Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
SDR2015-00002
mg TIGARD City of Tigard November 19, 2015 Leadership Circle LLC Atm: Monet Ragsdale PO Box 239 Montrose, Co 81402 Re: Permit No. CPA2015-00003, ZON2015-00004, SDR2015-00002,VAR2015-00028 Dear Applicant: The City of Tigard has canceled the above referenced permit(s) and encloses a refund for the following: Site Address: 13125 SW Pacific Hwy Project Name: Specialty Grocer Job No.: N/A Refund Method: ® Check#219220 in the amount of$18,808.80. ❑ Credit card "return" receipt in the amount of$ Note: Please allow 2-5 days for this refund transaction to be credited to your account by the company that issued your card. ❑ Trust account"deposit" receipt in the amount of$ Comment(s): Application is voided as city is initiating legislative zone change to facilitate preservation of R-12 zoned land per Gary Pagenstecher. Refund 80% of application fees. If you have any questions please contact me at 503.718.2430. Sincerely, 7_ M. Dianna Howse Building Division Services Supervisor Enc. 13125 SW Hall Blvd. • Tigard, Oregon 97223 • 503.639.4171 TTY Relay: 503.684.2772 • www.tigard-or.gov f Vir ,r1 City of Tigard • COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT k 3 Request for Permit Action 09//vim 47gay. TIGARD 13125 SW Hall Blvd. •Tigard, Oregon 97223 • 503-718-2439 •www.tigard-or.gov TO: CITY OF TIGARD Building Division 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard,OR 97223 Phone: 503-718-2439 Fax: 503-598-1960 TigardBu.ildingPermits@tigard-or.gov FROM: ❑ Owner NT Applicant El Contractor ❑ City Staff Check(1)one REFUND OR Name: INVOICE TO: (Business or Individual) LeAIESh0 C'/LLE ZL6. ( fllc, Mailing Address: P6 (39' 237 1. City/State/Zip: /Y1671)TX656 CO ,/ OZ Phone No.: 976 ' 2.4(r • 3378 PLEASE TAKE ACTION FOR THE ITEM(S) CHECKED (✓): CANCEL/VOID PERMIT APPLICATION. 'W/TH6 r 9f-e_ REFUND PERMIT FEES (attach copy of original receipt and provide explanation below). El INVOICE FOR FEES DUE (attach case fee schedule and provide explanation below). ❑ REMOVE/REPLACE CONTRACTOR ON PERMIT(do not cancel permit). Permit#: ,P//- 2C' -0600.3 ZO-pt1ZO/S --Oy 5bR2O(5 -©Z Site Address or Parcel#: 1 3/Z $- 5 U )7../�/Z tfe �A 2 15 ^6 Z Y/ Project Name: j EveRs�-i,�p C/ Z t� 6?Se l 4k) 5 Subdivision Name: Lot#: , $ Z.er`i z as° EXPLANATION: e 1T)' t > l w/ 7iA7iid L&C (SL4t-77Lh° 7d1't e et T22 FFfCfLITP7-Te Pt/Ng-5e?vi' -, R-/2 za-,� d 2 ofrov Fu.. "fro °Zo 4/ #4"! _C 16 G'-efrL-y • , Signature: Date: /(—,rj �5— Print Name: ' Refund Policy 1. The city's Community Development Director,Building Official or City Engineer may authorize the refund of: • Any fee which was erroneously paid or collected. • Not more than 80%of the application or plan review fee when an application is withdrawn or canceled before review effort has been expended. • Not more than 80%of the application or permit fee for issued permits prior to any inspe,,... rsts. 2. All refunds will be returned to the original payer in the form of a check via US postal service dr 3. Please allow 3-4 weeks for processing refund request�o� 93 72 , - 7997. !o O /87r,Vo !tee# / s.2 v , c'V — 41/ , o o /o , a-71 2194 3 5 2. b . 0-0 — .2cpa o . ,o = 7o5'. 020 C tf f'3 (PS , 00 - / 06,yo = 027( .('O all FOR OFFICE USE ONLY Route to Sys Admin: Date By Route to Records: Date// /5' /S By "4", Refund Processed: Date ////9//S B Invoice Processed: Date By Permit Canceled: Date/ rAs By 41:;•1 Parcel Tag Added: Date By I:\Building\Forms\RegPermitAction_ 92314.doc /L (re - //e`fo r6Pe) 0 7/ v 0 ! D , City of Tigard • COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT fr/(y/s 19.6W' 74 p Request for Permit Action TIGARD 13125 SW Hall Blvd. • Tigard, Oregon 97223 • 503-718-2439 •www.tigard-or.gov TO: CITY OF TIGARD Building Division 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard, OR 97223 Phone: 503-718-2439 Fax: 503-598-1960 TigardBuildingPermits@tigard-or.gov FROM: ❑ Owner X Applicant ❑ Contractor ❑ City Staff Check(✓)one REFUND OR Name: INVOICE TO: (Business or Individual) L.?/3l)& Sri0 / et E 1 L Cti- 11144161 j'etl Sc61.1,e ) Mailing Address: P6 8 O) 2 3 7. City/State/Zip: I')l6)t;T?tOSC l 20 ?/'Oz Phone No.: 57t , 2.4.(1 ' .3375 PLEASE TAKE ACTION FOR THE ITEM(S) CHECKED (✓): a CANCEL/VOID PERMIT APPLICATION. WI 77-16✓e 1-L ,N REFUND PERMIT FEES (attach copy of original receipt and provide explanation below). ❑ INVOICE FOR FEES DUE (attach case fee schedule and provide explanation below).I I /REMOVE/REPLACE CONTRACTOR ON PERMIT (do not cancel permit). "ZON e/5 O0o Permit#: C/),-4ZCJ/S= de3Q Z(;vciZc3/_S -b`� 'J�I�2Q�S c? . Site Address or Parcel #: KAI Zo(S ^O / 3%Z.S- Ste. 1 r�/�/� /-iey/ Project Name: G Et#2tlZSHfp C eezt- , -a6xsL/( /Tile' 5re,z,Lcit 6r✓..c.c'''') Subdivision Name: /421 Lot#: ,Z,$/O.Z<We-2 csb EXPLANATION: C 1 y i 5 i )e./ 7/H 7/Ac L.6-C• ti 5 L krThite zene ett,ce/4.c .1 FfeC(L Tn re Pe-?t✓ -«„ <, /'-/1 z4:r,�.;-6 2 .6.. 4 �e,„1 cPO `Zo 0 PN-- de S P,7 0t72 Signature: L—' Date: /y—5- (�� Print Name: C i'-ell, /- j cc q e 4 s - , Refund Policy I. The city's Community Development Director,Building Official or City Engineer may authorize the refund of: • Any fee which was erroneously paid or collected. • Not more than 80%of the application or plan review fee when an application is withdrawn or canceled before review effort has been expended. • Not more than 80%of the application or permit fee for issued permits prior to any inspection requests. 2. All refunds will be returned to the original payer in the form of a check via US postal service. 3. Please allow 3-4 weeks for processing refund requests. /VC' 2 ZclA) /5 Co -t c7'E 14,A9,6 E,_ /s-- 0003 FOR OFFICE USE ONLY Route to Sys Admin: Date By Route to Records: Date/% /1 4.5" By cefund Processed: Date /V/ By �'%•'Aiii Invoice Processed: Date By ermit Canceled: Date j//l9/js By AWE 'arcel Tag Added: Date By \Building\Forms\ReyPermitAction_0923I4. oc SSE C, Wo/S--400 00,--3 City of Tigard TIGARD Accela Refund Request This form is used for refund requests of land use, development engineering and building permit application fees. Receipts, documentation and the Requestfor Permit Action form (if applicable) must be attached to this request form. Refund requests are due to Accela System Administrator by each Wednesday at 5:00 PM. Please allow up to 3 weeks for processing of refunds. Accounts Payable will route refund checks to Accela System Administrator for distribution to applicant. PAYABLE TO: Leadership Circle LLC DATE: 11/06/2015 Attn: Monet Ragsdale PO Box 239 REQUESTED BY: Dianna Howse Montrose, CO 81402 GP TRANSACTION INFORMATION: Receipt#: 200560 Case#: CP A2015-00003 ZON2015-00004 Date: 05/04/2015 Address/Parcel: 13125 SW Pacific Hwy Pay Method: Check Project Name: Specialty Grocer EXPLANATION: City is initiating legislative zone change to facilitate preservation of R-12 zoned land. Refund 80% of land use application fees. REFUND INFORMATION: Fee Description From Receipt Revenue Account Nu. Refund Example: Building Permit Fee Example:: 2300000-43104 $Amount Comprehensive Plan Legislative (CPA) 100-0000-43116 $7,497.60 Comprehensive Plan Legislative-LRP (CPA) 100-0000-43117 1,106.40 Amend CDC Map Quasi-Judicial(ZON) 100-0000-43116 2,820.80 Amend CDC Map Quasi Judicial-LRP (ZON) 100-0000-43117 416.00 TOTAL REFUND: $11,840.80 APPROVALS: SIGNATURES/DATE: If under$5,000 Professional Staff If under$12,500 Division Manager 61y %�% �!`C If under$25,500 Department Manager If under$50,000 City Manager If over$50,000 Local Contract Review Board FOR TIDEMARK SYSTEM ADMINISTRATION USE 0.1N<I4i_ Case Refund Processed: Date: IM//S By: I:\Building\Refunds\RefundRequest.doc x 09/01/2010 City of Tigard • COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPA1UI'MENT V (s) trj • = Request for Permit Action r�/S TIGARD 13125 SW Hall Blvd. • Tigard, Oregon 97223 • 503-718-2439 • www.tigard-or.gov TO: CITY OF TIGARD Building Division 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard, OR 97223 Phone: 503-718-2439 Fax: 503-598-1960 TigardBuildingPermits@tigard-or.gov FROM: ❑ Owner Applicant ❑ Contractor ❑ City Staff Check(/)one REFUND OR Name: • INVOICE TO: (Business or Individual) LC-1/410 5-!10 C'/L e`£ 91.c C?„`"`l�v� {1<glattk r ) Mailing Address: / /3 0) 2 3L �►� J City/State/Zip: /)16/=rxDst CO 2/y02 Phone No.: 9 76 3 398 PLEASE TAKE ACTION FOR THE ITEM(S) CHECKED (✓): a CANCEL/VOID PERMIT APPLICATION. WI Tt-jO g&14"4-4- .N. REFUND PERMIT FEES (attach copy of original receipt and provide explanation below). ❑ INVOICE FOR FEES DUE (attach case fee schedule and provide explanation below). [ I REMOVE/REPLACE CONTRACTOR ON PERMIT (do not cancel permit). 1MR tI/SCDOO .P Permit#: C/'/4- 2C/S-C}60O 3 za-Pu Za o/-S'-O`� 5b)? O -(3 2 Site Address or Parcel #: 1 3 aS 53-0. tit? Project Name: l Epipe-72_5k c"/KZI `gid' t=/( /l�<!� 5 _ 6- ,c ) Subdivision Name: Lot#: �S/OZ egi5 e EXPLANATION: C t r y c 5 //e%/ 7/0 7/I'f Lt-i$LGrl/tom 7i,& etv2 /2-(2 d Z otrviti 1 Signature: Date: /(- Print Name: G / �c 7 s Refund Policy 1. The city's Community Development Director,Building Official or City 1sngineer may authorize the refund of: • Any fee which was erroneously paid or collected. • Not more than 80%of the application or plan review fee when an application is withdrawn or canceled before review effort has been expended. • Not more than 80%of the application or permit fee for issued permits prior to any inspection requests. 2. All refunds will be returned to the original payer in the form of a check via US postal service. 3. Please allow 3-4 weeks for processing refund requests. S' / C v _ �2 3, _ /30 ,Ad 97,o-d - 77 . Cp = • '�• `/d 7/.o-d - 4 oo , f o - /5-0 FOR OFFICE USE ONLY Route to Sys Admin: Date By Route to Records: Date // ` /S B Refund Processed: Date ////sf/js By„in Invoice Processed: Date By Permit Canceled: Date ///,,A5 By /"-• arcel Tag Added: Date By 1:\Building\Forms\Rey PermitAction_092314.doc City of Tigard TIGARD Accela Refund Request This form is used for refund requests of land use, development engineering and building permit application fees. Receipts, documentation and the Requestfor Permit Action form (if applicable) must be attached to this request form. Refund requests are due to Accela System Administrator by each Wednesday at 5:00 PM. Please allow up to 3 weeks for processing of refunds. Accounts Payable will route refund checks to Accela System Administrator for distribution to applicant. PAYABLE TO: Leadership Circle LLC DATE: 11/06/2015 Attn: Monet Ragsdale PO Box 239 REQUESTED BY: Dianna Howse Montrose, CO 81402 GP TRANSACTION INFORMATION: Receipt#: 200561 Case #: VAR2015-00028 Date: 05/04/2015 Address/Parcel: 13125 SW Pacific Hwy Pay Method: Check Project Name: Specialty Grocer EXPLANATION: City is initiating legislative zone change to facilitate preservation of R-12 zoned land. Refund 80%o of land use application fees. REFUND INFORMATION: Fee Description From Receipt Revenue Account No. Refund Example: Building Permit Fee Example: 2300000-43104 $Amount Administrative Variance 100-0000-43116 $523.20 Administrative Variance-LRP 100-0000-43117 77.60 TOTAL REFUND: $600.80 APPROVALS: SIGNA-TURES/DATE: If under$5,000 Professional Staff ;���Zri � i If under$12,500 Division Manager If under$25,500 Department Manager If under$50,000 City Manager If over$50,000 Local Contract Review Board FOR TIDEMARK SYSTEM ADMINISTRATION USE ONLY, Case Refund Processed: Date: j///9/4l By: / L\Building\Refunds\RefundRequestdoe x 09/01/2(111) City of Tigard • COMMUNITY DEVELOPMI NT DEPARTMENT ' ' 1 Request for Permit Action ,l hQ//s TIGARD 13125 SW Hall Blvd. • Tigard, Oregon 97223 • 503-718-2439 • www.tigard-or.gov TO: CITY OF TIGARD Building Division 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard,OR 97223 Phone: 503-718-2439 Fax: 503-598-1960 TigardBuildingPermits@tigard-or.gov FROM: ❑ Owner Nt Applicant ❑ Contractor ❑ City Staff Check(/)one REFUND OR Name: (?L' fINVOICE TO: (Business or Individual) Le/41002 Sn(/- �'/L ct£' 1 L /i 'I�9 Sd�Lt_) Mailing Address: /'D /30) 237 1 City/State/Zip: /»G/urxosC/ 20 y/yCz Phone No.: 9 7b ' Z.V • 3375 PLEASE TAKE ACTION FOR THE ITEM(S) CHECKED (✓): a CANCEL/VOID PERMIT APPLICATION. WI TH6 g&Wit i.,-; .154 REFUND PERMIT FEES (attach copy of original receipt and provide explanation below). ❑ INVOICE FOR FEES DUE (attach case fee schedule and provide explanation below). El REMOVE/REPLACE CONTRACTOR ON PERMIT (do not cancel permit). Sd/c'o?D/�-O evoz, Permit#: e?A 20/s-eoc0 .3 Zcttis 2!3/5--6`i 5bR2 o/S-c3 Z ;D Site Address or Parcel #: / ��� Zo/5 13/2-s $LU l�ae7/-7 /ic y/ Project Name: L 6hot"IZSN/fp C/Kitt- aoxx.se l Akx 5 L(-J crit) Subdivision Name: LCF}i' Lot#: ZS/02.ege 2 csb EXPLANATION: <'(7'l' t > /w! 7i0 7/fl 2-& f5Lh-Tie Zn,.' etva.. re .F-/1-C(L I Til r Pvsser?(7.t.-n•oi<, 1?-12 z tea L vfrvO /�'�G L/'JLa Po o 44 re..- S i° y . ,cc - Signature: L .-2-2-1—q- q- (3 Date: /(-S"---` f ----- Print Name: G/;+ /� c7s Refund Policy 1 I. The city's Community Development Director,Building Official or City Engineer may authorize the refund of: • Any fee which was erroneously paid or collected. • Not more than 80%of the application or plan review fee when an application is withdrawn or canceled before review effort has been expended. • Not more than 80%of the application or permit fee for issued permits prior to any inspection requests. 2. All refunds will be returned to the original payer in the form of a check via US postal service. 3. Please allow 3-4 weeks for processing refund requests. 900 , C C 7,2e. 0Yb /6P.`" ' \ 6 i 5 • oo — 5/9ao.60 - /a 30,.E 'o I, o c1 7.2C , Ye - /ec-/. 6A 1 g P 7T5 l oe 567--41 - /S-/.,f-e FOR OFFICE USE ONLY Route to Sys Admin: Date By Route to Records: Date// f / B '=i r Refund Processed: Date //,/9J/.S By ,,* Invoice Processed: Date By Permit Canceled: Date ///i f//< By ;i , Parcel Tag Added: Date By I:\Building\Forms\Reg1'crmitAction_O 2314.doc City of Tigard TIGARD Accela Refund Request This form is used for refund requests of land use, development engineering and building permit application fees. Receipts, documentation and the Request for Permit Action form (if applicable) must be attached to this request form. Refund requests are due to Accela System Administrator by each Wednesday at 5:00 PM. Please allow up to 3 weeks for processing of refunds. Accounts Payable will route refund checks to Accela System Administrator for distribution to applicant. PAYABLE TO: Leadership Circle LLC DATE: 11/06/2015 Attn: Monet Ragsdale PO Box 239 REQUESTED BY: Dianna Howse Montrose, CO 81402 GP TRANSACTION INFORMATION: Receipt#: 200562 Case #: SDR2015-00002 Date: 05/04/2015 Address/Parcel: 13125 SW Pacific Hwy Pay Method: Check Project Name: Specialty Grocer EXPLANATION: City is initiating legislative zone change to facilitate preservation of R-12 zoned land. Refund 80% of land use application fees. REFUND INFORMATION: Fee Description From Receipt Revenue Account No. Refund Example: Building Permit Fee Example: 2300000-43104 $Amount. SDR$1,000,000/over 100-0000-43116 $5,640.80 SDR$1,000,000/over-LRP 100-0000-43117 726.40 TOTAL REFUND: $6,367.20 APPROVALS: SIGNATURES/DATE: If under$5,000 Professional Staff If under$12,500 Division Manager If under$25,500 Department Manager If under$50,000 City Manager If over$50,000 Local Contract Review Board FOR TIDEMARK SYSTEM ADMINISTRATION USE ONLY Case Refund Processed: Date: //,V4.C. By: RC1 1:\Building\Refunds\RefundRequest.doc x 09/01/2010 City of Tigard 11111 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT TIGARD Master Land Use Application LAND USE APPLICATION TYPE a` djustment/Variance (II) ❑ Minor Land Partition (H) ✓✓✓0Comprehensive Plan Amendment (IV) ❑ Planned Development (III) ❑ Conditional Use (III) 0 Sensitive Land Review (H or III) O Development Code Amendment (IV) . Site Development Review (II) O Downtown Design Review (II, III) 0 Subdivision (II or III) O Historic Overlay (II or III) 'S.Zone Change (III) O Home Occupation (II) 0 Zone Change Annexation (IV) NOTE: For required submittal elements,please refer to your pre-application conference notes. PROPOSAL SUMMARY (Brief description) FtYr)r}ei frtnni 1Z-'2- c&.%r\d std, du&p r v J\e/t& A ' - I 1— 3-05 pAeJL7 • STi4UW3c6 , PROPERTY INFORMATION �} ,n 1 Location where proposed activi will occur (address if available): \- \23 ¶ �[JtC.A-0C I )v J Tax maps and tax lot #s• 1 Zc �t P � Total site size: 4 aZoning classification: oR sl,\11 1 S1, 0\I.1 APPLICANT INFORMATION �,1 Case No.: 4-1'A,2ai,5`• 60003 Name: l�- p ` C.�'� �ie �/� Related Case No.(s):Zt'� '`� n� Mailing address: N ,� , �' I 561Z 24(S- b 2. � 1-46Z, Fee: Y 14-2 2-04)-- 2 R City/state: 'ire �►���' r,,� Zip:g � Phone: 2c-91 Application accepted: Primary contact person: L!1 '� By: Date: �S C J Phone: rli) ` 1-c j. Application termined complete: Email: ce'-0u i,FC A,( 'Oar> By: Date: N• WIT/4CW //-2- /5— A I:\CURPLN\Nlasters\land Use Applications Rev.07/17/2014 City of Tigard • 13125 SW Hall Blvd. • Tigard,Oregon 97223 • wwwtigard-or.gov • 503-718-2421 • Page 1 of 2 1 , ; , PROPERTY O3TER/DEED HOLDER INFORMATION (Attach list if mor than one) Name: 'a t` , , •r• 5 1C Mailin address: "� Sk) t 4oun bt City/state: l7VA r)-12 Zip: C.�, 22- 1) Phone: `1 - LW:lb Email: When the owner and the applicant are different people,the applicant must be the purchaser of record or a lessee in possession with written authorization from the owner or an agent of the owner. The owners must sign this application in the space provided on the back of this form or submit a written authorization with this application. THE APPLICANT(S) SHALL CERTIFY THAT: • If the application is granted, the applicant shall exercise the rights granted in accordance with the terms and subject to all the conditions and limitations of the approval. • All 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,map 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(s). / li i a,h, v..„ 1 Applican 's si na . re Print name 1Date III Applicant/Agent/Representative's signature Print name Date Applicant/Agent/Representative's signature Print name Date SIGNATURES of each owner of the subject property required 'NAY t-c . Owner's signature Print name Date Owner's signature Print name Date Owner's signature Print name Date Owner's signature Print name Date 1111 MASTER LAND USE APPLICATION City of Tigard • 13125 SW Hall Blvd. • Tigard,Oregon 97223 • wwwtigard-or.gov • 503-718-2421 • Page 2 of 2 1/ -I r-- -Th • IP Tigard-Tualatin School District 23J Larry Hibbard Administration Center IL6960 SW Sandburg Street Tigard,Oregon 97223 5503-431-4000•fax 503-131.4047 At www.ttsd.k12.or.us April 8, 2015 City of Tigard Community Development Department 13125 SW Hall Blvd Tigard, OR 97223 RE: 13125 SW Pacific Hwy Rezone and Site Development Review Applications To whom it may concern: IIIThe Tigard Tualatin School District owns the above referenced parcel. This letter serves as our permission for Leadership Circle LLC and its employees to seek planning approvals (including rezone and site development review) and apply for building permits at 13125 SW Pacific Hwy. Sincerely, f.44,4-66;11,10---- Ernest L. Brown Superintendent 4110 Gary Pagenstecher From: Gary Pagenstecher Sent: Tuesday, November 03, 2015 2:15 PM To: 'Read Stapleton' Cc: Monet Ragsdale; Ben Williams Subject: RE: Specialty Grocer Application Read, Your email below is accepted as your intent to withdraw applications CPA2015-00003,ZON2015-00004, SDR2015-00002, and VAR2015-0002 under the assumptions the City agrees to. I will initiate a refund request, which will take several weeks to process. At the effective date of the legislative zone change by the city, the city anticipates you will submit a new application for SDR and VAR with associated fees for the proposed development of the subject property. In the meantime, I look forward to working with you to resolve site design issues for your revised application. Thank you, Gary Gary Pagenstecher, AICP Associate Planner Community Development City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 Phone: 503-718-2434 Fax: 503-718-2748 Email:garyp@tigard-or.gov From: Read Stapleton [mailto:read.stapleton@ cardno.com] Sent: Monday, November 02, 2015 2:06 PM To: Gary Pagenstecher Cc: Monet Ragsdale; Ben Williams Subject: Specialty Grocer Application Gary— I spoke with Monet from Leadership Circle and she has confirmed that Leadership Circle, the applicant, is OK with withdrawing the site development review and plan amendment and zone change application to allow the City to proceed with the plan amendment/zone changes as a legislative matter. This is based on our discussion earlier and understanding of the following: • Application fees for the current request will be refunded. • The legislative change will be noticed this week and a Planning Commission hearing date will be December 14tH • Barring any hangups at the planning commission stage, a City Council hearing will be held on January le • An emergency ordinance adoption will occur making the decision effective immediately allowing a new site development review request to be filed on January 20tH • The City will work with us in the interim period and during the legislative update to resolve road design, pedestrian pathway and transformer location and design concerns that have been raised. Please let me know what else you need from us, if anything, to formally withdraw the application and requests. 1 Thank you! Read Read Stapleton, AICP PLANNING GROUP MANAGER CARDNO Car Ina' Shaping the Future Phone(+1)503-419-2500 Fax(+1)503-419-2600 Direct(+1)503-419-2513 Mobile(+1)971-219-5013 Address 5415 SW Westgate Drive, Suite 100 Portland, OR 97221 Email read.stapleton@cardno.com Web www.cardno.com This email and its attachments may contain confidential and/or privileged information for the sole use of the intended recipient(s).All electronically supplied data must be checked against an applicable hardcopy version which shall be the only document for which Cardno warrants accuracy.If you are not the intended recipient.any use,distribution or copying of the information contained in this email and its attachments is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error. please email the sender by replying to this message and immediately delete and destroy any copies of this email and any attachments.The views or opinions expressed are the author's own and may not reflect the views or opinions of Cardno. 2 vs n n City of Tigard • COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT c4.6514 2. Request for Permit Action 0 TIGARD 13125 SW Hall Blvd. • Tigard, Oregon 97223 • 503-718-2439 • vv w.tagard-or.gov TO: CITY OF TIGARD Building Division 13123 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard,OR 97223 Phone: 503-718-2439 Fax: 503-598-1960 TigardBuildfrigPermits@tigard-or.gov FROM: ❑ Owner N` Applicant ❑ Contractor 0 City Staff Check(✓)one REFUND OR Name: INVOICE TO: (Business or sndindull) t�i-�� ?Snl�a L'/.c4 E jL C (- e j 9 6d4L,r.) Mailing Address: 1'o f, 97C 237 City/State/Zip: mo/urAOs J Co_ '/y/CZ Phone No.: 976 24(1 • 3378 PLEASE TAKE ACTION FOR THE ITEM(S) CHECKED (V): N. CANCEL/VOID PERMIT APPLICATION. WI TNI REFUND PERMIT FEES (attach copy of original receipt and provide explanation below). ❑ INVOICE FOR FEES DUE (attach case fee schedule and provide explanation below). ❑ REMOVE/REPLACE CONTRACTOR ON PERMIT (do not cancel permit). Permit #: ,vim 20/s--e Oc 3 ZO U, o/S—O'-(b 2O/5-c1 Site Address or Parcel #: / 3 l2 S j/-0' f?/.' '/>L�C /164/7 ar ~O Project Name: l ia c /-i p z met i —Q e. (�A,�c 51Z1-1-, Subdivision Name: E1J i7" Lot#: S IC7 2-e EXPLANATION: C tTy I s t i-f 7i( 7/1-e6. Lor6(5Lzon& it, Po go #may • ,(C Signature: Date: /( - t` Print Name: (- / ltl s Refund Policy 1. The city's Community Development Director, Building Official ur City Engineer may authorize the refund of • Any fee which was erroneously paid or collected. • Not more than 81)%of the appticarion or plan review fee when an application is withdrawn or canceled before review effort has been expended. • Not more than 80%of the application or permit fee for issued permits prior to any inspepx�rl r •sts. 2. All refunds will be returned to the original payer in the form of a check via US postal service. 0 u 3. please allow 3-4 weeks for processing refund requestb '1pf 9'3 7 r 7 "9 /'C ^ /P 79' Yp CC e� 77' r2 0 . 4'D ^ '/f Pv . C�Cl /0 f r C <j P 3 5.2 6 . crr — v2�a 4 . + d µ 705•. oZd CPQ /'3 Fs 0 — / © 6,yo = 9?7' •s' 0 zdtr FOR OFFICE USE ONLY Route to Sys Admin: Date By Route to Records: Date//,�LS B Refund Processed: Date ///i //J By Invoice Processed: Date By Permit Canceled: Dare 1,rYA.S By r.-- Parcel Tag Added: , Date BY t:\Building\Forms\Iie[IPermitAcnon_(i92314.doc /1/1o/ _ //�4'o ,-0 f60,,20 N • 7 4 , . VOID City of Tigard • COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT J,/// SA �I - �' 11111 - " Request for Permit Action TIG,\RD 13125 SW Hall Blvd. • Tigard, Oregon 97223 • 503-718-2439 • www.tigard-or.gov TO: CITY OF TIGARD Building Division 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard, OR 97223 Phone: 503-718-2439 Fax: 503-598-1960 TigardBuildingPermits@tigard-or.gov FROM: ❑ Owner X Applicant ❑ Contractor ❑ City Staff Check(✓)one N REFUND OR Name: INVOICE TO: (Business or Individual) L.6"/4i3ER 5 17' e.g.e 6- 1 L C ( t-/`ikne y I<d Sa It ) Mailing Address: e6 /30)4 237 City/State/Zip: i iI-V65er CO '/ycz Phone No.: 976 , Z', • 33,7 PLEASE TAKE ACTION FOR THE ITEM(S) CHECKED (/): aCANCEL/VOID PERMIT APPLICATION. WI YHI:}I ft i c; REFUND PERMIT FEES (attach copy of original receipt and provide explanation below). ❑ INVOICE FOR FEES DUE (attach case fee schedule and provide explanation below). ❑ REMOVE/REPLACE CONTRACTOR ON PERMIT(do not cancel ermit). ZOO D/ oeo Permit#: e„,7,4- 2O/ `- O CO 3i ZCyt;._u% `( ))) O($ -c32, Site Address or Parcel #: / 3/2 jug 2-1?/./e7/---/cf', o �'�/�'2O(>-C _ Project Name: . ),I3 5/IJ � k 5 fl-r� ebleeL • ib t/r I� �-r�er,7t� Subdivision Name: /-(2T Lot#: ,ZS I0 ` '2 EXPLANATION: C dry t S 11-/ 7/A 7/i<P L6- 13L -7 z & cioezi, re P<KIL I Tfl•TZ P fe/i -7cam /-/2 x,:„6-6 ga 4-71,1 . 1eF�c.\,,L, <PO 2v 4 - a' S #s7L <4f72-X • ,Q Signature: .` ,�f Date: /'('.S``- (5 Print Name: G, /yr e- , Refund Policy 1. The city's Community Development Director,Building Official or City Engineer may authori`re the refund of: • Any fee which was erroneously paid or collected. • Not more than 80%of the application or plan review fee when an application is withdrawn or canceled before review effort has been expended. • Not more than 80%of the application or permit fee for issued permits prior to any inspection requests. 2. All refunds will be returned to the original payer in the form of a check via US postal service. 3. Please allow 3-4 weeks for processing refund requests. N'e'w: 2OA) / S 'g-GE-cr teAl,eS f o is- - oeS FOR R OFFICE USE ONLY Route to Sys Admin: Date By Route to Records: Date// ,IF 4 By sq,, Refund Processed: Date"V/ By c.'.dig Invoice Processed: Date By Permit Canceled: Date // /q/f�,c By• •. cel Tag Added: Date By 1\Building\Forms\.,Rey Ikrmiti,.ction_U -31 t. oc Sic G',4 2o/5 c& &3 vn.,04City of Tigard • COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT . Request for Permit Action 06/'5AldOP TIGARD: 13125 SW Hall Blvd. • Tigard, Oregon 97223 • 503-718-2439 • www.tigard-or.gov TO: CITY OF TIGARD Building Division 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard, OR 97223 Phone: 503-718-2439 Fax: 503-598-1960 TigardBuildingPermits@tigard-or.gov FROM: ❑ Owner Applicant ❑ Contractor ❑ City Staff Check(✓)one REFUND OR Name: INVOICE TO: (Business or Individual) .&140E-R 5171/a 6641C 1 L (7 f erl Sc14-Le ) Mailing Address: P d /3 0),:, 2 37 City/State/Zip: I Poi rxos , C a g/ V Z Phone No.: /7D 2'(f ' 3 375 PLEASE TAKE ACTION FOR THE ITEM(S) CHECKED (1): CANCEL/VOID PERMIT APPLICATION. WI THO Ri11-i_ REFUND PERMIT FEES (attach copy of original receipt and provide explanation below). ❑ INVOICE FOR FEES DUE (attach case fee schedule and provide explanation below). ❑ REMOVE/REPLACE CONTRACTOR ON PERMIT(do not cancel permit). �i -5 1.i Q/Jo67a, Permit#: e/'/4. 2O/S4' ace,3r ZG-ttiZa6=041":61Z.261(3` Site Address or Parcel #: / 3/2 Std ril-1 o/ Project Name: I Eri eaSkrQ C/.k'Zt- ( Ak/f $ & 114.) Subdivision Name: 16-) Lot#: ,Z.S/C2-<4Sx EXPLANATION: c'1Y / ,set 7jA 741- LC-76 r5Lit-74, ,7e-ne ie-Grpf7/1r f,��s�tci rc ' 2e l�t FLC�i ?o 7c� ,0, .' s fr,>¢ Signature: �-- Date: /(—,j`' 15— Print Name:Writ ame� Refund Policy I. The city's Community Development Director,Building Official or City Engineer may authorize the refund of • Any fee which was erroneously paid or collected. • Not more than 80°/s of the application or plan review fee when an application is withdrawn or canceled before review effort has been expended. • Not more than 80%of the application or permit fee for issued permits prior to any inspection requests. 2. All refunds will be returned to the original payer in the form of a check via US postal service. 3. Please allow 3-4 weeks for processing refund requests. c00 . 0 0 — 7,2 67, C-D _ /C'G' �6 / V, co - •/7,2 d = / 7 .3 o eF, a d — 7.24 , yd lJc-/, 4.11 7gi S rocs /5r/.aFe FOR OFFICE USE ONLY .�.� Route to Sys Admin; Date By Route to Records: Date// /�` / B Refund Processed: Date ///9/55 By; Invoice Processed: Date By Permit Canceled: Date kJ/f///� By ai'A'', Parcel Tag Added: Date By 1:\Building\Forms\RegPeImitAction-O 2314.doc City of Tigard • COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 4 Request for PermitActionq I'iGARc 13125 SW Hall Blvd. • Tigard, Oregon 97223 • 503-718-2439 •www.tigard-or.gov TO: CITY OF TIGARD Building Division 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard, OR 97223 Phone: 503-718-2439 Fax: 503-598-1960 TigardBuildingPermits@tigard-or.gov FROM: ❑ Owner Applicant ❑ Contractor ❑ City Staff Check V)one REFUND OR Name: INVOICE TO: (Business or Individual) L&/3i) Chi/3 644-z C it C (/d M640 X cf 1 SC 1l1.-e ) /viailing Address: P6 /3 0). 2 3/ t City/State/Zip: /j)oi=rxos co y/rCz Phone No.: 5T7c' 2.6( 3375 PLEASE TAKE ACTION FOR THE ITEM(S) CHECKED (✓): a CANCEL/VOID PERMIT APPLICATION. ZWI `THCI' 4-14 - S REFUND PERMIT FEES (attach copy of original receipt and provide explanation below). ❑ INVOICE FOR FEES DUE (attach case fee schedule and provide explanation below). ❑ REMOVE/REPLACE CONTRACTOR ON PERMIT (do not cancel permit). /109-e dtfs 4110 .i" Permit#: 2C/5-6&G34 f 2- -Pt; Site Address or Parcel #: f 3/2 S 5/0- , -s✓"` Project Name: } ' SH1' c=/fie/ ft O i (4/clf / F Subdivision Name: it/ft- Lot#: 2_5102-<41W 2 EXPLANATION: e t77 ) /et ?rs 7a- Lee r5Lsi-7 W 7e C"YL 7) 'FFEt f !ria- ✓fir r.PicJ -. 'f2 zc- ,6 -/7 /e&-----"..i 0 ego 'Z3 4, i- S / cr2) Signature: ( Date: Print Name: G / `� s Refund Policy 1. The city's Community Development Director,Building Official or City Engineer may authorize the refund of • Any fee which was erroneously paid or collected. • Not more than 80%of the application or plan review fee when an application is withdrawn or canceled before review effort has been expended. • Not more than 80%of the application or permit fee for issued permits prior to any inspection requests. 2. All refunds will be returned to the original payer in the form of a check via US postal service, 3. Please allow 3-4 weeks for processing refund requests. Z SCJ/, 5:7 3. Z O - /3e1 ,110 97,c--d - 77 , 4,v - /9 yO 7 i +r - wc^o , Fv - /57' , �?� FOR OFFICE USE ONLY Route to Sys Admin: Date Route to Records: Date // Refund Processed: Date // /Y 45- B ;/ Invoice Processed: Date By , Permit Canceled: Date ////9 /.5 By s arcel Tag Added: Date By 1:\Building\Forms,ReVermi tAction092314.doc REQUEST FOR COMMENTS k CITY OF TIGARD REQUEST FOR COMMENTS NOTIFICATION LIST FOR LAND USE COMMUN ITY DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS FILE NOS: FILE NAME: GpIV - / 5-t3 L 1,v is- - el - S 1\R ,5 tJ ifkiR V ( -2 , Mark the block to the left of the name of each person or organization that needs to be notified. CITY OFFICES CD Administration/Kenny Asher,CD Director CD Administration/Tom McGuire,Asst CD Director City Administration/Carol Krager,City Recorder Development Services/Planning-Engineering Techs. (except annexations) g 1 Development Services/Development Eng. Greg Berry(Copy on all Notices of Decision) f Building Division/Mark VanDomelen,Building Official Police Department/Jim Wolf,Crime Prevention Officer(Copy on all Notices of Decision) I Public Works/Michelle Wright Public .Forks/I4arleerrr'tiCttCle,Engineer Tech 1 Hearings Officer(2 sets) F j g 'Planning Commission(12 sets) I - 37,-,, GC,4^,,c,al City Attorney File/Reference (2 sets) LOCAL AND STATE JURISDICTIONS City of Beaverton,Planning ltIanager,POB 4755,Beaverton OR 97076* City of Beaverton,Steven Sparks,Dev Svcs Mgr,POB 4755,Beaverton OR 97076* City of Durham City Manager, 17160 SW Upper Boones Ferry Rd,Durham OR 97224* City of King City City Manager,15300 SW 116th Ave,King City OR 97224* City of Lake Oswego,Planning Director,PO Box 369,Lake Oswego OR 97034* City of Portland,Planning Bureau Director, 1900 SW 4th Ave,Suite 4100,Portland OR 97201 City of Tualatin Planning Manager, 18880 SW Martinazzi Ave,Tualatin OR 97062* Metro-Land Use and Planning,600 NE Grand Ave,Portland OR 97232-2736,Joanna Mensher,Data Resource Center (ZCA-Adopted)* I Metro-Land Use and Planning,600 NE Grand Ave,Portland OR 97232-2736,Paulette Copperstone,(ZCA-RFC Only)- Metro-Land Use and Planning,600 NE Grand Ave,Portland OR 97232-2736,Brian Harper,PhD, (CPA/DCA/ZON)' ODOT,Rail Division,Dave Laming,Sr. Crossing Safety Specialist,555 13th Street NE,Suite 3,Salem OR 97301-4179 (Notify if ODOT R/R-Hwy Crossing is only access to land). Email:Regionl_DEVRE'_Applications@odot.state.or.us a ODOT,Region 1 -Development Review Coordinator Carl Torland,Right-of-Way Section, 123 NW Flanders,Portland OR 97209-4037 (Vacations)* Email:Regionl_DEVREV_Applications@odot.state.or.us ODOT Region 1 Development Review Program, 123 NW Flanders St,Portland OR 97209 1 Email:Regionl_DEVREV_-applications@odot.state.or.us OR Dept of Energy,Bonneville Power Administration,Routing ITRC-Atm: Renae Ferrera,PUB 3621,Portland OR 97208-3621 (powerlines in area) OR Dept of Aviation,Tom Highland,Planning,3040 25th Street,SE,Salem OR 97310(monopole towers) OR Dept of Environmental Quality(DEQ),Regional Administrator,2020 SW Fourth Ave,Suite 400,Portland OR 97201 4987 OR Dept of Fish&Wildlife,Elizabeth Ruther,Habitat Biologist,North Willamette Watershed District, 18330 NW Sauvie Island Road,Portland OR 97231 OR Dept of Geo.&Mineral Ind.,800 NE Oregon Street,Suite 965,Portland OR 97232 OR Dept of Land Conservation&Dev.,Mara Ulloa, 635 Capitol Street NE,Suite 130,Salem OR 97301-2540(Comp Plan P 1 Amendments&Measure 37)-You have the option to send electronic copies.See DLCD website for online submittal procedures OR Division of State Lands,Melinda Wood(WLUN Form Required),775 Summer Street NE,Suite 100,Salem OR 97301- 1279 Documents should be emailed/do not send hard copies UCURPLNIMASTERSIREOFORCOMMENTSNOTIFICATIONLIST(UPDATED03/30115� Page 1 of 2 CITY OF TIGARD REQUEST FOR COMMENTS NOTIFICATION LIST FOR LAND USE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS OR Parks and Rec Dept State Historic Preservation Office,725 Sumner St NE,Suite C,Salem OR 97301 (Notify if property has HD overlay) OR Public Utilities Commission,PO Box 1088,Salem OR 97308-1088 US Army Corps of Engineers,Kathryn Harris,Routing CENWP-OP-G,POB 2946,Portland OR 97208-2946 (Maps and CWS letter only) - Washington County Consolidated Communications Agency(WCCCA) "911",Dave Austin,POB 6375,Beaverton OR 97007-0375(monopole towers) F Washington County,Dept of Land Use&Trans,Naomi Vogel-Beattie,1400 SW Walnut St MS 51 Hillsboro OR 97123- 5625(general apps)* Washington County,Dept of Land Use&Trans,Brent Curtis, 155 N First Ave,Suite 350,MS 13,Hillsboro OR 97124 (CPA)* Washington County,Assessment&Taxation, 155 N First Ave,Suite 350,MS 9,Hillsboro OR 97124(ZCA)* Washington County,Dept of Land Use&Trans,Doria Mateja,Cartography, 155 N First Ave,Suite 350,MS 14,Hillsboro OR 97124 (ZCA)* UTILITY PROVIDERS,SPECIAL DISTRICTS&AGENCIES Beaverton School District #48,Jennifer Garland,Demographics, 16550 SW Merlo Rd,Beaverton OR 97006-5152 Century Link,Right-of-Way Department,Qwest Corporation dba Century Link QC, 1208 NE 64th St,4th Floor,Seattle WA 98115 Century Link,Attn: John Pfeifer, 1600 7th Ave,4th Floor,Seattle,WA 98191-0000 (proposed and approved Annexation notices) Century Link,Karen Stewart,Local Government Affairs Director,310 SW Park Ave,Portland OR 97205 (proposed and approved Annexation notices) _ Clean Water Services,Development Services Department,David Schweitzer/SWM Program,2550 SW Hillsboro Hwy, (Hillsboro OR 97123* Comcast Cable Corp.,Gerald Backhaus, 14200 SW Brigadoon Court,Beaverton OR 97005(See map for area contact) Metro Area Communications Commission (MACC),Fred Christ, 15201 NW Greenbrier Parkway,C-1,Beaverton OR 97006-4886 (annexations only) NW Natural Gas Company,Brian Kelley,Engineering Coord.,220 NW Second Ave,Portland OR 97209-3991 NW Natural Gas Company,Account Services,ATFN: Annexation Coordinator 220 NW Second Ave,Portland OR 97209. 3991 (Annexations only) Portland General Electric,Lorraine Katz,2213 SW 153rd Drive,Beaverton OR 97006 Portland General Electric,Tod L. Shattuck,2213 SW 153rd Drive,Beaverton OR 97006 Portland Western R/R,Burlington Northern/Sante Fe R/R,Oregon Electric R/R,(Burlington,Northern/Sante Fe R/R predecessor),Bruce Carswell,President and GM,200 Hawthorne Ave SE,Suite C320,Salem OR 97301-5294 Union Pacific Railroad,Director of Public Affairs,301 NE 2nd Ave,Portland OR 97232(currently the PA Dir is Brock Nelson,503-249-3079) Tigard/Tualatin School District#23J,Teri Brady,Administrative Offices,6960 SW Sandburg St,Tigard OR 97223-8039 Tigard Water District,POB 230281,Tigard OR 97281-0281 Tualatin Hills Parks and Rec District,Planning Mgr, 15707 SW Walker Rd,Beaverton OR 97006* Tualatin Valley Fire&Rescue,John Wolff,DeputyFire Marshall, 11945 SW 70th Ave,Tigard OR 97223-9196" Tualatin Valley Water District,Administrative Office, 1850 SW 170th Ave,Beaverton OR 97006* Tri-Met Transit Development,Ben Baldwin,Project Planner,1800 SW 1st Ave#300,Portland,OR 97201 (If project is �� within 1/4 mile of a transit route) Verizon,John Cousineau, OSP Network,4155 SW Cedar Hills Blvd,Beaverton OR 97005 *Indicates automatic notification in compliance with intergovernmental agreement if within 500'of the subject property for any/al city projects(Project Planner is Responsible for Indicating Parties to Notify) This document is password protected. Please see Joe or Doreen if you need updates to it.Thank you. ICURPLN/MASTERSIREO FOR COMMENTS NOTIFICATION LIST(UPDATED03/3C/15) Page 2 of 2 APPLICANT MATERIALS RECEIVED SEP 232015 CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING/ENGINEERING 13125 SW Pacific Highway - Specialty Retail Tigard, Oregon An Application For: Comprehensive Plan Amendment Zoning Map Amendment Site Development Review Submitted July 16, 2015 Resubmitted September 22, 2015 Applicant: Leadership Circle LLC PO Box 239 Montrose, Co 81402 Contact: Monet Ragsdale Phone: 970-497-0066 Prepared by: Cardno 5415 SW Westgate Drive, Suite 100 Portland, Oregon 97221 Contact: Read Stapleton, AICP Phone: 503-419-2500 Fax: 503-419-2600 9 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS 3 I. INTRODUCTION 1 GENERAL INFORMATION 1 SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL 2 EXISTING CONDITIONS 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2 PROJECT LIMITS AND SURROUNDING USES 3 L STATEWIDE PLANNING GOALS 5 GOAL 1 -CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT 5 GOAL 2-LAND USE PLANNING 5 GOAL 9-ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 5 GOAL 10-HOUSING 6 GOAL 11 -PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES 6 GOAL 12-TRANSPORTATION 6 II. METRO URBAN GROWTH MANAGEMENT FUNCTIONAL PLAN 7 TITLE 6-CENTERS, CORRIDORS,STATION COMMUNITIES AND MAIN STREETS 7 III. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 7 CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT 7 LAND USE PLANNING 7 ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY 12 PARKS, RECREATION, TRAILS,AND OPEN SPACE 12 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 12 HOUSING 13 PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES 14 TRANSPORTATION 15 IV.CITY OF TIGARD - TITLE 18 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE 17 Chapter 18.360 Site Development Review 17 18.360.030 Approval Process 17 18.360.040 Bonding and Assurances 17 18.360.070 Submission Requirements 17 18.360.090 Approval Criteria 18 Chapter 18.380 Zoning Map and Text Amendments 22 18.380.030 Quasi-Judicial Amendments and Procedures to this Title and Map 22 Chapter 18.520 Commercial Zoning Districts 22 18.520.020 List of Zoning Districts 22 18.700 SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS 24 Chapter 18.705 Access, Egress, and Circulation 24 18.705.030 General Provisions 24 Chapter 18.725 Environmental Performance Standards 27 18.725.020 General Provisions 27 18.725.030 Performance Standards 27 Chapter 18.745 Landscaping and Screening 28 18.745.030 General Provisions 28 18 745.040 Street Tree Standards 29 18.745.050 Buffering and Screening 30 Chapter 18.755 Mixed Solid Waste and Recyclable Storage 34 18.755.040 Methods of Demonstrating Compliance 34 18.755.050 Location, Design and Access Standards for Storage Areas 36 Chapter 18.765 Off-Street Parking and Loading Requirements 38 18.765.030 General Provisions.. . . . 38 18,765,040 General Design Standards ... 38 18.765 050 Bicycle Parking Design Standards 41 18 765.070 Minimum and Maximum Off-Street Parking Requirements 43 18.765.080 Off-Street Loading Requirements 43 Chapter 18.780 Signs 44 18.780.020 Permits Required 44 Chapter 18.790 Urban Forestry Plan 44 18.790.030 Urban Forestry Plan Requirements,......_.,.... 44 18.790.060 Urban Forestry Plan Implementation 45 Chapter 18.795 Visual Clearance Areas 45 18.795.030 Visual Clearance Requirements 45 18.800 STREET AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENT STANDARDS 46 Chapter 18.810 Street and Utility Improvement Standards 46 18.810 020 General Provisions 46 18.810.030 Streets 46 18.810.050 Easements 47 18.810.070 Sidewalks 48 18.810.090 Sanitary Sewers 49 18.810.100 Storm Drainage..... 49 18.810.110 Bikeways and Pedestrian Pathways 50 18.810.120 Utilities . 50 CONCLUSION 51 Exhibits A. Application B. Property Title C. Neighborhood Meeting Materials D. Service Provider Letters E. Impact Study F. Pre-Application Conference Notes G. Site Distance Certification H. Stormwater Analysis I. Urban Forestry Plan J. Traffic Impact Report K. Architectural Plans L. Civil Plans M. 2014 Tigard Buildable Lands Inventory I. INTRODUCTION GENERAL INFORMATION Applicant: Leadership Circle LLC P.O. Box 239 Montrose, CO Phone: (970) 249-3398 Contact: Monet Ragsdale Phone: 970-497-0066 Applicant's Representative Cardno 5415 SW Westgate Drive; Suite 100 Portland, Oregon 97221 (503) 419-2500 phone (503) 419-2600 fax Contact: Read Stapleton Read Stapleton@cardno.com Tax Lot Information: Map Tax Lot 2S102CB 00200 Location: Generally bounded SW Pacific Highway & School Street Current Zoning District: Residential R-12 Proposed Change: General Commercial Project Site Area: +1- 1.37 acres 159.677.2 SF 1 SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL The Applicant is requesting a comprehensive plan amendment and zoning map change for Tax Lot ID 2S102CB00200, an approximately 1.37-acre site located at the northeast corner of School Street and SW Pacific Highway. The site is currently designated Medium Density Residential on the City's Comprehensive Plan with a zoning designation of Medium Density Residential (R-12).The Applicant is proposing to change the plan and zoning designation of the site to General Commercial (C-G). In addition to this comprehensive plan and zoning map amendment request, the Applicant is requesting Site Development Review approval from the City to allow a 15,085 square foot (SF) specialty retail store with associated parking, circulation, landscaping and site improvements.As evidenced in the responses in this narrative and in the supporting materials, the Applicant's request for a comprehensive plan and zoning map amendment and site development review is supported by the applicable local plan policies and regulations, regional planning requirements and state regulations. EXISTING CONDITIONS The subject site is currently a vacant lot owned by the Tigard—Tualatin School District. The site abuts the south side of the Charles F. Tigard Elementary School. The subject property abuts SW Pacific Highway, a Principal Arterial that is designated in the Metro Urban Growth Functional Plan as a High Capacity Transit Corridor. The highway is also maintained and under jurisdictional ownership of the Oregon Department of Transportation. The site is bordered to the east and west by commercial development. The property is the only parcel located along the highway between McKenzie Street and Canterbury Lane, an approximately 1.12 mile segment that is not currently designated for commercial use. The proposed project site is approximately .25 miles from the Metro Town Center adopted boundary. Under the existing R-12 zoning district, it is estimated that the site could be reasonably built to include 16 multi-family units. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed comprehensive plan and zoning map amendment will enable the applicant to proceed with plans to redevelop the subject property to include an approximately 15,085 SF retail building and associated parking, circulation and landscape areas. The building will be located at the corner of SW Pacific Highway and SW School Street and oriented with the primary building entry to the east. Vehicle and large truck access to the site will occur from SW School Street via a 30 foot(ft) wide driveway. The current driveway onto the site, which is aligned with SW Garrett Street, would be eliminated and new accesses to the site would be provided via SW School Street and through a new driveway located on the east side of the site from SW Pacific Highway. This entrance from SW Pacific Highway would be limited to a right-in/right-out movement as restricted by a raised concrete median located on SW Pacific Highway. The site has been designed to include 60 parking stalls, of which 57 are standard stalls and 3 are American Disabilities Act (ADA) accessible. Standard stalls are 9 ft by 18.5 ft with a 24 ft. drive aisle width. Bicycle spaces are provided directly outside of the main entrance. Pedestrian improvements provided with the project include a 10 ft wide concrete sidewalk that will be constructed on the SW Pacific Highway frontage of the site and a 5 ft wide concrete sidewalk that will be constructed on the School Street frontage of the property. A pedestrian crossing of SW Pacific Highway near the southeast corner of the building that would be maintained to allow for pedestrian crossings at the SW Pacific Highway / SW Garrett Street intersection and to facilitate pedestrian access to the proposed retail building. As documented in the attached Traffic Impact Analysis prepared by Kittelson and Associates, Inc. it is estimated that the proposed project would generate approximately 423 net new average daily trips, with approximately 9 AM weekday net peak hour trips and 37 PM weekday net peak hour trips. 2 The Tigard CDC Sections applicable to the Site Development Review of this proposal are addressed in Section IV of this narrative. PROJECT LIMITS AND SURROUNDING USES The following table and figure describe and identify the project site's zoning designation and the zoning and land uses on surrounding properties. Table A: SURROUNDING LAND USE Location Zoning Designation Land Use Northwest Residential R-7 Elementary School and Theatre House Northeast General Commercial Retail Commercial Center Southwest General Commercial Retail Commercial Center Southeast Principal Arterial SW Pacific Highway 3 Figure 1: Project Limits and Zoning Map ~ y - ..-• ! "9 011V 4 4 A "... A44 .1- . ' Pe et,/ dr i 1\ .' * - IbApp ," * 4it '. - #, -**4,1 - 4 k• : • , • Leg `ty \ts'oPeelet 1 ' ,"- g f , 00 t iiv .., m".‘„,ft<o• 4.,s, It _ a. y.4•: 401 s p �� ,,f a *.t �. " / i. 0o, 1 :0- i 4 I. STATEWIDE PLANNING GOALS The following findings demonstrate how the proposed project will not impede or negatively impact the City of Tigard's continued compliance with the applicable Statewide Planning Goals, GOAL 1 - CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT To develop a citizen involvement program that insures the opportunity for citizens to be involved in all phases of the planning process Response: Consistent with Goal 1, an initial neighborhood meeting was conducted to give residents the opportunity to ask questions and request further information regarding the proposal. This was held in March of 2015 after meeting notices were sent to residents and the subject parcel was posted with information regarding the location, date and time of the meeting. In addition, two public hearings, one before the Planning Commission and the other before the City Council are required as part of a Type IV review required for the proposed project. Notice of the proposal will be provided to all affected groups as required by the City and will be published in the newspaper. Through the notice and public hearing process all interested parties will be given the opportunity to review the application, comment on the proposal. and participate in the decision GOAL 2 - LAND USE PLANNING To establish a land use planning process and policy framework as a basis for all decision and actions related to use of land and to assure an adequate factual base for such decisions and actions. Response: The proposed project will follow the Type IV review procedures established in the Tigard Community Development Code consistent with Goal 2 and the provisions in Chapter 2, Land Use Planning, of the Tigard Comprehensive Plan. GOAL 9 - ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT To provide adequate opportunities throughout the state for a variety of economic activities vital to the health, welfare, and prosperity of Oregon's citizens. Response: The proposed comprehensive plan and zoning map amendment will convert approximately 1.37 acres of vacant residentially-zoned land to a commercial designation. Consistent with the City's obligations to provide economic opportunities under Goal 9. per OAR 660-009- 0015 a February 22. 2011 Economic Opportunities Analysis (EOA) conducted by Cogan Owens Cogan. LLC and FCS Group was prepared for the City and forecasted the 20-year vacant land need for commercial, mixed use and industrial lands in the City over the 2011 to 2031 time period. As noted in Table 7, Page 9 of the EOA, it was determined that the City would need a minimum of 51-acres of vacant commercial land to satisfy its commercial land needs over that 20-year growth period. A moderate estimate of commercial land need of 68-acres was identified and a high forecasted need of 85-acres was projected As noted in a January 1. 2014 Buildable Lands Inventory (BLI) prepared by the City. included in Exhibit M of this application package. the City's most recent vacant lands inventory identified an existing vacant commercial inventory of 46 55-acres. The proposed comprehensive plan and zoning map amendment will help fill this projected deficit of available commercial land by adding 1.37-acres of commercial land to the City's vacant commercial land inventory. thereby improving the City's available commercial development capacity. Furthermore. consistent with this plan policy, the proposed project will enable the transaction of the site from school to private commercial use. thereby placing the property 5 back on the public tax rolls and enabling the generation of property taxes from the newly created development. These projected public revenues will enable the funding of needed City services and advance the community's social and fiscal stability objectives. GOAL 10 - HOUSING To provide for the housing needs of citizens of the state. Buildable lands for residential use shall be inventoried and plans shall encourage the availability of adequate numbers of needed housing units at price ranges and rent levels which are commensurate with the financial capabilities of Oregon households and allow for flexibility of housing location, type and density. Response: As identified in the City's most recent BLI map, dated January 1,2014, the project site has not been identified as a buildable, likely due to its ownership by the school district and aggregation with adjoining school properties.Therefore,the conversion of the site's zoning district to C-G will not have a demonstrable effect on the planned residential capacity of the City. Furthermore, it is anticipated that the proposed site, if developed for medium density residential use, would be developed with approximately 16-units. It is not anticipated that the elimination of this limited housing capacity will result in a deficit in needed housing in the City as the January 1, 2014 BLI map indicates that an additional 34.26-acres of buildable land zoned R-12 would remain available in the City. GOAL 11 - PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES To plan and develop a timely, orderly and efficient arrangement of public facilities and services to serve as a framework for urban and rural development. Response: The City of Tigard has adopted a Transportation System Plan, which evaluates current access and roadway use and anticipates future demands to ensure the transportation needs of residents are met. Additionally, the City maintains stormwater, wastewater and water design and construction plans to ensure that public facilities and services needs are met within the City and Urban Growth Boundary(UGB) limits. The proposed development site will connect to existing public connections adjacent to the site. The design and construction of these connections will be reviewed by the Public Works Department. As identified in the attached Impact Study prepared by Cardno, it is anticipated that development of the site under the existing medium density residential designation would have a greater impact on water and sewer use than the proposed retail development and that no demonstrable effect would occur on storm sewer infrastructure or parks. It is not anticipated that the proposed comprehensive plan and zoning map amendment would negatively affect the ability of the City to provide timely and orderly public facilities and services as required under Goal 11. GOAL 12 - TRANSPORTATION To provide and encourage a safe, convenient and economic transportation system. In addition to addressing the needs of the transportation disadvantaged. Response: The transportation impacts of this proposal have been detailed in the Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) conducted by Kittelson & Associates, Inc., dated July 15th, 2015 and submitted as part of this application package. As described in the report. the project site can be developed while maintaining acceptable levels of service and safety on the existing transportation system. No changes in street classifications are necessary. However, the report recommends limiting movements at the SW School Road intersection with SW Pacific Highway to right-in, right-out, and left-in. The eastern driveway access to the site from SW Pacific Highway will also be restricted and will be limited to a right-in and right- out to ensure safe access from SW Pacific Highway. The 'Future Conditions Analysis' on page 9 of the report identifies the potential impacts that the existing zoning and proposed zone change could have on the surrounding transportation system using reasonable worst- 6 case development conditions A detailed review of how the proposed zone change complies with the TPR begins on page 24 of the analysis II. METRO URBAN GROWTH MANAGEMENT FUNCTIONAL PLAN TITLE 6 — CENTERS, CORRIDORS, STATION COMMUNITIES AND MAIN STREETS The Regional Framework Plan identifies Centers, Corridors, Main Streets and Station Communities throughout the region and recognizes them as the principal centers of urban life in the region. Title 6 calls for actions and investments by cities and counties, complemented by regiona! investments, to enhance this role, A regional investment is an investment in a new high capacity transit line or designated a regional investment in a grant or funding program administered by Metro or subject to Metro's approval. Response: According to Metros RL!S Database, the project site is located in a corridor. This is also located along a predominately commercial segment of SW Pacific Highway. with commercial retail uses for approximately 1.12 miles. The proposed Comprehensive Plan and Zone change will allow compatible land uses and encourage infill development within an underutilized site at the center of this corridor, III. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The applicable Tigard Comprehensive Plan Policies and Goals are set forth below along with findings demonstrating the project's consistency with these provisions. CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT Goal 1.1 Provide citizens, affected agencies, and other jurisdictions the opportunity to participate in all phases of the planning process. Response: Consistent with the City's citizen involvement policies. an initial neighborhood meeting was conducted to give residents the opportunity to ask questions and request further information regarding the proposal This was held in March of 2015 after meeting notices were sent to residents and the subject parcel was posted with information regarding the location, date and time of the meeting. In addition, two public hearings, one before the Planning Commission and the other before the City Council are required as part of a Type IV review required for the proposed project. Notice of the proposal will be provided to all affected groups as required by the City and will be published in the newspaper Through the notice and public hearing process all interested parties will be given the opportunity to review the application, comment on the proposal, and participate in the decision. LAND USE PLANNING Goal 2.1 Maintain an up-to-date Comprehensive Plan, implementing regulations and action plans as the legislative foundation of Tigard's land use planning program. Policies 3. The City shall coordinate the adoption, amendment, and implementation of its land use program with other potentially affected jurisdictions and agencies. Response: SW Pacific Highway, a Principal Arterial, borders the site to the southeast and is under the ownership of the Oregon Department of Transportation (000T) As documented in the attached Transportation Impact Analysis prepared by Kittelson and Associates, Inc , with 7 the site access control measures that will be implemented with the project, the proposed comprehensive plan and zoning map amendment will not result in significant effects on the existing transportation system. ODOT has been involved in early agency discussions regarding site access to ensure traffic operations at SW Pacific Highway continue to meet operational standards. Specific measures are proposed to mitigate transportation effects of the project and avoid potential significant effects. These measures include: • The current SW School Road alignment and access to OR 99W will be maintained, but turn movements will be restricted to right-iniright-outlleft-in only by constructing a raised concrete island and traffic separator in the center median lane of the highway. • The current site access to OR 99W across from SW Garrett Street will be closed, and a new site driveway will be constructed near the northeastern property limits at SW Pacific Highway. This new driveway will be restricted to right-in/right-out only movements due to the raised traffic separator that already exists in the median lane of the highway. In addition to ODOT involvement with the proposed project, other City departments including public works, planning, and transportation departments have been involved in preliminary discussions regarding the project. It is anticipated that other affected service districts including the Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue(TVFR) district and the Tigard police department will be provided notice of the proposed comprehensive plan and zoning map amendment request. It is not anticipated that the proposed change in designation or the site development will result in a measurable impact on these community services due to the limited size of the site and the relative demands that would occur between a 16-unit multi-family project and a 15,085 square foot retail project. 5. The City shall promote intense urban level development in Metro-designated Centers and Corridors, and employment and industrial areas. Response: According to Metro's RLIS Database,the project site is located in a Title 6 corridor, abutting SW Pacific Highway. This is also located along a predominately commercial segment of SW Pacific Highway, with commercial retail uses for approximately 1.12 miles south of the Tigard town center. The proposed comprehensive plan and zoning map amendment will encourage compatible land uses and infill development of an underutilized site in the corridor furthering City and regional goals for intensifying development in these corridor areas. 6. The City shall promote the development and maintenance of a range of land use types which are of sufficient economic value to fund needed services and advance the community's social and fiscal stability. Response: In a February 22, 2011 Economic Opportunities Analysis (EOA) conducted by Cogan Owens Cogan. LLC and FCS Group the forecasted 20-year vacant land need for commercial, mixed use and industrial lands in the City over the 2011 to 2031 time period was prepared. As noted in Table 7, Page 9 of the EOA, it was determined that the City would need a minimum of 51-acres of vacant commercial land to satisfy its commercial land needs over that 20-year growth period.A moderate estimate of commercial land need of 68-acres was identified and a high forecasted need of 85-acres was projected. As noted in the January 1, 2014 BLI prepared by the City, included in Exhibit M of this application package, the City's most recent vacant lands inventory identified an existing vacant commercial inventory of 46.55-acres. The proposed comprehensive plan and zoning map amendment will help fill this projected deficit of available commercial land by adding 1.37-acres of commercial land to the City's vacant commercial land inventory, thereby improving the City's available commercial development capacity. Furthermore, 8 1 consistent with this plan policy. the proposed project will enable the transaction of the site from school to private commercial use, thereby placing the property back on the public tax rolls and enabling the generation of property taxes from the newly created development. These projected public revenues will enable the funding of needed City services and advance the community's social and fiscal stability as desired. 7. The City's regulatory land use maps and development code shall implement the Comprehensive Plan by providing for needed urban land uses including: A. Residential; B. Commercial and office employment including business parks; C. Mixed use; D. Industrial; E. Overlay districts where natural resource protections or special planning and regulatory tools are warranted; and F. Public services. Response: According to Chapter 9. Economic Development of the City of Tigard comprehensive plan, approximately 85 percent of Tigard residents work outside of the City limits. Additionally, approximately 69 percent of the existing land in the City is zoned for residential use, while 31 percent is zoned for commercial. industrial. and mixed use development. The proposed zone change will help improve this balance of residential and employment uses in the City and provide employment opportunities for residents of the City who pnmarily commute to other areas of the metropolitan region for work. 8. The City shall require that appropriate public facilities are made available, or committed, prior to development approval and are constructed prior to, or concurrently with, development occupancy. Response: The City of Tigard has adopted a Transportation System Plan. which evaluates current access and roadway use and anticipates future demands to ensure the transportation needs of residents are met. Additionally, the City maintains storrnwater. wastewater and water design and construction plans to ensure that public facilities and service needs are met within the City and Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) limits. The proposed development site will connect to existing public connections adjacent to the site As identified in the attached Impact Study prepared by Cardno, it is anticipated that development of the site under the existing medium density residential designation would have a greater impact on water and sewer use than the proposed retail development and that no demonstrable effect would occur on storm sewer infrastructure or parks. It is not anticipated that the proposed comprehensive plan and zoning map amendment would negatively affect the ability of the City to provide timely and orderly public facilities and services and that such facilities are available and can be made available concurrent with site development. 14. Applicants shall bear the burden of proof to demonstrate that land use applications are consistent with applicable criteria and requirements of the Development Code, the Comprehensive Plan, and when necessary, those of the state and other agencies. Response: This narrative and the attached materials are provided to fulfill the applicant s responsibility and burden of proof to demonstrate compliance with the applicable criteria and requirements for this land use application. 15. In addition to other Comprehensive Plan goals and policies deemed applicable, amendments to Tigard's Comprehensive Plan/Zone Map shall be subject to the following specific criteria: 9 A. Transportation and other public facilities and services shall be available, or committed to be made available, and of sufficient capacity to serve the land uses allowed by the proposed map designation; Response: The transportation impacts of this proposal have been detailed in the TIA prepared by Kittelson &Associates. Inc , dated July 15Th. 2015 and submitted as part of this application package. As described in the report, the project site can be developed while maintaining acceptable levels of service and safety on the existing transportation system. No changes in street classifications are necessary. However. the report recommends limiting movements at the SW School Road intersection with SW Pacific Highway to right-in. right- out, and left-in. The northeastern driveway access to the site from SW Pacific Highway will also be restricted and will be limited to a right-in and right-out to ensure safe access from SW Pacific Highway. Additional public services such as stormwater, water and sanitary sewer will connect to existing infrastructure and it is not anticipated that the proposed designation change to general commercial will result in additional demands on public services. The 'Future Conditions Analysis' on page 9 of the report identifies the potential impacts that the existing zoning and proposed zone change could have on the surrounding transportation system using reasonable worst-case development conditions. A detailed review of how the proposed zone change complies with the TPR begins on page 24 of the analysis B. Development of land uses allowed by the new designation shall not negatively affect existing or planned transportation or other public facilities and services; Response: As documented in the TEA prepared by Kittelson &Associates. Inc , dated July 151h. 2015, the proposal project can be developed while maintaining acceptable levels of service and safety on the existing transportation system. The'Future Conditions Analysis' on page 9 of the report identifies the potential impacts that the existing zoning and proposed zone change could have on the surrounding transportation system using reasonable worst-case development conditions.A detailed review of how the proposed zone change complies with the TPR begins on page 24 of the analysis C. The new land use designation shall fulfill a proven community need such as provision of needed commercial goods and services, employment, housing, public and community services, etc. in the particular location, versus other appropriately designated and developable properties; Response: In a February 22, 2011 Economic Opportunities Analysis (EOA) conducted by Cogan Owens Cogan, LLC and FCS Group the forecasted 20-year vacant land need for commercial. mixed use and industrial lands in the City over the 201 1 to 2031 time period was prepared. As noted in Table 7, Page 9 of the EOA, it was determined that the City would need a minimum of 51-acres of vacant commercial land to satisfy its commercial land needs over that 20-year growth period A moderate estimate of commercial land need of 68-acres was identified and a high forecasted need of 85-acres was projected As noted in the January 1, 2014 BLI prepared by the City, included in Exhibit M of this application package. the City's most recent vacant lands inventory identified an existing vacant commercial inventory of 46.55-acres. The proposed comprehensive plan and zoning map amendment will help fill this projected deficit of available commercial land by adding 1 37-acres of commercial land to the City's vacant commercial land inventory. thereby improving the City's available commercial development capacity. Furthermore. consistent with this plan policy. the proposed project will enable the transaction of the site from school to private commercial use. thereby placing the property back on the public tax rolls and enabling the generation of property taxes from the newly created development. These projected public revenues will enable the funding of needed City services and advance the community's social and fiscal stability as desired. Lastly, the proposed comprehensive plan amendment will help create employment opportunities for residents 10 of Tigard. which currently sees approximately 85 percent of its employees work in other communities, according to Chapter 9, Economic Development of the City of Tigard comprehensive plan. D. Demonstration that there is an inadequate amount of developable, appropriately designated, land for the land uses that would be allowed by the new designation; Response: As noted above, there is a projected minimum deficit of vacant commercial land of approximately 4.45-acres. The proposed comprehensive plan and zoning map amendment will reduce this projected deficit by approximately 1.37-acres. E. Demonstration that land uses allowed in the proposed designation could be developed in compliance with all applicable regulations and the purposes of any overlay district would be fulfilled; Response: A request for a Type 2 Site Development Review approval is being made concurrent with this comprehensive plan and zoning map amendment request. Compliance with the development standards that would apply to the approximately 15.085 square foot retail building and associated site improvements is addressed in this narrative, thereby demonstrating project consistency with this provision. F. Land uses permitted by the proposed designation would be compatible, or capable of being made compatible, with environmental conditions and surrounding land uses; and Response: The subject property is the only property located on SW Pacific Highway in the immediate vicinity of the site that is not zoned C-G. The proposed comprehensive plan and zoning map amendment will bring the site into conformance with the zoning designation of adjoining properties and other properties located on SW Pacific Highway in the immediate vicinity. G. Demonstration that the amendment does not detract from the viability of the City's natural systems. Response: There are no environmentally sensitive areas located on the site and the proposed re- designation of the subject property would not detract from the viability of the City's natural systems. 16. The City may condition the approval of a Plan/Zoning map amendment to assure the development of a definite land use(s) and per specific design/development requirements. Response: In addition to the comprehensive plan and zoning map amendment. this proposal includes a site development review application for a special retail use for City review and approval. 17. The City may allow concurrent applications to amend the Comprehensive Plan/Zoning Map(s) and for development plan approval of a specific land use. Response: Consistent with this provision. this proposal includes a concurrent site development review request 23. The City shall require new development, including public infrastructure, to minimize conflicts by addressing the need for compatibility between it and adjacent existing and future land uses. Response: In addition to the comprehensive plan and zoning map amendment request. this proposal includes a site development review application for a special retail use The applicable standards for a specialty commercial retail use have been addressed in this narrative within the Tigard Community Development Code sections to ensure compatibility with the 11 surrounding and adjacent land uses.There are no special provisions anticipated that would be required to ensure compatibility between the proposed project and adjacent existing and future land uses. ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY Goal 6.2 Ensure land use activities protect and enhance the community's water quality. 1. The City shall require that all development complies with or exceeds regional, state, and federal standards for water quality. Response: The proposed specialty commercial retail use does not involve the storage or handling of hazardous wastes or other materials that have the potential to harm surface or groundwater resources. Stormwater management facilities have been designed consistent with Clean Water Services requirements that implement the surface water quality requirements of the Clean Water Act. No elements of the proposed project are anticipated to create conditions that would cause violations of regional, state and/or federal water quality standards. 5. The City shall require measures to minimize erosion and storm run-off from development sites during and after construction. Response: As shown on Sheet C3.0, Grading and Erosion Control Plan in the Plan Set in Exhibit L, stormwater clean outs, lines, manholes and inlet protections are proposed to control the stormwater run-off during and after construction. Additionally, the proposed systems follow the grade of the site to facilitate efficient collection and retention standards that meet City and regional standards. PARKS, RECREATION, TRAILS, AND OPEN SPACE Goal 8.1 Provide a wide variety of high quality park and open spaces for all residents, including both: A. developed areas with facilities for active recreation; and B. undeveloped areas for nature-oriented recreation and the protection and enhancement of valuable natural resources within the parks and open space system. Policies 3. The City shall seek to achieve or exceed the ideal park service level standard of 11.0 acres of parkland per thousand population. Response: The proposed comprehensive plan and zoning map amendment will eliminate the potential for approximately 16 multi-family units from the site. thereby reducing the demand on parks that could result from residential development on the site and improving the City's capacity to achieve its desired park service levels. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Goal 9.1 Develop and maintain a strong, diversified, and sustainable local economy. Policies 3. The City's land use and other regulatory practices shall be flexible and adaptive to promote economic development opportunities, provided that required infrastructure is made available. Response: As noted in this provision. the plan recognizes the need for the City to be flexible and adaptive with its application of land use and regulatory practices to encourage and promote economic development opportunities. Consistent with this plan policy. the proposed project 12 will enable the transaction of the site from school to private commercial use, thereby placing the property back on the public tax rolls and enabling the generation of property taxes from the newly created development These projected public revenues will enable the funding of needed City services and advance the community's social and fiscal stability as desired. The proposed comprehensive plan amendment will also help create employment opportunities for residents of Tigard, which currently sees approximately 85 percent of its employees work in other communities, according to Chapter 9 Economic Development of the City of Tigard comprehensive plan. Goal 9.3 Make Tigard a prosperous and desirable place to live and do business. Policies 1. The City shall focus a significant portion of future employment growth and high-density housing development in its Metro-designated Town Center(Downtown); Regional Center (Washington Square); High Capacity Transit Corridor(Hwy 99W); and the Tigard Triangle. Response: The subject property is located approximately a half mile south from the Metro defined Station Community and a quarter mile from the boundary of the adopted town center boundary along SW Pacific Highway. a High Capacity Transit Corridor. The current zoning designation would only allow for medium density residential development. inconsistent with the defined policy. Re-designation of site would allow for consistent development with the existing commercial services surrounding the site. 2. The City shall adopt land use regulations and standards to ensure a well-designed and attractive urban environment that supports/protects public and private sector investments. Response: This policy is instructive to the City to adopt regulations and standards to ensure a well- designed and attractive urban environment. The proposed comprehensive plan and zoning map amendment would convert the zoning of the subject property to C-G. allowing a cohesive streetscape of commercial uses in the vicinity and allow design continuity of the SW Pacific Highway streetscape. 3. The City shall commit to improving and maintaining the quality of community life (public safety. education, transportation, community design, housing, parks and recreation, etc.) to promote a vibrant and sustainable economy. Response: Concurrent with the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map amendment, the proposal includes a site development review application for a specialty retail use. This proposed use would be consistent with the existing small and medium sized commercial services in the area and encourage local activity onto the site and around the area. Additionally, the proposal includes plans for pedestrian and roadway improvements that would facilitate sustainable living practices. HOUSING Goal 10.1 Provide opportunities for a variety of housing types to meet the diverse housing needs of current and future City residents. Policies 1. The City shall adopt and maintain land use policies, codes, and standards that provide opportunities to develop a variety of housing types that meet the needs, preferences, and financial capabilities of Tigard's present and future residents. Response: Currently, approximately 69% of land is zoned for residential land uses. As noted in the January 1, 2014 BLI conducted by the City, there are a total of 34 26 acres of land zoned R-12 that are vacant The re-designation of the 1.37 acres does not represent a significant 13 reduction of the available residential capacity and will help improve the balance of housing and employment opportunities in the City. 5. The City shall provide for high and medium density housing in the areas such as town centers (Downtown), regional centers (Washington Square), and along transit corridors where employment opportunities, commercial services, transit, and other public services necessary to support higher population densities are either present or planned for in future. Response: The existing site is bordered by areas to the north that are designated for multi-family residential use and additional multi-family residentially zoned properties exist on the south side of SW Pacific Highway on the south side of the commercially-designated properties that line SW Pacific Highway These existing multi-family properties will continue to provide housing opportunities for the surrounding area which includes employment opportunities. commercial services,transit and other public services.Additionally,as noted in the January 1. 2014 BLI. additional vacant land zoned R-12 exists west of the proposed project site on the fringe of the City limits near King City. The proposed comprehensive plan and zoning map amendment will not significantly reduce the available capacity for medium density residential use in this corridor area. PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES Goal 11.1 Develop and maintain a stormwater system that protects development, water resources, and wildlife habitat. Policies 1. The City shall require that all new development: A. construct the appropriate stormwater facilities or ensure construction by paying their fair share of the cost; B. comply with adopted plans and standards for stormwater management; and C. meet or exceed regional, state, and federal standards for water quality and flood protection. Response: The proposed comprehensive plan and zoning map amendment will not result in additional stormwater impacts from those that could occur under the existing multi-family residential zoning designation. As shown on the Grading and Erosion Control Plan, Sheet C3 0, and the Storm drainage Plan Sheet C4.0. of the Plan Set submitted with this application package, appropriate stormwater facilities, including but not limited to, stormwater drains, manholes, inlet protections and Stormtech Detention Chambers are proposed to meet the defined state, regional and local standards. Details are provided in the Preliminary Storrnwater Analysis, conducted by Cardno and dated April 1 2015 This report is submitted as part of this application package Goal 11.2 Secure a reliable, high quality, water supply to meet the existing and future needs of the community. Policies 8. The City shall require all new development needing a water supply to: A. connect to a public water system; B. pay a system development charge and other costs associated with extending service; C. ensure adequate pressure and volume to meet consumption and fire protection needs; and D. extend adequately sized water lines with sufficient pressure to the boundaries of the property for anticipated future extension. 14 Response: The proposed comprehensive plan and zoning map amendment is likely to result in reduced impacts to water as the water usage for the proposed 15,085 square foot retail building is not expected to exceed that of 16 multi-family units that could occur under the existing R-12 zoning. As shown on the Utility Plan, Sheet C4.1, submitted as part of the Plan Set, the proposed development will connect to the existing public water system along the north side of SW Pacific Highway Goal 11.3 Develop and maintain a wastewater collection system that meets the existing and future needs of the community. Policies 1. The City shall require that all new development: A. connect to the public wastewater system and pay a connection fee; B. construct the appropriate wastewater infrastructure; and C. comply with adopted plans and standards for wastewater management. Response; As shown on the Utility Plan. Sheet C.4.1 of the Civil Plan Set(Exhibit L) submitted as part of this application package the proposed development will connect to the existing sanitary sewer facilities. Goal 11.4 Maintain adequate public facilities and services to meet the health, safety, education, and leisure needs of all Tigard residents. Policies 4. The City shall require that all new development: A. can be provided fire and police protection; B. provide Tigard Police, Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue, and the school districts the opportunity to comment on the proposal; C. have sufficient fire hydrants and fire flow; D. have a street layout and design that is accessible by emergency vehicles; and E. have buildings that meet fire and building code requirements. Response: The proposed development site will connect to existing public connections adjacent to the site. The design and construction of these connections will be reviewed by the Public Works Department. As identified in the attached Impact Study prepared by Cardno, it is anticipated that development of the site under the existing medium density residential designation would have a greater impact on water and sewer use than the proposed retail development and that no demonstrable effect would occur on storm sewer infrastructure or parks. It is not anticipated that the proposed comprehensive plan and zoning map amendment would negatively affect the ability of the City to provide timely and orderly public facilities and services as required under Goal 11. TRANSPORTATION Goal 12.1 Develop mutually supportive land use and transportation plans to enhance the livability of the community. Policies 9. The City shall coordinate with private and public developers to provide access via a safe, efficient, and balanced transportation system. Response: Vehicle access to the site is provided using the existing accesses from School Street and SW Pacific Highway. The existing access drive directly off of SW Pacific Highway is 15 proposed to be moved from the current location to the northeastern site boundary due to an existing median within the highway. Additionally, the site frontage along SW Pacific Highway is proposed for improvements, including a pedestrian connection to the main entrance, sidewalk and an updated and improved pedestrian crossing with at the intersection of SW Pacific Highway and SW Garrett Street. 10. The City shall require all development to meet adopted transportation standards or provide appropriate mitigations. Response: The transportation impacts of this proposal have been detailed in the Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) conducted by Kittelson & Associates. Inc.. dated July 15'x', 2105 and submitted as part of this application package. As described in the report, the project site can be developed while maintaining acceptable levels of service and safety on the existing transportation system. No changes in street classifications are necessary. However, the report recommends limiting movements at the SW School Road intersection with SW Pacific Highway to right-in. right-out, and left-in The northeastern driveway access to the site from SW Pacific Highway will also be restricted and will be limited to a right-in and right-out to ensure safe access from SW Pacific Highway Additionally. Kittelson & Associates provided a special adjustment request to allow for a minimum driveway spacing for less than 600 feet (ft). Tigard CDC Section 18.705.030.H(3). Goal 12.2 Develop and maintain a transportation system for the efficient movement of people and goods. Policies 9. The City shall require the provision of appropriate parking in balance with other transportation modes. Response: Off-street parking provided for the site is in compliance with the applicable standards within Tigard CDC Section 18.765 regarding parking and loading requirements Goal 12.3 Provide an accessible, multi-modal transportation system that meets the mobility needs of the community. Policies 3. The City shall design and construct transportation facilities to meet the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Response: All transportation facilities have been designed to meet the required ADA standards, as shown on Plan Set. submitted as part of this application package. 6. The City shall require development adjacent to transit routes to provide direct pedestrian accessibility. Response: As shown on the Site Plan, Sheet C2.0, as part of the Civil Plan Set (Exhibit L) submitted with this application package, the Applicant is proposing to provide a direct pedestrian connection from the main entrance of the building to the sidewalk along SW Pacific Highway. Additionally, a pedestrian crossing with push-button control is proposed across SW Pacific Highway at the SW Garrett Street intersection. 9. The City shall require sidewalks to be constructed in conjunction with private development and consistent with adopted plans. Response: As shown on the Site Plan, Sheet C2 0. as part of the Civil Plan Set (Exhibit L), the Applicant is proposing to construct a sidewalk along School Streetas part of the required street improvements and will reconstruct the sidewalk along the site frontage of SW Pacific Highway. 16 IV. CITY OF TIGARD , TITLE 18 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE CHAPTER 18.360 SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 18.360.030 Approval Process A. New developments and major modifications. Site development review for a new development or major modification of an approved plan or existing development, as defined in 18.360.020.A, shall be processed by means of a Type II procedure, as governed by Section 18.390.040, using approval criteria contained in Section 18.360.090. Response: This proposal for a new development on a vacant site has followed the Type II procedure as defined in Tigard CDC Section 18.390.040 and meets the approval criteria as evident in the responses provided in Section 18.360.090 of this narrative. 