SW 66th Avenue that could be utilized in the site plan for this project. The City concurred, based upon the fact that the ROW is unused, and adopted a resolution on January 28, 1997 to relinquish interest in that portion of the ROW back to ODOT. It is the City's understanding that this ROW is now being sold to the applicant. Prior to .construction, the applicant should be required to provide evidence that the property transfer from ODOT has been completed. The remaining ROW for 66th Avenue, south of 68th Parkway, is currently used as access to this and the Farmers Insurance site. The City's Transportation Plan does not call for this section of 66th Avenue to be improved. Therefore, no additional dedications or improvements are required for this project. WATER: This site lies within the Tualatin Valley Water District (TVWD) service area. There is an existing 8-inch public water line in SW 68th Avenue that the applicant proposes to serve the new buildings from. Any connections to the water line in 68th Avenue shall be approved and permitted through TVWD. SANITARY SEWER: There is an existing 8-inch sanitary sewer line that lies adjacent to the south edge of SW 68th Avenue and along the eastern boundary of this site where the applicant intends to provide service to the new buildings (in either option). This sewer line should have adequate capacity to serve either option. STORM DRAINAGE: Storm water from this site naturally flows to the south and east toward 1-5. There are two locations where storm pipes enter the ODOT ROW of 1-5. The first location is just south of where 68th Parkway intersects with 66th Avenue. Storm water from 68th Avenue is collected in a public storm pipe that discharges into an existing 18-inch storm pipe that crosses 1-5. The other location is further south where an existing drainage area (between this site and the Farmer's Insurance building site) is collected and discharges into a 24- inch storm pipe that enters the ODOT ROW; from there, the water enters a much larger 84-inch diameter pipe. The applicant has coordinated with the ODOT hydraulics engineer with respect to the potential impact generated from this development. The applicant proposes to convey the on-site storm water to the southern end of the development area and detain it in an on-site water quality/detention pond before discharging the water into the existing 24-inch storm pipe. ODOT has indicated that they do not have a concern with this concept but the applicant should limit their peak discharge volume to the undeveloped 50-year storm NOTICE OF DECISION SDR 96-0022-FARMERS INSURANCE PAGE 11 event. The preliminary calculations indicate that the proposed pond site will have more than enough capacity to handle the storage of the 50-year storm event. The applicant's plan proposes to convey storm water from the site north of 68th Parkway (which was approved under SDR 96-0019 and is under construction) to reach the southern portion of the site and the pond. The plan shows a new private storm pipe that would need to cross SW 68th Parkway. Staff reviewed this option as a part of SDR 96- 0019 and recommended approval. A Street Opening Permit was issued to cover the installation of the private storm line crossing. STORM WATER QUALITY: The City has agreed to enforce Surface Water Management (SWM) regulations established by the Unified Sewerage Agency (USA) (Resolution and Order No. 91-47, as amended by R&O 91-75) 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. As stated previously, there will be a pond located near the southern end of the development area. This pond will act as a water quality and storm water detention facility. The pond has been designed as a part of SDR 96-0019 and will adequately treat the anticipated storm water runoff. There will be no change to the pond design with either option because the overall hard surface area that the pond will treat will not change significantly. GRADING AND EROSION CONTROL: USA R&O 91-47 also regulates 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 R&O 91-47, the applicant is required to submit an erosion control plan for City review and approval prior to issuance of City permits. The Federal Clean Water Act requires that a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) erosion control permit be issued for any development that will disturb five or more acres 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. EXISTING OVERHEAD UTILITY LINES: There are no existing overhead utility lines adjacent to this site. SECTION V: AGENCY COMMENTS The City of Tigard Building Division states there shall be removal of all underlying land divisions prior to the issuance of building permits. The City of Tigard Police Department and Maintenance Services Department have reviewed this application and have offered no comments or objections. NOTICE OF DECISION SDR 96-0022-FARMERS INSURANCE PAGE 12 SECTION VI: AGENCY COMMENTS Unified Sewerage Agency has reviewed the proposal and has offered the following comments: Sanitary Sewer: Each lot within the development shall be provided with a means of disposal for sanitary sewer. The means of disposal should be in accordance with R&O 96-44 (Unified Sewerage Agency's Construction Design Standards, July 1996 edition). Engineer should verify sanitary sewer is available to up-hill adjacent properties, or extend service as required by R&O 96-44. Storm Sewer: Each lot within the development should have access to public storm sewer. Engineer should verify that public storm sewer is available to up-hill adjacent properties, or extend storm service as required by R&O 96-44. Hydraulic and hydrological analysis of storm conveyance system is necessary. If downstream storm conveyance does not have the capacity to convey the volume during a 25-year, 24-hour storm event, the applicant is responsible for mitigating flow. Water Quality: Developer should provide a water quality facility to treat the new impervious surface being constructed as part of this development. Sensitive Area: A "Sensitive Area" may exist, developer must preserve a 25-foot corridor as described in R&O 96-44 separating the sensitive area from the impact of development. Erosion Control: A joint 1200-C erosion control permit is required. Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue has reviewed the proposal and has offered the following comments: Plans are not approved at this time. The applicant shall address the following plan notes and re-submit plans for review and approval: The inside turning radius and outside turning radius shall not be less than 25 feet and 45 feet respectfully, as measured from the same center point (UFC Sec. 902.2.2.3). Where fire apparatus access roadways are not of sufficient width to accommodate parked vehicles, "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" and shall be installed with a clear space above ground level of seven (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)(2) & (3)). 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 (1) inch wide by six (6) inches high. (UFC Sec. 901.4.5.2). The minimum number of fire hydrants for a building shall be based on the required fire flow prior to giving any credits for fire protection systems. There shall not be less than one NOTICE OF DECISION SDR 96-0022-FARMERS INSURANCE PAGE 13 (1) fire hydrant for the first 2,000 gallons per minute (GPM) required fire flow and one (1) additional fire hydrant for each 1,000 GPM or portion thereof over 2,000 GPM. Fire hydrants shall be evenly spaced around the building and their locations shall be approved by the Chief (UFC Sec. 903.4.2.1). 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 (UFC Sec. 903.4.2.1). Fire hydrants shall not be located more than 15 feet from an approved fire apparatus access roadway (UFC Sec 903.4.2.4). 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 per square inch (psi). A worksheet for calculating the required fire flow is available form the Fire Marshal's office (UFC Sec. 903.3). 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). A Knox Box for building access is required for this building. Please contact the Fire Marshal's office for an application and instructions regarding installation and placement. GTE states that the developer/owner to place conduit/manholes as per GTE's specifications. PGE and the Tualatin Valley Water District have reviewed this application and has offered no comments or objections. SECTION VII: PROCEDURE AND APPEAL INFORMATION Notice: Notice was posted at City Hall and mailed to: X The applicant and owners X Owner of record within the required distance X Affected government agencies NOTICE OF DECISION SDR 96-0022-FARMERS INSURANCE PAGE 14 Final Decision: THE DECISION SHALL BE FINAL ON MARCH 12, 1997 UNLESS AN APPEAL IS FILED. Appeal: Any party to the decision may appeal this decision in accordance with Sections 18.32.290(A) and Section 18.32.340 of the Community Development Code which provides that a written appeal must be filed. The deadline for filing an appeal is specified below. The appeal fee schedule and appeal form are available from the Community Development Department or Planning Division at Tigard City Hall, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon 97223. THE DEADLINE FOR FILING OF AN APPEAL IS 3:30 P.M. ON MARCH 12, 1997. Questions: If you have any questions, please call the City of Tigard Planning Division or Community Development Department of Tigard City Hall, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon at (503) 639-4171. Z � (_.4^1CIA.A4 February 26, 1997 PREPARED BY: William D'Andrea DATE Associate Planner 1 • '/ �-�� February r 26, 1 7 /Ycs�_ IV/ uary 99 APPROVED BY: Richard Bewersdorff DATE Planning Manager \cureln\will S DR96-22.dec NOTICE OF DECISION SDR 96-0022-FARMERS INSURANCE PAGE 15 e' 4,iP . i i I(tWaftld) - i- I 1 . i i ., . ' 1 H• , 4-- •-, / 1 , . i( .. . 0 .. .11 : • so \ \\ Ii iN >") \ a , ,\ - „....-- . i Z• •... I ..„.„.., Anund auto ms _ ___ , I : Z Z '\, I . , : : 1.1.. i I ' < 4 \ \ .ft / : I 1 1•' -J 1 CL \ 04 ;. ifilll / : \ ,....\ \ .., \ Ce ., 11111111111111110 It ... < \‘'`, \ te-so \ e Iffl : sal . II2 (9 ,.., : s.„2. ,..\ V11111111110 , , WO jai ' i W II I --r- 4-7---- ..\-,.--.. -I-- - ' LL )I --- - 1 ,__.1, { I 1 : 1 rit-11-11-11 1 , . g i i 1 .., .. 19 it 1 . >m- i . titri \ r•---;\--_, II i . . ilito \__,\‘,____ -'- f - . 1 !mum i I -- :111 I . f i : i 0 ef 91 i ! I 4 , - : ;• , ! , - - I : ! \f'' U 1 ,I I • 1 :: / I 7(1 D , , I I 1 \., I) I .• , i i I MT DATA =Tat :til 21:. SITE PLAN 11 , CASE NO. . I • I SOUTH OF WITH EXHIBIT MA SIN MO22 Fallsa—urs•—z:. '"4" P 1g ' =NM CONPINIMION MI MTN id ang)"" awl., I , , 11P11811 k •FRCE/NOM . I 1111111 ■ST[7 . Ingilla mil a I ' , 1 . I ''' 111 a II I 1111■ FRfWQJN S7 gar=11111 IIP .■ � ■ }+ I ■ / 4 � I lit 1 E■ . 1. GON71Y.,A ST sr ■ `MEI vt ' co 1 bia.. ■ gi ,, ow 5 SUBlE � 1 �\ `■1 ■■� 1111 � __ 1 ■■■� ARCELS t ∎. ► , r ■ 1111_■ Am ow . E■ ■11.11 7 ► ■ inks RR • •11111111111 r---1 Et FlRLP . 1111111kAmm -11■■I■1 1 iiILIr SURU Ill I 0 1.:: 1 TFrH CENTER 01 i � i 1--. N, cam : „..,,:s 0 PDN2K 01,03 ctIciz cini:0 1 i I y Vicinity May $ SDR 96-0022 1 Triangle Corporate Park South Note:Map is not to scale N Option A: Office/Hotel SDR 9G —O 2 c A/14 Cer/pOri P 6ow46—& 12 i4 -l�{i�/17W /6Y ' /sf/ • • F Y 2S101DA-02100 2S101DA-00300 EtLOODWORTH,ROBERT L ET AL F I G HOLDING CO Go HEALTH RESOURCES INC REAL ESTATE ACCTG P O BOX 987 ATTN.RUBY TLAND • fUALATIN,OR 97062 4680 WILSHIRE BLVD LOS ANGELES,CA 90010 2S101DA-00200 2S101DA-00400 F I G HOLDING CO F I G HOLDING CO REAL ESTATE ACCTG REAL ESTATE ACCTG ATTN RUBY COURTLAND ATTN RUBY COURTLAND 4680 WILSHIRE BLVD 4680 WILSHIRE BLVD LOS ANGELES,CA 90010 LOS ANGELES,CA 90010 2S101DA-00500 2S101DA-00700 F I G HOLDING CO F I G HOLDING CO REAL ESTATE ACCTG REAL ESTATE ACCTG ATTN.RUBY C LAND ATTN:RUBY COURTLAND 4680 WILSHIRE BLVD 4680 WILSHIRE BLVD x,95 ANGELES,CA 90010 LOS ANGELES,CA 90010 2S101DA-02200 2S101DA-00100 F I G HOLDING CO F I G HOLDING COMPAVY REAL ESTATE ACCTG REAL ESTATE ACCTG ATTN:RUBY LAND ATTN:RUBYURTLAND 4680 HIRE BLVD 4680SHIRE BLVD S ANGELES,CA 90010 LHS ANGELES,CA 90010 2S101AD-01300 2S101AD-03500 FERNANDEZ,PHILIP H AND PACIFIC REALTY ASSOCIATES LP CATHERINE F 15115 SW SEQUOIA PKWY#200-WMI 6803 SW WHEATLAND RUN JRTLAND,OR 97224 WILSONVILLE,OR 97070 2S101AD-03400 2S101AD-03200 PACIFIC REALTY ASSOCIATES LP PACIFIC REALTY ASSOCIATES LP- 15115 SW SEQUOIA PKWY#200-WMI 15115 SW SEQUOIA PKWY#200-WMI PORTLAND,OR 97224 PORTLAND,OR 97224 2S101DD-00100 2S101DA-01900 PAPE'PROPERTIES& SHEARER&SONS INC PAPE',TERRANCE/TOOKE,DIAN& 7000 SW VARNS ST PAPE',SHIRLEY N TIGARD,OR 97223 PO BOX 407 EUGENE,OR 97440 25101DD-00101 2S101AD-03100 WESTON HOLDING CO LLC WESTON INVESTMENT CO 2154 NE BROADWAY 2154 NE BROADWAY PORTLAND,OR 97232 PORTLAND,OR 97232 GERDING/EDLEN DEVELOPMENT 2525 SW FIRST AVENUE, SUITE 201 PORTLAND OR 97201 I iji01,,4 ãAià , Legal . wilffiligNMMT- Y 14111111111PAPIENII INV,. .. P.O. BOX 370 PHONE(503)684-0360 Notice TT 8744. MAR 0 3 1997 BEAVERTON,OREGON 97075 • i CITY OF TIGARD Legal Notice Advertising City of Tigard • ❑ Tearsheet Notice 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard,Oregon 97223 • ❑ Duplicate Affidavit • SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW(SDR)96-0022 Accounts Payable >TRIANGLE CORPORATE PARK SOUTH- OPTION A: OFFICE/HOTEL 4 The Director has approved, subject to conditions, a request for Site Development Review approval to allow the construction of an 84,500 AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION square foot office building and a 62,000 square foot hotel. LOCATION: West of S.W. 66th Avenue and on the south side of S.W. 68th Avenue. STATE OF OREGON, )ss WCTM 2S101DA, Tax Lots 00100, 00200, 00300, 00400 and 02200). COUNTY OF WASHINGTON, ) ZONE: Professional Commercial (C-P). The C-P zone allows public agency and administrative services,public support facilities, professional I, Kathy Snydr and administrative services,financial, insurance,real estate services,busi- being first duly sworn, depose and say that I am the Advertising ness support services, and transient lodging, g AP- Director, or his principal clerk, of th- . . •- I 4mes among othent ode general circulation as defined in ORS 193.010 PLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code a newspaper of Chapters 18.64, 18.100, 18.102, 18.106, 18.108, 18.114, 18.116, 18.120, and 193.020; published at Tigard ___ in the 18.150 and 18.164. aforesaid county and state; that the SDR Triangle Corp.Park S_A a printed copy of which is hereto annexed, was published in the f . entire issue of said newspaper for ONE successive and \ )iJ consecutive in the following issues: +� � I - 1 � : ` I I— I ii February 27 .1997 , j �`� \,� i 'N I .�'I1 1 j r . —.1—_—_.-1-\ N— \ tl! I ! 1 II I /Ct —:,k!le ,,.L461.6— ) I \.,... Subscribed and sworn to before me this27th day of Februa i ; \'6 5 swum, ■ ;1■4 ' ARCELS-->>. 1�∎1 i.n i `` _ NotaPublic for Oregon H MI A--,1 ! Iiiik My Commission Expires: ;� ' ..:VM t'4 1 "1F: Mak AFFIDAVIT �...\ - Li � J I 4, �. I, , \ I I I I I—. i N it j s I 1t I . �\ ! 1 ! `1 The adopted finding of facts,decision,and statement of conditions can be obtained from the Planning Department,Tigard Civic Center, 13125 S.W. Hall Blvd.,Tigard,Oregon 97223. The decision shall be final on March 12, 1997. Any party to the decision may appeal this decision in accor- dance with Section 18.32.290(A) and Section 18.32.370 of the Com- munity Development Code,which provides that a written appeal may be filed within 10 days after notice is given and sent.The deadline for filing an appeal is 3:30 P.M., March 12, 1997. TT8744-Publish February 27, 1997. ST 11111111111111 7 n Nil I i 1111 111111 .111111 11111 lit IN IN I 1 1 _ .1_,..., s,_ I lig ■m o sa -t 2S101AD-031 i i 2s101AD-00.500 r 101AD200 D 8 OO1 10 , .,ow, s is to+,e� --00 l •- c XIII c (13 FlR LP 2S1p1DA-Q2200 I), _ \ 2slouoko2 .. t c3) 1, 101100 INIIIII SPNDBURG S[ .101DO-0010 0 3 l _ U Vicinity Map SDR 96-0022 Notification Map N APPL/CAATT R MA l''. /.4k.S SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 46- �, IL APPLICATION :ITY OF TIGARD 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639-4171 FAX: (503) 684-7297 ,ENERAL INFORMATION PRE-APP. HELD WITH: DATE OF PRE-APP.: -roperty Address/Location(s): North / adjacent to the ?xi sti ng Farmers Ins. Building on 68th Parkway. FOR STAFF USE ONLY —ax Map&Tax Lot#(s): 2S1 1DA Tax Lots 300, 200, 400 00 and 2200. Case No.(s): sp2 go- OD z Other Case No.(s): The Size: 12.49 AC Receipt No.: roperty Owner/Deed Holder(s)*: Farmers Ins. Group Application Accepted By: "ddress: 4680 Wilshire Blvd, 2nd itaarrrec Floor Date: _;ity: Los Angeles, CA Zip: _ 90010 'pplicant*: Gerdi ng/Edl en Development Date Determined To Be Complete: , ddress: 2525 SW 1st Ave, Ste 201Phone: 299-6000 "ity: Portland, OR Zip: 97201 Comp'PIan/Zone Designation: When the owner and the applicant are different people, the applicant —lust be the purchaser of record or a lessee in possession with written CIT Area: uthorization from the owner or an agent of the owner. The owner(s) .lust sign this application in the space provided on the back of this Rev.8/29/96 i:\curptnrrnasterslsdra.doc form or submit a written authorization with this application. . _._I PROPOSAL SUMMARY REQUIRED SUBMITTAL ELEMENTS he owners of record of the subject property request Site ✓ Application Elements Submitted: Development Review approval to allow(please be specific): ❑ Application Form Allow an office complex. The proposed development ❑ Owner's Signature/Written Authorization includes (3) office buildingsrtotaling 241,020 SF ❑ Title TransferinstrumentorDeed with two buildings on each side of 68th Parkway. ❑ Site/Plot Plan (8'/2"x 11") (#of copies based on pre-app check list) ❑ Applicant's Statement * a• Ol. I h o� ,I (#of copies based on pre-app check list) ❑ Construction Cost Estimate ❑ Filing Fee (Under$100,000) $ 800.00 ($100,0004999,999)....$1,600.00 ($1 Million 8 Over) $1,780.00 (+$5/510,000) 1 List any VARIANCE, CONDITIONAL USE, SENSITIVE LANDS, OR OTHER LAND USE ACTIONS to be considered as part of this application: APPLICANTS: To consider an application complete, you will need to submit ALL of the REQUIRED SUBMITTAL ELEMENTS as described on the front of this application in the"Required Submittal Elements" box. (Detailed Submittal Requirement Information sheets can be obtained, upon request, for all types of Land Use Applications.) THE APPLICANT(S)SHALL CERTIFY THAT: • The above request does not violate anydeed restrictions that may be attached to or imposed upon the subject property, • If the application is granted, the applicant will exercise the rights granted in accordance with the terms and subject to all the conditions and limitations of the approval. • All of the above statements and the statements in the plot plan, attachments, and exhibits transmitted herewith, are true; and the applicants so acknowledge that any permit issued, based on this application, may be revoked if it is found that any such statements are false. • The applicant has read the entire contents of the application, including the policies and criteria, and understands the requirements for approving or denying the application. SIGNATURES of each owner of the subject property. DATED this day of , 19 RF 2. rb /404 CHOP 5X kOMker £i-1 //Nb Owner's Signature Owner's Signature Owner's Signature Owner's Signature 2 cunt by: GROUP MACKENZIE 5032281285; 12/23/'' 12:34; Jeffdx #680;Page 3/3 List any VARIANCE, CONDITICNAL USE, SENSITIVE LANDS, OR OTHER LAND USE ACTIONS to be considered as art of this application: PPLICANTS: 'o consider an application complete, you will need to submit ALL of the REQUIRED SUEMITTAL ELEMENTS as cescribed on the front of this application in the "Required Submittal EIements" box. Detailed Submittal Requirement Information sheets can be obtained, upon request,for all types of Land Use Applications.) HE APPLICANT{S} SHALL CERTIFY THAT: • Thee • • •• _ • ••- vial- . • • •• • •••! i. 1!c •• sw h-• • tf1!• "! . •• i• property, • If the application is granted, the applicant will exercise the nghts granted in accordance with the terms and subject to all the conditions and limitations of the approval. • All cf the above statements and the statements in the plot plan, attachments, and exhibits transmitted herewith, are true; and the applicants so acknowledge that any permit issued, based an this application, may be revoked if it is found that any such statements are false. • The applicant has read the entire contents of the application, including the policies and criteria, and understands the requirements for approving or denying the application. SIGNATURES of each owner of the subject property. DATED this ( T L day of . _ . , I111xy 19/16 • Ow er's Signa ure / Owner's Signature )wner's Signature Owner's Signature 2 4i\_ . December 30, 1996 CITY OF TIGARD OREGON Beth Zauner Mackenzie/Saito & Associates 0690 SW Bancroft Street PO BOX 69039 Portland, OR 97201-0039 Re: Notice of Incomplete Submittal Dear Ms. Zauner. The Planning Division has conducted a preliminary review of SDR 96-0022, an application for Site Development Review, and have found that certain application materials were not provided with the submittal. The Planning Division is unable to consider the application complete and continue processing the application pending submission of the following items and plan notes: 1.) Architectual Drawings (building elevations and floor plans). If you have any questions concerning this information, please feel free to contact me at (503) 639-4171. Sincerely, William D'Andrea Associate Planner, AICP c`turpinlwi1t sdr96-22.ttr c. SDR 96-0022 land use file 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639-4171 TDD (503) 684-2772 G R .hU P MACKENZIE January 9, 1997 City of Tigard Attention: Will D'Andrea 13125 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard, OR 97223-8199 Re: Completeness of Application SDR 96-0022 (Option A/Hotel) M Project Number 296500 N 0 s n M a O Dear Will: O x Enclosed are conceptual building floor plans and elevations for the office use structures E referenced in this application. The following descriptive text is intended to supplement the hotel drawings. W 'n E a x An approximately 62,000 SF mid-range hotel is proposed on the southernmost portion of the site (Building IV). The hotel would accommodate approximately 225 rooms and would likely ° provide services and amenities typically associated with a mid-range hotel, such as restaurant z and lounge,business center(business traveler services such as computers, fax,etc.), small ameeting rooms, and an exercise facility. These facilities would be available for use by the hotel guests. N co 3 M It is our understanding that,with this submittal,our application will be deemed complete. Please H feel free to contact Tamio Fukuyama or me with any additional questions or concerns. Group Sincerely, Mackenzie, Incorporated /7717//i, �+•ch.te c,cre ..or Design any Use Piannmg Beth Zauner Group Mackenzie BEZ/ks Engineering, Incorporated Civil/Structural c: Kelly Saito-Gerding/Edlen Engineering Tamio Fukuyama/Rick Saito/Tuan Luu-Group Mackenzie Transportation Planning The tradition of Mackenzie Engineering and MackenzielSaito continues. F:\W PDATA\97-01\96500\09L2.KS CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON January 13, 1997 Beth Zauner Mackenzie/Saito & Associates 0690 SW Bancroft Street PO BOX 69039 Portland, OR 97201-0039 Re: SDR 96-0022 Dear Ms. Zauner: This letter is to inform you that your application for Site Development Review (SDR 96-0022) is considered complete and has been accepted by the Planning Department. If you have any questions concerning this information, please feel free to contact me at (503) 639-4171. Sincerely, , 14 eZ a William D'Andrea Associate Planner, AICP i:lcurpin\willlsdr96-2212 c. SDR 96-0022 land use file 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639-4171 TDD (503) 684-2772 CITY OF TIGARD Community Development Shaping A Bet ter Community PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION FILE NO: SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (SDR) 96-0022 FILE TITLE: TRIANGLE CORPORATE PARK SOUTH OPTION A: OFFICE/HOTEL APPLICANT: Farmer's Insurance Group OWNER: Gerding/Edlen Development 4680 Wilshire Boulevard, 2nd Floor 2525 SW First Avenue, Suite 201 Los Angeles, CA 90010 Portland, OR 97201 (503) (503) 299-6000 REQUEST: A request for Site Development Review approval to allow the construction of an 84,500 square foot office building and a 62,000 square foot hotel. LOCATION: West of SW 66th Avenue and on the south side of SW 68th Avenue. WCTM 2S101 DA, Tax Lots 00100, 00200, 00300, 00400 and 02200. ZONE: Professional Commercial (C-P). The C-P zone allows public agency and administrative services, public support facilities, professional and administrative services, financial, insurance, real estate services, business support services, and transient lodging, among others. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.64, 18.100, 18.102, 18.106, 18.108, 18.114, 18.116, 18.120, 18.150, and 18.164. CIT: East CIT FACILITATOR: List Available Upon Request PHONE NUMBER: (503) DECISION MAKING BODY X STAFF DECISION DATE COMMENTS DUE: January 24,199/ PLANNING COMMISSION DATE OF HEARING: TIME: 7:30 HEARINGS OFFICER DATE OF HEARING: TIME: 7:00 CITY COUNCIL DATE OF HEARING: TIME: 7:30 PROJECT RELATED COMPONENTS AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING IN THE PLANNING DIVISION X VICINITY MAP LANDSCAPING PLAN X NARRATIVE X X ARCHITECTURAL PLAN SITE PLAN X OTHER STAFF CONTACT: William D'Andrea (503) 639-4171 x315 SDR 96-0022 TRIANGLE CORPORATE PARK SOUTH-OPTION A OFFICE/HOTEL PROPOSAL/REQUEST FOR COMMENTS LAN" 'ISE APPLICATION FILE CONTEN" -.--- -•- PRIMARY FILE NO.: _C,1) qP — )O SEE ALSO: r-- Application Summary: 0 Approved: No.of Lots: IVCommercial Datm 0 Denied: Lot Size(s): 0 Industrial No. of Phases: Gross Sq. Ft.: .. Residential @ \i- :� . \ a\ \iii; \ \\v :\ \\\ L :- \ . : y I \ \ . ' \ fi .\~ R ;:}` v.V v.\�:: a: ,..... G>..+:.:....,..,::•.o-:ti ;•:,i;'•:::o:f;:>.2f R::::%:z:i::......, ;x ti : \. .:. .., .,. . ..::: c:...` . . "2 \ �i .M' , ::::; : \ ; : �M ❑ PLANNING SECRETARIES MATERIALS: 2 "REQUEST FOR COMMENTS" RETURNED r Mailing Labels 2( Vicinity Map t Site Plan 2 Newspaper Ad: H.O./P.C./C.C. O Heanng Notice: H.O./P.C./C.C. 0 Final Order Cover: H.O./P.C./C.C. DIVIDER SHEET DLCD Notification(s) of Amendment: 0 SUBSEQUENT CORRESPONDENCE A ❑ Proposed ❑Adopted ❑ Withdrawn/Dented (Includes All Communications Following Application Acceptance) 'Request for Comments" Distribution List ❑ WORKING COPY- ORIGINAL DECISION NEWSPAPER AD -Affidavit of Publication: ❑ N/A WORKING COPY - PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE(S) ❑Administrative ❑ H.O. ❑ P.C. ❑ C.C. ❑ H.O. ❑ P.C. ❑ C C ❑ ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION -Affidavit of Mailing WORKING COPY - FINAL ORDER(S) (AsApplicaote) Includes. Affidavit of Mailing/Posting,Onatnal Decision.&Cooy of Mailing Labels. ❑ H.O. ❑ P C. ❑ C.C. PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE -Affidavit of Mailing n ❑ WORKING COPY- RESOLUTION NO.: cudes: Affidavit of Mailing,Coov of Public Heanng Notice(Original with Meeting Minutes).&Copy of Mailing Labels. ❑ H.O. ❑ P C. ❑ C C ❑ WORKING COPY -ORDINANCE NO.: FINAL ORDER -Affidavit of Mailing TO CITY COUNCIL: Includes Affidavit of Mai ngiPostng,Copy of Final Order(Original with Meeting Minutes),&Copy of Mailing Labels. ❑ Forward for Review by the Planning Director ❑ H.O. ❑ P.C. ❑ C.C. 0 Council Call-Up for Review ❑ OTHER -Affidavit of Mailing COPY OF MEETING MINUTES Includes: Affidavit of Mailing/Posting.Original Decision,&Copy of Mailing Labels. TYPE: HEARING BODY: ❑ P C. ❑ C C. TYPE: HEARING BODY: Date) Cate APPEALED TO: DIVIDER SHEET ❑ P C. ❑ C.C. (Oats) i Date) O DSLJARMY CORPS. OF ENGINEERS PERMIT APPEALED TO LUBA: O OTHER: ❑ FROM P.C. ❑ FROM C.C. t Datel Cate■ E APPLICATION SUBMITTAL ITEMS: LUBA REMAND: ,Application and Receipt for Payment of Fees ProposaUSummary of the Application ❑ TO P C ❑ TO C.C. Correspondence with the Applicant Prior to Acceptance (Cate) Date) Neighborhood Meeting Documents/Affidavits opy of the Title Transfer InstrumentiWarranty Deed Traffic Impact Study(or) See: file ( of Wetlands Mitigation Plan(or) 0 See: file of Narrative (or) ❑See: file A of Maps (or) 0 See: file of Tree Preservation/Mitigation Plarlor Arborist Report l (or) See: file of A`PATTY`MASTERS')CONTENTS.MST g05 a�//�a rrajv& City of Tigard Application Narrative for Major Modification Triangle Corporate Park South Option A: Office /Hotel (Farmers Insurance Property) January 3, 1997 Project Number 296500 prepared by: Group Mackenzie 0690 S.W. Bancroft Street P.O. Box 69039 Portland, Oregon 97201-0039 503/224-9560 F:\WPDATA\97-0 1\96500\03NARR 1.KC * DRAFT * January 2, 1997 City of Tigard Attention: Mr. Will D'Andrea 13125 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard,Oregon 97223 Re: Triangle Corporate Park South(Farmers Insurance Property) Option A-Office/Hotel Project Number 2%500 Dear Will: Enclosed is an application package for a Major Modification to the approved site plan for this property. This application package includes eighteen copies of each of the following: •Application Form •Narrative •Vicinity Map •Existing Conditions Map •Site Development Plan •Grading&Site Utility Plan •Landscape Plan •Neighborhood Documentation •Pre-Application Conference Notes&Checklist •Lighting Cutsheets/Details • Storm Calculations •Traffic Report •Tree Condition Analysis and Letter The property is located just north of the existing Farmers Insurance building,straddling 68th Parkway. The total project acreage is 12.49 ac. This application proposes modifications to the portion of the project on the south side of 68th Parkway. Also attached is a check in the amount of$6,380.00 for the Major Modification Application filing fee. It is our understanding that the application will be determined complete within ten days and a decision will be rendered approximately eight weeks after that determination. Please contact Tamio Fukuyama or me with any questions or concerns related to this application. Sincerely, Beth Zauner BEZ/kc Enclosures F:\W PDATA197-0119650ML 1.KC CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION II. SITE DESIGN REVIEW CRITERIA III. PREAPPLICATION CONFERENCE CRITERIA IV. SUMMARY ATTACHMENTS: • Application Form • Narrative • Vicinity Map • Existing Conditions Map • Site Development Plan • Grading& Site Utility Plan • Landscape Plan •Neighborhood Documentation • Pre-Application Conference Notes& Checklist • Lighting Cutsheets/Details • Storm Calculations • Traffic Report • Tree Condition Analysis& Letter F:\W FDATA\97-01\96500\O3NARR 1.KC I. INTRODUCTION This is an application for approval of a Major Modification to the approved Farmers Insurance property(SDR-96-0019) site plan. As currently proposed, the area to the north side of 68th Parkway will remain as previously submitted, with a slight increase in square footage to Building II (1,500 SF). The area on the south side of 68th Parkway will be modified to accommodate a hotel use. Building III will remain office as previously proposed. Building IV is a proposed hotel structure. The project is located adjacent to and immediately north of the existing Farmers Insurance building with 68th Parkway transecting the site. The total acreage of the project is 12.49 acres (6.88 acres to the south of 68th Parkway and 5.61 acres to the north). The project has been designed not to encroach into the ravine, wetland, and sensitive lands area between this project and the existing Farmers Insurance parking area to the south. Three office buildings and a hotel structure are proposed. The two office buildings on the north side of 68th Parkway will have 55,650 SF and 36,870 SF (Buildings I and II). The south side proposes an 84,500 SF office building (III) and a 62,000 SF hotel, for a project total of 285,000 SF. The site plan proposes a total of 490 parking spaces. Parking lot lighting will be provided in the tree diamonds and various landscape islands. Additional lighting is provided throughout the site along pedestrian walkways, plazas, and access points. Please refer to the attached lighting cutsheets. A phasing plan is being proposed for this project. It is currently anticipated that the northern portion of the site (north side of 68th Parkway)will encompass Phases I and H. The 55,650 SF building and supportive site development is the first phase. Addition of the 36,870 SF building and completion of site development on this side of 68th Parkway is the second phase. Phases III and IV will be comprised of the area on the southern side of 68th Parkway. Phase III proposes the 84,500 SF building with a relative portion of the site development. Phase IV proposes the 62,000 SF building and completion of development. As indicated in the December 19, 1996, preapplication conference, this application will be processed as an administrative staff review. Neighborhood notification and a meeting are required for this proposal. The neighborhood meeting is scheduled for January 2, 1997, at 6:30 p.m., at Tigard City Hall. The following sections address the series of criteria required for the components of this application. F:IWPDATA197-01\96500 103NARR1.KC 1 IL SITE DESIGN REVIEW CRITERIA The proposed development includes a complex of three office buildings and a hotel, as previously described. All Tigard Development Code standards are met by the proposal and specific development information is indicated on the accompanying drawings. Site Design Review approval standards cited in Section 18.120.180 of the Tigard Community Development Code are addressed as follows: 1. Provisions of the following chapters: a. 18.84, Sensitive Lands Response: The ravine (located at the south end of the site) separating this project from the existing Farmers' Insurance building, contains both steep slopes and wetland areas. As shown on the attached site plan, proposed development does not encroach into this area; therefore, this criteria does not apply. b. 18.94, Manufactured/Mobile Home Regulations Response: Not applicable. c. 18.92, Density Computation Response: Not applicable. d. 18.144, Accessory Use and Structures Response: Not applicable. e. 18.96, Additional Yard Area Requirements Response: The proposed buildings meet the required street frontage setbacks. Specifically, on the south side, Building III is set back 33 FT from 66th Avenue and 33 FT from 68th Parkway. Building IV is set back 35 FT from 66th Avenue. f. 18.98, Building Height Limitations: Exceptions Response: The C-P zone requires that no building exceed 45 FT in height, unless special setbacks are provided. Building III will be 66 FT in height,with setback, as required in Section 19.98.020. Building IV will be 44 FT in height. This criterion is met. g. 18.100, Landscaping and Screening Response: The accompanying landscape drawing indicates landscaping as required by Chapter 100, including screening and buffering of the parking area. All abutting zoning districts are commercial. Street trees are provided along both 66th and 68th Parkway. The trash enclosures proposed as part of this development will be enclosed and screened. F:IWPDATA\97-01\96500■03NARRI.KC 2 h. 18.102, Visual Clearance Response: Visual clearance areas are provided as required by this section. Please see the accompanying plans. i. 18.106, Off-Street Parking and Loading Response: Based on the requirements for an office and hotel use, the total project will require approximately 923 spaces (117,520 SF office, and 225 rooms) and 20 employees. The overall site plan proposes 925 spaces, including 635 standard, 278 compact, and 8 handicap spaces. The south side of the project proposes a total of 490 spaces. The standard parking spaces are 9' x 18' or 9' x 16' with accommodation of a 2' bumper overhang. Compact spaces are 8' x 16'. A loading dock is proposed at the Phase I building. Service entries will be designated at the other buildings. j. 18.108, Access, Egress, and Circulation Response: Primary access to the development is provided by driveway points off 68th Parkway. There are two access points on 68th Parkway for the north portion of the project. The southern portion provides a single access off of 68th Parkway and a single access off of 66th Avenue. The plan meets the dimensional requirements of Section 18.108.080. k. 18.114, Signs Response: Signage for this project has not yet been designed; therefore, in accordance with the application checklist provided at the pre-application meeting, sign drawings shall be submitted in accordance with Chapter 18.114 of the Code, prior to obtaining a Building Permit to construct a sign. 1. 18.150, Tree Removal Response: Tree removal and mitigation will not change from the original submittal and approved site plan. Please refer to the attached letter and report form the arborist. m. 18.164, Street and Utility Improvement Standards Response: The public street and utilities have already been constructed. Any future improvements will conform to the requirements of this section. 2. Relationship to the Natural and Physical Environment Response: Unstable soils, sensitive lands, and potential wetlands have required the preservation of the natural ravine located on this site. Because the site is heavily treed, extensive efforts have been made to preserve as many of the trees as possible. The proposed site plan allows adequate distance between the buildings for adequate light, air circulation, and fire fighting. Required grading will be minimal, and water detention and quality will be addressed on site. F:\WPDATA197-01\96500\03NARR1.KC 3 3. Exterior Elevations Response: This standard applies to single-family and multiple-family structures and is not applicable to this application. 4. Buffering, Screening, and Compatibility between Adjoining Uses Response: Surrounding uses in the development are zoned C-P. No buffer is required between the proposed development and the surrounding commercial uses except to screen parking areas,which has been addressed. 5. Privacy and Noise Response: Although the site is physically removed from I-5 and therefore retains a sense of privacy, noise levels from I-5 are still audible at the site. 6. Private Outdoor Area: Residential Use 7. Shared Outdoor Recreations Areas: Residential Use Response: This application is for the approval of an office development. These standards apply only to residential development. Therefore, these standards do not apply. 8. Where landfill and/or development is allowed within and adjacent to the 100-year floodplain, the City shall require the dedication of sufficient open land area for greenway adjoining and within the floodplain. Response: The proposed development is not adjacent to nor within the 100-year floodplain. Therefore, this standard does not apply. 9. Demarcation of Public, Semipublic, and Private Spaces: Crime Prevention Response: The distinction between public and private space is provided by signage and landscaping. 10. Crime Prevention and Safety Response: Although this section applies primarily to residential development,this project will provide adequate lighting and accessibility as envisioned by the criteria. 11. Access and Circulation Response: See Section 18.108.1.(j) as discussed above. 12. Public Transit Response: The closest transit stop to this site is on SW 68th Parkway at SW Hampton. The Bus is#78. 13. Parking Response: See Section 18.106.1.(i) discussion above. As indicated above, all parking and loading areas are designed in accordance with the requirements set forth in Sections 18.106.050 and .090; and Chapters 18.102 and 18.108. This standard is met. F:IWPDATA197-01196500'03NARRI.KC 4 14. Landscaping Response: See Section 18.100.1.(g) discussion above. 15. Drainage Response: Drainage will be contained on the site and directed to an onsite water quality and detention pond. The pond will be sized to detain the difference between 50-year developed and undeveloped storm events. The water quality portion will be sized to treat the summer storm according to USA standards. 16. Provision for the Handicapped Response: All facilities (parking, access, restrooms, etc.) for the handicapped are designed in accordance with the requirements set forth in ORS Chapter 487. 17. Signs Response: Signage has not yet been designed for this project. As indicated above, all signs will be placed and constructed in accordance with Chapter 18.114. Sign drawings shall be submitted prior to obtaining a building permit to construct a sign. 18. All of the provisions and regulations of the underlying zone shall apply unless modified by other sections or this title. Response: All standards and provisions of the C-P zone are met with this proposed development. M. PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE CRITERIA The pre-application conference notes also identify the following code sections as applicable to this project. a. 18.96 Special Setbacks Response: As cited in the preapplication notes, a setback of 30 FT from the centerline of 68th Parkway is required. This setback has been accommodated in the site plan. Additionally, Building III is set back 33 FT from the right-of-way of 68th Parkway, in order to mitigate the proposed height of the building(66 FT). b. 19.98.020 Special Building Height Provisions Response: The proposed buildings conform to the restrictions of the zone. Therefore, these special provisions will not be needed. c. 18.106.020 Parking and Access Response: Please refer to Section 1(i) and (j) above. d. 18.108.050 Walkway Requirements Response: Sidewalks are proposed on the east and north sides of 68th Parkway. Additional walkways are proposed connecting the individual buildings to each other and associated parking areas. F:IWPDATA97-01\96500\03NARRI.KC 5 e. 18.106.070-090 Loading Area Requirements Response: A loading dock has been provided for the 50,700 SF building. Service entries will be provided at each of the three remaining buildings. Please refer to the site plans. f. 18.102 Clear Vision Area Response: This code restriction has been accommodated within the site plan and landscape plan. g. 18.100, 18.016, and 10.108 Landscaping Response: Please refer to attached landscape plan which addresses all related screening, parking lot,street tree, and percent placement of landscape. This plan substantially exceeds 20% landscape on the site. h. 18.150.025 Tree Removal Response: Please refer to the attached letter and tree condition analysis, prepared by the arborist, and plan which illustrate compliance with the code. i. 18.32 Narrative 1. 18.100 Landscape Response: Please refer to (g) in this section. 2. 18.106 Parking Response: Please refer to section 1(i). 3. 18.108 Access, Egress, Circulation Response: Please refer to section 1(j). 4. 18.116 Mixed Solid Waste and Recyclables Storage in New Multi-unit Residential and Non-Residential Buildings Response: This development will include space for mixed solid waste and recyclables within the trash enclosure. As discussed with Mr. Lenny Ling with Pride Disposal (see attached Record of Telephone Conversation), two garbage/recycling areas are located on the plan. Each will be 20 FT wide by 10 FT deep to accommodate front-end loading. 5. 18.120 Site Development Review Response: Please refer to the above discussion, 1.(a)-(m) and 2-18. 6. 18.150 Tree Removal Response: Please refer to Section 1(i.). 7. 18.164 Street and Utility Improvements Standards Response: Please refer to section 1(m). Also, as noted in the preapplication notes prepared by the engineering section, a revised traffic report has been completed for this project and is included in this submittal. F:\WPDATA\97-01\96500\03NARRI.KC 6 IV. ADDITIONAL CONCERNS AND COMMENTS 1. Resolution of ODOT Right-of-way Ownership. Response: Gerding/Edlen Development Company is currently negotiating the purchase or easement rights to this property. This issue will be resolved prior to receipt of the building permit. 2. Tree Mitigation Plan/Preservation Plan Response: As previously stated,tree removal and mitigation will not change from the original submittal and approved site plan. Please refer to the attached letter and tree-condition report from the arborist. 3. Revised Traffic Report Response: Please refer to attached revised traffic report. 4. Pedestrian Connection Response: A pedestrian connection is provided adjacent to Building IV which connects this site to the existing Farmers Insurance building. 5. Water Quality Calculations/Change in Impervious Surface Response: This site plan does not significantly increase the amount of impervious area. Please refer to the attached revised stormwater calculations. F:IWPDATA197-01196500103NARRI.KC 7 V. SUMMARY The proposed office development meets all applicable standard of the Tigard Development Code for the C-P zone. Site Design Review approval should be granted for this proposal based on this compliance. F:\WPDATA\97-01\96500\03NARRI.KC 8 s>. ' .....-il T ,SWH70---- AV m'm A7' $ \,' K. AV . (''' -07 ' St . - ----- 1‘ , ...."*' ' I \---- _ - AA 0 . _ _.>-______ ______Y- -------------------- sw CHERRY D. SE 777.8 ,.5, • . . IN \\ SW 76TH AV zc cn (i) ---.): --I rn sw 76TH _AV cn . . ...i ... ---------, c:, I-, Hot- „ om xi ,,,r1 SW 74m ( I,) -7—..,,. 7,_ Av .1, -<---Av .-,.-,1 ?:1 , '" N 1 i t 7' ------ --- ‘ ..--4-4 4— y- II gol 53 SW 8 72ND 8 6 : I. ......... r . , -.. /----?1 1 i k 3 i ,s3 A . ... 1 i 13700 v, 13300 4, 201 --t -. 6 rZ " - i g(k) R14 fA0'),, v) 72ND '''.\ § AV -_,,, ..., 8 14500. 14000 1-1"-:.G,79°3 "1 1TSHWAVc8)1), III SW =4 6' 11 ,-, di \I•) 1 __ _..54,,X____________ 1 < , r".;z , Ati.1 .44, ...„ d'Air ntill ' ill'• ' SVIIIIIME111111 67TH 12000 9114 ...., ........ . -. . , WASIII GT() k:- .-,C!- jr-Iv ,Alp„„„,,"1111kikliffi,„,, E05,;, __„0- F-1 ' • 66TH z AV ...___ ‘ I 1.1 . ••.-..-**-2mr:,,,,p7.,7,... •,.,...-.....,...--1::.A .,,,. ..-4.0.„..... .. --tv . i,AA.--*4-sw,"..- ‘1,,,,,,,-....e.vio.-.,.........404.....-4:0,64.,-4.,• ,..i.,6,41.. ,1`..r 4,,,,,,"'..:',''''dk ....-_-_- . (Ni ----77 7 I .......CLA L'Xilp. p. , , (A, Allijiip! i yi 11 (..kL. w ELLT :1 ,,,"'• PEI I il -, SW 63RD (k) El AV I2800. - . - SW cn BANGY I FRO !, ..-pir—\ '-'-'-' .1. I . 1 , 4 1 c) -- gl i ''N, ' m SW 63RDJ2 8 PL .., L., .,.. -..., 3 cc' i., r... ; - 1 . X'8 -- 3 TANAGER DV Co 1.:;•:, • (7,----------- -. ' • rIV''. 1 1 .. ,.:, ,, 6 4, 0. -'-:- 5 : :;: ;:-.E11.,..7,:....qou..w;,. -ic,. 8A,TrE cl:Lils.---Ir:17.7 (./) E it L' ."" .cre%An I. ge2 i 11W-11 i SIERRA. CT --,r, 44„ ---,-..--- .-_. •:._- /-,1 -.- - ri m,-----, .."- , :,.. ..„., ,,, ... . . - ,92,g -fp P,' 4...,•,),OGERroScp -I •-• ‘0111111. . .' '. .,10.4T. 4•91"7-.Q. "Me 9_1FIDAEL f) \ I( r...k, ... ! .. -.10)•A 1 WV - z , • ..'" c., I I 0 tc' '1.; 85 S r■••I SB 4;II AVI,.. ) I 0 1.-P 8a 7-3-A4 .•<<so b's...-., -fi., ., ; • G .SANDALW RD L I, \- I _ •PkOVINCIAL HLL MY CY) 280E4:i. to 7 ■ 11-4> ..- z. I WOODS DR PROVNCIAL IIILL wr < c,1:::• ._,II C'p,',' - -fa. vicY cr q L. , , li --__ .' • r g,:-;/ - .: .,, gr iit ) • 1--i .\-;-,;, ,zt , ' (13 4: . lial I \\\ --1 I " \ g. Cr Amnia.: am ir. 1.1'LI-7 6:1TES r ‘, ni (/I _ . . . .:: • . r fi..:::-* •i %-... ,-.. ,-- •-. ..------- 1, H' 11 , , I _ [ . . \\R-71, ....--•-•• .Im STREAMS/0E IF- -4PRIN-e '-'t I 1 9. • .., 't.• --1..--...-fnake. _.7.[Ti-ft: ..I._ I --f- • (f) -Z— 0 i--- _ n z . 0 . 0 .- 0 410 'LLI- 0 Z IV . . - - - V) X I--I-J le i > 4 r W .1. 1 19 I)11 a• a •... -.%...- • * Vi . . . .1‘,..1.,. 23 OA 1 2# ---'..'J Ho.00. 1 1 ) . I ( vAcATED ) Dill 0- -r. -• - -..-- ------- - ,,, i - '' - -. --: •------ .:--...- - -.- - -- --- ,-,.-_-_,;.;.; --- =:.=.:.^- *-ii...*'" - .f.Mal... OW f I .7. 2 4•,:zz. 1 , '- 0 .t17\ St.U.'7.- ........ 'CV' •• (4.:--/Tri-rri--' ...., -IT T1'''":2.3 --0 v-0,', (Pr..'erL:-Wr-' Tc 1 -.■ ' '...(i (.1.(1ce:W C11)4W:::'n.h.%-.. (01,ri 4) 1 I :::::: ir ■ 0..... Li-.