18.360.040 Bonding and Assurances A. Performance bonds for public improvements. On all projects where public improvements are required the director shall require a bond in an amount not greater than 100% or other adequate assurances as a condition of approval of the site development plan in order to ensure the completed project is in conformance with the approved plan; and B. Release of performance bonds. The bond shall be released when the director finds the completed project conforms to the approved site development plan and all conditions of approval are satisfied. Response: This proposal includes required public improvements along the site frontage of SW Pacific Highway and improvements to SW School Street to upgrade the road to public road standards. These public improvements will be bonded consistent with City requirements C. Completion of landscape installation. Landscaping shall be installed prior to issuance of occupancy permits, unless security equal to the cost of the landscaping as determined by the director is filed with the city recorder assuring such installation within six months after occupancy: 1. Security may consist of a faithful performance bond payable to the city, cash, certified check or such other assurance of completion approved by the city attorney; and 2. If the installation of the landscaping is not completed within the six-month period, the security may be used by the city to complete the installation. Response: It is anticipated that all landscaping will be installed prior to the filing of an occupancy permit. 18.360.070 Submission Requirements A. General submission requirements. The applicant shall submit an application containing all of the general information required for a Type II procedure, as governed by Section 18.390.040. Response: A Master Land Use Application is submitted with this application package with all requested information completed. B. Additional information. In addition to the submission requirements required in Chapter 18.390, Decision-Making Procedures, an application for the conceptual development plan must include the following additional information in graphic, tabular and/or narrative form. The director shall provide a list of the specific information to be included in each of the following: 17 1. An existing site conditions analysis; 2. A site plan; 3. A grading plan; 4. A landscape plan; 5. An urban forestry plan consistent with Chapter 18.790; 6. Architectural elevations of all structures; and 7. A copy of all existing and proposed restrictions or covenants. (Ord. 12-09 §1) Response: The above listed plan sheets are submitted with this application package as part of the Plan Set. 18.360.090 Approval Criteria The director shall make a finding with respect to each of the following criteria when approving, approving with conditions, or denying an application: A. Compliance with all of the applicable requirements of this title, including Chapter 18.810, Street and Utility Standards; Response: As provided in the responses within this narrative. the proposal is compliant with all applicable standards defined within Chapter 18.810. Street and Utility Standards. including but not limited to. General Provisions, Sidewalks. Storm Drainage and Bikeways and Pedestrian Pathways. B. Relationship to the natural and physical environment—Nonresidential development. 1. Buildings shall be: a. Located to preserve existing trees, topography and natural drainage where possible based upon existing site conditions; Response: Currently. there are four (4) trees located onsite that are proposed for removal, as shown on the Tree Removal and Preservation Plan. Sheet L1 0 Tree placement will follow the standards defined within the Tigard Urban Forestry Manual. Details can be found in the Arborist Report conducted by Morgan Holen & Associates, LLC dated April 5, 2015. Consistent with this requirement,the building has been sited at the southwest corner of the lot where no trees exist. However.tree removal of the four(4) on-site trees is necessary to meet the parking and access requirements defined in Sections 18.705 and 18 765. b. Located in areas not subject to ground slumping or sliding; Response: Currently. the vacant subject property is relatively flat with approximately a foot grade change across the site, as shown on the Existing Conditions Plan, Sheet C1.0. c. Located to provide adequate distance between adjoining buildings for adequate light, air circulation, and fire-fighting; and Response: As shown on the Site Plan. Sheet C2.0, the future building will be located in the southwest corner of the site and is parallel with SW Pacific Highway This ensures the proposed development has adequate spacing between the building and the adjoining uses The building is separated from the development to the northeast by a parking lot, separated from the elementary school by an open field to the northwest boundary, and finally. separated from the development along the southwest by School Street. d. Oriented with consideration for sun and wind. Response: As shown on the Site Plan. Sheet 02.0 the south building face is parallel with SW Pacific Highway allowing maximum sun exposure. As the proposed project proposes a single 18 building and the site is not known to receive consistent directional winds, there are no special considerations necessary for wind protection aside from building code requirements for wind shear which will be met, 2. Innovative methods and techniques to reduce impacts to site hydrology and fish and wildlife habitat shall be considered based on surface water drainage patterns, identified per Section 18.810.100.A.3 and the City of Tigard "Significant Habitat Areas Map."._. Response: As shown on the Grading and Erosion Control Plan, Sheet C3.0. and Storm Drainage Plan, Sheet C4.0, and supplemented with the Impact Study for the proposed development, 6- inch and 10-inch storm drainage lines, catch basins and a Storrntech Detention Chamber in 8-unit by 6-unit pattern will be installed to capture and treat on-site stormwater run-off from impervious surfaces. D. Buffering, screening and compatibility between adjoining uses—Nonresidential development. 1. Nonresidential development shall provide buffering between different types of land uses—for example, between commercial and industrial uses and residential and commercial uses—and the following factors shall be considered in determining the adequacy of the type and extent of the buffer: a. The purpose of the buffer, for example to decrease noise levels, absorb air pollution, filter dust, or to provide a visual barrier; b. The size of the buffer required to achieve the purpose in terms of width and height; c. The direction(s) from which buffering is needed; d. The required density of the buffering; and e. Whether the viewer is stationary or mobile. Response: The only property line that will abut a non-commercial use is the northern property line where the site will abut R-12 zoned property currently used as recreational fields associated with Charles F. Tigard Elementary school. The area adjacent to this property line will be buffered according to Table 18 745.1 Buffer Matrix. Specifically, the site is buffered from the school property by approximately 18 ft of landscaping with Tall Oregon Grape Shrubs, planted 3 ft on-center with 1.5-inch caliper Ginkgo Trees. 2. On-site screening from view from adjoining properties of such things as service areas, storage areas, parking lots, and mechanical devices on roof tops, i.e., air cooling and heating systems, shall be provided and the following factors will be considered in determining the adequacy of the type and extent of the screening: a. What needs to be screened; b. The direction from which it is needed; c. How dense the screen needs to be; d. Whether the viewer is stationary or mobile; and e. Whether the screening needs to be year around. Response: As shown on the Planting Plan. Sheet L1.1, the internal parking lot, the loading area and the solid waste storage area will be screened from adjoining properties using a combination of trees, evergreen shrubs and a screened wall. The loading space and length of the parking lot along the northwestern property line adjacent to the elementary school, is screened with Tall Oregon Grape Shrubs. planted 3 ft on-center that create a continuous 4 ft tall evergreen hedge with 1.5-inch caliper Ginkgo 19 Trees, The area of the parking lot that extends down the length of the northeastern property line adjacent to the commercial use is screened from view with a combination of David Viburnam and Tall Oregon Grape shrubs that create a continuous 4 ft evergreen hedge. Artic Fire Red Twig Dogwoods are also planted with Green Ash Trees for additional screening. Finally, the area of the parking lot visible from SW Pacific Highway are screened with Glossy Abelia Compact Oregon Grapeholly and Compact Heavenly Bamboo shrubs that together, create a continuous 4 ft evergreen hedge Additionally. the exterior solid waste storage area is screened from view with a 6 ft screened wall and an evergreen hedge of the Glossy Abelia. G. Where landfill and/or development for a nonresidential use is allowed within and adjacent to the 100-year floodplain, the city shall require consideration of the dedication of sufficient open land area for greenway adjoining and within the floodplain. This area shall include portions at a suitable elevation for the construction of a pedestrian/bicycle pathway within the floodplain in accordance with the adopted pedestrian/bicycle plan. Response: The project site is located north of the 100-year floodplain, according to Metro RLIS GIS Database. Therefore. this standard is not applicable to the proposal H. Demarcation of public, semi-public and private spaces for crime prevention—Nonresidential development. 1. The structures and site improvements shall be designed so that public areas such as streets or public gathering places, semi-public areas and private outdoor areas are clearly defined to establish persons having a right to be in the space, to provide for crime prevention and to establish maintenance responsibility; and... Response: Public improvements such as the sidewalks and roadways will be constructed within the public right of way and adjacent to the public roads which will clearly demarcate these spaces as areas available for public pedestrian traffic. Crime prevention and safety—Nonresidential development. 1. Windows shall be located so that areas vulnerable to crime can be surveyed by the occupants; Response: The proposed building does not have windows incorporated in the design as shown on the Conceptual Elevations. Sheets A4-A6 Exhibit K. However, the building is sited at the southwest corner of the lot, near SW Pacific Highway. where the high volume of vehicle travel combined with the exterior lighting provided on-site. acts of crime can be mitigated and increase safety for patrons 2. Interior service areas shall be located in a way that they can be observed by others; Response: As shown on the Site Plan. Sheet C2 0. Exhibit L. the parking lot is located internal to the site However, the site is still visible from SW Pacific Highwaya heavily used principal arterial and the location of the existing stop light will provide continual surveillance. Additional, exterior fighting is proposed to increase visibility at night 3. Mailboxes shall be located in lighted areas having vehicular or pedestrian traffic; Response: The specialty retail use will be in operation during regular mail delivery hours and delivery will occur within the building. Therefore a mailbox is not required. 4. The exterior lighting levels shall be selected and the angles shall be oriented towards areas vulnerable to crime; and Response: As shown on the Site Plan. Sheet C2 0. there are four (4) exterior site lighting poles proposed in the parking lot. Details of the exterior lighting will be submitted with building permits. 5. Light fixtures shall be provided in areas having heavy pedestrian or vehicular traffic and in potentially dangerous areas such as parking lots, stairs, ramps and abrupt 20 grade changes. Fixtures shall be placed at a height so that light patterns overlap at a height of seven feet which is sufficient to illuminate a person. Response: Exterior lighting is proposed in the parking lot, as shown in the Site Plan. Exhibit 02.0. As shown on the Northeast Elevations, Sheet A4. exterior light fixtures are proposed outside of the main entrance. Details of all lighting fixtures will be submitted with building permits J. Public transit. 1. Provisions within the plan shall be included for providing for transit if the development proposal is adjacent to or within 500 feet of existing or proposed transit route; Response: As shown on the Site Plan. Sheet 02.0. a sidewalk is proposed along SW Pacific Highway, a public transit route. and connects to the existing sidewalk system on adjacent lots in order to provide direct access from the bus stop to the main entrance of the building. An existing Tri-met bus stop is located approximately 116 ft south of the School Street and SW Pacific Highway intersection. K. Landscaping. 1. All landscaping shall be designed in accordance with the requirements set forth in Chapters 18.745 and 18.790; Response: A Planting Plan, Sheet L1.1. is submitted with this application package. As shown on the plan, the minimum landscape requirement of 15% is exceeded by approximately 13% and the plant materials used are in compliance with Section 18,745 Landscaping and Screening 2. In addition to the open space and recreation area requirements of subsections E and F of this section, a minimum of 20%of the gross area including parking, loading and service areas shall be landscaped; and Response: Subsections E and F apply only to residential development. As stated in Table 18 520.2 Commercial Development Standards. the minimum landscape requirement for the parking lot, loading and service area is 15% and the project meets this requirement 3. A minimum of 15% of the gross site area shall be landscaped. Response: As shown on the Planting Plan. Sheet L1.0. 27 7% of the proposed development is landscaped thereby exceeding the minimum requirement. L. Drainage. All drainage plans shall be designed in accordance with the criteria in the adopted 1981 master drainage plan. Response: As shown on the Storm Drainage Plan. Sheet C4 0. and supported by a preliminary stormwater analysis. conducted by Cardno and dated April 1. 2015. the proposed drainage plan is in compliance with the required local design criteria and standards. M. Provision for the disabled. All facilities for the disabled shall be designed in accordance with the requirements set forth in ORS Chapter 447. Response: As shown on the Site Plan. Sheet C2.0, there are three accessible parking stalls located adjacent to the main entrance.Additionally, curbed walkways are designed with accessible compliant ramps for wheelchair accessibility, N. All of the provisions and regulations of the underlying zone shall apply unless modified by other sections or this title; e.g., Planned Developments, Chapter 18.350, or a variance or adjustment granted under Chapter 18.370. (Ord. 13-08§3; Ord. 12-09§1; Ord. 06-20; Ord.02- 33) Response: As evident in the responses provided to the applicable standards of this proposal, all provisions and regulations are met that apply to general commercial zoning designation. 21 CHAPTER 18.380 ZONING MAP AND TEXT AMENDMENTS 18.380.030 Quasi-Judicial Amendments and Procedures to this Title and Map A. Quasi-judicial amendments. Quasi-judicial zoning map amendments shall be undertaken by means of a Type Ill-PC procedure, as governed by Section 18.390.050, using standards of approval contained in subsection D of this section. The approval authority shall be as follows: 3. The commission shall make a recommendation to the council on a zone change application which also involves a concurrent application for a comprehensive plan map amendment. The council shall decide the applications on the record as provided by Chapter 18.390. Response: This application includes a request for a zone change and comprehensive plan amendment and will be processed according to the provision above B. Standards for making quasi-judicial decisions. A recommendation or a decision to approve, approve with conditions or to deny an application for a quasi-judicial amendment shall be based on all of the following standards: 1. Demonstration of compliance with all applicable comprehensive plan policies and map designations; Response: The applicants application narrative addresses all applicable comprehensive plan policies as discussed with City staff prior to the filing of the application. 2. Demonstration of compliance with all applicable standards of any provision of this code or other applicable implementing ordinance; and Response: The applicants land use narrative describes how the project complies with all applicable local standards governing the application request. 3. Evidence of change in the neighborhood or community or a mistake or inconsistency in the comprehensive plan or zoning map as it relates to the property which is the subject of the development application. Response: The development site has been in the ownership of the Tigard —Tualatin School District who has intended to utilize the site for school facilities to serve the community. However, the school district has determined that the site is no longer necessary for its long term capital facilities planning and has elected to surplus the lot Given this change in the school district's capital facilities planning and considering the fact that the subject site is the only parcel on SW Pacific Highway in the immediate vicinity that is not zoned General Commercial, the applicant s proposal represents a reasonable adjustment of the plan and zoning maps in the area to reflect this changed condition. CHAPTER 18.520 COMMERCIAL ZONING DISTRICTS 18.520.020 List of Zoning Districts C. C-G: General Commercial District. The C-G zoning district is designed to accommodate a full range of retail, office and civic uses with a city-wide and even regional trade area. Except where nonconforming, residential uses are limited to single-family residences which are located on the same site as a permitted use. A wide range of uses, including but not limited to adult entertainment, automotive equipment repair and storage, mini- warehouses, utilities, heliports, medical centers, major event entertainment, and gasoline stations, are permitted conditionally. 22 Table 18.520.1 Use Table: Commercial Zones Commercial Sales-Oriented I P Response: The proposed specialty retail use is considered a sales oriented use and permitted outright per Table 18.520.1. 18.520.040 Development Standards A. Compliance required. All development must comply with: 1. All of the applicable development standards contained in the underlying zoning district, except where the applicant has obtained variances or adjustments in accordance with Chapters 18.370; Response: As evident in the responses provided for this Section and Table 18.520.2, the proposed development is in compliance with the defined development standards for a general commercial zoning designation. 2. All other applicable standards and requirements contained in this title. Response: All remaining applicable standards in the Tigard CDC to the proposed comprehensive plan, zoning map amendment and the site development are presented in this narrative and responses have been provided. B. Development standards. Development standards in commercial zoning districts are contained in Table 18.510.2. Response: The following table includes the development standards of Table 18.510.2 along with an additional column that indicates how the proposed project meets the applicable development standard. Standard (C-G) Proposed General Commercial Minimum Lot Size None 1.37-acres Minimum Lot Width 50 ft 160 ft Minimum Setbacks - Front Yard 0 ["[ft 7—13 ft Corner&Through Lots['[ 0120[B[ft 1 ft Rear Yard 0/20[B[ft 20 ft Maximum Building Height 45 ft 24 ft Maximum Site Coverage[2[1 85% 72% Minimum Landscape Requirements 15% 28% Minimum FAR[a[ N/A 0.27 23 18.700 SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS CHAPTER 18.705 ACCESS, EGRESS, AND CIRCULATION 18.705.030 General Provisions A. Continuing obligation of property owner. The provisions and maintenance of access and egress stipulated in this title are continuing requirements for the use of any structure or parcel of real property in the city. Response: The access drives will be maintained by the property owners. as defined in the above standard. B. Access plan requirements. No building or other permit shall be issued until scaled plans are presented and approved as provided by this chapter that show how access, egress and circulation requirements are to be fulfilled. The applicant shall submit a site plan. The director shall provide the applicant with detailed information about this submission requirement. Response: All necessary plans. including a detailed site plan for land use approval and construction plans will be submitted to scale with the building permit applications. D. Public street access. All vehicular access and egress as required in 18.705.030.H and I shall connect directly with a public or private street approved by the city for public use and shall be maintained at the required standards on a continuous basis. Response: As shown on the Site Plan, Sheet C2.0, all vehicular access points connect directly to SW School Street and SW Pacific Highway and meet the access management standards defined in Section 18 705.030.H The proposed use is not a residential use and, therefore. Section 18.705 030.1 is not applicable. E. Curb cuts. Curb cuts shall be in accordance with 18.810.030.N. Response: Curb cuts are in accordance with Section 18.810.030.N which requires that street grades must not exceed 12% F. Required walkway location. On-site pedestrian walkways shall comply with the following standards: 1. 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 shall be constructed between new and existing developments and neighboring developments. Response: The pedestrian walkway connects to the proposed sidewalks along SW Pacific Highway and SW School Street to the main building entrance on the ground floor, as shown on the Site Plan, Sheet C2.0. 2. Within all attached housing (except two-family dwellings) and multifamily developments, each residential dwelling shall be connected by walkway to the vehicular parking area, and common open space and recreation facilities. Response: The proposal is for a specialty retail use. Therefore, this standard does not apply. 3. 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-inch vertical separation (curbed) or a minimum three-foot horizontal separation, except that pedestrian crossings of traffic aisles are permitted for distances no greater than 36 feet if appropriate landscaping, pavement markings, 24 or contrasting pavement materials are used. Walkways shall be a minimum of four feet in width, exclusive of vehicle overhangs and obstructions such as mailboxes, benches, bicycle racks, and sign posts, and shall be in compliance with ADA standards. Response: As shown on the Site Plan, Sheet C2.0, pedestrian connections are proposed from the public sidewalks to the main entrance of the building via a curbed walkway. Where the walkway traverses vehicle circulation routes, the change in materials provides a visual indication of the designated paths 4. Required walkways shall be paved with hard surfaced materials such as concrete, asphalt, stone, brick, other pervious paving surfaces, etc. Any pervious paving surface must be designed and maintained to remain well-drained. Walkways may be required to be lighted and/or signed as needed for safety purposes. Soft- surfaced public use pathways may be provided only if such pathways are provided in addition to required pathways. Response: As shown on the Site plan. Sheet C3.0, pedestrian connections are paved with concrete materials. G. Inadequate or hazardous access. 1. Applications for building permits shall be referred to the commission for review when, in the opinion of the director, the access proposed: a. Would cause or increase existing hazardous traffic conditions; or b. Would provide inadequate access for emergency vehicles; or c. Would in any other way cause hazardous conditions to exist which would constitute a clear and present danger to the public health, safety, and general welfare. Response: The proposed vehicle and pedestrian circulation access routes were designed considering the site layout and provide the most safe and convenient route for visitors and emergency vehicles onto the site. 3. In no case shall the design of the service drive or drives require or facilitate the backward movement or other maneuvering of a vehicle within a street, other than an alley. Single-family and duplex dwellings are exempt from this requirement. Response: As shown on the Site Plan, Sheet C2 0, all drive aisles are proposed at a width of 24 ft and on-site circulation areas have been designed with sufficient area for vehicle maneuvering without requiring backing movements into adjacent public roads. H. Access management, 1. An access report shall be submitted with all new development proposals which verifies design of driveways and streets are safe by meeting adequate stacking needs, sight distance and deceleration standards as set by ODOT, Washington County, the city and AASHTO (depending on jurisdiction of facility). Response: A Traffic Impact Study was conducted for the specialty retail site development review and the comprehensive plan and zoning map amendment. Additionally, details of the driveway designs and street cross sections can be found on the Public Improvements Plan School Street, Sheet C5.0 and the School Streets Improvements Plan, Sheet C5.1, both located in Exhibit L. 2. Driveways shall not be permitted to be placed in the influence area of collector or arterial street intersections. Influence area of intersections is that area where queues of traffic commonly form on approach to an intersection. The minimum. driveway setback from a collector or arterial street intersection shall be 150 feet, measured from the right-of-way line of the intersecting street to the throat of the 25 proposed driveway. The setback may be greater depending upon the influence area, as determined from city engineer review of a traffic impact report submitted by the applicant's traffic engineer. In a case where a project has less than 150 feet of street frontage, the applicant must explore any option for shared access with the adjacent parcel. If shared access is not possible or practical, the driveway shall be placed as far from the intersection as possible. Response: Driveways are not proposed in the influence area of School Street or SW Pacific Highway The proposed right-in. right-out driveway from SW Pacific Highway is located approximately 250 ft from the intersection with School Street The proposed driveway from School Street is located approximately 160 ft northwest of the intersection with SW Pacific Highway. These exceed the minimum 150 ft requirement. 3. ...The minimum spacing of driveways and streets along an arterial shall be 600 feet. Response: SW Pacific Highway is considered a principal arterial. therefore. this standard applies However SW Pacific Highway is also classified as a Statewide Highway facility, which is under ODOT jurisdiction. Therefore, the access management and permitting policies of OAR 734-051 (Division 51, Reference 2) supersede those of the City The Applicant has engaged in multiple conversations with the ODOT Region 1 access management planning and preliminary design engineering staff in the course of developing the preliminary site design. Based on the most recent conversation,held on March 19, 2015, the current design of the proposed site accesses, including the proposed access control mitigation measures can be permitted by ODOT. By modifying the two existing fully directional site accesses to eliminate left-out movements, the accesses provide greater compliance with ODOT's access management policy TABLE 18.705.3 VEHICULAR ACCESS/EGRESS REQUIREMENTS: Commercial and Industrial uses Required Parking Minimum Number of Minimum Access Minimum Pavement Spaces Driveways Required Width 0-99 1 30' 24' curbs required J. Minimum access requirements for commercial and industrial use. 1. Vehicle access, egress and circulation for commercial and industrial use shall not be less than as provided in Table 18.705.3. Response: The proposal is required to have a minimum number of 45 parking spaces. There are two accesses proposed and both have a paved width of 30 ft. Ramps are proposed at the curbs to accommodate disabled pedestrians. 2. Vehicular access shall be provided to commercial or industrial uses, and shall be located to within 50 feet of the primary ground floor entrances; Response: Vehicular access routes are located approximately 15-20 ft from the main entrance at the primary building entry in compliance with the standard. K. One-way vehicular access points... Response: There are no one-way vehicular access points proposed as part of this development project. 26 CHAPTER 18.725 ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE STANDARDS 18.725.020 General Provisions A. Compliance with applicable state and federal regulations. In addition to the regulations adopted in this chapter, each use, activity or operation within the City of Tigard shall comply with the applicable state and federal standards pertaining to noise, odor and discharge of matter into the atmosphere, ground, sewer system or stream. Regulations adopted by the State Environmental Quality Commission pertaining to non-point source pollution control and contained in the Oregon Administrative Rules shall by this reference be made a part of this chapter. Response: It is not anticipated that the project will require an Air Contaminant Discharge Permit (ACDP) for operation. Site disturbance activities will comply with the requirements for a National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Construction Stormwater permit Additional state and federal regulations as they relate to the construction and operation of the proposed project will be met, as applicable. B. Evidence of compliance. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the director may require submission of evidence demonstrating compliance with state, federal and local environmental regulations and receipt of necessary permits; these include Air Contaminant Discharge Permits (ACDP) or Indirect Source Construction Permits (ISCP). Response: Evidence of required permits, as applicable. will be provided as requested. C. Continuing obligation. Compliance with state,federal and local environmental regulations is the continuing obligation of the property owner and operator. Response: The property owner of the subject property will responsible for ensuring compliance with state, federal and local environmental regulations 18.725.030 Performance Standards A. Noise. For the purposes of noise regulation, the provisions of Sections 6.02.410 through 6.02.470 of the Tigard Municipal Code shall apply. Response: As detailed in the Impact Study, conducted by Cardno and dated March 27, 2015. there are no noise impacts anticipated with the proposed development. Additionally, construction activities will be performed during normal daytime hours. as permitted by Tigard Municipal Code 6 02.450.E. B. Visible emissions. Within the commercial zoning districts and the industrial park (IP) zoning district, there shall be no use, operation or activity which results in a stack or other point-source emission, other than an emission from space heating, or the emission of pure uncombined water (steam) which is visible from a property line. Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) rules for visible emissions (340-21-015 and 340-28-070) apply. Response: The proposed specialty retail use is not anticipated to generate visible emissions that will result in a stack or other point-source emission not in compliance with DEQ rules for visible emissions. C. Vibration. No vibration other than that caused by highway vehicles, trains and aircraft is permitted in any given zoning district which is discernible without instruments at the property line of the use concerned. Response: The proposed specialty retail use is not anticipated to generate vibration outside other than those emitted by delivery trucks. D. Odors. The emission of odorous gases or other matter in such quantities as to be readily detectable at any point beyond the property line of the use creating the odors is prohibited. DEQ rules for odors (340-028-090) apply. 27 Response: The proposed specialty retail use is not anticipated to generate emissions of odorous gases. E. Glare and heat. No direct or sky-reflected glare, whether from floodlights or from high temperature processes such as combustion or welding, which is visible at the lot line shall be permitted; and... Response: There are no materials or operations proposed with the specialty retail use that would cause excessive glare and heat. F. Insects and rodents. All materials including wastes shall be stored and all grounds shall be maintained in a manner which will not attract or aid the propagation of insects or rodents or create a health hazard. (Ord. 12-02 §3) Response: All waste generated as part of the daily operations of the specialty retail use will be stored in containers within the trash enclosure to detract insects or rodents. CHAPTER 18.745 LANDSCAPING AND SCREENING 18.745.030 General Provisions A. Maintenance responsibility. Unless otherwise provided by the lease agreement, the owner, tenant and his or her agent, if any, shall be jointly and severally responsible for the ongoing maintenance of all landscaping and screening used to meet the requirements of this chapter according to applicable industry standards. Response: Ongoing maintenance of all landscaping and screening proposed in this development project will be maintained by the property owner and tenant of the building. B. Installation requirements. The installation of all landscaping and screening required by this chapter shall be as follows: 1. All landscaping and screening shall be installed according to applicable industry standards; Response: All planting materials will be installed according to applicable industry standards and will be detailed in construction plans with the building permit application submittal. 2. All plants shall be of high grade, and shall meet the size and grading standards of the American Standards for Nursery Stock (ANSI Z60, 1-2004, and any future revisions); and Response: As noted in the General Notes #4 on the Planting Plan. Sheet L1.0, all deliverable plant material will meet the American Nurseryman's Association. 3. All landscaping and screening shall be installed in accordance with the provisions of this title. Response: As evident in the Planting Plan, Sheet L1.0 and the responses. all landscaping will be installed in compliance with the applicable standards of Chapter 18 745. C. Certificate of occupancy. Certificates of occupancy shall not be issued unless the requirements of this chapter have been met or other arrangements have been made and approved by the city such as the posting of a bond. Response: All landscaping and screening will be installed prior to the application for a certificate of occupancy D. Protection of existing plants. Existing plants on a site shall be protected as follows: 1. The developer shall provide methods for the protection of existing plants to remain during the construction process; 28 Response: As shown on the Tree Removal and Preservation Plan, Sheet L1.0, four (4) existing off- site trees with canopies that extend into the site boundary will be protected during construction An existing 6 ft chain link fence will be retained and will provide protection for the trees proposed for retention. 2. The plants to remain shall be noted on the landscape plans (i.e., plants to remain can be shown as protected with fencing); and Response: The trees to remain are located off-site and are shown on the Tree Removal and Preservation Plan, Sheet L1.0. 3. The tree protection provisions outlined in Chapter 18.790 and the Urban Forestry Manual shall apply to the land use review types identified in Section 18.790.020.A. Response: As shown on the Tree Removal and Preservation Plan, Sheet L1 0 and the Arborist Report conducted by Morgan Holen & Associates, LLC. dated April 5, 2015, the tree protection measures are compliant with the standards defined in Chapter 18.790 and the Urban Forestry Manual. 18.745.040 Street Tree Standards A, Street trees shall be required as part of the approval process for conditional use (Type Ill), downtown design review(Type II and Ill), minor land partition (Type II), planned development(Type Ill), site development review(Type II) and subdivision (Type II and Ill) permits. Response: This proposal includes a site development review and as shown on the Planting Plan, Sheet L1.1, the proposal includes planting eight (8) Starlight Dogwood trees along the public right-of-way. B. The minimum number of required street trees shall be determined by dividing the linear amount of street frontage within or adjacent to the site (in feet) by 40 feet. When the result is a fraction, the minimum number of required street trees shall be determined by rounding to the nearest whole number. Response: The linear street frontage is approximately 310 ft. After applying the equation defined above. the minimum number of required street trees is eight(8) As shown on the Planting Plan, Sheet L1.1, there are eight (8) Starlight Dogwood proposed as part of this development. C. Street trees required by this section shall be planted according to the street tree planting standards in the Urban Forestry Manual. Response: The required street trees will be planted according to the Urban Forestry Manual and will be detailed in the construction plan set submittal with the building permit application package D. Street trees required by this section shall be provided adequate soil volumes according to the street tree soil volume standards in the Urban Forestry Manual. Response: As noted in the Planting Plan, Sheet L1.0. General Notes #5, street trees will be provided with 700 cubic feet of growing medium as required in the Urban Forestry Manual. E. Street trees required by this section shall be planted within the right-of-way whenever practicable according to the street tree planting standards in the Urban Forestry Manual. Street trees may be planted no more than six feet from the right-of-way according to the street tree planting standards in the Urban Forestry Manual when planting within the right- of-way is not practicable. Response: As shown on the Planting Plan, Sheet L1.1 the proposed street trees are planted within the right-of-way in the planning strip between the roadway and sidewalk 29 F. An existing tree may be used to meet the street tree standards provided that... Response: There are no existing on-site trees proposed for retention. 18.745.050 Buffering and Screening A. General provisions. 1. It is the intent that these requirements shall provide for privacy and protection and reduce or eliminate the adverse impacts of visual or noise pollution at a development site, without unduly interfering with the view from neighboring properties or jeopardizing the safety of pedestrians and vehicles. Response: As shown on the Planting Plan, Sheet L1,1, landscaping is proposed along the northwestern and northeastern property lines to buffer and screen the specialty retail use from the adjacent uses. 2. Buffering and screening is required to reduce the impacts on adjacent uses which are of a different type in accordance with the matrices in this chapter(Tables 18.745.1 and 18.745.2). The owner of each proposed development is responsible for the installation and effective maintenance of buffering and screening. When different uses would be abutting one another except for separation by a right-of- way, buffering, but not screening, shall be required as specified in the matrix. Response: The project site abuts an elementary school along the northwestern property line and abuts additional properties zoned C-G to the east and west. Buffering has been proposed to meet the standards defined within Table 18 745.1 and Table 18,745.2. B. Buffering and screening requirements. 1. A buffer consists of an area within a required setback adjacent to a property line and having a depth equal to the amount specified in the buffering and screening matrix and containing a length equal to the length of the property line of the abutting use or uses. Response: The property line adjoining the Tigard Elementary school property is buffered according to Table 18.745.1: Buffer Matrix. The site is buffered along this property line with an approximately 18 ft wide landscaped area and is planted with Tall Oregon Grape Shrubs planted 3 ft on-center with 1 5-inch caliper Ginkgo Trees. The commercial uses to the east are buffered with a 10 ft wide area planted with a combination of David Viburnam, Artic Fire Red Twig Dogwood, tall Oregon Grape shrubs and Kinnikinnick groundcover to create a continuous hedge with the Green Ash Tree provided for continuous canopy coverage. The buffer area is the length of the property line adjacent to the commercial property to the east. 2. A buffer area may only be occupied by utilities, screening, sidewalks and bikeways, and landscaping. No buildings, accessways or parking areas shall be allowed in a buffer area except where an accessway has been approved by the city. Response: As shown on the Site Plan, Sheet C2 0, no other features other than landscaping are proposed in the buffer areas. 3. A fence, hedge or wall, or any combination of such elements, which are located in any yard is subject to the conditions and requirements of paragraph B.8 and subsection D of this section. Response: A new fence or wall is not proposed. However, the existing 6 ft chain link fence along the northwestern and northeastern property lines will remain, as shown on the Planting Plan, Sheet L1.1. All buffer and screening will occur within the subject property. 30 4. The minimum improvements within a buffer area shall consist of combinations for landscaping and screening as specified in Table 18.745.1. In addition, improvements shall meet the following specifications: a. At least one row of trees shall be planted. Trees shall be chosen from any of the tree lists in the Urban Forestry Manual (except the nuisance tree list) unless otherwise approved by the director and have a minimum caliper of 1-112 inches for deciduous trees and a minimum height of six feet for evergreen trees at the time of planting. Spacing for trees shall be as follows... Response: Per Table 18.745.1 — Buffer Matrix and Table 18 745.2 — Buffer Combinations for Landscaping and Screening. there is no screening standard required along the property lines that adjoin adjacent C-G properties. However. Green Ash are proposed along the 10 ft buffer area and installed at a 1-1/2 inch caliper and are spaced approximately 30 ft on center, as shown on the Planting Plan. Sheet L1 1 b. In addition, at least 10 five-gallon shrubs or 20 one-gallon shrubs shall be planted for each 1,000 square feet of required buffer area. Response: Per Table 18.745.1 — Buffer Matrix and Table 18.745.2 — Buffer Combinations for Landscaping and Screening,there is no screening standard between the site and adjoining C-G properties. However. the Applicant has proposed to plant a 10 ft buffer area that includes a combination of David Viburnam, Artie Fire Red Twig Dogwood, the Tall Oregon Grape shrubs and Kinnikinnick groundcover to create a continuous hedge, as shown on the Planting Plan, Sheet L1.1. c. The remaining area shall be planted in lawn or other living ground cover. Response: In both buffer areas along the northwestern and northeastern buffer areas. Kinnikinnick groundcover is proposed as shown on the Planting Plan. Sheet Li 1 5. Where screening is required the following standards shall apply in addition to those required for buffering: a. A hedge of narrow or broad leaf evergreen shrubs shall be planted which will form a four-foot continuous screen of the height specified in Table 18.745.2 within two years of planting; or Response: Per Section 18.745.050 E, the parking lot area is required to be screened from view. The perimeter of all parking lot sides are planted with evergreen shrubs when at maturity will form a four-foot continuous screen. Glossy Abelia. Compact Oregon Grapeholly and Compact Heavenly Bamboo are proposed to form a continuous evergreen screen along the parking lot and SW Pacific Highway. Crimson Pigmy Japanese Barberry and Little Kitten Maiden Grass. are also proposed along this frontage. Additionally. the parking lot abutting the elementary school along the northwestern property line is screened with Tall Oregon Grape Shrubs planted 3 ft on-center. The parking lot abutting the commercial use located along the northeastern property line is screened with a combination of David Viburnam. and the tall Oregon Grape shrubs. Details can be found on the Planting Plan. Sheet L1 1 6. Buffering and screening provisions shall be superseded by the vision clearance requirements as set forth in Chapter 18.795. Response: As shown on the Planting Plan. Sheet L1.1. vision clearance areas requirements of Chapter 18.795 are met 7. When the use to be screened is downhill from the adjoining zone or use, the prescribed heights of required fences, walls, or landscape screening shall be measured from the actual grade of the adjoining property. In this case, fences and walls may exceed the permitted six-foot height at the discretion of the director as a condition of approval, When the grades are so steep so as to make the installation 31 of walls, fences or landscaping to the required height impractical, a detailed landscapelscreening plan shall be submitted for approval. Response: The project site and the surrounding area are relatively flat, Therefore. this provision does not apply 8. Fences and walls Response: The proposal does not include additional fencing However,the existing 6 ft chain link fence bordering the northwestern and northeastern property line is proposed to remain. 