•,- or.w .5\ I,, n WI?('--,4- P••••• .,...••• 6,....... ... . .jr::::71,1).7::..7....b.....r.:..f.....••:..• i ‘...U........ : r..76.77".f.r..iterroil.:1:: 1 ,0 () " /l',...- 0•••• ... ,.1.. 6., I)Oa II•••••• .1..... vo: 4..f& Tr-w.--. „.....y- , I.‘,.," ....II) ., -... I )...w 1 .iwi w ,...,;i7E,-,,,,,mi-kijr, -irj.r.„0 ro.1 ?.. ...„..... , .•• , ;ft • • .,........ ,........ , :„...J. ". - .g) . . . ..i Ow.• C.). i 1 r, .lir:.: 07,....:/N. I 1.41.4..„...•••„.■.•.... .4... . ..... k 1*•,\ , ll w••• • k m4 e w . (W,..'w •www 1r,41:"."‘ a i -wi" .t... co-w / ,,-w.,,... 11••••• ...Wm. 1,.. .. (,-- ()•••••aio ilp.ale ..., ll••••,....... 1 r....,-, ,wirj. ,.....,, . I,...., .• . • no.... w.ft")■•••••.'.(4;,, W ...r• 1,Str0...••• 1 1 1 i 41)411•.r i .S6. ':-.? , • ' I I..... ) ".1'.■.I■.• `1 n „.WittrY ....11kAL ,...••... Tr./. (F., .v., ..,_ 1, —t, to...4G... 0....„... , • i (. N.A....”.......crri .... 0..... RIAtc ff...41473 SQ. FT. ....1.0671 ..! ,.,ws„i:•-•.. w w•Tp- w .... v 0-w !.. “"5'(qr.w 0""0....."., .r 15- at (.1.• I ef',., 1.••• 0,..."It it) c' /7--Li•i la".ri..n?.. Crale* '''1- , •‘: - ) i 1 ° (r)p, 1 ... ... .. .- 10_ r )...•• ....'". •• .4(11 1 tfieri;.:::),Ilpfv.......• . 1 0■• 19.,,,o, "...?..41. 4•WIFI r r -7027.--.....::■-- ,r °......Iffif.. . .. 0..., 61::V. i‘*11, p.... re* V* 0 -,-- :14.2.1'-. 41 ... , _ , 4WD ...."' rj"Ile we r s rr f A f I rj,..„,w)..•CWIP ow.6, .7.1, CI." th tP" CLIP'ANN■ 6...gri)irr 0...err tr °""l'Oc.• .... , 1 c • r-'15.7...... . 1• I 0.w L).•• 0••"-in.... • ./- 0....w er ( )1 1 '' 1.- 0".51:(3, C77/jew.e-er w.,..,,,,...,.z.- ("Z.)••• .4 I w ' (.7•••W j....ef/-'r?!wg.•••,..... ..• , ____ , I) w•• 0 0••••• r■'17; -N,r1).// , .•... ;:i.e...et::.5 r";.:,.,( I r ( -.w...if.,...‘ •w ' 0 0..w 0 4.71) , . 0.... \ o-w 0....., ;,r.r: • i t .(7) r (:)..'''. '\,.,. • 7.•(L.'s...." r.,....Km% .....v....... I •.• 0 01 • 0 I ••• t.874;;;. 0....•Clec571:7„.4.4"W *014.4%er 4r.r.:.... S • ;21.\70 N.•, crrII32• ±-.. 0 J -0 ■ - • .0.) 0-- ---__. -(tri. • ......_ .. - -..----9- 4:"":"" .1..., LI .i.N. . ---- ( yig•'Mt -.? --...-P.-.1 • 0 ■_,_. 0 -t-L' la I \\, 0••• • .. .... .....0(r ( /0 .s.)•••7i.j....'ir •• I • ) 1;9'11:. ' .:".T. I i 0 4:77L., (,...... 4,. 0•••••/ 'w w _._—„.. , ,t. -, ,_.."35` s.i... uw, , -.. ._ 171'._..., !.1 ...4•'• '.• (. •••Lri•414g4.... 1 ,\•k A \‘‘. ({ • ti w ) I ls■ „ 0 1,C.,...... •. - '4 r e- -a \ /... , • w _....,,,,‘ ', dill' i'' I .1 I• Yr. ..'= •••• -.:.w. [-- .0_, _„,....,‘ - . -\ s.• • :Q. 7::"I' ' .a, • 't2 -'' ::::::4. :::::: - 0--,.,1,..."--r ....: ......... •r,...7.r--- „---0-- e-, - u.,..• _tr.:, I .... ....rpr., ......0 t......, (.).... „- - . 1 j• " a...el° :-1/4r611.% 111011111 1 I r.fl■•••17.:cf-1:1' --- 0...r •7-, .r). Ai., 1 Ø4Q L.,.. i":$- w I w. 1 - .6-.. 41-w •I ''..- ... ,..4.. ...--- .--- - , - ,._ 1114 .w. 0w.w 4„„.....„:„ :.......:.z ____. _ ___......„ *... riep.: . _ ,,, /0)- •, ...it „AIR ;,ittitil.,,, Ow...■-r---------••-":"‘-::7".---71", .........._ s..-....,••• 7 „......}.„.....,rAnivAr :,. 1 ,:r ti df 1 1 rier:3314°46214:-.4.;" -..." A \-c,,\;1if4..„FIA':•): , rJ -..---- -7:-:.,----,:: _t.. ..._ 0 01 A r.„.. , \).,„,,,.., 5 ,,--,,.......- .‘\., I t.,-- -..,.... ' ..1,?"\\ ,._:\..,,...6 „..... \-.,„-,-,r--.•• i.- ' \filk%kt's "Ii:;;t7'1 I:: A' , .ria: ' - ---- ---1:1.41jit.r.--:- ......;:-...c-if. -::"..--;AN.,..,:ir.i. ...r'el,.;.1-1..•wi---TR17-1,..A_s..7; :i'-'.., ,.... - - --, 1 ....- . ;1 1m torAIN .. ■ _PiltS-11.00K lyyrIAGE 4 93 --*-1::..cr-i" . / . '''' 0....... . 1011,4 I IN... : .....e j 01 '' KIR 1300K ■ (,.. 493 I ki t.g. .........a.,www....... 1 1 1 ' ii!1-; s\ -',. .'. I 111111‘Siihp, r o ) . \a __ •••••*JIM ...g._ _,,„„_•-• : _-- ••"" iraglilblig 1.. 1 .N. --41- ._ •" '' ''' ---:.--."--- -.. -7":--7-1:._ F-..?". - ' ' 50..._.1.1 0??11-Y 1.AS ri ■ .-. -- --"— - 1 . . -- ---mmuyiwif 4p,r....7.... ivi Srs: . .w x......, ,..t r 1 i • ......, ,f . k ..41' ,'..81 r.a• omma..* g '' I i 1 1 ii --- .° 1■ 9 •.% fr.Olyithi , ,p)11111 ... .. It 11 I i•..-1 ...."'--jg - ..A .. il --Ic% • g..... xi 1 3 i 1. 1 .we••• . ...• I , *\". \ 04IC lk, . •...s. Tr. . ' S A . I 1 • ...11 I . -. ,, . \ .......... WETLANDS A (A ., 8 2/....,w...S 0. FT. •. 141/4 , • ,. V . • ,;,., 1 0 11 a k -•- . .f ........ it il ! .\..• rea. 'r r•• i.•'r _,.. _ --\\ ,. / . ,( ,,,..c...,, ..2.4....7.. ,...1- \ - )1)11,))) \ ......_ , .. 0_...1• I „ . ' I\ • . No . \ . 1,t1,7,•-e ■•/''. / . ilf w , .• c• ( *...' .a ---. --_ . 0.,...- --_„...... 7 -_- i -1.. . /* ../........"err” • k ‘1, .....,... ..5. ..., • ‘ : 3(..1...":1_ . ........ /:...... _ •N,, V *in \X„,,,,.4. ,..•..,:-..,_44,0—....• . g........„••....---:WET.1::ANDt VIZEA:: .,. ... ... ----... 1%/L&E 7, • Zel,'''''0.,-.,,,ra.:11):,. - w 2- - -.-- --. . ,. "•••••' . ..t.)........ . ' _... \ r.:.v:--- ___ - I. I 1 ... - - ,- rt 11 .8\ea \Q '?-1) ''' U ler ....‹, --7.-.."--.....-.-:iiiai.q.: ..• us . _ _ 4r:1 .•r,I, g IA:Le• N---.......""......1" If.'" h - . 1 1 .. , .„. . .41..‘,...„.. ......).„, -..\, ,... . ......,./..0 ) 'l .\'' - ":"-.'.-•••••\ ... MP • ' Ira.... . %Q....•_ . *--.... o:rtrf.„ . .. •_ 1 WM It IN v "I - • , 1 \I \\‘\\ 4\\ ‘.\ , - - . --", • r+,-.11z..- ,-K.---..--..r.•.. . r orr.0',..44,...., __ WI- I ' .:. -..."."..."'?■• *i f ( i, ,--A \ ,X \\\ s.,‘ - is• \-- • -, . _ ,i A...• ... .. .... - r t•-- ,, .....%; •j2,„ .11.....r.r . .„ . , -) .. I I -9'-t.".7.--f."•''''T..1.4 w'-' I _..---- .i 1...4. . -III -4 I / /t\\ I I • I • . ._ _ • -. . . . r . ..._ • I • - .. • . . I J 2 r +r h _ r r • • • , r �o :n.,c,xr oa rim 01.13t1.-.11/11 • f • \ 3 li • rf. I > II i ii 7 / ....-- • Jii,\Y ( :::_#,**1P!r %r. ++ _ _ •.^ y•M1• _ NORTH SITE AREA o 12.•9 AC. •. 1 \ 3'.`..._ SOUTH Of 68TH i ee AC f 11 I�,- ) ( IIh it e 1 ! r..�.•• ..••�.•.r'e - MOW PARKINCRRCO'OBL00 1.6.500 r f w % �.�. .:-.� t r• r`�:. PARKING PROVIDED / V B DISABLED - 1 •..�� •,'_.,T 120 UNDERGROUND A«*+mare J > . 87 COMPACT r , ! 270 TOTAL 9.04M vw r—_,:-//‘'''.--. /../ I Ago TOTAL • t°+. a.n. minAl f / „...... ..,-/ ;/ ' '', '<:;P 4 +ualtaR�t 11 e .s,r. .:'�.. :. r_s. PA Son GO P borm .. ^¢.- ..`Y... \.. ! I▪RAN S ae IMP }1 _ ,f •�• ( • ..` w. .; :' `�: ~ ` YID`: _ �, TRIANGLE �A' 1 �p 1i rC_u"e PAR(9OLITH� W. `` ...._ elasNOer HOTEL `� it Il t`•--- .......+= .. .°: _--•' • If `j BULGING M tt 7 Dues Lim I I . . ' °r—•-• -_....... .~ 1 I� raw u•aw•R I t l , ..i...:. q� wa,ear /\l If(ONT t7F'f10E y% l ;>:5 .�.' :.Al:''‘.• i .'f. ;.,,.iq c •• Veit- I, ,� �.�.0 �� BL���. ...w•.wn...w......... -•✓H.-:. , N.�oOZn •'wr.�..w.w I O rte. I A ,,, r 1 E3 MK.SairMie• • uam ; ' i :r.f.... • ■■mil En El_ is ■■\....""..4141 MI le wall BIM EI _.�.. .._.._... .. . .. _ . .. . .. _ _ _ .. _ . ..'. .. .. _ .. .. .. .... .. .. ... . .. .. ._ .. _ .- _ ... .... .. .. .. .. .. _ . _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .. _�N._.... .. _...` .. SITE PUN ----..,7 W_.....__. _... ..._....... _ ..._._ ..._. ___ __ _._....__ __ _. OPTION A 11fi9iCA1!°°-Sl BIIBlOTA1t$(1 4) a; purl.. ..101,4•6 ••OCCMI R DC/ WEI I 1 101111 $aaJ ID ON•Smart'I v+�•;ai TuK'uc°wnc e.�'rtniR�M. - �ET REVIEW JANUARY 3. 7 • ___ ....• - - - - -I ____ ____ - - ..._ -•_ - - _ ; 161 (/i i i \j„. , -.....„- ..5. 4;.\ .,-..\\‘...„,7•;-\> 4 - 11 . fil A \ 1 --, • _---, .... \ .1,1,17:----4111.1.11.1 ---"."411111.11111111100.-i.---- s...th. \ b.j.. ., ..,..,;\-...17.:::s: ..\\.N. 11 4 \ 's (: 1 li 1 iiii _ -/---/------------------z-__ __. ________ z, -, .,,----7.', ----- ..---z-, \ q I's 1 . ; //„; ---.7.:•-- ......-•,, .•-,.. --... .. •• .L. \AI ! ••. ', \•.. ,...••• 1 • i(/` ------z------"--7-"------:::7.::::S•t,.:-.:•-„-'›z:S'•:-:-.."----•:: -----.', 1 aj,• `Nt.:,s• \ .•• ,. ik ‘ i Vij i 1 M11 . ( . ll'------r-----__ -----z..-----:•z:=--:-.---:'-•.:-:.----2--:■',.._'-.----'-- -n• a .I: • l.,- 1/," • i 1:--i 1 9 !.;q7 7s r--- .....'::::- :.:.- -s '"--z..:.\.- ,. :..:-.. ,.- `, s.... 7--,,,,,,,\...... i.-1 11 1, fl'. . if i 'ii:' " Pr i• ........._....„:"-;.'- is /.--•=rz....:"---,-.:.:•., '''zzz-.'---,7-z'4T.-:-.1. :'.:::•••'..:?:::.... .•:>::::::...-.:.....:.-...... ,... .. ., . =Nom .\,.... if \ v...---.!T. i i ii i : , , ,,I„, .. . I i ,*•■■••■• t \\.......... -....,_,.. ...-.....-____ ., , ..r ..• ,\NZN.,1,..,,,,,'",.,:-..›....'..:',.\,:s.. \•:... '.. % . •^7.2.:1 % / i! ! : I 11.....11•.■......■:,...... \‘,.... -----"-_ -.:,-,`" k;s,\-....Z...Z..:-....."-.....:`,,:-.;.\\,0. ".w. z: ^ .4---... .....L.'"":*- ". >"*.' -...'•:\ \ •\ \), , • •:, , .441P ki - ; • • • . ! „•••.,. if , 2 "--...=,:-.----------__ ..--75.-:"7:-..:=.7.5---.......5. . *---•:-■sc›,..‘"--..'`,.','%.\\.'n.\+ i, % N../ 7- / . ; v• :s, 44s. '., ...----- ,..--- •• ^---...----Z-:-- ---A.*t."s ` '' ''",.\\\ \ . " \ • '''..--.•.. • A9 1 1... , i ;........_ . . .0,-^"' 4 i - .. 4 -. ---..___-•----z..--.--- .-cs-"'v-s,'•• •,,\\\., • , , . --i ...t.:•• !I i ..- 1 P . . . . .. ..':$.. \ \ ‘.., '''••..s..*•., ‘ \ 2.1 ' r ,./ /! 4i_r' , ,..;:s•. , :••,...:•....„. \ \ ; % 1 if i ce Jef i i I • --,-N. c // 7 i i i ' . a. , i i 1 -".. i i i ?) . • \ ' •-.) . f p,, ...,.. ____:-••,„ '-•-•-, ,. ,i; . k k , „.. . , - \ . k.V, / \: In ."i i Op . .% . / ;.. to •-,C -."Illib -~-.. ')/111'11 ,1--)". \-\:-..1 .-ilk5\....• \ \1,k%,,. V : ; ! • 4 % 1 .._ ......,- ..._,A ••., \X\, ,„ .;\ ,..„ .5_ / • : , 1 i 4i."-- , . •, 5 • • , „2„, „/„ ..././..„......„......„....„„.., „, • • .,,. I 4 • , // ,:1 , • / .. .„,,, .,-,......_.-- - .....•) . • . --.\•., s i •:. IX.• . . VI I : cis ,../7-1''i P r MISMOIPIPPI ," -•••_ ., . ; \ \\A( : t ..s.)/ ! ... ", i I ' - 1 - - ,...i......m.■ ii mill --- " ,. ,„, i wismi... '.4•;-\''...-y\(.. 'P / if v / ii I Ill; ii/ / j--- I 1.10 I- 2111111 k .-- .1"""IP \ *-..:. t'.-3:::- .,- .4,?•-`.-• ','*: qco 's A IA • ih..\\ \ .`\\\"1...).1% -°\\`A'`.Y. ? \ \ i i .,--'".../ ili . , 1 mg 1111 - II • 44. / ow' :, :/ i :444 / ti ,/ II ,.e Vtt )4:It. „- \ ..4:, \,\.‘ “\"\-k s• :.„. '1 \o 31 r.',„);. : f / / if si, 44 ,.../ ..-„Kik /IIMII I IIIIMILION 21111.1111111111(r I' •afil.ill,... \ % .‘■\.::%.\\..\.:.....;:. 1.3 1 11://.2-7/.;11'.L..... . .ej .1 I 1 ' - - \-..*--.4:4;----.N... ...,-,"A \\":‘ . Vis•\ ' 1 ( i' i • 11. , , AALS‘IP *' . ,::. • ...., ...\\\ ,\ ectiAl \kk\- • i iir i„,,,.. ;;;;7 • ..,-\ • ‘ \\ , . ,\ -,,\N..,,, X 1 1/(2, pr rnvai .i y/ ----"' , -4 l_..,.._ ..._ 0 l' e. y 00 ,AtA• v e1/4a.v\.',-.,\, ,--.\\.-\...:\?,,:\.4--.4m 4-311c..1:k.;t•'1,.i'k1l,\'....','..,„',.--,\..;‘r.,..,.„,.,\4\.-.-:7 \„\..\....\...,s,.-',,?\.. S*. • I . v / / s: --.1 •, 0 ...„..---4= w R ...r-- i m. E.........\,, i......,i.1 ...,..z.t..,” • . , •.... / 4.4. ,,...--- k • _...A., ' , _- -.. ':-‘- \,...,,._\--=,==.-\---\\,- -N...,. I,' . , , ....• t ■ ,,,,......,-,,..--: -. -. • * .., - .• • \ ---.I.; i\-Akk I. i ,wz:i ft '11. I._rl R 1 .0 ..--A. ...---‘, 4111641111---- 4-----4-‘ - i 1 f,y 44 -e.-..........-4.-4-.. ." C.: il i .. _, . ,._ ..,.. ._ -4-4.4.4.. , A. --4.--........ : ....,.:T........4_...... .....................;,........ . A•.:..r..............:eta+. 't ..-...' a,..1 4474 i ...it%eV C ',„ . 4.,,,, , At„ MI ."..:i ,,... :....3r- .4 4 r"......""... . .4,4444.4.... -44.4......0.4 , 77. ........,...... ... . ',:::,::,lingiarga ' apAh. ,r ,-.....i..,vi;.. ,,e1,;\, :;„....% s . .....,.. A: .....,..• -;..1. --,e." / \ i t , . ! aw.nth PAROVAY ''', --Zi.:------... • -.7,-".. Awn. , ... .. . 's. ... . ,.\•1.= 5 ....... , .., - --„....., .,..) .,...). 0 t.,...., „.:, ••••• : . • ,......", ...___. •• , 44,.... ,, ...., : ..ti A\ , . ,.,..,----- , - ifi ...... , .-.. . .,-,-..- ----=---=-' -.. . it .1111720r$14y-N444441111W" ::. 0 -.c..'ti : e..0;-• • -"-- 6) • 0 ..... ,,,,.>,. on 0 •:,,,VW, ' ' T ,1 ••••-,,Ixt-L4.` •11 0 0 .A* -... ::---"---. i •••.> • * • • • : i I •I i 177",,...g.' .''.. ■,,.....z.:.:',.',,.. " io ••••.., \.. -*•-..P'..... ''....% il i f.) 1.I i....-"""-•-• ji) E._. 1 .......-,'\/*/ : _ q..'.-------'''-'''''''....--'-f.!w ti):•fr. N. 4---ItA-'', ;lir_4, I r- . ___.. .. .,:::,:: rz.-7-1+1.,.. ,1•1 1--11 1 ' i . _:::.--:4Z. 1 i , i ....e•e. ... ,,,,,z • -ii 1c...-.. --4-..........--i-- 0 : I -.4..'4.-r i 19+/-1-7-4....4.; t : ,.:--- A:0-.- \,.. 1 -.......... .... ... \ i: i I ' i • • M $ C.. I . s.,,,, g k ! , g.1 I g. ! 0 C 0 I' sa, - .1 0 -0-.23 t ........... %hie L., =q=> . ...........ccr':.- 1 iii r obi I g 2 oi I liNiii filii IPM/I 2197" A C - 6 1 litirs- .4":1 . • 1 illi :. ii■ii v: I K E N Z I E ' .._lz 2-.61- VI i Am•••■•■•• 11 I P ; Y.--:<'2 IIIMA0 .1 ) H1 i - I a I 0 1411 '1 , A il 1 •••••••I••••••••• li.i i Tol•MI•4•011•Plowlos L•od Ur 14••••• le20 gli 1 i Moffat Dolly 13 ',1 • 3'5 I NI) ! I >73 lie .. ,, .. OM•••■••1.14/106•1••• Mon.°.•00400/0 . Fio.> . 1 Ill i L 1111 M 4 i2 I 1 Z 01 • YI 80.4.••100 kw•06.1••••11 • 0• • 8•0040•60 a IMO••100,.ems.-..o f ■: I l fyiy4 -I . a g CO I itG' tt 1.0....v �••...•�w 7 R r . Z . 1 `b jl�1 E �s�� dd Z �1�9�i `:•1�■■■■■■■■■■■ ° ° t I Rjt !1-1.11- 3 I Z N 3717t/]p(.f_ $ ! 1" h.11; ` 4 is �;>i ■■■■■■■■■■■ �W5~ r 1 1 - � lly .sly . .rtOregl� t ^ C. a o� a I 1 �tza° s �.� No ; lia !oe P IP i U?S Q $i Bill@@• !' 3� .11 fI o�vv .1 EREQQ ( VACATED ) t -._-_, I , " ;�..•• .r •:▪ Lit -• ,T..• r.....j ri.•- 0-. "r, 0"' '6.'0•••"; ".tea t` i.1_.,�.+.. �%'7" -:�- —sot — r I ... r:-.•�%— y.r '(>,� [.t—r `' e,o :o—"�... -� W.%T fsr v;"•"''Yi',"�'•tir•-• • • 1 . • a " ..$_Q. " fir- •u--C—• • n-r. •• • �y '�•' i',i.....".• it U—• •,��,',.yv r h'c " tl""N`.w--"'0 N,�^.. --Yj. Ci • T_ 7• fir•.+_C}—`r — 7 (?—f, •C�wro •.•L• er:Z: ., ;fry 'a7 -I s--cr• rr' . PLC:+ i .�" �j—r r.. �� t+...• " r'1�F.7....Q....--.—Q,,.._—'I �.. eur,— Y+f•]f I o.." /04.1';t:∎ (JP.. 1 •�'--�ry � c,,,''r-.. -- I•+1 '1 -ibr..• 0— '�—'=• .r. It.. ,‘...*R342. ` � d" {j Sr Ow w• ;S -Ct : ,"m_. -',z ii c 'ff ?: 'I -:t3''s� -;. • -r P. 1 -'r5�;r, ta..- -. r.�.t> •-•<y: `r'"=',i rte• E��.-"-�, e'�t+• • �� .'-" r ryV-• �'_, °Elie-:- t �fe..-1n:"0 0- �' Cs-al?' .a-" .f e �" = a �ry. • r.. s H , . + j T i' :47 � `' - ° 6r •� `.-� {T?_ ' e � *; : . - � * 1 0..r El o . — - I t+�\ 1r":sr �..2. f f ...- ` > ' l( i) �. t y '!'' "; ' \ ° ca "G, e °- f - ; �0131S � ._ \ �_M . , &"•.s•- fii t • "' -- e." - .•t—•Y ems.`, -�. .. ..•-.�'.e. • . _ �,�f: -�'� pi ar di■.. r. see- •-- mil Y~ As..- el - r ^- 1 t i • -,,i.-.i--• 1 • t,�. ;% 111 / ' i i mom * * ,, %.,...,-L.,,...... w- % I / • I ttf...... *f^";t:...,. 0 :i / ...., i . V- (f - • e 0 . 1 J M ... r_____,_ ,= .1_rm., ',..w ,...■■■■•• f.-rw.• Pt rE '.. ▪.,, ::„. ."..p I..?.....4.•,,,i. N....,...',T= \ a, w, r.)-- Lt.—. i': 1 � : `.� 'yx .� - 1 • " l is t3 i 5g • r.e... { ii yr i 0 . - „ •.,.-" ! j [[sir I =D i i ; • • -- — — T1: — — — Y. — — -- ..• • ', 1 :rF•\I rte¢ ;, \v \ '. ■._e/IT L I.ECe•.e fie+ I /.•-•' `'C.f?`\.\ it � F n.,,.,. �� ( �...._ . ___o • = _ • • • • • �._.�• -/ X11' • -� _.-..•ro C,••WT• • '. 0.' —•...r.....� u•..• �',�I /., CILN• / .4• 'I ---------j..w. ,w z+<rte. K CC\ ..,..:.� - Il, -_--_-::1 ..'•....0..u•.•. r.rr«•.r e..,_.. !AL(n1y27.-y)• • ill ii • T Ihliil��.. nn• • Y �, J•'•••T,A /! \ .. .i�.l Q.nn...pr.�^9 ti«.r ..r.�n•r�...v-u -1 i w. _ II il • •�1 ', , _.. : ...... ...mow.«,..r,.a �'a MI Ui,r.r..s.e(0)(( .. „....,;...,..,...1:_. ....�� .•\ �—!> �,�/�../ "CO� �� 111 • • 0 u•COINOW••••••.A/•.FAUN . , ."'N ',...._.... ..., fr'.. -_b.- ..F.,,,. ei 7 I. f '!„) A. Ilk; N ..„. .... JO,.'.:041- It ....-.,....""1* f li Cel .6...„ ,'— k,. ,. ,... ,--.'/: .', ■ ; ,, - ,. . . -. .4,...„, friliP s. , • • �,.P:,: ./, •11:•. . - ' . -.,, I / �• .«_..._r.� w I 1:11 � • �. ';• r `�•'. .�. !:{,�i,�S` /.%.k•fit (ti-s I `1 - .C•'1 .VI 1 // '.,ry�.,.••M.•...'r r.•.•••' l..,•.•AMA...• • r- ,J't-]' .. ,C... / . \ .oV i 'p II ..„----.17::..... ....._r..n —. d ;U•110 A.m.I� " l .>I 3 mo • Pi,i j " a � dot i ' ad.Vi(IS � �. ILa..l SuMemz 1S 00.Gas/ • II•`/.f, It ,'{y , , f111,11111) ,A / to AV, �� 111�/ •....now r'w•u P,.M.e(.67)?S1-,an •�, �).'1 x\'14 :0 v." i.1 • �..y o•r.:�.n e«w� .� 4*' 1e r 6411 \ 11111111111 ,...,.. ocillill ..�t •'f ^ 11111 i t` • • r•r..y..�.ne«c..' ..+..�..r.•.w ewe :'`7`\ ,. _ �� r;` I ---:—q_.�., TRIANGLE ‘......c.,/ y2.�: ) �. Il• 1�� � _— . 1 CO ORATE ,..4,..,,.., ,-L..... fit 1 r' � .•• ..• 1.,- 'I 1 ;, '�\'`\ ►.. `\ � �•�.� ow..•o-.....nen[Awl AND 1� • u„ ;'\� -t; �:.,r :q',.ah;i�nin'NI II I�, ���� \ PHASE■ -.C`l + .� �O iFUI'\I'� : -- A,oae,... .... �' `Y.s ~\ it;r As,pl `��\� \\ •�� N� ���:.�dllllllllllilu 11P(. ... — .q•"` ..,•..• 1 3,p....., - �IQIII1101I�'°'�` ` .ryl � ‘j—� ( I - • — _ °�::..;.. .«�.., ,.:„�.C_., !� i 1 /�: '; rll `\\1\� a_": -_ ;�y III:�,:•, .� • v._' ,..«....n...u., 1 (/ .I ,!Yr` ..:•li 'D _ II� III' — - ,,,., ' I' (� S ,�i�`��` .\\•Q •\\!I �u o+w.oro e..n 'Ski,war._•oaw,r.•arws OM Gut s, % filly _ "` 1 r' - _ ��i c III, �' — _— _- __. a`�'•a■MUM Ws% euILO O of I ) �►I QTj * 1 .w•no•�ro.. I • ��r . ,i-~ ••_.�'` HO =_ �_ Z CI C L __) l ) ra..•«...-w.v«s...• I «�. . ?. �i, \ ! 1' ......ry rte...•«.•n un w v•s'� • `$. \ _ ��� PHASE I AND S •• •,«c.o.M• MN•••I•rwT FM•/ANP�11 \���\ �� \// Viii a.:....«...,,:•.•:: •,u«C.+, PROVED PHASE: ' AI III t ,�._ ,�,.�„ OFFICE N0 U I ..X11► 4� ►� — I I 1 I l I I I I 1 _ �: - •'` LANDSCAPE ii •!11 II DOCUMtNT6 1131._ ;� a•. Q� ' OFFICE �11,•� CO.,u+, lilt— I \\ \ III I I I�- w PLJL Ipl 11111-61 _ � 1,4- `m I,,,,11p i 1I U I :■■sr. • .: OPTION A III :1 Cal �� �� I I''4 1.......=... ..•w• r 111�I I rlr p `'I� — 4� —� ' IIPI`II :ra:. : 1.1'."..."1-, I�ulliloVlu�illlii�, � a _ �:( f BUILDING II _ •..:.~ ',��w ��\y��I "'lI II t ��Ipa ; .... • —."II' yr OFFICE I_ J Vim..+w.w. �µ� • .. , ; 111III �I,., 110.i ^.r•«w ' *CV n11L• =�I i11114111000"•w•.•,,m e. mll I I 1111111 (UNDER CONSTRUCTION) e...••w...<••w �" nnl,llmglllU,anlldllfu11�1 G;'wl. .--,_-•.°'.rr �r �� .._sr to r i Illi,lllll gar .7.44,,..(...-&'-‘\447=-0p- '=,.,k,I.:7:1;ii , Ajlb1. ' I __________ .n..naU.T S • oAr[ I-rn • PMAS I v•••v.C••IT••CTa. •I TINS••.CAL•O•. MAIN.•;m MAIN•S.•••.■AS W, M TIM.•MI CAL WOO OQJ®.'.V A•••nq•A._,••A•_Clan. T _-_I M•A• I MO IMMO P UMAS{O,•Y CAL S••TTfI•o CAL 1.00.1•1110.00111•AM. 4 PA/IONS IQT.N CAL •11. L •TIT.•CAL T•TY Pa/MAN■S. •Ai 1•I-CPI CAL MC.•• ,VM no Non••••r.I p.m•ma/MAN•-W CAL woa 'a"4 79600 Craig Hopkins 7430 S.W. Varns Street Tigard, OR 97223 Mark F. Mahon 11310 S.W. 91st Court Tigard, OR 97223 Joel Stevens 9660 S.W. Ventura Court Tigard, OR 97223 Pat Wyden 8122 S.W. Spruce Street Tigard, OR 97223 Pacific Realty Associates, L.P. 15115 S.W. Sequoia Parkway, Suite 200-WM Portland, OR 97224 Oregon Department of Transportation 417 Transportation Building Salem, OR 97310 AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING NO'i ICE WITHIN SEVEN(7) CALENDAR DAYS OF THE SIGN POSTLNG,RETURN THIS AFFIDAVIT TO: -: . City of Tigard PlanaingDivision.`. : . 13125 SW Hall Boczlevard ' ' • • .. . Tigard.OR 97223 1, Beth Zauner , do affirm that I am (represent) the party initiating interest in a proposed office/hotel _development affecting the land located at (state the approximate location(s) if no address(s) and/or tax lot(s) currently registered) 68th Parkway, Tax Map 251 1DA, T=,x Lot 100-400 , and did on the 19th day of December 19 96 personally post notice indicating that the site may be proposed for a major modification to an approved site plan application, and the time, date and place of a neighborhood meeting to discuss the proposal. The sign was posted at the corner of 68th Parkway and S.W. 66th Avenue (state location you posted notice on property) Ign- re (In the presence of a Notary Public) (THIS SECTION FOR A STATE OF OREGON, NOTARY PUBLIC TO COMPLETE/NOTARIZD Subscribed and sworn/affirmed before me on the/f day of , OFFICIAL SEAL r- tI.ALDENE E.MOY NOTARY PUBLIC-OREGON "s COMMISSION NO.037876 MY COMMISSION a PI- PTEMBER 1 1998 OTARY PUBLIC OF OREGON My Commission Expires S e9s (Applicant, please complete information below for proper placement with proposed project) ;_-MME OF PROJECT OR PROPOSED NAME: - I NYE OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT: Name of Applicaat/Owner: I Address or C-e eral Location of Subject Property: I Subjec:Pones y Tax Map(s)and Lot.1(s): n:Jags,acy maserrepcsu7x AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING STATE OF OREGON ) ) ss. City of Tigard ) I Beth Zauner , being duly sworn, depose and say that on December 19 , 1996 I caused to have mailed to each of the persons on the attached list, a notice of a meeting to discuss a proposed development at (or near) for the property to the north of the existing Farmers Insurance including on both sides of 68th Parkway a copy of which notice so mailed is attached hereto and made a part of hereof. I further state that said notices were enclosed in envelopes plainly addressed to said persons and were deposited on the date indicated above in the United States Pest Offi ce located at Johns Landing with postage prepaid thereon. / / gnature (in the presence of a Notary Public) • (THIS SECTION FOR A STATE OF OREGON, NOTARY PUBLIC TO COMPLEi E NOTARIZE Subscribed and swcmlafrmed before me on the/p day of j <-(-s-c- -;197 i''2l. OFFICIAL SEAL 4 GERALDENE E.MOY NOTARY PUBLIC-OREGON '" COMMISSION NO.037876 2'2 i . .Z111 , MY COMMISSION EXPIRES SEPTEMBER 15.1998, 41�OTARY PUBLIC OF OREGON My Commission Expires: / t�C (Applicant. please coapiete in=cr=atron below for proper place ent with proposed projec.) ME OF PROJECT OR PROPOSED N.A.ME: TYPE OF PROPOSED DEVELOPNMNT: Name of Applicaa:.'Owaer. {Add-ess or C-eaeral Lcca oa of Sucjec:P_nper- Subject Prope_:r Tar:tilap(s)aad Lot#(s): Function Defin's Form PARK.isIG LIGHTING iI � , 1 I I I . . — 1 1 7--wrik_ I r- 1 i• i ,mmimi ii.• 4y„..,, s'LlOI ra UMW .Ai . . .,.. .......,. ___..... _ _ ..-........111:4, ez7:. . .E. ,.;:.A0.1.1----rara..1---,--Ammini:.,,, .....). I I .�lQI� ,��. �r�msm�41 I 1 .u--�`to. I ' Dom►-!��I -`� _ Mt '� I i EM�M �PMES ,lam �``� offo .I / ���fro A . """ .-- , it . . --- ''',-.. ... \ • \\,, _ .....e.: ‘, , s . A \ I / // ' 1 / 4111111111111 •-,....s_ .......r* N ■vs.:\ . \ .! li / ./r/' //1// ; .. - ----.... —e- ,.. 1 \\,‘ 4111 ■Orl./1/ 1 ----....,.. ... -- \'''.. % nrit ir,/ Sharp Cutoff. I$O�® � Super Efficiency. The WTC-2 is designed specifically for lower ,IrrAs\------ �� , Maximum pole spacings are achieved only when a mounting heights where a relationship with people, `!!L""i.. cutoff luminaire is extremely efficient in capturing architecture and landscape is established.At these lamp output.and redirecting that output at useful lower mounting heights.disability glare from the angles.Every geometric relationship in the WTC-2 fixture is a real possibility.Kim.however,engineers a td�_ V11 P Y 9 ` ... 's optical system is designed to maximize luminaire high degree of glare control or"cutoff"into the L - - • `-t efficiency and pole spacing.Highly polished WTC-2 by mounting the lamps horizontally(parallel to I I l I I • I I I hydroformed reflectors direct light where it is needed the ground surface). In this position,the lamp arc is for optimum spacings.Both square and asymmetric well shielded while light below the cutoff angle is III III light patterns are available for total project flexibility. accurately controlled by Kim's precision hydroformed I 1 I I / Further boosting efficiency is reflector. . I I the precisely angled luminaire ' plastic enclosure,permitting 111 �_� III 1 unsurpassed transmission of . � high angle light.Because the enclosures are also injection- molded,there is superb clarity ' with a minimum of optical I I distortion.The WTC 2 :� 1Ww07•"101\..11 averages 76.45 913 efficiency `� , I with some lamp modes 01.1**` 11 1 1 I ' exceeding 80°0. { { { ill ill ill I I I III . Kim Lighting 1 /RBI. SS;r g e Function Lumina'e-Alun ,,n Shaft PLAZA / V` .L K W A Y LIGHTING V R B 1 C Single Function Lur- -Concrete Shaft ....______T- RB C Unlighted Concrete Bc aro 3 . . Specifications:VRB1 C) • - Certification shall be Underwriters Laboratories listed(for 120, 208,240 and 277 Volt only)and Canadian Standards Association certified(for 120, 208, 277 and 347 Volt only)for wet locations. Top Cap shall be a one piece aluminum casting 3/16'minimum thickness,secured to louvers by concealed alien screws in keyhole - slots. For relamping access, alien screws shall not require complete removal. •. Louvers shall be a one piece aluminum casting with vertical sup- - port ribs at 90°intervals. Horizontal louver blades shall have a 13/4" depth,a 65°upward pitch and provide light source cutoff above ��.�.!� �6y • '•� horizontal.Louver casting shall be secured to shaft by four internal �. , ' �;_ tie rods.• •ti' • '-a Lamp Enclosure shall be one piece tempered molded glass with �,r , =�J < internal flutes and full gasketing at bottom edge. Socket shall be porcelain medium base rated 4KV. Fixture Head shall allow flow-through ventilation around and above f .S .:y, y the lamp enclosure. - _� y;,r_:•.: . :-',,. Shaft shall be one piece extruded aluminum, .125'wall thickness with a heavy cast aluminum twist-lock anchor base concealed yc s-.. ..... —� _ within the shaft.Concealed set screws shall lock shaft onto the cast \ .«• ,�,., . ;i;�r: s(; �k anchor base. . : _.-`4'"'.._ ,...r.:r.^ Ballast shall be high power factor for-20°F. starting,factory mounted ,: -et- to the anchor base and prewired.Wiring shall be supplied from the .: socket for field connection to the prewired ballast components. .:../..,11.17i - 't .: -r°' .MOM Anchor Bolts shall be four 3/e"x 10"+2"zinc plated L-hooks, each /�,• - • with two nuts,washers and a rigid pressed board template. � ,{ Finish shall be TGIC thermoset polyester powder coat paint _;.;; "tom:. • - applied over a chromate conversion coating. Available colors are r'v -,.,_--c...14-,7:-s _ :* _ black, dark bronze, light gray or white. ,tit -:` . :: -- — -• °"'"" ••. ;5: "�-.1= �'s Specifications:VRB1C - - - °-'# _t SAME AS VRB1 EXCEPT: ur ra-t1' i..;- • •_ Shaft cement shall conform to current specifications for"Portland _-.s.�,.c. - a.= --••_e'.,4 Cement."ASTM C150,Type I or II.Aggregates shall meet current ,•�•_•-: l' ;;.�:�'. l i_.�• requirements of"Specifications for Concrete Aggregates,"ASTM - ,,.4._,.. • - "Y-• •` "°r C33.Water shall be clean and free from deleterious amounts of silt, �,; ::. ,�;y' �,"•��,.,,�2 .,, �,,,, oil,acids,alkalies or organic materials. Wire for reinforcement shall -� `-'- 4w ='E * '.1` conform to ASTM A185. Steel for lugs and plates shall conform to ASTM A36,or A283 grade D. -i, I Ballast shall be high power factor for-20°F starting,factory mounted r:..e.4--": to a rigid harness for field wiring and suspension from fixture within �....r- -_ the concrete shaft. RC:- Surface shall be medium sand blasted with anti graffiti sealer. 1� '� Available colors are Charcoal, Brown, Natural Gray or White,integral �ti in concrete mix. - - x Cure and Strength shall allow for completion of the hydration •.; . vr_ process,and result in a 28 day compressive strength of not less "°`" than 4,500 psi. • Manufacture shall be by fiberglass molds to insure uniform parts. Mold parting lines may be slightly visible in finished parts. . Anchorage shall be by four steel mouting tabs for installation on four 1/2'x 10'+2'zinc electroplated L-hook anchor bolts. Each n anchor bolt is supplied with two nuts,two washers, and a rigid . pressed board template. -•: Shipment shall be palletized with adequate hold-downs to prevent load movement in transit. — '�_ = Specifications:VRBC -,; ... —= J -_::).A -•r�,•, :. SAME AS VFB1C EXCEPT NO FIXTURE.ELECTRICAL ELEMENTS, - - .-- 1- • OR CONDUIT OPENINGS. .:,: ,, . v 5-1.... '` . _ .v_ -•= .4•.: a.; ^='}, � �th.:.%`> - Warning:Fixtures must be grounded in accordance with local codes • ;.9i.-., . • -•e±� > or the National Electrical Code. Failure to do so may result in serious -'°�: 4.c∎C. • • _ " personal injury. �: Well 'Light 150W PAR38 INCANDESCENT or HALOGEN LANDSCAPE LIGHTING• (ii,ft. t .`)7 'L:i: 4 • - .?� lr.4-r aw .""t,,,ell mss: (2)3/4-N.P.T.in bottom, ...4 --)5 E�. ti'*.,'. � �� s ..t' . ❑❑❑❑❑❑ ,.'y, >S-A. .k`: =a;.'5-} . �- +.a.-7� 4 . Q1.`_. s 9'h-sq. 9�:$ I ,fr,„ -. 1. .411 ... • 1 00E000 , i •k•• �/l=a. "hr`s �ff4 tc. �C •. _ �.' i • V•1414.'. . . ■46 , ,, . . • 4■••• ■ . , 1 1 1434- tr.," _' `:' .iii• . '0 r. �y ;.4 ':v'.:t•..• ..i......•. �,. -- -Fry i). - y. a .a1' +s'•"`�:e. .-5 • t-.• . �1 .— Drainage by others .1.a: <..' �5 . . -�'- ': .•' .' �y{,:' ��jt, U.L.listed and C.S.A.certifieC for wet locations. cifications 20° 10°� 0°—10° 20° 20° 10°— 0°—10° 20° ure:Cast bronze. 150W 4000 / 150W 750 s:Convex tempered clear glass with one-piece silicone gasket. \ RR40 30° 30° R40 30° ket: Porcelain medium base, rated 4KV. wcAND. n 320p INCAND. _\\ !: rig:Cord is prewired to fixture,passing through a brass seal. \��..1LL 1 wire terminates in an anti-siphon barrier,encapsulated in high .5 .d0„ a0° 1 .5 P P 9 'erature sealing compound. Factory pressure-tested at 10 p.s.i. ' 240o '1 4 �/. :Bituminized fibre,9"dia. x 143/."depth. -,, ,50' 50°, 50 Iage(by others) required. . 4111'6� „ ► 3i ,I,'er:Cast aluminum finished black with polished edges,ed to well with socket head set screws. 0' �� TT■ �0° A 150/' 7.1 scr tion Box:Cast aluminum with 'h'rigid PVC conduit and brass :. �`�,� 9�o° = ,r �l 80' or fixture cord. /d-20 green hex grounding screw provided. - 3 compartment volume-40 cubic inches. onduit Taps:Two 3/4”N.P.T. in bottom. 201`- o° ioP�20° ixture Adjustment:Stainless steel wire hangers suspend fixture 15000 150W from louver and allow 15°tilt.360°rotation. Positive screw locks hold 0° PAR38 30° -iming position. t2p00 saor' HALOGEN a0° 90p0 X50° I 50° '60°% )3°etliff.70° 000 '� 70- I8C° -,�,� ice° Available Options: Directional Louver supplied in place of standard full louver.Add option catalog number to fixture catalog number. Example:5150/50900L Cat. No. Option Construction 5090DL ‘. T Directional Louver-allows Cast Aluminum :at.No. Lamp/Max.Wattage Fixture Construction :.� • • cl• luio light efficiency p 9 �e� sq • direction of lamp tilt 150 150W Cast Bronze op ate I while controlling glare Incandescent ��� in opposite direction. R40: 5293TG Tree Grate Louver-for Cast Iron Incandescent or Halogen mounting Kim Well Lights PAR38 to tree grates by Neenah Jote: Lamps by others. Foundry Co. See Dade 21. Storm Calculations Farmers Tigard, Oregon MEI Project No.296044 September 5, 1996 REVISED 10- 17-96 ; /w #,,,505 .Y'.; ��p �•JVIJ.: y 1 ; .;' ° r�1i✓� s 7 i � / G/ )/—4/.4 Designed by:Robert Frentress Reviewed by:Dave Larson 1-.; Ai% /VG"EC q Cc rf 6' 7 7 te ' A.' 7; - 1C-'!". ( C •. • 0 1-vr1— C 7.4 " ' ; 1,4;i (7'.' • ; •7' • . Arr.. W.: c vir-7-47 ti •1.2 (,/ C Ai_r IC := -5; 'it:: --• -r• . ;• 4c..):;..- _ • .- 7 * .../ A 7"' r 1. • LoC /. if 7 C%Cf •C 0A-)-5 ;1 F 6 A 4 C 16 2 s 7-0 S Cr A". 7 1-1 47 a z6cy, E k tit,/-1 747i .1 ,Z3Z if i:-/2 Tr:; Z-1 71 • P .7/( '7 r C L 1 zr FLC1.4d_f. r BY DATE 9/5194 JOB NO. 26 ti 4/ MACKENZIE ENGINEERING INCORPORATED CIVIL • STRUCTURAL • TRANSPORTATION SHT. OF 0690 S.W.BANCROFT STREET • P.O.BOX 69039 PORTLAND,OREGON 97201-0039 • (503)224-9560 • FAX(503)228-1285 MACKENZIE ENGINEERING INCORPORATED 1995 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED • , ..14:"".,..-- 4- t".- ,";.. .■-■ : _.--- , 9.4 ....../ \ /,.. ; . . , ,/ CA 04 7 \ fr. e-- . _. • E . . Fcr•-"s' 1 . A-v c-•-•:11"; E:' . r, r..- 0 . IL.; • 66 0 i' c L—, I --%- ,.. ....• 1 , I • .- %Z..../ - ■ , ' C.-;"'' ..".• • i I I •:"": -: * . . , . -——7*a--- 7 7 YT I:.!".. : 1 , I , IL- i). . ' A• , • ,...-$( ---- : , ' I (9'- 1 C f-a 4 1 FC/1. C.- -Q.--'.- i!A r; re.7f , b .:L., ," . i ,.. Ig • / \ 1 ' . ,C...- . . 6. • 1 , • ..: • I • Ti( Filgi4i/2.: BY /2ti DATE C /3C/76 — MACKENZIE ENGINEERING INCORPORATED JOB NO. 2 5Co YV CIVIL• STRUCTURAL • TRANSPORTATION SHT. OF 0690 S.W.BANCROFT STREET • P.O.BOX 69039 — .„, MACK ENZI E ENGi NEERING I NCORPORATED - — PORTLAND,OREGON 97201-0039 • (503)224-9560 • FAX(503)228-1285 w 1995 ALL RIGHTS RESERvED -- 4 . 8/22/96 Mackenzie Engineering Inc page 1 FARMERS PIPE SIZING BASIN RESULT SUMMARY BASIN VOL,.M= :RATE- ----TINE Hydrecraph Area ID ---c:-- Ac-ft --cfs- -min- hours Methcdciocy • Acres AREA1 3046: 0.70 1.89 470 7.33 S3LI7ri Method 2.23 AREA2 5053 0.12 0.32 470 7.93 SBCH Method 0.37 AREA3 4375 0.10 0.28 470 7.33 SBCH Method 0.32 BLDB 75:9 0.17 0.49 470 7.83 S3Lr Method 0.55 SLDGC 7656 0.18 0.49 470 7.93 SBUR Method 0.56 SLDGD 7656 0.18 0.49 470 7.93 SBU3 Method 0.56 . CB01 1640 0.04 0.10 470 7.83 SBL7 Method 0.12 CB02 3825 0.09 0.24 470 7.33 SBLa Method 0.28 CB03 4785 0.11 0.30 470 7.33 SBUH Method 0.35 CB04 205: 0.05 0.13 470 , 7.33 SSC' Method 0.15 CBOS 5742 0.13 0.36 470 7.83 SBLIH Method 0.42 CB06 1914 0.04 0.12 470 7.33 SEU Method 0.14 0307 3281 0.08 0.21 470 7.93 S3i:4 Method 0.24 CB08 7382 0.17 0.45 470 7.33 SBiT_ Method 0.54 CB09 6835 0.16 0.43 470 7.33 SBU4 Method 0.50 CB10 1777 0.04 0.11 470 7.53 SBUH Method 0.13 CB11 5878 0.13 0.37 470 7.33 SBCH Method 0.43 0312 1504 0.03 0.09 470 7.83 SBC3i Method 0.11 DS1 2187 0.05 0.14 470 7.93 SSLN Method 0.16 DS2 2187 0.05 0.14 470 7.83 SBLri Method 0.16 p53 2187 0.05 0.14 470 7.33 SBLR Method 0.16 DS4 2187 0.05 0.14 470 7.93 SBUH Method 0.16 5 TOR M 5E M/ R S SEWER LOCATION (MM/n) Hr. . (Acra) SEWER DESIGN PROF/LE Dy : a GROUND Dote: I'' , t= -� - to ELEV. (1- t to --- [L' NVERT Ckrd i� i I,. z �' h: I11 �.. �t .Z `�) ELEV. Date: 11 '_i hi > I,l (C_ , 1— {, 1:= '�'i I,_. rr I ' W I,. W ° li i- i � s 11= c� 1- J n. 7 LA I1_ It/ l,l U U 1 t STREET rt - ti. z' 0 ^ "- .- 0 f ii' ft: I,I n= to h. 1 to F 1- 1- �- r 0 1 (x to C) 0 > -! : J / 2 3 4 5 F 7 4 9 /0 // /2 /3 /4 /5 /6 /7 /6 Cr 0 / 6) - - .I(1 I,.11. // (' ' (_r.( , (1., 1/L (.J (.. . /, (f, ,, _ ( - h S f'l , CJ (' 'r a/C,/ _• (- .1(!/1 (` , '' _ 1/ 1 irI re, (7 ' (, 1 /!/11 1. ( / . (•∎ e.:e ..._______ • (r ti'1 ( :) f 1'' i11 If . • __ , 1 C ( 1 I — - - . 11,- 1' (..N ' ' M C,, pc (Ii.) (i.l 1, --=MI IA= (/ .r '/ (111 _ r �. '( ' ( I1 1(, i' • . 1 r. 5TORA SEN/E1� 5 /n_ - SEWER LOCATION 'Min) //r (Acres) SEWER DES/GN PROF/LE By: �' ;� c GROUND Dato: I' r. -- vi',. ELEV. _ I i_ c� u) rL _ NVERT Ckfd o `� z IL z o Iv `, '1 ELEV. Date: L1 c.i I,, n. �> v� -,--0, a 1 i___::: — �I - Q t0 W ii. W F >- - i z STREET: rr_' = it, cr_ iii a z — r'y ct a z I�'' c3 z 0 U - I— U O t� O ? lil w a. O I- — F- — 0 z Cr cn 0 0 > _.1 D _1 / 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 /0 // /2 /3 /4 /5 /6 /7 /8 (h t•k, C,/ - 0_ 0 I. ; I ().r, /1 ? '•• • pp (i', I/ /I (/S ) - A • ' I �ti (),, I.. ? r:, 0,9 -I (l9 ►Gn 1 , 1,1 — I( ;,'r I/, n t i�C '�: ' �1(� i..:.( 3.8i Zl1i°G �s IO.aI �- _op�' c�, • ,, (/./' .•'I - j�•,;,.(. 'c `(() (>.r', 'I.•I(. '.1'1 1b' 1•zr-'� O r` ra) - - /, it /;, 0 l 't- : . r' ?( ( 1 ----.-- --ipa Yz 141.96 `�' (2-2) (•i, P k. (Z 3� lc� �,,,) , _ ____ i C, 4 (l� �SA— — _ - -7i('. II.07 1f _-1.I pp ,'''/ I., /e, CO Ili ' it,. 'r ' t/".'7.) I 7(7 5TORN1 SEt4/ER5 SEWER LOCATION (�M/.) //r. - (Acres) SEWER DESIGN PROF/LE hi. AREA By: • 0 d a _ GROUND Data: t,. — ELEV. U. c� Q 0 n: Gkid v 0 '� — t,� -. ►'- ti NVERT t,l y Q U a w ELEV. Date: 1� to Ili r t,► a. - v, — — 1- - I- n: (, Y i i ° tt j j- >- i �_ �- I,1 w t,_ w _j cl. 1 1,_ 11 ►— �� U I-_ a cr STREET �� ti 1 cr_' t'= `t C) -- n_ t'� <t o ca 1,1 ill S '- a- k. to 11 1-- -� •- } (►_ ._.-1 T-. 4 0 o I-- U 0 . O D ~ _1 ter( .`t t,l V.' Q. 0 F \� I--- Z o ..- 1_' cr (/) c0 0 > J D J . '\.,., _ I /. 2 3 4 5 6 7 Q 9 /0 // /2; /3 /4 /5 /6 /7 /© Vi r',iC ' r ',i \ -e- .._. . 00 - ► / -- 'I 7 - <.....„,..,„..- // � ___ --- ..� -- '_ _ pi :AP-- • ____. .. ._ _____ . .---- • CA.) T C:•7 s-?C I 2 / ,E/9 / r. i r //. i' rte: ff i/'•/• .•/. iC • • !"AA-11 ' 47_C BY DATE C/ MACKENZIE ENGINEERING INCORPORATED JOB NO. � 4/V CIVIL • STRUCTURAL • TRANSPORTATION SHT. OF 0690 S.W.BANCROFT STREET • RO.BOX 69039 PORTLAND,OREGON 97201-0039 • (503)224-9560 • FAX(503)228-1285 mb4CKENZ�E ENGINEERING itdCORPORATED t995 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED CONTADL, !nlLLT r, - 1,LA ;r :J J_ r; = g.`i 7 . • C = ' Ca (29 ,x /` c=o .sz 0 r:1 CX fr ( PEa' o '/ L a. . - , 0.3:2 " = If, 2(5 -f` ?<— FA/Zik1E—l BY DATE 9/c/76 - - MACKENZIE ENGINEERING INCORPORATED JOB NO. L 4‘�cJ CIVIL • STRUCTURAL • TRANSPORTATION SHT. OF 0690 S.W.BANCROFT STREET • P.O.BOX 69039 PORTLAND,OREGON 97201-0039 • (503)224-9560 • FAX(503)228-1285 MACKENZIE ENGINEERING INCORPORATED 1996 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED •r CoA/T r ' 0071 ET (or.=, ,?;,,: r lv ,rs7, Lx 32.2 xyS ) • 0. C)0606 A - irA-7 1 OETJ NT(Ot.I 1-1 Q S h .- van- - 2as.sr = 2.Lo' Q.61 C24. 2.2o) A . Q.76e d = fYi _ i.oor' r 17.06" FAI2/NC f BY DATE G /6 /q1[ — -- MACKENZIE ENGINEERING INCORPORATED JOB N0. 2% 6 (/`/ CIVIL • STRUCTURAL • TRANSPORTATION SHT. OF 0690 S.W.BANCROFT STREET • P.O.BOX 69039 PORTLAND,OREGON 97201-0039 •• (503)224-9560 •• FAX(503)228-1285 t MACKENZIE ALL RIGHTS INCORPORATED 10/17/96 Mackenzie Engineering Inc page 1 FARMERS ENTIRE BASIN - ODOT BASIN SUMMARY BASIN ID: D50 NAME: DEVELOPED 50 YR STORM SBUH METHODOLOGY TOTAL AREA - 12 .49 Acres BASEFLOWS : 0 . 00 cfs RAINFALL TYPE TYPE1A PERVIOUS AREA PRECIPITATION • 4 . 50 inches AREA. . : 2 . 50 Acres TIME INTERVAL 10 . 00 min CN • 86 . 00 TIME OF CONC 7 . 07 min IMPERVIOUS AREA ABSTRACTION COEFF: 0 .20 AREA. . : 9 . 99 Acres CN • 98 . 00 TcReach - Sheet L: 10 . 00 ns : 0 .2000 p2yr: 2 . 30 s : 0 . 0200 TcReach - Sheet L: 300 . 00 ns : 0 . 0110 p2yr: 2 . 30 s : 0 . 0300 TcReach - Channel L: 800 . 00 kc :42 . 00 s: 0 . 0300 PEAK RATE: 11 . 05 cfs VOL: 4 . 18 Ac-ft TIME : 480 min BASIN ID: E50 NAME: EXISTING 50 YEAR STORM SBUH METHODOLOGY TOTAL AREA • 12 .49 Acres BASEFLOWS : 0 . 00 cfs RAINFALL TYPE TYPE1A PERVIOUS AREA PRECIPITATION • 4 . 50 inches AREA. . : 12 .49 Acres TIME INTERVAL 10 . 00 min CN 86 . 00 TIME OF CONC • 37.39 min IMPERVIOUS AREA ABSTRACTION COEFF: 0 .20 AREA. . : 0 . 00 Acres CN • 98 . 00 TcReach - Sheet L: 200 . 00 ns : 0 .2000 p2yr: 2 .30 s : 0 . 0200 TcReach - Shallow L: 200 . 00 ks :10 . 00 s : 0 . 0200 TcReach - Channel ._L: 700. 00 kc :17 . 00 s :0 . 0050 PEAK RATE: 5 . 86 cfs VOL: 3 . 13 Ac-ft TIME: 490 min 10/17/96 Mackenzie Engineering Inc page 2 FARMERS ENTIRE BASIN - ODOT HYDROGRAPH SUMMARY PEAK TIME VOLUME HYD RUNOFF OF OF Contrib NUM RATE PEAK HYDRO Area cfs min. cf\AcFt Acres 1 5 . 860 490 136163 cf 12 .49 2 11 . 053 480 181884 cf 12 .49 3 5 . 848 510 181899 cf 12 . 49 10/17/96 Mackenzie Engineering Inc page 3 FARMERS ENTIRE BASIN - ODOT ROUTING REPORT TRAPEZOIDAL BASIN ID No. A Description: Length: 58 . 00 ft. Width: 28 . 00 ft . Side Slope 1 : 4 Side Slope 3 : 4 Side Slope 2 : 4 Side Slope 4 : 4 Infiltration Rate : 0 . 00 min/inch MULTIPLE ORIFICE ID No. A Description: Outlet Elev: 204 . 00 Elev: 204 . 00 ft Orifice Diameter: 9 . 7500 in. ROUTING CURVE STAGE STORAGE OUTFLOW 0+2S STAGE STORAGE OUTFLOW 0+2S STAGE STORAGE OUTFLOW 0+2S (ft) (cf) (cfs) cfs-min (ft) (cf) (cfs) cfs-min (ft) (cf) (cfs) cfs-min 204.00 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 206.40 3006 3.9965 14.018 208.80 12309 5.6519 46.682 204.10 0.0000 0.8158 0.8158 206.50 3282 4.0789 15.019 208.90 12831 5.7104 48.481 204.20 0.0000 1.1537 1.1537 206.60 3566 4.1597 16.04,0A 209.00 13365 5.7684 50.320 204.30 0.0000 1.4130 1.4130 206.70 3860 4.2389 17.105 2'09.10 13911 5.8258 52.197 204.40 0.0000 1.6316 1.6316 206.80 4162 4.3167 18.191 209.20 14470 5.8826 54.114 204.50 0.0000 1.8241 1.8241 206.90 4474 4.3931 19.306 209.30 15040 5.9389 56.072 204.60 0.0000 1.9982 1.9982 207.00 4795 4.4682 20.450 209.40 15623 5.9947 58.070 204.70 0.0000 2.1583 2.1583 207.10 5125 4.5421 21.625 209.50 16218 6.0500 60.110 204.80 0.0000 2.3074 23074 207.20 5465 4.6147 22.831 209.60 16826 6.1047 62.191 204.90 0.0000 2.4473 2.4473 207.30 5815 4.6863 24.068 209.70 17447 6.1590 64.314 205.00 0.0000 2.5797 2.5797 207.40 6174 4.7568 25.337 209.80 18080 6.2128 66.480 205.10 165.86 2.7056 3.2585 207.50 6543 4.8262 26.637 209.90 18727 6.2661 68.689 205.20 338.73 2.825? 3.9550 207.60 6923 4.8947 27.971 210.00 19387 6.3190 70.941 205.30 518.74 2.9413 4.6704 207.70 7312 4.9622 29.337 210.10 20060 6.3714 73.237 205.40 706.01 3.0524 5.4057 207.80 7712 5.0288 30.737 210.20 20746 6.4234 75.577 205.50 900.67 3.1595 6.1617 207.90 8123 5.0945 32.171 210.30 21446 6.4750 77.962 205.60 1103 3.2631 6.9393 208.00 8544 5.1594 33.639 210.40 22160 6.5262 80.392 205.70 1313 3.3635 7.7391 208.10 8976 5.2235 35.143 210.50 22887 6.5770 82.868 205.80 1530 3.4610 8.5620 208.20 9418 5.2868 36.682 210.60 23629 6.6274 85.390 205.90 1756 3.5559 9.4085 208.30 9872 5.3494 38.256 210.70 24384 6.6774 87.958 206.00 1989 3.6483 10.279 208.40 10337 5.4112 39.867 210.80 25154 6.7271 90.573 206.10 2231 3.7384 11.175 208.50 10813 5.4724 41.515 206.20 2481 3.8263 12.096 208.60 11300 5.5329 43.199 V F/Lt L W 206.30 2739 3.9123 13.044 208.70 11799 5.5927 44.922 210,75 DET 13, 503 W(,, 11106 k 20, 651 10/17/96 Mackenzie Engineering Inc page 4 FARMERS ENTIRE BASIN - ODOT LEVEL POOL ROUTING TABLE OUTFLOW MATCH Q (cfs) 5 .86 INFLOW Q (cfs) : 11 . 05 PEAK STAGE (ft) : 209 .14 PEAK OUTFLOW 5 . 85 PEAK TIME : 510 . 00 min. INFLOW HYD No . : 2 OUTFLOW HYD No. : 3 LEVEL POOL ROUTING TABLE I1 I2 281 SLR! 01 02+2S2 STAGE TIME < cfs min > (ft) (min) 0 . 0000 0 . 0021 0 . 0000 0 . 0021 0 . 0000 0 . 0021 204 . 00 30 . 00 0 . 0021 0 . 0410 0 . 0000 0 . 0431 0 . 0021 0 . 0410 204 . 00 40 . 00 0 . 0410 0 . 1288 0 . 0000 0 . 1698 0 . 0410 0 . 1288 204 . 00 50 . 00 0 . 1288 0 . 2206 0 . 0000 ' 0 . 3494 0 . 1288 0 . 2206 204 . 00 60 . 00 0 .2206 0 . 3806 0 . 0000 0 . 6012 0 .2206 0 . 3806 204 . 00 70 . 00 0 . 3806 0 . 5708 0 . 0000 0 . 9515 0 .3806 0 .5708 204 . 00 80 . 00 0 . 5708 0 . 6941 0 . 0000 1 .2650 0 . 5708 0 . 6941 204 . 00 90 . 00 0 . 6941 0 . 7874 0 . 0000 1 .4816 0 . 6941 0 . 7874 204 . 00 100 . 00 0 . 7874 0 . 8618 0 . 0000 1 . 6492 0 . 7874 0 . 8618 204 . 00 110 . 00 0 . 8618 0 . 9224 0 . 0000 1 . 7842 0 .8618 0 . 9224 204 . 00 120 . 00 0 . 9224 1. 0407 0 . 0000 1 . 9631 0 . 9224 1 . 0407 204 . 00 130 . 00 1 . 0407 1 . 1760 0 . 0000 2 . 2167 1 . 0407 1 . 1760 204 . 00 140 . 00 1 . 1760 1 .2362 0 . 0000 2 .4122 1 . 1760 1 .2362 204 . 00 150 . 00 1 . 2362 1 . 2687 0 . 0000 2 . 5049 1 .2362 1 .2687 204 . 00 160 . 00 1 . 2687 1 . 3132 0 . 0000 2 . 5818 1 . 2687 1 . 3132 204 . 00 170 . 00 1 . 3132 1. 3514 , ,0 . 0000 2 . 6646 1 .3132 1 .3514 204 . 00 180 . 00 1 .3514 1 .3772 0 . 0000 2 . 7286 1.3514 1 .3772 204 . 00 190 . 00 1 . 3772 . 1 . 4175 0 . 0000 2 . 7947 1 . 3772 1 .4175 204 . 00 200 . 00 1 .4175 1 .4477 0 . 0000 2 . 8653 1 .4175 1 .4477 204 . 00 210 . 00 1 .4477 1 .4637 0 . 0000 2 . 9115 1 .4477 1 .4637 204 . 00 220 . 00 1 .4637 1 .4964 0 . 0000 2 . 9601 1.4637 1 .4964 204 . 00 230 . 00 1 .4964 1 . 5196 0 . 0000 3 . 0160 1.4964 1. 5196 204 . 00 240 . 00 1 . 5196 1 . 6287 0 . 0000 3 . 1483 1 . 5196 1 . 6287 204 . 00 250 . 00 1 . 6287 1 . 7530 0 . 0000 3 . 3817 1 .6287 1 .7530 204 . 00 260 . 00 1 . 7530 1 . 7922 0 . 0000 3 . 5452 1.7530 1.7922 204 . 00 270 . 00 1 . 7922 1 . 8266 0 . 0000 3 . 6188 1 .7922 1. 8266 204 . 00 280 . 00 1 . 8266 1 . 8364 0 . 0000 3 . 6630 1 . 8266 1 . 8364 204 . 00 290 . 00 1 . 8364 1 . 8522 0 . 0000 3 . 6886 1. 8364 1 .8522 204 . 00 300 . 00 1 . 8522 2 . 2683 0 . 0000 4 . 1205 1 . 8522 2 .2683 204 . 00 310 . 00 2 . 2683 2 . 7474 0 . 0000 5 . 0157 2 .2683 2 .7474 204 . 00 320 . 00 2 . 7474 2 . 8541 0 .1366 5 . 7382 2 . 6108 3 . 1273 205 . 02 330 . 00 2 . 8541 2 . 8948 0 .4460 6 . 1950 2 . 6813 3 .5137 205 . 08 340 . 00 2 . 8948 2 . 9223 0 . 7640 6 . 5811 2 .7497 3 . 8314 205 . 14 350 .00 2 . 9223 2 . 9459 1 . 0268 6 . 8950 2 . 8046 4 . 0904 205 . 18 360 . 00 2 . 9459 2 . 8681 1.2427 7 . 0567 2 . 8478 4 .2089 205 . 22 370 . 00 2 . 8681 2 . 7706 1.3420 6 . 9808 2 . 8669 4 .1139 205 .24 380 . 00 2 . 7706 2 . 7541 1 .2623 6 . 7871 2 .8516 3 . 9355 205 . 22 390 . 00 2 .7541 2 . 7631 1. 1130 6 . 6303 2 . 8226 3 . 8077 205 .20 400 .00 2 . 7631 2 . 7883 1 . 0072 6 . 5587 2 . 8005 3 .7582 205 .18 410 . 00 2 . 7883 2 . 7904 0 . 9662 6 . 5449 2 . 7919 3 .7530 205 .17 420 . 00 10/17/96 Mackenzie Engineering Inc page 5 FARMERS ENTIRE BASIN - ODOT LEVEL POOL ROUTING TABLE LEVEL POOL ROUTING TABLE I1 I2 2S1 SUM 01 02+2S2 STAGE TIME < cfs min > (ft) (min) 2 . 7904 4 . 1800 0 . 9620 7 . 9323 2 . 7910 5 . 1413 205 . 17 430 . 00 4 . 1800 5 . 8346 2 . 1289 12 . 143 3 . 0124 9 . 1310 205 . 36 440 . 00 5 . 8346 6 . 1554 5 . 6062 17 . 596 3 . 5248 14 . 071 205 . 87 450 . 00 6 . 1554 8 . 2054 10 . 071 24 .431 4 . 0009 20 .430 206 .41 460 . 00 8 . 2054 10 . 574 15 . 964 34 . 743 4 . 4669 30 .276 207 . 00 470 . 00 10 . 574 11 . 053 25 . 269 46 . 896 5 . 0068 41. 889 207 . 77 480 . 00 11 . 053 8 . 5273 36 .403 55 . 984 5 .4858 50 .498 208 . 52 490 . 00 8 . 5273 5 . 4583 44 . 724 58 . 710 5 . 7739 52 . 936 209 . 01 500 . 00 5 .4583 4 . 9426 47 . 088 57 .489 5 . 8477 51 .641 209 . 14 510 . 00 4 . 9426 4 . 6351 45 . 832 55 .410 5 . 8088 49 . 601 209 . 07 520 . 00 4 .6351 4 . 3754 43 . 856 ' 52 . 866 5 . 7458 47 .120 208 . 96 530 . 00 4 .3754 4 . 3372 41 .454 50 . 167 5 . 6661 44 .501 208 . 82 540 . 00 4 .3372 3 . 7705 38 . 922 47 . 030 5 . 5781 41 .452 208 . 68 550 . 00 3 .7705 3 . 1115 35 . 982 42 . 864 5 .4701 37 .394 208 . 50 560 . 00 3 . 1115 3 . 0013 32 . 079 38 . 192 5 . 3151 32 .877 208 . 25 570 . 00 3 . 0013 2 . 9985 27 . 751 33 . 751 5 . 1257 28 .625 207 . 95 580 . 00 2 . 9985 2 . 9869 23 . 698 29 . 683 4 . 9270 24 .756 207 . 65 590 . 00 2 . 9869 2 . 9873 20 . 032 26 . 006 4 . 7245 21.281 207 .35 600 . 00 2 . 9873 2 . 8811 16 . 761 22 . 629 4 . 5204 18 . 109 207 . 07 610 . 00 2 . 8811 2 . 7565 13 . 798 19 .436 4 . 3108 15 . 125 206 . 79 620 . 00 2 . 7565 2 . 7370 11 . 038 16 . 531 4 . 0872 12 .444 206 . 51 630 . 00 2 . 7370 2 . 7218 8 . 5862 14 . 045 3 . 8579 10 .187 206 . 24 640 . 00 2 . 7218 2 . 7344 , 6 . 5486 12 . 005 3 . 6385 8 .3663 205 . 99 650 . 00 2 . 7344 2 . 7382 4 . 9284 10 .401 3 .4379 6 . 9631 205 . 78 660 . 00 2 . 7382 2 . 5090 3 . 6970 8 . 9441 3 . 2661 5 . 6780 205 . 60 670 . 00 2 . 5090 2 .2396 2 . 5871 7 . 3357 3 . 0909 4 . 2447 205 .44 680 . 00 2 .2396 2 . 1945 1 . 3721 5 . 8061 2 . 8727 2 . 9335 205 .24 690 . 00 2 . 1945 2 . 2013 0 .2881 4 . 6839 2 . 6453 2 . 0385 205 . 05 700 . 00 2 .2013 2 . 1897 0 . 0000 4 . 3910 2 . 0385 2 .3525 205 . 00 710 . 00 2 . 1897 2 . 1886 0 . 0000 4 . 3784 2 . 3525 2 . 0259 205 . 00 720 . 00 2 .1886 2 . 2030 0 . 0000 4 . 3916 2 . 0259 2 .3657 205 . 00 730 . 00 2 .2030 2 . 1926 0 . 0000 4 . 3956 2 . 3657 2 . 0299 205 . 00 740 . 00 2 . 1926 2 . 1917 0 . 0000 4 . 3843 2 . 0299 2 .3544 205 . 00 750 . 00 2 . 1917 2 . 2060 0 . 0000 4 . 3977 2 . 3544 2 . 0432 205 . 00 760 . 00 2 . 2060 2 . 1956 0 . 0000 4 .4016 2 . 0432 2 .3583 205 . 00 770 . 00 2 . 1956 2 . 1946 0 . 0000 4 . 3901 2 .3583 2 . 0318 205 . 00 780 . 00 2 . 1946 1 . 9762 0 . 0000 4 . 1708 2 . 0318 2 .1389 205 . 00 790 . 00 1 . 9762 1 . 7067 0 . 0000 3 . 6829 2 . 1389 1 .5440 205 . 00 800 . 00 1 . 7067 1 . 6610 0 . 0000 3 .3678 1. 5440 1 .8238 205 . 00 810 . 00 1 . 6610 1 . 6536 0 . 0000 3 .3147 1 . 8238 1 .4909 205 . 00 820 . 00 1 . 6536 1 . 6528 0 . 0000 3 . 3064 1 .4909 1 . 8155 205 . 00 830 . 00 1 . 6528 1 . 6530 0 . 0000 3 . 3058 1 .8155 1 .4903 205 . 00 840 . 00 1 . 6530 1 . 7631 0 . 0000 3 .4161 1 .4903 1 . 9259 205 . 00 850 . 00 1 . 7631 1 . 9058 0 . 0000 3 . 6689 1 . 9259 1 . 7431 205 . 00 860 . 00 1 . 9058 1 . 9307 0 . 0000 3 . 8365 1. 7431 2 . 0935 205 . 00 870 . 00 1 . 9307 1 . 9218 0 . 0000 3 . 8525 2 . 0935 1 . 7590 205 . 00 880 . 00 10/17/96 Mackenzie Engineering Inc page 6 FARMERS ENTIRE BASIN - ODOT LEVEL POOL ROUTING TABLE LEVEL POOL ROUTING TABLE I1 I2 2S1 SUM 01 02+2S2 STAGE TIME < cfs min > (ft) (min) 1 . 9218 1 . 9345 0 . 0000 3 . 8563 1.7590 2 . 0972 205 . 00 890 . 00 1 . 9345 1 . 9371 0 . 0000 3 . 8716 2 . 0972 1 . 7744 205 . 00 900 . 00 1 . 9371 1 . 9243 0 . 0000 3 . 8615 1 . 7744 2 . 0871 205 . 00 910 . 00 1 . 9243 1 . 9364 0 . 0000 3 . 8607 2 . 0871 1 . 7736 205 . 00 920 . 00 1 . 9364 1 . 9389 0 . 0000 3 . 8752 1 . 7736 2 . 1016 205 . 00 930 . 00 1 . 9389 1 . 9260 0 . 0000 3 . 8649 2 . 1016 1 . 7633 205 . 00 940 . 00 1 . 9260 1 . 9380 0 . 0000 3 . 8640 1 . 7633 2 . 1008 205 . 00 950 . 00 1 . 9380 1 . 9405 0 . 0000 3 . 8785 2 . 1008 1 . 7778 205 . 00 960 . 00 1 . 9405 1 . 5837 0 . 0000 3 . 5242 1 . 7778 1 . 7464 205 . 00 970 . 00 1 . 5837 1 . 1927 0 . 0000 2 . 7764 1 .7464 1 . 0300 205 . 00 980 . 00 1 . 1927 1 . 1260 0 . 0000 ' 2 . 3187 1 . 