9. Hedges. a. An evergreen hedge or other dense evergreen landscaping may satisfy a requirement for a sight-obscuring fence where required subject to the height requirement in subparagraphs C.2.a and C.2.b of this section; b. Such hedge or other dense landscaping shall be properly maintained and shall be replaced with another hedge, other dense evergreen landscaping, or a fence when it ceases to serve the purpose of obscuring view; and c. No hedge shall be grown or maintained at a height greater than that permitted by these regulations for a fence or wall in a vision clearance area as set forth in Chapter 18.795. Response: Although not required per Table 18 745 1, the proposal includes a hedge of evergreen shrubs that creates a continuous screen from the abutting commercial uses along the northeastern property line. Glossy Abelia, Compact Oregon Grapeholly and Compact Heavenly Bamboo are proposed to form a continuous evergreen screen along the parking lot and SW Pacific Highway The parking lot abutting the elementary school property is screened with Tall Oregon Grape Shrubs, planted 3 ft on-center, Additionally, the parking lot abutting the commercial use located along the eastern property line is screened with a combination of David Viburnam, and the Tall Oregon Grape shrubs. Details can be found on the Planting Plan. Sheet L1 1. C. Setbacks for fences or walls. 1. No fence or wall shall be constructed which exceeds the standards in paragraph 2 of this subsection C except when the approval authority, as a condition of approval, allows that a fence or wall be constructed to a height greater than otherwise permitted to mitigate against potential adverse effects. 2. Fences or walls. a. May not exceed three feet in height in a required front yard along local streets or eight feet in all other locations and, in all other cases, shall meet vision clearance area requirements in Chapter 18.795; b. Are permitted up to six feet in height in front yards adjacent to any designated arterial or collector street. For any fence over three feet in height in the required front yard area, permission shall be subject to administrative review of the location of the fence or wall. 3. All fences or walls shall meet vision clearance area requirements in Chapter 18.795. 4. All fences or walls greater than six feet in height shall be subject to building permit approval. Response: An existing 6 ft chain link fence is proposed to remain along the northwestern and northeastern property lines. This fence is set back from School Street or SW Pacific Highway and is cleared from the vision clearance areas D. Height restrictions. 32 1. The prescribed heights of required fences, walls or landscaping shall be measured from the actual adjoining level of finished grade, except that where parking, loading, storage or similar areas are located above finished grade, the height of fences, walls or landscaping required to screen such areas or space shall be measured from the level of such improvements. 2. An earthen berm and fence or wall combination shall not exceed the six-foot height limitation for screening. Response; The existing chain link fence to remain on-site is 6 ft measured from the finished grade. E. Screening: special provisions. 1. Screening and landscaping of parking and loading areas: a. Screening of parking and loading areas is required. In no cases shall nonconforming screening of parking and loading areas (i.e., nonconforming situation) be permitted to become any less conforming. Nonconforming screening of parking and loading areas shall be brought into conformance with the provisions of this chapter as part of the approval process for conditional use (Type Ill), downtown design review (Type II and III), planned development (Type III), and site development review (Type II) permits only. The specifications for this screening are as follows: 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; Response: As shown on the Planting Plan. Sheet L1.1, the special design features used to screen the parking lot from view is a combination of evergreen shrubs that create a 4 ft tall continuous hedge along the perimeter of the parking and loading areas. ii. Landscape planters may be used to define or screen the appearance of off-street parking areas from the public right-of-way; Response: Landscape planters are not proposed as part of this development application. iii. Materials to be installed should achieve a balance between low lying and vertical shrubbery and trees; Response: As shown on the Planting Plan. Sheet L1.1. the proposed plant materials include a combination of ground cover, grasses. shrubbery and trees to meet the standards defined in this section. iv. All parking areas, including parking spaces and aisles, shall be required to achieve at least 30%tree canopy cover at maturity directly above the parking area in accordance with the parking lot tree canopy standards in the Urban Forestry Manual. Response: As shown on the Tree Canopy Site Plan, Sheet L1.2, canopy coverage at maturity for the parking spaces is 30.4% and the project therefore meets this standard. 2. Screening of service facilities. Except for one-family and two-family dwellings, any refuse container or disposal area and service facilities such as gas meters and air conditioners which would otherwise be visible from a public street, customer or resident parking area, any public facility or any residential area shall be screened from view by placement of a solid wood fence or masonry wall between five and eight feet in height. All refuse materials shall be contained within the screened area. Response: As shown on the Planting Plan, Sheet L1.1,the trash enclosure located at the northwestern most corner of the site is screened using a combination of the Glossy Abelia, an evergreen 33 shrub. and the Crimson Pigmy Japanese Barberry. a deciduous shrub, as screening from School Street. Additional screening is provided with a 6 ft screen wall. 4. Screening of refuse containers. Except for one-and two-family dwellings, any refuse container or refuse collection area which would be visible from a public street, parking lot, residential or commercial area, or any public facility such as a school or park shall be screened or enclosed from view by placement of a solid wood fence, masonry wall or evergreen hedge. All refuse shall be contained within the screened area. Response: As shown on the Planting Plan, Sheet L1.1, the trash enclosure located at the northwestern most corner of the site is screened using a combination of the Glossy Abelia. an evergreen shrub, and the Crimson Pigmy Japanese Barberry. a deciduous shrub, as screening from School Street. Additional screening is provided with a 6 ft screen wall. F. Buffer matrix. 1. The buffer matrices contained in Tables 18.745.1 and 18.745.2 shall be used in calculating widths of buffering/screening and required improvements to be installed between proposed uses and abutting uses or zoning districts. Table 18.745.1:Buffer Matrix Existing/Abutting Use Commercial Zones (CC, CG, CP) Commercial Zones (CC, CG, CP) -- Neighborhood Commercial Zone (CN) A Parking Lots -- Arterial Streets -- Table 18.745.2 Buffer Combinations for Landscaping and Screening Options Width (feet) Trees(per Shrubs or Screening linear feet for Groundcover buffer) A 10 Lawn/living groundcover Response: As defined in the above tables. reduced to the applicable standards, there is no buffer standard required between the proposed project site and the C-G parcels located to the west and east of the site. CHAPTER 18.755 MIXED SOLID WASTE AND RECYCLABLE STORAGE 18.755.040 Methods of Demonstrating Compliance A. Alternative methods of compliance. An applicant shall choose one of the following four methods to demonstrate compliance: 1. Minimum standards; 2. Waste assessment; 34 3. Comprehensive recycling plan; or 4. Franchised hauler review and sign-off. Response: Compliance to Chapter 18.755 — Mixed Solid Waste and Recyclable Storage is met using the minimum standards defined herein B. Provisions. The following provisions apply to all four methods of demonstrating compliance: 1. Section 18.755.050, Location, Design and Access Standards, except as provided in 18.755.040.G; Response: The proposal is in compliance with the standards defined in Section 18.755 050—Location, Design and Access Standards for Storage Areas, as evident in the responses provided. 2. The floor area of an interior or exterior storage area required by this chapter shall be excluded from the calculation of lot coverage and from the calculation of building floor area for purposes of determining minimum storage requirements. Response: With the deduction of the trash enclosure floor area (210 SF). the lot coverage of the proposed development is 31.548 SF. This is approximately 71.5%coverage and within the 85% maximum site coverage required per Table 18.520 2 C. Minimum standards method. 1. Description of method. This method specifies a minimum storage area requirement based on the size and general use category of the new construction, Reponse: The proposed project has been designed following the protocols and standards of this section. 2. Typical application of method. This method is most appropriate when the specific use of a new building is not known. It provides specific dimensions for the minimum size of storage areas by general use category; Response: The proposed use of the development project is a specialty commercial retail use. 3 Application requirements and review procedure. The size and location of the storage area(s) shall be indicated on the site plan of any construction subject to this ordinance. Through the site plan review process, compliance with the general and specific requirements set forth below is verified; Response: The size and location of the trash enclosure is shown on the Site Plan. Sheet C2.0. 4. General requirements. a. The storage area requirement is based on the predominant use(s) of the building, (i.e., residential, office, retail, wholesale/warehouse/ manufacturing, educational/institutional, or other)... Response: The proposed use of the site is a single commercial retail space. b. Storage areas for multiple uses on a single site may be combined and shared. Response: This proposal is for a single use building. c. The specific requirements are based on an assumed storage height of four feet for solid waste/recyclable. Vertical storage higher than four feet but no higher than seven feet may be used to accommodate the same volume of storage in a reduced floor space (potential reduction of 43% of specific requirements). Where vertical or stacked storage is proposed, the site plan shall include drawings to illustrate the layout of the storage area and dimensions of containers. 35 Response: As shown on the Site Plan, Sheet C2.0, the height of the trash enclosure is 6 ft from the finished grade. 5 Specific requirements. b. Nonresidential buildings shall provide a minimum storage area of 10 square feet, plus: ii. Retail: 10 square feet/1,000 square feet GFA. Response: The proposed building is approximately 15,085 SF. Using the formula defined above. the minimum storage area is 161 SF. The proposed trash enclosure is approximately 211 SF, exceeding the required minimum standard. 18.755.050 Location, Design and Access Standards for Storage Areas A. Applicable standards. The following location, design and access standards for storage areas are applicable to all four methods of compliance, described in Section 18.755.040. B. Location standards. 1. To encourage its use, the storage area for source-separated recyclable shall be co- located with the storage area for residual mixed solid waste. Response: Both solid waste and recyclables are co-located in the same storage area, as shown on the Site Plan, Sheet C2.0. 2. Indoor and outdoor storage areas shall comply with uniform building and fire code requirements. Response: The proposed outdoor storage area will comply with the uniform building and fire codes requirements. Details will be provided with construction plans at building permit submittal. 3. Storage area space requirements can be satisfied with a single location or multiple locations, and can combine both interior and exterior locations. Response: The minimum storage area requirement of 161 SF is met with a single location, as shown on the Site Plan. Sheet C2.0. 4. Exterior storage areas can be located within interior side yard or rear yard areas. Exterior storage areas shall not be located within a required front yard setback or in a yard adjacent to a public or private street. Response: As shown on the Site Plan, Sheet 02.0, the storage area is located within the rear yard area, along the northwestern most corner of the project site. 5. Exterior storage areas shall be located in central and visible locations on a site to enhance security for users. Response: The proposed storage area is located adjacent to one of the two primary access drives onto the site and is located near the delivery entrance at the rear of the proposed building. 6. Exterior storage areas can be located in a parking area, if the proposed use provides at least the minimum number of parking spaces required for the use after deducting the area used for storage. Storage areas shall be appropriately screened according to the provisions in subsection C, design standards. Response: As shown on the Site Plan, Sheet C2.0, the storage area is located adjacent to the parking area and in the rear yard setback. The proposal is in compliance with the requirements for minimum parking requirement and rear yard setback. The storage area is screened from public view with a 6 ft screen wall and the Glossy Abelia and Crimson Pigmy Japanese Barberry, as shown on the Planting Plan. Sheet L1.1. 36 7. The storage area shall be accessible for collection vehicles and located so that the storage area will not obstruct pedestrian or vehicle traffic movement on the site or on public streets adjacent to the site. Response: Collection vehicles are able to access the storage area from the School Street access and will be able to exit the site at the northeastern most access onto SW Pacific Highway. Additionally. it is anticipated that collection will occur at non-business hours. therefore. not obstructing daily pedestrian or vehicle movement C. Design standards. 1. The dimensions of the storage area shall accommodate containers consistent with current methods of local collection. Response: As shown on the Site Plan. Sheet C2.0, the storage enclosure is 19 ft in width and 11 ft in length, consistent with typical collection storage areas that can accommodate trash and recycling containers. 2. Storage containers shall meet uniform fire code standards and be made and covered with waterproof materials or situated in a covered area. Response: Details of the storage containers will be provided with the constructions plans submitted with building permits. 3. Exterior storage areas shall be enclosed by a sight-obscuring fence wall, or hedge at least six feet in height. Gate openings which allow access to users and haulers shall be provided. Gate openings for haulers shall be a minimum of 10 feet wide and shall be capable of being secured in a closed and open position. Response: As shown on the Site Plan. Sheet 02.0 the storage area is enclosed by a 6 ft screen wall. The gate opening for the enclosure is 19 ft wide and can be secured in place 4. Storage area(s) and containers shall be clearly labeled to indicate the type of materials accepted. Response: Details of the storage containers will be submitted with the construction plans submitted with building permits. D. Access standards. 1. Access to storage areas can be limited for security reasons; however, the storage area shall be accessible to users at convenient times of the day, and to collection service personnel on the day and approximate time they are scheduled to provide collection service. Response: Access to the area will be granted during normal operating hours for staff and is located approximately 45 ft from the delivery entry doors, as shown on the Site Plan. Sheet C2.0. 2. Storage areas shall be designed to be easily accessible to collection trucks and equipment, considering paving, grade and vehicle access. A minimum of 10 feet horizontal clearance and eight feet of vertical clearance is required if the storage area is covered. Response: As shown on the Site Plan. Sheet C2.0. the trash enclosure and storage area is located at the access driveway from School Street. 3. Storage areas shall be accessible to collection vehicles without requiring backing out of a driveway onto a public street. If only a single access point is available to the storage area, adequate turning radius shall be provided to allow collection vehicles to safety exit the site in a forward motion. Response: As shown on the Site Plan, Sheet C2.0. the drive aisles are 24 ft wide and there are two access driveways granted for the proposed development. The storage area is located at 37 the access driveway from School Street. A collection truck will be able to access the site driveway from SW Pacific Highway. CHAPTER 18.765 OFF-STREET PARKING AND LOADING REQUIREMENTS 18.765.030 General Provisions A. Vehicle parking plan requirements. No building or other permit shall be issued until scaled plans are presented and approved as provided by this chapter that show how access, egress and circulation requirements are to be fulfilled. The applicant shall submit a site plan. The director shall provide the applicant with detailed information about this submission requirement. Response: A Site Plan. Sheet C2.0. is provided as part of this application package for review and approval by the director. Detailed plans will be submitted as part of the construction plans at the time of building permit submittal. B. Location of vehicle parking. The location of off-street parking will be as follows: 2. Off-street parking lots for uses not listed above shall be located not further than 500 feet from the property line that they are required to serve, measured along the most direct, publicly accessible pedestrian route from the property line with the following exceptions: a. Commercial and industrial uses which require more than 40 parking spaces may provide for the spaces in excess of the required first 40 spaces up to a distance of 500 feet from the primary site; Response: As determined by Table 18,765.2, the proposed 15.085 SF building requires a minimum of 45 parking spaces. These are provided on-site as shown on the Site Plan. Sheet 02.0. F. Preferential long-term carpool/vanpool parking, Parking lots providing in excess of 20 long-term parking spaces shall provide preferential long-term carpool and vanpool parking for employees, students and other regular visitors to the site. At least five percent of total long-term parking spaces shall be reserved for carpoolJvanpool use. Preferential parking for carpoolsfvanpools shall be closer to the main entrances of the building than any other employee or student parking except parking spaces designated for use by the disabled. Preferential carpool/vanpool spaces shall be full-sized per requirements in 18.765.040.N and shall be clearly designated for use only by carpools and van pools between 7 a.m. and 5:30 p.m. Monday through Friday. Response: No long-term carpool/vanpool parking are proposed due to the proposed use, which is expected to have high patron turn-over rates. G. Disabled-accessible parking. All parking areas shall be provided with the required number of parking spaces for disabled persons as specified by the state building code and federal standards. Such parking spaces shall be sized, signed and marked as required by these regulations. Response: As shown on the Site Plan, Sheet C2.0, there are the ADA Accessible stalls provided as part of this proposal. 18.765.040 General Design Standards A. Maintenance of parking areas. All parking lots shall be kept clean and in good repair at all times. Breaks in paved surfaces shall be repaired promptly and broken or splintered wheel. stops shall be replaced so that their function will not be impaired. Response: It is anticipated the parking lots will be maintained by the property owners. 38 B. Access drives. With regard to access to public streets from off-street parking: 1. Access drives from the street to off-street parking or loading areas shall be designed and constructed to facilitate the flow of traffic and provide maximum safety for pedestrian and vehicular traffic on the site; Response: As shown on the Site Plan. Sheet C2 0,the access drives to the parking area from adjoining public roads are 30 feet wide to maintain two-way vehicle circulation onto or off the site. 2. The number and size of access drives shall be in accordance with the requirements of Chapter 18.705, Access, Egress and Circulation; Response: As shown on the Site Plan, Sheet C2.0, the site has two (2) access driveways at a width of 30 ft. therefore in compliance with the defined standards per Table 18.705.3 for a site that requires 45 parking spaces. 3. Access drives shall be clearly and permanently marked and defined through use of rails, fences, walls or other barriers or markers on frontage not occupied by service drives; Response: As shown on the Site Plan, Sheet C2.0, the access drives are clearly defined with the use of a concrete surface paving. Drive aisles are paved with an asphalt surface. 4. Access drives shall have a minimum vision clearance in accordance with Chapter 18.795, Visual Clearance; Response: As shown on the Planting Plan. Sheet L1 1, and the responses provided for Chapter 18.795, the access drives are cleared of visual obstructions within the visual clearance areas in order to facilitate safe vehicle entry and exit. 5. Access drives shall be improved with an asphalt, concrete, or pervious paving surface. Any pervious paving surface must be designed and maintained to remain well-drained; and Response: As shown on the Site Plan, Sheet C2.0, the proposed access drives are paved with reinforced concrete surfacing 6. Excluding single-family and duplex residences, except as provided by 18.810.030.P, groups of two or more parking spaces shall be served by a service drive so that no backing movements or other maneuvering within a street or other public right-of-way will be required. Response: As shown on the Site Plan, Sheet C2.0, drive aisles are 24 ft, allowing for two-way vehicle circulation and provide sufficient space for backing maneuvering C. Loading/unloading driveways. A driveway designed for continuous forward flow of passenger vehicles for the purpose of loading and unloading passengers shall be located on the site of any school or other meeting place which is designed to accommodate more than 25 people at one time. Response: The proposed use is a specialty retail use and not a school or meeting place and,therefore, this standard is not applicable. E. Curb cuts. Curb cuts shall be in accordance with 18.810.030.N. Response: Curb cuts on both access drives are on grades less than 1 ft. below the threshold for maximum grades of 10% on arterial streets and 12% on other streets. F. Pedestrian access. Pedestrian access through parking lots shall be provided in accordance with 18.705.030.F. Where a parking area or other vehicle area has a drop-off grade separation, the property owner shall install a wall, railing, or other barrier which will prevent a slow-moving vehicle or driverless vehicle from escaping such area and which will prevent pedestrians from walking over drop-off edges. 39 Response: As shown in the Site Plan, Sheet C2.0, pedestrian access is granted onto and off the site via proposed sidewalks along SW Pacific Highway and School Street. A direct pedestrian connection is proposed from the main entrance of the building directly onto SW Pacific Highway G. Parking lot landscaping. Parking lots shall be landscaped in accordance with the requirements of Chapter 18.745. Response: This proposal is in compliance with the applicable standards in Section 18.745 050, as evident in the responses provided. H. Parking space surfacing. 1. Except for single-family and duplex residences, and for temporary uses or fleet storage areas as authorized in paragraphs 3 and 4 of this subsection H, all areas used for the parking or storage or maneuvering of any vehicle, boat or trailer shall be improved with asphalt, concrete, or pervious paving surfaces. Any pervious paving surface must be designed and maintained to remain well-drained. Response: As shown on the Site Plan, Sheet C2.0, the parking lot is surfaced with heavy asphalt and, therefore, in compliance with this standard. Parking lot striping. 1. Except for single-family and duplex residences, any area intended to be used to meet the off-street parking requirements as contained in this chapter shall have all parking spaces clearly marked; and Response: As shown on the Site Plan, Sheet C2.0. the parking spaces are stripped and clearly marked. Details will be submitted as part of the construction plans with the building permit application. 2. All interior drives and access aisles shall be clearly marked and signed to show direction of flow and maintain vehicular and pedestrian safety. Response: As shown on the Site Plan, Sheet C2.0. painted directional arrows are proposed on the interior drives and access aisles. J. Wheel stops. Parking spaces along the boundaries of a parking lot or adjacent to interior landscaped areas or sidewalks shall be provided with a wheel stop at least four inches high located three feet back from the front of the parking stall. The front three feet of the parking stall may be concrete, asphalt or low lying landscape material that does not exceed the height of the wheel stop. This area cannot be calculated to meet landscaping or sidewalk requirements. Response: As shown on the Site Plan, Sheet C2 0. a concrete curb is proposed along the perimeter parking stalls. This allows far a 3 ft overhang. However. proposed shrubs and trees will be set back to ensure clearance is provided. K. Drainage. Off-street parking and loading areas shall be drained in accordance with specifications approved by the city engineer to ensure that ponds do not occur except for single-family and duplex residences, off-street parking and loading facilities shall be drained to avoid flow of water across public sidewalks. Response: As shown on the Storm Drainage Plan, Sheet C4.0, catch basins are proposed throughout the parking lot at the lowest grade and generally following the directional flow of stormwater run-off in order to ensure adequate drainage. L. Lighting. A lights providing to illuminate any public or private parking area or vehicle sales area shall be arranged to direct the light away from any adjacent residential district. Response: As shown on the Site Plan Sheet C2.0, the exterior lighting is proposed at four locations throughout the site in order to provide adequate lighting during night-time hours. Additional 40 lighting is provided along the building frontage as shown on the Northeast Elevation, Sheet A4. M. Signs. Signs which are placed on parking lots shall be designed and installed in accordance with Chapter 18.780, Signs. Response: A pole sign is proposed at the southern side of the SW Pacific Highway access drive. As shown on the Conceptual Perspective, Sheet A6, a single face of the sign is proposed to be a maximum of 70 SF. Signs will be submitted under a separate permit. N. Space and aisle dimensions. (Figure 18.765.1) Figure 18.765.1 Off-Street Surface Parkin. Matrix COMPACT STANDARD A 13 C D E F G B C D E F G 90 7.75 . 16.5 26.0 7.75 60.0 3.0 9.0 18.5 26.0 9.00 63.0 3.0 1. Except as modified for angled parking in Figures 18.765.1 and 18.765.2, the minimum dimensions for parking spaces are: a. 8.5'x 18.5'for a standard space; Response: As shown on the Site Plan, Sheet C2.0, all parking spaces are 90 degree stalls and are dimensioned at 9 ft by 18.5 ft, exceeding the minimum standard and in compliance with Figure 18.765 1. c. As required by applicable State of Oregon and federal standards for designated disabled person parking spaces; Response: As shown on the Site Plan. Sheet C2.0, there are three ADA accessible parking stalls located directly outside the main building entrance. Therefore this standard is met, d. The width of each parking space includes a stripe which separates each space. Response: As shown on the Site Plan. Sheet C2 0. the width of each parking space includes a painted strip to delineate each parking stall. 2. Aisles accommodating two direction traffic, or allowing access from both ends, shall be 24 feet in width; Response: The proposal includes drive aisles that are 24 ft wide in order to facilitate two-way vehicle circulation, as shown on the Site Plan. Sheet C2 0. 3. Minimum standards for a standard parking stall's length and width, aisle width, and maneuvering space shall be determined as noted in Figure 18.765.2. Response: As shown on the Site Plan, Sheet C2.0 the parking stalls are 9 ft wide by 18.5 ft long and drive and maneuvering aisles are 24 ft wide.These meet or exceed the minimum standards defined in the Figure 18 765.2 and are, therefore, in compliance. 18.765.050 Bicycle Parking Design Standards A Location and access. With regard to the location and access to bicycle parking: 1. Bicycle parking areas shall be provided at locations within 50 feet of primary entrances to structures; 41 Response: As shown on the Site Plan, Sheet C2.0, the required bicycle racks are located approximately 50 ft south of the main entrance. 2. Bicycle parking areas shall not be located within parking aisles, landscape areas or pedestrian ways; Response: The required bicycle parking spaces are located along the building frontage and away from the parking stalls. landscaped areas and do not obstruct the pedestrian walkways 3. Outdoor bicycle parking shall be visible from on-site buildings andlor the street. When the bicycle parking area is not visible from the street, directional signs shall be used to locate the parking area; Response: As shown on the Site Plan. Sheet C2.0. the bicycle parking spaces are located along the main building frontage and can be visible from the pedestrian connection at the proposed sidewalk along SW Pacific Highway. B. Covered parking spaces. 1. When possible, bicycle parking facilities should be provided under cover. Response: The bicycle parking racks are not proposed to be under cover C. Design requirements. The following design requirements apply to the installation of bicycle racks: 1. The racks required for required bicycle parking spaces shall ensure that bicycles may be securely locked to them without undue inconvenience. Provision of bicycle lockers for long-term (employee) parking is encouraged but not required; Response: The details of the bicycle parking racks are to be submitted with the construction plans at the time of building permit submittal. 2. Bicycle racks must be securely anchored to the ground,wall or other structure; Response: The details of the bicycle parking racks are to be submitted with the construction plans at the time of building permit submittal. However, it is anticipated that bicycle racks will be securely anchored to the concrete surfacing. 3. Bicycle parking spaces shall be at least two and one-half feet by six feet long, and, when covered, with a vertical clearance of seven feet. An access aisle at least five feet wide shall be provided and maintained beside or between each row of bicycle parking; Response: As shown on the Site Plan, Sheet C2.0 bicycle parking spaces will be spaced at a minimum of 2.5 ft by 6 ft long, with 5 ft between each row of parking. 4. Each required bicycle parking space must be accessible without moving another bicycle; Response: Bicycle parking spaces will be spaced with 5 ft between each row to ensure accessibility to each rack without needing to adjust an adjacent bike. 5. Required bicycle parking spaces may not be rented or leased except where required motor vehicle parking is rented or leased. At-cost or deposit fees for bicycle parking are exempt from this requirement; Response: It is not anticipated that any required parking spaces will be rented or leased. 6. Areas set aside for required bicycle parking must be clearly reserved for bicycle parking only. Response: Bicycle parking spaces will be clearly designated for bicycle parking. 42 O. Paving. Outdoor bicycle parking facilities shall be surfaced with a hard surfaced material, i.e., pavers, asphalt, concrete, other pervious paving surfaces, or similar material. This surface must be designed and maintained to remain well-drained. Response: As shown on the Site Plan, Sheet C2.0, the bicycle parking racks will be secured to the concrete surface along the building frontage. E. Minimum bicycle parking requirements, The total number of required bicycle parking spaces for each use is specified in Table 18.768.2 in 18.765.070.H. In no case shall there be less than two bicycle parking spaces. Single-family residences and duplexes are excluded from the bicycle parking requirements. The director may reduce the number of required bicycle parking spaces by means of an adjustment to be reviewed through a Type procedure, as governed by Section 18.390.040, using approval criteria contained in 18.370.020.C.5.e. Response: Per Table 18.765.2, the proposed 15,085 SF sales oriented building is required to have 5 bicycle parking space(0.3/1,000 SF). 18.765.070 Minimum and Maximum Off-Street Parking Requirements C. Measurements. The following measurements shall be used in calculating the total minimum number of vehicle parking spaces required in subsection H of this section: 1. Fractions. Fractional space requirements shall be counted as a whole space. 4. Space. Unless otherwise specified, where square feet are specified, the area measured shall be gross floor area under the roof measured from the faces of the structure, excluding only space devoted to covered off-street parking or loading. Response: As defined in Table 18.765.2, the 15.085 SF proposed sales-oriented building is required to have a minimum of 45 parking spaces (3.0/1,000 SF) and a maximum of 76 spaces (5.1/1,000 SF). The proposed project provides a total of 60 parking stalls, as shown on the Site Plan, Sheet 02.0. 18.765.080 Off-Street Loading Requirements A. Off-street loading spaces. Commercial, industrial and institutional buildings or structures to be built or altered which receive and distribute material or merchandise by truck shall provide and maintain off-street loading and maneuvering space as follows: 1. A minimum of one loading space is required for buildings with 10,000 gross square feet or more; Response: As shown on the Site Plan, Sheet 02.0. a loading area is provided along the north side of the building near the SW School Street access. B. Off-street loading dimensions. 1. Each loading berth shall be approved by the city engineer as to design and location. Response: A Site Plan (Sheet C2.0) showing the location of the loading space is submitted as part of this application package for review by the city engineer. 2. Each loading space shall have sufficient area for turning and maneuvering of vehicles on the site. At a minimum, the maneuvering length shall not be less than twice the overall length of the longest vehicle using the facility site. Response: As shown on the Site Plan. Sheet 02.0, the loading space is located parallel to the delivery doors and to the proposed building. The delivery truck will be able to pull in or out of the loading space and into the 24 ft drive aisle in order to exit the site. 43 3. Entrances and exits for the loading areas shall be provided at locations approved by the city engineer in accordance with Chapter 18.710. Response: Chapter 18.710 —Accessory Residential Units is not applicable to the proposed specialty commercial retail use 4. Screening for off-street loading facilities is required and shall be the same as screening for parking lots in accordance with Chapter 18.745. Response: Per Section 18.745.050.E, the loading area is required to be screened from view. The proposed loading area abuts the elementary school along the northwestern property line is screened with Tall Oregon Grape Shrubs, planted in 3 gallons and are 3 ft on-center in order to create a continuous 4 ft evergreen hedge. Details can be found on the Planting Plan. Sheet L1.1. TABLE 18.765.2 MINIMUM AND MAXIMUM REQUIRED OFF-STREET VEHICLE AND BICYCLE PARKING REQUIREMENTS Maximum Minimum Zone A Zone B Bicycle Commercial General Retail Sales - Oriented 3.011,000 5.111,000 6.211.000 0.311,000 CHAPTER 18.780 SIGNS 18.780.020 Permits Required A. Compliance with regulations. No sign or sign structure shall hereafter be erected, re- erected, constructed, structurally altered or relocated within the city limits except as provided by this title, and a permit for the same sign or sign structure has been issued by the director. B. Separate permits for each sign. A separate permit shall be required for each sign or signs for each business entity and a separate permit shall be required for each group of signs on a single supporting structure. Response: A pole sign and wall signs are proposed. However. sign permit requests are not being filed concurrent with this Site Development Review request. CHAPTER 18.790 URBAN FORESTRY PLAN 18.790.030 Urban Forestry Plan Requirements A. Urban forestry plan requirements. An urban forestry plan shall: 1. Be coordinated and approved by a landscape architect (the project landscape architect) or a person that is both a certified arborist and tree risk assessor (the project arborist), except for minor land partitions that can demonstrate compliance with effective tree canopy cover and soil volume requirements by planting street trees in open soil volumes only; 44 Response: The required Tree Removal and Preservation Plan. Sheet L1.0 and the Tree Canopy Site Plan, Sheet L1.2. were designed by a certified landscape architect The supplemental Urban Forestry Plan was conducted by a certified arborist with Morgan Holen&Associates. LLC. dated April 5, 2015 All items are submitted as part of this application package. 2. Meet the tree preservation and removal site plan standards in the Urban Forestry Manual; Response: Consistent with this provision a Tree Removal and Preservation Plan, Sheet L1.0, Exhibit L, prepared by a registered landscape architect, has been provided to meet the defined standards of the Urban Forestry Manual. 3. Meet the tree canopy site plan standards in the Urban Forestry Manual; and Response: Consistent with this requirement, a Tree Canopy Site Plan. Sheet L1.2. Exhibit L. has been provided to meet the defined standards of the Urban Forestry Manual. 4. Meet the supplemental report standards in the Urban Forestry Manual. Response: The supplemental Urban Forestry Plan. Exhibit I, was conducted by a certified arborist with Morgan Holen & Associates, LLC. dated April 5, 2015 in compliance with the standards defined in the Urban Forestry Manual 18.790.060 Urban Forestry Plan Implementation C. Tree establishment. The establishment of all trees shown to be planted in the tree canopy site plan (per 18.790.030.A.3) and supplemental report (per 18.790.030.A.4) of a previously approved urban forestry plan shall be guaranteed and required according to the tree establishment requirements in the Urban Forestry Manual. Response: There was no previously approved urban forestry plan Therefore, this standard is not applicable. D. Urban forest inventory. Spatial and species specific data shall be collected according to the urban forestry inventory requirements in the Urban Forestry Manual for each open grown tree and area of stand grown trees in the tree canopy site plan (per 18.790.030.A.3) and supplemental report (per 18.790.030.A.4) of a previously approved urban forestry plan. (Ord. 12-09 §1) Response: There was no previously approved urban forestry plan. Therefore, this standard is not applicable. CHAPTER 18.795 VISUAL CLEARANCE AREAS 18.795.030 Visual Clearance Requirements A. At corners. Except within the CBD zoning district a visual clearance area shall be maintained on the corners of all property adjacent to the intersection of two streets, a street and a railroad, or a driveway providing access to a public or private street. Response: Visual clearance areas at the access drive onto the site directly from SW Pacific Highway. at the access drive onto the site directly from SW School Street and at the intersection of School Street and SW Pacific Highway are shown on the Planting Plan, Sheet L1.1. B. Obstructions prohibited. A clear vision area shall contain no vehicle, hedge, planting, fence, wall structure or temporary or permanent obstruction (except for an occasional utility pole or tree), exceeding three feet in height, measured from the top of the curb, or where no curb exists, from the street center line grade, except that trees exceeding this height may be located in this area, provided all branches below eight feet are removed. 45 Response: As shown on the Planting Plan. Sheet L1.1, Crimson Pigmy Japanese Barberry are proposed within the visual clearance areas at the access drive onto the site directly from SW Pacific Highway. However, these shrubs are less than 3 ft in height. Additionally. there are no obstructions within the vision clearance area at the access drive onto the site from School Street and the intersection of School Street and SW Pacific Highway. as shown on Sheet L1.1 18.800 STREET AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENT STANDARDS CHAPTER 18.810 STREET AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENT STANDARDS 18.810.020 General Provisions A. When standards apply. Unless otherwise provided, construction, reconstruction or repair of streets, sidewalks, curbs and other public improvements shall occur in accordance with the standards of this title. No development may occur and no land use application may be approved unless the public facilities related to development comply with the public facility requirements established in this section and adequate public facilities are available. Applicants may be required to dedicate land and build required public improvements only when the required exaction is directly related to and roughly proportional to the impact of the development. Response: As shown on the Site Plan, Sheet C2.0, and Public Improvements Plan. Sheet 05.0. public improvements proposed as part of this project have been discussed and designed with input from the City and ODOT and meet the required applicable standards D. Adjustments. Adjustments to the provisions in this chapter related to street improvements may be granted by means of a Type II procedure, as governed by Section 18.390.040, using approval criteria in 18.370.020.C.11. Response: All transportation improvements that are proposed as part of this application package have been designed with input from representatives from ODOT and the City in order to ensure compliance with all applicable standards as defined in the Community Development Code, as shown in the responses provided for this narrative. However, an adjustment is requested to allow a minimum driveway spacing that is less than 600 ft, per Tigard CDC Section 18 705.030.H(3) Details and a memo drafted by Kittelson & Associates. Inc . dated July 15, 2015 is provided as part of this application package. 18.810.030 Streets A. Improvements. 1. No development shall occur unless the development has frontage or approved access to a public street. Response: As shown on the Site Plan. Sheet 02 0. the proposed development fronts SW Pacific Highway. Access is granted directly from SW Pacific Highway or through School Street. 2. No development shall occur unless streets within the development meet the standards of this chapter. Response: As shown on the Public Improvements Plan, Sheet C5 0, and as evident in the responses provided in this narrative. the proposed development is in compliance with the applicable street standards 3. No development shall occur unless the streets adjacent to the development meet the standards of this chapter, provided, however, that a development may be approved if the adjacent street does not meet the standards but half-street 46 improvements meeting the standards of this title are constructed adjacent to the development. Response: Currently, the SW Pacific Highway and School Street are not in compliance with this Chapter. However,the Applicant is proposing half street improvements along School Street and SW Pacific Highway. as shown on the Site Plan, Sheet C2.0 and the Public Improvements Plan, Sheet C5 0, to bring the streets in compliance with the defined standards. 4. Any new street or additional street width planned as a portion of an existing street shall meet the standards of this chapter. Response: As shown on the Site Plan, Sheet C2.0 and the Public Improvements Plan. Sheet C5 0. the required half street improvements along School Street are in compliance with the standards defined in this chapter. D. Street location, width and grade. Except as noted below, the location, width and grade of all streets shall conform to an approved street plan and shall be considered in their relation to existing and planned streets, to topographic conditions, to public convenience and safety, and in their appropriate relation to the proposed use of the land to be served by such streets: Response: As shown on the Public Improvements Plan School Street, Sheet C5.0 and the School Streets Improvements Plan, Sheet C5.1, both located in Exhibit L. CC. Traffic study. 2. In addition, a traffic study may be required for ail new or expanded uses or developments under any of the following circumstances: a. When the site is within 500 feet of an ODOT facility; and/or b. Trip generation from a development adds 300 or more vehicle trips per day to an ODOT facility; and/or c. Trip generation from a development adds 50 or more peak hour trips to an ODOT facility. (Ord. 12-13 §1; Ord. 09-09 §3; Ord. 06-20; Ord. 02-33; Ord. 99- 22) Response: The project site is located adjacent to SW Pacific Highway, a facility under ODOT jurisdiction. A traffic study was conducted by Kittelson and Associates, Inc. dated July 15, 2015 and included with this application submittal. The proposed project is estimated to generate approximately 423 net new average daily trips, with a total of 9 net new AM peak hour trips and 37 new PM peak hour trips. Per the Kittelson and Associates. Inc. traffic study. no changes in street classifications are necessary However, the report recommends limiting movements at the SW School Road intersection with SW Pacific Highway to right-in. right-out, and left-in. The eastern driveway access to the site from SW Pacific Highway will also be restricted and will be limited to a right-in and right-out to ensure safe access from SW Pacific Highway. 18.810.050 Easements A. Easements. Easements for sewers, drainage, water mains, electric lines or other public utilities shall be either dedicated or provided for in the deed restrictions, and where a development is traversed by a watercourse or drainage way, there shall be provided a stormwater easement or drainage right-of-way conforming substantially to the lines of the watercourse. Response: As shown on the Site Plan, Sheet C2.0. a utility easement is proposed along School Street. The proposed development does not cross waterways or drainage ways. therefore. a stormwater easement is not necessary. 47 B. Utility easements. A property owner proposing a development shall make arrangements with the city, the applicable district, and each utility franchise for the provision and dedication of utility easements necessary to provide full services to the development. The city's standard width for public main line utility easements shall be 15 feet unless otherwise specified by the utility company, applicable district, or city engineer. Response: As shown on the Site Plan, Sheet C2.0. a utility easement is proposed along School Street down the length of the property line in order to ensure access to the proposed utilities. 18.810.070 Sidewalks A. Sidewalks. All industrial streets and private streets shall have sidewalks meeting city standards along at least one side of the street. All other streets shall have sidewalks meeting city standards along both sides of the street. A development may be approved if an adjoining street has sidewalks on the side adjoining the development, even if no sidewalk exists on the other side of the street. Response: As shown on the Site Plan. 5 ft wide concrete sidewalks are proposed along SW Pacific Highway and the northern side of School Street as previously discussed with the City B. Requirement of developers. 1. As part of any development proposal, or change in use resulting in an additional 1,000 vehicle trips or more per day, an applicant shall be required to identify direct, safe (1.25 x the straight line distance) pedestrian routes within 1/2 mile of their site to all transit facilities and neighborhood activity centers (schools, parks, libraries, etc.). In addition, the developer may be required to participate in the removal of any gaps in the pedestrian system off-site if justified by the development. Response: As shown on the Site Plan, Sheet C2 0. the proposed sidewalk along SW Pacific Highway connects the building main entrance to the transit stop located southeast of the site 2. If there is an existing sidewalk on the same side of the street as the development within 300 feet of a development site in either direction, the sidewalk shall be extended from the site to meet the existing sidewalk, subject to rough proportionality (even if the sidewalk does not serve a neighborhood activity center). Response: As shown on the Site Plan, Sheet C2 0. the proposed concrete 5 ft wide sidewalk along the northern side of School Street connects to the proposed sidewalk along SW Pacific Highway to the existing sidewalk southwest of the site adjacent to the elementary school. C. Planter strip requirements. A planter strip separation of at least five feet between the curb and the sidewalk shall be required in the design of streets, except where the following conditions exist: there is inadequate right-of-way; the curbside sidewalks already exist on predominant portions of the street; it would conflict with the utilities; there are significant natural features (large trees, water features, significant habitat areas, etc.) that would be destroyed if the sidewalk were located as required; or where there are existing structures in close proximity to the street(15 feet or less) or where the standards in Table 18.810.1 specify otherwise. Additional consideration for exempting the planter strip requirement may be given on a case-by-case basis if a property abuts more than one street frontage. Response: As shown on the Site Plan, Sheet 02.0. a 5 ft wide planter strip is proposed between the sidewalk and the curb on SW Pacific Highway per the defined standards. A 5 ft wide planter strip is also proposed along the School Street frontage. However, due to the existing width of the street and the setback of the building, it was discussed with the City that it would be a better design solution to have the sidewalk curb-tight, with the landscape barrier between the building and sidewalk rather than place the sidewalk directly abutting 48 the building. Therefore. the sidewalk and landscape strip locations have been switched on SW School Street. D. Maintenance. Maintenance of sidewalks, curbs, and planter strips is the continuing obligation of the adjacent property owner. Response: It is anticipated that the maintenance of the planned sidewalks, curbs and planter strips are to be maintained by the property owner. 1.8.810.090 Sanitary Sewers A. Sewers required. Sanitary sewers shall be installed to serve each new development and to connect developments to existing mains in accordance with the provisions set forth in Design and Construction Standards for Sanitary and Surface Water Management(as adopted by the Unified Sewerage Agency in 1996 and including any future revisions or amendments) and the adopted policies of the comprehensive plan. Response: Currently, there is no sanitary sewer system located on-site As shown on the Utility Plan, Sheet C4 1, 4-inch sanitary sewer lines are proposed along the southeastern property line, abutting SW Pacific Highway. 4-inch sanitary sewer laterals are proposed along the southern wall approximately 5 ft from the face of the building. Additionally. 4-inch sanitary sewer lines are proposed to connect to a grease interceptor. proposed at the southeastern most corner of the building. B. Sewer plan approval. The city engineer shall approve all sanitary sewer plans and proposed systems prior to issuance of development permits involving sewer service. Response: A Utility Plan, Sheet C4.1. is submitted as part of this application package for approval of the proposed development. C. Over-sizing. Proposed sewer systems shall include consideration of additional development within the area as projected by the comprehensive plan. Response: There are no additional development phases proposed with this development that would require future utility access and as detailed in the Utility Plan. Sheet 04 1, the proposed sanitary sewer system is adequate for the proposal. 18.810.100 Storm Drainage A. General provisions. The director and city engineer shall issue a development permit only where adequate provisions for stormwater and floodwater runoff have been made, and: 1. The storm water drainage system shall be separate and independent of any sanitary sewerage system; Response: As shown on the Storm Drainage Plan, Sheet C4.0 and the Utility Plan. Sheet C4.1. the proposed storm water drainage system is separated and independent of the proposed sanitary sewer system. The proposed storm drainage system traverses the parking lot and internal to the site. Sanitary sewer connections are proposed primarily along the southeastern property line. 2. Where possible, inlets shall be provided so surface water is not carried across any intersection or allowed to flood any street; and Response: As shown on the Storm Drainage Plan. Sheet C4.0, inlets and catch basins are proposed throughout the parking lot. at the lowest grades and following the predicted directional water flows across the site. 3. Surface water drainage patterns shall be shown on every development proposal plan. Response: Surface water drainage patterns are shown on all applicable sheets within the Plan Set. 49 18.810.110 Bikeways and Pedestrian Pathways A. Bikeway extension. 1. As a standard, bike lanes shall be required along all arterial and collector routes and where identified on the city's adopted bicycle plan in the transportation system plan (TSP). Bike lane requirements along collectors within the downtown urban renewal district shall be determined by the city engineer unless specified in Table 18.810.1... Response: The existing bike lane along the northern side SW Pacific Highway will not be altered by the proposed project and will remain in place during and after the completion of the proposed project. 18.810.120 Utilities A. Underground utilities. All utility lines including, but not limited to those required for electric, communication, lighting and cable television services and related facilities shall be placed underground, except for surface mounted transformers, surface mounted connection boxes and meter cabinets which may be placed above ground, temporary utility service facilities during construction, high capacity electric lines operating at 50,000 volts or above, and: 1. The developer shall make all necessary arrangements with the serving utility to provide the underground services; Response: Existing powerlines on SW Pacific Highway will remain above ground. However, all proposed on-site utilities will be installed underground as shown on the Utility Plan, Sheet 04.1 submitted with this application package. 2. The city reserves the right to approve location of all surface mounted facilities; Response: As shown on the Utilities Plan, Sheet C4 1 surface mounted facilities include a remote fire department connect. a double check assembly and vault. and water meters. 3. All underground utilities, including sanitary sewers and storm drains installed in streets by the developer, shall be constructed prior to the surfacing of the streets; and Response: Sanitary sewer and water lines and storm drains that connect to public facilities located in the public right-of-way will be installed prior to resurfacing of the streets 4. Stubs for service connections shall be long enough to avoid disturbing the street improvements when service connections are made. Response: There are no proposed future uses or building phases. Therefore. no stubs will be installed. B. Information on development plans. The applicant for a development shall show on the development plan or in the explanatory information, easements for all underground utility facilities, and: 1. Plans showing the location of all underground facilities as described herein shall be submitted to the city engineer for review and approval; and Response: A Utility Plan, Sheet C4.1, as part of the Plan Set in Exhibit L is provided for review and approval by the City Engineer. 2. Care shall be taken in all cases to ensure that above ground equipment does not obstruct vision clearance areas for vehicular traffic. Response: As shown on the Utility Plan, Sheet C4 1. the necessary above ground equipment are not located within any vision clearance areas. 50 CONCLUSION As evidenced throughout this project narrative and associated documents, the applicants Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map Amendment and Site Development Review requests are consistent with the applicable state, regional and local policies and regulations governing the allowance of the requested actions Based on the evidence provided within this narrative and attached materials. the applicant respectfully requests City approval of these applicators 51 OCT 21 2015 SPECIALTYRETAIL CITY OFT!GARD PLANNINGIENGINEERING vega a.Julecture Ili J H Ill 1'E■■ EL Iiuiul .. . ".1 ; I,- ry N U L C, .0 > LI •— .r� .a....am.Yr. PROJECT DIRECTORY "°"m gm 6666 ..10..r..n. ,.r.u...e_.r... ..,rr _ rrwr 1I yrah.rye..4..... a� oa. a......�.u • �---- -- 1 •...ILL= • :.�0a.a o..x...._ a +�_ wwaw-,r1,,k At 6..,C Mi.a..,M,� ..arra,. a; L4444�n 64141 4111a . }o .c*04.44,Pm./.6`1w.r. ..r Pm./.6 rr r. + - m,41141 MA . 4.14 .rrre COY F VW 601111•1111 _ 0444 a....�a MY.,Waage • u�.11.161 ar MILI o.aur • ttr l:+4+446 t..r...ur... - VICINITY MAP 7 i e vega • P .. t r, ,ft. 4 : '; SL .+ �_ 4 " / "�' */ 'IP ' I .. ,,t, ,e-%., * i F K $Y's ' r` >-. +Ss• • .S. Illby .1R A`� ` J IQ • ir I # •� ,,4i # A `,� ,.yt`. 1 7�_-all�`' i Y,.4 Ir. jl , ,�,y 4 �I „!'t .. - v GL G +" dile •^n - _ ,- r 'w .5., r • y• i ` ^ \, �. +�._ _ l V/�j F_ • �.i • 1 f ~ OM r�/ .i r r, E rli _` r t !. , f iora, 'wry.., •w -. _ — - i.wrlfmaNK`�`.'� f1 - N • . .w tai V _ 1. 1 • VICINITY MAP Al 7 . • •,:,?'' elf\ W . /Y , /.� ,�,; Jvega ',e„ N + rJ''\\ arLhlLlt(U!C Ill I Wq/ERty LEIS f` F. \ \ _ yr now r waEcw[cs+E�wat. • "r li— UNI „.„/: 7 //,,, • Er O / / .4' ,,/ J a. 5 ,/ i'1 \ - OM RACKS A ,/ f/ ,Z N < :...r•• .may \ '-�`/ ' Of • et Wei v • ' W M \ \ \ SPECIALTY GROCERY .(/// "'o \ f r FOOTPRINT: .1 ce N • i - Jr. 4 \ ' .// \ 15,000 SF / �- r . -\ \ / 1 . A • ►_ \ \ / \'P it- 110 J ` \ 4 / . ilr / C> 1 1' ` i QP ;$04:10(0 - -,,,,, iti. • \ ‘.#> 4 , CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN I - - I A2 , 7 4 0 :0 -Z . ' . ... , ... r-1 > 0 0 0 > 1 CD 1 1 ' A 1- m < . 1 ' '' - OM 71EI 0I1C L OM r– f fil — \ ' ' • 41 . 1 4 g. , . . .s., Ft—A — .- -.. h - . , .-,,:-. HOP A., ¶ 7 1 49 I . • - I1I' 14 ''12 1II i' -1 '''' - ; a' i Is, I 1 ,-( 4 : — I! II I I t ii HI+41,1 3111 I* 1 1.11 •• ,•• - i i i to p -I.., I—F4' 1 [ ism , . .11_ A it a I &NMI 1--*- E . [ 1 1 I-4f I.1 . . 1 I . 1 4 1.1 • , V 4 t < I ...,i—. 1......f] LI i 1 — _,.. * 1 1- 1 : A - ' 0 P p -001 i ;..!! '. 1-1—H'.4H -11 6 i I a — = , -44 • 8(I) -I, — -• a = : __ 1! Hi lo C-i i r . . , P C_J ..,, p. ) IC ' ,•_, _ * 6 :::6 , ,.. t ii It iii 11 li 1) il ..6 4 Il ip ; ! 1 (:•:t> 'iii .. • , . IT; Fr, ._•.; 10 t„ > .g.. w . SPECIALTY RETAIL ; ., 9 ... ,,, VORTG co Cf 13125 SW Pacific Hwy 01:) 1 1 • .1 ,- --,1 TIGARD,OR 97223 1 co . . ...erer l archrtct.tures II, r r IIIIIIPt —.1 l- IX LCL 17 NORTHEAST ELEVATION < n try .l U O1 d li CM M F a 1 i EY.nw L -: NORTHWEST ELEVATION ! A4 . 7 j J vega W ce >- SOUTHWEST PERSPECTIVErsJ Q " Q W as C LL 41 CC CC 6 SOUTHEAST ELEVATION COS•Wk20 Vega architecture Ilc -J ICew > J 0_ Er w W U CN p !" CO Kik.`' !. • 111.■ 111111 POLE SIGN 70 SF MAIC ENTRY PERSPECTu'.[ A6 7 n+a r 7 .16 06 --) 1 (...7,CUreirle• 1 i 1 1 I 16... r 11 la LI' 1 nesimm j ' -— .. . —_• , _ t. ..1.1 S.:'.:, •:`3: ^-: Z.r;2,23..3 a,Chacaure 1k ® BUILDING SECTION 4 I ELJ b 4 4 J , Il e/--- -.- - .- -— ti :ICX 'I T 1 ' I I 1=11 I -1-1-1-t-1-n 1 I 1 T 11 , ;' . .... ILLJ 3 . - IX ' —111r-11----4.- - . 0 BUIIIDING SECTION 3 >, ,.., c2.1.....r•I el a.et __re __ 0 W - . ..,... .7--\,---\4"... ..• on I- 'n cc `, W'' '‘-' 'f----- Z ' vit. UI)0 (71 g I 4:9 ail= .1,•.V.Z. ...-11 > I— C -1r MN— — — 1 I''.. 3' I — 0B U I 0 I NG SECTION 2 i 2, ..4 re i_i_i_u_[-I ii_-_if--.--=- ___, I Sermons H' ' ° i, , 1 LIM / re 1 I — 4 '''' . lti frore.wl.i4 si,'On.KuM0E0 rhAt : dP .... '- ...4......h.,...“.ir,s..........44.410 J 0 BUILDING SECTION 1 A7 - 7 �1 _.�Ips SURVEY 4 -MORrr TIOARfiNILLE (,4OITICIr• .n..vxrn num,,•owss+A^eO.a•. IIY ` LOT A3 4r w•- 1 CMML[RI MAIM C141R[f!f tRi�Rp r 1 li 1 �, HFMFMI,MYfCMOrlt .u, ELEMENTARY KMUGI _ ` I} 1 1 :RF/QfMr.41LaMR1.fr y 1 1'Rf1#A'IML Z[11M101011 •� : �I� r L .._.. .. � 21 i -.0•...01..01 ...�. -- —•--. �; jvega 0 .-. • L �n��._ r .am,rw..•1.1..41 M a:\h:tr4iurf Vii ' �' In -- �...: m r - -�....,u� ..o . :S s , 4.10141.0.....Ktp 9GpL1401.<6 TRACT01 a . 'NOR TM 114AROVILaE ADDITION .11 ...m .w•. v .m•e• III O I TAP LOT 3CO r>.4..v..,,•m_� I .0401nwwn..sn 1 I 1 3ACRE SC ACS � 11 G c.a..+ ' • 11114-19110 4060 Ce t �'rmY , .•m 1 b4010.4 • i �� 4 IJam•. .ww.YnfO COMINIPPCIM 4101 reel.[ae. War. 117 4.f0104101 AM...•ww m,..� maw Immo .t\ -1 - — — V. i-i.• Q` `Y f�.- fli / co _ Jr—� _- .. , - -ate 0 ,____________________________________________\, ....----- _ — ,\\II\ C) LL0- �X oY A.o.,-VAC MIOMYA Y -- - 7\ 1 i z corartorasi`PI C41wR10CN4 411(1�• A t. mi ERV 4,fI1fMA4 4Y'MRRML'Y1 fU1RR/ i DOWSTOW A1YIBi14E WU SANTAFY SERER TAKE - " EXISTING _ nMV.1liri, M.=.,c•.s..cnw l.')100•14141010. �.�vM..> n .t=�xn 1. K 00101 urY, v. Y. ...rw,ror. -.Int.. ,r ...n•..' rm•w., - .rr4 :w..h,.a.=.... CONpfT1�Al$ maws no van as NI.IMIMIMPI2 a . � -..msa,.wn 0�a , �v000m. . . � r(1) Mw .MM1,a• I .4Z. 1a w>Ywo.Ke�.r..wam�,wed..a•e,. I,4 w�&41115 OF EAM ! 001101.104• sLsaws we wow..no ow .unA00111,.r.....q ,Yl0.41A4•04,1 II..0101011M..nww 110114001044-00110C1.0 t i LIEGRO _.......—-.......... -....n...........• _—•.1.0.0010,040.0 to .locoomab 0....111 OAS 1 __.PICIP.“1•11•11411 4.1)Cimmillrw vi "MARL'S. SA'ARR 0,,....3,' ARO 1.13sm...ro cogAil,out. IL fileALIARY SOLO& &EMIR....SCILLNAL I •AFAIWIIMAL laVRIS A til otES.,01,..ii Zomovv4Przy , •PISPIZIMMieemicto Mk..ammonlv 1LMOCII .“...4.01•111.0.• $.0....11.S.D44 N..t fl - -- 4'... - r- i ,.........S. ................,1..... vega ... ., , ..709...... '''....... I141.1.0.11101COM MR 43 I1 I ti 1 ...Or •=:.......momi..1.11.111•0153., 41 rt.I •-•-1- ,....",',..,-; el•J..,r 1 .PNEVOINIP Oa...MY SO. I . ..... ••••. -et-- d i .-- , -- - -1-r I al .worristbradalimi 0144 6.141.4........ 4.03.13.1r.MAIMIIMORMIN !MI Fig/044N Aga jko i.o. -4 • 1' 11 1 1 :1 : 1 I .,"11• ...____. _----., ' 1,5-- 1_. ,_. 1 1 1 g '. ... 1 1 , ,...,_. ..„„„ 1 . :: , , ~ r 4 , . ‘,.., .._-_,-..... . ..... fu munum.no taft.0111.11141rACRILIN IMIACIallob Me.OS MAW.....1111.or H : 7o.:1•1•611,;'"'" I , ',/ I 1 . / I ,_r; ,mamas,..komemmen 0.1•CIE. ma...wonalma WY. W Ce 4.,- 141I--j. r" n. 71,••- }I--WI...Mt-•-, 1 1-81 •emsametsurer gavra. OVICA1SED SPICIAL ry RATA. -• --- ''''i .. -I _C. ›P RAF IN Al ROLM WW1.,WWI Ca!Cifir , r 1 ': I • .... 0.• 1 0 1 1} — 1 .. LI-- . i •[ COSOLIRR"...LASe ..4-1 .m.,.....1.40,0m. 1, •mir.erueamMEAm.... —I ,.. ,..., i 1 1 ---Tc,7---. —1: , , I '''''N, ' o44,4144,4 ellille.Ciit AMMO/ < r(V : i ' : -OoOKRIMMITo.I "7 I" 1 1 ,:. , ....,1...I I0 ii .. .0 • CO mat Kw . / CIL Cr /4.41,5•11 ." •-......- LILI • i )4)....1.k.. .....,.. .Z11.., ...1j.=-----r---- "--1 '''.."."' --...... INCA IMMo ZOOMING DAT 01. t ollOrIOM ATOM.1,Jo 0 GO 0 I l' I I 4., a war.••• .ri— • -x, - ' --- ----I--__4.4._1— ,-.. _. .-r_ - - PARK114. Cf)0 7.,C2 Ire.“1.0.0. > • l'- i +...... .''..."..........- - 24 •••- I , Mr 1,10RNIS 0..14 t O..M.. WAWA.4....%.• ... 1,...,4..1 MI P.I.014 Ir,So .. -_- MISS NSW fOoll-. _,, WA 1.110Y1,10 ... o -, boU.O1 11- ,lo 111..m•Alowed Iv 44•.k...•.11,vs. •.....11.,0•10.....0.101.1. _ . I- - .....' ""."".'"" t r _,C101...i ..,....... ....... SRL Air,FIC HOONIM41, I tAti.......1111.1.1....11.Pauli Mt Ira MR I •,1111,0.1,•••••10 MOM..4.41.40 J,11.YU t I ..,.,„;•........10....1 W.. •Mae oll•M.',.--.A.A111 ape •AAR,corm,virus ans.,,Imr.a I ... .....=.... -.,.. -......-......... ...... ...- • • / ..... ....=-..-.. ..,. .. ffIE DATA _..-- ( .... n _......-- ...wr...won ...,........, .rcax.,....._.1.......l.Valli II . 4 C0111144041 NI ONEVIBUt COMMI•elibl JAM. ,,,..,we. ,...... tiiiFWAtu COMMICOW441.etAw.a, .......al. 1,111.0114..ics-• ......* liL. 9-\A •••ITCYla WC. .1.- , 1644001Q, DAT,A. (I II TM SITE 1 co MJZ i cb la2a2o,5 —....— ,..,-„, C2.0 , LECEN❑ _._... aRww.Dal61It.lM ., So CHARLES F IMMO CHARLES F TIGARO -E IMMO COMM~MACE ELEMENTARY ELEMENTARY MARKS AND RECREATION) (PARRS AND RECREATION/ - -P..u�[D is..oRrS ,...•%. •.• • PROPOSED 14OK.w.A SW Mvfl.La*BMR... r�^ MOP..WM vie ga PROM.)40.PIA140.1 51.1 H ` ` ,,,Jr__-' �f .`I f_ I Y architecture Ilc • __R'°& 4• \�'`` ` i[1i \ ...EMILY . 4 ...oO.n.rc ww„RRu]i�e P. OLFLL ra AUTO PART I r . 1 �7t.. , , 'T 's ,r- a _ t�IF / \ ~'�,ca . mom..TOP NU BOTTOM w aPWD131. MUNE RINMEMACOMMERCIAL' ' .1, PARCEL I Ii UMI PROPOSED SPFCEIL FE RETAft B� L 11 15 OlSSf ..snnWalt OCWOur .._ !COMMERCIAL ZONING! P.+�.D.o.mCA..* J ›. . ;Hall G d .Pwowr¢e.aB,MOW. 111411C cu 1 cu it f .x Eif� r,.wnnw,ww.r+..� )rq i , Il •rr• ------ CJ al RY WA CO d I r• } _ - Liar lino _N a • __tY f — _ ..------ - o SWPA4119CMYNRWY 1 1 -�.„. COWMFRC4L USE A 4 COMMERCIAL USE ../...-. ICOMMERCML ZONING) 1 (COMMERCIAL ZONING) A 1 4 i :i,GRADING(ERUSiON 1 y j, CONTROL PLAN 1 DP b1JZ k Q "" 10/20/2015 C3.0 ? Mina.r• cMA'LE!i rlr.44D Otani CUM.4.11. &EWAATART ,AAAAS AAIO RECREA WWI .aka..LW*Rr •..aroma,r•wc J 61.1111.1 4.62, alt._ .raw•,arla••••••1.RN ......�. •ag•Ctt.KYM IN4!anAz,t, • vega a1't6t Lr '. -{' ,- I f�) w -r.AIMa.n tlatat.n 11 �.r \A it1 ,� -.�ramwc+wrl.l • ,talaanaad. A( Ai<,:-. atiitt-.f.- - Pit, • -a a06.l.*1..,w....� architecture is 1 ` .t {NWYYirYt ow..Y7 AV f0 I 1 .-•.• • •. (511 .0 -mow..To.low., Parr'roar I I 1 ao�•wwrov. (O(AtRAI `..:+aat�' `' If a ..�.. ..aWo.Ae BP..Oa I iiMil . it •MARS.Waal mama i t .w.•uaa..taw a. J4 r .,. -r.Maa)iuwtwA M.Ata •rVMNlR4aRC.1JPK wan. I I 'Jn E+ .CiK�q MINNY04=.w r- ApltliM YAOSA KTTit`IAA I ; * rir_ ACCINNOliCha m .. I Ull I FAY MI II I'm _ •v y /AWING j7:71 r... .., j1 I nil• i. _���- , _..ltR. ` `� - J 117 r - -t------ a*Paror wawa Y - — --------------- K -- _1— ���'COINA EA'CMt.1,11 ' e owracue t jj �- K WMAFACMt MAIM • I` �." .•w a. .r, PRIVATE ON 517E STORM STRUCTURE DATA C47T,441011:14TA MIMU.M/A OILIMGVf9MIA • SFOITATUrter'CCNsTRLCripN NOTES I ••••4.1..K•..luwwr a...r.•aalmt•.aa.w. •aa,ll Va.•wr 1 1. .+ �n a --' y. ••n•a. - wa.•a Maw .a+.K.•ila . .-.a.r OR war.ma Ka •ra 'a' r .•owovra M. u .•••• ' •j rr. v..- •c•`m ua1 v •a.mAal•a. 41,I« Irr I« j f. =4"4:.‘ 4"4:.. WM 4 rZr""""'"r ..•. y1••••V. • "W.`�W1.4 ■.«..Y. R•w•1« a l••I iG..YIA .Ilam .Iw Ow ..t,.a.... .... 4•••10.••••••••••••,• IRM ■t«•Wai KI.Y p�lJt• :J :W. RMllarr.,walla,R r•4R..L.C.•..Ms a•• v ra+N a...m.l••W.R nr a.••..........•r al au. Yu Ofla•la ti K..l.n •-i-, 14 111 NV MI OY.LY.•.K.a M MILO= it ..PwK..rr . r.�•rt. •rn•a.� II-.Mo.MO {t} •rr.acs.,lw IO.MP WWI.Mar.i.,Mao.art Y}Y.•.. -- • r 4•..At0•J . OWALL,wa..OWN.u.....n t.Ar 1.rC.AYI...a/l, PIJ&C OFF-SITE STORai STXICTUR(DATA ,•rima. milt a.•air ..a..•ulW.s•O.0 Mal r/ICIII sS Iit7A I.Illadf DATA MN r :.J{/H61 ;7) ..latTM.outranammaMatf«��'i n,w. I ! DRAtNAGFPtAN .. ..t.a whamM,. .a.r.a.w.I......o�.. o.:. IM�w.l.•�. 4 1,0 Af 12 810. .tt .r 0 MONM ,Y.+a.al • w.'.aw.. Ia. a . I dat.mInwaCan,maw nano,•.al.I.-.aar rr r ,.a .s rw 4- .M• a,111.410.800.1111.74.144 i.. aOKa.o-..r .t.,wnr., .1.. _. ° 10/2012015u+w,..tro.w•cr.+a.Prr aa.>w STORM PNDf la(SptME Al•1 .Mame,,t. ...e..w•,u•..ocr0 r.•.aa i K'' 1 f-GEND—.e.t.a_ �T1%7 {3tww.Nr,sr CNARL€SF TNiAROMIME ELEMENTARY 1.1•1110 OEN LEE (PARRS ANO RECREATION) WaM. aa u..., ! I r- 1mcrome.sup ma .m,..1r.N0.1.a..,. cn Praline.IIPN.[P r)K..'rpWFT .1 - I -- • _ architecture Ilc r.rawco naa u'rw ww ORFYLL YE AUTO x r -• I,.1.---17-11-: -s- l wo.a.F➢fiGw rxfNl+W* PARTSFORE I r Ip- - •. I �IA1 i�l V- \ ,t Y I •...NO MnIN Wn.p. :ENERAL COMMERCIAL 1 .0 - I ..441.1.011...1.1 ZONING! I,iJi o I I m •rNOV.r.I..,JIW..N rl. J5 I I1o PARCEL T I _, J_ 114)WS! I , I .//� wIEPRY[P TaM+N['SUswC21 iNtOPe�b diLTVRETAIL 0 E'•.�. w I.INT.a00..1CATED',MEP..MM. I F L ,M " Amasoso Ic , I oriel TiE tpsE 1 MIME*ATM.!AMR11f _�/ i.(LYMINEMCIAL i niii . . IL I I I I j ` IX ' I "LL rI'1 p O j / I I G ^J 'i a Q'.. / ( I SANITARY SEWER STRUCTURE DATA • r I �-- �-- ��� v_--., 1 w ` „/K1)111%- " AF v)/�tuff Wx.x0IF 6+Ea MOPEWn I _ I eclNcna xranrr- 1—.__'-1 J E — / IONENINITEVENY. ,,,y co❑ /r._ _— See FACIE X'NwPwAr N •N.• T '� �> I.- W.aN .J ; _r� —L 1 --�` f- _ - • CA.YY�ML USE . `PalreeaaML USW iV r -- - la r .----------- Fca�rwaaw+aowwr '4 ( ' . , �� A. FRANCHISE UTILITY CONSTRUCTION NOTES vrla..c.caawc ',...:::• A (/WATER UTkfT'Y CONSTRUCTION NOTES �� "x' I+NDw.ELI s..Iw. _ ImIR � ,C. I `� ttYCIRE=0'n:tt•etl.w.wen''''''r'a..�r I Ciinn•.4Wk ..(wq..tx�a }I./ -`^� uroR+N CG aN 11.WEGU. '( € ne �.� ([) rIr<Ylnrw L.IE. Q` ION OP.....1.Var a w.« - )0 q> xCTA.n.rue ONE now,C�rtPV 141,0.5.1.1-rw.T6.w..P.IM1 .wr.Yf,.rWI+Jr'vX9;�W.IE[.etrvm.0 UW.•Erryv wprn M.r x MI6 �~ InN 1 MTN A.MATED l� Nal ALL �.«,MOAT.P run.xex SANITARY UTILITY CONSTRUCTION NOM Se.. ME .0 rW.eas.RN rce e..Nax Nr � .DNc.CE C1....164.rDr.TO neve .w ve rTnD WV.,ury e....LA •Tn We.� - r •.w O # UTILITIES FECEON;D.wm.rc,9.,..LEE AT PROM,.E RErex rr,SWIro. I5,.P11113 Ab UK.. F PLAN SOWN 6.1n£TIAP DATA.1.611.. J Tx..mr.usr.111141,...M.1 el^DDNNs,a. R.D..nT,w„a.a....1.1N II,N.nw ruN.1.r.Nl WV I ..w,•W.. • tV) .E,rls,.,4PPrtt:9TL .ILNWrt. (�-).n a.nirN We XiUSw1VW.SFNER .rua c� 1 LIP MJZ nrEl t xxr.YfW r NMNr ErEv.r `_ O DWI.t-I¢W..IENHET.R, _ y' T.y ..n ..1 Irn l-n I n J rfA I r r J.1,3ID 1.1..0105}y I.r..rs..T.oX4E 0r ywilL+IN i y. 10VIL/�QO15 FATAL.s.raD.a..IN.uuWe.ma..xxwrr. (s- N....r1 SANITARY PROEIIt(.SS Al_, FE.�rEA..PrifN,..,NT.0MU,hi,COrVAT.L NK�rD .�NTµPNneuu.rx".r ,xN AR,1... 2. I C4. ...T.;=L'',...., I EGEND ..........-. --- ........._.... . . _. I 1 f '''''''t:=1: ' A Li I.1.05"110492.554511001500/110irili 1.90250250000.— s., , _..-- --- 1 r COMMERCIAL LISY I."..., (GENERAL COMMERCIAL - PROPOSEO SPECIAL hr MEWL " 7 I _ .-teytt..... •, i ZONING; I '''' •-1.11i.'"'''11010,222145751.0 1 ka111110.71:=-, II --_--___ -101.00111.0.5.0.10170.0 :5""'5050.072000.02'"72.00, Cr,Orglingt . ___.--,---. ...• 1:=Pr iii ...., .100.111 •1010P00512 50.0000.0255 MAX . . . . . -2.2,40.100054 V. ...,- ra / , il ' OA rr. 0111310.5 0 4455155.020 4.510.2005001 I i \.).. 10.01.•••ift•m10:20100701111,0505. 1 *•.......''-''' ... —I — .1001,5, r ---.a- ''.j7,1_ ' "__7‘7\ ir- WV I 1 \ 1 1 •.......A'''' 0_ 40.000P5 0.50. ' M.A. _,,,,,, 10101.01111.210.11 0,5,5 00,5 _ _____ —-34 - P5050550 1.(2105.11 ivega .. ....._ , SfIWPALVICARIMIPW __ , ....-.. _ 1 511011110131,05.01521•101205 ....'It"I 0000205.0000 .i100 —00 .51005000.0010150 a. "— 1'..°. --.55- 155056020.301.1•1501 . .- 11 MI 0005 1 e 4_— ---5- archilecturIII- 04 Frarar.100020-—.0042111:4127'. .i.i.i.--- A----5 ,01.215115.10 g ..., °' ----1-1,-- - .01 MEW 001.FM. ,..,.....t......1 ,7`•-•, . Can110 II I n .------ m J/33 / - _____-- MJIr1.0.. __._... --.-- _ - -“,...".... -'.- ,1 \ SW . - , -13m-m"" L.- i . - .-•—.E37^t''' h r .01 -4 01 fGENERAC°M1;GRIEVE'RCAL MI'MLEZOMINCO UMI A*re o• COMIIERGRAL USE (GENERAL COMERCRIL ZOMINEN . !o it (:1.111 >" 1 17' < I CNI Q C\I _ .. AA — ' (13 , 1—5045110414,005.005.005. IL ' ,.,..... .0'1' / LIMI 3 . -", • f fl 0 (7)g , J>I 1•1010 10S0 7. 2. —1— US 5050 0000 4-050 50510 ..3.4. EXISTING SW PACIFIC HIGHWAY PROFILE RCA f 1,20 50202.000 I 1 ROW q ROW I 50.40 KJ SW j eua wow i 5.1111605552202 0 i PAW.. MPH&2 5,000/225 /-12TiPCIE I 1/12.00 I I I I .0 PUBLIC' I i IMPROVEMFN1; ...... L - 0.MI. 1110. 155 105 100 0. 1001'0025 ` MM.LAM 114.1.LA. kll,,1.511.5l TR11225.0.1E 15400.11.L., KV.. 1 P •• I 0542. 1,10. 1 1 PLAN I MJZ SM. -' ?,(5 20.;0 1 5 I 101.06513 GLIM TYPICAL SECTIM:SW PACIFIC HIGHWAY I C5.0 : 10.055 1115 I `�".wargu.vxomuYrn PROPOTEOYECYtriAETa& SI / , I I COYMERCfEt USE _wu,o4xxav r 11 rcEwEau cnrFrERsut -F�rwa.r YE �� t �I ION/N61 �c—c c-c- .apq..y.p 1 nlDwnp 5Y 11.si - unaMua - IOI1i.lY }` 4 I —Ywmi_�r ` ✓�lV SCHOOL_ M� 6 4 ; ,...v.:.,...1,.... �� I�. : .�. F. F.n•o�+w _ +. 1 f .W.*.n.wwrn�FrEr... - noo. d 5 ,t xaxcrsWMPARTSTORE ...i •• E' /pE'NERIL CL'rwERC4l STORE ti od \ IVg LLJJ MAGY �1 I a rcE Lecture 11c Ir' _1 ,., , ::_ Li c:c 1 1 1_ w n � IX 1St „„ 12 w iyvv Arai i ' r,u+rs[u,�a'M.. V .7 117 bT,Y Yn[ir- rurY,:.-•, L„ 1 tV • _ U L I ( 1 ces U V n O I W� coo �ccNIa �> M F Sw.YF Yo-. ns.. 111.64 e..m vim SCROOL STREET PROFILE aur ,. viler..�u A ROW ROW i DEDICATION q DEDICATIONI - We KiN�I��proee 'I` WO*ow 'I DCby w.F�S 1 / "E.wr.cr 1 .l I I 1 SCHOOL STREET D — 1 I IMPROVEMENTS4 '''''''''s. I J f I PLAN PROPOSED J y _ ..E DP MJZ 6 D w D. . I m 10/20/2015 I TYPICAL SECTION:SCHOOL STREET F[+lE.re C5.1 1 RECE VED August 27, 2015 AUG 2 7 2015 Cardna fem, CITY OF TIGARD Shaping the Future Gary Pagenstecher,Associate Planner PLANNING/ENGINEERING City of Tigard 5415 SW Westgate Drive 13125 SW Hall Blvd suite 1a0 Tigard, Oregon 97223 Portland.Oregon 97221 Phone (503)419-2500 Fax (503)419-2600 Re: Additional Items:Completeness Review—Leadership Circle Specialty Grocery CPA2015-00003 www.cardno.com ZON2015-00004 SDR2015-00002 VAR2015-00028 Dear Gary, Please accept this letter and the attached materials in response to your voice message sent on August 26, 2015 requesting additional information for the Leadership Circle Specialty Grocery Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Site Development Review and street spacing adjustment on a 1.37-acre parcel located at 13125 SW Pacific Highway. Below is a response to each of the items you listed in your incomplete letter and how the issue has been addressed. Transportation Rule Compliance—The attached Transportation Impact Analysis conducted by Kittelson & Associates, Inc., dated Juiy 15, 2015 addressed the requirements of Oregon's Transportation Planning Rule (TPR, OAR 660-012-0060). The `Future Conditions Analysis' on page 9 of the report identifies the potential impacts that the existing zoning and proposed zone change could have on the surrounding transportation system using reasonable worst-case development conditions. A detailed review of how the proposed zone change complies with the TPR begins on page 24 of the analysis. Narrative Chapter 18.380 Zoning Map and Text Amendments — The following responses address the applicable standards related to a comprehensive plan and zone amendment. 18.380.030 Quasi-Judicial Amendments and Procedures to this Title and Map A, Quasi-judicial amendments.Quasi-judicial zoning map amendments shall be undertaken by means of a Type Ill-PC procedure, as governed by Section 18.390.050, using standards of approval contained in subsection D of this section. The approval authority shall be as follows: 3. The commission shall make a recommendation to the council on a zone change application which also involves a concurrent application for a comprehensive plan map amendment.The council shall decide the applications on the record as provided by Chapter 18.390. Response: This application includes a request for a zone change and comprehensive plan amendment and will be processed according to the provision above. B. Standards for making quasi-judicial decisions. A recommendation or a decision to approve, approve with conditions or to deny an application for a quasi-judicial amendment shall be based on all of the following standards: 1. Demonstration of compliance with all applicable comprehensive plan policies and map designations; Australia • Belgium • Indonesia • Kenya • New Zealand • Papua New Guinea United Arab Emirates • United Kingdom • United States • Operations in 60 Countries 4. Page 2 August 27,2015 +�+ �7,''idria Response: The applicant's application narrative addresses all applicable com prehensive plan policies as 'wing the Future discussed with City staff prior to the filing of the application. 2. Demonstration of compliance with all applicable standards of any provision of this code or other applicable implementing ordinance; and Response: The applicant's land use narrative describes how the project complies with all applicable local standards governing the application request. 3. Evidence of change in the neighborhood or comm unity or a mistake or inconsistency in the comprehensive plan or zoning map as it relates to the property which is the subject of the development application. Response: The development site has been in the ownership of the Tigard—Tualatin School District who has intended to utilize the site for school facilities to serve the community.However,the school district has determined that the site is no longer necessary for its long term capital facilities planning and has elected to surplus the lot.Given this change in the school district's capital facilities planning and considering the fact that the subject site is the only parcel on SW Pacific Highway in the immediate vicinity that is not zoned General Commercial,the applicant's proposal represents a reasonable adjustment of the plan and zoning maps in the area to reflect this changed condition. If you have any questions regarding the above responses or the application submittal materials, please do not hesitate to contact me or Sou Souvanny, the project planner, at 503-419-2500. Sincerely, Read Stapleton, PLANNING GROUP MANAGER CARDNO RECEIVED August 25, 2015 AUG 2 X015 (f) Car inoy CITY OF TIGARD Shaping the Future PLANNING/ENGINEERING Gary Pagenstecher,Associate Planner City of Tigard 5415 SW Westgate Drive 13125 SW Hall Blvd Suite 100 Tigard, Oregon 97223 Portland,Oregon 9 221 USA Phone (5031 419-2500 Fax (503)419-2640 Re: Completeness Review—Leadership Circle Specialty Grocery CPA2015-00003 www.cardno.com ZON2015-00004 SDR2015-00002 VAR2015-00028 Dear Gary, Please accept the attached materials in response to your incomplete letter dated August 6, 2015 for the Leadership Circle Specialty Grocery Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Zone Change. Site Development Review and street spacing adjustment on a 1.37-acre parcel located at 13125 SW Pacific Highway. Below is a response to each of the items you listed in your incomplete letter and how the issue has been addressed. Narrative—Vision Clearance: Response: Section 18.795 — Vision Clearance Area of the attached narrative has been updated to reference a Triangle Area on Sheet L1.1 at the intersection of School Street and Pacific Highway. Pre-Application Conference Notes: Response: Two copies of the Pre-Application Notes held on October 30, 2014 is included as part of this resubmittal package. Public Facility Plan Checklist: Response: All the incomplete items listed on the Public Facilities Completeness Checklist,provided with this response letter has been addressed. Please refer to the third"response"column. With the changes noted above and included in the revised application package, we believe that the City has all of the materials and documentation necessary to complete its technical review of the application. If you have any questions regarding the submittal materials or would like to discuss any of these items in further detail, please do not hesitate to contact me at 503-419-2500. Sincerely, Read Stapleton, ;IJP MANAGER Australia • Belgium • Indonesia • Kenya • New Zealand • Papua New Guinea United Arab Emirates • United Kingdom • United States • Operations in 60 Countries MEMORANDUM Cardno Shaping the Future To. Gary Pagenstecher, Community Planning, City of Tigard 5415 SW Westgate Drive Greg Berry, Capital Construction and Engineering, City of Tigard Suite 100 Portland,Oregon 97221 From: Read Stapleton, Planning Group Manager, Cardno USA Matt Zinzer, Lead Designer, Cardno Phone (503)419-2500 Date: August 25, 2015 Fax (503)419-2600 Project: Leadership Circle Specialty Grocery CPA2015-000031ZON2015-00004/SDR2015-00002 &VAR2015-00028 www.cardno.com Re: Public Facility Plan Completeness Checklist This memo is provided to in response to the Public Facility Plan Completeness Checklist submitted in review of Application Case Numbers CPA2015-00003/ZON2015-000041SDR2015-00002 & VAR2015-00028. The issues identified as incomplete were discussed with Mr. Greg Berry, City Engineer, and the Applicants response is provided in the last column. GRADING City Comments Response Z Existi.ng and proposed contours shown. ►i4 Does proposed grading impact adjacent parcels? ►i Adjacent parcel grades shown ❑ Geotech report submitted Not Required STREET ISSUES City Comments Response ❑ Right-of-way clearly shown. Show required dedications Dedications shown for School Street and SW Pacific highway on Sheets C5.0 and C5.1. Q Street name(s)shown. Z Existing/proposed curb or edge of pavement shown. - E, Street profiles shown. _ Future Street Plan: Must show street profiles,topo on adjacent parcel(s).etc. Z Traffic Impact Report E Street grades compliant? ® Street widths dimensioned and appropriate? Cr Private Streets? Less than 6 lots and Not proposed width appropriate? C Other: Show: -Curb Radii have been added at the - 25-30'curb radius for School Si. intersection of School Street and SW Pacific HWY. Australia • Belgium • Indonesia • Kenya • New Zealand • Papua New Guinea United Arab Emirates • United Kingdom • United States • Operations in 60 Countries Page 2 August 25,2015 '(....7) CalYirsO' Shaping the Future - side of adjacent building and any ' -O'Reilly's Building has footprint appurtenances . has been added to plans. - sidewalk ramp to AC -Sidewalk ramp just east of loading - ADA ramp crossing at loading zone zone is a cart ramp. Not ADA - Provide continuous AC at driveway compliant. This has been clarified ' (Highway connection details must be on site plan C2.0. approved by ODOT for PFI permit). -ADA Ramp crossing just west of loading zone has been redesigned (City of Tigard commercial driveway with ADA crossing behind throat). -Continuous AC has been added at highway connection (school street will no longer be a private drive). SANITARY SEWER ISSUES City Comments Response Existing/proposed lines shown Keep lateral perpendicular to -Sanitary lateral has been moved to highway while in the right-of-way. be perpendicular to ROW until line Ma be •arallel onsite. crosses into 'ro•e 1 Stubs to adjacent parcels Not required rev uiredfshown? WATER ISSUES City Comments Response Q Existing/proposed lines w/sizes noted? g Existing/proposed fire hydrants shown? B Proposed meter location and size 1 shown? IZI Proposed fire protection system shown? Other: (Hydrant location and flows to be approved by TVFD for PFI permit) STORM DRAINAGE AND WATER QUALITY ISSUES City Comments Response I X Existing/proposed lines shown? CI Preliminary sizing calcs for water (For PFI permit, WQ#1 must be of a -Currently coordinating with CWS quality/detention provided? type permitted for use in a right-of- and City of Tigard Engineering to way) determine appropriate course of action for adequate water quality facility. E Water quality/detention facility shown on plans? Ei Facility area matches requirements from calcs? Er Facility shown outside wetland buffer? Doesn't apply E Storm stubs to adjacent parcels Not required required/shown? 1 C Other: PRE-APPLICATION NOTES FOR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN&ZONING MAP AMENDMENT October 30,2014 STAFF PRESENT: Gary Pagenstecher APPLICANT: Monet Ragsdale,Leadership Circle LLC PROPERTY LOCATION: 13125 SW Pacific Hwy TAX MAP/LOT#'s:2S102CB00200 PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION: Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zoning Map Amendment to change the Comprehensive Plan Designations and Zoning Map Classifications of the subject parcel from Medium Density Residential (R-12) to General Commercial(C-G). COMP PLAN DESIGNATIONS: Medium Density Residential ZONING: R-12 NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING A neighborhood meeting is required for a quasi-judicial zoning map amendment. NARRA FIVE Include a narrative that responds to the applicable review criteria. Provide background and findings of fact as to why the comprehensive plan amendment and zoning map amendment are necessary, or what public benefit is being promoted. Note: The list of specific goals and standards below is intended to provide guidance in preparation of your application, and that additional criteria may be identified dependant upon the nature of the specific application,or as other issues are raised. This is not an exhaustive list of all criteria. It is the applicant's responsibility to ensure that all applicable standards are met, APPLICABLE CRITERIA Standards for making quasi-judicial decisions apply to the proposed zoning map amendment. A recommendation co approve, approve with conditions or to deny an application for a quasi-judicial amendment shall be based on all of the following standards: 1. Demonstration of compliance with all applicable comprehensive plan policies and map designations (e.g., Land Use Planning Policies 2.1.1.4 and 2.1.15). 