0300 1 . 2887 205 . 00 990 . 00 1 . 1260 1 . 1009 0 . 0000 2 . 2269 1 .2887 0 . 9382 205 . 00 1000 . 00 1 . 1009 1 . 1105 0 . 0000 2 .2114 0 . 9382 1 . 2733 205 . 00 1010 . 00 1 . 1105 1 . 1123 0 . 0000 2 .2228 1 .2733 0 . 9495 205 . 00 1020 . 00 1. 1123 1 . 3330 0 . 0000 2 .4453 0 . 9495 1 .4958 205 . 00 1030 . 00 1 .3330 1 . 6051 0 . 0000 2 . 9381 1 .4958 1 .4424 205 . 00 1040 . 00 1 . 6051 1 . 6520 0 . 0000 3 . 2571 1 .4424 1 . 8147 205 . 00 1050 . 00 1 . 6520 1 . 6603 0 . 0000 3 . 3122 1 . 8147 1 .4975 205 . 00 1060 . 00 1 . 6603 1 . 6620 0 . 0000 3 . 3223 1 .4975 1. 8247 205 . 00 1070 . 00 1 . 6620 1 . 6626 0 . 0000 3 . 3245 1 . 8247 1 .4998 205 . 00 1080 . 00 1 . 6626 1 . 5526 0 . 0000 3 . 2152 1 .4998 1 . 7154 205 . 00 1090 . 00 1 .5526 1 .4100 0 . 0000 2 . 9626 1 .7154 1 . 2472 205 . 00 1100 . 00 1 .4100 1 . 3858 , .0 . 0000 2 . 7957 1 .2472 1 .5485 205 . 00 1110 . 00 1 . 3858 1 . 8094 0 . 0000 3 . 1951 1. 5485 1 . 6466 205 . 00 1120 . 00 1 . 8094 1 .4545 0 . 0000 3 .2639 1 . 6466 1 . 6172 205 . 00 1130 . 00 1.4545 0 . 9801 0 . 0000 2 .4346 1 . 6172 0 . 8174 205 . 00 1140 . 00 0 . 9801 1 . 3267 0 . 0000 2 . 3068 0 . 8174 1.4895 205 . 00 1150 . 00 1 . 3267 1 . 3724 0 . 0000 2 . 6991 1 .4895 1 .2097 205 . 00 1160 . 00 1 .3724 1 . 3804 0 . 0000 2 . 7528 1 .2097 1 . 5432 205 . 00 1170 . 00 1 .3804 1 . 3957 0 . 0000 2 . 7762 1 . 5432 1 . 2330 205 . 00 1180 . 00 1 . 3957 1 . 3847 0 . 0000 2 . 7805 1 .2330 1 .5475 205 . 00 1190 . 00 1 . 3847 1 . 3830 0 . 0000 2 . 7678 1 . 5475 1 .2203 205 . 00 1200 . 00 1 . 3830 1 . 3967 0 . 0000 2 . 7797 1 .2203 1 .5595 205 . 00 1210 . 00 1.3967 1 . 3854 0 . 0000 2 . 7821 1 . 5595 1 .2227 205 . 00 1220 . 00 1 . 3854 1 .3836 0 . 0000 2 . 7691 1 .2227 1 . 5464 205 . 00 1230 . 00 1 . 3836 1 .3973 0 . 0000 2 . 7810 1 . 5464 1 . 2346 205 . 00 1240 . 00 1 . 3973 1 . 3860 0 . 0000 2 . 7833 1 .2346 1 . 5488 205 . 00 1250 . 00 1 .3860 1 .3842 0 . 0000 2 . 7702 1 .5488 1 .2215 205 . 00 1260 . 00 1 .3842 1 . 3979 0 . 0000 2 . 7821 1 .2215 1 . 5606 205 . 00 1270 . 00 1 .3979 1 . 3866 0 . 0000 2 . 7845 1 . 5606 1 .2238 205 . 00 1280 . 00 1 . 3866 1 . 3848 0 . 0000 2 . 7714 1. 2238 1 . 5475 205 . 00 1290 . 00 1 . 3848 1. 3985 0 . 0000 2 . 7833 1 . 5475 1 .2357 205 . 00 1300 . 00 1 . 3985 1. 3871 0 . 0000 2 . 7856 1 .2357 1 . 5499 205 . 00 1310 . 00 1.3871 1. 3853 0 . 0000 2 . 7725 1 . 5499 1 .2226 205 . 00 1320 . 00 1 . 3853 1 . 2745 0 . 0000 2 . 6598 1 . 2226 1 .4373 205 . 00 1330 . 00 1 .2745 1 . 1450 0 . 0000 2 .4195 1 .4373 0 . 9822 205 . 00 1340 . 00 10/17/96 Mackenzie Engineering Inc page 7 FARMERS ENTIRE BASIN - ODOT - LEVEL POOL ROUTING TABLE LEVEL POOL ROUTING TABLE I1 I2 2S1 SUM 01 02+252 STAGE TIME < cfs min > (ft) (min) 1 . 1450 1 . 1229 0 . 0000 2 . 2679 0 . 9822 1 . 2857 205 . 00 1350 . 00 1 . 1229 1. 1054 0 . 0000 2 . 2283 1 . 2857 0 . 9426 205 . 00 1360 . 00 1 . 1054 1 . 1163 0 . 0000 2 . 2217 0 . 9426 1 . 2791 205 . 00 1370 . 00 1 . 1163 1. 1183 0 . 0000 2 .2346 1 .2791 0 . 9555 205 . 00 1380 . 00 1 . 1183 1 . 1049 0 . 0000 2 .2232 0 . 9555 1 . 2676 205 . 00 1390 . 00 1 . 1049 1. 1165 0 . 0000 2 .2214 1.2676 0 . 9538 205 . 00 1400 . 00 1 . 1165 1. 1186 0 . 0000 2 .2351 0 . 9538 1 . 2813 205 . 00 1410 . 00 1 . 1186 1 . 1052 0 . 0000 2 . 2238 1.2813 0 . 9424 205 . 00 1420 . 00 1 . 1052 1 . 1168 0 . 0000 2 .2220 0 . 9424 1 . 2796 205 . 00 1430 . 00 1 . 1168 1 .1189 0 . 0000 2 . 2357 1 . 2796 0 . 9562 205 . 00 1440 . 00 1. 1189 0 . 6485 0 . 0000 ; 1 . 7674 0 . 9562 0 . 8112 205 . 00 1450 . 00 0 . 6485 0 .1110 0 . 0000 0 . 7595 0 . 8112 -0 . 0518 205 .00 1460 . 00 0 . 1110 0 . 0190 -0 . 0518 0 . 0782 0 . 0000 0 . 0782 205 . 00 1470 . 00 0 . 0190 0 . 0033 0 . 0000 0 . 0222 0 . 0782 -0 . 0560 205 . 00 1480 .00 0 . 0033 0 . 0006 -0 . 0560 -0 . 0522 0 . 0000 -0 . 0522 205 . 00 1490 . 00 • REVISED TRIANGLE CORPORATE PARK SOUTH (FARMERS INSURANCE PROPERTY) TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ANALYSIS OPTION A: OFFICE/HOTEL TIGARD, OREGON August 1, 1996 Revised December 24, 1996 Issued January 3, 1997 Project Number 296500 A:°,:!,-- ....t.)...,,„......7...._'�rx u e ..-;105051 . Cir, -of 47,V 0O 1'4r13,le _,k. 0, L aa• 0 G-TcP /2-3 J-q'g PREPARED BY: Group Mackenzie 0690 S.W. Bancroa Street P.O. Box 69039 Portiand, Oregon 97201-0039 Phone(503) 224-9550 Fax(503) 228-1285 F:WrPDA rASPECSAr7s65onsags-:rrax: TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION H. EXISTING CONDITIONS III. ACCESS ANALYSIS IV. PEDESTRIAN ACCESS AND TRANSIT V. BACKGROUND AND IN-PROCESS TRAFFIC VI. TRIP GENERATION VII. TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND ASSIGNMENT VIII. WARRANT ANALYSIS IX. INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS X. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS XI. APPENDIX F:\WPDATAI.SPECS\TS\96500\24TS-BTA.KC LIST OF FIGURES 1 VICINITY MAP 2A SITE PLAN- OPTION A 2B SITE PLAN - OPTION B 3A EXISTING TRAFFIC - AM PEAK HOUR 3B EXISTING TRAFFIC - PM PEAK HOUR 4A BACKGROUND - AM PEAK HOUR 4B BACKGROUND - PM PEAK HOUR 5A IN-PROCESS TRAFFIC - AM PEAK HOUR 5B IN-PROCESS TRAFFIC -PM PEAK HOUR 6A 2001 BASE TRAFFIC - AM PEAK HOUR 6B 2001 BASE TRAFFIC -PM PEAK HOUR 7A TRIP ASSIGNMENT - OPTION A- AM PEAK HOUR 7B TRIP ASSIGNMENT - OPTION A-PM PEAK HOUR 7C TRIP ASSIGNMENT - OPTION B - AM PEAK HOUR 7D TRIP ASSIGNMENT - OPTION B - PM PEAK HOUR 8A 2001 COMBINED TRAFFIC - OPTION A- AM PEAK HOUR 8B 2001 COMBINED TRAFFIC - OPTION A-PM PEAK HOUR 8C 2001 COMBINED TRAFFIC - OPTION B - AM PEAK HOUR 8D 2001 COMBINED TRAFFIC - OPTION B - PM PEAK HOUR F:\WPDATA\SPECS\TS\96500\24TS-BTA.KC L INTRODUCTION The proposed Triangle Corporate Park is located in Tigard near the intersection of SW 68th Parkway and SW 66th Avenue at the southern end of the Tigard Triangle. The site is bounded on the east by SW 66th Avenue and on the west generally by SW 68th Parkway. SW 68th Parkway also runs through the middle of the site, creating north and south parcels. Corning Medical Labs is directly adjacent to the north and the existing Farmers Insurance building is to the south. The site is located near the intersection of Highway 217 and Interstate 5 with easily accessible interchanges to both. Figure 1 presents the site vicinity map. Four buildings are proposed on the currently vacant site. They consist of two buildings totaling 90,700 s.f on the north parcel and two buildings on the south parcel. Two options are being considered for the south parcel. Option A includes a 84,500 s.f office building and a 64,000 s.f hotel with approximately 225 rooms while Option B substitutes a 54,000 s.f office building for the hotel. Both options are analyzed in this report. Access is proposed with two driveways to SW 68th Parkway for each parcel, and a driveway to SW 66th Avenue for the south parcel. The proposed Triangle Corporate Park site plan is presented in Figure 2A for Option A and 2B for Option B. The study area of this traffic impact analysis, as confirmed by City of Tigard staff, generally includes the area of Hampton Street and SW 68th Parkway. In addition to the proposed driveway locations, the following intersections are analyzed: Hampton Street/SW 72nd Avenue Hampton Street/SW 68th Parkway SW 68th Parkway/SW 66th Avenue City staff has requested that traffic conditions in 2001 be reviewed for this analysis. The Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) has requested analysis of the current four-way stop intersection of SW 68th Parkway at Dartmouth Street at build out of the site. This intersection is also included in the study area. IL EXISTING CONDITIONS Intersection turning movement counts were conducted by Mackenzie Engineering Incorporated (MEI) staff at the study area intersections in May and July 1996 and in September at the intersection of SW 68th Parkway with Dartmouth. In addition traffic counts were obtained for the intersections of Hampton Street with SW 72nd Avenue and SW 68th Parkway from 1994 and 1995 for determining the historical growth rates. The current traffic volumes are presented in Figures 3A and 3B for the AM and PM peak hours, respectively. The following is a summary of the roadway classifications and descriptions in the study area: SW 72nd Avenue 2/3 lane Major Collector 35 mph Hampton Street 3 lane Major Collector 35 mph SW 68th Parkway 2 lane Major Collector 40 mph SW 66th Avenue 2 lane Local Street 45 mph F:\W PDATA\SPECS\T S\96500\24TS-BTA.KC Southwest 72nd Avenue generally consists of two travel lanes with turn lanes at the intersection with Hampton Street. A sidewalk is provided on the west side of the road south of the Hampton Street intersection. No sidewalks are provided north of Hampton Street. Hampton Street is a three lane roadway with a continuous left turn lane between SW 72nd Avenue and SW 70th Avenue. Channelized left turn lanes are provided at SW 68th Parkway, 70th Avenue westbound and 69th Avenue eastbound. Sidewalks are provided along both sides of the roadway. Hampton Street is generally 44 feet wide, with bus pullouts east of SW 70th Avenue increasing the road width at that location to 60 feet. South of Hampton Street, SW 68th Parkway is a two lane roadway with medians. Travel speeds are approximately 35 mph, although no speed limit is posted for this section of the road. Each travel lane is approximately 23 feet wide. Median openings are provided at two existing driveway locations and at the proposed site access. The median opening is 34 feet wide at the proposed driveway. Sidewalks are provided along the west side of SW 68th Parkway, including along the south parcel's frontage. Sidewalks are not provided on the north parcel frontage. The section of SW 68th Parkway between the two parcels is 28 feet wide without a median. Curbs are provided along the entire length of SW 68th Parkway. Southwest 66th Avenue is a two lane roadway without curbs and sidewalks. It is approximately 30 feet wide along the site frontage, tapering to 25 feet 200 feet south of SW 68th Parkway. ODOT is planning improvements to the Interstate 5 and Highway 217 interchange. These improvements include widening the SW 72nd Avenue overpass from two to five lanes and realigning Hunziker Road to cross Highway 217 and intersect SW 72nd Avenue at Hampton Street. Construction dates have not yet been determined, but it is likely the improvements will not be completed prior to the 2001 analysis year. No other improvements are currently scheduled in the study area. IIL ACCESS ANALYSIS Two accesses are proposed to both the north and south parcels for both Option A and B. Access to the north parcel is proposed to SW 68th Parkway at an existing median break, approximately 680 feet south of Hampton Road, and 225 feet west of the intersection with SW 66th Avenue. Access to the south parcel is proposed on SW 68th Parkway approximately 390 feet west of SW 66th Avenue and on SW 66th Avenue 260 feet south of SW 68th Parkway. All distances are measured between centerlines. All driveways are proposed to be 30 feet wide. Sight distances recommended in A Policy on Geometric Design published by AASHTO are ten times the posted speed limit or 85th percentile speeds for intersections. Although no speed limit is posted on SW 68th Parkway, travel speeds are approximately 35 mph, with speeds of 25 mph at the curve near the exiting Farmers Insurance driveway. This would require sight distances of 350 feet from the driveways. All of the proposed driveways will have 350 feet or more of sight distance available, except for the north parcel driveway at the median break on SW 68th Parkway. Sight distance to the south is limited to 270 feet by the curvature of the roadway. Travel speeds at the curve are approximately 25 mph, which would allow sight distance less than 350 feet. As is indicated later in this report, all of the proposed driveways are expected to operate at level of service"A" during the peak hours and all other times of the day. F:\WPDATA\SPECS\TS\96500124TS-BTA.KC IV. PEDESTRIAN ACCESS AND TRANSIT Sidewalks are currently provided along both sides of Hampton Street between SW 72nd Avenue and SW 68th Parkway. SW 68th Parkway has sidewalks on the west side of the street, including along the south parcel's frontage. Sidewalks are provided on SW 72nd Avenue only on the west side of the road south of the Hampton Street intersection. The existing sidewalk network provides areas for pedestrians separated from vehicular traffic, and provides a route from the site to bus stops located on Hampton Street. Transit service to the area is provided by Tri-Met route 78. Bus stops with shelters are located on both sides of Hampton Street just east of SW 70th Avenue, within walking distance from the proposed Triangle Corporate Park. Route 78 travels between downtown Lake Oswego and Beaverton with stops at Portland Community College, the Tigard Transit Center, and Washington Square. Connections can be made to other bus routes at all five locations. V. BACKGROUND AND IN-PROCESS TRAFFIC BACKGROUND TRAFFIC A review of recent traffic counts for the intersections of Hampton Street with SW 72nd Avenue and SW 68th Parkway indicate a growth rate of approximately 5% per year. It should be noted however, that traffic volumes counted in May 1996 at the Hampton Street intersection with SW 72nd Avenue are lower than those from June 1994 for the same time period. It appears that traffic volumes decreased after 1994 in the vicinity of the site. This may be due to the extension of Dartmouth east to SW 68th Parkway and construction of the new SW 72nd Avenue intersection with Highway 99. Both of these improvements provided additional access to the Tigard triangle area. Five years of traffic growth at this 5% rate were applied to all study area intersections, with the exception of SW 68th Parkway at Dartmouth Street, to reflect conditions in 2001. Only one year of growth was added to SW 68th Parkway and Dartmouth to reflect conditions at full occupancy of the site. Figures 4A and 4B illustrate this growth for the AM and PM peak hours, respectively. IN-PROCESS TRAFFIC In-process traffic is traffic which will be generated by projects which have been approved through the City land use approval process, but which were not generating full-buildout traffic volumes at the time of the traffic counts. City of Tigard staff indicated several projects would add traffic to the study area intersections. Most of these projects are small office uses with low numbers of peak hour trips added to the study area intersections. These volumes are accounted for in the background growth rates. One major project in the area which has approval, but is not yet constructed is the Tri-County center proposed for the southwest corner of Dartmouth Street at SW 72nd Avenue. According to the traffic study, Tri-County shopping center traffic will only impact SW 72nd Avenue at Hampton Street. F:IWPDATA\SPECS\TS196500124TS-BTA.KC A proposed 148 unit Homestead Village extended stay hotel is proposed on the west side of SW 68th Parkway, with access directly opposite the north parcel's driveway. Although this development has not yet been approved, it has been included for in-process traffic purposes. Trip assignments for the two in-process projects are shown in Figures 5A and 5B for the AM and PM peak hours, respectively. Copies of the individual assignment sheets are included in the appendix. Base year 2001 traffic volumes without development of the site are presented in Figure 6. These volumes include existing, background, and in-process traffic. VI. TRIP GENERATION Trip generation estimates for the proposed Triangle Corporate Park were prepared using rates published in the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation, Fifth Edition for General Office Buildings (Land Use Code 710) and Hotels(Land Use Code 310). Option A includes a total of 175,200 s.f of office in three buildings and a 64,000 s.f. Hotel with approximately 225 rooms. Option B includes 229,200 s.f of office space in four buildings. The trips generated by the two options are summarized below. A more detailed calculation is included in the appendix. Option A Option B ADT 4065 2627 vpd AM Peak Enter 351 324 vph Exit 90 40 vph PM Peak Enter 138 58 vph Exit 309 284 vph For purposes of this analysis, all trips generated by this development are assumed to be automobile trips and all the hotel rooms are assumed to be occupied. Some transit use is anticipated with the nearest bus stop located on Hampton Street just west of SW 68th Parkway. No reduction was taken to account for shared use between the hotel and office buildings. VII. TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND ASSIGNMENT DISTRIBUTION Trip distribution for the Triangle Corporate Park traffic is based upon evaluation of existing traffic patterns at the study area intersections. Approximately 55% of site traffic will travel north along SW 68th Parkway towards the Interstate 5 interchange at Haines Street, 40% to the south along SW 72nd Avenue to access Highway 217, and 5% to the north on SW 72nd Avenue. Figures 7A and 7B present the trip distribution and corresponding trip assignments for the AM and PM peak hours for Option A. Figures 7C and 7D present the trip assignment for Option B. Figures 8A and 8B present the anticipated 2001 traffic volumes with full development of the three office buildings and hotel in Option A. Traffic volumes with the four office buildings of Option B are presented in Figures 8C and 8D. These volumes include 2001 base traffic plus site trip assignments. F:\W PDATA\SPECS\TS\96500\24TS-BTA KC VIII. WARRANT ANALYSIS Peak hour traffic signal warrants presented in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices were reviewed for the volumes anticipated at the intersections of SW 68th Parkway with Hampton and Dartmouth Streets. Signal warrant graphs are included in the appendix. Because Hampton Street and SW 68th Parkway have similar approach volumes, both were considered as the major street for signal warrants. The 2001 traffic volumes with development of the site are below the warrants for two lanes on the major street and one lane on the minor street. This intersection operates well with a four-way stop control, in part because of the similar volumes of traffic on the north and west approaches. A traffic signal is not warranted at this time, nor with development of either option for the Triangle Corporate Park. The intersection of SW 68th Parkway with Dartmouth Street is currently just meeting signal warrants during the PM peak hour. With the added in-process, background and site traffic, the minimum peak hour warrant volumes will be met for both the AM and PM peak hours for a two lane by one lane intersection. Based upon the low average delays currently experienced and ODOT's Unsigl0 software calculations indicating a level of service"D" or better with either development option, a signal is not recommended at this time or with development of the Triangle Corporate Park. IX. INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS Intersection capacity calculations were conducted utilizing the methodologies presented in the 1994 Highway Capacity Manual, Special Report 209. HCS software was used to prepare the capacity and level of service calculations. Copies of the calculations are included in the Appendix. The concept of Level of Service has been developed by traffic engineers to allow a qualitative measure of an intersection's operation. A level of service "A" is representative of generally free-flowing conditions while a level of service "F" is representative of excessive delays. Evaluation of signalized intersection capacity and operation utilizes two criteria standardized in the transportation engineering industry. The first measure of operational acceptability for roadways and intersections is the ratio of traffic volume to capacity of the roadway or intersection. This ratio is referred to as the volume-to-capacity ratio (V/C). The second measure of operation is described by a term called "Level of Service" (LOS). Level of Service is a graded measure of operation ranging from a level "A" for unimpeded free flow, to a level "F" representing congestion, gridlock, and excessive travel delay. A level of service "D" is generally considered acceptable for intersection approaches. Level of service for a signalized intersection is based upon average delay incurred by all vehicles utilizing the intersection during the peak 15 minutes of the design hour. The intersection of SW 72nd Avenue and SW Hampton Street is a signalized intersection. Unsignalized intersections are evaluated on the delay experienced by each lane or lane group and the total intersection average, similarly to signalized intersections. This delay corresponds to the lane or lane group's reserve capacity, which is a measure of the capacity of a movement which is unused. Because major street traffic is nearly unimpeded, the intersection average does not always reflect the delays experienced by side street traffic. For this reason, the lane or lane group that experiences the highest delay will be reported for the intersection as a whole, along with the corresponding level of service and reserve capacity. F:\W PDATA\SPECS\TS\96 500\24TS-BTA.KC All-way stop controlled intersections also are evaluated on the delay experienced by each approach. The delay corresponds to the approach reserve capacity. This methodology works well for intersections with a single lane and even distribution of traffic on each approach and where heavy turning volumes are not present. When multiple lanes are provided on each approach, the majority of traffic is on two or three approaches, or heavy turning volumes are experienced, the methodology begins to break down. When this occurs, a manual survey of existing delays is recommended. The intersection of SW 68th Parkway and SW Hampton Street is an all-way stop controlled intersection. The capacity calculations address existing 1996 traffic conditions, 2001 base conditions without development of the site and 2001 combined traffic after full occupancy of the proposed Triangle Corporate Park. Figures 8A and 8B illustrate the 2001 combined traffic volumes for AM and PM peak hours, respectively. Combined traffic is a combination of existing 1995 traffic volumes, background growth (5% for five years), in-process traffic, and site generated traffic. The table below summarizes the capacity and level of service calculations. Table 1 Intersection Capacity and Level of Service INTERSECTION TIME EXISTING BASE OPTION A OPTION B SW 72nd Ave/ AM 0.442-8.3-B 0.579-9.0-B 0.779-11.5-B 0.752-10.5-B A SW Hampton St PM 0.525-13.3-B 0.823-17.2-C 0.904-23.6-C 0.896-23.2-C SW 68th Pkwy/ AM 5.2-B 8.1-B 17.1-C 16.8-C B SW Hampton St PM 6.9-B 6.6-B 16.2-C 12.8-C SW 68th Pkwy/ AM n/a 939-3.8-A 519-6.9-B 593-6.1-B C North Parcel PM n/a 953-3.8-A 545-6.6-B 632-5.7-B SW 68th Pkwy/ AM 1150-3.1-A 1150-3.1-A 885-4.1-A 909-4.0-A D Fanners Access PM 1012-3.6-A 1012-3.6-A 740-4.9-A 797-4.5-A SW 68th Pkwy/ AM n/a n/a 806-4.5-A 858-4.2-A E South Parcel PM n/a n/a 760-4.7-A 802-4.5-A SW 68th Pkwy/ AM n/a n/a 1285-2.8-A 1285-2.8-A F North Parcel PM n/a n/a 1202-3.0-A 1237-2.9-A SW 68th Pkwy/ AM 1176-3.1-A 1176-3.1-A 1000-3.6-A 1043-3.5-A G SW 66th Ave PM 1092-3.3-A 1092-3.3-A 921-3.9-A 924-3.9-A SW 66th Ave/ AM n/a n/a 843-4.3-A 869-4.1-A H South Parcel PM n/a n/a 901-4.0-A 903-4.0-A Unsignalized: Reserve Capacity-Highest Approach Delay(sec)-Level of Service All-way Stop Controlled:Average Delay(sec)-Level of Service Signalized:Volume to Capacity Ratio-Average Delay(sec)-Level of Service F:\WPDATA\SPECS\TS\96500\24TS-BTA.KC The intersection of Hampton Street with SW 68th Parkway is operating with four-way stop control. Left turn lanes are provided on Hampton Street. SW 68th Parkway is striped for a single lane approach in both directions. The predominant traffic movements are eastbound to northbound and southbound to westbound. These two turning movements are complimentary in that they can occur simultaneously. Often when a large percentage of turning movements occur at an all-way stop intersection, the capacity methodologies break down. This is the case for Hampton at SW 68th Parkway which resulted in the southbound approach having higher demand than capacity. Field observations indicated that all the approaches at this intersection operate with little delay. The intersection capacity calculations were adjusting by adding a southbound right turn lane to the input geometry. This has the effect of modeling the right turn as an overlap, or simultaneous movement as the eastbound left turn. The capacity results for this adjustment are presented in the table above which more accurately models the existing intersection operation and estimates future conditions. The right turn does not need to be added to the southbound approach of SW 68th Parkway. The intersection is currently operating and will continue to operate in 2001 at acceptable levels of service with the existing lane configuration. Intersection capacity would only improve slightly with the right turn lane, but on street parking would be lost. Although the intersection of Hampton Street with SW 72nd Avenue is anticipated to operate at levels of service"C," queue spill back from the Highway 217 off ramp may cause congestion at the intersection during peak hours. The Hunziker overpass and connection to SW 72nd Avenue opposite Hampton is planned as part of the Interstate 5 and Highway 217 interchange improvements. The timing and configuration of this project are not yet known, so only the existing lane configuration was assumed in this analysis. The site access locations and intersections of SW 68th Parkway with the exiting Farmers access and SW 66th Avenue will operate at a level of service`B" or better during the peak hours in 2001. Intersection capacity analysis for the intersection of Dartmouth Street with SW 68th Parkway was performed using ODOT's Unsigl0 software. A manual delay survey was conducted during both the AM and PM peak hours to determine the average intersection delay and confirm the Unsigl 0 results. A weighted average of the delay experienced for each turning movement indicates that the AM peak hour has an average delay of 4.20 seconds (Level of Service A) and the PM peak hour has an average delay of 7.79 seconds (Level of Service B). A copy of the survey summary is included in the appendix. F:1W PDATA\SPECS\TS\96500124TS-BTA KC The Unsigl0 software results for existing traffic volumes were also a level of service A for the AM peak hour and B for the PM peak hour. Analysis with this software assumed a 2x4 lane configuration with Dartmouth as the major roadway. The resulting level of service and percent of saturation for this intersection as well as the existing delay, are listed below for existing traffic volumes. Only the level of service and percent saturation are reported for base and combined volumes. Table 2 Dartmouth Street at SW 68th Parkway Intersection Operation Summary EXISTING BASE OPTION A OPTION B TIME LOS % Sat. Delay LOS % Sat. LOS % Sat. LOS % Sat. AM A 38 4.20 A 42 A 49 A 45 PM B 63 7.79 C 68 D 82 C-D 77 The capacity analysis results indicate that the intersection of Dartmouth Street at SW 68th Parkway will continue to operate at an acceptable level of service during the AM and PM peak hours with development of either option for the Triangle Corporate Park. The Tigard Triangle Traffic Analysis Update Study prepared by DKS Associates in May 1995 reviewed conditions in 2010 assuming full development of the Triangle. The study found that Dartmouth would need to be widened to five lanes(from it's current 3) and a signal would be needed at the intersection with SW 68th Parkway. Although the study did not predict when a signal and widening may be needed, it is likely that development of the commercial properties along Dartmouth, especially the proposed Tri-County Center, will cause a need for these improvements. Group Mackenzie recommends that the City of Tigard plan for these improvements in the near future, and use impact fees collected from the Triangle Corporate Park, Homestead Village, the PERS office and other upcoming projects towards these improvements. F:\WPDATA\SPECS\TS\96500\24TS-BTAKC X. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Development of the four proposed Triangle Corporate Park can be accommodated with the existing transportation network in the study area. All the intersections are expected to be operating at a level of service "C" or better with development of the site in 2001. No off-site improvements are needed to mitigate traffic impacts of the office buildings. Sidewalks are provided along the south parcel frontage and study area roads which allow pedestrian travel separated from vehicles, and provides access to bus stops on Hampton from the site. Sidewalks should be provided on the north parcel frontage of SW 68th Parkway as well. F:\WPDATA\SPECS\TS\96500\24TS-BTAKC XL APPENDIX Figures Traffic Count Summaries In-process Traffic Trip Generation Warrant Analysis Capacity Calculations: • Existing Traffic • Base Traffic • Combined Traffic Option A • Combined Traffic Option B • 68th Parkway/Dartmouth Street F:\WPDATA\SPECS\TS\96500\24TS-BTAKC FIGURES 0 NOT TO SCALE 99 a; r * N Atlanta St Hanes Rd > Q Si.,41 111111.w 75 c 4 PS (J SPr 'Pa Qh 'IOU th t a Q 3 N 0., Hermosa Y L a a a 2 1 7 ._MRR St CD 1■ Gonzaga St `° '0 '.D Hampton S 5 s kit,„, +' zike, n I Varns St � • lilheri SITE FIGURE 1 DRAWN BY: EAH/DLF VICINITY MAP CHECKED BY: BTA TRIANGLE CORPORATE PARK DATE: DECEMBER 24, 1996 JOB NUMBER:296500 6 R- M A C K E N Z I E 1 SHEET OF Civil Engineering Arohiteoturs ©MACKENZIE ENGINEERING INCORPORATED 8truotural Engineering Interior Design 1995 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Transportation Planning Land use Planning 0690 SW sv,orvrt iv/PO Dolt 49039 Porllnnd.OR 972010039 29604401\TRAFFIC\044FG01.DWG OLF 12/24/96 08:29 1:1.00 Tel. 503 22.9570 rax• 503 228 1285 101118 i'SC.L��...LT.LR �11 �' 1141 IiJi y,� ; -s ;del a - i Q iiH, 11 13121433 li IN:Ii 13I C h �1 f 5 fII. _ 1 111 iKu gs. (wc.o) i___-L_J alffHfflflflf1-0 -; - 0IIIIflfffffffff1-0 '..-.:---a {+ ° tffiftf `.g'° !�� --- ... 1 _ 1�1 ... ' NHiHflflffflflfn •ii rellt \ \ Pi y 4 11 1 b.'. \ tl 11 V1-14441-11+0 lir i . . . . • � Di 1 d_ m $ �, t:„ ii ,.. n 1 111;1;; g =ea—......,..v.zna 11 g&os lo INI. h 1 . li ' ill, �'''"" I i;I11 II1 IIiii: i 1 :I ; . 11 1 N qi w iiiii , ..■..■i P OIIfHffffffffl - l - OHlMHflff •----- I j\ _._ • flf IIIf3IHI f0 _' ' I i C� �I� q NHfIffIlf 110 ::1-- \ \ - I . WI --\ I, / \ \ If 7-471 , \ . \ i M ! Wifllfffffff-0 ' , _ , f 1 . 3 - JJJJI �r 16 _ '11 ' i \\__ _ _ ( _ • ___, 0 Dartmouth St I NOT TO SCALE PJ 0 a >5) > - 11 �`� 61 ¢ 0_ 73 64--- 166 S S 30` ,r 126 > -P -p QJ 0� op > O 1 ¢ A Q -5• • , - ^ aN Hampton St M j \. 1j \ "� 8 1151 '— 13 71-- 5 } — 144 59� �,— 3 I 1 o a M o _ , O NM © V\\JH 1 1 1 ~ ilr © M to l0 M M - 1 11 ' 11 01 '- 3 1 ti 11 0-- — 0 6—► •-- 3 6— -- 3 ~ r ~ ..,-- 5--.1„ \ I \ i l \ 1 to co 111 \ 1 O at FIGURE 3A DRAWN BY: EAH/D LF 1996 EXISTING TRAFFIC - AM PEAK CHECKED BY: BTA TRIANGLE CORPORATE PARK DATE: DECEMBER 24, 1996 JOB NUMBER:296500 6 R SHEET OF M A C K E N Z I E Civil Engln..ring Architecture, ©MACKENZIE ENGINEERING INCORPORATED Structural Engineering Int.rlor Design 1995 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Transport*tlon Planning Land U" Planning 0010, \c:\oro\w(\0.wcau ar 12/20/06 06:39 1:1.00 0490 fW X967 01/PO 0o'69C°9 Portbnd.0R 92010039 Tat. 40].224.9 10 Fpn 60].270.1265 0 Dartmouth St I NOT TO SCALE N Fo >,S 156 '1 j \`� i48 < D_ 277 --- i88 S S 29 ti i ,— 75 > +' --' Q1 n A/� O c `O `D Q O 75• • N 5 Hampton St S tc.0 N ... t0 n l/-lJ +' Y I 1j1, 33 222 ' ' 52 20—• -•-- 79 C r 351 9---,„ — 0 it \ it O NIn° n © n ill; ° D • _ _ G O 1j � ` H f ~ ' pit © o N 0 O V N 1 L 1j 1j 13— .1 7 J ti 61 0— •— 0 10—• 7 10 — 7 ~ � � � 4~ \ t � it \ i O © O © n P7 1—V j \ i O n Pr) FIGURE 3B DRAWN BY: EAH/DLF 1996 EXISTING TRAFFIC - PM PEAK CHECKED BY: BTA DATE: DECEMBER 24, 1996 TRIANGLE CORPORATE PARK JOB NUMBER:296500 s R—+I A C K E N Z 1 E SHEET OF Civil Enpinaaring Arenttactur. ©MACKENZIE ENGINEERING INCORPORATED Structural Englnaaring Interior Design 1995 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Tran.portatlon Planning Land Use Planing 00TCYP \C:\Mpg\bNK\W4fG0]B 015 12/74/96 06:. 1:1.00 0690 1W IU90 St/PO Scar 69079 PsRbrW.OR 972010039 1.1+603.334.9670 0 06•603.2251253 0 Dartmouth St I NOT TO SCALE m CO >5) 4-1 1 �`� 3 > o_ 3— — 8 CU s S 2---,\ irr 6 Q A � 00 B O o � ^ Q C. co a Hampton St -P 1 11 � � � `� 2 29�' .` 3 , 18--■ f -- 1 1 rr 36 t5~� I �r 1 AO PI 0 © D = _ ! G t� 11L H ~ r \ i r N 1 \■ 11 11 o-' ti 1 - 0-- o— — 0 1-- — 1 1-► .- 1 } O © O © ON N �1 1 _....1 1.. \ 1 O FIGURE 4A DRAWN BY: EAH/DLF BACKGROUND TRAFRC - AM PEAK CHECKED BY: B TA TRIANGLE CORPORATE PARK DATE: DECEMBER 24, 1996 JOB NUMBER:296500 5 R M A C K E N Z I E I SHEET OF Civil Enpinaarinp Architecture ©MACKENZIE ENGINEERING INCORPORATED structural Enolnaaring Interior Design 1995 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Transportation Planning Land Use Planning 001[117 \c:\61r6\WORK\0aar¢OM Elf 12/20 s6 00:47 1:1.00 0690 sw soneron s.ino Dot 6909 r'rartbna.0 9720/0037 / ial 601.221.96)0 FQ%• 603.220.1206 0 Dartmouth St I NOT TO SCALE sr >S Q.) 8�1 ! �� Q Cl_ 14-- — 9 QJ S S '--...,\ irr 4 Q A � c Q O - ^ �D 0 v Pi v in CC Hampton St 1L 11 \ ~ 8 56f `- 13 5—- — 20 C 88 2— ,- 0 I it \ it • o � © ch � O D _f‘l, G rn 11 \ H ~\ ir--- 0 P 1 11 � 11 3-' .- 2 - - 21 0—...- 0 3—.- 2 3--- -•-- 2 © EO O N J,1 1 1t. 1 O FIGURE 4B DRAWN BY: EAH/DLF BACKGROUND TRAFFIC - PM PEAK CHECKED BY: BTA TRIANGLE GRATE PARK DATE: DECEMBER 24, 1996 JOB NUMBER:296500 SHEET OF 6 Rte° A C K E N Z I E SHEET Civil Engineering Architecture ©MACKENZIE ENGINEERING INCORPORATED Structural Engineering Interior Design 1995 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Transportation Planning Land U.. Planning ooTt.r \c:\DWG 11+o81t\Dorcas uu 12/25/96 05:51 1:1.00 0690 nit���•$1/ro eon 69 9 vortiona.oa 97201-0039 7.1•503 220 9570 10.•603 220.1286 0 Dartmouth St I NOT TO SCALE 0Ir' 3S 11 \ > Q f 10 10 0-- — 0 s S 2- 6 > -P +' al pit A � QO B Q O - N ^�• Hampton St S '.0 N - ,V - nn ,, W 1 11 \ 1 1 \ r 10 20� r v it \ it D OA CO © G n 11 \ H 20- `` ~1 f i t © 1 \ 11 \ 11 ~ � 1 r � \ / / 0 © S © � -1 1 ~\ i O FIGURE 5A DRAWN BY: E AH/D LF IN-PROCESS TRAFFIC - AM PEAK CHECKED BY: BTA TRIANGLE CORPORATE PARK DATE: DECEMBER 24, 1996 JOB NUMBER:296500 6 R-� AC K E N Z I E SHEET OF Civil Engineering Architecture ©MACKENZIE ENGINEERING INCORPORATED Structural Engineering Interior D••Ipn 1995 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Tren•port•tlon Planning Lena U•• Planning aoTCw \c:\owc\wolegos4rcoa6 DU 12/24/66 0l:x 1:1.00 TIN. 0690 aw am...mn SI/nD a«69039 PDrtlonG.0R 97201.0039 603 x26.9670 105•6103 228 1256 0 Dartmouth St I NOT TO SCALE N 3S sJ,1 \ 5 Q Q_ 0— — 0 Q� S S 2-. r 8 +' +' W cif Q A B O ° rn Hampton St - N 1 2 11 \ 12 161. C if \ if D O � " N O ^ " G N In H 11 \ 26—' `..._ —.... � � I © 1 \ 11 \ 11 J ti 1 - -.1\� I �� if� ~ i O © O f11 __, \ i 8 FIGURE 5B DRAWN BY: EAH/DLF IN-PROCESS TRAFFIC - PM PEAK CHECKED BY: BTA TRIANGLE CORPORATE PARK DATE: DECEMBER 24, 1996 JOB NUMBER:296500 6 R—+ MACKENZIE ' SHEET OF Civil Engineering Architecture ©MACKENZIE ENGINEERING INCORPORATED Struotur•I Engineering Interior Design 1995 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Transportation Planning Lend Use Planning 091EYP \c\DM'r.\nl'05tt\9/4PfA3B DU 12/x4/9e CAS 1:l.o0 0690 SW 5o,eraft 51/PO Sot O90,9 Portland.OR 97201-0039 Tel. 603.224.9670 Pax•503.22831255 0 Dartmouth St I NOT TO SCALE o^ >S J > 87 N"---`� 74 Q 0_ 67--..- — 174 S S 34--„,� i /f ,38 Q A 00 B @t0 N • • 0 - ,ocoM Hampton St - .3- N N D 1 11L W t 11 144 '- 16 89- 6 C ...--- 190 94 ti 4 I o ail _ � D",, . -11L H 20-' ........ ~ r 1 1 t © a I' as a 1 L 11 \ 11 0 4 �r 1--°• 0 •— 0 7— 4 7--. 4 0 © 0 0 111 O FIGURE 6A DRAWN BY: EAH/DLF 2001 BASE TRAFFIC - AM PEAK CHECKED BY: BTA TRIANGLE CORPORATE PARK DATE: DECEMBER 24, 1996 SOB NUMBER:296500 SHEET OF 6 R—+-�jJ A C K E N Z I E Civil Engln••ring AroMt•ctur• ©MACKENZIE ENGINEERING INCORPORATED structural Engln••ring Int•rlor Design 1995 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Transportation Planning Land Use Planning 9ottw \c:\DWG\waM\ourwu ar ix/xVSS of:ox 1:1.00 0690 SWS Icon Si/PO a00 49QA rortIona.OR 97201-0039 1e4•603.124.9670 rox• 503 221.1216 0 Dartmouth St I NOT TO SCALE CO 3S 11l > Q O_ 169 1 '- 160 291 ■ .-- 197 S S 32 ti r 87 > -P Q) OD 8 > I ¢ A `D O N -3• • N - ^ M � Hampton St - (b N ,,,C1 1 43 225 1 95 25— ---- 99 or ,— 451 27—. r 0 It pit to N © co U D - _ = G Nn • 11 P' ^ H 11 � 26 1 ti ~ Al" It N 0 in tO in 1 \ 11L 11 161 `— g 1 1 81 0— -..-- 0 13—..- 9 13—.- 9 --.. A-- 1 � ~ t � it 5 � i O © O © an co 11 1 ti i O N vt FIGURE 6B DRAWN BY: EAH/DLF 2001 BASE TRAFFIC - PM PEAK CHECKED BY: BTA TRIANGLE CORPORATE PARK DATE: DECEMBER 24, 1996 JOB NUMBER:296500 6 12 0 LI P SHEET OF --1—M A C K E N Z I E Civil Engineering Architecture ©MACKENZIE ENGINEERING INCORPORATED 8truotur•l Engineering Interior Design 1995 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Transportation Planning Lena us• Planning =cur \c:\wla\•osc\OWCPe Oil 12/24/ss a:os 1:1.00 ?..i.evo sw 24957.t:t i roeo'8939 Portbrq.OR9720i 39 803.324.0670 roz.803.225.1255 6 6j I 0 _....._ Dartmouth St I 5 20 NOT TO SCALE s Q 3S 1 \ j Ia > S S 18 r 105 > --' +' 01 fit A B Q D co r. N Hampton St - (2) f ((9) 37 1154 C 41--► ,- (33) 166 ✓ I rr t , it 0, co ._ e IFiD; D vv %� � .iv' A H (13) ~ r � 1t in n - to 1 1 � 1 1 (53) 64 1 s 9 (4)1 70— — (10) 6(3)—•- --- 9(2) 104-..,e tr — 9 6 \ © © ate. v O © v1-' tD In / j ENTER 351 (22'1 EXIT (90) I O FIGURE 7A DRAWN BY: EAH/DLF TRIP ASSIGNMENT (OPTION A) - AM PEAK CHECKED BY: BTA TRIANGLE CORPORATE PARK DATE: DECEMBER 24, 1996 JOB NUMBER:296500 GROUP SHEET OF 7 A C K E N Z I E SHEET Civil Engineering Architecture ©MACKENZIE ENGINEERING INCORPORATED structural Engineering interior Design 1995 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Transportation Planning Lend Use Planning xaeoa.ol\iMiTC\04ifrA74OMr o� tx/xs/te M:78 1:1.00 0690 SWafa+c7atSt/PO.0K69039 Portland.OR97201:0039 iel•503.224.9570 F99. 503.228.1286 5 18 j f 32 y Dartmouth St I (1110 5 20 NOT TO SCALE N 4I I 3S 1 L i 4 Q Q_ S S 7.-,.., r 55 > -1-' -f--) Q.) sir A °- q21 QD B Q Oin 01 N �� /� Hampton St S (0 CV In LO N l lJ -P (12) _,...' ...'" (34) 14—.- -•— (26) .—(121) 37 ti .— 0 in a e gi:i D ,=__-_- � H 11 _....' - (93) ~ r � lt in v 0) 0 40 t. N to in i \ i 1 1 1 --(156) 11– 2 (15)— 14—► — (64) 3(7)--•• — 5(4) 65- r 5 3---,„ l \ 1 0 0 crs1 © to n 11 ENTER 138 (49'1 EXIT (309) ti I O FIGURE 7B DRAWN BY: EAH/DLF TRIP ASSIGNMENT (OPTION A) - PM PEAK CHECKED BY: BTA TRIANGLE CORPORATE PARK DATE: DECEMBER 24, 1996 JOB NUMBER:296500 6 R-4—MACKENZIE Q 1 SHEET OF Civil Engineering ArOhltacture ©MACKENZIE ENGINEERING INCORPORATED Structural Engineering Interior Design 1995 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Transportation Planning Land use Planning 2150M01\TpAFTIC�0YFC075.(T70 Lilt 12/24/15 01:3] 1:1.00 0690 tw ,c,-on lit/PO Dos 69079 Portion.OR 97201-0039 7•1•503 224 9570 Fox• 503.225 1255 6 61 135 30 Dartmouth St I y S 5 20 NOT TO SCALE N 5 3I 1 l f� > S S 'Q 16�. 1 tr 97 ¢ A `0 B O yv� �0 Q 73 4111 c Hampton St - 1"--1 11 ,..o(1' ti 43—� (4) 371 154 C itr (15) 148-.\ it� 0 a © D G in N 11 ' H 1 ---- (9) ~lily .- m 1 \ 1 L 11 1 --- (21) 45—' .-- 6 (2)1 52--■ — (6) 7(1)_--.- — 10 121— T 10 7--...„ t \ i 0 0 v In CO 11 ENTER 324 ($'f EXIT (40) ~\ i 8 • FIGURE 7C DRAWN BY: EAH/DLF TRIP ASSIGNMENT (OPTION B) - AM PEAK CHECKED BY: BTA TRIANGLE CORPORATE PARK DATE: DECEMBER 24, 1996 JOB NUMBER:296500 SHEET OF 6 R'IYI A C K E N Z l E SHEET Civil Engineering Architecture ©MACKENZIE ENGINEERING INCORPORATED Structural Engineering Interior Design 1995 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Transportation Planning Land Use Planning aotcrr \c:\ \�1«\0aarw7c or 12/24/16 w:u i:l.oa 0690 SWSWc.onsl/105.469039 ronwne.oaor2ao039 791. 503 221 9570 7 ox• 503 2261215 5 18 j 132 Dartmouth St I 5 20 NOT TO SCALE 4 4 3S 1 j 14 > - 1 1 Q D_ — — S S 3 .— 23 j +' -p Q1 sir A 8 Q @ •CO N Na cu Hampton St - 1 11 ' N (1 1) 1 (38) 5— - (29) 39 1 f 33 C r —(111) 16— °n -� � 11 \ H 1 ` - (66) ~ � ir I-) O to i L 1 L 11 —(151) 8f '— 1 (15)—' 9— (45) 1(9)— (5) 2t�.` rr 2 1~\ I} © O ° cn O N / i 1 ENTER 58 (57'1 EXIT (284) ---„, \ O FIGURE 7D DRAWN BY: EAH/DLF TRIP ASSIGNMENT (OPTION B) - PM PEAK CHECKED BY: BTA TRIANGLE CORPORATE PARK DATE: DECEMBER 24, 1996 JOB NUMBER:296500 SHEET OF G R�+M A C K E N Z I E 1 Civil Engineering Architecture ©MACKENZIE ENGINEERING INCORPORATED 8truotur.l Engineering interior Design 1995 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Transportation Planning Lana u.. Planning *NEW \c:\owc\womc\oa4rcoFO ols 12/24/96 os:aa +n.90 0690 SwDonogn.t/P060+69039 Port+ono.0R 97201-0039 rel.503 724 9570 70x• 503225.1255 Dartmouth St I 4110 NOT TO scams >S 1 > - Q 87-' `. 74 67—.- -- 174 S S 52 ti i ,,- 243 > -P -P Q1 A co B > O goo Q ^� Hampton St S N. to N CO tD ,V -"� I � 11 '- 13 144 31 130 -.-- 15 ,t 223 260 r 4 it sir r4 .Ln in In . � 2 ° in VI 61(N1 O H 20 13 0— -- 0 O�. i fr 0 © or1„..) o v CO CO 0' n 1 1 \k 1 i 0 J' '- 57 64 r `` 9 51 0— 0 77— -- 14 16� -- 15 104 1 r r 9 12� i O O v O © N M to N- o 0 22-"1 0---, ` 1 0 0 - FIGURE 8A DRAWN BY: E AH/DLF 2001 COMA TRAFFIC (OPTION A) - AM PEAK CHECKED BY: B TA TRIANGLE CORPORATE PARK DATE: DECEMBER 24, 1996 JOB NUMBER:296500 G R O U P SHEET of —i—MACKE N Z I E l Civil EnpineorIng Archatoctuns ©MACKENZIE ENGINEERING INCORPORATED Struotur•I Enpin•.rk,p lntorlor ['assign 1995 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Transport/mtlon Planning Lane Use Planning aorelro \e:�oWw�„oac�oureos. ots ,xn•n• ores ,:,.ao 0690•W ltonc/vtt ft/r0 law 6900#Port laIW.Oa 972010039 7a1. 503 224 9570 705 503 22512115 0 Dartmouth St I NOT TO SCALE co N N Q) >,S > Q a. 169 ' `"--- 160 291- 197 W S S 39 r 142 > -i--' .P W \ ir ¢ A 0" 0� ^r°-� B > O N g q W Q in N 75• • ^r-C� Hampton St S NPO N l V 55 278�' "- 99 39- 125 C ~ 0 572 64 \ i r i t ® V" N 0 � N ° D —A 1p N N ��� N N N 0 NON H 1 \`- 93 • 26 ' 0--■ - 0 0ti r 0 \ It 0 Orzo 0 N 0 CO N ill Of t0 r- M i t i 1j 16-' `` 165 11--' `'- 2 23- 0- 0 27- - 73 23-.- 18 65--.., ,r 5 8ti \ I \ 1 0 0 S 0 °° ,r, co nI 49-'1 i 0 ti\ i ® O N FIGURE 8B DRAWN BY: EAH/DLF 2001 COMBINED TRAFFIC (OPTION A) _ PM PEAK CHECKED BY: BTA TRIANGLE CORPORATE PARK DATE: DECEMBER 24, 1996 JOB NUMBER:296500 6 R—9—MACKENZIE ' SHEET OF Civil Engineering Architecture ©MACKENZIE ENGINEERING INCORPORATED 8truotur al Engineering Interior Design 1995 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Transportation Panning Lana Use Planning 00Ttw \(ADM\WM(\a+rcaee 7lr 12/20/96 10:03 I:I.00 oevo aw w,o,olt s.iro e«evoov vonwna.oa osxloo�v T.19 503.226,9570 (09,(403.221.1219 Dartmouth St I S NOT TO SCALE to S > _ - --1 '''s- 7a Q D_ 87 67--.- -- 174 S S 50 ti r 97 > +' ..p Q1 fit Q A O °° B > 73• • c Hampton St -c VI N° o ai +� `- 12 144-" '- 22 132 -.-- 10 C— 205 242 ti p— 4 I it \ it • O PIa © N ° D ! G pi ., r. croi M)N N 11 • 20-" `- 9 0— -•-- 0 0---,,,. itr 0 © olno N d 0 to 0 of Y 03 N 1t') 1 \ 1 11 0- - 25 451 ` 6 31 0— ■-- 0 59-- — 10 15—► — 14 121--.., ,- 10 13--.., \ t \ i 0 S ® © 001 N N CD 0 8-" 0--,, \ i O FIGURE 8C DRAWN BY: EAH/DLF 2001 COMBINED TRAFRC (OPTION B) - AM PEAK DD BY: TRIANGLE CORPORATE PARK DATE: DECEMBER 24, 1996 JOB NUMBER:296500 6 R'°7 A C K E N Z I E SHEET OF Civil Englnaaring Architecture ©MACKENZIE ENGINEERING INCORPORATED Structural Englnaering Intarlor Design 1995 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Transportation Planning Land use Planning aa1[a9 \C\oac\WAS\DFCOSC DLF 12/26/n loos 1:1.00 0690 SW S .x7OLt St/NO sag 69039 Fortlond.09972010039 1a1•503 226 9570 FOx• 505 225 1265 0 Dartmouth St I NOT TO SCALE 00 o 0 >5> N — .— W 1 > 1 j Q a_ 169 ' `-- 160 291--• — 197 S S 35---., .-- 23 > ÷) -f-2 Q) sir Q A 00 B Q � � � @ N rl N CO " stN Hampton St _c oo N. Qpi l 11 � VO 54 230—. `� 103 • I30�e f � 128 I f 562 43� 1 I l— 0 • ID N N •/� N t7 nv NIF H 26 '1 �`— 66 0—►< } — 0 01. 1 I �r 0 © o (re 0 0 n O (0 cov v v 1 L 1 L 11 16—' `"-- 160 8— `` 1 23—' 0� -- 0 22—► — 54 23--► — 14 211. t 2 6ti� I} O © o O © cn rn cn N €I 57—1 i 0 ~ \ i O O N FIGURE 8D DRAWN BY: EAH/DLF 2001 COMBINED TRAFFIC (OPTION B) - PM PEAK CHECKED BY: BTA TRIANGLE CORPORATE PARK DATE: DECEMBER 24, 1996 JOB NUMBER:296500 6 R SHE ET OF M A C K E N Z I E SHEET Civil Englnssring Architecture ©MACKENZIE ENGINEERING INCORPORATED Structural Englnesing Interior Design 1995 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Tranaport•tlon Planning Lane Use Planning 001017 \c:\6wG\e68K\oaafW60 oil 12/u/tts 10:12 1:1.00 04.90 SW Sw,cia151/r0 ao459039 Port wna.069720140039 Tel. 603.224 9570 fox, 503 225.1285 TRAFFIC COUNT SUMMARIES 11: tic 7'`" r-a \ J- (, 5/ ,„5- e:,,,, 333 RIGHT THRU LEFT �s ,220 ....J _ Pr" -y 333, 8-3" k.....,,_ ._J w I te.... 1 Li 6 0 STACK N STACK a .i 3 =_ . � v.. t- � -ç N 1-. STACK STACK r = t— 1 4 1-1 _--) J LEFT THRU RIGHT DATE: $/29/9ln TIME PERIOD: 7, 36:\ L) TO: �'�L� I 1 3 (0 O AM ) NO TH I PM D COUNTED BY: iZY.'`•Y`----. SC( • aiMEST RA D r 2n`{ CHECKED BY: EA/41 DATE: 57.30194 JOB NUMBER: jglo2 i,g MACKENZIE ENGINEERING INCORPORATED Civil • Structural • Transportation 0690 S. W. Bancroft Street • P.O. Box 69039 ©NACKENZIE ENC:NEINC INCORPORATED Portland, Oregon 97201-0039 1996 AL. RIC TS RESEavEO Phone: (503)224-9560 • FAX: (503)228-1285 r r ■ .7f 1/"5"- ZyL l /;34) 3r3 Old N,,V y:L/C 3510 3a,) S:/c 3s 5:3a 3rz �� �� 5 �l> 3rd (p.OQ RIGHT THRU LEFT 39S I (...... Li-) . � --22(---,1- 3 w C., STACK N STACK 2 J 3 j) cc \ VS cc =m -� AN = I.- garkiptvi Si i ti STACK ce STACK r L 3 5 i 2 W 1 I r J LEFT THRU RIGHT • DATE: 50/9& AI( TIME PERIOD: (/=30 359 , TO: -3� AM ❑ NORTH PM A l /C IN COUNTED BY: 145 (_9 O /kir,�!S'ru6'>- CHECKED "- DATE: ,gD`4iii JOB NUMBER: /9(c226, MACKENZIE ENGINEERING INCORPORATED Civil • Structural • Transportation -- 0690 S. W. Bancroft Street • P.O. Box 69039 ©MACxENZIE ENC:NEERINC INCORPORATED Portland, Oregon 97201-0039 1996 ALL RIONTS RESERVED Phone: (503)224-9560 • FAX: (503)228-1285 I I (D:30 7s L:4 S 3.3 7 W 7..o0 94- 9:15 151 7:50 579 i 3 Li- 4 2_9 ,3:0. i39 is-.Ei 8:+S 8:3o 135` RIGHT THRU LEFT p' S19 = D. 82 J I q • 159 T 3 iic I � STACK -, STACK ri • J 3 N° -44 pi 5 0701 % ..5.- .. -= try .._ . . ..‘... sw 8 miProts S T ( c 1 L� r STACK 7/ STACK 3 ---) La 1 I r J LEFT THRU • RIGHT DATE: 6123/g4 TIME PERIOD: :4 ,S TO: 13: IS L .3 'LJ AM NO TH PM 0 . LL} - 370 ✓ COUNTED BY: AG CHECKED BY: OrH DATE: JOB NUMBER: ictLua. MACKENZIE ENGINEERING INCORPORATED Civil • Structural • Transportation 0690 S. W. Bancroft Street • P.O. Box 69039 ©MACKENZIE ENGINEERING INCORPORATED Portland, Oregon 97201-0039 1996 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Phone: (503)224-9560 • FAX: (503)228-1285 q:d° r-7-3 4:fs' l34 3_ 0 °?o t 4 .30 y:q 13`1— s 144 5:oo L�3 6;73 5:tS Ill- .5..3.0 I 4- [ \. c) l 5:.4,- J12/ !, :Ro RIGHT THRU LEFT J I 3- L._ ,1 22Z- Lot---1 0 s2 STACK 9 STACK 2 3 lc N 01 eu NIS VI n X00 m 3 i.3%ril ,2_6 . tNi t4YOVII j5r 9 .... STACK 77 STACK t e 2 W 1 I r J LEFT THRU • RIGHT DATE: -572-3/96 4)\1( TIME PERIOD: Lf:3o 1 T0: 5:3� [1� AM ❑ NORTH PM p . (. / a , Hi/ COUNTED BY: /4L DECKED BY DATE: JOB NUMBER: / 1/22[. MACKENZIE ENGINEERING INCORPORATED Civil • Structural • Transportotion 0690 S. W. Bancroft Street • P.O. Box 69039 0 96 R ENZIE ENGINEERING INCORPORATED Portland, Oregon 97201-0039 Phone: (503)224-9560 3X: (503)228-1285 _ — 6..30 36, ( 4C 2/ ,q ?cd is a39 S a.c5 ei 3 g A.: ei ) 7 �'' I Z 8_X) 9 = O. Ge6 RIGHT THRU LEFT P " y.3& I 1..._ , t-J L.,_ w . 8 J STACK STACK E• / t \ (--, ---. ‘ 6 q / = = / -,,,,,..■— \ L / s C / / ° STACK STACK r _ I- C cc W I r J LEFT THRU - RIGHT DATE: "n° TIME PE 100: G 347 (--Y TO: r- 3� AM N RTH PM ❑ COUNTED BY: C'Lse �}i2 I4 .. -.]SUrL -n;C€ !�- i oiEE Y CHECKED BY: rfrif DATE: 77qu`9 JOB NUMBER: 29(rnyL. 0/ MACKENZIE ENGINEERING INCORPORATED Civil • Structural. • Transportation 0690 S. W. Bancroft Street • P.O. Box 69039 ©MACKENZIE EmaNING INCC PORATM Portland, Oregon 97201-0039 1996 ALL WGI■TS RESZRVED Phone: (503)224-9560 • FAX: (503)228-1285 (4;S 17 4:30 4 l 5'O° 10 1.-- 2-- 7%3O IU t;45. RIGHT THRU LEFT 1KF= 7 k.,....-- ......J I L. L t---) W . J STACK STACK E J T \ V'-rt rn 1AVd�.}Y"! 14 = `' / s _ (° I� STACK STACK C., rm. Li Lii 1 I r- 4 J LEFT THRU RIGHT DATE: -7-Z`1�f6 TIME PERIOD: 4- TO: $'° 3 3 b AM ❑ N RTH PM gl • COUNTED BY: 14 k FAItIVt s 1�}51.)/Le-N%C£ Pf?0PF27y CHECKED BY: BTR DATE: -7-2i-9C JOB NUMBER: 2q0)1,114, 0/ MACKENZIE ENGINEERING INCORPORATED Civil • Structural • Transportation 0690 S. W. Bancroft Street • P.O. Box 69039 ©NACXENZIE ENC:NEL-1NC ma:AK:RATED Portland, Oregon 97201-0039 1996 ALL 12104TS RESERVED Phone: (503)224-9560 • FAX: (503)228-1285 _ 0: Fo /2.z - — b;-15- 173 CD 16 to 7:/5 225-'YS 3/9 /(LO 0 / 1--/ ? 0:30 Z PHF RIGHT THRU LEFT Y 3/� J I L . 3 �� L._ (0 /W STACK STACK C I • U I a o to n ID AJ O.b� b q = � �� wee► ��r f: 1 i e, 3° = STACK STACK (um" L _.1.. .) 1 2 /1 CC LJ —"Ill I CPI.— Y LEFT THRU RIGHT ~ DATE: 9/24190 TIME PERIOD: 746- q 51--/ ll AM NO TH PM E 8.svi6 tri/ COUNTED BY: TP/fff G Frrn c CHECKED BY: --"ii DATE: 9120,J(p JOB NUMEE-c: 2=14.64-Lf.O MACKENZIE ENGINEERING INCORPORATED Civil • Structural • Transportation - — 0690 S. W. floncroft Street • P.O. Box 69039 ©uACXENZlE ENG:NE_RING INCORPORATED Portland. Oregon 97201-0039 1996 ALL R1CHT5 RESERVED Phone: (503)224-9560 • FAX: (503)228-1285 ii:a0 35Z_ 9,75" 3 I 4:30 3y7- ��, iI'ys 3$Z . _ 5.00 L 3 1751 5:15 y .5'..,30 zpe, a ` 81 i 3 S-yS 33Z b=oO PH-F.:7 y = d-91 RIGHT THRU I LEFT I l...... • . i5a W ii-/ S-‘, -' STACK STACK C J -11 I \ 17;I7at i171-tQ S —. - 02aio _,.4::)v ,177 D .........__ I es ,_. 124W5 I F r • a 61 = STACK STACK -IIMI) Li u I riliw- J . -11111) LEFT i1 THRU RIGHT ~ DATE: 9//9/94' J TIME PERIOD: el VS 1 AM ❑ NO TH PM X r o?. ?ik ft-I/ COUNTED BY: Mi,/TP YAif?? c CHECKED BY: DATE: 9724/942 JOB NUMB.- P: 2.9F>041404 MACKENZIE ENGINEERING INCORPORATED Civil • Structural • Transportation -- 0690 5. W. Bancroft Street • P.O. Box 69039 ©t tcXENZtE ENC:NE=ZINC INCORPORATED Portland. Oregon 97201-0039 1996 AL RICH'S RESERVED Phone: (503)224-9560 • FAX: (503)228-1285 t IN-PROCESS TRAFFIC 0 OJ >, > 3 Q - C- S 5/10 t -P 1 (5/10) CO ■0 Cl.) 40/50 1 > Hampton St 1 (45/45) C _c B C CL 0 (50/45) 1 4r i --, 1 55/40 —_. (N., 1") n M —, A V -` (,) 20—► .- (11) (20)1 i rr `10' �� r`� 20ti� i rf �� 1 O © n O M co N M 1 � 11L 11 U -- 2 • 1 (26)1 P16---.- -.-- (14) -- 16 i rf t2 ~� I ~� i r� ~� 1 e © „r--,-..-, o, DRAWN BY: EAH TRIP ASSIGNMENT - SCENARIO I CHECKED BY: BTA HOMESTEAD VILLAGE DATE: JUNE 1996 JOB NUMBER:196226 MACKENZIE ENGINEERING INCORPORATED SHEET OF Civil • Structural • Transportation 0690 5. W. Bancroft Street • P.O. Box 69039 ©MACKENZIE ENGINEERING INCORPORATED Portland. Oregon 97201—0039 1995 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Phone: (503)224-9560 • FAX: (503)228-1285 Omar VIA•acc+A Is,12nnrnCV2W IA UM 0u/0111h4 1410 lilm I 1 —. 0 a cp 99 f \ la, Atlanta St Hanes Rd Q S4 75 C <PS Cu SPA R • TRI- c"'°ut t COUNTY CENTER 4 Hermosa W Y :11 s a a Q, s .z s ,� ' 217 _ st ,, CD N. .C) Gonzagn St 'D 'D •0 Hampton S' 5 1 s� y`n 'ker `' s. rm to I ` Varns S•�j.,, AM irr IC CO 0 in N 1 ' PM �r I 0 N DRAWN BY: EAH IN—PROCESS TRAFFIC CHECKED BY: BTA DATE: JUNE 1996 Te, CovNyry CC. re-R JOB NUMBER:196226 MACKENZIE ENGINEERING INCORPORATED SHEET OF Civil • Structural • Transportation — 0690 S. W. Bancroft Street • P.O. Box 69039 ©995 ANLL ENGINEERING Phone: Oregon •OF •FAX: (503)228-1285 00TEYP \H:\PROJECTS\196226\TROTIC\226fGO3 EAH 06/06/96 14:17 1:1.00 I 1 TRIP GENERATION ITE TRIP GENERATION RATES TRIANGLE CORPORATE PARK ITE LAND USE VARIABLE RATE ADT AM AM PM PM CODE Enter Exit Enter Exit OPTION A 310 Hotel Occ Rooms 225 1921 88 58 90 76 710 General Office KSF 175.2 2144 263 32 48 233 TOTAL 4065 351 90 138 309 OPTION B 710 General Office KSF 229.2 2627 324 40 58 284 WARRANT ANALYSIS FIGURE 4-5. PEAK HOUR VOLUME WARRANT CL - - - - - 6 1 1 00 2 OR MORE LANES Er 2 OR MORE LANES w U 500 I 1 1 1 I I I 1-1-1 < 2 OR MORE LANES Er 1 LANE 14 oti ~ 0 AM *1714 1 LANE Er 1 LANE Cr ,`� -`oiii1 ►.ice. O W 300 1 D 200 -'44.11411111 111 0 100 400 In 14.800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 MAJOR STREET — TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES — VPH *NOTE: 150 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWER THRESHOLD VOLUME FOR A MINOR STREET APPROACH WITH TWO OR MORE LANES AND 100 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWER THRESHOLD VOLUME FOR A MINOR STREET APPROACHING WITH ONE LANE. 6s 1 L, / N G����r - aprt 0 0 ►� FIGURE 4-5. PEAK HOUR VOLUME WARRANT CL s - - - - - - - - I 600 2 OR MORE LANES Er 2 OR MORE LANES Z w Q U 500 �► Q`"� 2 OR MORE LANES Er 1 LANE w C3 400 �����iR: js 1116' N lL141 1 LANE Er 1 LANE o w 300 �I1 Z 111.■ . 200 r■• ,_ 0 100 z = 400 600 800 M 1200 1400 1600 1800 MAJOR STREET - TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES - VPH *NOTE: 150 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWER THRESHOLD VOLUME FOR A MINOR STREET APPROACH WITH TWO OR MORE LANES AND 100 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWER THRESHOLD VOLUME FOR A MINOR STREET APPROACHING WITH ONE LANE. FIGURE 4-5. PEAK HOUR VOLUME WARRANT 600 _ 60 -` 2 OR ; • RE L • NES Er 2 OR MORE LANES W 4s� = + 2 OR M vel • RE LANES Er 1 LANE CC cc 400 lititNEIMIMAEI.ILANE Er 1 LANE � w 300 Itamigimiumm z 2 �.. ..._ J 200 -.,,11111 0 100 ,* = 400 600 Ego 800 1000 �1a200 1400 1600 1800 MAJOR STREET - TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES - VPH *NOTE: 150 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWER THRESHOLD VOLUME FOR A MINOR STREET APPROACH WITH TWO OR MORE LANES AND 100 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWER THRESHOLD VOLUME FOR A MINOR STREET APPROACHING WITH ONE LANE. REVISED TRIANGLE CORPORATE PARK SOUTH (FARMERS LNSURANCE PROPERTY) TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ANALYSIS OPTION A & OPTION B TIGARD, OREGON August 1, 1996 Revised December 24, 1996 Issued January 3, 1997 Project Number 296500 SUPPORTING CALCULATIONS PREPARED BY: Group Mackenzie 0690 S.W. Bancroft Street P.O. Box 69039 Portland, Oregon 97201-0039 Phone (503) 224-9560 Fax (503) 228-1285 F:\WPDATA\S;•ECS\TS\965C0'2tTS-ErA.KC CAPACITY CALCULATIONS EXISTING TRAFFIC HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY Version 2.4 06-06-1996 HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY Version 2.4 06-06-1996 Mackenzie Engineering Incorporated Mackenzie Engineering Incorporated Streets: 1I-W) SW HAMPTON STREET 1N-S) SW 72ND AVENUE Streets: 1E-W1 SW HAMPTON STREET (N-S) SW 72ND AVENUE Analyst: EAK File Name: A96EAM.HC9 Analyst: RAH File Name: A94EPM.HC9 Area Type: Other 6-5-96 AM PRAM Area Type: Other 6-S-96 PM PEAK Comment: 1996 EXISTING TRAFFIC COUNTS - AM PEAR Comment: 1996 EXISTING TRAFFIC COUNTS - PM PEAK Eastbound Westbound Northbound 1 Southbound Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L T R L T R L T R I L T R L T R L T R L T R L T R No. Lanes 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 No. Lanes 1 1 1 1 1 1 Volumes 144 9 211 3601 31 326 Volumes 351 33 359 176 22 462 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0112.0 12.0 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 RTOR Vol. 0 01 0 RTOR Vols 0 0 0 Lost Time 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 Lost Time 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 Signal Operations Signal Operations Phase Combination 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phase Combination 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 E8 Left NB Left LB Left NB Left Thru Thru • Thru Thru • Right Right • Right Right • Plods Pads • Pads Peals WS Left • SB Left • WS Left • SB Left • Thru Thru • • Thru Thru • • Right • Right Right • Right Pads • Pads Pads • Pads NB Right LB Right NB Right ER Right SS Right WS Right SS Right WE Right Green 22.OA Green S.OA 61.OA Green 41.0A Green 7.0A 40.OA Yellow/AR 4.0 Yellow/AR 4.0 4.0 Yellow/AR 4.0 Yellow/AR 4.0 4.0 Cycle Length: 100 secs Phase combination order: 81 85 86 Cycle Length: 100 secs Phase combination order: 81 85 86 Intersection Performance Summary Intersection Performance Summary Lane Group: Adj Sat v/c g/C Approach: Lane Group: Adj Sat v/c 9/C Approach: Mvmts Cap Flow Ratio Ratio Delay LOS Delay LOS Mvmts Cap Flow Ratio Ratio Delay LOS Delay LOS WS L 407 1770 0.437 0.230 21.8 C 21.7 C WB L 751 1787 0.525 0.420 14.5 B 14.2 B R 364 1583 0.027 0.230 19.3 C R 672 1599 0.055 0.420 11.1 B NB T 1155 1863 0.225 0.620 5.4 B 6.2 B NB T 771 1881 0.523 0.410 14.8 8 14.2 B R 981 1583 0.452 0.620 6.7 B R 656 1599 0.302 0.410 12.9 B SB L 106 1770 0.358 0.060 30.1 D 5.8 8 SH L 144 1805 0.173 0.080 27.8 D 11.4 8 T 1323 1863 0.304 0.710 3.5 A T 988 1900 0.525 0.520 10.7 B Intersection Delay . 8.3 scc/veb Intersection LOS • B Intersection Delay . 13.3 sec/veh Intersection LOS . B Lost Time/Cycle, L . 9.0 sec Critical v/c(x) . 0.442 Lost Time/Cycle, L . 6.0 sec Critical v/c(x) - 0.525 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation Center For Microcomputers In Transportation HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 1 HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 1 File Name C96RAM2.HCO File Name C96HPM2.HCO Streets: (N-S) SW 68TH PKWY tit-w) SW HAMPTON ST Streets: (N-S) SW 68TH PRKWY (E-W) SW HAMPTON ST Analyst RAH Analyst RAH Date of Analysis 6/4/96 Date of Analysis 6/4/96 Other Information C96EAM2 - 1996 EXISTING - AM PEAR Other Information C96EPM2 - 1996 EXISTING COUNTS - PM PEAK All-way Stop-controlled Intersection All-way Stop-controlled Intersection Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L T R L T R L T R L T R L T R L T R I T R L T R No. Lanes 1 1. 0 1 1. 0 Oa 1. 0 Oa 1 1 No. Lanes 1 to 0 1 is 0 Oa is 0 Oa 1 1 Volumes 115 71 59 3 5 13 4 3 0 29 44 173 Volumes 222 20 9 0 79 52 37 54 0 13 16 171 PHF .82 .82 .82 .82 .82 .82 .82 .82 .82 .82 .82 .82 PH? .67 .67 .67 .67 .67 .67 .67 .67 .67 .67 .67 .67 Grade 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 MC's (4) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 MC'S (4) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SU/RV's (t) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SU/RV's (4) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CV's (%) 2 2 2 1 1 1 14 14 14 3 3 3 CV's (%) 3 3 3 2 2 2 1 1 1 3 3 3 PCE'a 1 1 1 1 1 1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1 1 1 PCE'a 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Volume Summary and Capacity Analysis WorkSheet Volume Summary and Capacity Analysis WorkSheet re WB NB SB KB WB NB SB LT Flow Race 340 4 5 35 LT Flow Rate 331 0 55 19 RT Plow Rate 72 16 0 211 RT Flow Rate 13 78 0 255 Approach Plow Rate 299 26 9 300 Approach Flow Rate 374 196 136 298 Proportion LT 0.47 0.15 0.56 0.12 Proportion LT 0.89 0.00 0.40 0.06 Proportion RT 0.24 0.62 0.00 0.70 Proportion RT 0.03 0.40 0.00 0.86 Opposing Approach Flow Rate 26 299 300 9 Opposing Approach Flow Rate 196 374 298 136 Conflicting Approaches Flow Rate 309 309 325 325 Conflicting Approaches Plow Rate 434 434 570 570 Proportion, Subject Approach Plow Rate 0.47 0.04 0.01 0.47 Proportion, Subject Approach Flow Rate 0.37 0.20 0.14 0.30 Proportion, Opposing Approach Flow Rate 0.04 0.47 0.47 0.01 Proportion, Opposing Approach Plow Rate 0.20 0.37 0.30 0.14 Lanes on Subject Approach 2 2 1 2 Lanes on Subject Approach 2 2 1 2 Lanes on Opposing Approach 2 2 2 1 Lanes on Opposing Approach 2 2 2 1 LT, Opposing Approach 4 140 35 5 LT, Opposing Approach 0 331 19 55 RT, Opposing Approach 16 72 211 0 RT. Opposing Approach 78 13 255 0 LT, Conflicting Approaches 40 40 144 144 LT, Conflicting Approaches 74 74 331 331 RT. Conflicting Approaches 211 211 88 88 RT, Conflicting Approaches 255 255 91 91 Proportion LT, Opposing Approach 0.15 0.47 0.12 0.56 Proportion LT, Opposing Approach 0.00 0.89 0.06 0.40 Proportion RT, Opposing Approach 0.62 0.24 0.70 0.00 Proportion RT, Opposing Approach 0.40 0.03 0.86 0.00 Proportion LT, Conflicting Approaches 0.13 0.13 0.44 0.44 Proportion LT, Conflicting Approaches 0.17 0.17 0.58 0.58 Proportion PT, Conflicting Approaches 0.68 0.68 0.27 0.27 Proportion RT, Conflicting Approaches 0.59 0.59 0.16 0.16 Approach Capacity 943 645 399 565 Approach Capacity 914 523 369 444 Intersection Performance Summary Intersection Performance Summary Approach Approach V/C Average Approach Approach V/C Average Movement Flow Rate Capacity Ratio Total Delay LOS Movement Flow Rate Capacity Ratio Total Delay LOS RB 299 943 0.32 3.3 A EB 374 914 0.41 4.7 A WB 26 645 0.04 1.2 A WB 196 523 0.38 4.2 A NB 9 399 0.02 1.1 A NB 136 369 0.37 4.1 A SB 300 565 0.53 7.5 B SB 298 444 0.67 12.8 C Intersection Delay . 5.20 Intersection Delay 6.93 Level of Service (Intersection) • B Level of Service (Intersection) - 8 CAPACITY CALCULATIONS BASE TRAFFIC ECM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY Version 2.4 07-29-1996 ECM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY Version 2.4 07-29-1996 Mackenzie Engineering Incorporated Mackenzie Engineering Incorporated Streets: (E-w) SW HAMPTON STREET (N-S) SW 72ND AVENUE Streets: (B-W) SW HAMPTON STREET (N-S) SW 72ND AVENUE Analyst: RAN Pile Name: A01BAM.HC9 Analyst: BAH File Name: AO1BPM.HC9 Area Type: Other 7-29-96 AM PEAR Area Type: Other 7-29-96 PM PEAR Comment: 2001 EASE TRAFFIC COUNTS - AM PEAR Comment: 2001 EASE TRAFFIC COUNTS - PM PEAR Eastbound Westbound Northbound 1 Southbound Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L T R I T R I T R I L T R L T R L T R L T R I T R No. Lanes 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 No. Lanes 1 1 1 1 1 1 Volumes 190 11 350 4681 41 470 Volumes 451 43 699 233 31 828 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.012.0 12.0 Lane width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 RTOR Vols 0 01 0 RTOR Vols 0 0 0 Lost Time 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.0013.00 3.00 Lost Time 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 Signal Operations Signal Operations Phase Combination 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phase Combination 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 BB Left NB Left BB Left NB Left • Thru Thru • Thru Thru Right Right • Right Right • Peds Peds • Peds Peds WB Left • SB Left • WB Left • SB Left • Thru Thru • • Thru Thru • • Right • Right Right • Right Peds • Peds Peds Pads NB Right EB Right NB Right EB Right SB Right WB Right SB Right WB Right Green 21.OA Green S.OA 62.0A Green 33.5A Green 5.0A 49.5A Yellow/AR 4.0 Yellow/AR 4.0 4.0 Yellow/AR 4.0 Yellow/AR 4.0 4.0 Cycle Length: 100 sees Phase combination order: #1 #5 #6 Cycle Length: 100 secs Phase combination order: 81 #5 #6 Intersection Performance Summary Intersection Performance Summary Lane Group: Adj Sat v/c g/C Approach: Lane Group: Adj Sat v/c g/C Approach: Mvmts Cap Plow Ratio Ratio Delay LOS Delay LOS Mvmts Cap Plow Ratio Ratio Delay LOS Delay LOS WB L 389 1770 0.603 0.220 24.6 C 24.3 C WB L 617 1787 0.822 0.345 25.5 D 24.5 C R 348 1583 0.040 0.220 19.8 C R 552 1599 0.087 0.345 14.3 B NB T 1174 1863 0.368 0.630 5.8 B 6.9 B NB T 950 1881 0.826 0.505 17.9 C 15.8 C R 997 1583 0.580 0.630 7.6 B R 807 1599 0.324 0.505 9.6 B SB L 106 1770 0.480 0.060 32.0 D 6.1 B SB L 108 1805 0.323 0.060 29.7 D 14.5 B T 1341 1863 0.432 0.720 3.8 A T 1130 1900 0.823 0.595 13.9 B Intersection Delay . 8.9 sec/veh Intersection LOS - B Intersection Delay • 17.2 sec/veh Intersection LOS . C Lost Time/Cycle, L . 9.0 sec Critical v/c(x) . 0.579 Lost Time/Cycle, L . 6.0 sec Critical v/c(x) . 0.823 • Center For Microcomputers In Transportation Center For Microcomputers In Transportation HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 1 HCS: Unaignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 1 Pile Name B01BAM.HCO Pile Name 8018PM.HCO Streets: (N-S) SW 68TH PKWY (H-W) SW HAMPTON ST Streets: (N-S) SW 68TH PRRWY (E-W) SW HAMPTON ST Analyst 8TA Analyst BTA Date of Analysis 7/31/96 Date of Analysis 7/31/96 Other Information B013AM - 2001 BASH AM PEAK Other Information BO1BPM - 2001 BASE PM PEAR ADJ. PHP All-way Stop-controlled Intersection All-way Stop-controlled Intersection Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L T R L T R L T R L T R 1. 1 9 1. 1 9 1 1 9 1 1 9 No. Lanes 1. le 0 1 lc 0 0> in 0 0> 1 1 No. Lanes 1 1< 0 1 In 0 0> 1< 0 0> 1 1 Volumes 144 89 94 4 6 16 16 13 1 36 68 216 Volumes 278 25 27 1 99 65 60 80 1 16 36 214 PHP .82 .82 .82 .82 .82 .82 .82 .82 .82 .82 .82 .82 VHF .9 .9 .9 .9 .9 .9 .9 .9 .9 .9 .9 .9 Grade 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 MC's (t) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 MC's (t) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SU/RV's (t) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SU/RV's (t) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CV's (t) 2 2 2 0 0 0 14 14 14 3 3 3 CV's (t) 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 3 3 PCB's 1 1 1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1 1 1 PCB's 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Volume Summary and Capacity Analysis Worksheet Volume Summary and Capacity Analysis Worksheet EH WB NB SB KB WB NB SB LT Plow Rate 176 5 20 44 LT Flow Rate 309 1 67 18 AT Plow Rate 115 20 1 263 RT Flow Rate 30 72 1 238 Approach Plow Rate 400 32 37 390 Approach Flow Rate 367 183 157 296 Proportion LT 0.44 0.16 0.54 0.11 Proportion LT 0.84 0.01 0.43 0.06 Proportion RT 0.29 0.63 0.03 0.67 Proportion ST 0.08 0.39 0.01 0.80 Opposing Approach Flow Rate 32 400 390 37 Opposing Approach Flow Rate 183 367 296 157 Conflicting Approaches Flow Rate 427 427 432 432 Conflicting Approaches Flow Rate 453 453 550 550 Proportion, Subject Approach Flow Rate 0.47 0.04 0.04 0.45 Proportion, Subject Approach Flow Rate 0.37 0.18 0.16 0.30 Proportion, Opposing Approach Flow Rate 0.04 0.47 0.45 0.04 Proportion, Opposing Approach Flow Rate 0.18 0.37 0.30 0.16 Lanes on Subject Approach 2 2 1 2 Lanes on Subject Approach 2 2 1 2 Lanes on Opposing Approach 2 2 2 1 Lanes on Opposing Approach 2 2 2 1 LT, Opposing Approach 5 176 44 20 LT, Opposing Approach 1 309 18 67 RT, Opposing Approach 20 115 263 1 RT, Opposing Approach 72 30 238 1 LT, Conflicting Approaches 64 64 181 181 LT, Conflicting Approaches 85 85 310 310 RT, Conflicting Approaches 264 264 135 135 RT, Conflicting Approaches 239 239 102 102 Proportion LT, Opposing Approach 0.16 0.44 0.11 0.54 Proportion LT, Opposing Approach 0.01 0.84 0.06 0.43 Proportion RT, Opposing Approach 0.63 0.29 0.67 0.03 Proportion RI, Opposing Approach 0.39 0.08 0.80 0.01 Proportion LT, Conflicting Approaches 0.15 0.15 0.42 0.42 Proportion LT, Conflicting Approaches 0.19 0.19 0.56 0.56 Proportion RT, Conflicting Approaches 0.62 0.62 0.31 0.31 Proportion RT, Conflicting Approaches 0.53 0.53 0.19 0.19 Approach Capacity 910 629 430 595 Approach Capacity 873 504 392 464 Intersection Performance Summary Intersection Performance Summary Approach Approach V/C Average Approach Approach V/C Average Movement Flow Rate Capacity Ratio Total Delay LOS Movement Plow Rate Capacity Ratio Total Delay LOS RB 400 910 0.44 5.3 B 1:03 367 673 0.42 4.9 A WB 32 629 0.05 1.2 A WB 183 504 0.36 4.0 A NB 37 430 0.09 1.4 A NB 157 392 0.40 4.6 A SB 390 595 0.65 12.0 C SB 296 464 0.64 11.3 C Intersection Delay . 8.05 Intersection Delay . 6.57 Level of Service (Intersection) . B Level of Service (Intersection) • B Center For Microcomputers In Transportation Center For Microcomputers In Transportation HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 1 HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 1 File Name CO1BAM.HCO Pile Name COIBPM.HCO Streets: (N-S) SW 68TH PRRNY (E-W) ACCESS Streets: (N-S) SW 68TH PARKWAY (E-W) ACCESS Major Street Direction.... NS Major Street DirectionNS Length of Timm Analyzed... 60 (min) Length of Time Analyzed60 (min) Analyst BTA Analyst BTA Date of Analysis 7/31/96 Data of Analysis 7/31/96 Other Information CO1BAM - 2001 BASE AM PEAK Other Information COIBPM - 2001 BASH PM PEAR Two-way Stop-controlled Intersection Two-way Stop-controlled Intersection Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound L T R I T R I T R L T R L T R I T R I T R L T R No. Lanes O. 1 0 0 1. 0 0> Os 0 0 0 0 No. Lanes 0. 1 0 0 1. 0 0> 0. 0 0 0 0 Stop/Yield N N Stop/Yield N N Volumes 1 4 51 33 20 1 Volumes 1 25 13 32 26 1 PHP .69 .69 .69 .69 .69 .69 PHP .72 .72 .72 .72 .72 .72 Grade 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 MC's (t) 0 0 0 0 0 0 MC's (5) 0 0 0 0 0 0 SU/RV's It) 0 0 0 0 0 0 SU/RV's (t) 0 0 0 0 0 0 CV's (t) 1 1 1 1 1 1 CV's (t) 1 1 1 1 1 1 PCE's 1 1 1 1 1 1 PCE's 1 1 1 1 1 1 Adjustment Factors Adjustment Factors Vehicle Critical Fallow-up Vehicle Critical Follow-up Maneuver Gap (tg) Time (tf) Maneuver Gap (tg) Time (tf) Left Turn Major Road 5.00 2.10 Left Turn Major Road 5.00 2.10 Right Turn Minor Road 5.50 2.60 Right Turn Minor Road 5.50 2.60 Through Traffic Minor Road 6.00 3.30 Through Traffic Minor Road 6.00 3.30 Left Turn Minor Road 6.50 3.40 Left Turn Minor Road 6.50 3.40 WorkSheet for TWSC Intersection WorkSheet for TWSC Intersection Step 1: RT from Minor Street WE SB Step 1: RI from Minor Street NB EB Conflicting Plows: (vph) 68 Conflicting Flows: (vphl 29 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1279 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1339 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1279 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1339 Prob. of Queue-free State: 1.00 Prob. of Queue-free State: 1.00 Step 2: LT from Major Street SB NB Step 2: LT from Major Street SB NB Conflicting Plows: (vph) 84 Conflicting Flows: (vph) 45 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1563 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1632 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1563 Movement Capacity: (pcp))) 1632 Prob. of Queue-free State: 1.00 Prob. of Queue-free State: 1.00 TH Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) 1700 TN Saturation Plow Rate: (pcphpl) 1700 RI Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) RI Saturation Plow Rate: (pcphpl) Major LT Shared Lane Prob. Major LT Shared Lane Prob. of Queue-free State: 1.00 of Queue-free State: 1.00 Step 4: LT from Minor Street WB EB Step 4: LT from Minor Street WE EB Conflicting Flows: (vph) 72 Conflicting Flows: (vph) 55 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 962 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 984 Major LT, Minor TB Major LT, Minor TH Impedance Factor: 1.00 Impedance Factor: 1.00 Adjusted Impedance Factor: 1.00 Adjusted Impedance Factor: 1.00 Capacity Adjustment Factor Capacity Adjustment Factor due to Impeding Movements 1.00 due to Impeding Movements 1.00 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 961 Movement Capacity, (pcph) 983 Intersection Performance Summary Intersection Performance Summary FlowRate MoveCap SharedCap Avg.Total Delay FlowRate MoveCap SharedCap Avg.Total Delay Movement v(pcph) Cm(pcph) Csb(pcph) Delay LOS By App Movement v(pcph) Cm(pcph) Csh(pcphl Delay LOS By App BB L 29 961 a > > BB L 36 983 > > 969 3.8 A 3.8 990 3.8 A 3.8 EB R 1 1279 > > > EB 1 1 1339 > > > NB 1, 1 1563 2.3 A 0.4 NB L 1 1632 2.2 A 0.1 Intersection Delay • 0.8 Intersection Delay . 1.2 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation Center For Microcomputers In Transportation HCS: Uns:gnalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 1 HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 1 File Name DOIBAM.HCO File Name DOIBPM.HCO Streets: (N-S) SW 68TH PRXWY (s-W) FARMERS DRIVE Streets: (W-S) SW 68TH PARKWAY (E-W) FARMERS DRIVE Major Street Direction.... NS Major Street DirectionNS Length of Time Analyzed... 60 (min) Length of Time Analyzed60 (min) Analyst ETA Analyst ETA Date of Analysis 7/31/96 Date of Analysis 7/31/96 Other Information DO1CAM - 2001 BASE AM PEAR Other Information 001BPM - 2001 BASE PM PEAK Two-way Stop-controlled Intersection Two-way Stop-controlled Intersection Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound L T R I T R L T R L T R L T R L T R L T R L T R No Lanes 0> 1 0 0 la 0 0> 0< 0 0 0 0 No. Lanes O. 1 0 0 la 0 0, Oa 0 0 0 0 Stop/Yield N H Stop/Yield N N Volumes 1 4 7 44 1 1 Volumes 1 9 13 1 16 1 VHF .69 .69 .69 .69 .69 .69 PHF .72 .72 .72 .72 .72 .72 Grade 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 MC's (t) 0 0 0 0 0 0 MC's (t) 0 0 0 0 0 0 SU/RV's (t) 0 0 0 0 0 0 SU/RV's (t) 0 0 0 0 0 0 CV's (t) 1 1 1 1 1 1 CV's (t) 1 1 1 1 1 1 PCB's 1 1 1 1 1 1 PCB's 1 1 1 1 1 1 Adjustment Factors Adjustment Factors Vehicle Critical Follow-up Vehicle Critical Follow-up Maneuver Gap (tg) Time (tf) Maneuver Gap (tg) Time (tf) Left Turn Major Road 5.00 2.10 Left Turn Major Road 5.00 2.10 Right Turn Minor Road 5.50 2.60 Right Turn Minor Road 5.50 2.60 Through Traffic Minor Road 6.00 3.30 Through Traffic Minor Road 6.00 3.30 Left Turn Minor Road 6.50 3.40 Left Turn Minor Road 6.50 3.40 WorkSheet for TWSC Intersection WorkSheet for TWSC Intersection Step 1: RT from Minor Street MB EB Step 1: AT from Minor Street NB EB Conflicting Flows: (vph) 29 Conflicting Flows: (vph) 14 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1339 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1362 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1339 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1362 Prob. of Queue-free State: 1.00 Prob. of Queue-tree State: 1.00 Step 2: LT from Major Street SB NB Step 2: LT from Major Street SB NB Conflicting Flows: (vph) 51 Conflicting Flows: (vph) 14 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1621 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1688 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1621 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1688 Prob. of Queue-free State: 1.00 Prob. of Queue-tree State: 1.00 TH Saturation Plow Rate: (pcphpl) 1700 TH Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) 1700 RT Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) AT Saturation Plow Rate: (pcphpl) Major LT Shared Lane Prob. Major LT Shared Lane Prob. of Queue-free State: 1.00 of Queue-free State: 1.00 Step 4: LT from Minor Street NB EB Step 4: LT from Minor Street WE RB Conflicting Flows: (vph) 34 Conflicting Flows: (vph) 24 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1012 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1025 Major LT, Minor TH Major LT, Minor TH Impedance Factor: 1.00 Impedance Factor: 1.00 Adjusted Impedance Factor: 1.00 Adjusted Impedance Factor: 1.00 Capacity Adjustment Factor Capacity Adjustment Factor due to Impeding Movements 1.00 due to Impeding Movements 1.00 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1011 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1024 Intersection Performance Summary Intersection Performance Summary Flowaate MoveCap SharedCap Avg.Total Delay FlowRate MoveCap SharedCap Avg.Total Delay Movement v(pcph) Cm(pcph) Csh(pcph) Delay LOS By App Movement v(pcph) Cm(pcphl Csh(pcph) Delay LOS By App ES 1 1 10:1 > a a EB L 22 1024 a a a 1152 3.1 A 3.1 1035 3.6 A 3.6 RB R 1 1339 a a a EB R 1 1362 a > > NB L 1 1621 2.2 A 0.4 NB L 1 1688 2.1 A 0.1 Intersection Delay - 1.3 Intersection Delay - 1.3 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation Center For Microcomputers In Transportation HCS: Uneignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 1 HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 1 File Name G01BAM.HCO Pile Name GO1BPM.HCO Streets: (N-S) SW 66TH AVE (B-W) SW 68TH PKWY Streets: (N-S) SW 66TH AVE (3-W) SW 68TH PKWY Major Street Direction.... NS Major Street DirectionNS Length of Time Analyzed... 60 (min) Length of Time Analyzed60 (min) Analyst 8TA Analyst BTA Date of Analysis 7/31/96 Date of Analysis 7/31/96 Other Information GO1BAM - 2001 BASH AM PEAK Other Information GO1BPM - 2001 BASH PM PEAK Two-way Stop-controlled Intersection Two-way Stop-controlled Intersection Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound L T R L T R L T R L T R L T R L T R L T R L T R No. Lanes Oa 1 0 0 1< 0 Oa Os 0 0 0 0 No. Lanes Oa 1 0 0 la 0 Os 0. 0 0 0 0 Stop/Yield N N Stop/Yield N N Volumes 1 11 101 4 1 6 Volumes 4 38 3 5 8 5 PHP .69 .69 .69 .69 .69 .69 PHF .72 .72 .72 .72 .72 .72 Grade 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 MC's (t) 0 0 0 0 0 0 MC's (t) 0 0 0 0 0 0 SU/RV's (t) 0 0 0 0 0 0 SU/RV's (t) 0 0 0 0 0 0 CV's (t) 1 1 1 1 1 1 CV's (t) 1 1 1 1 1 1 PCB's 1 1 1 1. 1 1 PCB's 1 1 1 1 1 1 Adjustment Factors Adjustment Factors Vehicle Critical Follow-up Vehicle Critical Follow-up Maneuver Gap (tg) Time (tf) Maneuver Gap (tg) Time (tf) Left Turn Major Road 5.00 2.10 Left Turn Major Road 5.00 2.10 Right Turn Minor Road 5.50 2.60 Right Turn Minor Road 5.50 2.60 Through Traffic Minor Road 6.00 3.30 Through Traffic Minor Road 6.00 3.30 Left Turn Minor Road 6.50 3.40 Left Turn Minor Road 6.50 3.40 WorkSheet for TWSC Intersection WorkSheet for TWSC Intersection Step 1: PT from Minor Street NB FIB Step 1: RT from Minor Street WE KB Conflicting Flows: (vph) 103 Conflicting Flows: (vph) 6 Potential Capacity: (pcp(%) 1228 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1375 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1228 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1375 Prob. of Queue-free State: 0.99 Prob. of Queue-free State: 0.99 Step 2: LT from Major Street SB NB Step 2: LT from Major Street SB NB Conflicting Flows: (vph) 105 Conflicting Flows: (vph) 8 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1528 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1699 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1528 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1699 Prob. of Queue-free State: 1.00 Prob. of Queue-tree State: 1.00 TH Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) 1700 TH Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) 1700 RT Saturation Plow Rate: (pcphpl) RT Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) Major LT Shared Lane Prob. Major LT Shared Lane Prob. of Queue-free State: 1.00 of Queue-free State: 1.00 Step 4: LT from Minor Street MB PB Step 4: LT from Minor Street WB BB Conflicting Plows: (vph) 115 Conflicting Flows: (vph) 48 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 908 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 993 Major LT, Minor TH Major LT, Minor TH Impedance Factor: 1.00 Impedance Factor: 1.00 Adjusted Impedance Factor: 1.00 Adjusted Impedance Factor: 1.00 Capacity Adjustment Factor Capacity Adjustment Factor due to Impeding Movements 1.00 due to Impeding Movements 1.00 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 907 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 989 Intersection Performance Summary Intersection Performance Summary F1owRate MoveCap SharedCap Avg.Total Delay FlowRate MoveCap SharedCap Avg.Total Delay Movement v(pcph) Cm(pcph) Csh(pcph) Delay LOS By App Movement v(pcph) Cm(pcph) Csh(pcph) Delay LOS By App EH L 1 907 a a a BB L 11 989 a a a 1186 3.1 A 3.1 1110 3.3 A 3.3 BB R 9 1228 a a a BB R 7 1375 a a a NB L 1 1528 2.4 A 0.0 NB L 6 1699 2.1 A 0.1 Intersection Delay • 0.2 Intersection Delay s 0.6 CAPACITY CALCULATIONS OPTION A HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY Version 2 .4 12-24-1996 Group Mackenzie Streets : (E-W) SW HAMPTON STREET (N-S) SW 72ND AVENUE Analyst : BTA File Name: ACAAM.HC9 Area Type : Other 12-24-96 AM PEAK Comment : 2001 COMBINED TRAFFIC - OPTION A - AM PEAK Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L T R L T R L T R L T R ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- No. Lanes 1 1 1 1 1 1 Volumes 223 13 350 657 59 470 Lane Width 12 . 0 12 . 0 12 . 0 12 . 0 12 . 0 12 . 0 RTOR Vols 0 0 0 Lost Time 3 . 00 3 . 00 3 . 00 3 . 00 3 . 00 3 . 00 Signal Operations Phase Combination 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 EB Left NB Left Thru Thru * Right Right * Peds Peds * WB Left * SB Left * Thru Thru * * Right * Right Peds * Peds NB Right EB Right SB Right WB Right Green 18 . OA Green 5 . OA 65 . OA Yellow/AR 4 . 0 Yellow/AR 4 . 0 4 . 0 Cycle Length: 100 secs Phase combination order: #1 #5 #6 Intersection Performance Summary Lane Group: Adj Sat v/c g/C Approach: Mvmts Cap Flow Ratio Ratio Delay LOS Delay LOS WB L 336 1770 0 . 818 0 . 190 35 .1 D 34 . 3 D R 301 1583 0 . 053 0 . 190 21 .4 C NB T 1230 1863 0 . 351 0 . 660 4 . 9 A 8 .4 B R 1045 1583 0 . 776 0 . 660 10 .3 B SB L 106 1770 0 . 687 0 . 060 40 . 9 E 7 . 3 B T 1397 1863 0 .415 0 . 750 3 . 1 A Intersection Delay = 11 . 5 sec/veh Intersection LOS = B Lost Time/Cycle, L = 9 . 0 sec Critical v/c (x) = 0 . 779 HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY Version 2 .4 12-24-1996 Group Mackenzie Streets : (E-W) SW HAMPTON STREET (N-S) SW 72ND AVENUE Analyst : BTA File Name : ACAPM.HC9 Area Type: Other 12-24-96 PM PEAK Comment : 2001 COMBINED TRAFFIC - OPTION A - PM PEAK Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L T R L T R L T R L T R ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- No. Lanes 1 1 1 1 1 1 Volumes 572 55 699 278 37 828 Lane Width 12 . 0 12 . 0 12 . 0 12 . 0 12 . 0 12 . 0 RTOR Vols 0 0 0 Lost Time 3 . 00 3 . 00 3 . 00 3 . 00 3 . 00 3 . 00 Signal Operations Phase Combination 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 EB Left NB Left Thru Thru * Right Right * Peds Peds * WB Left * SB Left * Thru Thru * * Right * Right Peds * Peds NB Right EB Right SB Right WB Right Green 38 . 5A Green 5 . OA 44 . 5A Yellow/AR 4 . 0 Yellow/AR 4 . 0 4 . 0 Cycle Length: 100 secs Phase combination order: #1 #5 #6 Intersection Performance Summary Lane Group: Adj Sat v/c g/C Approach: Mvmts Cap Flow Ratio Ratio Delay LOS Delay LOS WB L 706 1787 0 . 911 0 . 395 30 . 0 D 28 .4 D R 632 1599 0 . 098 0 . 395 12 .3 B NB T 856 1881 0 . 917 0 .455 27 . 0 D 22 . 8 C R 728 1599 0 .429 0 .455 12 . 2 B SB L 108 1805 0 . 388 0 . 060 30 .4 D 21 . 0 C T 1036 1900 0 . 898 0 . 545 20 . 6 C Intersection Delay = 23 . 6 sec/veh Intersection LOS = C Lost Time/Cycle, L = 6 . 0 sec Critical v/c (x) = 0 . 904 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation HCS : Unsignalized Intersection Release 2 . 1 Page 1 **************************************************************** File Name BCAAM.HCO Streets : (N-S) SW 68TH PKWY (E-W) SW HAMPTON ST Analyst BTA Date of Analysis 12/24/96 Other Information 2001 COMBINED TRAFFIC - OPTION A - AM PEAK All-way Stop-controlled Intersection Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L T R L T R, L T R L T R ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- No. Lanes 1 1< 0 1 1< 0 0> 1< 0 0> 1 1 Volumes 144 130 260 4 15 31 42 53 1 63 185 216 PHF . 82 . 82 . 82 . 82 .82 .82 . 82 . 82 .82 . 82 . 82 . 82 Grade 0 0 0 0 MC' s (%) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SU/RV' s (%) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CV' s (%) 2 2 2 0 0 0 14 14 14 3 3 3 PCE' s 1 1 1 1 . 1 1 . 1 1 . 1 1 . 1 1 . 1 1 . 1 1 1 1 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation HCS : Unsignalized Intersection Release 2 . 1 Page 2 **************************************************************** Volume Summary and Capacity Analysis WorkSheet EB WB NB SB LT Flow Rate 176 5 51 77 RT Flow Rate 317 38 1 263 Approach Flow Rate 652 61 117 566 Proportion LT 0 . 27 0 . 08 0 .44 0 . 14 Proportion RT 0 .49 0 . 62 0 . 01 0 .46 Opposing Approach Flow Rate 61 652 566 117 Conflicting Approaches Flow Rate 683 683 713 713 Proportion, Subject Approach Flow Rate 0 .47 0 . 04 0 . 08 0 .41 Proportion, Opposing Approach Flow Rate 0 . 04 0 .47 0 .41 0 . 08 Lanes on Subject Approach 2 2 1 2 Lanes on Opposing Approach 2 2 2 1 LT, Opposing Approach 5 176 77 51 RT, Opposing Approach 38 317 263 1 LT, Conflicting Approaches 128 128 181 181 RT, Conflicting Approaches 264 264 355 355 Proportion LT, Opposing Approach 0 . 08 0 . 27 0 . 14 0 .44 Proportion RT, Opposing Approach 0 . 62 0 .49 0 .46 0 . 01 Proportion LT, Conflicting Approaches 0 . 19 0 . 19 0 .25 0 .25 Proportion RT, Conflicting Approaches 0 . 39 0 . 39 0 .50 0 . 50 Approach Capacity 857 647 493 708 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation HCS : Unsignalized Intersection Release 2 . 1 Page 3 **************************************************************** Intersection Performance Summary Approach Approach V/C Average Movement Flow Rate Capacity Ratio Total Delay LOS EB 652 857 0 . 76 18 . 0 C WB 61 647 0 . 09 1 .4 A NB 117 493 0 .24 2 . 5 A SB 566 708 0 . 80 20 . 8 D Intersection Delay = 17 . 12 Level of Service (Intersection) = C Center For Microcomputers In Transportation HCS : Unsignalized Intersection Release 2 . 1 Page 1 **************************************************************** File Name BCAPM.HCO Streets : (N-S) SW 68TH PRKWY (E-W) SW HAMPTON ST Analyst BTA Date of Analysis 12/24/96 Other Information 2001 COMBINED TRAFFIC - OPTION A - PM PEAK All-way Stop-controlled Intersection Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L T R L T R L T R L T R ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- No. Lanes 1 1< 0 1 1< 0 0> 1< 0 0> 1 1 Volumes 278 39 64 1 125 99 167 222 1 41 98 214 PHF . 9 . 9 . 9 . 9 . 9 . 9 . 9 . 9 . 9 . 9 . 9 . 9 Grade 0 0 0 0 MC' s (%) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SU/RV' s (%) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CV' s (%) 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 3 3 3 PCE' s 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation HCS : Unsignalized Intersection Release 2 . 1 Page 2 **************************************************************** Volume Summary and Capacity Analysis WorkSheet EB WB NB SB LT Flow Rate 309 1 186 46 RT Flow Rate 71 110 1 238 Approach Flow Rate 423 250 434 393 Proportion LT 0 . 73 0 . 00 0 .43 0 . 12 Proportion RT 0 . 17 0 .44 0 . 00 0 . 61 Opposing Approach Flow Rate 250 423 393 434 Conflicting Approaches Flow Rate 827 827 673 673 Proportion, Subject Approach Flow Rate 0 .28 0 . 17 0 . 29 0 . 26 Proportion, Opposing Approach Flow Rate 0 . 17 0 . 28 0 . 26 0 .29 Lanes on Subject Approach 2 2 1 2 Lanes on Opposing Approach 2 2 2 1 LT, Opposing Approach 1 309 46 186 RT, Opposing Approach 110 71 238 1 LT, Conflicting Approaches 232 232 310 310 RT, Conflicting Approaches 239 239 181 181 Proportion LT, Opposing Approach 0 . 00 0 . 73 0 . 12 0 .43 Proportion RT, Opposing Approach 0 .44 0 . 17 0 . 61 0 . 00 Proportion LT, Conflicting Approaches 0 .28 0 .28 0 .46 0 .46 Proportion RT, Conflicting Approaches 0 .29 0 .29 0 . 27 0 .27 Approach Capacity 688 381 501 579 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation HCS : Unsignalized Intersection Release 2 . 1 Page 3 **************************************************************** Intersection Performance Summary Approach Approach V/C Average Movement Flow Rate Capacity Ratio Total Delay LOS EB 423 688 0 .61 10 . 3 C WB * 250 * 381 * .66 * 12-3. *c NB 434 501 0 . 87 26 . 9 D SB * 3_1 * 579 *• 68 * 11.3 * G 1S00Intersection Delay = * /62- Level of Service (Intersection) = * C.. *The range limits on this approach exceed the maximum. Center For Microcomputers In Transportation HCS : Unsignalized Intersection Release 2 . 1 Page 1 **************************************************************** File Name CCAAM.HCO Streets : (N-S) SW 68TH PRKWY (E-W) ACCESS Major Street DirectionNS Length of Time Analyzed60 (min) Analyst BTA Date of Analysis 12/24/96 Other Information 2001 COMBINED TRAFFIC - OPTION A - AM PEAK Two-way Stop-controlled Intersection Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound L T R L T R L T R L T R ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- No. Lanes 0> 1< 0 0> 1< 0 0> 1< 0 0> 1< 0 Stop/Yield N N Volumes 1 57 1 109 225 33 20 1 1 1 1 13 PHF .69 . 69 . 69 . 69 .69 .69 . 69 . 69 . 69 . 69 . 69 . 69 Grade 0 0 0 0 MC' s (%) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SU/RV' s (%) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CV' s (%) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 PCE' s 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Adjustment Factors Vehicle Critical Follow-up Maneuver Gap (tg) Time (tf). Left Turn Major Road 5 . 00 2 .10 Right Turn Minor Road 5 . 50 2 .60 Through Traffic Minor Road 6 . 00 3 .30 Left Turn Minor Road 6 . 50 3 .40 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation HCS : Unsignalized Intersection Release 2 . 1 Page 2 **************************************************************** WorkSheet for TWSC Intersection Step 1 : RT from Minor Street WB EB Conflicting Flows : (vph) 58 242 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1294 1044 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1294 1044 Prob. of Queue-free State : 0 .99 1 . 00 Step 2 : LT from Major Street SB NB Conflicting Flows : (vph) 58 258 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1609 1292 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1609 1292 Prob. of Queue-free State : 0 .90 1 . 00 TH Saturation Flow Rate : (pcphpl) 1700 1700 RT Saturation Flow Rate : (pcphpl) 1700 1700 Major LT Shared Lane Prob. of Queue-free State : 0 .87 1 . 00 Step 3 : TH from Minor Street WB EB Conflicting Flows : (vph) 426 410 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 652 665 Capacity Adjustment Factor due to Impeding Movements 0 .87 0 . 87 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 569 581 Prob. of Queue-free State : 1 . 00 1 . 00 Step 4 : LT from Minor Street WB EB Conflicting Flows : (vph) 410 416 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 613 608 Major LT, Minor TH Impedance Factor: 0 . 87 0 . 87 Adjusted Impedance Factor: 0 . 90 0 . 90 Capacity Adjustment Factor due to Impeding Movements 0 . 90 0 . 89 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 552 540 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2 . 1 Page 3 **************************************************************** Intersection Performance Summary FlowRate MoveCap SharedCap Avg.Total Delay Movement v(pcph) Cm(pcph) Csh (pcph) Delay LOS By App EB L 29 540 > > > EB T 1 581 > 550 cm > 6 . 9 > B 6 . 9 EB R 1 1044 > > > WB L 1 552 > > > WB T 1 569 > 1151 > 3 . 2 > A 3 . 2 WB R 19 1294 > > > NB L 1 1292 2 . 8 A 0 . 0 SB L 158 1609 2 . 5 A 0 . 7 Intersection Delay = 1 . 0 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2 . 1 Page 1 **************************************************************** File Name CCAPM.HCO Streets : (N-S) SW 68TH PARKWAY (E-W) ACCESS Major Street DirectionNS Length of Time Analyzed60 (min) Analyst BTA Date of Analysis 12/24/96 Other Information 2001 COMBINED TRAFFIC - OPTION A - PM PEAK Two-way Stop-controlled Intersection Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound L T R L T R L T R L T R ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- No. Lanes 0> 1< 0 0> 1< 0 0> 1< 0 .0> 1< 0 Stop/Yield N N Volumes 1 181 1 20 92 32 26 1 1 1 1 93 PHF . 72 . 72 . 72 . 72 . 72 . 72 . 72 . 72 . 72 . 72 . 72 . 72 Grade 0 0 0 0 MC' s (%) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SU/RV' s (%) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CV' s (%) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 PCE' s 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Adjustment Factors Vehicle Critical Follow-up Maneuver Gap (tg) Time (tf) Left Turn Major Road 5 . 00 2 . 10 Right Turn Minor Road 5 . 50 2 . 60 Through Traffic Minor Road 6 . 00 3 .30 Left Turn Minor Road 6 . 50 3 .40 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation HCS : Unsignalized Intersection Release 2 . 1 Page 2 **************************************************************** WorkSheet for TWSC Intersection Step 1 : RT from Minor Street WB EB Conflicting Flows : (vph) 182 108 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1120 1221 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1120 1221 Prob. of Queue-free State : 0 .88 1 . 00 Step 2 : LT from Major Street SB NB Conflicting Flows : (vph) 182 124 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1404 1496 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1404 1496 Prob. of Queue-free State : 0 .98 1 .00 TH Saturation Flow Rate : (pcphpl) 1700 1700 RT Saturation Flow Rate : (pcphpl) 1700 1700 Major LT Shared Lane Prob. of Queue-free State : 0 . 98 1 . 00 Step 3 : TH from Minor Street WB EB Conflicting Flows : (vph) 326 311 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 736 749 Capacity Adjustment Factor due to Impeding Movements 0 .98 0 . 98 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 719 732 Prob. of Queue-free State: 1 .00 1 . 00 Step 4 : LT from Minor Street WB EB Conflicting Flows : (vph) 312 358 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 698 657 Major LT, Minor TH Impedance Factor: 0 . 98 0 . 98 Adjusted Impedance Factor: 0 . 98 0 . 98 Capacity Adjustment Factor due to Impeding Movements 0 .98 0 . 87 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 684 571 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation HCS : Unsignalized Intersection Release 2 . 1 Page 3 **************************************************************** Intersection Performance Summary FlowRate MoveCap SharedCap Avg.Total Delay Movement v(pcph) Cm(pcph) Csh(pcph) Delay LOS By App EB L 36 571 > > > EB T 1 732 > 583 > 6 .6 > B 6 . 6 EB R 1 1221 > 50 > > WB L 1 684 > 7 > > WB T 1 719 > 1110 > 3 . 7 > A 3 . 7 WB R 129 1120 > > > NB L 1 1496 2 .4 A 0 . 0 SB L 28 1404 2 .6 A 0 .4 Intersection Delay = 1 . 3 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation HCS : Unsignalized Intersection Release 2 . 1 Page 1 **************************************************************** File Name DCAAM.HCO Streets : (N-S) SW 68TH PRKWY (E-W) FARMERS DRIVE Major Street DirectionNS Length of Time Analyzed60 (min) Analyst BTA Date of Analysis 12/24/96 Other Information 2001 COMBINED TRAFFIC - OPTION A - AM PEAK Two-way Stop-controlled Intersection Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound L T R L T R L T R L T R ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- No. Lanes 0> 1 0 0 1< 0 0> 0< 0 0 0 0 Stop/Yield N N Volumes 1 57 181 44 1 1 PHF . 69 . 69 . 69 . 69 . 69 . 69 Grade 0 0 0 0 MC' s (%) 0 0 0 0 0 0 SU/RV' s (%) 0 0 0 0 0 0 CV' s (o) 1 1 1 1 1 1 PCE' s 1 1 1 1 1 1 Adjustment Factors Vehicle Critical Follow-up Maneuver Gap (tg) Time (tf) Left Turn Major Road 5 . 00 2 . 10 Right Turn Minor Road 5 . 50 2 . 60 Through Traffic Minor Road 6 . 00 3 . 30 Left Turn Minor Road 6 . 50 3 .40 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation HCS : Unsignalized Intersection Release 2 . 1 Page 2 **************************************************************** WorkSheet for TWSC Intersection Step 1 : RT from Minor Street WB EB Conflicting Flows : (vph) 203 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1093 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1093 Prob. of Queue-free State : 1 . 00 Step 2 : LT from Major Street SB NB Conflicting Flows : (vph) 225 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1339 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1339 Prob. of Queue-free State: 1 . 00 TH Saturation Flow Rate : (pcphpl) 1700 RT Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) Major LT Shared Lane Prob. of Queue-free State : 1. 00 Step 4 : LT from Minor Street WB EB Conflicting Flows : (vph) 261 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 748 Major LT, Minor TH Impedance Factor: 1. 00 Adjusted Impedance Factor: 1 . 00 Capacity Adjustment Factor due to Impeding Movements 1 . 00 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 747 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation HCS : Unsignalized Intersection Release 2 . 1 Page 3 **************************************************************** Intersection Performance Summary FlowRate MoveCap SharedCap Avg.Total Delay Movement v(pcph) Cm(pcph) Csh(pcph) Delay LOS By App EB L 1 747 > > > 887 4 .1 A 4 . 1 EB R 1 1093 > > > NB L 1 1339 2 .7 A 0 . 0 Intersection Delay = 0 . 