2. Demonstration of compliance with all applicable standards of any provision of the Tigard Development Code or other applicable implementing ordinance (including but not limited to 1$.380.020 Zoning Map and Text Amendments, 18.390.050/.060 Decision Making Procedures);and 3. Evidence of change in the neighborhood or community or a mistake or inconsistency in the comprehensive plan or zoning map as it relates to the property which is the subject of the development application. In addition, the recommendation by the Commission and the decision by the Council shall be based on consideration of the following factors: 1.The Statewide Planning Goals and Guidelines adopted under Oregon Revised Statutes Chapter 197; 3. Any federal or state statutes or regulations found applicable; 3. Any applicable METRO regulations; 4. Any applicable comprehensive plan policies;and 5. Any applicable provisions of the City's implementing ordinances. APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS: a. Include the information requested on the application form; b. Address the relevant criteria in sufficient detail for review and action; c. Be accompanied by the required fee; d. Include two sets of pre-stamped, pre-addressed envelopes for all persons who are property owners of record as specified in Section 18.390.0500. e. Include an impact stud.The impact study shall quantify the effect of the development on public facilities anS services. The .tt dv ;1 .111 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 requirements,or provide evidence which supports the conclusion that the real property dedication requirement is not roughly proportional to the projected impacts of the development;and f. Be accompanied by 18 copies of the narrative. PROCESS The Commission shall make a recommendation to the Council on a zone change application which also involves a concurrent application for a comprehensive plan map amendment. The Council shall decide the application on the record as provided by Section 18.390, as a Type IV review. DECISION The decision timeline is generally about 4 months from receipt of a complete application. The rezone and site development review processes are consecutive. APPLICATION FEES: Comprehensive Plan Amendment: $10,755.00 Quasi-judicial Zoning Map Amendment 4.046.00 Total Fees: $14,801.00 PREPARED BY: Cary,Pagenstecher, ICP Associate Planner 2 „L 5-'0(.447v nr -1+0 5 T1rip e l RECEIVED JUL 16 Z015 MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD Ca) Garan®” PLANNING/ENGINEERING Shaping the Future To: Gary Pagenstecher, Community Planning, City of Tigard 5415 SW Westgate Drtive Greg Berry, Capital Construction and Engineering, City of Tigard Suite 100 Portland,Oregon 97221 From: Read Stapleton, Planning Group Manager, Cardno j ct• 2 /3 USA Mario De La Rosa, Senior Project Manager, Cardno Phone (503)419.2500 Date: July 16, 2015 Fax (503)419-2600 Project: Specialty Retail (SDR2015-00002 & ZON2015-00004) www,cardno.com Re: Public Facility Plan Completeness Checklist This memo is provided to in response to the Public Facility Plan Completeness Checklist submitted in review of Application Case Numbers SDR2015-00002 & ZON2015-00004. The issues identified as incomplete were discussed with Mr. Greg Berry, City Engineer, and the Applicants response is provided in the last column. GRADING City Comments Response Existing and proposed contours shown. ❑ Does proposed grading impact adjacent parcels? ❑ Yes E No ❑ Adjacent parcel grades shown. None shown Project is matching grades at property line. See profile and typical section for proposed school road improvement STREET ISSUES City Comments Response Co Right-of-way clearly shown. Centerline of street(s) clearly shown. ® Street name(s)shown. zi Existing/proposed curb or edge of pavement shown. Street profiles shown. None shown Please see centerline profile for School Road ❑ Future Street Plan: Must show street School Street to connect with 99W at Previous comment determined to profiles, topo on adjacent parcel(s), etc. I Garrett Street not be applicable for the current site layout - ® Traffic Impact Report ❑ Street grades compliant? School Street not shown Please see School Street Typical Section ® Street widths dimensioned and 7 lane arterial (64'from centerline) appropriate? ❑ Private Streets? Less than 6 lots and N/A width appropriate? Australia • Belgium • Indonesia • Kenya • New Zealand • Papua New Guinea United Arab Emirates • United Kingdom • United States • Operations in 60 Countries i Page 2 May 4.2015 Lirill) Camino' Shaping the Future Other: As per pre-app notes (not included in narrative),School Street to be Previous comment determined to extended and realigned with Garrett Street at 99W, not be applicable for the current site layout SANITARY SEWER ISSUES City Comments Response ►, Existing/proposed lines shown. Need ODOT permit. ' No other alternatives exists due to Proposed lateral too long site layout. Stubs to adjacent parcels None needed required/shown? WATER ISSUES City Comments Response E. Existing/proposed lines w/sizes noted? Not clear Existing and proposed waterlines are labeled in the updated Plan Set Q Existing/proposed fire hydrants shown? Existing hydrant LPC on 99W El Proposed meter location and size Not shown shown? Proposed fire protection system shown? Shown STORM DRAINAGE AND WATER QUALITY ISSUES City Comments Response Existing/proposed lines shown? Need ODOT permit 2 Preliminary sizing calcs for water quality/detention provided? El Water quality/detention facility shown on plans? ® Facility area matches requirements from calcs? n Facility shown outside wetland buffer? Storm stubs to adjacent parcels Not Applicable required/shown? I • KITTELSON & ASSOCIATES , INC . TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING / PLANNING 610 SW Alder Street. Suite 700, Portland, OR 97205 503.228.5230 503.273.8169 1 July 15, 2015 Project#: 13755.05 Gary Pagenstecher City of Tigard, Community Planning Department 13125 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard, OR 97223 RE:Special Adjustment Request far SW School Road/OR 99W Retail Development— Tigard, OR Dear Mr. Pagenstecher: The purpose of this letter is to support Leadership Circle, LLC's request for a Type II procedure to obtain a Special Adjustment to the City of Tigard Community Development Code (CDC) and allow a minimum driveway spacing of less than 600 feet for the proposed retail development along OR 99W at SW School Road in Tigard, OR. Introduction Leadership Circle, LLC, (the Applicant for the proposed retailer) is proposing a comprehensive plan amendment and site development application to construct a 15,000 SF retail building at the former Tigard-Tualatin School District bus facility lot located at 13125 SW Pacific Highway (OR 99W) in Tigard. A proposed site plan and conceptual public improvement plan for the proposed development are provided in Attachment "A" of this letter. As shown in the attached plans, the Applicant is proposing the following access control measures along the site frontage of OR 99W: • Maintain the current SW School Road alignment and access to OR 99W, but convert the roadway from a private drive to a public local street and restrict turn movements at the highway access to right-in/right-out/left-in (RIROLI) only by constructing a raised concrete island and traffic separator in the center median lane of the highway. • Close the current site access to OR 99W across from SW Garrett Street, and construct a new site driveway near the northern property limits. The new driveway would be effectively restricted to right-in/right-out (BIRO) only movements due to the raised traffic separator that already exists in the median lane of the highway. The purpose of the proposed access control measures is to maintain adequate traffic operations and to improve driver safety along this particular section of OR 99W. Additional supporting technical information is documented within two transportation impact analysis (TIA) reports for the site rezone and site development applications, which have been prepared under separate covers. The remaining sections of this letter describe the access management standards that apply to the site e development application and how the City's criteria for a Special Adjustment are met. FILENAME:N.'1 PROJFILEI13755-LEADERSHIP CIRCLE SPECIALTY RETAIL X 005-TIGARDIREPOR 1151TE DEVELOPMENT TIAIADJUSTMENT LETTERI13755 ADJUSTMENT LETTER 07152015.DOCX Special Adjustment for SW School Road/OR 99W Retail Development—Tigard,OR Project it:13755.05 July I5,2015 Page:1 Applicable Access Management Standards Chapter 18.705.030(H.3) of the Tigard CDC states that "the minimum spacing of driveways and streets along an arterial shall be 600 feet." Because OR 99W is designated as a Principal Arterial roadway in the City's Transportation System Plan (Reference 1), the City's minimum access spacing standard applies. As shown in the attached site plan figures, the proposed site accesses to OR 99W result in a spacing less than 600 feet. Therefore, a Special Adjustment from the City Engineer is necessary to allow the accesses. It should also be emphasized that OR 99W is also designated a Statewide Highway facility, whereby the access management and permitting policies of OAR 734-051 (Division 51, Reference 2) also apply, given the jurisdictional ownership of the Oregon Department of Transportation. This is important because several meetings have taken place with ODOT Region 1 access management, planning, and preliminary design engineering staff to discuss the proposed site access scheme for OR 99W. The most recent meeting was held on March 19, 2015. Based on that meeting, the Applicant is reasonably confident that the proposed site accesses, including proposed access control mitigation measures, can be permitted by ODOT. The primary reason is because the proposed site plan moves in the direction of conformance with ODOT's access management policy by modifying two existing fully-directional site accesses to a more limited RIROLI only access and a RIRO access. Criteria for Special Adjustment Chapter 18.370.020(C.5) defines the Special Adjustment approval criteria for the City's access and egress standards of Section 18.705. The following sections identify each of the approval criteria, followed by a response explaining how the criteria are satisfied: 18.370.020(C.5.a) in all zoning districts where access and egress drives cannot be readily designed to conform to code standards within a particular parcel, access with an adjoining property shall be considered. if access in conjunction with another parcel cannot reasonably be achieved, the director may grant an adjustment to the access requirements of Chapter 18.705 through a Type ll procedure, as governed in Section 18.390.030, using approval criteria contained in subparagraph b of this paragraph 5. Response: Today, SW School Road is a private drive on the subject site property with an established access easement that allows others to use this roadway. It, therefore, already functions as a joint access, serving the 0' Reilly's auto parts store to the south, and along the back portion of the public street section of SW School Road, at least three residences, a daycare (Kids Kampus), and an elementary school (Charles F. Tigard). This private drive is proposed to become a local public street. As for the secondary site access driveway proposed near the northern property limits, a joint access with the adjacent small car business to the north is not possible. This is because the building (a former single family home) is situated up against the OR 99W highway. Also, there are other Kittelson&Associates,Inc. Portland,Oregon Special Adjustment for SW School Road/OR 99W Retail Development—Tigard,OR Project#:13755.05 July 15,2015 Page:3 ancillary structures (i.e. shed) and a mature stand of trees along the shared property line with the subject property. 18.370,020(C.5.b) The Director may approve, approve with conditions, or deny a request for an adjustment from the access requirements contained in Chapter 18.705, based on the following criteria: 1. It is not possible to share access; Response: See response item above, which indicates SW School Road access is already a shared access and will continue to function as a shared access as a local public street. Shared access at the proposed northern site driveway is not possible. ii. There are no other alternative access points on the street in question or from another street; Response: Access is presently available to the public street portion of SW School Road at the back southwest corner of the site property. However,this roadway extends west and away from OR 99W as a Local street, which is not a viable option for routing all commercial-related trips associated with the proposed retail development. Also, according to the City TSP, Local streets such as SW Portland Road "are not intended for long-distance trips" and "through traffic on local streets is discouraged by design". Based on this finding, access to the OR99W highway site frontage is necessary so as not to jeopardize the functional operation of SW School Road. In addition, highway access is necessary for a functional retail business, to service retail customer needs, and to meet the needs of delivery trucks. Most importantly, the long-range transportation impact analysis prepared for the propose site rezone to General Commercial (C-G) indicates that locating a single site access to OR 99W directly across from SW Garrett Street will result in poor site driveway operations and a v/c ratio over 3.0 during the weekday p.m. peak hour of the planning horizon year 2035. This result greatly exceeds the ODOT mobility standard of v/c of 0.99 or less, and would result in a "significant affect" on the existing transportation system according to the State's Transportation Planning Rule. Therefore, a single full access aligned across from SW Garret Street cannot be permitted by the City or ODOT. It should be emphasized that any alternative concept of aligning SW School Road or a private site access driveway directly across from SW Garrett Street and limiting School Road/site driveway movements to RIRO only while maintaining full access on SW Garrett Street is not possible from a design standpoint and would likely not be permitted by ODOT for safety reasons. This is because the only way to effectively restrict movements to RIRO is by a raised traffic separator along the center highway median lane. A different concept of limiting both the site access and SW Garrett Street movements to RIRO via raised traffic separator would not be acceptable to the businesses and residents who depend on SW Garrett Street remaining full access. SW Garrett Street is designated a Neighborhood Route according the City TSP, and the purpose of this type of facility is to "provide connectivity to collectors or arterials" and "have greater connectivity and are used by Kittelson&Associates,Inc. Portland,Oregon Special Adjustment for SW School Road/OR 99W Retail Development—Tigard,OR Project#:13755.05 July 15,2015 Page:4 residents in the area to get into and out of the neighborhood, but do not serve citywide/large area circulation." Therefore, fully directional movements should be maintained from SW Garrett Street at all costs in the context of this site development application. iii. The access separation requirements cannot be met; Response: The site frontage along OR 99W is just over 300 feet in length. Therefore,the City's minimum access spacing standard of 600 feet cannit be achieved regardless of site driveway location. In addition, there are other established driveways to other businesses immediately north and south of the subject site. There is a driveway to an auto detail business approximately 30 feet north of the northern site property line and a driveway to a specialty retail center approximately 165 feet south of the southern site property line. iv. The request is the minimum adjustment required to provide adequate access; Response: Chapter 18,705.3(1.1) of the CDC establishes minimum access requirements for commercial and industrial uses. Assuming the proposed C-G zoning is approved for the subject site, a single site driveway is allowed as provided in Table 18.705.3. Although the two proposed site accesses to OR 99W exceed the minimum allotment of one access, two highway accesses are necessary to adequately facilitate the ingress and egress needs of the retailer's delivery trucks; the largest of which is a WB-67 interstate design vehicle. Allowance of a second site access can be permitted per Chapter 18,705.3(J.2), which states that "Additional requirements for truck traffic may be placed as conditions of site development review." v. The approved access or access approved with conditions will result in a safe access;and Response: Both the findings of the rezone TIA and site development application TIA conclude that the proposed site accesses to OR 99W, including the OR 99W/SW Garrett Street intersection, will operate adequately and will meet the ODOT mobility v/c ratio standards during the weekday p.m. peak hour of the planning horizon year 2035 and the site build-out year 2016. The limited access treatments proposed along OR 99W will result in safe RIRO only movements at the northern driveway and safe RIROLI movements at the southern site access/SW School Road. Moreover, as expressed in both TIA's, the proposed access treatment for the site access/SW School Road will help improve driver safety along the highway by reducing the potential for crashes, specifically involving drivers on SW Garrett Street. vi. The visual clearance requirements of Chapter 18.795 will be met. Response: This criteria will be satisfied by establishing adequate visual clearances at both site accesses to OR 99W. Kittelson&Associates,Inc. Portland,Oregon Special Adjustment for SW School Road/OR 99W Retail Development—Tigard,OR Project#:13755.05 July 15,2015 Page:5 Conclusions and Recommendations Based on the findings documented herein and by the technical information contained within the separate transportation impact analyses reports for the site rezone and site development applications, all criteria for seeking a Special Adjustment to the City's access spacing standard of less than 600 feet for an arterial roadway are met. The following access control mitigation measures, which the Applicant believes are reasonably likely to be permitted by ODOT, are recommended and will ensure all Special Adjustment criteria are met: • Maintain the current SW School Road alignment and access to OR 99W, transition SW School Road into a public local street, and restrict turn movements at the highway access to right- in/right-out/left-in only by constructing a raised concrete island and traffic separator in the center median lane of the highway. • Close the current site access to OR 99W across from SW Garrett Street, and construct a new site driveway near the northern property limits. The new driveway would be effectively restricted to right-in/right-out only movements due to the raised traffic separator that already exists in the median lane of the highway. This concludes our Special Adjustment request for the proposed retail development in Tigard. If you, or the City Engineer, have any questions regarding the information presented herein, please contact me at (503)-228-5230. Sincerely, KITTELSON &ASSOCIATES, INC. 1271--4— Brian J. Dunn, P.E. Associated Engineer Attachments: "A"— Proposed Site Plan and Conceptual Public Improvement Plan References: 1. City of Tigard. 2035 Transportation System Plan. November 2010. 2. The State of Oregon. Oregon Administrative Rules Chapter 734, Division 51 -Highway Approach Permitting, Access Control, and Access Management Standards.June 30, 2014. Kittelson&Associates,Inc. Portland,Oregon Attachment A MI IaWYHICMI AM} rrt1,gvn....tl.mwrtY al pw MdtlKl ;...lx ern Mf...f,,L.,*maw.ce+' .d...m.vvn,.w LEGEND: BOUNDARYLINE - - EXISTING CURB LINE 1 W11_,11 ,,, • PROPOSED BUILDING - PROPOSED STRIPING CURB cd, ffd , • EXISTING CONCRETE SURFACEhM.r ^' CHARLES F. TIGARD CHARLES F TIGARD ' ELEMENTARY SCHOOL ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PROPOSED PLAIN CONCRETE WALK IU,II I E,L �;r n,T, (RESIDENTIAL ZONING-Rf 2) (RESIDENTIAL ZONING-MI) �- •1 - PROPOSED REINFORCED oRIVEwAY CONCRETE ��{j Ii�-- SURFACE �� F- �F-H h4.i --el• - PROPOSED LIGHT ASPHALT SURFACE i s_, . -- �,. • ,�� - PROPOSED HEAVY ASPHALT SURFACE Ivega ,, ,. �}y .. _ JUL , . 16 2 a 5 /' - - : .. ' I I- - - -. I _ PROPOSED LANDSCAPE SURFACE I - •: -� _ ..• .�...,_ -- — - TT1 DIRECTIONAL PAVEMENT MARKINGS �——' ' -A 1 'ig pNER{NG � S� % PROPOSED ADA PARKING STALL • J : • _ ANNANNA Jour- mumA �lOt j:. � .141r i �"1 - FAOPOSED PARKING STALL CDUM PER ROW 11 ® PROPOSED TRANSFORMER 1 i . v.m,m,::::. -. -1111:m....'A n • PROPOSED BOLLARD lit .1 411 ' ,'f �OFLIVFRY COORS -1117,E��. ! Y.. r"""" _.I �0�. ,_< 11 PROPOSED 750 GAL G14EASE RNTCRCEPTOR �. - • PROPOSED FIRE LINE DOUBLE CHECK ASSEMBLY oincrmrr PARCEL I s� 031111. F'I V - V ,> - PROPOSED FIRE DEPARTMENT CONNECTION I ..0 :,..'I■ . I I J - PROPOSER MONUMENT SIGN �, ��_'.- -- 0 -PROPOSED MAJOR CONTOURCe . INf1��tl�� -a I - _ -PROPOSED MINOR CONTOUR ' { El .. '��yI r / / - -� - -PROPOSED SAWCUT LINE - / PROPOSED SPECIALTY RETAIL '"= I - —"+'-'I{ .J� _4111 333 r { ( 1 ' 0, fS,.OB35F - IUP 7 -ExtsnNG PEDESTRIAN SIGNAL O (GENERAL Y•S AUTO PART STORE GENERAL CQMMERCIAC ZONING) FEE-219.90 e ! O f __. i - . I� J was 17 �— >, MI PRoPDgO RK;h7-0E-WAY P I I'J COMMERCIAL USE • lI��IIIITIWT I TOSE Lso�cATEo ii mi, CO =1'n1,13, + GENERAL COMMERCIAL d ( [I I PROPOSED BICYCLE PARKING = Cid �— . 7I <ZONING) w� f� lil!*R 3 .1. I i - Cs) �l� " Trery j[` !aWy 3.4 PROPOSED ACCESS -N. . • - - - __�__ a LEFT N.RIGID-HPJGHTOUT �. - -11 I I _„- _ .. ' r,r�, ,�--- �- m `✓�` - -fir ZONING DATA: 1 ""'3'. .•-(�E u• •. lil . { _ - •-� EXISTING ZONING:R12 CO r0 - -' - —1{' - _ - - -T. ' ''. I.. � PROPOSED ZONING-GG GENERAL COMMERCIAL LL (A MT'f1Y tis STOP PROPERTY'UNE. �A - a-t -- - � i——— `�,` PARKING DATA: Q j yy��_� . - •..�. 1 — !- BUSTING NQ=I�M �-PROPOSEDAOOFSS PROPOSED MONUMENT SICK ' _ — SIC�IL�L CABINET ADA ACCESSIBLE STALLS' 3 r- I— .. _ _ -..�- _ P� - RP El I �� RIGHT-0u RGHTDI i STANDARD STALLS- 57 _ - -''418 'F TOTAL PARKING: GO PARKING STALLS __ Mt _-- - r __ _- EXISTING SIGNAL POLE -` - WITH PUSH-SUTTON PARKING RATIO 3.98'7000 PEDESTRIW CROSSING _ 1.11- 11 -- - .... _ =w�_... - <_-.._... NOTE 3 OVERHANG))STANDARD PARKING BFALL,BME TIMMS'AND _ ' r - -, .____..�.y._._ «_ __ - t.S .,>'-_ . _`. - 2.)ADA ACCESSIBLE PARKING STALLS ARE m 85 5W PACIFIC HIGHWAY 3.)BICYCLE PARKING REQUIRED(0 311000S9 4.5 SPACES BICYCLE PARKING PROVIDED:5 SPACES P• 4-)CART CORRAL STALLS(EX1B.5'T 7 SPACE r r EXISTING CURB TO REMAIN • �- _ -- - -- - y-- _ �- I �,_r--�'� /r SITE DATA: PARCEL 7-SPECIALTY KETAL STORE 7.37 ACRES �» I RIGFR-0F-WAY DEDICATION 0.07 ACRES r/ '/// COMMERCIAL USE COMMERCIAL USE (GENERAL COMMERCIAL ZONING) TOTAL SITE 1 38 ACRES -' (GENERAL COMMERCIAL ZONING) CI A LANDSCAPE AREA 3 0.72 ACRES PARCEL t II I mIN + ` Il BUILDING DATA: 11 PROPOSED SPECIALTY GROCERY 75.000 f SF I --I .FYISITE Irri .114 �I{ PLAN 1 --II � SI1 1-P al-M ._, d:; 04/06/2015 SCALE 1=20 m. 20 10 0 1 C2. Fre enome of...V.111.11 I PROPOSFDRNSITGEWAv 1- 6,�� ,y..M. 6 . 1 I :q� i ^. RIGHT OF WAY TO RERAN ,.nn mo w+m.w I• I TO 1- FrET1STAIG - O COMMERCIAL USE LEGEND: �i .w.� ED ALL I ', IGrEINERAL COMM➢ERCI4Lf ', E .. -24".22. aft ' s ;. ri r..4144 1 'N>----7D STRIPING _ - D(ISCONCRETE SURFACE CI,Cardkie PRGHWIN0 i ADCESS _ I, •.,�" _ x.,3 e ..e_',- • I�•r... " -•g'' r fill ', I 1 LEFT Ba.NV�RIT-VWRmiT-0LI` �jpy.�+,^ '� ". . T"+� 1• �' , ~!� • - I . PROP03F.D PLAIN CONCRETE WALE( y �.. a... EYJS'rMD TRa1ff'i BUS FOE 1 -_. _ _ � a4ml' ,�EAPPNWIrAlifE1T 1151"RDFT PRaPERTYL01E) ? , ..+- --�� -_� _- ___� ` PROPOSED REINFORCED DRIVEWAY CONCRETE � }1Y s-- I ll"-,aflird t iI2 n ^ Yi`1d'I —✓'l _ _ _ __ — _ — —,,,E__../. - - Y - - FACE PROPOSEDRLANDSCAPE SURFACE d .:M .1.,..w_ _ PROPo3ED ACCESS ,1 �•� Y - I/ E�n1Gcaere PwaPosEo .f �" w - �, F Rf/�/ SA711CU11lE RIGHTdRtRgH1-0U1_- PROPOSED SAWCUT LFiE I 4 / SW PACIFIC HIGHWAY 1 IV ega ---- - - N�} V ;� �� - EASIING WNW MTH PI15H BIITaDN Dui NI EXISTING PEDESTRIAN SIGNAL lea -� PEDks rms CROSSNG i !rNE 1 P PROPOSED RASED CONCRETE MON - - - architecture OWING TO fil J f O Pr - F - f10 a _ - T M� • III 18. MEDI •u1�eEtMr RUI - -ii i _� — =..a=, __ _ - ------ _- v ir "-�$311. 23y/ /441-5259-E SIP ----- sat'""N i041Ir M ALICC .� L1410' 1 "R DR L30.57 R11 42' 1 1 517 7C/ 11 fe%t4 COMMERCIAL USE COM,MERCML USE `�� (GENERAL COMMEzOANVGJ - (GENERAL COMMERCIAL 20I VG) WI AL REQ' . `\: D f }l_ FOR � w JUL 16 2415 11 , PriA, , CI-I I ., ,,-,,,,D LE SCAr.,217J PLANNING'ENGINEERING -- > y al 70 R At1111C1C CO_ CV - {V 210 - - I 210 7 G7 =•111=1014111•1111MIL Con) CO 0 (J} O PROPOSED RAISEDFED E LL N Q 205 1.10 90 1«50 2«00 2•50 3+00 1«50 4+00 4+50 5+00 5«29 20 AN EXISTING SW PACIFIC HIGHWAY PROFILE SCALE,1,27 HORIZONTAL 1'=2 VERTICAL W ROW ROW I 5047 TO 53 SY AIYr 1�A' HALF ROW �I 11M.P11= I DUSTING EDGE OF POSED ISTTIG ROAD I PAVEMENT ASPHALT SLRFAGE SURFACE I vi-SAWCUT LINE I PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS „F 1 - 1 PLAN la= t11R1v9R 1114/ qv liana. ILFMIIQ -%.. I i _ 7Mt1� �R.11� LEFT TURN LANE 7��� 'I�I�{A —ITID I LfJl,�7 J I 41T050 --DP Rommil �11Ar 1,.=, EXISTING . BICYCLE LANE 4 dR 04/LTG`/20151 L=WW1 'l/ /l1lJ/L 1.J TYPICAL SECTION:SW PACIFIC HIGHWAY SCALE NTS C5.0 0 47, U Q 0a Q 1 14 Q City of Tigard • COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT REGE/V7D 1 - Master Land Use Application JUL 16 2015 TIGARL _` : <_ Cit- ,";.-ARD PLANNING/ENGINEERING LAND USE APPLICATION TYPE ..)KAdjustment/Variance (II) ❑ Minor Land Partition (II) ' ❑ Comprehensive Plan Amendment (IV) ❑ Planned Development(III) ❑ Conditional Use (III) ❑ Sensitive Land Review (II or III) O Development Code Amendment (IV) S. Site Development Review (II) ❑ Downtown Design Review (II, III) 0 Subdivision (II or III) ❑ Historic Overlay (II or III) X.,Zone Change (III) ❑ Home Occupation (II) ❑ Zone Change Annexation (IV) NOTE: For required submittal elements,please refer to your pre-application conference notes. A II PROPOSAL SUMMARY (Brief description) FICZCne1 ''. (t-Inn 1Z-12_ - (1"."— & ;1 N- iylli.�'�7 oL l p- F-12,19n& --i-Hc,--- CSS !4' 'VSs Spit OA rJ (.0 -r-ieldif k PROPERTY INFORMATION Location where proposed activity will occur (address*� if available): \-- 12 Si i �l C., -1J L :.)P Tax maps and tax. lot 1;E ; 17.- I'D Z CJdS 200 Total site size: 1.' a Zoning classification: .4A7.-- FOR S'FM T !'S 1: Ws;IN APPLICANT INFORMATION`�( c-p4 / - o 3 10 l�\ C.i t Case No.: Name: I/ /.Z `2 5 lam„ t .'2,- -71 ' f'y, Related Ease No.{s): U Mailing address: E/tl}�C, ,rye,' l g Fee: ZO `�/ —O City/state: '! CD Zip:g 1 u(2. Si g // (92-' Phone: t _.* li4e1 %191 Application accepted: Primary contact person: , 1 1e/ B%. Date: �rr�� r yC.' Phone: L-rn— J't ,,,I ,', I Application determined complete: Email: V"'�C'k�N G1 i,') ,t �� ,C� '05frTh By: - Date: ' ..(1111) I:\CURPLN\M•atera\land Uta Applications Rev.07/1718014 City of Tigard • 13125 SW Hall Blvd. • Tigard, Oregon 97223 • wnnutigard-or.gov • 503-718-2421 • Page 1 of 2 \(= ( W. Tigard -Tualatin Si hoo1 fli•.ta ici ni try Lan\' Iiibilru[t Acfnur!; April 8, 2015 City of Tigard Community Development Department 13125 SW Hall Blvd Tigard, OR 97223 RE: 13125 SW Pacific Hwy Rezone and Site Development Review Applications To whom it may concern: II The Tigard Tualatin School District owns the above referenced parcel. This letter serves as our permission for Leadership Circle LLC and its employees to seek planning approvals (including rezone and site development review) and apply for building permits at 13125 SW Pacific Hwy. I Sincerely, ..,,_si--/./g..e„..,,o4____ Ernest L. Brown Superintendent 1 (15 0 C E 0 U m w U RECEIVED ( JUL 16 2015 -' CIT Lr; , ARD PLANNING/ENGINEERING 1 Pest, f,r S • i • . b.-..............4,,"....... ..-z 'teartIIPstov 1..rse.wrlr.t..'&flr4il(d.:6q'�17�:TT. ' � :�a..� L'ax.t: tltilike4t4. .•....--.M P4.4 Qnf.4.f.. �6,4�4..a+M47.MIM!ai. • .. petite/XI'av Mti rue'eouttsr1, eerher e4 ft„aT,a7JK 41',I lertk ••• ' 4ltardttlla W1tt1aw se it rase ae •klr� • 1.411_111t ilerset thea.* r4 -1(,sariMmMt.say alai[t4*afetYr LW.*.�ePM 1 M .1 .- 3.4;rea1 as Le tam:met wfHrl►!stabtar++ .*.*^teas 111' 1.6i3 sootier *Lave the'w3� larr'ilae of al” w a="flet !sassy Le Iowan J44 aaeTkw*vtsi'1Y."wwn4'AaaxtrrNkeztreeser'r'+["rsia les i• thea**-sact:Isfsisr'J•it leelaton silo,o,utfrlV waIta77 Ile.•If•W.. ` - / • tel, iLLrh'ts *,4wrr.. r lsseeetTY.r'CM tarriarael.d#UielSif i'ir"F I • or ttli;.t1he, eaw avararti al..e SD+.}utorlf.stEeM ar7 1 as of' i• sILd lot to tN eLtt rr L4tJnnt4 . • ,t Y , (0 Wan ...-., .. .••• ,t,• .. ' . • • 1 •. =Gb:C;:81ti41L No, i;,16-111:+..Rart'61..a.J .i».i.asusar1 :.L wel4a•Cantor. 'y';a.+y;..w.�.w.,, 1711/. a. ;:.'r;rr ernewnlaa tra4... I!la 4.__w ribr• •Miq:+M•_r.lw tial lalees.... id..i. • 1V . r 1: •st l'-'-'.,,‘ fin. • • 11 C I . —7,094— 2- • • Z� - , "I.,,,. f 1 J 1xx ' y --` .i...- ' 2 ' 5•�i •,,.' s - 7, s T�' o . f yh +.r 1 .1 'f 'fh+ ,, Y rT jf k} r, . .,,,.7---, .- =tfYt , µ v„,„,$4.,,s .L er.1w..,.e:...L+ep £ .-t 7'"'P- 111 • tw f•+ weoL• - 4 eu...7ltrwir iia!1+6.441044w a:int•ris NM,lava fJ$t f1 al.$q.13. Il _.',_7 .1Y M *1,444za oarl 3iiV14 4■telt'FViR Mg ftlINNr al/+ It l .as len Amid,:Asreign..11.111 OAS itivertiosar.oillibill 701 Ow 1r ., Coma* - Sita.dq Lr *!M•l+d ar/44r/.."*/ai*w'L...a - -. D.almnlat;at.'tha,r1S mar44erl> dormer o=1.4st 4.1. ...� W r north 71Ttrdsllla Od4iltll+r.5 thseoa asytieaeurAr•eu.u4e �^ .._<. Sae awrtlw. 1srlY 1.1e... of sold lot, l.cae spot= Ca .1 .."'L polr..c 'squally' •latent :mit A10 non• +.11.y aarLtar unit vote -- ri; westerly termer of 48114 Dat, acrid palet MIA/ LAI Jarc8- -.. . �"• Cwlt.rly corner or U.• H. I. Ja LIteiss ond,O• 7. 7acI:apa - •"�., ).dao; iraaat eowtlls....rly 41omr4 narshoaeeorl$ lie. of Tt s,'�,�•`i*-4."..F . *old rickaom USA Co,4 pvl i. on rmuti.Aotc1l#lin. or [a1i.L.1 4.1 a•,ta117 plataet fresz :L•.w aor41144.t4rly aara•r• - +�, 1� � and sawihdwttarlT cor■or Worst't, 44).0,9 Chit aga•%boa•ur' t fA it a•rcer of Ld Joekaon Spoil; tie•1et narthancitsr1Y 41-1•4[ j :lu sootriwat Lina oC Mld 14t, 1.41 eliiir %.,4 Vic Y,d7iR- e. 1 S (\ , •d • 4eor1T w.0orear tl rear LimitLimitr.orthreatar-1Y clan .. : 00 ti aur41i440t.rly Una o1 aald lat. ,1.044 a:et abnln4 is 4L.a + ` of �ar,�a318M. elictntin; %Laztfrrrt I1 rilibto at eta titin to rw,d:r 4md klJtnuTo. "'+�rrpli4Nllll -......2, .-.7.).P.2:`t. rte'` — ; I� 1 .1 tee. F � 7.Y.r(: a 1! Mtsrf1M qa 7•..ntr! 1. _ i _eroati �fk�ile�.a. . e.avo_r nee•4r. V--------..i7.--111-------- , - —tss_:uucv a- _,xaat NO.earlme*me • .w _` r ton are ..e rt RI w+ r • :. a a ■ .iw wear.• v1; u ,----,.....4 r,3; 41 R.A4?4Lv- p� 1!81 we y.e .w at+fer+t J iie.re ersetr6 da,....wall d is soil itla lar sNnwaal Ira M.I��•.,e►•[tin,ells ,I a•- ti- '•L' J - roe ...r•SD •'ltal..[tM6da.elprltt el WI slam ra d.1&i wit.•tit ow M fer.p.trwm.■�.3itU' w1:. 4.r ¢rrah ' tee-.....,,r'.sr , ,re.rra a+*•eJera iter! / 11^Mar wan , 4 , r J. 1.t 1 >r- !!'r ! •1rM•rr a.+a/raeltenswst wee•++++w fete++► Zir.+ 4# tel MJ•1J - - o�..�...,p..,,. drJrad rlu reFt w ersoJN l.roitra net*WY I.r1 apo}rod LLa.M14 a feb.1 W Jsmy'i.i.c.e W - 1 ,,„„,5„„6.,..i, I�1.1:: "ma"'If•a 7rr•rr.,ril.w/lrt+r--...-.--- . +..d,+"•[ • ..._.-mfaeu..._tl:Jr J.swL2sed..al_p 141wr. .�...e,e... —.Lt- f.. .'11.1�h f: o°... wit.a%Prw..e.el l -/ 1. - ' e: ti•17 f1C/Jr/ f JirteL•.e.7'�46J" —.u..e,-1 C s trii.eni lc {J� J � ,11cr _ Imo..". ' .Jie •!'.1. 7.„. ti t� ".-. + -r`-a 1.-2.1.. ,,,,...4... 1 r trr �e.-.v-ter•--- + r--- _. • Y ...��L arue� L� 1 .� i epee+��• '...�� i - M....y�', + i e. a .1.« 81;6.,. w fl4141.1.0 .:.ei 1Vikea. t:..., :., ...•%". * r.n.,tc'wpriPar 4 - - -• -- - ,VI -0; ' r • . n° • ti� kus, *• . !. i - t"jfi `' [ ,ftG1- t s � S Ike.i,'. ; uh .`: ,-.1,,,er r s••s e. iwriti • :n.,uQ , ' ,,1.!r? F!v. 1 ' _._.iri-, M.r�•M Y:U„•,V •+,• ... �' *.,prr . 1-rr . . ( , ._:'• . - (.it,111..1;14 C.:. • -! ;" . •. :t1V4e7rr—/„.•..........1....--- 1 —...7.-- _ • • il_ .' o�.• , _ 2 _ 1. t — •, a !� , r m s i 7 E illy,�, �(t� Iv, --_7-7 iD °`'. i a x • 1 % •., rr [,f • •-e. • • .� - - Co+t.r erg .• • '• �,• n. �;, as n• rrapa� i.w au r t.....:i, w+ it t.r•+i ,` .s• •aee - I00- I0 t tWrwwo% .M�s to r lb, y� p ' •faV. � eleetl4 tla ems mealy rad fL-lsterllr•;r" ' ./ Wi - + ..+ .sn,aa ao.%; _ • .111 Vs:1MMr=Lair.: ry. Alit.111i. I ,`:C: tina.r .s. r..r.l.es.rlv . a _ • 2w y z. i • y , 4r•n 0., •1 f' , rt t } • `J.. tit[` . ..�z t" - `�• • • 1• Wit_-taws •:�_�_ – -. `y : ark ..' , P ear V ;–r _I 1.1 • �.' ! ^r4 ,Il - . - ►-.—.- -••..i._,,,tiJ- --�•.a r•r • a te r :x_1w-. � -- - 1 r ( • 0 C. '. Ktt4W cdii3a •"`1 pa t .d „-�`_._.".' " . 1744i"---�'paid sbr....' 5�L9tE AIO.-23s. _- t�� _...,.._-•�-.k•^'..--..� �. - •d0_111_hraabY avant.bKL►iP..utl and(Ann,/iatio WIL:EQRGQL�L '_ " Ibw kdkr,l.rr per" u'a t• a� -11•11'411/1.r.--.--,-"w•Indpinattnaoto andla Sion � q Mata of ars- +Yldulx 11a Slew�antx.t Iron,hzuM.d and d'211.e r 1911••1,o'taA:--- _ -- -- i 3tiaet.tFtr7+r3'lh7.a� 9e-'s) 'at an Lroa.5 a°'a arlta.•oi 0rwit,y , . Q Arai..) awl which Stun•pipo bwpe 8 79'.•33' •(?)'Sflat' r La B. 9''la.. - '' - -13"`14-'3$2.0 Seat!Etat tha aton. at Lir(u.rtar t. or afore+floc . 4„-� -.2 ud 3,,which .t ii*•ii raid ta.l'a i.1.n tb4 5itit+1 61� oai �.. North T2ffit'dwilla Add.Ltdanr•ad.anai :henna rm. sib 9..99'33` i 2i1.,• I , ,{,a Save point,at b.i:atm. cfn:gents}ins ot-Grattt.,p.•20.0 teat to as Sx"tat �_.-�-.- ` •pips to a&ism p*aS$oty7df- it. ..r"oedaaf'1 Cloaca o�tt1*1-'na ' gipa m Lha! 7&,riltwrl,T lflt. off;, t N. ?ST.6 . .N, ti` tpei9.'j7i.6'teet tO.S i% pipe;;''?tncw`S 79`.s fistyo'ut iron PUMP;A.tboaor,1 '9 .1511.X. 73'a.0,.rart,ito,,an rows pips _ ••- an the aforesrld nortlowstrt'!`T:lina of'OF+at Sti+.tl tAuws continuing 3 54'•i Z. b:o`tia.t 3Q1lfe'tzcs- ..at Lsd-mint. aouts=niic9 ' ° 1.713:rior'ao, ]�ro3ndldt Oat arta-within,,taw p.2?3„to roadway. (. . • .3_.�_.. -_ Lar unto Ole st10— t ..._ - p I . Zb N..._ and LwF3mid,t *bay* ,,`�_m,ail.:l4Gt�F4.Sr.4�ifiL7...'L�'% - f � --~ - r�wa* GAL164xs...---11N f and ard&uit toren. , • aAnd.----_... �l1AA"� .'ca1-J•. 1 m t . erd, htive!wood tra -t_.•^ a_! Llr C),.• that-lb -I .. __Jiwlri11 silted la tw-alnplo al la Poo* lhs bowe prnnt.d pendaa�nfin from W ImuaWirceei _� IM^_ �___________--..__ _-. __. wad thal-fit•@g_-._-7u aid_-111 ---h.fe+, n..:mn snd sdatldstt.lora,..h.u.w.reut 504 Porrv.r awl away Sara•"'d portal latr.oi:spurt lbo lawful claims, and dmlaed IIH call p ewer owwww ---__. C, E demmads o1 all plower s.boerwwee,_--.-.— -^-^--•..'-_--- • / /In hrtenta a1� • - ♦ • _/ r .....,,,,:,,..,,,...:r.7... r. A: 1 ? ._.411• • tr;' -� ;idc4-WS;1948 284-0648 Ij ,, , • r i 1 - •r n rt OF 9 caaaty.[..,_D ! IE Fr BtJL =RLD.11at m 14s_d f—day J'' .J.,—JI.0.19-48_, I -a.. -. r W.+a,a:theundersigned,*Statary'1646114 III and tor told Carty end Slat%ymenae&IY 4PP444.1 the+Whir.1+u1ed , `.SIJ..Z.-BA6Rf and kbTt.w 9F0 .+_h4 ° -y..S,f.P. _ . If.. La sat to hot the idantlral lndielsuLJ_d eOrl..dl:end trho'eaKuled the within lnatrumeet end t { � • aduewlaltd to Ise that— - tha__, id the eat Ueely iod vtiunla*111. • _.. 4 S IN litliTIMONY.W1iIa'1[C41,1 two-herevato ul my hand and 1 .{ - offldal Roo and Yea: Omer mrll l ! »... I t t/,',....- ,3 N°�yr Vua6 .1 ti � .3 J 1 i t1r.T ti•17`•�.i — 'G bJu^e rt4 .4.-.eS..�n �I •5 1 I _____...__ . .00 • 1 • ..-•_I A Ail 1.,,- ,i : , -,--r- .\\ I,' -- 1---,,!, „.....-:,-.-:-..-_-_ -,.---, - •0. 1- .- .- . 5: ill";-. ,-._ ..rit.-:,...,,,, . .!)14.--..... ::,..1...;-,......,..„,---1 .--- --- : . . '• - ii •' .l _ tcl. _I ` t 1, fry • adc4-WS:1948 284-0648 --- — -- 0 c- • • a . w ALL ale i z> rs�e r� id111 0affirig31 a4 lfiR3 i.414°7 n1 I 1 zs wino of,, SmalikD°°.� a► rbt_ pod III ZCstnL ' ---- , <? .. ¢ .b�,p..l basdr+r.ell mb sews'ueMr wM_. - . . E4 __its llrlR e.i.w ealyrris the tellwlai reel Pr+iw4.o "and Ad's eartdpaasds o appardaaasa'davned in d'�(s'aar •f— i' _ " .. S fon.t,wd.a.d act a/eLa~'4.04,ra, - ` - - -'- A porton of Ida 28.end 29 Of■arty 71 dr!.}1r itt1Q•a11.laa..w the 1 dal/roourdol nap and plat thereof;:'end more lr aonolied as f011eear I L.)l •Y . 17.r�• trw id point of Y • C`.-�_ Poems-Ina as•point L {h.eentar o. Prone.. 7.2 3.L.1 L 1.S. r ir..,an.the 3 t aarwv'Patse n aaUAan.1 Sad 3, Y bow South South 3S' 33'*ie. 584.3 r..4s AAA riroo [ thaws ba,;s . point North 39' 53' not 261.4 fa.t to as iron IliWI ����i limas l.tet 394.6 fest"ts,so Lew pipe ie the renter at'•Wady 241.1-f..t-to its Tr, ._...._a 3aath 39'33!,haat 1n.the sint.r of said Mao* .61.4 Sr 4o Y ._ ost in'We kith Lira mil 4 of ai abap 4. "%n� a a b.atreesrf, , R.et ting&sr et.r-at thane 1,iM£within 394 1a4t t°t o' ,ems ... _.• aaesy►i.gl.asT portion thane ITir,e within th.Irooada _ a ' r _ _ t . i 0 • , - . \ ' tt O , - _ o--.- Se __ an8 a Roll t Shutt o ibi sod a''rea ��•..la tin -, R'�:.•. �.emL mtafir an. 27.7f311fTTili.i�e-Jeaae. _ �.._.,. { :--:....T--"'-----'':--:''''- -.-�- �1--. "^' .fe .spa and walarw fanrYaa • .S - "- air_. _ and 1 i•. 4; j �r • 134.1 rerd'd6 -i Is s!.war*,k e s a ernad tea a\ene �j - 4.! �� Leer ihRl-a'o �•-ai.masa Rt in simple sf As Aro p+w"'�sa' - 1 _I - ptnMd pre!Jrw pre Lw baa IF laaalilaass. �.. _ —• and ass- thisr_wal ea! -ta.$)....e.,e.Sari We sad phiskinennisn.ARS so armee slid fwessr - °{{ • defend lee above pafvd'ler.eae,:rd,ewarY Put ai prep Mom;190"lib!/II"el"'.ea U I deanfrb W at WPM wheena.ale.--- - - < Wanes, o.' NalL fed mi.A.til` s 419'.al 1 • • .._41121.-9. ,off A. , 1 O �4 ^- u- aidl.-Y~rr J ..a.i �, , v.c�a .•i. ,is -Gall '. Um. O rr r .1r.;41•'•.1 1 �,.if,I-^,.. �`?Z 1E3%40 i40'- ti. ♦♦a '�. �� -ANIMENN ,IT, :' t • is ''" adc4-WS:1948 284-0650 - - - . �.... moi. . - .. p / • • • • •: -- x L J1 t�p"7'a r.;..r..a,,,ir.'--'` j ,x^^•..d3.a 4'...aa-•-•-•.•-.1-41.•••• •%:••• , _ -_•-• • 1 iI i '.6TA'�C 4Y Olt}XN�N. _ Cotodywl�1 t,,,.o...T I .I - 03 PI RCluagp LD.•Taat.u7.a A ..--__.�-A.D.to_..... ... — bows UFa.the utdi.rtfned,-i Notary.t'li6lk Ilt~L. •'(,lead Cawly'ree Stele Pe+ad'a"IFPad't I--'71 - - - . ..lb*wtlhkL tetra..---M-120042114}d TA•9k_3;L3.-.fhuWnd cnd'!J.Ce __ .. '. _ '. h!:ea tab.for Wrutlrit ludielau•i_ ,,imperilled In end who:eeeeekd 9w whhta ler46mwd ata • -urknuwiud/Y1.tbVei tel.:: . _'_....,.ixuQntad the•l.mu ltt+•IY ase value La f. a ..IN Tastatizrz wI1 I,1 dive b.rrotn r.t my band end _ ... W.... '— •,.e51•Ir otlkL.i a Orem,7 At.o.wr14kT a. I• Nota--$WL11s lop( cz q • ''P In t-Iila u ...omtdakn rtPbu!'a =a..F -/_f a 4- ;} y ._ • 9. arty• ! lamp: a +y L 4••° \ t .' �.. s 9 f adc4-WS:1948 284-0650 Exhibit C - Neighborhood Meeting Materials AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING/POSTING 'ECF ' lrD ..\ NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING NOTICE JUL 1 F 2015 q/11) IMPORTANT NQTICE: THE APPLICANT IS REQUIRED TO MAIL THE CITY OF TIGARD A f Y.QF 'TIS NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING NOTICE THAT PERTAINS TO THIS AFFIDAVIT AT THE SA4U I OWNERS ARE MAILED NOTICE,TO THE ADDRESS BELOW: BRING City of Tigard Planning Division 13125 S\V Hall Boulevard Tigard,OR 97223-8189 IN ADDITION,THE APPLICANT SHALL SUBMIT THIS AFFIDAVIT&COPIES OF ALL NOTICES AT THE TIME OF APPLICATION. MAILING: 1. ,being duly sworn,depose and say that on the day of 2f1 ,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 KU great)_ a copy of which notice so mailed is attached hereto and made a part of hereof. T 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 Post Office located at with postage prepaid thereon Signature (In the presence of a Notary Public) POSTING: t, , '- I,_a0 __ a4,4 w()/11-1 .,�,do arm that I am(represent) the party initiating interest in a proposed land use application '(.40 for C'L Yy (5lli t-fct1- t3-hlti+�'rLf .:i.lecuirg the land located at,(stale the approximate let alio t(s)IF no address(s)and all tax lot(s)currently registered)_,( / ` ' '- . ` . -• fi } ! -}f,K-Iciir 7 I t 2r G► cv2.ct,-L ,and did on rc_6,Nf, day.4' i/ ,r ,:i l D pe sr„rallr_ psi :noxi c indicating that the site may be proposed for a - +LZ4''At 0-,het `7ik UCiP`[ It7r»'t,yfr 4"2-) land use application,and the time,date and place of a neighborhood meeting to discuss the proposal The ri;ut was pied at Ml1[I& -4 'vtfl^ri- ttipez- !r.^K ev fi`"4 . I-tyvt. ( (1;it,J) \PnA,,,.c._ (State the location you posted notice on property) , Signature (In the presence o a Notary Public) (TI-HIS SECTION FOR A STATE OF OREGON,NOTARY PUBLIC TO COMPLETE/NOTARIZE) STATE OF Ort OP.- ) County of 'I'll 11,ctYu )as. rr ` `i\ac ,2U IS Suhscrihed and swam/affirmed before me on the �[] day of _ '` j R OFFBCIAL SFAL ke,,, SAUNA ANDRES ) NOTARY PUBLIC OF OREGON • NOTARY PUBLJC-OREGON COMMISSION NO.477916 (i� My Commission Expires: MY COMMISSION F IRES APRIL 30.2017 () --.1.-.. .46.1:.4-34-i.. --- C it \r l:\CUItPLN\Maters\Pre.Appticatioo'coufercoec Packet\Affidavit oftrlaifing-PosringNeighborhood Meering docx Updated 3/25/2013 1 AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING/POSTING NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING NOTICE (IMPORTANT NOTICE: THE APPLICANT IS REQUIRED TO MAIL THE CITY OF TIGARD A COPY OF THE 1EIGHBORHOOD MEETING NOTICE THAT PERTAINS TO THIS AFFIDAVIT AT THE SAME TIME PROPERTY WNERS ARE MAILED NOTICE,TO THE ADDRESS BELOW: City of Tigard Planning Division 13125 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard,OR 97?73-8189 1 IN ADDITION,THE APPLICANT SHALL SUBMIT THIS AFFIDAVIT&COPIES OF ALL NOTICES AT THE TIME OF APPLICATION. MA LING: I, 4661 ti ,being duly sworn,depose and say that on the (i Qday of al,i4-0,t-i 20 j , I caused to have ni1ed to each off the persons on the attache91 list, a nonce of a meeting to discuss a proposed development at (or near) 1 bIx2-5- Sic) -1C2.tF C r)p r (71:1iGa!� 0 141,--;,(70 Ai a copy of which notice so mailed is attached hereto and made a part of hereof. 1 further state that said notices were enclosed in envelopes plainly addressed/to raid persons and were deposited on the date indicated above in the Untied States Post Office located at /11O/0T12O5 OIC+ with postage prepaid thereon. / , ,,,,:-.a-:',. ..„ .., , i __________„ 1 Signature (In the presence of a Notary Public) POSTING: 1 , do affirm that I ani (represent) the party inivattng interest in a proposed land use application kAll affecting the land located at (state the approximate ariain(s) IF no address(s)and all tax lot(s)currently registered) ,and did on the dat of ,20 personally post nonce indicating that the site may be proposed for a land use application,and the time,date and place of a neighborhood meeting to discuss die proposal. 1.he sign was posted at (State the location you posted notice on property) Signature (In the presence of a Notary Public) (THIS SECTION FOR A STATE OF O 6ON,NOTARY PUBLIC TO COMPLETE/NOTARIZE) STATE OF L10[0Y4dip ) CciarQG(,.o County of `7)0-70"-y4- yc )ss. f (- Subscribed and sworn/affirmed before me on the lg day of 1- vc. ,20 /•5 . I JONI FRIGETTOef4corl4J NOTARY PUBLIC `,44 STATE OF COLORADO NOTARY PUBLIC OF L Y COMM SS QNNOTARY66 PI�iESSMARCH 24.207e My Commission Expires:I O Q p 1:1CUMIN\Masters\Pre-1ppfic3uon C:unfercnct Packe\Affidavit of Nlading-Posting Ncighbothood Meeting.ducx Updated 3/25/2013 Tkcftrd. ry)666h0,5 5-5. IS NAME ADDRESS EMAIL ‘0 Le*,4. c (,,() .