5 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation HCS : Unsignalized Intersection Release 2 . 1 Page 1 **************************************************************** File Name DCAPM.HCO Streets : (N-S) SW 68TH PARKWAY (E-W) FARMERS DRIVE Major Street DirectionNS Length of Time Analyzed60 (min) Analyst BTA Date of Analysis 12/24/96 Other Information 2001 COMBINED TRAFFIC - OPTION A - PM PEAK Two-way Stop-controlled Intersection Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound L T R L T R L T R L T R ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- No. Lanes 0> 1 0 0 1< 0 0> 0< 0 0 0 0 Stop/Yield N N Volumes 1 165 92 1 16 1 PHF .72 . 72 . 72 .72 .72 . 72 Grade 0 0 0 0 MC' s (%) 0 0 0 0 0 0 SU/RV' s (%) 0 0 0 0 0 0 CV' s (%) 1 1 1 1 1 1 PCE' s 1 1 1 1 1 1 Adjustment Factors Vehicle Critical Follow-up Maneuver Gap (tg) Time (tf) Left Turn Major Road 5 . 00 2 . 10 Right Turn Minor Road 5 . 50 2 . 60 Through Traffic Minor Road 6 . 00 3 .30 Left Turn Minor Road 6 . 50 3 .40 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation HCS : Unsignalized Intersection Release 2 . 1 Page 2 **************************************************************** WorkSheet for TWSC Intersection Step 1 : RT from Minor Street WB EB Conflicting Flows: (vph) 92 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1244 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1244 Prob. of Queue-free State : 1 . 00 Step 2 : LT from Major Street SB NB Conflicting Flows : (vph) 93 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1548 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1548 Prob. of Queue-free State : 1 .00 TH Saturation Flow Rate : (pcphpl) 1700 RT Saturation Flow Rate : (pcphpl) Major LT Shared Lane Prob. of Queue-free State : 1 . 00 Step 4 : LT from Minor Street WB EB Conflicting Flows: (vph) 258 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 751 Major LT, Minor TH Impedance Factor: 1 . 00 Adjusted Impedance Factor: 1 . 00 Capacity Adjustment Factor due to Impeding Movements 1 . 00 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 750 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2 . 1 Page 3 **************************************************************** Intersection Performance Summary FlowRate MoveCap SharedCap Avg.Total Delay Movement v(pcph) Cm(pcph) Csh (pcph) Delay LOS By App EB L 22 750 > > > 763 4 . 9 A 4 . 9 EB R 1 1244 > > > NB L 1 1548 2 .3 A 0 . 0 Intersection Delay = 0 . 3 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation HCS : Unsignalized Intersection Release 2 . 1 Page 1 **************************************************************** File Name ECAAM.HCO Streets : (N-S) SOUTH PARCEL ACCESS (E-W) SW 68TH PKWY Major Street DirectionEW Length of Time Analyzed60 (min) Analyst BTA Date of Analysis 12/24/96 Other Information 2001 COMBINED TRAFFIC - OPTION A - AM PEAK Two-way Stop-controlled Intersection Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L T R L T R L T R L T R - -- - - - - - --- - - - -- - -- - ---- - -- - ---- --- - ---- - -- - - -- - No . Lanes 0 1< 0 0> 1 0 0> 0< 0 0 0 0 Stop/Yield N N Volumes 77 104 9 14 43 3 PHF . 69 . 69 . 69 . 69 . 69 . 69 Grade 0 0 0 0 MC' s (o) 0 0 0 0 0 0 SU/RV' s (o) 0 0 0 0 0 0 CV' s (o) 1 1 1 1 1 1 PCE' s 1 1 1 1 1 1 Adjustment Factors Vehicle Critical Follow-up Maneuver Gap (tg) Time (tf) Left Turn Major Road 5 . 00 2 . 10 Right Turn Minor Road 5 . 50 2 . 60 Through Traffic Minor Road 6 . 00 3 . 30 Left Turn Minor Road 6 . 50 3 . 40 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2 . 1 Page 2 **************************************************************** WorkSheet for TWSC Intersection Step 1 : RT from Minor Street NB SB Conflicting Flows : (vph) 129 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1191 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1191 Prob. of Queue-free State : 1 . 00 Step 2 : LT from Major Street WB EB Conflicting Flows : (vph) 181 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1406 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1406 Prob. of Queue-free State : 0 . 99 TH Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) 1700 RT Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) Major LT Shared Lane Prob. of Queue-free State : 0 . 99 Step 4 : LT from Minor Street NB SB Conflicting Flows : (vph) 152 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 865 Major LT, Minor TH Impedance Factor: 0 . 99 Adjusted Impedance Factor: 0 . 99 Capacity Adjustment Factor due to Impeding Movements 0 . 99 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 857 X�g *******g 9*** Center For -, ******** * * tarp °%-here *******R***a se 2. 7 ransporta Mpve F I2terse ******* *****tlon Page NB `` ment v A Ah)te MO�'eC ctlon Perfor ******* ** L `` 62 Cm<Pcph) CS aredCa mance SummaxY WB 4 85? ' -- h �pcph� D g Totdl Delay L Y 1 N72. R 13 l 1g1 8 `` LOS Delay 406 4. , `` � EYApp Irate 5 rsectipn De 2. 6 A ` Delay. 4 .s l 2 A 0. 7 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation HCS : Unsignalized Intersection Release 2 . 1 Page 1 **************************************************************** File Name ECAPM.HCO Streets : (N-S) SOUTH PARCEL ACCESS (E-W) SW 68TH PKWY Major Street DirectionEW Length of Time Analyzed60 (min) Analyst BTA Date of Analysis 12/24/96 Other Information 2001 COMBINED TRAFFIC - OPTION A - PM PEAK Two-way Stop-controlled Intersection Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L T R L T R L T R L T R - - - - -- -- - - - - -- - - ---- - - - - --- - ---- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - No. Lanes 0 1< 0 0> 1 0 0> 0< 0 0 0 0 Stop/Yield N N Volumes 27 65 5 73 92 7 PHF . 72 . 72 . 72 . 72 . 72 . 72 Grade 0 0 0 0 MC' s (o) 0 0 0 0 0 0 SU/RV' s (o) 0 0 0 0 0 0 CV' s (o) 1 1 1 1 1 1 PCE' s 1 1 1 1 1 1 Adjustment Factors Vehicle Critical Follow-up Maneuver Gap (tg) Time (tf) Left Turn Major Road 5 . 00 2 . 10 Right Turn Minor Road 5 . 50 2 . 60 Through Traffic Minor Road 6 . 00 3 . 30 Left Turn Minor Road 6 . 50 3 .40 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation HCS : Unsignalized Intersection Release 2 . 1 Page 2 **************************************************************** WorkSheet for TWSC Intersection Step 1 : RT from Minor Street NB SB Conflicting Flows : (vph) 60 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1291 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1291 Prob. of Queue-free State : 0 . 99 Step 2 : LT from Major Street WB EB Conflicting Flows : (vph) 92 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1550 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1550 Prob. of Queue-free State : 1 . 00 TH Saturation Flow Rate : (pcphpl) 1700 RT Saturation Flow Rate : (pcphpl) Major LT Shared Lane Prob. of Queue-free State: 1 . 00 Step 4 : LT from Minor Street NB SB Conflicting Flows : (vph) 138 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 881 Major LT, Minor TH Impedance Factor: 1 .00 Adjusted Impedance Factor: 1 .00 Capacity Adjustment Factor due to Impeding Movements 1 .00 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 877 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation HCS : Unsignalized Intersection Release 2 . 1 Page 3 **************************************************************** Intersection Performance Summary FlowRate MoveCap SharedCap Avg.Total Delay Movement v(pcph) Cm(pcph) Csh (pcph) Delay LOS By App NB L 128 877 > > > 898 4 . 7 A 4 . 7 NB R 10 1291 > 4° > > WB L 7 1550 2 .3 A 0 . 1 Intersection Delay = 1 .4 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation HCS : Unsignalized Intersection Release 2 . 1 Page 1 **************************************************************** File Name FCAAM.HCO Streets: (N-S) NORTH PARCEL ACCESS (E-W) SW 68TH PKWY Major Street DirectionEW Length of Time Analyzed60 (min) Analyst BTA Date of Analysis 12/24/96 Other Information 2001 COMBINED TRAFFIC - OPTION A - AM PEAK Two-way Stop-controlled Intersection Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L T R L T R L T R L T R ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- No. Lanes 0> 1 0 0 1< 0 0 0 0 . 0> 0< 0 Stop/Yield N N Volumes 64 16 15 9 1 8 PHF . 69 .69 .69 . 69 . 69 . 69 Grade 0 0 0 0 MC' s (%) 0 0 0 0 0 0 SU/RV' s (t) 0 0 0 0 0 0 CV' s (°s) 1 1 1 1 1 1 PCE' s 1 1 1 1 1 1 Adjustment Factors Vehicle Critical Follow-up Maneuver Gap (tg) Time (tf) Left Turn Major Road 5 . 00 2 . 10 Right Turn Minor Road 5 . 50 2 . 60 Through Traffic Minor Road 6 . 00 3 .30 Left Turn Minor Road 6 .50 3 .40 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation HCS : Unsignalized Intersection Release 2 . 1 Page 2 **************************************************************** WorkSheet for TWSC Intersection Step 1 : RT from Minor Street NB SB Conflicting Flows : (vph) 20 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1353 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1353 Prob. of Queue-free State : 0 . 99 Step 2 : LT from Major Street WB EB Conflicting Flows : (vph) 24 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1670 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1670 Prob. of Queue-free State : 0 . 94 TH Saturation Flow Rate : (pcphpl) 1700 RT Saturation Flow Rate : (pcphpl) Major LT Shared Lane Prob. of Queue-free State : 0 . 94 Step 4 : LT from Minor Street NB SB Conflicting Flows : (vph) 100 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 927 Major LT, Minor TH Impedance Factor: 0 . 94 Adjusted Impedance Factor: 0 . 94 Capacity Adjustment Factor due to Impeding Movements 0 . 94 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 875 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation HCS : Unsignalized Intersection Release 2 . 1 Page 3 **************************************************************** Intersection Performance Summary FlowRate MoveCap SharedCap Avg.Total Delay Movement v (pcph) Cm(pcph) Csh (pcph) Delay LOS By App SB L 1 875 > > > 1298 2 . 8 A 2 . 8 SB R 12 1353 > > > EB L 93 1670 2 .3 A 1 . 2 Intersection Delay = 1 .2 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation HCS : Unsignalized Intersection Release 2 . 1 Page 1 **************************************************************** File Name FCAPM.HCO Streets : (N-S) NORTH PARCEL ACCESS (E-W) SW 68TH PKWY Major Street DirectionEW Length of Time Analyzed60 (min) Analyst BTA Date of Analysis 12/24/96 Other Information 2001 COMBINED TRAFFIC - OPTION A - PM PEAK Two-way Stop-controlled Intersection Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L T R L T R L T R L T R No. Lanes 0> 1 0 0 1< 0 0 0 0 .0> 0< 0 Stop/Yield N N Volumes 11 23 18 2 8 60 PHF . 72 . 72 . 72 . 72 . 72 .72 Grade 0 0 0 0 MC' s (%) 0 0 0 0 0 0 SU/RV' s (%) 0 0 0 0 0 0 CV' s (%) 1 1 1 1 1 1 PCE' s 1 1 1 1 1 1 Adjustment Factors Vehicle Critical Follow-up Maneuver Gap (tg) Time (tf) Left Turn Major Road 5 . 00 2 . 10 Right Turn Minor Road 5. 50 2 .60 Through Traffic Minor Road 6 . 00 3 .30 Left Turn Minor Road 6 . 50 3 .40 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation HCS : Unsignalized Intersection Release 2 . 1 Page 2 **************************************************************** WorkSheet for TWSC Intersection Step 1 : RT from Minor Street NB SB Conflicting Flows : (vph) 19 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1354 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1354 Prob. of Queue-free State: 0 . 94 Step 2 : LT from Major Street WB EB Conflicting Flows : (vph) 20 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1677 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1677 Prob. of Queue-free State: 0 . 99 TH Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) 1700 RT Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) Major LT Shared Lane Prob. of Queue-free State: 0 . 99 Step 4 : LT from Minor Street NB SB Conflicting Flows : (vph) 53 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 987 Major LT, Minor TH Impedance Factor: 0 . 99 Adjusted Impedance Factor: 0 . 99 Capacity Adjustment Factor due to Impeding Movements 0 . 99 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 978 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation HCS : Unsignalized Intersection Release 2 . 1 Page 3 **************************************************************** Intersection Performance Summary FlowRate MoveCap SharedCap Avg.Total Delay Movement v(pcph) Cm(pcph) Csh(pcph) Delay LOS By App SB L 11 978 > > > 1296 3 . 0 A 3 . 0 SB R 83 1354 > > > EB L 15 1677 2 . 2 A 0 . 6 Intersection Delay = 1 . 8 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation HCS : Unsignalized Intersection Release 2 . 1 Page 1 **************************************************************** File Name GCAAM.HCO Streets : (N-S) SW 66TH AVE (E-W) SW 68TH PKWY Major Street DirectionNS Length of Time Analyzed60 (min) Analyst BTA Date of Analysis 12/24/96 Other Information 2001 COMBINED TRAFFIC - OPTION A - AM PEAK Two-way Stop-controlled Intersection Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound L T . R L T R L T R L T R ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- No. Lanes 0> 1 0 0 1< 0 0> 0< 0 . 0 0 0 Stop/Yield N N Volumes 2 31 151 22 5 12 PHF . 69 . 69 .69 . 69 . 69 .69 Grade 0 0 0 0 MC' s (%) 0 0 0 0 0 0 SU/RV' s (%) 0 0 0 0 0 0 CV' s (%) 1 1 1 1 1 1 PCE' s 1 1 1 1 1 1 Adjustment Factors Vehicle Critical Follow-up Maneuver Gap (tg) Time (tf) Left Turn Major Road 5 . 00 2 . 10 Right Turn Minor Road 5 . 50 2 . 60 Through Traffic Minor Road 6 . 00 3 . 30 Left Turn Minor Road 6 . 50 3 .40 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation HCS : Unsignalized Intersection Release 2 . 1 Page 2 **************************************************************** WorkSheet for TWSC Intersection Step 1 : RT from Minor Street WB EB Conflicting Flows : (vph) 162 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1146 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1146 Prob. of Queue-free State : 0 . 99 Step 2 : LT from Major Street SB NB Conflicting Flows : (vph) 173 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1418 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1418 Prob. of Queue-free State : 1 . 00 TH Saturation Flow Rate : (pcphpl) 1700 RT Saturation Flow Rate : (pcphpl) Major LT Shared Lane Prob. of Queue-free State : 1 . 00 Step 4 : LT from Minor Street WB EB Conflicting Flows : (vph) 195 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 816 Major LT, Minor TH Impedance Factor: 1 . 00 Adjusted Impedance Factor: 1 . 00 Capacity Adjustment Factor due to Impeding Movements 1 . 00 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 814 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation HCS : Unsignalized Intersection Release 2 . 1 Page 3 **************************************************************** Intersection Performance Summary FlowRate MoveCap SharedCap Avg.Total Delay Movement v(pcph) Cm(pcph) Csh(pcph) Delay LOS By App EB L 7 814 > > > 1024 3 . 6 A 3 . 6 EB R 17 1146 > > > NB L 3 1418 2 . 5 A 0 . 1 Intersection Delay = 0 . 3 • Center For Microcomputers In Transportation HCS : Unsignalized Intersection Release 2 . 1 Page 1 **************************************************************** File Name GCAPM.HCO Streets : (N-S) SW 66TH AVE (E-W) SW 68TH PKWY Major Street DirectionNS Length of Time Analyzed60 (min) Analyst BTA Date of Analysis 12/24/96 Other Information 2001 COMBINED TRAFFIC - OPTION A - PM PEAK Two-way Stop-controlled Intersection Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound L T R L T R L T R L T R ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- No. Lanes 0> 1 0 0 1< 0 0> 0< 0 . 0 0 0 Stop/Yield N N Volumes 8 83 35 12 23 8 PHF . 72 . 72 . 72 . 72 . 72 . 72 Grade 0 0 0 0 MC' s (%) 0 0 0 0 0 0 SU/RV' s (%) 0 0 0 0 0 0 CV' s (%) 1 1 1 1 1 1 PCE' s 1 1 1 1 1 1 Adjustment Factors Vehicle Critical Follow-up Maneuver Gap (tg) Time (tf) Left Turn Major Road 5 . 00 2 .10 Right Turn Minor Road 5 . 50 2 .60 Through Traffic Minor Road 6 . 00 3 .30 Left Turn Minor Road 6 . 50 3 .40 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2 . 1 Page 2 **************************************************************** WorkSheet for TWSC Intersection Step 1 : RT from Minor Street WB EB Conflicting Flows : (vph) 41 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1320 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1320 Prob. of Queue-free State : 0 . 99 Step 2 : LT from Major Street SB NB Conflicting Flows : (vph) 47 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1628 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1628 Prob. of Queue-free State : 0 . 99 TH Saturation Flow Rate : (pcphpl) 1700 RT Saturation Flow Rate : (pcphpl) Major LT Shared Lane Prob. of Queue-free State : 0 . 99 Step 4 : LT from Minor Street WB EB Conflicting Flows : (vph) 132 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 888 Major LT, Minor TH Impedance Factor: 0 . 99 Adjusted Impedance Factor: 0 . 99 Capacity Adjustment Factor due to Impeding Movements 0 . 99 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 882 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation HCS : Unsignalized Intersection Release 2 . 1 Page 3 **************************************************************** Intersection Performance Summary FlowRate MoveCap SharedCap Avg.Total Delay Movement v(pcph) Cm(pcph) Csh(pcph) Delay LOS By App EB L 32 882 > > > 964 3 . 9 A 3 . 9 EB R 11 1320 > > > NB L 11 1628 2 .2 A 0 . 1 Intersection Delay = 0 . 7 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation HCS : Unsignalized Intersection Release 2 . 1 Page 1 **************************************************************** File Name HCAAM.HCO Streets : (N-S) SW 66TH AVE (E-W) SOUTH PARCEL ACCESS Major Street DirectionNS Length of Time Analyzed60 (min) Analyst BTA Date of Analysis 12/24/96 Other Information 2001 COMBINED TRAFFIC - OPTION A - AM PEAK Two-way Stop-controlled Intersection Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound L T R L T R L T R L T R ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- No. Lanes 0> 1 0 0 1< 0 0> O< 0 0 0 0 Stop/Yield N N Volumes 1 11 107 56 22 1 PHF . 69 .69 . 69 . 69 . 69 . 69 Grade 0 0 0 0 MC' s (%) 0 0 0 0 0 0 SU/RV' s (%) 0 0 0 0 0 0 CV' s (%) 1 1 1 1 1 1 PCE' s 1 1 1 1 1 1 Adjustment Factors Vehicle Critical Follow-up Maneuver Gap (tg) Time (tf) Left Turn Major Road 5 . 00 2 . 10 Right Turn Minor Road 5 . 50 2 . 60 Through Traffic Minor Road 6 . 00 3 . 30 Left Turn Minor Road 6 . 50 3 .40 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2 . 1 Page 2 **************************************************************** WorkSheet for TWSC Intersection Step 1 : RT from Minor Street WB EB Conflicting Flows : (vph) 135 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1183 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1183 Prob. of Queue-free State : 1 .00 Step 2 : LT from Major Street SB NB Conflicting Flows : (vph) 163 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1434 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1434 Prob. of Queue-free State: 1 .00 TH Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) 1700 RT Saturation Flow Rate : (pcphpl) Major LT Shared Lane Prob. of Queue-free State : 1 .00 Step 4 : LT from Minor Street WB EB Conflicting Flows : (vph) 147 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 870 Major LT, Minor TH Impedance Factor: 1 . 00 Adjusted Impedance Factor: 1 . 00 Capacity Adjustment Factor due to Impeding Movements 1 . 00 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 869 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation HCS : Unsignalized Intersection Release 2 . 1 Page 3 **************************************************************** Intersection Performance Summary FlowRate MoveCap SharedCap Avg.Total Delay Movement v (pcph) Cm (pcph) Csh (pcph) Delay LOS By App EB L 32 869 > > > 876 4 . 3 A 4 . 3 EB R 1 1183 > > > NB L 1 1434 2 . 5 A 0 . 0 Intersection Delay = 0 . 5 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation HCS : Unsignalized Intersection Release 2 . 1 Page 1 **************************************************************** File Name HCAPM.HCO Streets : (N-S) SW 66TH AVE (E-W) SOUTH PARCEL ACCESS Major Street DirectionNS Length of Time Analyzed60 (min) Analyst BTA Date of Analysis 12/24/96 Other Information 2001 COMBINED TRAFFIC - OPTION A - PM PEAK Two-way Stop-controlled Intersection Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound L T R L T R L T R L T R ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- No. Lanes 0> 1 0 0 1< 0 0> 0< 0 0 0 0 Stop/Yield N N Volumes 1 42 8 35 49 1 PHF . 72 .72 .72 . 72 . 72 . 72 Grade 0 0 0 0 MC' s (%) 0 0 0 0 0 0 SU/RV' s (%) 0 0 0 0 0 0 CV' s (%) 1 1 1 1 1 1 PCE' s 1 1 1 1 1 1 Adjustment Factors Vehicle Critical Follow-up Maneuver Gap (tg) Time (tf) Left Turn Major Road 5 . 00 2 . 10 Right Turn Minor Road 5 . 50 2 .60 Through Traffic Minor Road 6 . 00 3 .30 Left Turn Minor Road 6 . 50 3 .40 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation HCS : Unsignalized Intersection Release 2 . 1 Page 2 **************************************************************** WorkSheet for TWSC Intersection Step 1 : RT from Minor Street WB EB Conflicting Flows : (vph) 26 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1343 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1343 Prob. of Queue-free State : 1 . 00 Step 2 : LT from Major Street SB NB Conflicting Flows : (vph) 43 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1635 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1635 Prob. of Queue-free State : 1 . 00 TH Saturation Flow Rate : (pcphpl) 1700 RT Saturation Flow Rate : (pcphpl) Major LT Shared Lane Prob. of Queue-free State : 1 . 00 Step 4 : LT from Minor Street WB EB Conflicting Flows : (vph) 68 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 967 Major LT, Minor TH Impedance Factor : 1 . 00 Adjusted Impedance Factor: 1 . 00 Capacity Adjustment Factor due to Impeding Movements 1 . 00 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 966 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation HCS : Unsignalized Intersection Release 2 . 1 Page 3 **************************************************************** Intersection Performance Summary FlowRate MoveCap SharedCap Avg.Total Delay Movement v(pcph) Cm(pcph) Csh(pcph) Delay LOS By App EB L 68 966 > > > 970 4 . 0 A 4 . 0 EB R 1 1343 > > > NB L 1 1635 2 .2 A 0 . 0 Intersection Delay = 1 .2 CAPACITY CALCULATIONS OPTION B HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY Version 2 .4 12-24-1996 Group Mackenzie Streets : (E-W) SW HAMPTON STREET (N-S) SW 72ND AVENUE Analyst : BTA File Name : ACBAM.HC9 Area Type : Other 12-24-96 AM PEAK Comment : 2001 COMBINED TRAFFIC - OPTION B - AM PEAK Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L T R L T R L T R L T R ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- No. Lanes 1 1 1 1 1 1 Volumes 205 12 350 643 57 470 Lane Width 12 . 0 12 . 0 12 . 0 12 . 0 12 . 0 12 . 0 RTOR Vols 0 0 0 Lost Time 3 . 00 3 . 00 3 . 00 3 . 00 3 . 00 3 . 00 Signal Operations Phase Combination 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 EB Left NB Left Thru Thru * Right Right * Peds Peds * WB Left * SB Left * Thru Thru * * Right * Right Peds * Peds NB Right EB Right SB Right WB Right Green 18 . OA Green 5 . OA 65 . OA Yellow/AR 4 . 0 Yellow/AR 4 . 0 4 . 0 Cycle Length: 100 secs Phase combination order: #1 #5 #6 Intersection Performance Summary Lane Group: Adj Sat v/c g/C Approach: Mvmts Cap Flow Ratio Ratio Delay LOS Delay LOS WB L 336 1770 0 . 752 0 . 190 31 . 0 D 30 . 5 D R 301 1583 0 . 050 0 . 190 21 .4 C NB T 1230 1863 0 .351 0 . 660 4 . 9 A 8 . 1 B R 1045 1583 0 . 760 0 . 660 9 . 8 B SB L 106 1770 0 . 659 0 . 060 39 . 0 D 6 . 9 B T 1397 1863 0 .415 0 . 750 3 . 1 A Intersection Delay = 10 . 5 sec/veh Intersection LOS = B Lost Time/Cycle, L = 9 . 0 sec Critical v/c (x) = 0 .752 HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY Version 2 .4 12-24-1996 Group Mackenzie Streets : (E-W) SW HAMPTON STREET (N-S) SW 72ND AVENUE Analyst : BTA File Name: ACBPM.HC9 Area Type: Other 12-24-96 PM PEAK Comment : 2001 COMBINED TRAFFIC - OPTION B - PM PEAK Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L T R L T R L T R L T R ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- No. Lanes 1 1 1 1 1 1 Volumes 562 54 699 252 33 828 Lane Width 12 . 0 12 . 0 12 . 0 12 . 0 12 . 0 12 . 0 RTOR Vols 0 0 0 Lost Time 3 . 00 3 . 00 3 . 00 3 . 00 3 . 00 3 . 00 Signal Operations Phase Combination 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 EB Left NB Left Thru Thru * Right Right * Peds Peds * WB Left * SB Left * Thru Thru * * Right * Right Peds * Peds NB Right EB Right SB Right WB Right Green 38 . 5A Green 5 . OA 44 . 5A Yellow/AR 4 . 0 Yellow/AR 4 . 0 4 . 0 Cycle Length: 100 secs Phase combination order: #1 #5 #6 Intersection Performance Summary Lane Group: Adj Sat v/c g/C Approach: Mvmts Cap Flow Ratio Ratio Delay LOS Delay LOS WB L 706 1787 0 . 894 0 . 395 28 . 2 D 26 . 8 D R 632 1599 0 . 097 0 . 395 12 .3 B NB T 856 1881 0 . 917 0 .455 27 . 0 D 23 . 0 C R 728 1599 0 . 389 0 .455 11 . 8 B SB L 108 1805 0 . 342 0 . 060 29 . 9 D 21 . 0 C T 1036 1900 0 . 898 0 . 545 20 . 6 C Intersection Delay = 23 . 2 sec/veh Intersection LOS = C Lost Time/Cycle, L = 6 . 0 sec Critical v/c (x) = 0 . 896 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation HCS : Unsignalized Intersection Release 2 . 1 Page 1 **************************************************************** File Name BCBAM.HCO Streets : (N-S) SW 68TH PKWY (E-W) SW HAMPTON ST Analyst BTA Date of Analysis 12/24/96 Other Information 2001 COMBINED TRAFFIC - OPTION B - AM PEAK All-way Stop-controlled Intersection Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L T R L T R L T R L T R ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- No. Lanes 1 1< 0 1 1< 0 0> 1< 0 0> 1 1 Volumes 144 132 242 4 10 22 28 31 1 67 170 216 PHF . 82 . 82 . 82 . 82 . 82 . 82 . 82 . 82 . 82 . 82 . 82 . 82 Grade 0 0 0 0 MC' s (%) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SU/RV' s (%) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CV' s (%) 2 2 2 0 0 0 14 14 14 3 3 3 PCE' s 1 1 1 1 . 1 1 . 1 1 .1 1 . 1 1 . 1 1 . 1 1 1 1 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation HCS : Unsignalized Intersection Release 2 . 1 Page 2 **************************************************************** Volume Summary and Capacity Analysis Worksheet EB WB NB SB LT Flow Rate 176 5 34 82 RT Flow Rate 295 27 1 263 Approach Flow Rate 632 44 73 552 Proportion LT 0 . 28 0 . 11 0 .47 0 .15 Proportion RT 0 .47 0 . 61 0 . 01 0 .48 Opposing Approach Flow Rate 44 632 552 73 Conflicting Approaches Flow Rate 625 625 676 676 Proportion, Subject Approach Flow Rate 0 .49 0 . 03 0 . 06 0 .42 Proportion, Opposing Approach Flow Rate 0 . 03 0 .49 0 .42 0 . 06 Lanes on Subject Approach 2 2 1 2 Lanes on Opposing Approach 2 2 2 1 LT, Opposing Approach 5 176 82 34 RT, Opposing Approach 27 295 263 1 LT, Conflicting Approaches 116 116 181 181 RT, Conflicting Approaches 264 264 322 322 Proportion LT, Opposing Approach 0 . 11 0 .28 0 . 15 0 .47 Proportion RT, Opposing Approach 0 . 61 0 .47 0 .48 0 . 01 Proportion LT, Conflicting Approaches 0 . 19 0 . 19 0 .27 0 . 27 Proportion RT, Conflicting Approaches 0 .42 0 .42 0 .48 0 .48 Approach Capacity 869 655 466 689 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation HCS : Unsignalized Intersection Release 2 . 1 Page 3 **************************************************************** Intersection Performance Summary Approach Approach V/C Average Movement Flow Rate Capacity Ratio Total Delay LOS EB 632 869 0 . 73 15 . 9 C WB 44 655 0 . 07 1 . 3 A NB 73 466 0 . 16 1 . 8 A SB 552 689 0 . 80 21 . 0 D Intersection Delay = 16 . 75 Level of Service (Intersection) = C Center For Microcomputers In Transportation HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2 . 1 Page 1 **************************************************************** File Name BCBPM.HCO Streets : (N-S) SW 68TH PRKWY (E-W) SW HAMPTON ST Analyst BTA Date of Analysis 12/24/96 Other Information 2001 COMBINED TRAFFIC - OPTION B - PM PEAK All-way Stop-controlled Intersection Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L T R L T R L T R L T R ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- No. Lanes 1 1< 0 1 1< 0 0> 1< 0 0> 1 1 Volumes 278 30 43 1 128 103 153 204 1 25 64 214 PHF . 9 . 9 . 9 . 9 . 9 . 9 . 9 . 9 . 9 . 9 . 9 . 9 Grade 0 0 0 0 MC' s (%) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SU/RV' s (%) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CV' s (%) 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 3 3 3 PCE' s 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation HCS : Unsignalized Intersection Release 2 . 1 Page 2 **************************************************************** Volume Summary and Capacity Analysis WorkSheet EB WB NB SB LT Flow Rate 309 1 170 28 RT Flow Rate 48 114 1 238 Approach Flow Rate 390 257 398 337 Proportion LT 0 . 79 0 . 00 0 .43 0 . 08 Proportion RT 0 . 12 0 .44 0 .00 0 . 71 Opposing Approach Flow Rate 257 390 337 398 Conflicting Approaches Flow Rate 735 735 647 647 Proportion, Subject Approach Flow Rate 0 . 28 0 . 19 0 .29 0 . 24 Proportion, Opposing Approach Flow Rate 0 . 19 0 . 28 0 .24 0 . 29 Lanes on Subject Approach 2 2 1 2 Lanes on Opposing Approach 2 2 2 1 LT, Opposing Approach 1 309 28 170 RT, Opposing Approach 114 48 238 1 LT, Conflicting Approaches 198 198 310 310 RT, Conflicting Approaches 239 239 162 162 Proportion LT, Opposing Approach 0 . 00 0 . 79 0 . 08 0 .43 Proportion RT, Opposing Approach 0 . 44 0 . 12 0 .71 0 . 00 Proportion LT, Conflicting Approaches 0 . 27 0 . 27 0 .48 0 .48 Proportion RT, Conflicting Approaches 0 . 33 0 .33 0 .25 0 . 25 Approach Capacity 717 387 506 549 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation HCS : Unsignalized Intersection Release 2 . 1 Page 3 **************************************************************** Intersection Performance Summary Approach Approach V/C Average Movement Flow Rate Capacity Ratio Total Delay LOS EB 390 717 0 . 54 7 . 9 B WB 257 387 0 . 66 12 . 5 C NB 398 506 0 . 79 19 . 8 C SB 337 549 0 . 61 10 . 3 C Intersection Delay = 12 . 77 Level of Service (Intersection) = C Center For Microcomputers In Transportation HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2 . 1 Page 1 **************************************************************** File Name CCBAM.HCO Streets : (N-S) SW 68TH PRKWY (E-W) ACCESS Major Street DirectionNS Length of Time Analyzed60 (min) Analyst BTA Date of Analysis 12/24/96 Other Information 2001 COMBINED TRAFFIC - OPTION B - AM PEAK Two-way Stop-controlled Intersection Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound L T R L T R L T R L T R No. Lanes 0> 1< 0 0> 1< 0 0> 1< 0 0> 1< 0 Stop/Yield N N Volumes 1 25 1 77 224 33 20 1 1 1 1 9 PHF . 69 .69 . 69 . 69 . 69 . 69 . 69 . 69 . 69 . 69 . 69 . 69 Grade 0 0 0 0 MC' s (%) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SU/RV' s (%) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CV' s (%) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 PCE' s 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Adjustment Factors Vehicle Critical Follow-up Maneuver Gap (tg) Time (tf) Left Turn Major Road 5 . 00 2 . 10 Right Turn Minor Road 5 . 50 2 . 60 Through Traffic Minor Road 6 . 00 3 .30 Left Turn Minor Road 6 . 50 3 .40 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation HCS : Unsignalized Intersection Release 2 . 1 Page 2 **************************************************************** WorkSheet for TWSC Intersection Step 1 : RT from Minor Street WB EB Conflicting Flows : (vph) 26 240 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1343 1046 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1343 1046 Prob. of Queue-free State: 0 . 99 1 . 00 Step 2 : LT from Major Street SB NB Conflicting Flows : (vph) 26 257 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1666 1293 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1666 1293 Prob. of Queue-free State : 0 .93 1 . 00 TH Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) 1700 1700 RT Saturation Flow Rate : (pcphpl) 1700 1700 Major LT Shared Lane Prob. of Queue-free State : 0 . 91 1 . 00 Step 3 : TH from Minor Street WB EB Conflicting Flows : (vph) 360 344 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 706 720 Capacity Adjustment Factor due to Impeding Movements 0 . 91 0 . 91 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 645 657 Prob. of Queue-free State : 1 . 00 1 . 00 Step 4 : LT from Minor Street WB EB Conflicting Flows : (vph) 345 349 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 668 665 Major LT, Minor TH Impedance Factor: 0 . 91 0 . 91 Adjusted Impedance Factor: 0 . 93 0 . 93 Capacity Adjustment Factor due to Impeding Movements 0 . 93 0 . 92 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 622 614 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2 . 1 Page 3 **************************************************************** Intersection Performance Summary FlowRate MoveCap SharedCap Avg.Total Delay Movement v (pcph) Cm(pcph) Csh (pcph) Delay LOS By App EB L 29 614 > > > EB T 1 657 > 624 > 6 . 1 > B 6 . 1 EB R 1 1046 > > > WB L 1 622 > > > WB T 1 645 > 1168 > 3 . 1 > A 3 . 1 WB R 13 1343 > > > NB L 1 1293 2 . 8 A 0 . 1 SB L 112 1666 2 . 3 A 0 . 5 Intersection Delay = 0 . 9 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation HCS : Unsignalized Intersection Release 2 . 1 Page 1 **************************************************************** File Name CCBPM.HCO Streets : (N-S) SW 68TH PARKWAY (E-W) ACCESS Major Street DirectionNS Length of Time Analyzed60 (min) Analyst BTA Date of Analysis 12/24/96 Other Information 2001 COMBINED TRAFFIC - OPTION B - PM PEAK Two-way Stop-controlled Intersection Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound L T R L T R L T R L T R ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- No. Lanes 0> 1< 0 0> 1< 0 0> 1< 0 0> 1< 0 Stop/Yield N N Volumes 1 176 1 14 43 32 26 1 1 1 1 66 PHF . 72 . 72 . 72 . 72 . 72 .72 .72 . 72 . 72 . 72 . 72 . 72 Grade 0 0 0 0 MC' s CO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SU/RV' s (%) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CV' s (%) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 PCE' s 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Adjustment Factors Vehicle Critical Follow-up Maneuver Gap (tg) Time (tf) Left Turn Major Road 5 . 00 2 .10 Right Turn Minor Road 5 . 50 2 .60 Through Traffic Minor Road 6 . 00 3 .30 Left Turn Minor Road 6 . 50 3 .40 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation HCS : Unsignalized Intersection Release 2 . 1 Page 2 **************************************************************** WorkSheet for TWSC Intersection Step 1 : RT from Minor Street WB EB Conflicting Flows : (vph) 176 59 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1128 1293 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1128 1293 Prob. of Queue-free State : 0 . 92 1 . 00 Step 2 : LT from Major Street SB NB Conflicting Flows : (vph) 177 75 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1412 1579 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1412 1579 Prob. of Queue-free State : 0 . 99 1 . 00 TH Saturation Flow Rate : (pcphpl) 1700 1700 RT Saturation Flow Rate : (pcphpl) 1700 1700 Major LT Shared Lane Prob. of Queue-free State : 0 . 99 1 . 00 Step 3 : TH from Minor Street WB EB Conflicting Flows : (vph) 266 251 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 791 806 Capacity Adjustment Factor due to Impeding Movements 0 . 98 0 . 98 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 779 794 Prob. of Queue-free State : 1 . 00 1 . 00 Step 4 : LT from Minor Street WB EB Conflicting Flows : (vph) 252 284 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 757 725 Major LT, Minor TH Impedance Factor : 0 . 98 0 . 98 Adjusted Impedance Factor: 0 . 99 0 . 99 Capacity Adjustment Factor due to Impeding Movements 0 . 99 0 . 91 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 747 658 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation HCS : Unsignalized Intersection Release 2 . 1 Page 3 **************************************************************** Intersection Performance Summary FlowRate MoveCap SharedCap Avg.Total Delay Movement v(pcph) Cm(pcph) Csh (pcph) Delay LOS By App EB L 36 658 > > > EB T 1 794 > 670 > 5 . 7 > B 5 . 7 EB R 1 1293 > > > WB L 1 747 > > > WB T 1 779 > 1117 > 3 . 5 > A 3 . 5 WB R 92 1128 > > > NB L 1 1579 2 .3 A 0 . 0 SB L 19 1412 2 .6 A 0 .4 Intersection Delay = 1 . 2 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation HCS : Unsignalized Intersection Release 2 . 1 Page 1 **************************************************************** File Name DCBAM.HCO Streets : (N-S) SW 68TH PRKWY (E-W) FARMERS DRIVE Major Street DirectionNS Length of Time Analyzed60 (min) Analyst BTA Date of Analysis 12/24/96 Other Information 2001 COMBINED TRAFFIC - OPTION B - AM PEAK Two-way Stop-controlled Intersection Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound L T R L T R L T R L T R ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- No. Lanes 0> 1 0 0 1< 0 0> 0< 0 .0 0 0 Stop/Yield N N Volumes 1 25 180 44 1 1 PHF . 69 . 69 . 69 . 69 . 69 . 69 Grade 0 0 0 0 MC' s (%) 0 0 0 0 0 0 SU/RV' s (%) 0 0 0 0 0 0 CV' s (%) 1 1 1 1 1 1 PCE' s 1 1 1 1 1 1 Adjustment Factors Vehicle Critical Follow-up Maneuver Gap (tg) Time (tf) Left Turn Major Road 5 . 00 2 . 10 Right Turn Minor Road 5 . 50 2 . 60 Through Traffic Minor Road 6 . 00 3 .30 Left Turn Minor Road 6 . 50 3 .40 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation HCS : Unsignalized Intersection Release 2 . 1 Page 2 *********************************************************-******* WorkSheet for TWSC Intersection Step 1 : RT from Minor Street WB EB Conflicting Flows : (vph) 202 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1094 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1094 Prob. of Queue-free State: 1 . 00 Step 2 : LT from Major Street SB NB Conflicting Flows : (vph) 224 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1341 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1341 Prob. of Queue-free State : 1 . 00 TH Saturation Flow Rate : (pcphpl) 1700 RT Saturation Flow Rate : (pcphpl) Major LT Shared Lane Prob. of Queue-free State : 1 . 00 Step 4 : LT from Minor Street WB EB Conflicting Flows : (vph) 228 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 781 Major LT, Minor TH Impedance Factor: 1 . 00 Adjusted Impedance Factor: 1 . 00 Capacity Adjustment Factor due to Impeding Movements 1 . 00 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 780 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation ACS : Unsignalized Intersection Release 2 . 1 Page 3 **************************************************************** Intersection Performance Summary FlowRate MoveCap SharedCap Avg.Total Delay Movement v(pcph) Cm(pcph) Csh (pcph) Delay LOS By App EB L 1 780 > > > 911 4 . 0 A 4 . 0 EB R 1 1094 > > > NB L 1 1341 2 . 7 A 0 . 1 Intersection Delay = 0 . 6 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation HCS : Unsignalized Intersection Release 2 . 1 Page 1 **************************************************************** File Name DCBPM.HCO Streets : (N-S) SW 68TH PARKWAY (E-W) FARMERS DRIVE Major Street DirectionNS Length of Time Analyzed60 (min) Analyst BTA Date of Analysis 12/24/96 Other Information 2001 COMBINED TRAFFIC - OPTION B - PM PEAK Two-way Stop-controlled Intersection Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound L T R L T R L T R L T R ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- No. Lanes 0> 1 0 0 1< 0 0> 0< 0 0 0 0 Stop/Yield N N Volumes 1 160 43 1 16 1 PHF .72 . 72 . 72 . 72 . 72 .72 Grade 0 0 0 0 MC' s (%) 0 0 0 0 0 0 SU/RV' s (%) 0 0 0 0 0 0 CV' s (o) 1 1 1 1 1 1 PCE' s 1 1 1 1 1 1 Adjustment Factors Vehicle Critical Follow-up Maneuver Gap (tg) Time (tf) Left Turn Major Road 5 . 00 2 . 10 Right Turn Minor Road 5 . 50 2 . 60 Through Traffic Minor Road 6 . 00 3 . 30 Left Turn Minor Road 6 . 50 3 .40 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation HCS : Unsignalized Intersection Release 2 . 1 Page 2 **************************************************************** WorkSheet for TWSC Intersection Step 1 : RT from Minor Street WB EB Conflicting Flows : (vph) 44 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1315 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1315 Prob. of Queue-free State : 1 . 00 Step 2 : LT from Major Street SB NB Conflicting Flows : (vph) 44 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1633 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1633 Prob. of Queue-free State : 1 . 00 TH Saturation Flow Rate : (pcphpl) 1700 RT Saturation Flow Rate : (pcphpl) Major LT Shared Lane Prob. of Queue-free State : 1 . 00 Step 4 : LT from Minor Street WB EB Conflicting Flows : (vph) 204 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 807 Major LT, Minor TH Impedance Factor: 1 . 00 Adjusted Impedance Factor: 1 . 00 Capacity Adjustment Factor due to Impeding Movements 1 . 00 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 806 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2 . 1 Page 3 **************************************************************** Intersection Performance Summary FlowRate MoveCap SharedCap Avg.Total Delay Movement v (pcph) Cm(pcph) Csh (pcph) Delay LOS By App EB L 22 806 > > > 820 4 . 5 A 4 . 5 EB R 1 1315 > > > NB L 1 1633 2 .2 A 0 . 0 Intersection Delay = 0 .4 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2 . 1 Page 1 **************************************************************** File Name ECBAM.HCO Streets : (N-S) SOUTH PARCEL ACCESS (E-W) SW 68TH PKWY Major Street DirectionEW Length of Time Analyzed60 (min) Analyst BTA Date of Analysis 12/24/96 Other Information 2001 COMBINED TRAFFIC - OPTION B - AM PEAK Two-way Stop-controlled Intersection Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L T R L T R L T R L T R ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- No. Lanes 0 1< 0 0> 1 0 0> 0< 0 0 0 0 Stop/Yield N N Volumes 59 121 10 10 15 1 PHF . 69 . 69 . 69 .69 . 69 . 69 Grade 0 0 0 0 MC' s (%) 0 0 0 0 0 0 SU/RV' s (%) 0 0 0 0 0 0 CV' s (%) 1 1 1 1 1 1 PCE' s 1 1 1 1 1 1 Adjustment Factors Vehicle Critical Follow-up Maneuver Gap (tg) Time (tf) Left Turn Major Road 5. 00 2 .10 Right Turn Minor Road 5. 50 2 .60 Through Traffic Minor Road 6 . 00 3 .30 Left Turn Minor Road 6 . 50 3 .40 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation HCS : Unsignalized Intersection Release 2 . 1 Page 2 **************************************************************** WorkSheet for TWSC Intersection Step 1 : RT from Minor Street NB SB Conflicting Flows : (vph) 120 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1204 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1204 Prob. of Queue-free State : 1.00 Step 2 : LT from Major Street WB EB Conflicting Flows : (vph) 180 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1407 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1407 Prob. of Queue-free State : 0 . 99 TH Saturation Flow Rate : (pcphpl) 1700 RT Saturation Flow Rate : (pcphpl) Major LT Shared Lane Prob. of Queue-free State : 0 . 99 Step 4 : LT from Minor Street NB SB Conflicting Flows : (vph) 140 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 879 Major LT, Minor TH Impedance Factor: 0 . 99 Adjusted Impedance Factor: 0 . 99 Capacity Adjustment Factor due to Impeding Movements 0 . 99 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 870 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation HCS : Unsignalized Intersection Release 2 . 1 Page 3 **************************************************************** • Intersection Performance Summary FlowRate MoveCap SharedCap Avg.Total Delay Movement v (pcph) Cm(pcph) Csh (pcph) Delay LOS By App NB L 22 870 > > > 881 4 .2 A 4 . 2 NB R 1 1204 > 8,.ea > > WB L 14 1407 �' 2 .6 A 0 . 8 Intersection Delay = 0 . 9 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation HCS : Unsignalized Intersection Release 2 . 1 Page 1 **************************************************************** File Name ECBPM.HCO Streets : (N-S) SOUTH PARCEL ACCESS (E-W) SW 68TH PKWY Major Street DirectionEW Length of Time Analyzed60 (min) Analyst BTA Date of Analysis 12/24/96 Other Information 2001 COMBINED TRAFFIC - OPTION B - PM PEAK Two-way Stop-controlled Intersection Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L T R L T R L T R L T R ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- No. Lanes 0 1< 0 0> 1 0 0> O< 0 0 0 0 Stop/Yield N N Volumes 22 21 2 54 106 9 PHF . 72 . 72 . 72 . 72 . 72 . 72 Grade 0 0 0 0 MC' s (%) 0 0 0 0 0 0 SU/RV' s (%) 0 0 0 0 0 0 CV' s (%) 1 1 1 1 1 1 PCE' s 1 1 1 1 1 1 Adjustment Factors Vehicle Critical Follow-up Maneuver Gap (tg) Time (tf) Left Turn Major Road 5 . 00 2 .10 Right Turn Minor Road 5 . 50 2 . 60 Through Traffic Minor Road 6 . 00 3 .30 Left Turn Minor Road 6 . 50 3 .40 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation HCS : Unsignalized Intersection Release 2 . 1 Page 2 **************************************************************** WorkSheet for TWSC Intersection Step 1 : RT from Minor Street NB SB Conflicting Flows: (vph) 32 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1334 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1334 Prob. of Queue-free State : 0 . 99 Step 2 : LT from Major Street WB EB Conflicting Flows : (vph) 43 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1635 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1635 Prob. of Queue-free State : 1. 00 TH Saturation Flow Rate : (pcphpl) 1700 RT Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) Major LT Shared Lane Prob. of Queue-free State : 1. 00 Step 4 : LT from Minor Street NB SB Conflicting Flows : (vph) 88 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 942 Major LT, Minor TH Impedance Factor: 1 . 00 Adjusted Impedance Factor: 1 . 00 Capacity Adjustment Factor due to Impeding Movements 1 . 00 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 940 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation HCS : Unsignalized Intersection Release 2 . 1 Page 3 **************************************************************** Intersection Performance Summary FlowRate MoveCap SharedCap Avg.Total Delay Movement v (pcph) Cm(pcph) Csh(pcph) Delay LOS By App NB L 147 940 > > > 961 4 . 5 A 4 . 5 NB R 12 1334 > 0°1/ > > WB L 3 1635 v 2 .2 A 0 . 0 Intersection Delay = 1 . 8 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2 . 1 Page 1 **************************************************************** File Name FCBAM.HCO Streets : (N-S) NORTH PARCEL ACCESS (E-W) SW 68TH PKWY Major Street DirectionEW Length of Time Analyzed60 (min) Analyst BTA Date of Analysis 12/24/96 Other Information 2001 COMBINED TRAFFIC - OPTION B - AM PEAK Two-way Stop-controlled Intersection Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L T R L T R L T R L T R ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- No. Lanes 0> 1 0 0 1< 0 0 0 0 0> 0< 0 Stop/Yield N N Volumes 45 15 14 6 1 6 PHF . 69 . 69 .69 . 69 . 69 . 69 Grade 0 0 0 0 MC' s (%) 0 0 0 0 0 0 SU/RV' s (%) 0 0 0 0 0 0 CV' s (%) 1 1 1 1 1 1 PCE' s 1 1 1 1 1 1 Adjustment Factors Vehicle Critical Follow-up Maneuver Gap (tg) Time (tf) Left Turn Major Road 5 . 00 2 .10 Right Turn Minor Road 5 . 50 2 .60 Through Traffic Minor Road 6 . 00 3 .30 Left Turn Minor Road 6 . 50 3 .40 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation HCS : Unsignalized Intersection Release 2 . 1 Page 2 **************************************************************** WorkSheet for TWSC Intersection Step 1 : RT from Minor Street NB SB Conflicting Flows : (vph) 17 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1357 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1357 Prob. of Queue-free State: 0 . 99 Step 2 : LT from Major Street WB EB Conflicting Flows : (vph) 20 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1677 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1677 Prob. of Queue-free State: 0 . 96 TH Saturation Flow Rate : (pcphpl) 1700 RT Saturation Flow Rate : (pcphpl) Major LT Shared Lane Prob. of Queue-free State : 0 . 96 Step 4 : LT from Minor Street NB SB Conflicting Flows : (vph) 77 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 956 Major LT, Minor TH Impedance Factor: 0 . 96 Adjusted Impedance Factor: 0 . 96 Capacity Adjustment Factor due to Impeding Movements 0 . 96 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 918 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2 . 1 Page 3 **************************************************************** Intersection Performance Summary FlowRate MoveCap SharedCap Avg.Total Delay Movement v(pcph) Cm(pcph) Csh(pcph) Delay LOS By App SB L 1 918 > > > 1295 2 . 8 A 2 . 8 SB R 9 1357 > > > EB L 65 1677 2 .2 A 1 . 0 Intersection Delay = 1 . 0 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation HCS : Unsignalized Intersection Release 2 . 1 Page 1 **************************************************************** File Name FCBPM.HCO Streets : (N-S) NORTH PARCEL ACCESS (E-W) SW 68TH PKWY Major Street DirectionEW Length of Time Analyzed60 (min) Analyst BTA Date of Analysis 12/24/96 Other Information 2001 COMBINED TRAFFIC - OPTION B - PM PEAK Two-way Stop-controlled Intersection Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L T R L T R L T R L T R ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- No. Lanes 0> 1 0 0 1< 0 0 0 0 0> 0< 0 Stop/Yield N N Volumes 8 23 14 1 6 40 PHF . 72 . 72 . 72 . 72 . 72 . 72 Grade 0 0 0 0 MC' s (%) 0 0 0 0 0 0 SU/RV' s (%) 0 0 0 0 0 0 CV' s (%) 1 1 1 1 1 1 PCE' s 1 1 1 1 1 1 Adjustment Factors Vehicle Critical Follow-up Maneuver Gap (tg) Time (tf) Left Turn Major Road 5 . 00 2 . 10 Right Turn Minor Road 5 . 50 2 . 60 Through Traffic Minor Road 6 . 00 3 .30 Left Turn Minor Road 6 . 50 3 .40 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation HCS : Unsignalized Intersection Release 2 . 1 Page 2 **************************************************************** WorkSheet for TWSC Intersection Step 1 : RT from Minor Street NB SB Conflicting Flows : (vph) 14 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1362 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1362 Prob. of Queue-free State : 0 . 96 Step 2 : LT from Major Street WB EB Conflicting Flows : (vph) 15 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1686 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1686 Prob. of Queue-free State : 0 . 99 TH Saturation Flow Rate : (pcphpl) 1700 RT Saturation Flow Rate : (pcphpl) Major LT Shared Lane Prob. of Queue-free State : 0 . 99 Step 4 : LT from Minor Street NB SB Conflicting Flows : (vph) 46 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 996 Major LT, Minor TH Impedance Factor: 0 . 99 Adjusted Impedance Factor: 0 . 99 Capacity Adjustment Factor due to Impeding Movements 0 . 99 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 989 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation HCS : Unsignalized Intersection Release 2 . 1 Page 3 **************************************************************** Intersection Performance Summary FlowRate MoveCap SharedCap Avg.Total Delay Movement v(pcph) Cm(pcph) Csh(pcph) Delay LOS By App SB L 8 989 > > > 1301 2 . 9 A 2 . 9 SB R 56 1362 > > > EB L 11 1686 2 . 1 A 0 . 5 Intersection Delay = 1 . 5 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation HCS : Unsignalized Intersection Release 2 . 1 Page 1 **************************************************************** File Name GCBAM.HCO Streets : (N-S) SW 66TH AVE (E-W) SW 68TH PKWY Major Street DirectionNS Length of Time Analyzed60 (min) Analyst BTA Date of Analysis 12/24/96 Other Information 2001 COMBINED TRAFFIC - OPTION B - AM PEAK Two-way Stop-controlled Intersection Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound L T R L T R L T R L T R ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- No. Lanes 0> 1 0 0 1< 0 0> 0< 0 . 0 0 0 . Stop/Yield N N Volumes 1 19 159 20 3 13 PHF . 69 . 69 . 69 . 69 . 69 .69 Grade 0 0 0 0 MC' s (%) 0 0 0 0 0 0 SU/RV' s (%) 0 0 0 0 0 0 CV' s (o) 1 1 1 1 1 1 PCE' s 1 1 1 1 1 1 Adjustment Factors Vehicle Critical Follow-up Maneuver Gap (tg) Time (tf) Left Turn Major Road 5 . 00 2 . 10 Right Turn Minor Road 5 . 50 2 . 60 Through Traffic Minor Road 6 . 00 3 .30 Left Turn Minor Road 6 . 50 3 .40 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation HCS : Unsignalized Intersection Release 2 . 1 Page 2 **************************************************************** WorkSheet for TWSC Intersection Step 1 : RT from Minor Street WB EB Conflicting Flows : (vph) 169 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1137 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1137 Prob. of Queue-free State: 0 . 98 Step 2 : LT from Major Street SB NB Conflicting Flows : (vph) 179 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1409 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1409 Prob. of Queue-free State : 1 . 00 TH Saturation Flow Rate : (pcphpl) 1700 RT Saturation Flow Rate : (pcphpl) Major LT Shared Lane Prob. of Queue-free State : 1 . 00 Step 4 : LT from Minor Street WB EB Conflicting Flows : (vph) 189 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 823 Major LT, Minor TH Impedance Factor: 1 . 00 Adjusted Impedance Factor: 1 . 00 Capacity Adjustment Factor due to Impeding Movements 1 . 00 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 822 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2 .1 Page 3 **************************************************************** Intersection Performance Summary FlowRate MoveCap SharedCap Avg.Total Delay Movement v(pcph) Cm(pcph) Csh(pcph) Delay LOS By App EB L 4 822 > > > 1066 3 . 5 A 3 . 5 EB R 19 1137 > > > NB L 1 1409 2 . 6 A 0 . 0 Intersection Delay = 0 . 3 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation HCS : Unsignalized Intersection Release 2 . 1 Page 1 **************************************************************** File Name GCBPM.HCO Streets : (N-S) SW 66TH AVE (E-W) SW 68TH PKWY Major Street DirectionNS Length of Time Analyzed60 (min) Analyst BTA Date of Analysis 12/24/96 Other Information 2001 COMBINED TRAFFIC - OPTION B - PM PEAK Two-way Stop-controlled Intersection Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound L T R L T R L T R L T R ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- No. Lanes 0> 1 0 0 1< 0 0> 0< 0 . 0 0 0 Stop/Yield N N Volumes 9 90 14 8 23 6 PHF . 72 . 72 .72 . 72 . 72 . 72 Grade 0 0 0 0 MC' s (%) 0 0 0 0 0 0 SU/RV' s (%) 0 0 0 0 0 0 CV' s (%) 1 1 1 1 1 1 PCE' s 1 1 1 1 1 1 Adjustment Factors Vehicle Critical Follow-up Maneuver Gap (tg) Time (tf) Left Turn Major Road 5 . 00 2 .10 Right Turn Minor Road 5 . 50 2 .60 Through Traffic Minor Road 6 . 00 3 .30 Left Turn Minor Road 6 . 50 3 .40 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation HCS : Unsignalized Intersection Release 2 . 1 Page 2 **************************************************************** WorkSheet for TWSC Intersection Step 1 : RT from Minor Street WB EB Conflicting Flows : (vph) 18 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1356 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1356 Prob. of Queue-free State : 0 . 99 Step 2 : LT from Major Street SB NB Conflicting Flows : (vph) 22 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1673 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1673 Prob. of Queue-free State : 0 . 99 TH Saturation Flow Rate : (pcphpl) 1700 RT Saturation Flow Rate : (pcphpl) Major LT Shared Lane Prob. of Queue-free State : 0 . 99 Step 4 : LT from Minor Street WB EB Conflicting Flows : (vph) 117 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 906 Major LT, Minor TH Impedance Factor: 0 .99 Adjusted Impedance Factor: 0 .99 Capacity Adjustment Factor due to Impeding Movements 0 . 99 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 899 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2 . 1 Page 3 **************************************************************** Intersection Performance Summary FlowRate MoveCap SharedCap Avg.Total Delay Movement v (pcph) Cm(pcph) Csh (pcph) Delay LOS By App EB L 32 899 > > > 964 3 . 9 A 3 . 9 EB R 8 1356 > > > NB L 12 1673 2 .2 A 0 . 1 Intersection Delay = 0 .8 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation HCS : Unsignalized Intersection Release 2 .1 Page 1 **************************************************************** File Name HCBAM.HCO Streets : (N-S) SW 66TH AVE (E-W) SOUTH PARCEL ACCESS Major Street DirectionNS Length of Time Analyzed60 (min) Analyst BTA Date of Analysis 12/24/96 Other Information 2001 COMBINED TRAFFIC - OPTION B - AM PEAK Two-way Stop-controlled Intersection Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound L T R L T R L T R L T R ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- No. Lanes 0> 1 0 0 1< 0 0> 0< 0 0 0 0 Stop/Yield N N Volumes 1 11 107 65 8 1 PHF . 69 . 69 . 69 . 69 .69 . 69 Grade 0 0 0 0 MC' s (%) 0 0 0 0 0 0 SU/RV' s (%) 0 0 0 0 0 0 CV' s (%) 1 1 1 1 1 1 PCE' s 1 1 1 1 1 1 Adjustment Factors Vehicle Critical Follow-up Maneuver Gap (tg) Time (tf) Left Turn Major Road 5. 00 2 . 10 Right Turn Minor Road 5. 50 2 . 60 Through Traffic Minor Road 6 . 00 3 .30 Left Turn Minor Road 6 .50 3 .40 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation HCS : Unsignalized Intersection Release 2 . 1 Page 2 **************************************************************** WorkSheet for TWSC Intersection Step 1 : RT from Minor Street WB EB Conflicting Flows : (vph) 140 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1176 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1176 Prob. of Queue-free State : 1 . 00 Step 2 : LT from Major Street SB NB Conflicting Flows : (vph) 172 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1419 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1419 Prob. of Queue-free State : 1 . 00 TH Saturation Flow Rate : (pcphpl) 1700 RT Saturation Flow Rate : (pcphpl) Major LT Shared Lane Prob. of Queue-free State : 1 . 00 Step 4 : LT from Minor Street WB EB Conflicting Flows : (vph) 152 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 865 Major LT, Minor TH Impedance Factor: 1 .00 Adjusted Impedance Factor: 1 .00 Capacity Adjustment Factor due to Impeding Movements 1 . 00 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 864 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation HCS : Unsignalized Intersection Release 2 . 1 Page 3 **************************************************************** Intersection Performance Summary FlowRate MoveCap SharedCap Avg.Total Delay Movement v(pcph) Cm(pcph) Csh (pcph) Delay LOS By App EB L 12 864 > > > 882 4 . 1 A 4 . 1 EB R 1 1176 > > > NB L 1 1419 2 .5 A 0 . 0 Intersection Delay = 0 .2 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2 . 1 Page 1 **************************************************************** File Name HCBPM.HCO Streets : (N-S) SW 66TH AVE (E-W) SOUTH PARCEL ACCESS Major Street DirectionNS Length of Time Analyzed60 (min) Analyst BTA Date of Analysis 12/24/96 Other Information 2001 COMBINED TRAFFIC - OPTION B - PM PEAK Two-way Stop-controlled Intersection Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound L T R L T R L T R L T R ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- No. Lanes 0> 1 0 0 1< 0 0> 0< 0 .0 0 0 Stop/Yield N N Volumes 1 42 8 12 57 1 PHF . 72 . 72 .72 . 72 . 72 . 72 Grade 0 0 0 0 MC' s (%) 0 0 0 0 0 0 SU/RV' s (%) 0 0 0 0 0 0 CV' s (%) 1 1 1 1 1 1 PCE' s 1 1 1 1 1 1 Adjustment Factors Vehicle Critical Follow-up Maneuver Gap (tg) Time (tf) Left Turn Major Road 5 . 00 2 . 10 Right Turn Minor Road 5 . 50 2 .60 Through Traffic Minor Road 6 . 00 3 .30 Left Turn Minor Road 6 . 50 3 .40 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation HCS : Unsignalized Intersection Release 2 . 1 Page 2 **************************************************************** WorkSheet for TWSC Intersection Step 1 : RT from Minor Street WB EB Conflicting Flows : (vph) 14 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1362 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1362 Prob. of Queue-free State : 1 . 00 Step 2 : LT from Major Street SB NB Conflicting Flows : (vph) 20 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1677 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1677 Prob. of Queue-free State : 1 . 00 TH Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) 1700 RT Saturation Flow Rate : (pcphpl) Major LT Shared Lane Prob. of Queue-free State : 1 . 00 Step 4 : LT from Minor Street WB EB Conflicting Flows : (vph) 57 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 981 Major LT, Minor TH Impedance Factor: 1 .00 Adjusted Impedance Factor: 1 . 00 Capacity Adjustment Factor due to Impeding Movements 1 . 00 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 980 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation HCS : Unsignalized Intersection Release 2 . 1 Page 3 **************************************************************** Intersection Performance Summary FlowRate MoveCap SharedCap Avg.Total Delay Movement v(pcph) Cm(pcph) Csh(pcph) Delay LOS By App EB L 79 980 > > > 983 4 . 0 A 4 . 0 EB R 1 1362 > > > NB L 1 1677 2 .1 A 0 . 0 Intersection Delay = 1 . 5 CAPACITY CALCULATIONS 68th PARKWAY/ DARTMOUTH STREET TOTAL IITETS.f..71crJ De..,Ay PIA PEA ( -5..y5) • 9,51(.29 )* e.Yv(,' } 1 3.oyf/L?)1 8 G/(9 * 5,3 y(IG/ ) �y. 30�Z��T 5,41 t )4 1;51 /35/ /?St /a5I /15-1 /75 ! 115 ir5( /a�i 175i 2,,3.# D. 9/ 4 .2, pp 4. 4,032_ Mt Pe-Py_ +r'}c (7, 15- c. 44,*( ) .# = '3( . )7- _ � f G.05(� ) i 9U(- ) 2.‘`;(-2-2_ )74'J f3 lJ / 3 /Gy3 /473 1,2,q 4 4. 5yG t c,cgc t/-:J/G D.C11.3 a,lf9f o.c2Gf c,/55" AI,?/ff r y2c�` • BY {� DATE /p,� /9"4, — —7 MACKENZIE ENGINEERING INCORPORATED 40B NO. 01460y9. ey CML• STRUCTURAL • TRANSPORTATION SHT. I OF_L___ 0690 S.W.BANCROFT STREET • P.O.BOX 69039 PORT AND,OREGON 97201-0039 • (503)224-9560 • FAX(503)228-1285 1 1AACKENZIE 63 RESRa INCORPORATED 0 0 • it2,C1 5a-. ." stn. 1 1I g�C ' `�3 13r YC 3p 'te Ir Zg Vlh I/.,/{'`r RIGHT THRU LEFT J I 10._ - 9-2, S x= 5,2c 1 0,53 --- •-. e7'I vt A- 3 , _ 1 w 0 STACK STACK E i �,1lpS'i 7 it k. e>i 53 a.c. EH ce ea �� ►q YL�. I x- / 4,6 '‘..—_-% 4i 51 'Sec �- t9a_Yc ni - , 12 y11'', � STACK STACK 23 ✓ L La _ La u_ J LEFT THRU RIGHT DATE: 9 2 9 1$,59 YC 47-03-4 . 112.52 S'G 2.....5- 2y,38 Sec 1ME PE 100: 7:/5- b ,/�;� %-...—%j 3D V',k r[Gt =�`'� TO: ,g53:/S" AMki NO TH PM ❑ o . o COUNTED BY: 63174 elibp belay �Frraly�s/s CHECKED BY: ✓ DATE: J08 NUMBER: . maralrg MACKENZIE ENGINEERING INCORPORATED Civil • Structural • Transportation '- 0690 S. W. Bancroft Street • P.O. Box 69039 ©MACKENZIE ENCNEZ NG MCORPaRATEp Portland. Oregon 97201-0039 1996 Au R1CHTS RESERVED Phone: (503)224-9560 • FAX: (503)228-1285 • I --- 0 C/ 33.S, : 3,51 A.? /GJ.SZ sec s 8.Yq 6;.31 se= (G.:Svc 14 Veil RIGHT THRU LEFT ' ......J I le._ <.2t :1c :3 �'� 14`5 iii �_ .4./= ,_ ta.p._ :^7 r", J • Veti W C.7 J STACK STACK E . !t pM4e2g': 2 e. m ® ou �.-- r 22 v' k �► �.,►= ?t4flS 3Ci r%c_ 8 -■ c 35- 1. • . , r. 17.7,:il' c 1g41 SeC r Y 1 STACK STACK Fe LJ '411111) 1 r : .:. LEFT THRU RIGHT ) 1( 9 •off kc DATE: 9/2.5/14, 3rj.52 C' = 5.O7 y2�Sec_ = /i•2.� =5,3V TIME PERIOD: 41:4/5"5.. 1:4/ .vm v€ �t3 w_ L TO: 6--"g5- AM ❑ NO TH PM Q 13 COUNTED BY: E�'h/ ..tkp I , (9) COUNTED ;S MO X • ueeL CHECKED BY: ■11.111. DATE: JOB NUMBER: 09104/41,041 MACKENZIE ENGINEERING INCORPORATED Civil • Structural • Transportation 0690 S. W. Bancroft Street • P.O. Box 69039 ®MACxENZIE ENCNE_RING INCORPORATED Portland. Oregon 97201-0039 1996 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Phone: (503)224-9560 •• FAX: (503)228-1285 r UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION CAPACITY CALCULATION FORM FOUR-WAY STOP-CONTROLLED INTERSECTION 9/24/1996 11 :13 :37 FILE NAME: I96EAM CITY: TIGARD INTERSECTION: 68TH PARKWAY / DARTMOUTH STREET METRO SIZE: OVER 500, 000 LANE CONFIGURATION: 2-LANE BY 4-LANE COUNT: 1996 AM PEAK ALTERNATE: EXISTING CONDITIONS LOCATION PLAN: ANALYST: EAH D A B • C APPR I A I MVOL I AL I A6T 4 A3R 1 126 1 166 161 I C9 I 54 119 1 149 1 160 1162 r STEP 1 DEMAND APPR A AND APPR B = 520 . VPH APPR C AND APPR D = 553 . VPH TOTAL DEMAND = 1073 . VPH STEP 2 SPLIT APPR A AND APPR B = 50 % APPR C AND APPR D = 50 % STEP 3 INTERSECTIONS SERVICE & SATURATION LEVELS DELAY & LOS = A SATURATION LEVEL = 38 . °s STEP 4 LOS C VOLUMES FOR A LEG = 1026 . VPH FOR B LEG = 1191 . VPH FOR C LEG = 810 . VPH FOR D LEG = 1341 . VPH FOR INTERSECTION = 2184 . VPH VER 03/93 UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION CAPACITY CALCULATION FORM FOUR-WAY STOP-CONTROLLED INTERSECTION 9/24/1996 11 : 9 :43 FILE NAME: CITY: TIGARD INTERSECTION: 68TH PARKWAY/ DARTMOUTH STREET METRO SIZE: OVER 500, 000 LANE CONFIGURATION: 2-LANE BY 4-LANE COUNT: 1996 PM PEAK ALTERNATE: EXISTING CONDITIONS LOCATION PLAN: ANALYST: EAH • D A B • C APPR I A 1 B 1 C 1 D I MVOL 11 6 1 277 129 I 775 1 188 1148 I 11 1 273 1161 1 1335 I 81 I2D17 STEP 1 DEMAND ' APPR A AND APPR B = 873 . VPH APPR C AND APPR D = 878 . VPH TOTAL DEMAND = 1751 . VPH STEP 2 SPLIT APPR A AND APPR B = 50 % APPR C AND APPR D = 50 % STEP 3 INTERSECTIONS SERVICE & SATURATION LEVELS DELAY & LOS = B SATURATION LEVEL = 63 . % STEP 4 LOS C VOLUMES FOR A LEG = 1095 . VPH FOR B LEG = 1227. VPH FOR C LEG = 786 . VPH FOR D LEG = 1260 . VPH FOR INTERSECTION = 2184 . VPH VER 03/93 • UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION CAPACITY CALCULATION FORM FOUR-WAY STOP-CONTROLLED INTERSECTION 9/24/1996 11 :52 :47 FILE NAME: I97BAM CITY: TIGARD INTERSECTION: 68TH PARKWAY / DARTMOUTH STREET METRO SIZE: OVER 500, 000 LANE CONFIGURATION: 2-LANE BY 4-LANE COUNT: 1997 AM PEAK ALTERNATE: BASE CONDITIONS LOCATION PLAN: ANALYST: EAH D A • B C APPR I A B C D I MOVE VOL I 87 I 67 134 1 138 1 174 184 I 10 I 68 122 1 161 DT DR I STEP 1 DEMAND APPR A AND APPR B = 574 . VPH APPR C AND APPR D = 604 . VPH TOTAL DEMAND = 1178 . VPH STEP 2 SPLIT APPR A AND APPR B = 50 % APPR C AND APPR D = 50 STEP 3 INTERSECTIONS SERVICE & SATURATION LEVELS DELAY & LOS = A SATURATION LEVEL = 42 . °s STEP 4 LOS C VOLUMES FOR A LEG = 1005 . VPH FOR B LEG = 1179 . VPH FOR C LEG = 825 . VPH FOR D LEG = 1359 . VPH FOR INTERSECTION = 2184 . VPH VER 03/93 UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION CAPACITY CALCULATION FORM FOUR-WAY STOP-CONTROLLED INTERSECTION 9/24/1996 11 :58 :56 FILE NAME: I97BPM CITY: TIGARD INTERSECTION: 68TH PARKWAY / DARTMOUTH STREET METRO SIZE : OVER 500, 000 LANE CONFIGURATION: 2-LANE BY 4-LANE COUNT: 1997 PM PEAK ALTERNATE: BASE CONDITIONS LOCATION PLAN: ANALYST: EAH ` D A B • C APPR 1 A 1 B I C D BL BT MOVE VOL' 1 1 9 1 291 132 I 87 197 160 I 14 1 295 ( 171 1 167 I 96 12338 STEP 1 DEMAND APPR A AND APPR B = 936 . VPH APPR C AND APPR D = 981 . VPH TOTAL DEMAND = 1917. VPH STEP 2 SPLIT APPR A AND APPR B = 50 % APPR C AND APPR D = 50 % STEP 3 INTERSECTIONS SERVICE & SATURATION LEVELS DELAY & LOS = C SATURATION LEVEL = 68 . % STEP 4 LOS C VOLUMES FOR A LEG = 1072 . VPH FOR B LEG = 1222 . VPH FOR C LEG = 792 . VPH FOR D LEG = 1282 . VPH FOR INTERSECTION = 2184 . VPH VER 03/93 UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION CAPACITY CALCULATION FORM FOUR-WAY STOP-CONTROLLED INTERSECTION 12/24/1996 3 : 11 :47 FILE NAME: i97CAM CITY: TIGARD INTERSECTION: 68TH PARKWAY / DARTMOUTH STREET METRO SIZE: OVER 500, 000 LANE CONFIGURATION: 2-LANE BY 4-LANE COUNT: 1997 AM PEAK ALTERNATE: COMBINED OPTION A LOCATION PLAN: ANALYST: EAH D A B C APPR 1 A 1 B 1 C 1 D 1 MOVE VOL I 87 I 67 I AR I 243 I BT I BR 74 I 15 I 100 I 40 I 161 I 194 DR 1 STEP 1 DEMAND APPR A AND APPR B = 697 . VPH APPR C AND APPR D = 680 . VPH TOTAL DEMAND = 1377 . VPH STEP 2 SPLIT APPR A AND APPR B = 50 % APPR C AND APPR D = 50 % STEP 3 INTERSECTIONS SERVICE & SATURATION LEVELS DELAY & LOS = A SATURATION LEVEL = 49 . % STEP 4 LOS C VOLUMES FOR A LEG = 896 . VPH FOR B LEG = 1204 . VPH FOR C LEG = 1021 . VPH FOR D LEG = 1247 . VPH FOR INTERSECTION = 2184 . VPH VER 03/93 UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION CAPACITY CALCULATION FORM FOUR-WAY STOP-CONTROLLED INTERSECTION 12/24/1996 3 : 14 : 17 FILE NAME: ICAAM CITY: TIGARD INTERSECTION: 68TH PARKWAY / DARTMOUTH STREET METRO SIZE: OVER 500, 000 LANE CONFIGURATION: 2-LANE BY 4-LANE COUNT: 1997 AM PEAK ALTERNATE: COMBINED OPTION B LOCATION PLAN: ANALYST: EAR D A B C APPR I A B C I D MVVOL I 87 I 67 A5R I 97 1 1874 I B74 I C1L 2 I 82 130 1 161 1 193 I1D70 STEP 1 DEMAND APPR A AND APPR B = 549 . VPH APPR C AND APPR D = 648 . VPH TOTAL DEMAND = 1197 . VPH STEP 2 SPLIT APPR A AND APPR B = 45 % APPR C AND APPR D = 55 % STEP 3 INTERSECTIONS SERVICE & SATURATION LEVELS DELAY & LOS = A SATURATION LEVEL = 45 . IT STEP 4 LOS C VOLUMES FOR A LEG = 967 . VPH FOR B LEG = 1041 . VPH FOR C LEG = 801 . VPH FOR D LEG = 1324 . VPH FOR INTERSECTION = 2067 . VPH VER 03/93 UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION CAPACITY CALCULATION FORM FOUR-WAY STOP-CONTROLLED INTERSECTION 12/24/1996 3 : 15 :52 FILE NAME: ICBAM CITY: TIGARD INTERSECTION: 68TH PARKWAY / DARTMOUTH STREET METRO SIZE: OVER 500, 000 LANE CONFIGURATION: 2-LANE BY 4-LANE COUNT: 1997 PM PEAK ALTERNATE: COMBINED OPTION A LOCATION PLAN: ANALYST: EAH D A B C I APPR I A I B I C I D I MOVE 1 9 291 AR 142 1 197 1160 I C2L 9 1 394 1233 1 167 11D21 I2D38 I I VOL I I I I STEP 1 DEMAND 998 . VPH APPR A AND APPR B = APPR C AND APPR D = 1182 . VPH TOTAL DEMAND = 2180 . VPH STEP 2 SPLIT 45 APPR A AND APPR B = APPR C AND APPR D = 55 % STEP 3 INTERSECTIONS SERVICE & SATURATION LEVELS DELAY & LOS = SATURATION LEVEL = 82 . % STEP 4 LOS C VOLUMES 913 . VPH FOR A LEG = FOR B LEG = 1128 . VPH FOR C LEG = 908 . VPH FOR D LEG = 1184 . VPH FOR INTERSECTION = 2067 . VPH VER 03/93 UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION CAPACITY CALCULATION FORM FOUR-WAY STOP-CONTROLLED INTERSECTION 12/24/1996 3 : 17 : 16 FILE NAME : ICAPM CITY: TIGARD INTERSECTION: 68TH PARKWAY / DARTMOUTH STREET METRO SIZE : OVER 500, 000 LANE CONFIGURATION: 2-LANE BY 4-LANE COUNT: 1997 PM PEAK ALTERNATE : COMBINED OPTION B LOCATION PLAN: ANALYST: EAH D A B C I APPR I A B C I D MOVE AL AT AR BL BT BR CL CT CR DL I DT DR VOL 169 291 35 23 197 160 28 386 228 167 107 238 STEP 1 DEMAND APPR A AND APPR B = 875 . VPH APPR C AND APPR D = 1154 . VPH TOTAL DEMAND = 2029 . VPH STEP 2 SPLIT APPR A AND APPR B = 45 0 APPR C AND APPR D = 55 0 STEP 3 INTERSECTIONS SERVICE & SATURATION LEVELS DELAY & LOS = C-D SATURATION LEVEL = 77 . o STEP 4 LOS C VOLUMES FOR A LEG = 976 . VPH FOR B LEG = 1086 . VPH FOR C LEG = 822 . VPH FOR D LEG = 1250 . VPH FOR INTERSECTION = 2067 . VPH VER 03/93 A WILLIAM L. OWEN and ASSOCIATES iN 4 Tree and Landscape Consulting Services ;ate P.O. BOX 641,PORTLAND,OREGON 97207 503/222-7007 TREE CONDITION ANALYSIS Farmers Insurance Site Prepared for: GROUP MACKENZIE 0690 SW Bancroft Street PO Box 69039 Portland, Oregon 97201 September 26, 1996 Prepared by: William L. Owen, B.S., M.A., C.A. American Society of Consulting Arborists#114 • �'• lIild: _ INSPECTION.DIAGNOSIS AND EVALUATION OF TREES.SHRUBS AND RELATED PLANTINGS. c'=••�.;: CONSULTATION WITH RESPECT TO PLANTING,TRANSPLANTING.PRESERVATION.MAINTENANCE AND ARBOREAL PLANNING.COMPREHENSIVE LOSS OR DAMAGE REPORTS.DULY SANCTIONED APPRAISALS FOR LEGAL OR CONTRACTUAL PURPOSES.LEGALLY ACCEPTABLE TESTIMONY IN COURT CASES. 12/23 14:55 1996 FROM: TO: 5032281285 PAGE: 2 DEC 23 '96 15:28 P.2 WILLIAM L. OWEN and ASSOCIATES Tree and Landscape Consulting Services ,-i-.1.'.77.;1.,''i��, P.O. BOX 641,PORTLAND,ORECX)N 97207 503/222-7007 December 18, 1996 Group Mackenzie 0690 SW Bancroft St. PO Box 69039 Portland, OR 97210-0039 RE: Redesign of Southern Portion/Farmers Site Project/New Building Locations/ Tree Impact . Dear Tamio: After having reviewed the proposed new use of the southern portion of the Farmer's site with Peter Alto on the site, and having reviewed the drawings with you today, it is apparent that there is no essential change in the impact on the tree population with the new design configuration. This means that the original report done by me covering the entire site, both north and south, and the tree mitigation work relative thereto, is not affected or changed by the new configuration shown for the southern site. If you have any questions relative to the above,please let me know. Thank you very much. Very truly yours •,,ter ,- �/ William L. Owen, B.S., M.A., C.A. American Society of Consulting Arborists#114 Ft!, `'z' ' INSPECTION.DIAGNOSIS AND EVALUATION OF TRtEES.SHRUBS AND RELATED PLANTINGS. .• CONSULTATION WITH RESPECT TO PLANTING.TRANSPLANTING.PRESERVATION,MAINTENANCE AND s, ,-,• : ARBOREAL PLANNING.COMPREHENSIVE LOSS OR DAMAGE REPORTS.DULY SANCTIONED APPRAISALS {` '"'• 'I FOR LEGAL OR CONTRACTUAL PURPOSES.LEGALLY ACCEPTABLE TESTIMONY IN COURT C.ASES. WILLIAM L. OWEN and ASSOCIATES A 5 Tree and Landscape Consulting Services P.O. BOX 641, PORTLAND,OREGON 97207 503/222-7007 '•°""' September 26, 1996 Group Mackenzie 0690 SW Bancroft Street PO Box 69039 Portland, OR 97201-0039 Attention: Tamio Fukuyama/Project Manager-Architect RE: Farmers Insurance Site Development Tree Preservation Plan Dear Mr. Fukuyama: Enclosed find the tree survey for the subject site in partial fullfillment of the City of Tigard tree preservation requirements. Please let me know if you need additional information to this report. Thank you very much. Very truly ou Willi.. # �C - , B.S., M.A., .A. American Society of Consulting Arborists#114 INSPECTION.DIAGNOSIS AND EVALUATION OF TREES.SHRUBS AND RELATED PLANTINGS. r~-.-,'•*+.7" CONSULTATION WITH RESPECT TO PLANTING.TRANSPLANTING.PRESERVATION.MAINTENANCE AND • ARBOREAL PLANNING.COMPREHENSIVE LOSS OR DAMAGE REPORTS.DULY SANCTIONED APPRAISALS rt"''-- FOR LEGAL OR CONTRACTUAL PURPOSES.LEGALLY ACCEPTABLE TESTIMONY IN COURT CASES. TABLE OF CONTENTS Problem/Task/Methodolody 1 Present Condition 1 Insect, Nature/Man-caused Damage 2 Findings 2 Recommendations 3 Monitoring 5 Summary/Mitigation Report 6 Mitigation Tree Cost Estimate 7 Tree List (Removals) 8, 9 Glossary 10 Tree Care Standards 11 GROUP MACKENZIE FARMERS INSURANCE PROJECT TREE ANALYSIS AND PRESERVATION REPORT 1) Problem and task: The purpose of the survey on the subject site is to prepare the Tree Plan Requirement Report as required by the City of Tigard Municipal Code/18.150.025. The implementation of the purpose is to survey the trees on the subject site by visual examination, with special attention to those marked for preservation (see enclosed plot plan) to determine: a) present condition, and prognosis for survival for the trees to remain on the site, and b) their suitability for preservation as landscape amenity trees. 2) Methodology of Analysis of tree population: A visual inspection of each tree has been done from buttress flare to the top, looking for abnormalities and indications of disease (dead tissue, galls, conks, etc.) in an effort to find visual symptoms of failure or hazard. The buttress root flare of each of the major trees marked for preservation on the site was examined visually in an effort to detect evidence of Basal Rot, decay or other indications of instability. For the purpose of this examination, no invasive work was done. 3) Present condition: There appeared to be no indication of major problems in any of the trees other than storm damage in some of the larger specimens of Fir and the Oak. There is some die-back in some of the Maples, typical for the species in this kind of setting. The Ash trees typically have die-back as they reach the age of many of the trees on this site. The Sequoia have internal needle die-back which is normal for conifers in a somewhat crowded situation. The Cedar have interior needle die-back, typical in a situation of this kind. The Cottonwoods are flourishing as they will in a competitive situation of this kind. The Apple and Cherry are performing in a typical fashion with no apparent problems. The large Black Walnut is a substantial specimen but nothing extraordinary in terms of general condition. The large Oaks are variously damaged by storms. Those which will be Farmer's Ins/WLO&Assoc#9643 1 preserved can be treated and pruned properly to encourage proper crown formation and safety. Likewise the major Firs have some die-back in the crowns. Those which will be preserved can be detailed to modern standards and made viable and attractive as well. Overall, the setting is comprised of a naturally occurring grove, much of it reasonably young, in heavy competition, untended, with the major Oaks and the larger Firs dominating, except in the southwest corner where the Cottonwoods are typically overshadowing other trees in the fight for light and growth space. Major Maples in that area are also doing well. The site tree population is a typical forest, untended area, with many good species, a substantial number of which will be preserved in this project as accents and amenities to the property. b) Insects: No apparent insect infections in any of the species was noted in the course of the survey, particularly in the species selected for preservation. Typical infestations of a minor nature present are mites, aphid and leaf miner. Nothing serious. c) Man-Caused Damage: There is slight damage now present on roots of some of the trees, particularly in the northern end around several of the larger Oaks. This is not serious. The trees should do well. d) Nature-Caused Damage: As noted earlier there is some storm damage in the larger species and resultant breakage and die back of certain parts of the crowns. This is not heavy and can be corrected with proper pruning to modern standards at the appropriate time during the development of the project. Such work will be covered more fully later herein. 4) Findings: The major tree population marked for preservation on the site is comprised of a variety of species: Ash, Alder, Oak, Cedar, Birch, Maple, Fir, Pine, Sequoia, Cottonwood, Apple, Cherry and Walnut (see glossary). The task further is to identify by location and size all of the existing species on the site, and to prepare a mitigation report based on all trees over 12" caliper on the site (see detail following). All trees to be removed are shown on the enclosed plot plan marked in red. All trees to Farmer's Ins/WL0&Assoc#9643 2 be retained are shown on the enclosed plot plan marked in green. Included is the tree survey information necessary to satisfy the requirements of the municipal code with regard to retainage of trees over 12" in caliper to develop the mitigation percentage prescribed in section 18.150.025, Point B,paragraph c. As is shown,the retainage formula places the subject site in the 50%to 75% category. The tree numbers and mitigation formula execution are provided on the summary sheet. All of the trees marked in green on the plot plan have been inspected as described herein. Those marked for preservation at this time have good annual growth,good color,minimal dead wood,good terminal viability, and will need only routine professional care to put and keep them in a reasonable condition in terms of branching and crown configuration. It should be noted that all have been "forest" trees to this time. Those in the grove will remain so. This means that in many trees low branching is sparse or non-existent due to the heavy crowding. High crowns have developed in competition for light, as is typical in these situations. However, the trees can survive and do well in the new environment, given proper professional care and monitoring. (See recommendations following herein.) Trees marked in red for removal include trees which are just outside the building envelopes, to a reasonable distance (app. 10')to avoid retaining trees which should not be left too close to buildings. This is a more sensible approach not only to retain desirable trees but also is a safety measure because the trees remaining can be cared for properly as they grow and still allow for protection of buildings, yet enhance the amenity value of the trees to the buildings. 5) Recommendations: In satisfaction of 181.150.025 under subsection 4, "A Protection Program defining Standards and Methods that will be used by the Applicant to Protect Trees During and after Construction",I submit the following: j a) Before construction: 1) The clearing of trees to come off the site preparatory to beginning construction of the buildings and parking lot will be done only after meeting with the clearing contractor on site regarding plans to protect those species selected to remain. Tree protection fencing comprised of orange plastic, 4'high, on steel posts driven into the ground on 8'centers, will be placed around individual trees or groups of trees to provide protection at the drip line of the trees to be preserved from all encroachment during activity in the cleaning and grading process and all other construction activity. This is best done in cooperation with construction and grading contractors with the Consulting Arborist on site Farmer's Ins/WLO&Assoc#9643 3 to direct the placement of the fencing. 2) The Consulting Arborist will be on call during the clearing work, as well as inspect without prior notice, to insure full compliance with methods recommended. Close observation during this period of the operation is vitally important in tree protection, and works well done in this manner. b) During construction: During construction of the parking lot and the buildings, decisions will be made situationally on site by the Consulting Arborist regarding specific root impact/interface problems, working with the construction contractor. Long experience has demonstrated that this technique is the best way to maximize retention of trees. Only on-site with specific reference to the building layout, exact location of buildings, parking lots, etc. can these decisions best be made. I am retained through completion of the project for this purpose and will work closely with all contractors and supervisory personnel throughout the process to insure compliance with the tree protection standards as described herein. c) Post construction therapy: 1) Ongoing maintenance specifications required for all trees retained. All tree work to be done only by State Licensed/International Society of Arboriculture Certified Arborists, as directed by the Consulting Arborist. a) Pruning to be done to Standards of the American National Standards Institute for tree work (see enclosed ff.), as outlined: 1) Dead wood, stub, hanger removal 2) Crown shaping as needed for better appearance/balance. 3) Thinning for wind sail reduction, where necessary, tree by tree, as recommended by the Consulting Arborist. Note: thinning of any tree crown shall not exceed 10% unless specifically directed by the Consulting Arborist. b) Fertilizing to National Arborist Association Standards, DRF method (see enclosure ff.), as outlined: 1) Formula to be slow-release, liquid, with trace elements. 2) Specific ratio,NPK and trace elements, to be approved by Consulting Arborist in advance. 3) Timing of application must be set by Consulting Arborist, and will occur only between July 15 and August 15 of the Farmer's Ins/WLO&Assoc#9643 4 first growth year following completion of construction work around the trees. c) Irrigation around trees, especially Oaks, Firs and Cedars, may be by natural rainfall only, except as may be modified by Landscape Architect and Consulting Arborist in relation to the designed-in landscape trees and shrubs. (Plantings under native tree species should be chosen accordingly.) d) Insect and disease control (plant healthcare) applications, if any, will be based on specific need only. The type, amount and timing of applications to be approved in advance by the Consulting Arborist in conjunction with the Certified Arborist Contractor chosen to do the work. All work done to National Arborist Association Standards (see enclosed ff.). 6) Monitoring Program: a) A critical element in tree preservation in construction trauma impacted trees is periodic, ongoing inspections of the trees by the Consulting Arborist who 1) did the initial tree examination and report, and 2) witnessed the construction impact on a specific, tree-by-tree basis. b) Tree monitoring inspection should be done twice annually, Spring and Fall (April- May and September-October) for the first three growth years following completion of construction, then (normally)once annually thereafter. c) Inspection findings for maintenance therapies should be specified in writing by the Consulting Arborist for necessary tree maintenance work. I believe the foregoing shows what is necessary and possible to do on the site regarding tree preservation,both now and ongoing, how and when the necessary work should be done, by whom, and under whose direction. If the findings and instructions herein are noted, observed and carried out as recommended, the result can be a well done business park addition to the City of Tigard. The site will have a significant preserved natural tree population, supplemented by a professionally designed landscape plan that should not only survive the construction but also be set up to enhance and endure for years to come. % 9 y4 William L. n, B.S., .A., .A. " Date American Society of Consulting Arborists #114 Farmer's Ins/WLO&Assoc#9643 5 FARMERS INSURANCE SITE SUMMARY/RECONCILIATION Applied Mitigation Formula Total trees on site over 12" (13" and larger) caliper: Removed = 168 trees, 13" and larger Saved = 232 trees, 13" and larger Total = 400 trees 13" and larger on site 232 saved trees = 58% of trees 13" and larger, which results in the 50-75% retainage category=mitigate 50% of removed trees = 168 trees =3589 caliper inches, _2 = 1794.50 caliper inches = 1794.50" _ 3" = 598 (3" trees) needed to mitigate, less those provided in landscape plan (200)=as(see breakdown ff.) Landscape plans provide for a total of 200 trees to be planted on site, @ 3" caliper or equivalent. 6 lU, U , rV Lam.rr U..7LL� Jvv:. - -- I I V14.111(�L i.V�•JL._r.•.r..♦ :.CY.11 S VLY J,rJ 1-49C _. L • Cedar Landscape. Inc. 14375 SW Patricia Avenue, Hillsboro, Oregon 97123 I FAX ; Date: 10/07/96 Number of p__s inc!udin_cover sheet. 1 't vsloms► To: RS:H Construction Company From: Norm Dowry `.fib Kolcdziejezal: Phone. 22S-7177 i . Phone t,5ui316'S-:41 1 x 1 Fax phone: 2"4-:535 Fax phone: ■;51i3}(5^S-5 : CC: cedar the rosrummmitosemommew - . . . . - REMARKS: ❑ 1.r_en: a For your re ie\C Repl:, .\SriF C Please comment t RE: Colonel Pacific Leasi:r_ —TiE,ard As requested. below. I have provided a cost to replace 1 194 calif _r inches of Oaks. Ald::rs. and Ash trees with398 each 3- caliper trees. \Iaterial Cost. S115.00 Labor Cost. S 2N.00 Equipment Cost. S 15.00 • General Conditions. i.e.: material u & delivery 5'),i S 3.00 Unit C .r T otal 5166.40 ea. x 398 = S66.068.00 .. If you have any questions please call me at our office or page me at 514-9783. Thank you. %melee "Ratad..eeje ale ,i- 4E1INIM,M _ 7 r TREES TO BE REMOVED Over 12"Caliper # Caliper # Caliper # Caliper # Caliper # Caliper 1 14" 27 16" 58 14" 82 20" 111 22" 2 18" 28 14" 59 40" 83 18" 112 20" 4 18" 29 14" 60 16" 85 14" 114 20" 5 14" 30 24" 61 14" 86 20" 116 16" 6 16" 31 14" 62 24" 89 18" 117 16" 7 16" 32 14" 63 20" 90 22" 119 14" 8 16" 33 33" 64 26" 92 16" 122 18" 9 14" 35 14" 65 18" 93 16" 123 21" 11 16" 37 14" 66 24" 94 18" 124 14" 12 16" 38 24" 67 14" 95 14" 126 18" 13 16" 39 14" 68 14" 96 16" 127 14" 15 18" 43 14" 69 26" 97 22" 130 14" 16 18" 46 48" 72 20" 98 14" 131 14" 19 48" 47 26" 73 24" 102 16" 132 18" 20 38" 52 28" 75 14" 103 18" 133 26" 21 16" 53 24" 76 14" 106 16" 134 16" 23 16" 55 24" 78 24" 108 20" 135 20" 24 14" 56 14" 79 14" 109 16" 137 18" 26 14" 57 26" 80 16" 110 18" 138 20" 8 TREES TO BE REMOVED Over 12" Caliper # Caliper # Caliper # Caliper # Caliper 139 16" 172 24" 195 28" 214 18" 145 20" 174 28" 196 22" 217 14" 150 22" 175 38" 197 46" 219 42" q 151 22" 176 20" 198 26" 220 16" 153 24" 177 34" 199 18" 221 38" 154 14" 178 36" 200 18" 224 24" 155 16" 179 32" 201 30" 225 38" 156 14" 180 20" 202 20" 227 28" 157 14" 181 20" 203 28" 228 20" 159 23" 182 20" 204 28" 229 24" -. 160 14" 183 14" 205 30" 230 30" J 162 16" 184 42" 206 36" 232 36" 164 16" 188 18" 207 24" 234 36" 165 16" 189 20" 208 18" 235 36" 166 14" 190 36" 209 16" 237 16" 167 16" 191 42" 210 16" 238 36" 168 14" 192 44" 211 22" 169 16" 193 42" 212 22" 170 16" 194 18" 213 16" i 9 FARMERS INSURANCE SITE SPECIES GLOSSARY Douglas Fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) Western Red Cedar (Thuja plicata) Oregon Ash (Fraxinus americana) Red Alder (Alnus rubra) Oregon White Oak (Quercus garryana) European Birch (Betula pendula) Pine (Pinus contorta) Sequoia (Sequoia gigantea) Bigleaf Maple (Acer macrophyllum) Cottonwood (Populus trichocarpa) Apple (Maltz spp.) Cherry (Prunus spp.) Walnut (Juglans nigra) c 1 0 PRUNING STANDARDS With the American National Standard for pruning, ANSI A300, specifications can be written in a virtual infinite number of combinations. The following information is designed to help you understand exactly what will be accomplished in a pruning operation. Branch Size A minimum or maximum diameter size of branches to be removed should be specified in all pruning operations. This establishes how much pruning is to be done. Pruning Objectives Pruning objectives should be established prior to beginning any pruning operation. A300 provides two basic objectives. Hazard Reduction Pruning Hazard reduction pruning (HRP) is recommended when the primary objective is to reduce the danger to a specific target caused by visibly defined hazards in a tree. For example, HRP may be the primary objective if a tree had many dead limbs over a park bench. Maintenance Pruning Maintenance pruning (MP) is recommended when the primary objective is to maintain or improve tree health and structure, and includes hazard reduction pruning. An example here might be to perform a MP operation on a front yard tree. Pruning Types Hazard reduction pruning and maintenance pruning should consist of one or more of the pruning types noted below. Crown cleaning....Crown cleaning shall consist of the selective removal of one or more of the following items: dead, dying, or diseased branches, weak branches and watersprouts. Crown thinning....Crown thinning shall consist of the selective removal of branches to increase light penetration, air movement, and reduce weight. Crown raising....Crown raising shall consist of the removal of the lower branches of a tree to provide clearance. Crown Reduction, or Crown Shaping....Crown Reduction decreases the height and/or spread of a tree. Consideration should be given to the ability of a species to sustain this type of pruning. Vista Pruning....Vista Pruning is selective thinning of framework limbs or specific areas of the crown to allow a view of an object from a predetermined point. Crown Restoration....Crown Restoration pruning should improve the structure, form and appearance of trees which have been severely headed, vandalized, or storm damaged. ----- 11 NATIONAL ARBORIST ASSOCIATION Standard for Fertilizing Shade & Ornamental Trees (Revised 1987) INTRODUCTION his standard serves to provide a guide in drafting specifications for the application of fertilizer to shade and ornamental trees as ell as a standard of practice. Trees in the forest or commercial nursery,either field or container grown, may have different environmental considerations and are not addressed in this standard. is suggested that the entire text be read before specifications are developed.All of the following should be included:soil test, pe of fertilizer, fertilizer analysis, rate of application, time of year, and method of application. The purpose of fertilizing landscape plants is to maintain satisfactory vigor, promote healthy growth. assist the plant in iercoming the adverse effects of diseases or insects,or to correct mineral element deficiencies. Plants require at least sixteen iemical elements for proper growth and development. Three of these elements — carbon, hydrogen and oxygen — are provided by air and water:the other essential elements are obtained by the roots from the soil. Nitrogen is used in large amounts by plants,is easily leached and often volatile. It may be necessary to apply nitrogen annually or biennially.Variations in methods id recommendations are expected in different regions. Therefore, it is recommended that soil be tested every two to three gars.The test will report quantities of chemical elements:calcium, phosphorus, potassium and magnesium. The test will also provide a pH reading,which is a measure of the acidity or alkalinity of the soil.The actual soil pH influences nutrient absorption Ind plant growth through the effect of hydrogen ions on nutrient availability. Each essential nutrient is only available to plants ithin a specific pH range. The presence of a chemical element(nutrient) in the soil is no guarantee that it is in a soluble form available for plant absorption. The concentration of hydrogen and associated ions affects soil reaction and the formation of soluble and insoluble compounds. iI nutrients must be in solution to be available for root absorption. _roliar analysis for determination of chemical element needs is recommended for trees showing specific nutrient deficiencies. It s possible to have a soil test indicate that adequate levels of all nutrients are present in a soil and still have nutrient deficiency 'mptoms appear on a plant. The nutrient may occur in a form that is unavailable to the plant. There may also be physical -oblems within the soil, such as compaction, poor drainage, or poor aeration that can affect nutrient absorption. -ECTION A: TYPES OF FERTILIZER Organic Fertilizer — is that categorized as derived from a plant, animal or synthetic organic source. Nitrogen (N) occurs naturally in organic fertilizers (manures), and gradually becomes available for plant use as the material is reduced by microorganisms. Synthetic organic nitrogen fertilizers are created by coating urea with sulphur or resin-like materials which make the material slowly available for plant use. Organic fertilizers are characterized by a slow rate of nitrogen release, long residual, low burn and root injury potential, and low water solubility. The higher efficiency of slow release fertilizers means less nitrogen runoff to contribute to pollution of streams and subsurface water.The unit cost of slow release fertilizer absorbed by the plant is actually lower than that of readily available materials. I Inorganic(Chemical) Fertilizer— is that derived from chemical sources. These nutrients are readily available in the soil and are rapidly soluble, with a short residual period. Ill. Soluble Fertilizer—is mixed with water and applied in liquid form.Soluble fertilizers may be applied to the foliage. to the soil via the deep root feeding method, or as a soil drench treatment. Soluble fertilizers are usually inorganic and readily available, but may be organic and slowly available. Materials with a limited solubility that dissolve slowly are often listed on fertilizer labels as water insoluble nitrogen — WIN (See EXAMPLE I, page C-5 for WIN calculations). ECTION B: FERTILIZER ANALYSIS 1. New Plantings — use a high phosphorus fertilizer to assist in plant establishment, such as those with nitrogen, phosphorus and potash (N-P-K) ratios of 0-20-0, 0-46-0, 4-12-4, or 5-10-5 C-1 1. Square foot method:Apply 5 lbs. of N per 1.000 sq. ft. to trees on the lawn using 32-7-7 formulated fertilizer. Calculation: 5.0 (lbs. N) _ .32 (% N) = 15.6 (lbs. 32-7-7 fertilizer) 15.6 lbs. fertilizer x 2 = 31 lbs. of fertilizer added to each 150 gal. of water. Each 150 gal. of water covers 2.000 sq. ft. if pump pressure is 150 Igs. and injection spacing is 21/2 ft. The pump can be calibrated by counting the seconds it takes to pump V2 gallon of solution into a bucket. Each operator should calibrate his pump, counting off the seconds. and use this same count and cadence while injecting the probe into the soil. 2. Diameter at Breast Height Method: Apply 1/2 lb. of N per caliper inch to trees on lawn using a 32-10-5 formulated fertilizer Calculation: .5 (amount of Niinch cal.0 = .32 (% of N in 32-10-5) = 15.6 lb. of fertilizer. 