-s-0S Scs4. epi for r 2,6) kof 1 4 + vega Monet Ragsdale • Leadership Circle,LLC d thit_+:ture 41t 1521 Oxbow Drive, #210 Montrose,CO 81402 Date 04.02.2015 RE:Tigard Neighborhood Meeting Minutes 103.31.2015 16:00pm I Charles Tigard School Comments by attendees: Krista: • Stated that she went to the website and admired some of the other projects that were completed and said that it will be a"real asset to the community" . Asked if trucks would still be circulating on School Road. We mentioned that only delivery trucks are anticipated. She appeared happy with this response. . Stated that it will be. "Nice to have it in there' Leann: • Stated that her house is to the NW of the building and she was concerned about heavy truck traffic in front of her house. We described the delivery schedule and that seemed to alleviate her concerns. • Stated that this was a much better use than the previous bus lot . Asked what the landscaping would be between school drive and the building. We explained our intention of landscaping that area with trees, etc,which appeared to satisfy her. Sincerely yours, David Grooms I AIA I LEED AP 1335 Elati St Unit A I Denver,CC 80204 303.872.0487 720.362.3822 uecdaarchitecture.corn ADDRESS TEL FAX URL Exhibit D - Service Provider Letters RECEIVED 'r City ofrigard JUL 16 2015 i i+GAR17 Service Provider Letter �.Rcciucst fol 11c lite P_' rvJability} . ....: 'LAN NINGLEN'SaINEERI C._._ GENERAL LNfOJ MAT ION Proposed Project Name (if applicable): Zone Change - FOR STAFF iJSF, ONLY PropertyAddress/Location(s): 13125 SW Pacif=ic Highw;rt__ Tax Map&Tax Lot#(s):251 2CB 200 Sire Site: 1.33 Acre. v Applicant: IcatriBurly.L rkk}ipCrit Address: 1521 Oxbow Dr. Ste 21 Cl City/State: Montrose CO Zip:51402-02339 Primary Contact: Phone:970-249-3396 Fax: E CITY OF TIGARD CERTIFIES THAT the above listed property has the following services)available. Sanitary Sewer Note: E Storm Drainage Note:Service is subject to a downstream analysis as required by CWS R&O 07-20, 5.5.4. Note: ❑ Water TVWD Note:Contacted Ryan Smith 503.848.3057 (JZvan@rvwd.org ® Water City of Tigard Note: El Police Note: Greg Berrv,_Development Review City of Tigard City of Tigard I 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard, OR 97223 I 503-718-2421 I www.tigard-ar.gov Page.1 ofI i r , i 220 NW 2HD AVENUE �� pORTLANO.OR 97209 (11 It ), NW Natural `" 503.226.4211 ww N.nwn.iorsi.:am. January 29, 2015 Karen Brady Leadership Circle LLC 1521 Oxbow Dr##210 PO Box 239 Montrose CO 81402-0239 970.249.3398 Hello Karen, This information is furnished in response to your request for a commitment for natural gas service to the proposed project located at 13125 SW Pacilk Hwy,Tigard OR. Northwest Natural Gas (Company) will provide natural gas service for normal commercial use in the above described site and such service will be available at the lot line at or prior to the time of sale or lease thereof. Northwest Natural Gas Company operates under the jurisdiction and subject to the Rules and 0 Regulations of the Public Utility Commissioner (PUC) of Oregon and Washington Utilities Transportation Commission (WUTC) in Washington. Service is provided pursuant to the Tariff (rates, rules and regulations) of the Company on file with the PUC and WUTC. Such Tariff is subject to change as provided by law. The Company installs, owns and maintains all facilities up to and including the meter pursuant to the provisions of such Tariff. Facilities beyond the meter are the responsibility of the builder or owner. Copies of its rates, rules and regulations and additional information may be obtained by contacting the Company. Best Regards rr „ Sid Stafford Commercial Services 503.220.2394 Office sas@nwnatural.com 0 • PGEPortland General Electric Company PC)Bror 4404 •Port1in f Ore on 97205 • 2/6/2015 Karen Brady Leadership Circle LLC PO Box 239 Montrose, CO 81402 Subject: Proposed construction site at 13125 SW Pacific Hwy, Tigard, Oregon N/A, PGE Work Request No. N/A Dear Karen: Thank you for inquiring about electrical services provided through Portland General Electric. Your proposed project located in Tigard, Oregon is within PGE's service territory. PGE has enough electrical capacity to serve your anticipated load. However, in all likelihood, additional infrastructure and electrical equipment will need to be installed to serve this anticipated load. This letter does not address any issues concerned with easements or right-of-ways. The owner/developer is responsible for all costs associated with providing electric service to a new project, including the expenses for realigning existing electric facilities. However, PGE currently has a line extension allowance (LEA) that may help offset some of the costs of providing electrical service, We calculate the LEA for your project based on an estimate of the yearly incremental kWh consumption. This LEA is subject to change. Please note that the LEA does not apply to certain project expenses involving underground service. The owner/developer is always responsible for the cost of all necessary excavation, trenching, conduit, vaults, submersible transformers, pads and permits. Expenses for providing electric service to a project can be considerable. In order to provide a good cost estimate, PGE must receive your detailed plans and load estimates. When you have this information, please call (503) 736-5450, and a Service and Design Consultant will be assigned to your project and make contact with you. Sincerely, Sheila Steele Service Coordinator Portland Genera! Electric cc: �,4 Clean Water Services File Number Clean'Wate Services t 000m,I Sensitive Area Pre-Screening Site Assessment 1. Jurisdiction: Tigard 2. Property Information (example 1S234AB01400) 3. Owner Information Tax lot ID(s): .2S I 02CB00200 Name: Charles F.Tigard Elementary School Company: Address: 12855 SW Grant Ave Site Address: 13125 SW Pacific Highway City, State,Zip: Tigard,OR 97223 City, State,Zip: Tigard,OR,97223 Phone/Fax: 503-431-4400 Nearest Cross Street: School Street E-Mail: 4. Development Activity (check all that apply) 5. Applicant Information J Addition to Single Family Residence(rooms, deck,garage) Name: Mario de la Rosa • Lot Line Adjustment J Minor Land Partition Company: Cardno J Residential Condominium j Commercial Condominium Address: 5415 SW Westgate Drive J Residential Subdivision J Commercial Subdivision ▪ Single Lot Commercial J Multi Lot Commercial City, State,Zip: Portland,OR 97221 Other Phone/Fax: 503-734-1800 E Mail: mario.delarosa@cardno.com 6. Will the project involve any off-site work? U Yes j No ❑ Unknown Location and description of off-site work Construction of roadway median.Connection to utilites 7. Additional comments or information that may be needed to understand your project This application does NOT replace Grading and Erosion Control Permits,Connection Permits,Building Permits,Site Development Permits,DEQ 1200-C Permit or other permits as issued by the Department of Environmental Quality,Department of State Lands and/or Department of the Army COE. All required permits and approvals must be obtained and completed under applicable local,state,and federal law. By signing this form,the Owner or Owner's authorized agent or representative,acknowledges and agrees that employees of Clean Water Services have authority to enter the project site at all reasonable times for the purpose of inspecting project site conditions and gathering information related to the project site. I certify that I am familiar with the information contained in this document,and to the best of my knowledge and belief,this information is true,complete,and accurate. Print/Type Name Mario de la Rosa Print/Type Title ONLINE SUBMITTAL Date 3/30/2015 FOR DISTRICT USE ONLY ❑ Sensitive areas potentially exist on site or within 200'of the site. THE APPLICANT MUST PERFORM A SITE ASSESSMENT PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A SERVICE PROVIDER LETTER. If Sensitive Areas exist on the site or within 200 feet on adjacent properties,a Natural Resources Assessment Report may also be required. ❑ Based on review of the submitted materials and best available information Sensitive areas do not appear to exist on site or within 200'of the site.This Sensitive Area Pre-Screening Site Assessment does NOT eliminate the need to evaluate and protect water quality sensitive areas if they are subsequently discovered.This document will serve as your Service Provider letter as required by Resolution and Order 07-20, Section 3.02.1. All required permits and approvals must be obtained and completed under applicable local,State,and federal law. ❑ Based on review of the submitted materials and best available information the above referenced project will not significantly impact the existing or potentially sensitive area(s)found near the site.This.Sensitive Area Prescreening Site Assessment does NOT eliminate the need to evaluate and protect additional water quality sensitive areas if they are subsequently discovered.This document will serve as your Service Provider letter as required by Resolution and Order 07-20,Section 3.02.1. All required permits and approvals must be obtained and completed under applicable local,state and federal law. ❑ This Service Provider Letter is not valid unless CWS approved site plan(s)are attached. ❑ The proposed activity does not meet the definition of development or the lot was platted after 9/9/95 ORS 92.040(2). NO SITE ASSESSMENT OR SERVICE PROVIDER LETTER IS REQUIRED. Reviewed by(� / �. •�- Date _ 3/31/15 2550 SW Hillsboro Highway • Hillsboro,Oregon 97123 • Phone:(503)681-5100 • Fax:(503)681-4439 • www.cleanwaterservices.org o a 4%.„ _____ L.g.E,,D ! . rte« t uw.rt ccow I, heron.~WM "" Clr.Wi<.n c 4RZSF RD •ev4.rvn,9 til • liar, �, ALISMNT,wrNANCOI cwa;E3F r.IGARD '-T g Z .. ;7, t.:r pLeman.`ZONAVG-NO. rzsurwrw+'rgMaq L •.. o•>•"�•r 5,111.0 d� /uroavrW-ranrc-ar! II �j •�w.e.n�•w.+..rra ( : _ _. _ , •• -. _1,-_.141::!,4.1.: .=.1=11.1 wsvranec(ou.a..oR..r«w.r • 1 f ® •.•.a•cso ....v... COLA rswr;.+D PAR! st_a _ -� 5 /GSNfR1:CD...Vt�.,t ttwr.,v IFF 1NW - .• LS M• , .. i S • [COMMENCIObS/ 1r , .;o : F j �.CJWF4CY[ �4r, •Vic{- __ —, � , - Fa .--_--- �-"t! -- . �-` — I .. I `R. - ' OAC r c,\ 4 -- , w a tab ---- .....--=.----——*\ ...\\N , /" COKIONCut UM $ c xrrRc+u car laueW IL U c IL MEOW ` NYRlR.LC CDwYRCN.rLWM.2I i 1 hb 1..•.. ( ►4 I ;1 1 Gr r, (•O(.11. qi T 1 73 r+r w-wi rvr I t ,. UTE PLAN #r = -- C2.0 a Exhibit E - Impact Study Jff rd \\// / RECEIVED JUL 16 2015 CITY 01- N IL At-ID PLANNING/ENGINEERING Impact Study ` f Specialty Grocery - Tigard 21409110 i ` r Prepared for Leadership Circle, LLC I 15221 Oxbow Dr.. Suite 210 PO Box 239 Montrose, CO 81420-0239 March 17, 2015 Cardno Shaping the Future Impact Study Specialty Grocery-Tigard Document Information Prepared for Leadership Circle, LLC Project Name Specialty Grocery-Tigard File Reference Specialty Grocery Impact Study.docx Job Reference 21409110 Date March 17, 2015 Contact Information Cardno 5415 SW Westgate Drive, Suite 100 Portland, Oregon 97221 Telephone: 503-419-2500 Facsimile: 503-419-2600 atalia.raskin@cardno.com () www.cardno.com Document Control Version Date Author Author Initials Reviewer Reviewer Initials 1 March 17,2015 Atalia Raskin ASR Ben Williams BFW Michael Minor MM ©Cardno 2015.Copyright in the whole and every part of this document belongs to Cardno and may not be used,sold,transferred.copied or reproduced in whole or in part in any manner or form or in or on any media to any person other than by agreement with Cardno. This document is produced by Cardno solely for the benefit and use by the client in accordance with the terms of the engagement.Cardno does not and shall not assume any responsibility or liability whatsoever to any third party arising out of any use or reliance by any third party on the content of this document. March 17.2015 Cardno ii Impact Study Specialty Grocery-Tigard EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The following document describes the impact study to quantify the effects on public facilities of the zoning change from R12 (medium-density residential district)to C-G (general commercial district). The proposed specialty grocery site is located at 13125 SW Pacific Highway in Tigard, Oregon. The property is located within the city limits of the City of Tigard and is subjected to its zoning and development ordinances. This Impact Study reviewed five areas of impact; water, sanitary, storm, parks, and noise. The conclusions of the study are summarized below: > Water Demand Water fixture units were calculated for each zoning classification to quantify the effects on the public water system. Water fixtures were estimated using the highest use development conditions for each zoning type. The residential zoning calculated a much higher rate of use. Therefore, the proposed zone change decreases the anticipated water demand and has no impact on the water system. • Sanitary Sewer Infrastructure Peak sanitary sewer flows were estimated using average daily flows (gallons per day) for each zoning classification. The project flows are significantly higher for the residential zoning. Therefore, the proposed zone change decreases the anticipated sanitary sewer discharges and has no impact of the sanitary sewer system. > Storm Sewer Infrastructure Water quality peak flows and quantity volumes were calculated for each zoning classification. The proposed C-G zoning allows for a greater impervious site area. The impacts of the zone change can be mitigated by installing a larger water quality treatment facility and water quantity storage. Therefore, the proposed zone change does not increase anticipated storm sewer discharges and has no impact on the storm sewer system. > Parks Neither classification, R12 nor C-G, requires the construction of a park facility. Therefore, there are no expected park impacts as a result of this zone change. > Noise A detailed noise analysis was performed for the construction and operations of the proposed specialty grocery store. The analysis predicted and evaluated noise from private vehicles accessing the site, trucks delivering supplies, and noise related to ventilation fans and cooling systems necessary for operations. The analysis was performed for several of the closest residential uses, along with a play field, a theater and an elementary school, all located near the site, and assumed worst-case conditions. The results of the analysis showed that the operations of the new store are not projected to exceed the City of Tigard noise control ordinance. In fact, the noise levels were predicted to be 3 to 4 dB, or more, below the criteria, allowing for a safety factor of at least 3 dB. Construction noise was also reviewed, and if performed during normal daytime hours, as allowed by the City noise ordinance, no construction noise impacts are predicted. Because there are no noise impacts, no noise mitigation is being recommended for this project. The results of the impact study conclude the proposed zoning changes do not have a negative effect on the public facilities. March 17, 2015 Gardno iii Impact Study Specialty Grocery-Tigard Table of Contents 0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 INTRODUCTION 5 1.1 Purpose 5 1.2 Site Description 5 1.3 Approach 5 2 WATER SYSTEM 7 2.1 Water Analysis 7 2.2 Conclusion 7 3 SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM 8 3.1 Sanitary Analysis 8 3,2 Conclusion 8 4 STORM SEWER SYSTEM 9 4.1 Water Quality 9 4.2 Water Quantity 9 4.3 Conclusion 9 5 PARKS 10 5.1 Parks Analysis 10 6 NOISE 10 6.1 Acoustics 10 6.2 Noise Control Ordinance 10 6.3 Noise Sources 10 6.4 Noise Impact Analysis 11 6.5 Construction Noise 12 Tables Table 1-1 Land Use Summary-- R12 6 Table 1-2 Land Use Summary—C-G 6 Table 2-1 Fixture Calculations 7 Table 2-2 Water System Comparison 7 Table 3-1 Sewer System Comparison 8 Table 4-1 Storm Sewer Quantities 9 Table 6-1 AM Peak Noise Levels from a Typical Grocer Operations 12 Table 6-2 PM Peak Noise Levels from a Typical Grocer Operations 12 Figures Figure 1-1 R12 Example Site Plan 5 Figure 1-2 C-G Example Site Plan— Option 1 6 Figure 1-3 C-G Example Site Plan— Option 2 6 Figure 6-1 Noise Modeling Sites 11 March 17,2015 Cardno iv Impact Study Specialty Grocery-Tigard 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Purpose The intent of this impact study is to quantify the effects on public facilities as a result of the zoning change from R12 (medium-density residential district)to C-G (general commercial district). This report will compare the impacts on the following areas: > Water Demand > Sanitary Sewer Infrastructure > Storm Sewer Infrastructure > Parks > Noise 1.2 Site Description The 1.33 acre site is located at 13125 SW Pacific Highway in Tigard, Oregon. The property is located within the city limits of the City of Tigard and is subjected to its zoning and development ordinance. The site was previously used as a bus facility for the Tigard-Tualatin School District. Approximately one third of the property is an asphalt parking lot. one third is a gravel parking lot and the remaining one third is pervious. Public utility connections exist adjacent to the site. Stormwater runoff sheet flows to the northern corner of the site and currently drains offsite without treatment or detention. Prior to 2004, the site contained a school building and parking lot. At that time, the site was almost entirely impervious. Water and sanitary connections are assumed to have existed for this development. No stormwater facilities are evident from aerial photos. The surrounding land use include Charles F. Tigard Elementary School located behind the property(west), and car auto parts stores adjacent to the property (north and south). Across SW Pacific Highway are restaurants and medical office buildings. A single family development is located diagonal (southwest)to the site. 1.3 Approach This report describes the impacts of a development allowed under each zoning classification, Quantities were calculated for each development and compared to determine the impact on public facilities. Figure 1-1 R12 Example Site Plan R12- Medium-Density Residential District The R12 land use requirements are summarized in Table 1-1. For this analysis, the R12 development contained a single 16 unit apartment style complex with n 24,400 SF 11117 28 parking stalls. Community amenities. such as a BUILDING swimming pool, are not required for a development of this size. City code allows for 19 apartment units given the property area, although configuring 19 units onsite would result in apartments that are unreasonably narrow. 111111111111111111111111111.11 S.w. PACPC HIGHWAY March 17,2015 Cardno 5 Impact Study Specialty Grocery-Tigard Table 1-1 Land Use Summary– R12 Zoning R12 (medium-density residential district) Permitted Land Uses Variety of residential developments at a minimum unit size of 3,050 sq.-ft. Analyzed Development 16 multi-family units Setbacks 20 ft -front and back, 10 ft -sides Minimum Landscape Area 20% Parking (min. per unit) 28 stalls (1.75) Figure 1-2 C-G Example Site Plan–Option 1 C-G–General Commercial --- - The C-G land use requirements are summarized below I1 1 11 1 1 1 11 I I LI 1 ' 11 1 1 i 1 l ! I 1 L in Table 1-2. C-G zoning allows for a full range of retail, office and civic uses. A limited number of other uses are permitted conditionally. A gas station was not mik considered because they are not allowed outright per o City zoning code. Two highest use conditions were r 0 analyzed to account for the range of developments 2e' SF - -.--- allowed by the C-G zoning classification. Option 1 is a BUILDING - 20,000 sq.-ft specialty retail store and Option 2 is a — 3,000 sq.-ft fast-food restaurant and a 3,000 sq.-ft 11i P convenience store was assumed for this analysis. viimmimmu – 5.w. PACIFIC a wn r Table 1-2 Land Use Summary–C-G Zoning C-G (general commercial district) _ Permitted Land Uses A full range of retail, office and civic uses. Option 1 = a 20,000 sq.-ft specialty retail store. Analyzed Development Option 2 = a 3,000 sq.-ft fast food restaurant and a 3,000 sq.-ft convenience store _ Minimum Setbacks 0 ft -front, back, and sides Minimum Landscape Area 15% Parking Option 1 = 60, Option 2 = 30 Figure 1-3 C-G Example Site Plan–Option 2 I- 3,000 SF BUILDING W w �, C$ ro Io 4m JI III I IOW , , SW_ PACIFIC HIGHWAY r March 17,2015 Cardno 6 Impact Study Specialty Grocery-Tigard 2 WATER SYSTEM 2.1 Water Analysis The site is located within the Tigard water service area. Water standards are provided within the City of Tigard Public Improvement Design Standards, Water Distribution System, dated September 9, 2009. A 12-inch water main is located along the property boundary in SW Pacific Highway and School Street. The R12 water demand was estimated based on fixture counts assuming each unit has two bedrooms, two baths, and one kitchen. The C-G Option 1 water demand was estimated based on a typical grocery store. C-G Option 2 water demand was estimated based on a typical fast-food restaurant. The analysis assumed the fixture counts as listed in Table 2-1. Table 2-1 Fixture Calculations Zoning Fixture Units RI 2 C-G-Option I C-G-Option 2 (WSFU) Quantity Total Quantity Total Quantity Tatal Water Closet(Flush Tank) 2.5 32 80 4 10 8 20 Dishwasher(Domestic) 1.5 16 24 0 0 2 3 Hose Bibb 3 16 48 2 6 6 18 Lavatory 1 32 32 3 3 8 8 Sink 1.5 16 24 4 6 4 6 I' Clothes Washer 4 16 64 0 0 1 4 Bath Tub 4 32 128 0 0 0 0 () Mop Sink 3 0 0 1 3 4 12 Electic Water Cooler 0.5 0 0 1 1 2 1 Urinal 2 0 0 1 2 2 4 Shower 2 0 0 1 2 2 4 Warewasher+hood 2 0 0 0 0 1 2 Total WSFU - - 400 - 33 - 82 2.2 Conclusion Generally, residential developments have an increased number of fixtures and a higher water demand. This is shown in Table 2-1. Table 2-1 lists the estimated total fixture units and the estimated domestic and fire line sizes. The water demand decreases as a result of the zone change; therefore, there is no negative effect from the proposed zone change. Table 2-2 Water System Comparison Zoning R12 C-G -Optoin 1 C-G -Optoin 2 Estimated Total Fixture Units 400 33 82 Domestic Water Line Size 2" 1 1/2" 2" Fire Water Line Size 2" 6" 6" U March 17,2015 Cardna 7 Impact Study Specialty Grocery-Tigard 3 SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM 0 3.1 Sanitary Analysis The City of Tigard sanitary sewer design follows the City of Tigard Public Improvement Design Standards dated July 15, 1998, Clean Water Services Design and Construction Standards and Oregon Plumbing code. The 2010 City of Tigard Sanitary Sewer Master Plan compiles information on the City sanitary sewer. The City of Tigard owns and maintains sanitary collections systems smaller than 24 inches, while CWS is responsible for larger diameter sewer pipes. An 8-inch diameter sanitary sewer line is located in SW Pacific Highway. The sanitary sewer extends northeast to a CWS sewer main. An ODOT permit is required to connect to the sanitary sewer line. The Tigard High Capacity Transit Land Use Plan states the sanitary sewer system has adequate capacity for the existing population, but has limitation during peak wet weather flows in a few areas. The public sewer within Pacific Highway is not identified within the Tigard High Capacity Transit Land Use Plan as a location with sanitary issues. The school building located on the site prior to 2004 is believed to have connected to the sanitary sewer in Pacific Highway. 3.2 Conclusion Section F. Public Sanitary Sewer and Storm System Design, 4.1 Capacity of the Public Improvement Design Standards lists design factors for sizing sanitary sewer pipes in Table F-1. The residential flow of 70 Gallons per Capita per Day is listed in the table, although, average residential values can range from 80 to 100 Gallons per Capita per Day. A conservative value of 90 Gallons per Capita per Day was used in this analysis. The average household size in Tigard is 2.5 people. The R12 development would then have a total of 40 persons. The commercial flow of 1,000 Gallons per Acre per Day was used for the C-G zoning per Table F-1. Table 3-1 lists the calculated wastewater design flow and the estimated private sewer line size. The estimated peak flows are less for the commercial development than for the residential development; therefore they require a smaller or the same size pipe diameter. The sanitary sewer flow decreases as a result of the zone change; therefore, there is no negative effect from the proposed zone change. Table 3-1 Sewer System Comparison Zoning R12 C-G -Option 1 C-G -Option 2 Estimated Wastewater Design Flow(GPD) 3,600 1,330 1,330 Sewer Line Size 6" 4" 6" March 17,2015 Cardno 8 Impact Study Specialty Grocery-Tigard raft, 4 STORM SEWER SYSTEM The City of Tigard storm sewer standards follow Clean Water Services Design and Construction Standards. Under both zoning classifications water quality treatment and quantity control are required. No water quality and quantity control is currently being provided at the site. Upstream properties do not drain onto the site. Onsite stormwater sheets flows to the northern corner of the site onto the adjacent property without treatment. The stormwater drains to Derry Dell Creek and enters Fanno Creek .22 miles downstream. Two catch basins are located along SW Pacific Highway in front of the site and drain to ODOT facilities. This storm sewer conveys runoff east along SW Garrett St for approximately 170 feet before discharging into a tributary of Fanno Creek. 4.1 Water Quality Water quality facilities must remove 65% of the phosphorus contained in 100% of the stormwater runoff generated from impervious areas. Per Section 4.05.6 of the Clean Water Services design manual, the water quality volume and flow rate is calculated according to the equations below: Water Quality Volume (cu.-ft) = 0.36 (in) x Area(sq.-ft) Water Quality Flow= WQV (cu.-ft) 12 (in/ft) 14,400 Treatment can occur through a variety of treatment options, although because of the shallow storm sewer connection a mechanical system or LIDA facility is likely. The commercial development zoning allows for a larger impervious area. Therefore, the water quality facility would be larger with the C-G zoning to mitigate for the increase in impervious area. 4.2 Water Quantity The City of Tigard is requiring stormwater quantity control. Per Section 4.03.4 of the Clean Water Services design manual, stormwater quantity is designed to capture runoff so the post-development runoff rates do not exceed the pre-development runoff rates for the 2, 10 and 25-year, 24-hour storm events. Site runoff will be released at the same rate as occurs today. Therefore, the release rate from the development is the same regardless of zoning. To mitigate for the increase in impervious area, additional detention storage will be provided for the C-G zoning. Based on the proposed development, detention facilities can be provided in underground piping or through LIDA facilities. Once water quality and quantity control have occurred stormwater flows can be released to the public storm sewer. 4.3 Conclusion Table 4-1 lists the impervious area, peak water quality flow, the required detention volume, and peak 25-year release rate under each zoning classification. Under both development conditions all impervious area will be treated to Clean Water Services standards and water quantity control will regulate the release rate to pre- developed conditions. Therefore, there is no impact to the public storm sewer as a result of the zoning change. Table 4-1 Storm Sewer Quantities Zoning R12 C-G Option 1 &2 Impervious Area (sq.-ft) 46,174 49,223 Percent of Impervious Site Area 80% 85% Water Quality Flow 0.096 0.103 Water Quality Volume 1,035 1,234 25-year Release Rate 0.634 0.634 C. March 17,2015 Cardno 9 Impact Study Specialty Grocery-Tigard 5 PARKS 5.1 Parks Analysis The site is classified within the City of Tigard Park System Master Plan dated July 14, 2009 as a school site. The Park Plan states that school sites may serve as neighborhood parks. Charles F. Tigard (the adjacent Elementary School) is included as a school facility that provides residents with additional space for active recreational pursuits. The school and associated open space was constructed in 2004. Neither classification, R12 nor C-G, requires the construction of a park facility. Therefore, there are no expected park impacts as a result of this development. 6 NOISE Because this existing parcel zoned medium-density residential R-12, and the proposed uses is C-G (general commercial district), a noise analysis is required to assure that the proposed use will meet the applicable city noise ordinance. This section provides a brief introduction to acoustics, the local noise control ordinance, project noise sources and an analysis of potential noise impacts. 6.1 Acoustics Noise is generally defined as unwanted sound. Noise is measured in terms of sound pressure level. It is usually expressed in terms of decibels (dB). The human ear is less sensitive to higher and lower frequencies than to mid-range frequencies. Therefore, sound level meters used to measure environmental noise generally incorporate a weighing system that filters out higher and lower frequencies in a manner similar to the human ear. This system produces noise measurements that approximate the normal human perception of noise. Measurements made with this weighing system are termed"A-weighted" and are specified as"dBA"readings. Because noise levels are constantly changing, a noise descriptor that accounts the variability of noise over time is normally used for noise studies. The equivalent sound level (Leq) is the level of a constant sound for a specified period of time that has the same sound energy as an actual fluctuating noise over the same period. The Leq is the main noise descriptor used for virtually all noise studies, and also used for this noise analysis. 6.2 Noise Control Ordinance The City of Tigard has a noise control ordinance that is given in the City Municipal Code, Article V., Noise Nuisances (see Chapter 6, Section 02.410). The criteria are based on maximum allowable sound level as measured at the property line of a receiving property, There are two standards, one for noise sensitive units, like residences, and a second less stringent criteria used for properties that are not considered noise sensitive, like commercial and industrial uses. Both criteria become more stringent at night, between the hours of 10:00 pm and 7:00 am. The maximum allowable noise level at sensitive land uses, like residences, is 50 dBA between the hours of 7:00 am and 10:00 pm, reducing to 40 dBA between the hours of 10:00 pm and 7:00 am. For land use considered riot noise sensitive, e.g., retail, office and other commercial and industrial uses, the criteria is 75 dBA between the hours of 7:00 am and 10:00 pm, reducing to 60 dBA between the hours of 10:00 pm and 7:00 am. 6.3 Noise Sources Noise sources associated with this project include site traffic, such as employee access, product delivery, and patrons arriving and departing the site. The second noise source is ancillary facilities, which includes heating and ventilation systems. cooling systems and other mechanical devices. March 17,2015 Cardno 10 Impact Study Specialty Grocery-Tigard The operational hours for the store are 8:00 am to 9:00 pm seven days per week, with deliveries occurring between the hours of 7:00 am and 11:00 am on weekdays. Based on these hours, it is assumed that employees would be arriving before 7:00 am and leaving by 10:00 pm. Because the employs would typically arrive by private vehicle or mass transit, noise from employees accessing the site is not predicted to be a major source of noise. Parking for patrons is spread out along the northeast and northwest parts of the property, and includes spots for up to 51 passenger vehicles. Noise from patron's vehicles while on the site are included in the noise analysis. The delivery hours for products, which typically arrive by heavy and medium trucks, are between the hours of 7:00 am and 11:00 am on weekdays. Because there is only parking for one heavy truck at a time, it is assumed that under normal conditions, no more than two heavy trucks and two medium trucks would be able to access the site in any one hour during delivery times of 7:00 am to 11:00 am on weekdays. Most vehicles would access the site directly from Pacific Highway, a heavily traveled highway. There is no access to the site through the neighborhood area, and therefore no cut-through vehicle traffic is possible. Based on these facts, noise levels from vehicles accessing the project site are not predicted to change the existing noise environment by a measureable amount. Ancillary facilities include any other noise source that may be associated with operation of the grocery store. Ancillary noise sources include mechanical devices such as ventilation fans, air conditioning units, chillers and cooling units. The site is expected to have four to five rooftop air conditioning and handling units, ranging in size from 3 to 12.5 ton. The units will have some shielding from the design of the building, which includes a false wall that is 2 to 5 feet taller than the roof elevation where the equipment will be installed. Reference sound power noise levels from air units were obtained from manufactures specification and used in the noise projections. 6.4 Noise Impact Analysis Detailed noise modeling was performed for the three closest residences, all located along SW School Street. Two receivers were also placed on the nearby play field, one on the running track nearest the proposed store, and a second in the middle of the open filed area. Finally, two additional receivers were also modeled, with one at the Broadway Rose Theater and a second at the Charles F Tigard Elementary School. Modeling site are shown on Figure 6-1. Figure 6-1 Noise Modeling Sites 4' - •# • • • • 42) co MEI CilO ®', j • . - y ' OE 0 ,SG" I . • OS 0 es rte- y. 41, • --� R-1 ax =Noise Modehng S it March 17,2015 (_;.a cnc 11 Impact Study Specialty Grocery-Tigard The noise from on-site traffic, including patrons and delivery trucks, along with the noise from ancillary facilities were projected and summed, logarithmically, to obtain the cumulative noise levels for the two peak operational hours, morning peak hour, and afternoon peak hour. The morning peak hour assumes two heavy trucks, two medium trucks, and 51 passenger vehicles all accessing the site in a single hour with all roof mounted HVAC systems operating. The PM peak hour assumes 204 vehicles and two medium trucks along with the HVAC systems in operation. The 204 cars used in the PM peak hour scenario are based on every parking spot being turned over once every 15 minutes during the hour. The results of the modeling are provided in Tables 6-1 and 6-2. Table 6-1 AM Peak Noise Levels from a Typical Grocer Operations Noise Levels Corrected for Distance to Receiver Tigard Noise Receiver from Source (dBA Leq) Criteria Impacts HVAC Noise Traffic Noise Total Noise R-1 41 44 46 50 No R-2 39 41 f 43 50 No R-3 37 38 40 50 No R-4 38 38 41 50 No R-5 39 44 45 50 No R-6 34 35 38 50 No R-7 33 32 36 50 No _ Receivers shown on Figure 6-1 Table 6-2 PM Peak Noise Levels from a Typical Grocer Operations Noise Levels Corrected for Distance to Receiver from Tigard Noise Receiver Source (dBA Leq) Criteria Impacts HVAC Noise Traffic Noise Total Noise R-1 _ 41 45 47 50 No R-2 39 42 44 50 No R-3 37 38 41 50 No R-4 38 38 _ 41 50 No R-5 39 45 _ 46 50 No R-6 34 35 38 50 No R-7 33 31 35 50 No Receivers shown on Figure 6-1 As is shown in Tables 6-1 and 6-2, there are no noise impacts predicted under either of the peak hour scenarios. The PM peak has slightly higher noise levels due to the high level of traffic(204 passenger vehicles and two medium trucks) assumed in that analysis, Noise levels at the nearest residential property, located on SW School Street,just north west of the proposed site, are the highest, and are still 3 to 4 dB below the criteria. This buffer would essentially allow an additional 204 passenger vehicles to access the site with noise levels still remaining below the City of Tigard ordinance. 6.5 Construction Noise Construction noise levels for a specialty grocery store project would result from normal construction activities. Noise levels for these activities can be expected to range from 70 to 85 dBA at 50 feet from the construction activity. Although temporary in nature, these noise levels can be annoying. It is expected that all project related construction would be performed within the City of Tigard allowable construction period of 7:00 am and 8:00 pm. The following typical construction noise abatement measures could be included in the project specifications: • All equipment used shall have sound-control devices no less effective than those provided on the original equipment. • No equipment shall have un-muffled exhaust. • All equipment shall comply with pertinent equipment noise standards of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. March 17,2015 Cardno 12 a Exhibit F - Pre-Application Conference Notes +CITY OF TIGARD PRE—APPLICATION CONFERENCE NOTES 1111 ■ (Pre Application Meeting Notes are Valid for Six (6) Months) TI G A R D RECEIVED PRE-APP.MTG.DATE: &-23-2015 ' JUL 1 6 2015 STAFF ATPREAPP: GBP/KM CITYUt R AAD PLANNING/ENGINEERING NON-RESIDENT 1AL APPLICANT: I.e adership Circic_lIC/Monet Ragsdale AGENT: CAR1)NO/Reed Stapleton Phone: (970) 249-3398 / (970) 497-0066 Phone: 503-419-2513 PROPERTY LOCATION: DDRESS/GENI;RAI.I.CX;.1'1-1ON: 13125 SW Pacific Hwy - I)S\LAP(S)/1,0"1.#(S): 2S102CB(5)200 NECESSARY APPLICATIONS: (SDI9Site• Development Review . Aerati, $$1te 4e/ '64-4 PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION: Specialty Retail- 15K sf building on a 1.38 acre site with 60 parking space-,, two driveways,one on Pacific 1 Iwy, the other on School Street. ' COMPREHENSIVE PLAN • MAP DESIGNATION: Medium Density Residential (General Commercial proposed with 4/15 pec)_ ZONING MAP DESIGNATION: R-12 (Change to CG proposed with 4/15 Preapp,Notes presume CG zone) ZONING DISTRICT DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS (Refer to Code Section 18.520.2) MINIMUM LOT SIZE: None. Average Min.lot width: 50. Max. Building height: 45 ft.; Min. NA Setbacks: Front: 0 ft Side:0/20* ft. Rear: 0/20* ft. Corner: 0 ft. from street. MAXIMUM SITE COVERAGI : 85%. Minimum landscaped or natural vegetation area: 15%. * 20-foot setback when abutting a residential district. NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING (Refer to the Neighborhood Meeting Handout) .1'HE APPLICANT SHALL NOTIFY ALL PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 500 FEET, INTI RESTED PARTIES, AND THE CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING DIVISION of their proposal. A minimum of two (2) weeks between the mailing date and the meeting date is required. Please review the band Use Notification handout concerning site posting and the meeting notice. Meeting is to be prior to submitting your application or the application will not be accepted. * NOTE: In order to also preliminarily address building code standards, a meeting with a Plans Exauniner is encouraged prior to submittal of a land use application. ® NARRATIVE (Refer to Code Chapter 18.390) The APPLICANT SI I ALL SUBMIT A NARRATIVE which provides findings based on the applicable approval standards. Failure to provide a narrative or adequately address criteria would be reason to consider an application incomplete and delay review of the proposal. The applicant should review the code for applicable criteria. CITY OF TIG.hRD Pre-Application Conference Notes Page 1 of H NON (e,dcnnal.lpprlinruin,' Se,nen Z IMPACT STUDY (Refer to Code Sections 18.390.040 and 18.390.050) As a part of the APPLICATION SUBMIT'T'AL REQUIREMEN'T'S, applicants are required to INCLUDE JMPAC T STUDY with their submittal package. The impact study shall quantify the effect of the development on public facilities and services. The sn.tdy shall address, at a minimum, the transportation system,including bikeway 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. 1 ACCESS (Refer to Chapters 18.705 and 18.765) Minimum number of accesses: 1. Minimum access width: 30 ft Minimum pavement width: 24 ft. All driveways and parking areas,except for some fleet storage parking areas,must be paved. Drive-in use queuing areas: NA ® WALKWAY REQUIREMENTS (Refer to Code Section 18.705.030) WALKWAYS SIJAI A. EXTEND FROM THE GROUND FLOOR ENTRANCES OR FROM 'ITIE GROUND }'L()()R i.r1 N 1)1 N(7 OF' S'T'AIRS, ramps, or elevators of all commercial, institutional, and rndustnal 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. El SPECIAL SETBACKS (Refer to Code Chapter 18.730) .i- S'I'REETS: feet from the centerline ofl r I.OWFR INTENSI Ii i ONl;S: 20 tcct, along the site's. NW boundary. t-_J i% itA(l LOT: l0-1'(.)0T SIDI. PARD SI.:I'BACK. NA n SPECIAL BUILDING HEIGHT PROVISIONS (Refer to Code Section 18.730.020.B.) BUILDING I II1(.1-IT EXCEPTR)NS - Buildings located in a non-residential zone may be built to a height of 75 feet provided that: ► A maximum building floor area to site area ratio (FAR) of 1.5 to I will exist; All actual building setbacks will be at least half(1/2) of the building's height; and The structure will not abut a residential zoned district. El BUFFERING AND SCREENING (Refer to Code Chapter 18.745& 18.620) In order '10 1NCRl AS1 PRIVACY AND TO 1.1ITHER 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 arc described by the Code in terms of width. Buffer areas must be occupied by a mixture of deciduous and evergreen trees and shrubs and must also achieve a balance between vertical and horizontal plantings. Site obscuring screens or fences may also be required; these are often advisable even if not required by the Code. The required buffer areas may only be occupied by vegetation, fences, utilities, and walkways. Additional information on required buffer area materials and sizes may be found in the Development Code. The ES'I'1MA'1'I.:D RHO1.IR D BUFFER WIDTI.S applicable to your proposal area are: nia feet along north boundary. n/afcet along east boundary. nla feet along south boundary. nia feet along west boundary. IN ADDITION,SIGHT OBSCURING SCREE?NING IS REQUIRED ALONG: all parking areas. 43 t { cnli OV'1'I(;.1R1) Pre-Application Confercncc Nuns Page 2 of S 1 Ni iN 16,10,m,,,1:1 1 I,iii . ,,mn•1r l l.yrisKn N,truin SCREENING: SPECIAL PROVISIONS- 18.745.050E Screening and landscaping of parking and loading areas is required per specifications in section 17.745.050E (I). In no cases shall nonconforming screening of parking and loading areas be permitted to become any less conforttaing;. In addition, screening of service facilities and refuse areas also applies to all development with the exception of one and two family dwellings. 1LANDSCAPING (Refer to Code Chapters 18.745, 18.765 and 18.620) S'IR ET TREES SHALL BE REQUIRED AS PARI' OF THE APPROVAL PROCESS FOR A TYPE 1 C;ONDITIONAI, USE MINOR MODIFICATION, TYPE I ME DIVLLOPMI,N'I REVIEW MINOR MODIFICATION, ANY TYPE II AND TYPE III LAND USE RINIEW. The minimum number of required street trees shall be determined by dividing the linear amount of street frontage within or adjacent to the site (in feet) by 40 feet (if the number is a fraction, round to the nearest whole number). The trees shall be placed within the public right-of-way whenever possible but no more than six (6) feet from the right-of-way boundary. Street trees shall be planted according to Section 2 of the Urban Forestry Manual and adequate soil volumes shall be provided in accordance with Section 12 of the Urban Forestry Manual. Existing trees may be used to meet the street standards. Further information on regulations affecting street trees may be obtained from the Planning Division. All parking areas,including parking spaces and aisles, shall be required to achieve at least 30% tree canopy cover at maturity directly above the parking area in accordance with Section 13 of the Urban Forestry Manual. ►Z/ RECYCLING (Refer to Code Chapter 18.755) Applicant should CONTACT FRANCHISE I IAULER FOR REVIEW ANI) APPROVAL OF SITE SERVICING COMPATIBILITY. Locating a trash/recycling enclosure within a clear vision area such as at the intersection of two (2) driveways within a parking lot is prohibited. Much of Tigard is within Pride Disposal's Service area. Pride Disposal can be reached at (503) 625-6177. ►t PARKING (Refer to Code Section 18.765.040) 0 REQUIRED parking for this type of use: General Retail/sales oriented: Min 3.0 spaces/1000 sf,15 x 3=45 spaces; Max 5.1 spaces/1000 sf, 15 x 5.1=76 spaces. Parking SI JOWN on preliminary plan(s): 60 spaces SECONDARY USE REQUIRED parking: NA Parking SHOWN on preliminary plan(s): NO MORE'1'I IAN 50% OF REQUIRED SPACES MAY BE DESIGNATED AND/OR DIMENSIONED AS COMPACT SPACES. PARKING STALLS shall be dimensioned as follows: ✓ Standard parking space dimensions: 8 feet, 6 inches x 18 feet, 6 inches,All spaces proposed as standard. P. Compact parking space dimensions: 7 feet, 6 inches x 16 feet, 6 inches. Note: Parking space width includes the width of a stripe that separates the parking space from an adjoining space. Note: A maximum of three (3)feet of the vehicle overhang area in front of a wheel stop or curb can be included as part of required parking space depth. This area cannot be included as landscaping for meeting the minimum percentage requirements. 1-IANDICAPPED 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,is 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 MUI:i'I-FAI+7 .Y, COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENTS.NTS. Bicycle racks shall be located in areas protected from automobile traffic and in convenient locations. Z LOADING AREA REQUIREMENTS (Refer to Code Section 18.765.080) CITY OF TIGARD Pre-Application Conference Notes Page 3 of g N(.)N ltcsidoutal Applicitin,/Pia+un ik'C>n tsu,in Sutton Even' COMMERCIAL OR INDUSTRIAL BUILDING IN EXCESS OF 10,000 SQUARE FEET shall be provided with a I(mding space. The space size and location shall be as approved by the City I:.ngincer. 110. BICYCLE RACKS (Refer to Code Section 18.765) J3I(:Y(;l.1'. RACKS arc required FOR MUI:1'IFEAMILY, COMMI^.RCL\], r\NI) INDUSTRIAL DI?VEI.(-)PMl?NTS, Bicycle racks shall be located in areas protected from automobile traffic and in convenient locations. RL?QUIRE'D bicycle racks for this type of use: .3/1000sf= .3 x 15 =4.5 or 5 spaces) fl SENSITIVE LANDS (Refer to Code Chapter 18.775) The Code provides REGULATIONS FOR LANDS WHICI I ARE POTENTIALLY UNSUI'T'ABLE FOR DEVELOPMENT NI DU"E? TO AREAS WI'I711.N 1'111? 100-YEAR IT OO1)PLAIN, NATURAL DRAINAGEWAYS,WETLAND AR] :AS,ON SLOPES IN EXCESS OF 25 PERCENT, OR ON UNSTABLE GROUND. Staff will attempt to preliminary identity sensitive lands areas at the pre-application conference based on available information. I K)\\I \I:R, the responsibility to precisely identify sensifi e land atri,..:ts. and their . } nn s in rh cs�()nsil'ilit r of the a 1 )lic;ant. reas ins t jc L•fini io ay s Y si -e 1 t ds nms- I_t dearl indicated on plans submitted with the dcvelopnwnl appliuition. Chapter 15.775 also provides regulations for the use, protection, or modification of sensitive lands areas. Rl SIl)l�.NTIALDINEU)PMI'NT IS PR()l11BITE1)WITIUN mooDPI.r'tINS. STEEP SLOPES (Refer to Code Section 18.775.080.C) 'Mien STEEP SI A)1'l'S exist. 