15.6 lbs. of fertilizer x 2 = 31 lbs. of fertilizer added to each 150 gal. of water and applied as per grid above in surface application problem. SECTION D: TIMING OF FERTILIZER APPLICATIONS \Il of the following guidelines are subject to regional and climatological differences.Autumn is an ideal time to fertilize,generally after the first hard freeze and until the moisture in the soil freezes and root activity ceases. In the southern areas of the country where the ground does not freeze.root growth in many cases will continue all winter long.Early spring,before budbreak is also .n appropriate time.When leaves have fully expanded, fertilizing can continue until early July. However, treatments of readily available inorganic nitrogen between July and September could promote a late flush of growth which may not harden off before freezing temperatures in autumn, and injury could occur. Mid to late-summer fertilizer applications should be limited to :orrecting specific element deficiency problems. SECTION E: METHODS OF FERTILIZER APPLICATIONS Surface applications—Fertilizer is placed in a spreader calibrated to apply the proper amount of material per 1,000 sq. ft. Care should be taken to avoid excessive overlapping.The application can be made in either concentric circles or in linear strips starting 2 or 3 feet from the trunk out to 5 to 10 feet beyond the drip line of the tree. Only fertilizer sources that contain nitrogen alone should be surface applied.Fertilizer should be applied when grass blades are dry. After the fertilizer has been distributed, it should be washed off the grass blades immediately,using a lawn sprinkler or irrigation system. Fertilizer remaining on grass blades that become wet following a light rain or dew formation occasionally causes burning. To prevent the soil from becoming deficient in phosphorus or potassium following annual surface applications of nitrogen, it is desirable to add these nutrients as needed according to soil analysis. Without soil reports, the NAA suggests phosphorus at 3.6 lbs.of phosphoric acid (P205) per 1.000 sq. ft.and potassium at 6 lbs.of potash (K20) per 1,000 sq. ft. Phosphorus will not burn grass if used at recommended rates. Phosphorus should be applied with the drill hole or liquid injection method because it is so insoluble and does not move down to the roots if applied as a surface treatment. Caution: potassium and nitrogen may burn turfgrass when applied at recommended rates. Irrigation of lawn areas should follow surface applications of these fertilizers. 'I. Drill Hole Method—The drill holes should be placed in concentric circles in the soil around the tree beginning 2-3 feet or more from the trunk and extending 5-10 feet or more beyond the drip line. Space holes 2 feet apart and drill them 8-15 inches deep, depending upon the tree species, root growth patterns. and type of soil in the root area. The recommended rate of fertilizer should be uniformly distributed among the holes. Depending on the diameter of the hole, it can be filled following fertilization with peat moss,calcine clay,perlite,small crushed stone,sand.or other soil amendment. If the area beneath the spread of the branches is restricted.reduce the application in proportion to the area or number of holes that cannot be made. Use a suitable measuring device and a funnel to apply the fertilizer in the holes. If desirable in sodded areas,the holes may be closed by pressing from different angles with the heel of the worker's shoe.or by cutting and lifting a plug of grass,filling the hole to within 4 inches of the top.adding soil and replacing the plug. Keep the fertilizer at least 4 inches below the top of the hole in turf areas to prevent burning of the grass by dehydration. Irrigation following fertilizer application will help prevent ir}j. ry to turf; however,do not flood the area,as dissolved fertilizer may be carried to the surface and cause turf injury. Ill. Fertilize in Moist Soils— Fertilizer should always be applied to moist soils to enhance fertilizer uptake, reduce fertilizer injury to plants,and aid in soil injection or drill hole treatments. If soils are not moist,irrigation should precede fertilization to moisten the plant root zone area. The liquid injection method of fertilizing trees and shrubs will help moisten the soil in the root zone while applying desired nutrients. The benefits of water in dry soil will reduce nutrient as well as moisture stress. IV. Fertilizing Excessively Wet Soils—Avoid fertilizing trees growing in soil that is excessively wet. The roots in wet soil are often damaged from lack of oxygen caused by the accumulation of toxic gases. Adding fertilizer in any form may contribute to root injury. V. Read the Label—Read the entire label of any fertilizer product before application,and apply per label recommendations. EXAMPLE I Slow release fertilizer is measured by the percentage of water insoluble nitrogen,(WIN).Use the following formula to determine the percentage of water insoluble nitrogen in a bag of fertilizer: - %of WIN x 100 = %of N that is slow release %of total N Example for a fertilizer label that reads 32-7-7: Guaranteed Analysis Total Nitrogen (N)....32% Water Insoluble Nitrogen....12.5% Nitrate Nitrogen....2.0% Water Soluble Nitrogen....17.5% Available Phosphoric Acid....7% Soluble Potash....7% 12.5%of WIN x 100 lbs. of fertilizer = 39°,0 32%of total N 39%of the available N is slow release SELECTED REFERENCES KUHNS. LARRY J. 1985. Fertilizing Woody Ornamentals. Cooperative Extension Service, The Penn State University. NEELY, DAN. 1980. Tree Fertilizing Trials. Illinois Journal of Arboriculture: 6(10). NEELY, DAN and E. B. Himelick. 1971. Fertilizing and Watering Trees. Illinois Natural History Survey Circular #52. RATHJENS,RICHARD and Roger Funk. 1984.Guide to Turf, Trees and Ornamental Fertilization.Weeds,Trees&Turf Magazine (October). SMITH, ELTON M. 1978. Fertilizing Trees and Shrubs in the Landscape. Journal of Arboriculture: 4(7). This Standard was revised in 1987 with the assistance of: Dr. Elton M. Smith, Ohio State University. Columbus. OH C-5 NATIONAL ARBORIST ASSOCIATION Standard For Hydraulic Sprayer Calibration INTRODUCTION This guide is provided by the NATIONAL ARBORIST ASSOCIATION as a supplement to NAA's video program."ON TARGET" as well as NAA-sponsored Pesticide Application and Calibration Seminars. 4 successful pesticide application must achieve the desired controls while,at the same time,be environmentally sound as well as :ost effective. Pesticides must reach and adequately cover the target. Pesticide movement off the target. drift, must be avoided. ::ost effectiveness requires the minimum use of chemicals and the most efficient use of application equipment. The applicator's ability to achieve a successful application is dependent upon three variables. 1. Using the proper spray equipment: including plumbing, hoses, and fittings. 2. Proper calibration of the application equipment. 3. Proper application technique. The equipment used to spray trees, especially tall trees, must be designed with proper plumbing, hoses. etc. to allow the pesticide applicator to utilize the full potential of the spray unit. Each part of the spray unit on both the intake and output side of the pump must meet specific requirements and be functioning properly in order to achieve maximum spray height with minimal Pesticide waste and equipment wear. Proper calibration of the hydraulic sprayer assures that the optimum spray volume and pressure are available at the gun and that the spray unit is operating at peak efficiency.With the knowledge gained from reading this manual,the applicator can select the appropriate discs/tips and set the required pump pressure for the needs at hand. While tall trees may require a large disc or tip on the gun for maximum spray output, smaller trees and shrubs will not. The applicator should know how and when to change to the optimum size necessary while in the field to get the job done efficiently and economically. Application technique is extremely important.An applicator must know where to stand to get maximum coverage, how to hold the spray gun. and when to reduce the volume. These techniques must be fully understood and used as needed. CALIBRATION PROCEDURE _1 The following procedure will allow the pesticide applicator to calibrate a hydraulic sprayer for each spray gun disc or tip that may be appropriate for different types of tree and shrub spraying,and will provide the information necessary for determining when to change discs or tips in the field. 1. Determine the optimum spray pressure to be achieved at the spray gun as recommended by the manufacturer,or follow the guidelines in this manual. Certain gun pressures are recommended because greater pressures will create smaller droplets and greater dispersion, or drift,and decrease maximum spray column height. Lower pressures, on the other hand. do not allow the sprayer to achieve the maximum spray column height with a given disc/tip. A. Bean 785 or 786 guns with discs #12 to #22 @ 400 PSI, and with discs #4 to #10 @ 300 PSI. B. Green Garde JD9-C. all tips, @ 300 PSI. 2. Select the discs or tips to be calibrated for from those sizes which are appropriate for the hydraulic sprayer being used. Be sure that the flow capacity(output)of each selected disc/tip does not exceed the flow capacity of the spray unit's pump(see Table I). Please note that smaller discs/tips have lower flow capacities (GPM) than larger discs/tips. Therefore, use the smallest disc/tip that can give thorough coverage with minimum movement off target. This minimizes chemical waste. EXAMPLE: A #22 disc which has a flow capacity of 52.5 gallons per minute (GPM) at 400 PSI would exceed the output capacity of a 50 GPM or smaller pump. EXAMPLE If a plant can be adequately covered using an FMC or Bean 785 or 786 gun and #12 disc at 13.9 GPM,or Green Garde J09-C gun and LX tip at 11.4 GPM,there is no reason to use a larger disc,such as a#16 which pumps.out 26.5 GPM —twice the volume of material to do the same job. F-i • 3. Determine the output or capacity of the disc or tip selected in gallons per minute(GPM) from Table I. Establish the pressure loss caused by friction between the pump and the gun for each selected disc/tip so that the pressure at the pump can be adjusted to compensate. Table I Disc/Tip Capacity Gun 1yp• Pr.ssur• At DisclTip l sc/Tlp Gun (pal) Slz• Capacity(gpm) FMC 785/786 400 '22 52.5 •18 34.0 *16 26.5 *14 21.1 s12 13.9 300 *10 8.1 *8 5.2 il 6 3.0 14 1.3 Green Garde JD9-C LX 11.4 L 4.5 M 2.9 A. Determine the inside diameter of the spray hose. B. Determine the pressure loss per 50 feet of that size hose. See Table II. Table II Pressure Loss Per 60 Feet Of Hose (psi) Gun Pressure At Disc 3/8' 1/2' 5/8' 3/4' 1' Typ• Gun (psi) Size (psi) (psi) (psi) (psi) (psi) FMC 786/786 400 •22 • • 400 160 40 •18 • 450 160 60 18 •16 • 276 100 42 10 •14 • 190 65 25 6 •12 400 90 30 12 3 300 s10 165 35 13 4.8 1.3 •8 60 14 5 2 X •6 22 6 2 X X ■4 5 1 X X X Green Garde .109-C LX 290 60 20 8 2 L 44 11 3.9 1.6 X M 20 5 1.6 X X NOTES:This information was taken from data gathered by the Gates Rubber Company. Where an asterisk (') appears, the pressure is so great that it would be inappropriate to use this diameter hose. Where an X appears. the pressure loss is either too small to measure or zero Using a #16 disc as an example. Table II indicates that with 400 PSI at the gun.42 PSI per 50 feet of 3/4" hose is lost C. Measure the length of the hose in use from the pump to the gun. For every 50 foot length of equal diameter hose,the pressure loss will have to be compensated for by a given amount at the pump in order to achieve the desired pressure at the gun. EXAMPLE: If the sprayer is equipped with 300 feet of 3/" hose, that is the same as six 50 foot lengths. The pump pressure would have to be increased by 252 pounds to offset the 42 PSI pressure loss for each of the six 50 foot lengths 6x42 = 252. D. Count the number of hose couplings including the coupling at the pump and the coupling at the gun. Determine the pressure loss for each hose coupling from Table III.The total pressure loss for all hose couplings will also need to be • compensated for at the pump. Note:Where two sections of hose are coupled together,there are two couplings:one female and one male. c Table III Pressure Loss For Hos• Coupfngs(Each) Has• Couplings LD. Gun Pressure At Disc 3/8' 1/2' 5/8' 3/4' 1' Type Gun (psi) Siza (PO (psi) (psi) (psi) (psi) FMC 785/786 400 r22 • • 20 6 2 •18 22 8 3 1 •16 14 5 2 .5 •14 10 3 1.5 .5 •12 20 6 1.5- .6 X 300 410 8 1.5 .5 X X .8 3 .6 X X X •6 1X X X X •4 X X X X X Gr•sn Gerd• .109-C LX 14 3 1 X X L 2 .5 X X X t M X X X X X EXAMPLE:Table III indicates that a hydraulic sprayer equipped with a 3/4" hose and a 416 disc would have a pressure loss of 2 lbs. for each coupling. If there were 2 couplings, 4 PSI would be added at the pump, 2 PSI for each If a hydraulic sprayer was equipped with 100 feet of 1"hose and 200 feet of hose,and the gun had a 418 disc, the pressure loss would be 1 PSI for each 1" coupling, and 3 PSI for each 3" coupling as indicated in Table III. E. If a hose reel and/or meter is being used,an additional 10 PSI loss for each must be compensated for at she pump. F. To determine the pressure needed at the pump to achieve the desired PSI at the gun. add the following: Desired pressure at the gun Pressure loss for hose Loss for couplings Loss for reel or meter Total pressure required Adjust the pressure regulator or relief valve accordingly. EXAMPLE:Suppose that you want to calibrate a sprayer with 300 feet of 3/4" hose with 4 couplings.a hose reel,and a #16 disc in a Bean 786 gun: 1. The pressure loss per 50 feet of hose,as shown in Table II, is 42 PSI. The pressure loss for the entire 300 foot length is: 42 PSI x 6 = 252 PSI 2. The pressure loss per coupling is 2 PSI each from Table III. The pressure loss for 4 couplings is: 2 PSI x 4= 8 PSI 3. The pressure loss for a hose reel is: 10 PSI 4. The desired gun pressure is 400 PSI 5. Total = pressure setting required at pump. 670 PSI There is another method for calibrating a sprayer: A. Install a pressure gauge in a T-fitting between the end of the hose and the spray gun. B. Determine the optimum spray gun operating pressure as recommended in this manual. or by the manufacturer C. Select the disc/tip you wish to calibrate for.Be sure that the output capacity does not exceed the output capacity of the spray unit. See Table I. D. With water only in your tank, start your spray unit and pressurize the system. E. With the spray gun open, note the pressure at the gun. F. Adjust the pump pressure with the gun open until the desired pressure is reached at the gun. G. Close the gun and read the pressure on the gauge at the pump.This is the pressure setting required at the pump when the gun is closed to attain the desired pressure at the gun with the gun open. 5. Once the pump setting for a given disc/tip size has been established,estimate the spray column height that can be reached with that particular disc/tip and pressure setting. E-3 A. One suggested method for measuring spray column height is to compare the height of the spray against an object of known height, such as a tree or building. There are several more accurate methods for measuring the height of an object such as using a clinometer, a device similar to a camera range finder. B. Compare estimates of spray column height with Table IV,which represents industry averages. Table IV Approximate Spray Column Halght Attainable With Each Disc Or Tip Size Bean 785/786 Gun Green Garde JD9-C At 400 psi At 300 psi DISC COLUMN HEIGHT TV COLUMN HEIGHT •22 90 Feet Plus LX 40 Feet *18 80 Feet Plus L 30 Feet ;16 65 - 90 Feet M 25 Feet +14 50 - 75 Feet S 24 Feet tr 12 35 - 50 Feet SX 22 Feet Bean 785/786 Gun At 300 psi •10 Up To 40 Feet Repeat this procedure for all disc/tip sizes appropriate for the hydraulic sprayer being calibrated. Record the data generated on a table such as the following,or a decal,and keep it on the unit for reference. Unless the hose length, hose size,or number of couplings change,the information will be a handy reference.When changes occur,the unit will have to be re-calibrated. SPRAY CALIBRATION Disc/Tip Size Disc Capacity Pump Pressure Approximate Height GPM PSI FT. ERIODICALLY, A HYDRAULIC SPRAYER SHOULD BE CALIBRATED BY BOTH METHODS TO BE CERTAIN THAT /ERYTHING IS CORRECT. mathematical calculations only will not reveal what the actual pressure is at the gun, only what it should be se of the pressure gauge between the hose and the gun by itself will not tell you if your equipment is functioning properly both methods of calibration are used and there is a significant difference between the calculated and actual pump pressure and/or, if the hydraulic spray doesn't reach the approximate heights that it should, check the following 1. Pump and engine RPM 2. Engine to pump pulley ratio. 3. Pump piston packing 4. Pump valve malfunction 5. Relief valve malfunction E-4 6. Small plumbing I.D. (causing restriction) 7. Suction line (intake) restrictions 8. Discharge side restrictions; including hose, couplings, washers and swivels 9. Other obstructions and restrictions 10. Leaks in the system ,io equipment problems are found, check the calculations and calibration again to ensure that no errors were made. 'UTION:The smaller the disc or tip,the smaller the droplet size.Smaller droplets weigh less and are more affected by wind, ich could result in spray drift. Under such conditions, using a disc larger than the minimum size listed in Table IV may be sirable. EXAMPLE: If the tree to be sprayed is 70 feet tall, under most conditions a #16 tip will reach the top. However, if wind conditions are such that larger droplet size will reduce the possibility of drift.a.larger disc or tip can be used and pump pressure adjusted accordingly. Under such circumstances the operator must be careful not to allow the spray to go over the top of the tree. SPRAYER CALIBRATION WORK SHEET 1. Disc/tip size to be calibrated: 7. Determine optimum pressure at gun: Capacity of disc/tip in gallons per minute. Table !: Inside diameter of hose: Pressure loss per 50 ft.of hose. Table II: 6. Number of feet of hose: Divide Item 6 by 50 ft.: _. Total pressure loss for hose. Item (5) multiplied by Item (7): Number of hose couplings: Pressure loss per coupling. Table III: 11. Total pressure loss for couplings. Item (9) multiplied by Item (10): Add 10 PSI for hose reel: (if present) . Add 10 PSI for meter: (if present) Total pressure loss. Add Items (8) + (11) + (12) 1' (13): . Pressure needed at pump. Add Items (2) and (14): 16. Maximum spray height reached with this disc/tip and pressure setting: DDITIONAL PESTICIDE APPLICATION GUIDELINES The National Arborist Association has produced a three part video presentation,called"ON TARGET'.that covers Hydraulic ray Equipment. Hydraulic Sprayer Calibration, and Proper Pesticide Application Techniques for Urban Trees. They are ailable as a 3 tape set from: The National Arborist Association 174 Route 101 Bedford, N.H. 03102 REDITS ck Custer. FMC Corporation Erik H. Haupt, Bartlett Tree Expert Company alter A. Houston. Encap Products Company Lauren S. Lanphear, Forest City Tree Protection Company E-5 ..--- --------- ---- ----1 I OEFONWEDLEN 2575 SR fL.1 w..1,,. pm'.. 9770 1 PA.* (303)2 11-6 ru (503)259-0703 3 R&H ft CCN3TRUCT1ON CO. 1500 SR Togo Si I>on.,On..1705 P.P. (503)220-7177 FAX(503)22.-3628 H 8 g e 21 s y 1 ♦7/IA ))6T 6 0 6 -0• 1 • = Q — `_ J tom.o. R i i _ 1 1 I I 1 1 1 1 1 H I III _ _ ■�■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ .I 11 1 11 O F'• 4' I I II I IIII I II II II _ I I s __ ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ " „AaK, ■ ■ • „MO I I I I I I I I I - - 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ 000 N.Sun° Ln.327 — +5 ME ■ Pt.. )2 (03 - I I I I I I I I I I 11 I I I ♦ ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ ■■■■ • 01191 ,i0 � ,,; r ` _0 P.0.Br 601 Pena..Ong.17207 P. (503)222-7007 O SOUTH BUILDING III ELEVATION - OPTION A ED EAST BUILDING III ELEVATION - OPTION A o Ic a 1511 SM.S.A.Pvwy, SW t.150 :17 . Pn.n.-l517611.2-72115) f(j 'PROJECT: TRIANGLE CORPORATE PARK SOUTH BUILDING HI AND N 0 w YY7mut R. v area Y1 Ill MA,s wRPrme YOr 101 pYn 11YI1A.i , Y YYfIG.pspl R(N9• S -den6ac Or MI ME Ns ,� 1111■1■ I I I I I I 1I■I m 2 1 1■■■■I l l 1111■1■ 1 1 111 1111 H I III IIII III I.T€ OD NE �'°-o m ■■■■ ■■■■ ■■■■ MINI m m■■■■m CO■■■■ 1 1 I I I 1 1 1 1 I I I _ m I I I I m WI ;...f... .. L NE NE M ■■■■ ■■■■ ■■■■ ■■■■m I m■■■■ II MEIN m lllIsom m , I . �2r7 ID ■■■■ ■■■■ ■■■■ 11111 m■■■■ I I m■■■ ■ I I I I I 1 1111■ m l 1 1 W `� •� ELEVATIONS OPTION A ONORTH BUILDING N ELEVATION - OPTION A Oa EAST BUILDING IV ELEVATION - OPTION A J 1C. D6 °R1i B7 T _ = ciao B.T7/PPA { 92[7 s - -- --- - - �2oe Yo 296500 2021JL SW 5 11. . Sawa 201 Par6YN,Or.9m 9720, Pnuw.(003)296-6000 7A5.(503)299-6703 R&H cowman:x.1 co. 1530 S9.7oye,St. I Paraap,0709en 67205 /Prim(503)229-7177 ) FAIL(503)224-3636 Ill ; ______I 11■■••■■■ 1 I! r 1 . k 3 QI F ! 1 I df Q IIIIIII11 I111111111 II t M = M = a =g 1 E:� l!' 8 I 11 € FIA ME r•ANA NO 900 Y.9 SA.,Awna4 ; S..l.377 I Perugia.Oregon 67209 • Ply,.. (503)222-5612 { i ri7r1 'AIL M L OMEN t ABBOCMI® PO.6..641 0'W n. Pry (503503)22 97207 22-7001 LAJ Srv.v S ENTRY CC/ell-W111 Nc 1511 S W S.9uab Pan.a9, o1.150 Pry...(503 '0657 # ) BUILDING III TYPICAL PLAN - OPTION A Pa0.[OF S 1/16'.'_0• TRIANGLE CORPORATE I PARK SOUTH 1 BUILDING III AND IV 1 I I Ya PQ t NYPn O OOP ILO0O re Y<.T SERVICE I0 a i aa.Q WO r ry ES{ ROOM • • PF ■ ■■ • • RESTAURANT/ XU XIII BUSINESS FACILITY LOUNGE .■MN LOBBY NM 1 .. W SKIT mtE r PLANS ENTRY OPTION A 3 I LOADING BUILDING Ni TYPICAL PLAN - OPTION A Not 5 0694w Br. TOL 00076D 6r-(riPPA • "U 5 tl ii 6 Jae.o 296500 !' d PRE - APPLICATION CONFERENCE NOTES G R O U P MACKENZIE December 16, 1996 City of Tigard Attention: Mr. Will D'Andrea 13125 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard, OR 97223-8199 Re: Farmers Insurance Property Submittal "A"-Office/FIotel Project Number 296044 M � O N O N N Dear Will: rs O x Attached is a site plan for your review for the upcoming preapplication meeting(12/19/96). E • . We are resubmitting for Site Development Review for the southern portion of the Farmers Insurance • E project(newly identified as Triangle Corporate Park Buildings- South Site III and IV). The attached cn site plan represents Option A. This plan proposes a four-story building containing approximately o• ° 84,500 SF and a hotel containing approximately 64,000 SF. Four hundred forty-one(441)parking o spaces are proposed,including 60 spaces beneath the hotel structure. • z The basic site layout: grading,utilities,and tree preservation and mitigation are anticipated to remain constant with the approved site plan for this portion of the property. co cn N It is our understanding that this letter will reserve a preapplication conference on December 19, 1996. • f We look forward to further discussion this submittal with you at that time. Sincerely, Group Mackenzie. Incorporated I Architecture Interior Design Beth auner Land Use Planning BEZ✓ks Group Mackenzie Engineering, Enclosure Incorporated Civil/Structural c: Kelly Saito-Gerding/Edlen Engineering Tamio Fukuyama/Peter Alto/Jeff Humphreys-Group Mackenzie Transportation Planning The tradition of Mackenzie Engineering and Mackenzie/Saito continues. F:\WPDATA\96-12\96044\16L2.KSD CITY OF TIGARD PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE NOTES City of rqui, Oreyau i _ NON-RESIDENTIAL 1Z- /`7 - Gv, ' 1 sr : k%// O` � o,' I! APPLICANT: AGENT: 11 Phone:1 ) Phone: 1 ) ROPERTY LOCATION: 11 ADDRESS: TAX MAPJTAX LOT: NECESSARY APPLICATION(S): _ Sl�_ DA.1/ei.x, MF_r!i`T Re 1// w 11 PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION: 61-/,Dac ' 0 -4.- i Soa 46 a Gr1G- D6- a COMPREHENSIVE H"LAN DESIGNATION: -7 II CONING DESIGNATION: C-- :ITIZEN INVOLVEMENT 045T FACILITATOR: II TEAM AREA: PHONE: (503) DNING DISTRICT DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS Minimum lot size:400d sq. ft. Average lot width: SO ft. Maximum building height: YS– ft. setbacks: front ft. side ft. rear — ft. corner -- ft. from street. Maximum site coverage: $6.- % Minimum landscaped or natural vegetation area: LS % (Refer to Code Section 18. GY _) DDITIONAL LOT DIMENS ONAL REQUIREMENTS Minimum lot fro 25 feet unless lot is created through the minor land partition process. Lots created as art of a partition must have a minimum of 15 feet of frontage or have a minimum 15 foot ide access easement. Y OF TIGARD Pre-Application Conference Notes Page 1 of 8 I-Residential wohcjtoniPlanmtg Document Swum The depth of all is shah not exceed 2 times the average width, unless the parcel is less than 1; times the mini um lot size of the applicable zoning district. (Refer to Code Sec ion 18.164.060 - Lots) SPECIAL SETBACK treets: feet from the centerline of > E abiished areas: feet from > Lo r intensity zones: feet, along the site's boundary. > Flag I t: 10 foot side yard setback. (Refer to Code Section and 18.96) 5 CIAL BUILDING HEIGHT PROVISIONS Building Height Exceptions - Buildings located in a non-residential zone may be built to a height of 75 feet provided: > A maximum building floor area to site area ratio (FAR) of 1 .5 to 1 will exist; > All actual building setbacks will be at least '/2 (half) of the building's height; and > The structure will not abut a residential zone district. (Refer to Code Section 18.98.020) "IRKING AND ACCESS Required parking for this type of use: floTe/ /: R.�M Pivs /.'Z E.,,iployEES Parking shown on preliminary plan(s): r//pv '* . i.• /ex:, 0 St.9 /A-,G•4kie. $Ai J i 7//`MTG R K s /: Z 049 4 54.4x,,.✓¢ Secondary use required parking: <(e.-e /;350 Parking shown on preliminary plan(s): 7 No more than 40% of required spaces may be designated and/or dimensioned as compact spaces. 7 Parking stalls shall be dimensioned as follows: > Standard parking space dimensions: 8 ft. 8 inches X 18, ft. > Compact parking space dimensions: 8 ft. X 1,'ft. (Refer to Code Section 18.106.020) `t 7 > 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 with Disabilities Act (ADA). A handout is available upon request. A handicapped parking space symbol shall be painted on the parking space surface and an appropriate sign shall be posted. _ ., Bicycle racks are required for multi-family, commercial and industrial developments. Bicycle racks shall be located in areas protected from automobile traffic and in convenient locations. Bicycle parking spaces shall be provided on the basis of one space for every fifteen (15) required vehicular parking spaces. 7 Minimum number of accesses: Minimum access width: 3 2 Minimum pavement width: Z All driveways and parking areas, except for some fleet storage parking areas, must be paved. Drive-in use queuing areas: (Refer to Code Section 18.106 and 18.108) rY OF TIGARD Pre-Application Conference Notes Page 2 of 8 Y Reaideotlel ioobtitronJPtamwp Depuiment Sectron VALKWAY REQUIREMENT 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. (Refer to Code Section 18.108.050) LOADING AREA REQUIREME very 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. (Refer to Code Section 18.106.070-090) :LEAF VISION AREA The City requires that clear vision areas be maintained between three and eight feet in height at road/driveway, road/railroad, and road/road intersections. The size of the required clear vision area depends upon the abutting street's functional classification. (Refer to Code Section 18.102) UFFERING AND SCREENING In order to increase privacy and to either reduce or eliminate adverse noise or visual impacts between adjacent developments, especially between different land uses, the City requires landscaped buffer areas along certain site perimeters. Required buffer areas are described by the Code in terms of width. Buffer areas must be occupied by a mixture of deciduous and evergreen trees and shrubs and must also achieve a balance between vertical and horizontal plantings. Site obscuring screens or fences may also be required; these are often advisable even if not required by the Code. The required buffer areas may only be occupied by vegetation, fences, utilities, and walkways. Additional information on required buffer area materials and sizes may be found in the Community Development Code. (Refer to Code Chapter 18.100) The required buffer widths which are applicable to your proposal area are as follows: r- ft. along north boundary. _ ft. along east boundary. ft. along south boundary. r ft. along west boundary. In addition, sight obscuring screening is required along 7.-e-45.41 RecYG/"Nlr- �NDSCAPINC�> 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. Y OF TIGARD Pre-Application Conference Notes Page 3 of 8 -Revelenual apo4Latlon:Pla(IMp Oeoarmienl Secuon 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. For detailed information on design requirements for parking areas and accesses. (Refer to Code Chapters 18.100, 18.106 and 18.108) SIGNS Sig permits must be obtained prior to installation of any sign in the City of Tigard. A "Guidelines for Sign ermits" handout is available upon request. Additional sign area or height beyond Code standar 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 review before the Hearings Officer. (Refer to Code Section 18.114) >ENSITIVE LANDS The Code provides regulations for lands which are potentially unsuitable for development due to areas within the 100-year floodplain, natural drainageways, wetland areas, on slopes in excess of 25 percent, or on unstable ground. Staff will attempt to preliminary identify sensitive lands areas at the pre-application conference based on available information. HOWEVER, the responsibility to precisely identify sensitive lands areas. and their boundaries. is the responsibility of the applicant. Areas meeting the definitions of sensitive lands must be clearly indicated on plans submitted with the development application. Chapter 18.84 also provides regulations for the use, protection, or modification of sensitive lands areas. Residential development is prohibited within floodplains. In most cases, dedication of 100- year floodplain areas to the City for park and open space areas is required as a condition of the approval of a development application. -Z5 �.8 F FE2 FR-GM W icT Wt (Refer to Code Section 18.84) REE REMOVAL PLAN REQUIREMENT A tree pan 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, major 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; 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 18.150.070.D. according to the following standards: Retainage of less than 25 percent 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; TY OF TIGARD Pre-Application Conference Notes Page 4 of 8 N•Residentiat apo6canoniPtamene Department Semen ➢ Retainage of from 25 to 50 percent of existing trees over 12 inches in caliper requires that two-thirds of the trees to be removed be mitigated according to Section 18.150.070.D; ➢ Retainage of from 50 to 75 percent of existing trees over 12 inches in caliper requires that 50 percent of the trees to be removed be mitigated according to Section 18.150.070.D; ➢ Retainage of 75 percent 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 18.150.070.D. (Refer to Code Section 18.150.025) IEITIGATION 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 damages is not reasonably available, the Director may allow replacement with a different species of equivalent natural resource value. ➢ If a replacement tree of the size cut is not reasonably available on the local market or would not be viable, the Director shall require replacement with more than one tree in accordance with the following formula: ➢ The number of replacement trees required shall be determined by dividing the estimated caliper size of the tree removed or damaged, by the caliper size of the largest reasonably available replacement trees. If this number of trees cannot be viably located on the subject property, the Director may require one (1) or more replacement trees to be planted on other property within the city, either public property or, with the consent of the owner, private property. ➢ The planting of a replacement tree shall take place in a manner reasonably calculated to allow growth to maturity. In lieu of tree replacement under Subsection D of this section, a party may, with the consent of the Director, elect to compensate the City for its costs in performing such tree replacement. (Refer to Code Section 18.150.070 (D) rY OF TIGARD Pre-Application Conference Notes Page 5 of 8 N-Raudaatial apokanonlPlaamg Daparmwit Section �JARRAT 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. (Refer to Code Section 18.32) "ODE SECTIONS 18.80 _ 18.92 8.100 —18.108 %18.120 —18.150 18.84 — 18.96 / 18.102 _ 18.114 18.130 _ 18.160 18.88 18.98 18.106 _ 18.116 — 18.134 18.162 18.164 MPACT STUDY As a part of the application submittal requirements, applicants are required to include impact study with their submittal package. The impact study shall quantify the effect of the development on public facilities and services. The study shall address, at a minimum, the transportation system, including bikeways, the drainage system, the parks system, the water system, the sewer system and the noise impacts of the development. For each public facility system and type of impact, the study shall propose improvements necessary to meet City standards, and to minimize the impact of the development on the public at large, public facilities systems, and affected private property users. In situations where the Community Development Code requires the dedication of real property interests, the applicant shall either specifically concur with the dedication requirement, or provide evidence which supports the conclusion that the real property dedication requirement is not roughly proportional to the projected impacts of the development. (Refer to Code Chapter 18.32 Section .050) When a condition of approval requires transfer to the public of an interest in real property, the approval authority shall adopt findings which support the conclusion that the interest in real property to be transferred is roughly proportional to the impact the proposed development will have on the public. (Refer to Code Chapter 18.32 Section .250) JEIGHBORHOOD MEETI� The applicant shall notify all property owners within 250 feet and the appropriate CIT Facilitator and the members of any land use subcommittee(s) of their proposal. A minimum of 2 weeks between the mailing date and the meeting date is required. Please review the Land Use Notification handout concerning site posting and the meeting notice. Meeting is to be held prior to submitting your application or the application will not be accepted. (Refer to the Neighborhood Meeting Handout) ECYCLING—T Applicant should contact franchise hauler for review and approval of site servicing compatibility with Pride Disposal's vehicles. CONTACT PERSON: Lenny Hing with Pride Disposal at (503) 625-6177. (Refer to Code Section 18.116) TV OF TIGARD Pre-Application Conference Notes Page 6 of 8 )M.AKidenttal appbcatronPtannnq Department Section ADDITIONAL CONCERNS OR COMMENTS: tai RCSoL071o,,. o F c tx t 0 `T'R —PL.P .)/Mrrl&-PrTlOP 'Re v t5En )A-7ze. OLDRLI CA1 CS_ C tu t03 itr.A ete_ \WS SvCZ !==lc- c= 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. ",PPLICATION SUBMITTAL PROCESS All applications must be accepted by a Planning Division staff member of the Community Development Department at Tigard City Hall offices. PLEASE NOTE: Applications submitted by mail or dropped off at the counter without Planning Division acceptance may be _returned. Applications will NOT be accepted after 3:00 P.M. on Fridays or 4:30 on other week days. Maps submitted with an application shall be folded IN ADVANCE to 8.5 by 11 inches. One 8.5 inch by 11 inch map of a proposed project should be submitted for attachment to the staff report or administrative decision. Application with unfolded maps shall not be accepted. The Planning Division and Engineering Division 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. 'Y OF TIGARD Pre-Application Conference Notes Page 7 of 8 lAnsclaatiat zpclxatwn//Ptanrng Depatn srt Spawn The administrative decision or public hearing will typically occur approximately 45 to 60 days after an application is accepted as being complete by the Planning Division. Applications involving difficult or protracted issues or requiring review by other jurisdictions may take additional time to review. Written recommendations from the Planning staff are issued seven (7) days prior to the public hearing. A 10, to 20 day public appeal period follows all land use decisions. An appeal on this matter would be heard by the Tigard f?/r4NA4IA/Gr Cc t.t.ALSSic&J . A basic flow chart which illustrates the review process is available from the Planning Division upon request. 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. . PLEASE NOTE: The conference and notes cannot cover all Code requirements and aspects of good site planning that should apply to the development of your site plan. Failure of the staff to provide information required by the Code shall not constitute a waiver of the applicable standards or requirements. It is recommended that a prospective applicant either obtain and read the Community Development Code or ask any questions of City staff relative to Code requirements prior to submitting an application. Additional pre-application conference(s) is/are required if an application(s) is/are to be submitted more than six months following this pre-application conference, unless the additional conference(s) is deemed as unnecessary by the Planning Division. PREPARED BY: 1 WW/ 0i4,✓Azz&4- CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING DIVISION PHONE: (503) 639-4171 FAX: (503) 684-7297 logm mpattY\masters',Dreapp-c.mst tgrneering Section: masters\Dreaoo-c.eng) Iv 19. 1996 rY OF TIGARD Pre-Application Conference Notes Page 8 of 8 Pi-Residential I.ti cationJPtanxg Deparmmmt Sect on CITY OF TIGARD CON>,;∎.1UNITYDEVELOP, ,IENT aaar."41( APPLICATION CHECKLIST CTTY OF TIGARD The items on the checklist below are required for the succesful completion of your application submission requirements. This checklist identifies what is required to be submitted with your application. This sheet MUST be returned and submitted with all other applicable materials at the time you submit your land use application. See your application for further explanation of these items or call the City of Tigard Planning Division at (503) 639-4171. Staff: Mit D tYDRE4 Date: IZ—/9-94. .APPuC-\1ON RELATED DOCUMENTS) SUBMITTAL REQUIREME NTS INC_UDE / MARKED ITEMS A) Application form (1 copy) Q' B) Owner's signatureiwritten authorization (Y C) Title transfer instrument/or grant deed L� D) Applicant's statement No. of Copies 18' E) Filing Fee S Sea FEE SITE-SPECIFIC MAP(S)/PLAN(S) SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS INCLUDE .1 MARKED ITEMS A) Site Information showing: No. of Copies , Ib 1 . Vicinity map 2. Site size & dimensions 3. Contour lines (2 ft at 0-10% or 5 ft for grades > 10%) e� 4. Drainage patterns, courses, and ponds 5. Locations of natural hazard areas including: (a) Floodplain areas (b) Slopes in excess of 25% (c) Unstable ground (d) Areas with high seasonal water table (e) Areas with severe soil erosion potential (f) Areas having severely weak foundation soils 6. Location of resource areas as shown on the Comprehensive Map Inventory including: (a) Wildlife habitats = (b) Wetlands r7/ 7. Other site features: (a) Rock outcroppings (b) Trees with 6" + caliper measured feet from ground level 8. Location of existing structures and their uses 2- °. Location and type of on and off-site noise sources 10. Location of existing utilities and easements 11 . Location of existing dedicated right-of-ways "7' _AND NSF..PPL:U7iOy/u5' ?AG: CF _ B) Site Development PI Indicating: la_ of Copies IS 1 . The proposed site and surrounding properties 2. Contour line intervals 3. The location, dimensions and names of all: (a) Existing & platted streets & other public ways and easements on the site and on adjoining properties (b) Proposed streets or other public ways & easements on the site (c) Alternative routes of dead end or proposed streets that require future extension 4. The location and dimension of: (a) Entrances and exits on the site (b) Parking and circulation areas Gr (c) Loading and services area (d) Pedestrian and bicycle circulation 2- (e) Outdoor common areas r- (f) Above ground utilities r� 3. The location, dimensions & setback distances of all: (a) Existing permanent structures, improvements, utilities, and easements which are located on the site and on adjacent property within 25 feet of the site e� (b) Proposed structures, improvements, utilities and easements on the site e' 6. Storm drainage facilities and analysis of downstream conditions 2" 7. Sanitary sewer facilities r� 8. The location areas to be landscaped e' 9. The location and type of outdoor lighting considering crime prevention techniques 10. The location of mailboxes 1 1 . The location of all structures and their orientation 12. Existing or proposed sewer reimbursement agreements C) Grading Plan Indicating: No. of Copies / e The site development plan shall include a grading plan at the same scale as the site analysis drawings and shall contain the following, information: 1 . The location and extent to which grading will take place indicating: (a) General contour lines (b) Slope ratios —_ (c) Soil stabilization proposal's) (d) Approximate time of year for the proposed site development e 2. A statement from a registered engineer supported by data factual substantiating: (a) Subsurface exploration and geotechnical engineering report c (b) The validity of sanitary sewer and storm drainage service proposals (c) That all problems will be mitigated and how they will be mitigated :ANC) LSE AP°._!CATION/',1ST ?AGE: CF 3 D) Architectural Drawir •c Indicating: No. of Copies 1, • The site deveiopmer. an proposal shall include: i . Floor plans indicating the square footage of all structures proposed for use on-site 2. Typical elevation drawings of each structure E) Landscape Plan Indicating: No. of Copies 1 a The landscape plan shall be drawn at the same scale of the site analysis plan or a larger scale if necessary and shall indicate: 1 . Description of the irrigation system where applicable 7. 2. Location and height of fences, buffers and screenings 3. Location of terraces, decks, shelters, play areas, and common open spaces c 4. Location, type, size and species of existing and proposed plant materials ' 5. Landscape narrative which also addresses: (a) Soil conditions r- (13) Erosion control measures that will be used c F) Sign Drawings: C Sign draw ngs shall be submitted in accordance with Chapter 18.114 of the Codas part of the Site Development Review or prior to obtaining a Building Permit to construct a sign. G) Traffic Generation Estimate: 7 H) Preliminary P. ition/Lot Line Ad'ustment Ma• Indicatin•: No. of Copies 1. The owner .1 the subject parcel C 2. The owner' authorized agent c 3. The map sca - (20,50,100 or 200 feet— 1) inch north arrow and date C 4. Description o parcel location and boundaries C 5. Location, widt and names of streets. easements and other public ways within an adjacent to the parcel C 6. Location of all p-rmanent buildings on and within 25 feet of all property lines c 7. Location and wid of all water courses 3. Location of any tr. -s within 6" or greater caliper at 4 feet above mound level 9. All slopes greater th.n 25% c 0. Location of existing iiities and utility easements C 11 . For major land partiti which creates a public street: (a) The proposed rig t-of-way location and width C (b) A scaled cross-se 'on of the proposed street plus any reserve strip C 12. Any applicable deed res, fictions c 13. Evidence that land partiti will not preclude efficient future land division where applicable _a NO •L:Ck7 CN.J US' P aCE 3 C.F 3 1) Subdivision P Plat tap and Data Indicating: No. of Copies 1 . Scaie eq aiing 30,50. 100 or 200 feet to the inch and limited to one phase pe sheet 2. The prop sed name of the subdivision c 3. Vicinity m p showing property's relationship to arterial and collector sf eets 4. Names, ad esses and telephone numbers of the owner, developer, engineer, su ever and designer tas applicable) Date of appl ation 6. Boundary lin s of tract to be subdivided Names of adj scent subdivision or names of recorded owners of adjoining par.-is of un-subdivided land = 3. Contour lines elated to a City-established benchmark at 2-foot intervals for 0-10% grad-s greater than 10% 9. The purpose, 1. ation, type and size of all the following (within and adjacent to the .roposed subdivision): (a) Public and private right-of-ways and easements (b) Public and .rivate sanitary and storm sewer lines (c) Domestic ater mains including fire hydrants c (d) Major pow;. telephone transmission lines (50,000 volts or greater) c (e) Watercours.. C (f) Deed reserv.tions for parks, open spaces, pathways and other land encumb .nces 10. Approximate plan nd profiles of proposed sanitary and storm sewers with grades and pi•e sizes indicated on the plans 11 . Plan of the propose, water distribution system, showing pipe sizes and the location of valve and fire hydrants 12. Approximate centerli - profiles showing the finished grade of all streets including street extensi ins for a reasonable distance beyond the limits of the proposed subdivisio c 13. Scaled cross sections of .,roposed street right-of-way(s) 14. The location of all areas ubjec: to inundation or storm water overflow — 15. Location, width & directi• of flow of all water courses & drainage-ways c 16. The proposed lot configur.tions, approximate lot dimensions and lot numbers. Where lots a e to be used for purposes other than residential, it shall be indicted upon such lots. 17. The location of all trees wit a diameter 6 inches or greater measured at 4 feet above ground leve!, a d the location of proposed tree plantings 18. The existing uses of the prop=rty, including the location of all structures and the present uses of the str, ctures, and a statement of which structures are to remain after platting = 19. Supplemental information including: (a) Proposed deed restrictions if any) (b) Proof of property ownershi. (c) A proposed plan for provisi• of subdivision improvements — 20. Existing natural features including rcc. outcroppings, wetlands & marsh areas 21 . If any of the foregoing information .-nnot practicably be shown on the preliminary plat, it shall be incorpo •ted into a narrative and submitted with the application LAND ..S"[ +.P•t:CkT:C?■.J us 'acc-:.F 5 I) Solar Acces Calculations: K) Other Informat •ri No. of Copies c Nuiv 23. 1995 '...AND LSE.A?p,..:CAT:0%/ ?AC: 5 OF 5 A CITY C TIGARD Ai_ ,���'i DEVELOPMENoT SERVICES 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard,s a renairiurr, the asIbrciai:e 1.an z/ar 4L4 : -)UA.,,, / ■ 'lease he aware you are respon* i ` l 1. fry' satisi -ling t*-7 cn tee case (s) and must submit pl_ tly to the ar or ,ndicated on your final order. our building plans ARE NOT routed to the planning or engineering depart. ou must satisfy the land ti- -, -,a) m' } -nnH; }i " ' ;--.,J:n-,-;� y} _� £L L ., ' 1 :' .erMit plans review proce ,.:.: the building plans review process has been c.::.J.,.., ._ . t. , i,):.,: :.-J. .. iilding permit will NOT be issued without app . , -1r•" In 1,..) -4-r..,r1} . T y,;,4 tiavw ciuri t.{,.i�SGiuw. regarding this notice, pat.: z�.4: aurii..=.a_ sue u.ar eLi. ay . .39-4171 for further clarification. -."r- I opsent Services Technician. : - r - nt '' ■ . ' n• Department ngineering + = • - • Sent by: GROUP MACKENZIE 5032281285; 02/14/97 13:00; Jej #874;Page 1 /2 r G R O U P `MACKE NZI E ' , 0890 SW BRNCROFT STREET/PO BOX 69039•PORTLAND.OR 97201 TEL 503.224.9570•NET:GRPMACKCOM•FAX 503 8.125.5 FAX COVER SHEET G Date: 2/1 4 1 4 7 Project N//umbber. 26149 jo0 Company: I. r f FAX: .. 6004,ff,T7 2. 7 Attention: . ... ..W.f.d t:_. .AKairC� -- Project Name: . ` , S.•. .' ' 't17� Description: r;iQ_J� - -. 4 ;'t L e From: • Comments or Special Instructions: r j } I I. r .V.1Y1.I.I. ..."7"., �A- "a14)?l C'..�. t -.f`--e- 1.1 r.�-C; .(/.1. . .1. ` .•-. .'. .�t.eir +a). !!''. r .Lik, "Lie 441-6'7, C-4./Ne' i C .e.l'Yt4 /A 704( < -m! , . . . . . . .�J. ... ... . -o . . a•- . . t+. LS' • . Oa t .. 71/t...4.4-ki C: by FAX to FAX TOTAL NUMBER OF PAGES(including tros corer sheet): If you did not receive all es.please call our Records Department ORIGINAL LL I WILL NOT FOLLOW BY MAIL. CONFIOENTIALUTY NOTICE: The information contained In this faraimde transmission is confidential and is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient,this serves as notification mat any reading, disclosure,copying.distribution,or the taking of any action in relianeaa on the contents of this communication is strictly prohibited. If this transmission was received in error.immediately notify us at 503224-9570 to arrange for return of the original facsimile. I . Internal Use Only: File Sender WP Department Sent by: GROUP MACKENZIE 5032281285; 02/14/P7 13:01 ; ,Jetrax #874;Page 2/2 f --- ''--."------.—.7 \;.■ ''' 'ks.',\ \ f j f ` i J +7 LCa 1 i i(/ 1 ' 1 II WI% e:v.- .,., "... ...-- .. ' \ \ ) il ' 111P " 4-,.--v'*-4 • N. - -. \ ••+\ . il ' • '. -- •-\.,\7_, . c„.;', -'z i .... - \ /, i t i ,_.____ _ ,--,.. 4 ....___ - - i . ...; . P , N ' \:41 ',/i fill ---a MEW! . '' .4 A.... \::::\, ‘ ., .. \ /64 4; i-L- 1"----; . V.", V r liar t.:, 1 � \ ''-.V f.', F — — � —* ' '%- ti i ti. f i8/ t l 1 Ira, )11 If I xv ( �,�o� t i\ i 1 �i { I I 1111111111 .� • • ‘ s•li GD *VW \ J14 >l,i.■u■■■ •�_:....i∎ TA ,� :.l ( i.-__- - ,. ' r _ 1111117140111111 • ...- . #\\' 4 ; ,, , t:•, 11. 1 n� � 40001,00.11 1L br N l IMP .6 --- *-- ii7 ego:.. y ��E : i .:''' 0 '`.71z1:-ze (744° 1 ."61.7..,4, .1, ..A--- t '4&.-- .' --. \ ■ .1:, — ,;,, \ i1. .... 6 , -0111111140.,Ii. .,, v -Ji . \\ •.z.,t, o . 'e - . .... . - yor -7...mmw 4410I . 4140$ '-..;, :y { 0/11KL i 9 A • o �• •oY° �' ' ter { ! i « p�` "∎. �."-e 1 0 � , , r L _I o . '-c .1 ,? s� sk 1 1r rir , \ i BUILDING in PROPOSED SITE AREA: 159891 S.F. if i � BUILDING IV PROPOSED g `; SITE AREA: 158046 S.F. ▪ INIAA MOCOMEIS B oa n.x s.0 a.■.,• s m 8. :row( 7Yt-ri =WWI-PPM p.AMMATE11 ..O i•.Hi Ps,,.'A O3'. Ul Taw V.07412-700, O s.u•i�B aJ:,a owe,(iafT+�+-•nv .R11 OM TRIANGLE CORPORATE PARK SOUTH BUILDING II •WIIL Ha/ � • ' �■.lv.Gtl.i �•1"ate.42 -�i ■■ nom: PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN (W HOTEL) OA2 pu■ WV a.K.rs, Pf040 Or WI.R.f J I February 18, 1998 Mr. Tamio Fukuyama, Project Manager CITY OF TIGARD ' Group Mackenzie, Inc. PO Box 690:39 OREGON Portland, OR 97201-0039 Dear Mr. Fukuyama: This letter is in response to your request for a minor modification to an approved Site Development Review (SDR 96-0022). The modification would allow the construction of one, five- story office building of 129,740 square feet. The Tigard Community Development Code, Site Development Review Section, states: "if the requested modification meets any of the major modification criteria, that this request shall be reviewed as a new Site Development Review application." Section 18.120.070(B) states that the Director shall determine that a major modification(s) will result if one or more of the following changes are proposed. There will be: 1. An increase in dwelling unit density, or lot coverage for residential development. This criteria is not applicable as this request involves commercial uses. 2. A change in the ratio or number of different types of dwelling units. This criteria is not applicable as this request involves commercial uses. 3. A change that requires additional on-site parking in accordance with Chapter 18.106. The original approval required 475 parking spaces. The proposed modification would require 370 parking spaces. This criteria is therefore satisfied as the modification would not require additional on-site parking. 4. A change in the type of commercial or industrial structures as defined by the Uniform Building Code. The proposed modification requires no change of the commercial structure as defined by the Uniform Building Code. 5. An increase in the height of the building(s) by more than 20 percent. The original site plan allowed two structures (66 feet and 44 feet). A 20 percent increase would raise the approved 66 foot building height total to 79 feet. The proposed modification would provide a five (5) story building with a height of 70. The increase in building height is less than the 20 percent allowed, and thus meets this criteria. 6. A change in the type and location of accessways and parking areas where off- site traffic would be affected. This request does not require a change in accessways or parking areas where off-site traffic would be effected. 7. An increase in vehicular traffic to and from the site and the increase can be expected to exceed 20 vehicles per day. The applicant has submitted a trip 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639-4171 TDD (503)684-2772 Page 1 of 2 generation comparison. This study found that the original proposal (SDR 96-0022) generated 4,065 daily trips while the previously proposed modification (154,000 square feet of office buildings) would generate 2,760 daily trips. These numbers include the two office buildings on the north side of SW 68th Avenue. The current modification (129,740 square feet of office) would result in a reduction of total daily trips, thereby satisfying this criteria. 8. An increase in the floor area proposed for a non-residential use by more than 10 percent excluding expansions under 5,000 square feet. The original approval provided for a total of 146,000 square feet of buildings. The modification provides a total building area of 129,740 square feet, less than the originally approved square footage, thereby satisfying this criteria. 9. A reduction in the area reserved for common open space and/or usable open space which reduces the open space area below the minimum required by this code or reduces the open space area by more than 10 percent. Open space is not required as part of a commercial development. 10. A reduction of project amenities (Recreational facilities, Screening; and/or, Landscaping provisions) below the minimum established by this code or by more than 10 percent where specified in the site plan. Recreational facilities are not required as part of a commercial development. There will be no reduction of project amenities with the proposed minor modification. 11. A modification to the conditions imposed at the time of site development review approval which are not the subject of 1 through 10 above of this subsection. The proposed modification would not require a modification to the conditions imposed with the original Site Development Review application. This request is determined to be a minor modification. The Director's designee has determined that the proposed minor modification of this existing site will promote the general welfare of the City and will not be significantly detrimental, nor injurious. to surrounding properties provided that development which occurs after this decision compiies with applicable local, state and federal laws. This request has been approved subject to the following conditions: 1 . The conditions of approval of Site Development Review (SDR 96-0022) shall apply. If you need additional information or have any questions. please feel free to call me at (503) 639-4171. Sincerely, William D'Andrea Associate Planner, AICP i CurOln\wdl\sdr96-22.mm2 SL 116,- OS I44-e,Z s 71-7/J. Page 2 of 2 G R O U P -M/ ACKENZI E June 19, 1997 City of Tigard Attention: Will D'Andrea 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard,OR 97223 Re: Triangle Corporate Park South-Trip Generation Project Number 296500 P Cn M CO N 0 N N Dear Mr. D'Andrea: A II1 D\ � o e Group Mackenzie has reviewed the daily trip generation anticipated by the proposed minor w modification to the building sizes and uses on the south parcel of the Triangle Corporate Park South. The north parcel remains at approximately 90,700 s.f. The City of Tigard Code allows for a minor modification,if it does not increase the daily trip generation by more than 20 trips. The proposed 0.M E modification is for two office buildings totaling up to 154,000 s.f.,which would generate fewer trips • a than are currently approved. o - A traffic study,prepared by Group Mackenzie for the original modification application dated January 3, 1997,reviewed two options for the south side. Option A included a 84,500 s.f.office and c7'• z 64,000 s.f.hotel with 225 rooms. Option B substituted a 54,000 s.£ office for the hotel. The highest trip generation is from Option A with the hotel. 3 Trip generation estimate for daily traffic was prepared using Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation,Fifth Edition for General Office Buildings(Land Use Code 710)and Hotels(Land Use H Code 310). Option A generates 4065 daily trips,while the proposed modification to the two office buildings generates 2674 daily trips. A copy of the calculations is attached. The proposed minor modification from an office building and hotel to two office buildings Will Group generate fewer daily trips. This is in compliance with City of Tigard Code for a minor modification. Mackenzie, Incorporated chltecti,rE Please call me if you have any questions. Interior Design Land Use Planning Sincerely, Group Mackenzie Engineering, //64t Incorporated Civil/Structural Engineering Brent Ahrend Transportation Traffic Analyst Planning BTA/kc The tradition of Mackenzie Engineering and Enclosure Mackenzie/Saito continues. F:\W PDATA\97-06\96500\19L 1.KC ITE TRIP GENERATION RATES TRIANGLE CORPORATE PARK ITE LAND USE VARIABLE SIZE ADT AM AM PM PM CODE Enter Exit Enter Exit OPTION A 310 Hotel Occ Rooms 225 1921 88 58 90 76 710 General Office KSF 175.2 2144 263 32 48 233 TOTAL 4065 351 90 138 309 OPTION B 710 General Office KSF 229.2 2627 324 40 58 284 Proposed Modification 710 General Office KSF 244.7 2760 341 42 61 298 710 General Office KSF 234.7 2674 330 41 59 289 CS S}) 002'622 o oo'j1 (sue-�) O©ZcLI � N ooLtb z GRACKE NZI E ' 0690 SW Bancroft St/PO Box 69039■Portland,OR 97201 TEL:503.224.9560■ NET:GRPMACK.COM•FAX:503.228.1285 oCeffer o/✓ranimiitaG Date: June 30, 1997 Project Number: 296044.05 To: City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 Attention: Jill Aldrich Project Name: Colonial Signage Number of Copies/Description: 1 Check for $111.56 (Building Permit Fee) xx For your use For your review For your approval As requested Remarks: Copy To: Signed: Hande Dogu/kg Transmitted Via: Delivered by HMD If enclosures are not as noted, kindly notify us at once. •:• GR' 14MACKE NZI E ' , 0690 SW Bancroft St/PO Box 69039■Portland,OR 97201 TEL:503.224.9560■ NET:GRPMACK.COM•FAX:503.228.1285 Zeller o/✓rani nilta[ Date: June 30, 1997 Project Number: 296500 To: City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 Attention: Will D'Andrea Project Name: Tri-Corp Park Building 3 Number of Copies/Description: 3 Sheet 1 - Site revision 6/27/97 1 check for $100 x For your use For your review For your approval As requested Remarks: Copy To: Signed: Hande Dogu/kg Transmitted Via: Delivered by HMD If enclosures are not as noted, kindly notes us at once. • • G R O U P _ -��/ ACKENZIE June 27, 1997 City of Tigard Attention: Will D'Andrea 13125 S.W. Hall Boulevard Tigard,OR 97223 RE: Triangle Corporate Park South Minor Modification to Option A • LO Group Mackenzie Project#296500 M a) • N O Dear Will: • N n M The purpose of this letter is to request the approval of a Minor Modification to the approved Option A ° plan for the above-referenced project(SDR96-0022) -5 w E 8 Section 18.120.070.B of the City of Tigard Community Development Code lists the criteria that normally result in a Major Modification to Approved Plans. The following will identify each item and M E address how the proposed alterations do NOT meet these criteria,thereby allowing this request to be processed as a Minor Modification to Approved Plans. See the attached drawing for the proposed minor • _o modification to Option A. o z 1. An increase in dwelling unit density,or lot coverage for residential development; Residential uses are not proposed as part of this development. This criteria does not o a apply. No 2. A change in the ratio or number of different types of dwelling units; Residential uses are not proposed as part of this development. This criteria does not apply. - 3. A change that requires additional on-site parking in accordance with Chapter 18.106; r �- The uses originally proposed for this site included 34,500 SF of office and 64,000 SF of Group 141'00- hotel development. These uses required a total of 488 spaces. The use currently proposed Mackenzie. in the minor modification for the site is 154,000 SF of office in two buildings,which Incorporated yw° �E`6requires 440 parking spaces. This change does not require additional on-site parking. Ac chitecture Interior Design 4. A change in the type of commercial or industrial structures as defined by the Uniform Building Land Use Planning Code; Group l The modifications proposed change the use of the south building(Building IV)from hotel Mackenzie W I to office.The construction type between the hotel and office does not change. These Engineering, changes do not alter the type of commercial structure as defined by the Uniform Building Incorporated Code Civil/Structural Engineering 5. An increase in the height of the building(s)by more than 20 percent; Transportation In accordance with City of Tigard approval,an averaging of the proposed building height Planning will be allowed. Previous Option A had a 66'-0" high main office(Building III) and a 44'- The tradition of 0" high hotel(Building IV)for a total height of 110 feet. The minor modification proposes Mackenzie office building III at 60'-6" and office building IV at 60'-6" for a total height of of 121'-0". Engineering and This is an average total building height increase of 10%which is less than the 20% Mackenzie/Saito continues. maximum. F:\W PDATA\97-06\96500\27L 1.SIC Will D'Andrea Project Number 296500 June 27, 1997 Page 2 6. A change in the type and location of accessways and parking areas where off-site traffic would be affected; The parking lot has been altered to incorporate a two-level parking structure. However, accessways and the location of parking have not been altered. Off-site traffic will not be affected. 7. An increase in vehicular traffic to and from the site and the increase can be expected to exceed 20 vehicles per day; As indicated in the attached letter,there will be a net decrease in vehicular traffic with the proposed minor modifications. 8. An increase in the floor area proposed for a nonresidential use by more than 10 percent excluding expansions under 5,000 SF; The previous Option A proposed a total of 146,500 SF of building area. The proposed minor modification proposes a total building area of 154,000 SF,which is a total increase of 5%. 9. A reduction in the area reserved for common open space and/or usable open space which reduces the open space area below the minimum required by this code or reduces the open space area by more than 10 percent; No reduction in open space and/or usable space is proposed with the minor modification. 10. A reduction of project amenities below the minimum established by this code or by more than 10 percent where specified in the site plan: a) Recreational facilities; b) Screening; and/or c) Landscaping provisions;and No reduction of project amenities is proposed with the minor modifications. 11. A modification to the conditions imposed at the time of site development review approval which are not the subject of B.1.through 10 above of this subsection. No modifications to conditions imposed on approval of site development are proposed with the minor modification. As indicated above,the proposed changes do not meet the criteria for a Major Modification;therefore, this review is a Minor Modification to Approved Plans. No code provisions will be violated with this modification. All criteria for approval are met. We are enclosing three(3)copies of the revised site plan for your approval. If you have questions or require further information,please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, amid Fukuyama Project Manager PPA:TF/sk Enclosures c: Kelly Saito, Mark Edlen-Gerding/Edlen Development Company Peter Alto,Eric Saito,Geraldene Moyle-Group Mackenzie F:\W PDATA\97-06\96500\27 L I.S K July 10, 1997 Mr. Tamio Fukuyama, Project Manager CITY OF TIGARD Group Mackenzie, Inc. PO Box 69039 OREGON Portland, OR 97201-0039 Dear Mr. Fukuyama: This letter is in response to your request for a minor modification to an approved Site Development Review (SDR 96-0022). The modification would allow the construction of two, four- story office buildings of 72,000 and 82,000 square feet respectively. The Tigard Community Development Code, Site Development Review Section, states: "if the requested modification meets any of the major modification criteria, that this request shall be reviewed as a new Site Development Review application." - Section 18.120.070(B) states that the Director shall determine that a major modification(s) will result if one or more of the following changes are proposed. There will be: 1. An increase in dwelling unit density, or lot coverage for residential development. This criteria is not applicable as this request involves commercial uses. 2. A change in the ratio or number of different types of dwelling units. This criteria is not applicable as this request involves commercial uses. 3. A change that requires additional on-site parking in accordance with Chapter 18.106. The original approval required 475 parking spaces. The proposed modification would require 440 parking spaces. This criteria is therefore satisfied as the modification would not require additional on-site parking. 4. A change in the type of commercial or industrial structures as defined by the Uniform Building Code. The proposed modification requires no change of the commercial structure as defined by the Uniform Building Code. 5. An increase in the height of the building(s) by more than 20 percent. The original site plan allowed two structures (66 feet and 44 feet) for a combined total of 110 feet of building height. A 20 percent increase would raise the combined height total to 132 feet. The proposed modification would provide for two buildings (each with a height of 60 feet 6 inches for a combined height of 121 feet. The increase in combined building height is less than the 20 percent allowed, and thus meets this criteria. 6. A change in the type and location of accessways and parking areas where off- site traffic would be affected. This request does not require a change in accessways or parking areas where off-site traffic would be effected. 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639-4171 TDD (503) 684-2772 Page 1 of 2 7. An increase in vehicular traffic to and from the site and the increase can be expected to exceed 20 vehicles per day. The applicant has submitted a trip generation comparison. This study found that the original proposal (SDR 96-0022) generated 4,065 daily trips while the proposed modification would generate 2,760 daily trips. These numbers include the two office buildings on the north side of SW 68th Avenue. The modification would result in a reduction of total daily trips, thereby satisfying this criteria. 8. An increase in the floor area proposed for a non-residential use by more than 10 percent excluding expansions under 5,000 square feet. The original approval provided for a total of 146,000 square feet of buildings. The modification provides a total building area of 154,000 square feet, less than a 10 percent increase in total area. 9. A reduction in the area reserved for common open space and/or usable open space which reduces the open space area below the minimum required by this code or reduces the open space area by more than 10 percent. Open space is not required as part of a commercial development. 10. A reduction of project amenities (Recreational facilities, Screening; and/or, Landscaping provisions) below the minimum established by this code or by more than 10 percent where specified in the site plan. Recreational facilities are not required as part of a commercial development. There will be no reduction of project amenities with the proposed minor modification. 11. A modification to the conditions imposed at the time of site development review approval which are not the subject of 1 through 10 above of this subsection. The proposed modification would not require a modification to the conditions imposed with the original Site Development Review application. This request is determined to be a minor modification. The Director's designee has determined that the proposed minor modification of this existing site will promote the general welfare of the City and will not be significantly detrimental, nor injurious, to surrounding properties provided that development which occurs after this decision complies with applicable local, state and federal laws. This request has been approved subject to the following conditions: 1. The conditions of approval of Site Development Review(SDR 96-0022) shall apply. If you need additional information or have any questions, please feel free to call me at (503) 639-4171. Sincerely,1 f/�) ^'• William D'Andrea Associate Planner, AICP i:'curpinlwiUlsdr96- .mmd c: correspondence file, SDR 96-22 land use file Page 2of2 RECEIVED PLANNING GROUP �-MACKENZIE FEB041998 CITY OF TIGARD January 30, 1998 City of Tigard Planning Department Attention: William D'Andrea 13125 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard,OR 97223-8199 Re: Tigard Triangle Corporate Park,Building III Request for Minor Modifications to Approved Site Development Review(SDR 96-0022) Project Number 296500 N N. • O V1 cle O x Dear William: E . This letter is to request your review and approval for a minor modification to an approved site M E development review dated January 3, 1997,and subsequent revision dated June 27, 1997. The modification we request will be the construction of an office building of 129,740 SF. The Tigard 0 o Community Development Code,Site Development review section,states: "If the requested o • modification meets any of the major modification criteria, this request shall be reviewed as a new a in z site review application." Section 18.120.070(B)states that the director shall determine that a major modification(s)will m result if one or more of the following changes are proposed. These changes will be: in M ° 1. An increase in dwelling unit density,or lot coverage for commercial development. ° This criteria is not applicable as this request involves commercial uses. 2. A change in the ratio or number of different types of dwelling units. This criteria is not Group applicable as this request involves commercial uses. Mackenzie, Incorporated 3. A change that requires additional on-site parking in accordance with Chapter 18.106. Architecture Interior Design The original approved required 475 parking spaces. The proposed modification would Land Use Planning require 463 parking spaces. This criteria is therefore satisfied as the modification would not require additional on-site parking. Group Engineering, 4. A change in the type of commercial or industrial structures as defined by the Uniform n gineering, Incorporated Building Code. The proposed modification requires no change of the commercial Civil/Structural structure as defined by the Uniform Building Code. Engineering Transportation Planning The tradition of Mackenzie Engineering and Mackenzie/Saito continues. K:\WPDATA198-01\96500\07LI R.KS Tigard Triangle Corporate Park,Building III Request for Minor Modifications to Approved Site Development Review(SDR 96-0022) Project Number 296500 January 30, 1998 Page 2 5. An increase in the height of the building(s)by more than 20 percent. The original site plan allowed two structures(66 feet and 44 feet)for a combined total of 110 feet of building height. The proposed new building is 70 feet high from the ground floor to the parapet. Grades around the building will be adjusted to meet the 75 foot maximum height requirements. The increase in building height is less than the 20 percent allowed (a 13.2 foot increase would be allowed for a height of 66 feet), and thus meets this criteria. 6. A change in the type and location of accessways and parking areas where off-site traffic would be affected. This request does not require a change in accessways or parking areas where off-site traffic would be effected. 7. An increase in vehicular traffic to and from the site and the increase can be expected to exceed 20 vehicles per day. We have submitted a trip generation comparison. This study found that the original proposal(SDR 96-0022)generated 4,065 daily trips while the proposed modification would generate 2,760 daily trips. These numbers include the two office buildings on the north side of SW 68th Avenue. The modification would result in a reduction of total daily trips, thereby satisfying this criteria. 8. An increase in the floor area proposed for a non-residential use by more than 10 percent,excluding expansions under 5,000 SF. The original approval provided for a total of 146,000 SF of buildings. The modification provides a total building area of 129,740 SF, thereby satisfying this criteria. 9. A reduction in the area reserved for common open space and/or usable open space which reduces the open space area below the minimum required by this code or reduces the open space area by more than 10 percent. Open space is not required as part of a commercial development. 10. A reduction of project amenities(Recreational Facilities,Screening,and/or Landscaping Provisions)below the minimum established by this code or by more than 10 percent where specified in the site plan. Recreational facilities are not required as part of a commercial development. There will be no reduction of project amenities with the proposed minor modification. 11. A modification to the conditions imposed at the time of site development review approval which are not the subject of 1 through 10 above of this subsection. The proposed modification would not require a modification to the conditions imposed with the original Site Development Review application. K:\WPDATA\98-01\96500107L1 R.KS Tigard Triangle Corporate Park,Building III Request for Minor Modifications to Approved Site Development Review(SDR 96-0022) Project Number 296500 January 30, 1998 Page 3 The above statements indicate that the proposed change will qualify as a minor modification. I would appreciate if you would review and discuss with the director and approve the proposed minor modification to the already approved Site Development Review. We will coordinate and comply with all the conditions of the earlier approval of the Site Development Review(SDR 96-0022)within the development of the proposed building. If you have any questions,please do not hesitate to call me at(503)224-9560. Sincerely, amio ama Arc ect TF/ks c: Mark Edlen/Kelly Saito-Gerding/Edlen Development Norm Dowty-R&H Construction Rick Saito/Peter Alto-Group Mackenzie K:\WPDATA\98-01\96500\07LI R.KS GROUP I MACKE NZ I E 1 0690 SW Bancroft Street / PO Box 69039 • Portland.OR 97201 Tel:503.224.9560•Net:into@grpmack.com•Fax:503228.1285 RECORD OF TELEPHONE CONVERSATION PROJECT NAME: Tigard Triangle Corporate III DATE OF CALL: 1/30/98 PROJECT#: 296500 TIME: 11:00 AM PERSON: J X11 D'Andrea PHONE#: (incoming) COMPANY: City of Tigard SUBJECT: TRIANGLE CORPORATE PARK,BUILDING III&SITE REMARKS: Will D'Andrea indicated that he will accept the proposed minor revisions to the Phase II - South Site with only one building shown, since the proposed building will meet the setback and height increase requirements established in the previous zoning requirements. Every effort has been made to accurately record this conversation. If any errors or omissions are noted, please provide written response within five(5)days of receipt. a • Fukuyama TF/ks • c: Conversants Mark Edlen-Gerding/Edlen Rick Saito,Peter Alto-Group Mackenzie K:\W PDATA\98-01\96500\30RTC I.KS Group Mackenzie Group Mackenzie Engineering 0690 SW Bacroft Street Portland, Oregon 97201 (503)224-9560 Transmittal Tigard Triangle Corporate Park Building III Project No.: 296500 Date: January 30, 1998 R E C F I"'"'") To: Will DeAndrea City of Tigard CT ",' ...t NT Descriptions: Request for minor revisions to Site Development Review (3)Drawing C1.0 dated 1/30/98 A check in the amount of$100 Comments: Per our earlier conversation, we are submitting the revisions to the earlier Site Development Review dated 1/7/97. Copies: Rick Saito, Peter Alto,Jeff Hunter- Group Mackenzie Mark Edlen,Kelly Saito - Gerding/Edlen Development Signed: T. o F■ uyama-Group Mackenzie TIGARD TRIANGLE I, LLC. VENDOR NO: NAME: CHECK DATE: 7 1 8 7 REFERENCE NUMBER INVOICE DATE GROSS AMOUNT DISCOUNT TAKEN NET AMOUNT PAID BDL3 PERMIT Jan 26 98 100.00 D- - 0 . 00 100 . 00 TOTAL' 100 . 00 0 . 00 100 . 00 GROUP 1 MACKE NZ I E 0690 SW Bancroft Street / PO Box 69039 • Portland,OR 97201 Tel:503.224.9560•Net info @grpmack.com•Fax 503.228.1285 RECORD OF TELEPHONE CONVERSATION PROJECT NAME: Tigard Triangle Corporate III DATE OF CALL: 2/9/98 PROJECT#: 298041 TIME: 10:30 a.m. PERSON: Will D'Andrea PHONE#: 639-4171 COMPANY: City of Tigard SUBJECT: SITE PLAN REMARKS: Will D'Andrea requested that the walkway from the Farmers Insurance Company be connected to the sidewalk in front of Buildings I and II, as required in the original Phase I agreement. Will suggested that we indicate a painted crosswalk through the parking lot to the sidewalk in front of the proposed Building III. Will also indicated that a stairway to transition the grade difference is acceptable. Every effort has been made to accurately record this conversation. If any errors or omissions are noted, please provide written response within five(5) days of receipt. Tamio Fukuyama TF/kc c: Will D'Andrea- City of Tigard Mark Edlen, Kelly Saito - Gerding/Edlen Development Company Rick Saito, Peter Alto, Jeff Hunter- Group Mackenzie K:\W PDATA\98-02\98041 W 9RTC 1.KC r February 18, 1998 W Mr. Tamio Fukuyama, Project Manager CITY OF TIGARD Group Mackenzie, Inc. PO Box 690:9 OREGON Portland, OR 97201-0039 Dear Mr. Fukuyama: This letter is in response to your request for a minor modification to an approved Site Development Review (SDR 96-0022). The modification would allow the construction of one, five- story office building of 129,740 square feet. The Tigard Community Development Code, Site Development Review Section, states: "if the requested modification meets any of the major modification criteria, that this request shall be reviewed as a new Site Development Review application." Section 18.120.070(B) states that the Director shall determine that a major modification(s) will result if one or more of the following changes are proposed. There will be: 1. An increase in dwelling unit density, or lot coverage for residential development. This criteria is not applicable as this request involves commercial uses. 2. A change in the ratio or number of different types of dwelling units. This criteria is not applicable as this request involves commercial uses. 3. A change that requires additional on-site parking in accordance with Chapter 18.106. The original approval required 475 parking spaces. The proposed modification would require 370 parking spaces. This criteria is therefore satisfied as the modification would not require additional on-site parking. 4. A change in the type of commercial or industrial structures as defined by the Uniform Building Code. The proposed modification requires no change of the commercial structure as defined by the Uniform Building Code. 5. An increase in the height of the building(s) by more than 20 percent. The original site plan allowed two structures (66 feet and 44 feet). A 20 percent increase would raise the approved 66 foot building height total to 79 feet. The proposed modification would provide a five (5) story building with a height of 70. The increase in building height is less than the 20 percent allowed, and thus meets this criteria. 6. A change in the type and location of accessways and parking areas where off- site traffic would be affected. This request does not require a change in accessways or parking areas where off-site traffic would be effected. 7. An increase in vehicular traffic to and from the site and the increase can be expected to exceed 20 vehicles per day. The applicant has submitted a trip 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639-4171 TDD (503) 684-2772 Page 1 of 2 generation comparison. This study found that the original proposal (SDR 96-0022) generated 4,065 daily trips while the previously proposed modification (154,000 square feet of office buildings) would generate 2,760 daily trips. These numbers include the two office buildings on the north side of SW 68th Avenue. The current modification (129,740 square feet of office) would result in a reduction of total daily trips, thereby satisfying this criteria. 8. An increase in the floor area proposed for a non-residential use by more than 10 percent excluding expansions under 5,000 square feet. The original approval provided for a total of 146,000 square feet of buildings. The modification provides a total building area of 129,740 square feet, less than the originally approved square footage, thereby satisfying this criteria. 9. A reduction in the area reserved for common open space and/or usable open space which reduces the open space area below the minimum required by this code or reduces the open space area by more than 10 percent. Open space is not required as part of a commercial development. 10. A reduction of project amenities (Recreational facilities, Screening; and/or, Landscaping provisions) below the minimum established by this code or by more than 10 percent where specified in the site plan. Recreational facilities are not required as part of a commercial development. There will be no reduction of project amenities with the proposed minor modification. 11. A modification to the conditions imposed at the time of site development review approval which are not the subject of 1 through 10 above of this subsection. The proposed modification would not require a modification to the conditions imposed with the original Site Development Review application. This request is determined to be a minor modification. The Director's designee has determined that the proposed minor modification of this existing site will promote the general welfare of the City and will not be significantly detrimental, nor injurious, to surrounding properties provided that development which occurs after this decision complies with applicable local, state and federal laws. This request has been approved subject to the following conditions: 1 . The conditions of approval of Site Development Review (SDR 96-0022) shall apply. if you need additional information or have any questions, please feel free to call me at (503) 639-4171. Sincerely, William D'Andrea Associate Planner, AICP I:'curplmwi111sar96-22.mm2 X99 b'/%/2/21-1. /2/2 6.0//Jon Ce_ Page 2 of 2 1' G R O I1 P -7 A C K E N Z I E RECEIVED PLANNING FEB 2 3 1998 CITY OF TIGARD February 19, 1998 City of Tigard Attention: Will D'Andrea 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard,Oregon 97223 RE: Triangle Corporate Park Building III Group Mackenzie Project#298041 N N � M P O o x Dear Will: c w E Enclosed is a copy of the tree removal plan proposed for the latest Building III project. We have hired Robert Mazany,a certified arborist,to review the existing tree conditions and the earlier report provided �; E by Bill Owen. We will follow-up with any adjustments to the tree mitigation plan,as well as the new so 6 landscape plan,identifying new proposed trees based on this tree removal plan shortly. We are planning o to submit the grading permit documents for City's review on February 20, 1998. Please let us know the o progress of our request for the minor revisions to the Site Development Review and any documents you may request for your permit review as soon as possible. o .00 If you also have any questions,please call me at 224-9560. m N Sincerely, 110 111.114111110 o _ `a G Group Tamio Fukuyania Mackenzie, Incorporated Architecture TF/kc Interior Design Land Use Planning Enclosure Group C: Kelly Saito-Gerding/Edlen Development Company Mackenzie Engineering, Peter Alto,Jeff Hunter-Group Mackenzie Incorporated Civil/Structural Engineering Transportation Planning The tradition of Mackenzie Engineering and Mackenzie/Saito con tin ues. K:\W PDATA\98-02\98041\19L I.KC 4 pp CROLLt Sl4C1Zarly WWI OgssoclatE1 azz and 1GlYldv.p° C.onsu ting GSEzvic£ MEMORANDUM TO: Tamio Fukuyama, Project Manager Peter Alto AIA Architects / Group Mackenzie ( ,', FROM: Robert Mazany ASCA#133 ; Consulting Arborist DATE: February 17, 1998 RE: Document Review Triangle Corporate Park III-Tigard I have completed my site, plan and Consulting Arborists report review as requested. I found the material previously submitted to be current and accurate relative to the proposed re- configuration of the site development. There is one 24" diameter Oak not marked for retention, but its condition and location would dictate that consideration should be given to retain this tree. It is located adjacent to SW 68th Parkway approximately 100'west of the proposed east entry driveway. I have noted this tree on the plan provided. I would reaffirm the need for the following: 1. Prune all trees to remain as recommended prior to the start of construction. 2. Deep root liquid injection fertilize retained trees. The timing for this therapy is to be determined by the project Consulting Arborist. 3. The Consulting Arborist must approve the location and direct the installation of tree protection fence. The fence must be located as far from the trees as is practical but in no instance closer than 2'beyond any necessary construction activity and remain in place and taut throughout the duration of construction. Any necessary intrusion into the tree protection fence areas must be approved and monitored by the project Consulting Arborist. 4. Adhere to all other requirements contained in the originally submitted Consulting Arborist report. I trust this brief memorandum will be sufficient for your needs at this time. Please contact me when further assistance is required. n(D. _Sox 1305, 9eavezton, iOze9on 97075 • (503) 646-oS47 a ' G R O U P -17ACKENZIE March 11, 1998 City of Tigard Attention: Will D'Andrea 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, Oregon 97223 RE: Triangle Corporate Park Building III Group Mackenzie Project#298041 P u M CO O CV Dear Will: C N N N Attached are our revised landscape plan/tree mitigation plan and supportive information o 'o w necessary to comply with the conditions of the earlier approval for the above-mentioned E project. a M As indicated on the plan which is produced by GreenWorks PC, we were originally 0. a required to mitigate 710 caliper inches for the south site. Due to the minor modifications • orequired for the site,the new number needs to be adjusted to 784 caliper inches. Trees co planted on the south side of the site, as required mitigation, resulted in a total of 340 caliper z inches. In lieu of complete tree replacement on the site,the remaining caliper inches will o LT, be mitigated through monetary compensation to the City of Tigard. Based on the above Z5 PI, number, an additional 444 caliper inches, or 148 three-inch trees, are required to be mitigated on the south side of the site. For estimating, we have used the sum of$166 per 3" N caliper tree. This results in a total site mitigation cost of$24,568. A check for$24,568 will be provided to the City of Tigard prior to Building Permit issuance. We believe the actions and documentation as outlined above illustrate our compliance and intent to comply with all Conditions of Approval. Please feel free to call me if you have Group Mackenzie. questions or require further information. Incorporated Architecture Sincerely, Interior Design Land Use Planning Group 41„/7. Mackenzie /Tam o yama Engineering. Incorporated Civil/Structural TF/sk Engineering Transportation Enclosure Planning The tradition of c: Kelly Saito, Mark Edlen - Gerding/Edlen Development Mackenzie Engineering and Y Peter Alto, Chris Fowler- Group Mackenzie Mackenzie/Saito continues. K:\WPDATA198-03\98041\11 L 1.SK I _I 1 cRogEzt .A7. ru aza and c7lis.oeiatEi ¶,/'zz and Zands'a�r C012 rting JE2VLCE March 1, 1998 Attn: Will D'Andrea City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, Oregon 97223 Re: Triangle Corporate Park Building III Dear Will: This letter is to inform you that I have been retained by Group Mackenzie as Project Consulting Arborist through to completion of the Building III construction. I have made site visits and reviewed the earlier mitigation plan and specifications of tree preservation, and the proposed plan for compliance with the earlier approval. I understand that Group Mackenzie is preparing a revised tree mitigation plan. I have and will continue to work closely with them to give my input as described herein. I have also reviewed the tree preservation plan requirements for the City of Tigard, and will be monitoring conditions during the construction. Group Mackenzie has indicated to me that the project proposes retainage of 50%to 75%of existing trees over 12" in caliper, which will require 50%of the trees removed to be mitigated. I have reviewed all project information available to date and found it to be accurate as presented. My scope of services will include the following: 1. Conduct a condition assessment in those trees proposed to be retained exclusive of trees to be retained in the "no build zone." 2. Assist Greenworks in preparation and review of a tree removal/mitigation plan. Meet with City of Tigard to address tree issue concerns. 3. Review earlier arborist's report for tree removal and tree retention verification. 4. Assist Greenworks in quantity verification for removal and mitigation. 5. Conduct up to eight(8) site visits during construction to insure adherence to Tree Preservation/Protection requirements. Additional site visits will be conducted as required and authorized. Please advise me if you have any questions. Sincere! , Robert Mazany ASCA#133 Consulting Arborist cc: Tamio Fukuyama-Group Mackenzie Ln. _Sox 1305, 1BEac7&'ton, OZZ90t2 97075 • (503) 646-0897 cRogEzt 41azanj and ogss.ociatE. ¶tZL and_ an:Lai &onating ,S twice MEMORANDUM TO: Tamio Fukuyama, Project Manager Peter Alto AIA Architects Group Mackenzie ; � FROM: Robert Mazany ASCA#133 ; b Consulting Arborist DATE: February 17, 1998 RE: Document Review Triangle Corporate Park III - Tigard I have completed my site, plan and Consulting Arborists report review as requested. I found the material previously submitted to be current and accurate relative to the proposed re- configuration of the site development. There is one 24" diameter Oak not marked for retention, but its condition and location would dictate that consideration should be given to retain this tree. It is located adjacent to SW 68th Parkway approximately 100' west of the proposed east entry driveway. I have noted this tree on the plan provided. I would reaffirm the need for the following: 1. Prune all trees to remain as recommended prior to the start of construction. 2. Deep root liquid injection fertilize retained trees. The timing for this therapy is to be determined by the project Consulting Arborist. 3. The Consulting Arborist must approve the location and direct the installation of tree protection fence. The fence must be located as far from the trees as is practical but in no instance closer than 2'beyond any necessary construction activity and remain in place and taut throughout the duration of construction. Any necessary intrusion into the tree protection fence areas must be approved and monitored by the project Consulting Arborist. 4. Adhere to all other requirements contained in the originally submitted Consulting Arborist report. I trust this brief memorandum will be sufficient for your needs at this time. Please contact me when further assistance is required. JP CO. _Sox 1305, BEacEZton, (0zE9o12 97075 • (503) 646-0897 , 04/06/98 07:37 $503 625 6179 PRIDE DISPOSAL [Z1001/002 Pride Disposal Co. Fa)C - � Co-To: ! r 7,A,�i From 1 (/��� iJr s pp S 0.� ` - Fa:c [, $y Date: Phone: Pages: 3 Re: tr n el OS Attn: CO: l ( 1/'^�' A nt�i►� ❑ Urgent ❑For Review 0 Please Comment ❑Please Reply 0 Please Recycle TELEPHONE(503)6254177 FAX 0 (503)6255179 -Comments: - • . 04/06/98 07:37 $503 625 6179 PRIDE DISPOSAL Z002/002 i IftIFI fir, D—_ i rt 1 4- I I, ,s, :„.. QA ;t= . , p ., 6, 1 t .- g —t:,.Le I Mu t_... o V1 v'I`R '... r •_ ' ip!_F ti, ,r r-. — .-- T j ■ y P L T i a C VO i . 1- r -2. . a5 ' ;$ tl ICI 0„,ab.r. 3 ...9,, ,ili.I g.2 I ifi , t.,.. tot ;-, ii(3 r N t ,i• 41\ ' zociin la TYSOdSIQ 30214 SLt9 SZ6 cos& ZT:CT 86/6t/C0 v E :3DVd 58218ZECOS :01 CZ 1.8 SZ9 COS :ROW 9881. 92:fi l f Sent by: GROUP MACKENZIE 5032281285; 04/01 /98 2:24PM;Je. #387;Page 1/2 B R O D P --17ACKENZIE1 FAX COVER SHEET 0690 51•4 Sor+aroftStrset / POSaz69039 • PotlIad.OR 972D1 Tek 5:13224.9560•Net inro6gipro a cEcorr•Fad 503.22812S Company: f ¶:11SR;1c _ Project Number. 1.,,I A rcaaort: Lea Project Name: -{pt4cvc Fax: Date: 41 l q From: P Description: TOTAL#of pages / NOTE:if you did not receive all pages,please call our Records (Including this cover sheet): Department at 503224-9560. To send foxes, use 503/228-1285. Comments: cew At- 0 AP{ O..J - ■ c: by FAX to: FAX 4: coNFlGENrlAur't NOTICE TTr.ln1ara swan contained in this raodrrid traramkaiv+b contio.o$iat and Ii InMansod ony for the use a'the incilwduai cr entity named may.. the r d this me acya 6 not 7146 Intended recipi ern,talc woven a naMcnBon that any toa9ra Ol cl s rs.copying,alarSb rustic ar Mar taking of arty action to relbnae on the Contents at this ccrror unlcatIon 6 roan,prghlaited.Y tale Ironarntolon trot rsratiNect in vrv.InorodiaTen men*to en Sav14.9Soo to wove i4 tempi or TM=WAIN=WA 1aDlmii9. .,.f.< .aw >tt q�;. N i 7 y py�s * i !s ! ,s ; 1 . :1. ��W:R0.14.► Y:rrry«r4'....a..,»7u 7 . +. fr .i .H;i3S FAX INSTRUCTIONS PLEASE NOTE THAT AN ORIGINAL OF THE FAXED INFORMATION WILL NOT BE SENT TO RECIPIFIVT(S) UNLESS SPECIFIC DIS?RUCTIONSARE GIVILV BELOW: IN-HOUSE COPIES 0 Send in-house copies to: DISTRIBUTION(Please x&ct any sic): U OTHER INSTRUCTIONS(Oro,(f naves of dW O To "g :bj for furtitcr action. 7'OTTE:Saadc, spsorssblc so a rc crie r eltatees work): n aclensiase file copies are ntada ofo l itf - 0 To rZe after faxing. O Copy for Ng,:Original to t= (NOTE:All anodyne=aD the coves stcet will aim go so file). copy for ;Original to gatga I To ' 'hC` sS+Sd f • cRoLZE l azanj and of uaiaLzs Zee and Lana,^nfsr eansaE'tLng cseavic� MEMORANDUM TO: Peter Alto, A.I.A. Architect Group Mackenzie FROM: Robert Mazany ASCA#133 / Consulting Arborist DATE: April 12, 1998 RE: Tree Protection Fence Installation Triangle Corporate Park -Bldg. III I have completed my review of the location and installation of tree protection fencing adjacent to trees to be retained. The requirements were reviewed with Walt Bianchini, superintendent, of R& H Construction prior to and following the completion of this installation. I found everything to be in order as required and directed. Please contact me when further assistance is required on this project. C C w, 1( 0' AY1 c/red n D. 3ox 1305, .Eac'Ezton, (O7E9on 97075 • (503) 646-oS97