7rtor to issuance of a final order, a geotechnical report must be submitted which addresses the approval standards of the Tigard Community Development Code Section 18.775.080.0. The repoth shall be based upon field exploration and investigation and shall include specific recommendations for achieving the requirements of Section 18.775.080.0. ® CLEAN WATER SERVICES (CWS) BUFFER STANDARDS (Refer to CWS R&0107-20/USA Regulations-Chapter 3) LAND DEVELOPMENT ADJACENT TO SENSI'T'IVE AREAS shall preserve and maintain or create a vegetated corridor for a buffer wide enough to protect the water quality functioning of the sensitive area. Design Criteria: 0 1 The VEGETATED XI fl) CORRIDOR \:'IDT I I is dependent on the sensitive area. The fallowing table identifies the required widths: TABLE 3.1 VEGETATED CORRIDOR WIDTHS SOURCE: CWS DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS MANUAL/RESOLUTION&ORDER 07-20 SENSITIVE AREA DEFINITION SLOPE ADJACENT WIDTH OF VEGETATED TO SENSITIVE AREA4 CORRIDOR PER SIDES • Streams with intermittent flow draining: 25`!'al5 feet I1 to <50 acres 25 feet 1 >50 to <100 acres • Existing or created wetlands <0.5 acre 25 feet • Existing or created wetlands >0,3 acre ?5'°n 511 her • Rivers,streams,and springs with year-round flow • Streams with intermittent flow draining >100 acres • Natural lakes and ponds • Streams with intermittent flow draining: 10 to<50 acres 30 feet I >50 to <801)acres 50 feet • Existing or created wetlands ,5':: Variable from 50-21)0 feet. Measure in 25- • Rivers,streams, and springs with year-round flow foot increments from the starting point to • Streams with intermittent flow draining >littl acres llle top of ravine(break in <25%slope), • Natural lakes and ponds - -- add 35 feet past the lop of ravine(' •Sraruelg poInt tit(mc;tvur,Ir ,u - cd};c cif The defined eh;tnncl 1.banklul I]iv. i .r ii,anis/rivers,tteltnc.uetl\ATtland boundary,dc)inea,ed springy boundary,and/or average [ugh•a^acr fm L;Ixs or ponds,whichrccr off-cas greatest resource pn.vection Ikrc r,ma kilt springs,located a numtnum.,f 15['cur wirhin the le erlslre;un or t-ellend vegetated corridor,shall not serf C:IS a•aarnrtL,point for Incasurernrnl. tTI i t)1,'l'IGAR1) Pre Application Conference Notes Page 4 of 8 r:t ttti licsnknn;d t 11111 11 W'urnn 'Ircgetated corridor averaging or reduction is allowed only when the vegetated earntkn'is cern lieu to be in a marginal or degraded condition. t''lhc vegetated corridor extends 35 feet from the tufa of the ravine and sets the outer boundary of the veg tared condor. The 35 leer may be reduced to 15 feet,d a sun iped gcotcclrse ul report cornfirms slope stability shall be maintained with thy reduced setback Iron the top of ravine. lit slrictirins in the Vegetate Corridor: N() structures, development, construction activities, gardens, lawns, application of chemicals, dumping of any materials of any kind, or other activities shall be permitted which otherwise detract from the water quality protection provided by the vegetated corridor, r..irpe.as paatsidere/f©r in the CWS I)erigir and Consir&inr,Standard.«•, Location of Vegetated Corridor: IN ANY RESIDENTIAL DEVI LOPMI_LN'I' 14'IIICI I CREATES MIJLI'IP1.1? PARCELS or lots intended for separate ownership,such as a subdivision, the vegetated corridor shall be contained in a separate tract, and shall not be a part of any parcel to be used for the construction of a dwelling unit. CWS Service Provider Letter: PRIOR TO SU13MI1TAl., of any land use applications, the applicant must obtain a CWS Service Provider Letter which will outline the conditions necessary to comply with the CWS R&O 07-20 sensitive area requirements. If there are no sensitive areas,CWS must still issue a letter stating a C\X'S Service Provider Letter is not required. ID SIGNS (Refer to Code Chapter 18.780) SIGN 11L.Rr 1I'I:S MUST BE t)I3'I'AINI?D PIU()R TO INSTAJIA'l l()N t W ANY SIGN in the City of Tigard. A "Guidelines for Sign Permits" handout is available upon request. Additional sign area or height beyond Code standards may be permitted if the sign proposal is reviewed as part of a development review application. Alternatively,a Sign Code Exception application may be filed for Director's review. ► Non-residential developments within the C-G zone shall meet the sign requirements for the commercial zones, 18.780.130C. �f URBAN FORESTRY PLAN (Refer to Code Section 18.790.030.0 and the "Tree Canopy Requirements" Brochure) AN URBAN FOR',STRY PLAN IS RI?QI_IRED FOR'I'I IL?FOLLWING`TYPES OF DEVELOPMENT: Conditional Use (Type III);Downtown Design Review (Type 11 and III); Minor Land Partition (Type II); Planned Development (Type III); Sensitive Lands Review (Type II and III); Site Development Review (Type 11); and Subdivision (Type II and III). The plan needs to be prepared by an ISA certified arborist or landscaped architect. Percentage of mature canopy cover required: 33% (Refer to Appotdix 2-6 ill Urban f'lim`sier: farxtreai/ixr ax lis! tlfEtll maliire wimpy corer r taxi w.) An urban forestry plan shall: - Be coordinated and approved by a landscape architect (the project landscape architect) or a person possessing dual certifications as a certified arborist and certified tree risk assessor(the project arborist); - Meet the tree preservation and removal site plan standards in Section 10, part 1 of the Urban Forestry Manual; - Meet the tree canopy site plan standards in Section 10, part 2 of the Urban Forestry Manual;and - Meet the supplemental report standards in Section 10,part 3 of the Urban Forestry Manual.. TREE CANOPY FEE. If the effective percentage of tree canopy cover cannot be met, the applicant shall provide alae city a tree canopy fee according to the methodology outlined in Section 10, part 4 of the Urban orestry Manual. 18.790.040-Discretionary Urban Forestry Plan Review Option in lieu of providing payment of a tree canopy fee when less than the standard effective tree canopy cover required by Section 10. part 3 of the Urban Forestry Manual will be provided, an applicant may apply for a discretionary urban forestry plan review. The discretionary urban forestry plan review cannot be used to modify an already approved urban forestry plan, any tree preservation or tree planting requirements established as part of another land use review approval, or am' tree preservation or tree planting requirements required by another 4) chapter in this title. PRESERVATION OF EXISTING TREES (Refer to Code Section 18.790.050.C.) CITY 1 W TIGARD Pre-Application Conference Notes Page 5 of 8 NtiN Aprltraunn/Pluetmr,}1 I)ivrsinaa scoion To assist in the preservation and/or planting of trees and significant tree groves, the director may apply one or more of the following flexible standards as part of the land use review approval. Use of the flexible standards shall be requested by the project arborist or landscape architect as part of the land use review process. The flexible standards arc only applicable to trees that arc eligible for credit towards the effective tree canopy cover of the site. Appropriate species of trees in good condition and suitable for preservation receive a 200 percent credit based on their existing canopy area. Refer to Section 11-Part 3 of the Urban Forestry Manual for submittal requirements. ® CLEAR VISION AREA (Refer to Code Chapter 18.795) The City requires that CLEAR VISION AREAS BE MAINl'AINED Rll:l*W1?,1N '1`l IREE (3) AND EIGI IT (8) 11 TT IN I IEIGI1T 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 and any existing obstructions within the clear vision area. ❑ ADDITIONAL LOT DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS (Refer to Code Section 18.810.060) MINIMUM LOT FRONTAGE: 25 feet unless lot is created through the minor land partition process. Lots created as part of a partition must have a minimum of 15 feet of frontage or have a minimum 15-foot-wick access easement. The DEPTH OF ALL LOTS SHALL NOT EXCEED 21/2 TIMES 111E AVERAGE WIDTH, unless the parcel is less than 11/2 times the minimum lot size of the applicable zoning district. CODE CHAPTERS [] 18.330(Conditional Use) n18.620(Tigard Tr angle Design Standards) n 18.760(Nonconforming Situations) n 18.340(Directors Interpretation) n 18.630(Washington Square Regional Center) a 18.765(Ott-Street Parking/Loading Requirements) n 18,350(Planned Development) n 18.640(Durham Quarry Design Standards) ❑ 18.775(Sensitive Lands Review) LA 18.360{Site Development Review) 18.705(Access+Egress/Circulation) 18.780(Signs) n 18.370{Vanances/Adjustments) 1 18.710(Accessory Residential Units) n 18.785(Temporary Use Permits) ❑ 18.380(Zoning Map/Text Amendments) n 18.715(Density Computations) ® 18.790(Urban Forestry Plan) ❑ 18.385(Miscellaneous Permits) n 18.720(Design Compatibility Standards) I 18.795(Visual Clearance Areas) z18.390(Decision Making Procedures/Impact Study) 18.7255(Environmental Performance Standards) ❑ 18.798{Wretess Communication Facilities) ❑ 18.410(Lot Line Adjustments) n 18.730(Exceptions To Development Standards) E 18.810{Street&Unity improvement Standards) Ti 18.420{Land Partitions) 18.740(Histo•ic Overlay) ❑ 18.430(Subdivisions) [ 1 18.742(Home Occupation Permits) ❑ 18.510(Residential Zoning Districts) 18.745(Landscaping&Screening Standards) • 18.520(Commercial Zoning Districts) Ti 18.750(Manufactured/Mobil Home Regulations) ❑ 18.530(Industrial Zoning Districts) 171 18.755(Mixed Solid Waste/Recycing Storage) ADDITIONAL CONCERNS OR COMMENTS: The proposed sales oriented general retail use is a permitted use in the proposed CG zone. II Application fees for SDR valued at under 1 million dollars is $5,434; > 1 million - $7,059 + $6/additional $1()K Your application must include a narrative that addresses all of the applicable approval criteria in the development code chapters identified above. The findings in the narrative must include the text of each standard, application of the facts of the case to the standard and a conclusion whether the standard is met by the proposal. PROCEDURE Administrative Staff Review. Public hearing before the Land Llse Hearings Officer. Public hearing before the Planning Commission. Public heating 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. Cl'I'1'(.it;'1'I(;,IR1) Pre-,Ipplicxtiun Conference Notes - Page 6 of S NUN-1tesiJci:n.11 pi&.v,on/Planning Divimon Scch;.0 • APPLICATION SUBMITTAL PROCESS II All APPLICATIONS MUST BE ACCEPTED BY A PLANNING DIVISION STAFF MEMBER of the Community Development Department at Tigard City I Ill offices. PLEASE NOTE Applications submit by mail or dropped off at the counter without Planning Division acceptance may be returned, The ., Planning counter closes at 5:00 PM. Maps submitted with an application shall be folded IN ADVANCE to SW' x 11". One, 81/z" x 11" map of a proposed project shall be submitted for attachment to the staff report or administrative decision. Applications with unfolded maps shall not be accepted. The Planning Division and Engineering Department will perform a preliminary review of the application and will determine whether an application is complete within 30 days of the counter submittal. Staff will notify the applicant it additional information or additional copies of the submitted materials are required. The administrative decision or pubic 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-day public appeal period follows all land use decisions. An appeal on this matter would be heard by the Tigaralearings Officer. A basic flow chart which illustrates the review process is available from the Planning Division upon request. Land use applications requiring a public hearing must have notice posted on-site by the applicant no less than 10 days prior to the public hearing. This PRI:APPLICATION (Y)NFNRLNCE AN1) THE NOTES OF `MIE. CONFERENCE ARE IN"1'ENDI:D TO INFORM the prospective applicant of the primary Community Development Code requirements applicable to the potential development of a particular site and In allow the City staff and prospective r applicant to discuss the opportunities and constraints affecting development of the site. BUILDING PERMITS P1.ANS FOR BUILDING ANI) OTI IUR RELATEI) P1?Ri1MII't"S WILL N()l. Br ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW UNTIL A LAND USE APPROVAL I IAS BEEN ISSUED. Final inspection approvals by the Building Division will not be granted until there is compliance with all conditions of development approval. These ' 0 pre-application notes do not include comments from the Building Division. For proposed buildings or modifications to existing buildings, it is recommended to contact a Building Division Plans Examiner to determine if there are building code issues that would prevent the structure from being constructed, as proposed. Additionally, with regard to Subdivisions and Minor Land Partitions where any structure to be demolished has system development charge (SI)C) credits and the underlying parcel for that structure will be eliminated when die new plat Is recorded, the City's polic}, is to apply these system development credits to the first buildin i }permit issued in the development (UNLESS OTHERWISE DIRECTED BY THE DEVELOPER AT THE TIME IN WHICH THE DEMOLITION PERMIT IS OBTAINED). PLEASE NOTE: - The conference and notes cannot cover all Code requirements and aspects related to 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. I AN ADDITIONAL PRE-APPLICATION FEE AND CONFERENCE WILL BE REQUIRED IF AN 1 APPLICATION PERTAINING TO THIS PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE IS SUBMITTED AFTER A PERIOD OF MORE THAN SIX (6) MONTHS FOLLOWING THIS CONFERENCE (unless deemed as necessary by the Planning Division). ioi ji CITY OF TIGARD Pre-•.4ppIicaEton Conference Notes Page 7 of 8 NO\.I{esidcnI IA Apphcailor,,Mammy I irisin,”Sectu.ti kl PREPARED BY: Gary Pagenstecher CITY OF'1'IGARD PLANNING DIVISION PHONE: 503-639-4171 FAX: 503-624-3681 DIRECT: 503-718-2434 EMAIL: garyp@tigard-or.gov TITLE 18 (CITY OF TIGARD'S COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE) INTERNET ADDRESS: www.tigard-ar.gov U CITY OF TIGARD Pre-Application Conference Notes Page 8 of 8 NON-ResiJcntial pp1icaunniPbinning I)wovun section r_ _ PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE NOTES , . DEVELOPMENT ENGINEERING .< , ,,;ARD 1[ C*y N Hort IngoCommunity rDeve(npment ShapingA BeuerCammunity PUBLIC FACILITIES Tu Mapisi: 2S102CB Tax Lelts): 200 Leadership Circle-7.0 Use Tyne: ResidenUail These notes were prepared based on information provided by the applicant requesting a zone change from R12 to CG and are expected to apply if the zone change is approved. The extent of necessary public improvements and dedications which shall be required of the applicant will be recommended by City staff and subject to approval by the appropriate authority. There will be no final recommendation to the decision making authority on behalf of the City staff until all concerned commenting agencies, City staff and the public have had an opportunity to review and comment on the application. The following comments are a projection of public improvement related requirements that may be required as a condition of development approval for your proposed project. Right-of-way dedication: The City of Tigard requires that land area be dedicated to the public: 01 (1.) To increase abutting public rights-of-way to the ultimate functional street classification right-of-way width as specified by the Community Development Code; or (2.) For the creation of new streets. Approval of a development application for this site will require right-of-way dedication for: Z SW Pacific Hwy, an arterial, to 52 feet from centerline of right-of-way or as required by ODOT. SW School Street to 58 feet I . ❑ I Street improvements: (Subject to rough proportionality) ® Partial street improvements would be necessary to meet standards along SW Pacific Hwy to include: ® ??38 feet of pavement from face of curb to centerline or as required by ODOT Z concrete curb (or curb and gutter) ® 5-foot planter exclusive of curb Z storm sewers and other underground utilities Z 8-foot concrete sidewalk , 0EA street trees ID street signs, traffic control devices, streetlights and a two-year streetlight fee. CITY OF TIMID Pre-AppllcatlInCeeferanceNess Pupil III 0evetelme*l Ewiluaing Z Other: Pavement tapers as needed. An ODOT permit will be required. ►1 Partial or full street improvements along SW School Street extended to Pacific Hwy to include: Z 36 feet of pavement from face of curb to centerline concrete curb (or curb and gutter) Z 5-foot planter exclusive of curb each side ® storm sewers and other underground utilities ® 5-foot concrete sidewalk each side ® street trees along back of walk Z street signs, traffic control devices, streetlights and a two-year streetlight fee. Ei Other: Pavement tapers as needed An approved plan for School Street must include the elimination of the existing access to Pacific 4q Hwy. School Street is expected to align with Garrett Street. C Full street improvements will be necessary along internal public streets: E feet of pavement (parking on both sides) or 28 feet(parking on one side only) ❑ concrete curb (or curb and gutter) ❑ 5-foot planter exclusive of curb I storm sewers and other underground utilities [ 15-foot concrete sidewalk I I street trees I I street signs, traffic control devices, streetlights and a two-year streetlight fee. n Other: A traffic study will be required for this zone change. Work with the city and ODOT to establish the traffic study scope. Mitigation measures (such as street improvements and/or traffic signals) are likely to be necessary. It is possible that the existing infrastructure (particularly the street network) may not be adequate to support the proposed zone change. It is anticipated that no other access to Hwy 99W will be allowed other than an extension of School Street. Cross-access easements will be required to allow adjacent properties to use this access. Approval from ODOT will be necessary for any revisions to the access or use of accesses to Hwy 99W. An adjustment to the 600-foot access spacing requirement of 18.705 would need to be obtained (see 18.370). 18,730.040 Additional Setback Requirements: This section sets requirements for additional setback distance from roadways. The minimum yard requirement shall be increased in the event a yard abuts a street having a right-of-way width less than required by its functional classification on the city's transportation plan map and, in such case, the setback shall be not less than the setback required by the zone pit, one-half of the projected road width as shown on the transportation map. CITY OF TIGAJ D Pro-Appllcellen Conterence Motes Pelle 2 of Si iwraripImraeltaelie r1iu This does not appear to be applicable in this case Agreement for Future Street Improvements: In some cases, where street improvements or other necessary public improvements are not currently practical, the improvements may be deferred. In such cases, a condition of development approval may be specified which requires the property owner(s)to provide a,future improvement guarantee. The City Engineer will determine the form of this guarantee. The following street improvements may be eligible for such a future improvement guarantee: (1.) Overhead Utility Lines: /, Section 18.810.120 of the Tigard Municipal Code (TMC) requires all overhead utility lines adjacent to a development to be placed underground or, if approved by the City Engineer, a fee in-lieu of undergrounding can be paid. This requirement is valid even if the utility lines are on the opposite side of the street from the site. If the fee in-lieu is approved, it is equal to $ 35.00 per lineal foot of street frontage that contains the overhead lines. There are overhead lines along School St. adjacent to the site. The lines along Pacific Hwy do not require to be placed underground if over 50 kV. All utilities serving the property shall be placed underground. Sanitary Sewers: The applicant will need to verify adequacy of existing lines to accommodate the proposed development. Contact the City of Tigard Utility Billing Department for connection fees. Sanitary sewer appears to be available from Pacific Hwy. An ODOT permit is required to connect to the sewer. Water Supply: The City of Tigard provides public water service in this area. There is a line in School St. and Pacific Hwy. Coordinate with the City of Tigard Public Works Department for information regarding adequate water supply for the proposed development and connection fees. Fire Protection: Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue District [Contact: John Wolff, 503-259-1504] provides fire protection services within the City of Tigard. The District should be contacted for information regarding the adequacy of circulation systems, the need for fire hydrants, or other questions related to fire protection. Storm Sewer Improvements: All proposed development within the City shall be designed such that storm water runoff is conveyed to an approved public drainage system. The applicant will be required to submit a proposed storm drainage plan for the site, and may be required to prepare a sub-basin drainage analysis to ensure that the proposed system will accommodate runoff from upstream properties when fully developed. CITY of TI16AJW Pre-Applipttan Cenlerence Nola Page 3 e13 RMIspmeit[oil len, Provide a plan that shows how the storm drainage system for the site connects to the public system. Storm drainage plan and calculations shall be submitted with the application for it to be considered complete. Discharging to ODOT facilities will require a permit. Storm water detention is required. Storm water detention facilities must be reviewed and approved the city. Storm water detention calculations shall be submitted to the Development Engineer for review and approval The stormwater plan and facilities must meet Clean Water Services (CWS) standards. See CWS standards for potential Low-impact Development Approaches (LIDA). 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. 00-7) which requires 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 impervious surfaces. The resolution contains a provision that would allow an applicant to pay a fee in-lieu of constructing an on-site facility provided specific criteria are met. The City will use discretion in determining whether or not the fee in- lieu will be offered. If the fee is allowed, it will be based upon the amount of impervious surfaces created; for every 2,640 square feet, or portion thereof. Please contact the Building Division for the current fee. Preliminary sizing calculations for any proposed water quality facility shall be submitted with the development application. It is anticipated that this project will require: Z Construction of an on-site water quality facility. ❑ Payment of the fee in-lieu. Water quality treatment is required. Calculations for sizing of water quality treatment facilities must t submitted to the Development Engineer for review and approval. Water quality facilities also must be reviewed and approved by the city. Review and comply with provisions of Chapter 4 Clean Wafer Services Design and Construction Standards (Runoff Treatment and Control). If the applicant can demonstrate that it is practically impossible to provide detention on specific small areas of the site, a fee-in-lieu may be considered for those specific areas. Water quality and detention facility design and construction must be certified by a professional engineer as meeting Clean Water Services requirements. After completion of the construction of these facilities, the applicant shall enter into an agreement with the city on city-furnished forms for long-term maintenance of the facilities. This agreement will be recorded and city staff will be periodically inspecting the facilities for compliance with the terms of the agreement Other Comments: Provide preliminary sight distance evaluation (TMC 18.705.030.H.1) TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT TAX The Transportation Development Tax (TDT) became effective 7/1/09. The TOT program collects fees from new development based on the development's projected impact upon the City's transportation system. Tr applicant shall be required to pay a fee based upon the number of trips which are projected to result from the CITY orTIIM Pre-inCIIcitionCeniemnce Notes Pogo 4115 Ievelepelent Enrtnegrirt Other Permits. There are other special permits, such as mechanical, electrical and plumbing that may also be required. Contact the Development Services Counter for more' information. PREPARED BY: Greg Berri 10130/14 DEVELOPMENT ENGINEER DATE Phone: 15031118-2468 E-mail: greg@tigard-or.gov Revised: March 2012 1:1ENG\Deveiopment Engineeringl_Hwy 99WlPreapp ZC 13125.docx U • 0 CITYQFTI6AfIlb MAW Ration Conference Notes - P41e5515 eewfelsehlteihmerni proposed development. The calculation of the TDT incorporates the proposed use of the land and the size of ' the project. The TDT is calculated, due, and payable at the time of building permit issuance. In limited circumstances payment of the TDT may be allowed to be deferred until the issuance of an occupancy permit. Deferral of payment until occupancy Is permissible only when the TOT exceeds the TDT rate for a single- family home. Pay TOT as required. PERMITS Public Facility Improvement (PFI) Permit: Any work within a public right-of-way in the City of Tigard requires a PFI permit from Development Engineering. A PFI permit application is available at the Planning/Engineering counter in the Permit Center at City Hall. For more extensive work such as street widening improvements, main utility line extensions or subdivision infrastructure, plans prepared by a registered professional engineer must be submitted for review and approval. The PFI permit application shall include any on-site water quality and detention facilities that may be required as part of the land use approval. The Permittee will also be required to post a performance bond, or other such suitable security. Where professional engineered plans are required, the Permittee must execute a Developer/Engineer Agreement, which will obligate the design engineer to perform the primary inspection of the public improvement construction work. The PFI permit fee structure is as follows: NOTE: If an PFI Permit is rewired,the applicant must obtain that permit prior to release of any permits from the Building Division. A PF!permit is required for this project. This permit must be obtained before any work begins on site. Building Division Permits: The following is a brief overview of the type of permits issued by the Building Division. For a more detailed explanation of these permits, please contact the Development Services Counter at 503-639-4171, ext. 304. Site Improvement Permit (SET). This permit is generally issued for all new commercial, industrial and multi-family projects. This permit will also be required for land partitions where lot grading and private utility work is required. This permit covers all on-site preparation, grading and utility work. Home builders will also be required to obtain a SIT permit for grading work in cases where the lot they are working on has slopes in excess of 20% and foundation excavation material is not to be hauled from the site. Building Permit (BUP). This permit covers only the construction of the building and is issued after, or concurrently with, the SIT permit. Master Permit (MST). This permit is issued for ail single and multi-family buildings. ft covers all work necessary for building construction, including sub-trades (excludes grading, etc.). This permit cannot be issued in a subdivision until the public improvements are substantially complete and a mylar copy of the recorded plat has been returned by the applicant to the City. For a land partition, the applicant must obtain an Engineering Permit, if required, and return a mylar copy of the recorded plat to the City prior to issuance of this permit. CITY OF 116ARO Prs4pplIcitlen Csnlerence Notes P.115115 IsYibpMsItMOWN Exhibit G - Site Distance Certification RECEIVED JUL 16 2015 CITY Or is ARD PLANNINGIENGINEERIN'"L) Car'lno April 9, 2015 Shaping the Future WASHINGTON COUNTY, OREGON Department of Land Use and Transportation Planning and Development Services Division Canino Current Planning Section 5416 SW Westgate Drive 155 North First Avenue, Suite 350 —MS13, Hillsboro, Oregon 97214 Suite 100 (503) 846-8761 FAX (503) 846-2908 Portland,Oregon 97221 USA http://www.co.washington.or.us Phone: +1 503 419 2500 Attn: Stacey Fax: +1 503 419 2600 RE: Specialty Retail — PRELIMINARY Sight Distance Certification www.cardno.com {Casefile Number) The proposed access for this proposal is located approximately 311 feet southwest of the site's northeast property line, onto SW Pacific Highway. The speed limit along SW Pacific Highway is 35 M P.H. based upon the posted speed limit, requiring 350 feet of sight distance in both directions, in accord with Code Section 501-8.5F(4). As required by Code Sections 501-8.5-F (3) (a) AND 501-8.5 F (3) (b), sight distance from the access to SW Pacific Highway was measured to be in excess of 500 feet to the northeast of the access in one direction and the distance to the southwest is not applicable because left turning movements out of School Street(Private Driveway)will be prohibited and prevented by a proposed raised concrete median. These Code Sections respectively require that measurements be based on an eye height of 3.5 feet and an object height of 4 25 feet above the road and be assumed to be 10 feet from the near edge of pavement to the front of a stopped vehicle, (Actual measurement is taken 15 feet from pavement edge). In conclusion, I hereby certify that the intersection sight distance is available at the proposed access for Specialty Retail. Sight distance exceeds to the requirements as set forth in the Washington County Community Development Code. Sincerely , E1 PROF 19 � yr Mario de la Rosa, P E. ' d Senior Project Manager OREGON Cardno O 5415 SW Westgate Dr., Suite 100 ` 0 15 V.•0.6 , Portland, Oregon 97221 O OE LP E_.y-rf r z 1 is Australia • Belgium • Canada • Colombia • Ecuador • Germany • indonesia • Italy • Kenya • New Zealand • Papua New Guinea • Peru • Philippines • Tanzania • United Arab Emirates • United Kingdom • United States • Operations in 135 countries C Exhibit H - Preliminary Storm Analysis RECEIVED JUL 16 2015 CITY OF 1«.faun MEMORANDUM PLANNING/ENGINEERINGLPI, Cardno Shaping the Future PROph, 7`r� t To. Gary Pagenstecher, City of Tigard CD -Sc‘. C)14 40 `rip 713Z9FE 5415 SW Westgate Drive From Atalia Raskin. PE a Suite 100 WR Senior Project Engineer tolkz Portland,Oregon 97221 OREGON USA Date. July 16, 2015 ��! * r 9 1°O� c,'�� f, 0P Phone (5031419-2500 Project Specialty Retail Store SAMP50tA Fax (503)419-2600 Cardno#' 21409110 1 EXPIRES.l2/L/[Ld41 Re Stormwater Analysis www,cardno.com This memorandum will outline the stormwater system being proposed for the Specialty Retail Store development located at 13125 SW Pacific Hwy. The site is located in the City of Tigard and follows City of Tigard and Clean Water Services (CWS) stormwater standards Project Overview The 1.37 acre site was previously used as a bus facility for the Tigard-Tualatin School District. Prior to 2004, the site contained a school building and parking lot. At that time. the site was almost entirely impervious Today, approximately one third of the property is an asphalt parking lot, one third is a gravel parking lot and the remaining one third is pervious. Site soils are Woodburn Silt Loam 0 to 7 percent slope with a hydrologic soil group C. The selected pervious CN value is 74, open space in good condition and 89. gravel. Site slopes are approximately 1.5% downward towards the north. Approximately a third of the site drains towards Pacific Hwy. No water quality or detention exists on the site (See attached Soil Map and Table 2-2a Runoff Curve Numbers). A pre-developed Time of Concentration (Tc) value was calculated to be 8 minutes and is attached. A Tc of 5 minutes was used for post-developed conditions. Table 1 lists the basin area under both existing and proposed conditions. See attached Exhibit 1 — Existing Basin Delineation and Exhibit 2 - Proposed Basin Delineation. Table 1 —Area Table Basin Area Development Impervious Pervious Gravel Area, Total Area, Condition Area, ac Area, ac ac ac Existing _ 0.518 0.401 0.448 1.367 Proposed 1.103 0.264 0.000 1.367 Requirements The City of Tigard has agreed to enforce Surface Water Management regulations established by CWS. CWS requirements for stormwater treatment are found in Chapter 4 of the Design and Construction Standards. All new impervious area will be treated and detained prior to discharge to the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) storm system in Pacific Hwy. 0 Australia • Belgium • Indonesia • Kenya • New Zealand • Papua New Guinea United Arab Emirates • United Kingdom • United States • Operations in 60 Countries Paye 6. July 16.2015 (P) (Jr, Card'no Shaping the Future Water Quality Per Section 4.05.6 of the Clean Water Services design manual. the water quality volume and flow rate is calculated according to the equations below Water Quality Volume (cu -ft) = 0.36 (in) x Area (sq.-ft) Water Quality Flow = WQV (cu.-ft) 12 (in/ft) 14,400 Water quality treatment will be provided within a proposed Contech StormFilter Manhole. The StormFilter Manhole will be a 72 inch diameter manhole. A Storm Filter Catch Basin will treat runoff from School Street. Water quality treatment will be provided by a Contech Storm Filter Catch Basin Storm Filters are designed to treat urban runoff including TSS, soluble heavy metals, oil and grease. total nutrients, by providing a high level of water quality treatment. Each low drop size cartridge filter has a treatment capacity of 0.022 cfs (10 gpm) and each standard cartridge filter has a treatment capacity of 0 033 cfs (15 gpm). The maximum bypass flow is 1.80 cfs. The required number of cartridges is shown in Table 2. All parking lot and roof water will be directed to a StormFilter Manhole for treatment. Table 2—Mechanical Water Quality Facilities Basin#'s Cartridge Size Impervious Area (sf) Water Quality Flow Quantity of Rate(cfs) Cartridges 1 - 11, 13 Low Drop 48,047 0.10 5.0 12 & 14 Standard 6,621 0.014 1.0 Water Quantity Water quantity detention will be provided in accordance with Chapter 4 of the Design and Construction Standards. The 2, 10, and 25-year post-development runoff rates shall not exceed the pre-development runoff rates ODOT standards must also be followed because the proposed storm network connects into an ODOT Storm network. ODOT requires the 10-year post-developed runoff rate to be released to the 10-year pre-developed runoff rate. StormTech Chambers are the selected detention system. The NRCS Curve Number unit hydrograph method was used for this analysis xpswmm version 15.1 was used for the hydrology and hydraulics analysis. xpswmm is based on the public EPA SWMM program and is an approved method of analysis by the City of Tigard and Clean Water Services. The rainfall distribution to be used within the Clean Water Services jurisdiction is the design storm of 24-hour duration based on the standard Type 1A rainfall distribution Precipitation depths for the 2. 10, and 25-year storm event are 2.50, 3.45, and 3.90 respectively. The proposed detention facility will provide 1.213 cu-ft of storage during the 25-year storm event. Landscaping surrounding the site drains away from the detention facility. This area will be undertrained and is subtracted from the pre-developed flow to calculate the allowable release rates from the detention facility. Table 3 lists the pre-developed. Undetained, allowable release rate, and release flow rates generated at the site. Page 3 July 16,2015 Lira) Camino* Shaping the Future Table 3— Pre, Allowable and Release Rates • Develo.. Afridetained Flow Allowable Released • Event Release Rates (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) Rates(cfs) 2 0.347 0.021 0.326 0.305 10 0.548 0.045 0.503 0.429 25 0.646 0.058 0.588 0.502 Downstream Analysis This downstream analysis is based on the current CWS code requiring projects adding 5,280 sq.-ft or more of impervious area to complete a downstream analysis. This analysis reviews the conveyance capacity within Pacific Hwy from the project site downstream to the tributary of Fanno Creek. The existing site sheet flows north through a separate drainage system to Fanno Creek, this system is further away than the adjacent ODOT storm system in Pacific Hwy and would require trenching a storm sewer through the adjacent school property. Survey information and City of Tigard GIS was used to model the storm sewer from the project site to the outfall. Additionally, CWS Storm Maps 4419 and 4418 were also utilized. The site is proposing to outfall into a tributary of Fanno Creek at the SW Garrett Street crossing. 0 The contributing area in proposed conditions includes the upstream basin and the site. The existing and proposed site areas are listed in Table 1 above. The upstream basin is 16.5 acres and includes Pacific Hwy and adjacent developments. The contributing basin was conservatively assumed to be 100% impervious and entered in at the ODOT manhole. See attached Exhibit 3 — Downstream Basin Delineation. The hydraulic model starts at the intersection of Pacific Hwy and SW Garrett Street and extends 220 ft southeast along SW Garrett before discharging into the tributary. Conveyance tables show the pipe has conveyance capacity without surcharge through the entire system for the 2, 10, and 25-year storm events. Therefore, the downstream analysis found the public storm system has capacity to convey the property. See attached xpswmm runoff and conveyance tables for the downstream analysis and onsite conveyance system. Conclusion Water quality will occur through the proposed Contech StormFilter Manhole for the site and a Contech StormFilter Catch Basin for SW School Street. Detention is provided for this site within StormTech Chambers. Therefore, this project will meet the intent of the standards set by the City of Tigard and Clean Water Services, Attachments: Exhibit 1 —Existing Basin Delineation Exhibit 2—Proposed Basin Delineation Exhibit 3—Downstream Basin Delineation Soil Map Pre-Developed Time of Concentration Onsite& Downstream xpswmm Results > Schematic Layout > Runoff > Conveyance > Release Rate Hydrograph 1 \ 1 -ii � 1 LL ,, fl Pln \ a ; :i _, . 3- CO) WI 4 `1 n n n - -.. , Tir 0 " to; oi!§ . st tlif i 01 4 ;i I Existing Basin Area Impervious Area = 0.518 acres i Gravel Area = 0.448 acres se Pervious Area = 0.401 acres I � Total = 1 .367 acres Ia 0 I �, Approximate Basin Divide c I / cb Iii I U ©i o� CC W 1=�� a 0 w ¢ : 0 �` cb w _I alA 0 z w (7) a ) ; is �f a_ 'Im -<-7C1 w J i ; c � w r � 00 0C 00000 _ r , ,i) .,,. e, -.--: i ....---- __L:2L-131-- --- - —— — - -------,‘ .,. , 1 ::::., -,____ . ....., _ ,_ __ , _ 4 L. _oo N co . N O Q , _ r/ S.W. PACIFIC HIGHWAY o SCALE:r=30' Ic.3F w m o i 30 15 030 a < m w 4 m ., ,, n A K N W V m 111 (15 i LL t � C k �" Vt �t di S-a I _ v . 0,,, . -. .,,, . ,_JTIr4)I , , z,„ . . . . 1 , ,,;. j its . • ._ 2 ...---- E; 1 ...1J / 74 7/� 1s _ -:-.. ��. ® SCALE: 1"-30' -, / ? I i I I 30 15 0 14-\ I - \ '•_. . . \ . . 11 Nm o -� GI 9 4 II P 1 8 46 I , 1Q z 1JOw Property Boundary _ , . � I 3w 0 12 1 PROPOSEaf1 SPECIALTY RETAIL -Z CO 15,085 SF StcrmTech r77777777-, J FFE:210.90 - . ' ` StormFilter MH Q l l r x w o 0 I -... - �'�wENEMI I 1.1* , / x ai I I I I I N / CO >` I r f * X / JLiJ V / ID, Q 5 � .0 o 1.11 cy • • StormFilter CB . 13a 7 V3b ,,.zzz l 1--, .immiAP1 �M L ., =rte - I Area 8 0.130 0.000 0.130 Impervious, Pervious, Total, 9 0.106 0.000 0.106 Basin ID ,r acres acres acres 10 0.110 0.000 0.110 \ / 1 0.173 0.004 0.177 11 0.000 0.128 0.128 S.W. PAC IFIC HIGHWAY 'r 2 0.115 0.003 0.118 12 0.113 0.010 0.123 3 0.196 0.044 0.240 13 0.018 0.068 0.086 c, sl I 4 0.058 0.000 0.058 Total 1.103 0.264 1.367 , Lt S 0.047 0.000 0.047 0 14 0 6 0.002 0.000 0.002 (o te) 0.039 0.D00 0.039 �° Discharge Location 4T 7 4.035 0.007 0.042 Q Q N z 1 1 . LU CO a. 0 S. < 7C \ _it m 'W ' —API" 44 c , 414‘.1d/ 1 a imt Site1r 0 4 rill p1.37 acres �i . .�� �� al 0 gmlim .r.1 —if78.4 /o Im•ervious ,0,111 - ---,,,-, , A0ci, .„, �'� • r ,/ a cis '* Q . ...storm ♦ k connecn ,j I'IJI tr1 1 marl 11116, - '.40 B P>l46e°.10..p1.i,1 1ti1sEh1argiei4 k. V4i ♦ ! oc-tion `a..I.- LNA,L.r \4g4irti 1,i iiroA..161 V11 Isar tr �. m ,�r■,,� �,�` 4 apstream basin A 41lk, -1 10# Ol111;4 fr 16.50 acres ? I100 /© Impervious ♦ z pill 0$10.1: UJ Le , Illr W w V/ J0iiir / U r C!0 L j U 6 '� COm 2 m Lu2 t 0 --- -li 0 1' cn O 0 , Al<611P/ (---- I __,) ji Ailh,N, ,._____ _ . 7; N J ,- ti co o Q en I SCALE: 1"=300' v 1- o � _ 300 150 0 300 a o m uJ 33 Hydrologic Soil Group—Washington County,Oregon lPI p' 517040 517060 5170517100 517120 517140 517160 45°2534'N JJ 1L , 45°'2534-N ` 1 i 1 • 1 QQQ 8 / — ' / 8OM / 0 , ' 19. r 43 • S 51 4'' N. / e 40* f.' //�a 1 :'t ay- 44 ' Foa 45..25 2a'N - - - - 45°1528'N 517040 517050 517080 517100 517120 517140 517150 3 3 IAli 4 Map Sade:1:855 f mnbed on A portrait(83 x 11")sheet. 4 R, ,• _ MetesN 0 10 20 40 50 ii 0 40 80 160 240 Map prolecbon:Web Mercator Caner coordinates:WC 84 Edge tics:U'TM Zone 10N WGS84 [�[)\ Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 3/121201 5 Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 1 of 4 Hydrologic Soil Group—Washington County,Oregon MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION Area of Interest(AOI) • c The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at 1:20,000. F' Area of Interest(A01) • CID Warning:Soil Map may not be valid at this scale. Soils • D Soil Rating Polygons Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause El A p Not rated or not available misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil line placement.The maps do not show the small areas of contrasting 1 I ND water Features soils that could have been shown at a more detailed scale. Streams and Canals ® B Transportation Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map B/D Rails measurements. C ,..„„• Interstate Highways Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service 0 CED Web Soil Survey URL: http://websoilsurvey.nres.usda.gov ..� us Routes Coordinate System: Web Mercator(EPSG:3857) D Major Roads Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator Not rated or not available Local Roads projection,which preserves direction and shape but distorts distance and area.A projection that preserves area,such as the Soil Rating Lines Background Albers equal-area conic projection,should be used if more accurate A in Aerial Photography calculations of distance or area are required. ND This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of ,y B the version date(s)listed below. ne► B/D Soil Survey Area: Washington County,Oregon Survey Area Data: Version 12,Sep 19,2014 ... C Soil map units are labeled(as space allows)for map scales 1:50,000 ^� LID or larger. '^'r' D Date(s)aerial images were photographed: Aug 3,2014—Aug 23, • • Not rated or not available 2014 Soil Rating Points The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were A compiled and digitized probably differs from the background • imagery displayed on these maps.As a result,some minor shifting • ND of map unit boundaries may be evident. ▪ B MI B/D USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 3/12/2015 ill Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 2 of 4 Hydrologic Soil Group—Washington County,Oregon Hydrologic Soil Group Hydrologic Soil Group—Summary by Map Unit—Washington County,Oregon(OR067) Map unit symbol Map unit name Rating Acres in AOl Percent of AOl 45A Woodburn silt loam,0 to C 0.9 62.8% 3 percent slopes 45B Woodburn silt loam,3 to C 0,5 37.2% 7 percent slopes Totals for Area of Interest 1.5 100.0% Description Hydrologic soil groups are based on estimates of runoff potential. Soils are assigned to one of four groups according to the rate of water infiltration when the soils are not protected by vegetation, are thoroughly wet, and receive precipitation from long-duration storms. The soils in the United States are assigned to four groups (A, B, C, and D) and three dual classes (ND, BID, and CID). The groups are defined as follows: Group A. Soils having a high infiltration rate (low runoff potential)when thoroughly wet. These consist mainly of deep, well drained to excessively drained sands or gravelly sands. These soils have a high rate of water transmission. Group B. Soils having a moderate infiltration rate when thoroughly wet. These consist chiefly of moderately deep or deep, moderately well drained or well drained soils that have moderately fine texture to moderately coarse texture. These soils have a moderate rate of water transmission. Group C. Soils having a slow infiltration rate when thoroughly wet. These consist chiefly of soils having a layer that impedes the downward movement of water or soils of moderately fine texture or fine texture.These soils have a slow rate of water transmission. Group D. Soils having a very slow infiltration rate (high runoff potential)when thoroughly wet.These consist chiefly of clays that have a high shrink-swell potential, soils that have a high water table, soils that have a claypan or clay layer at or near the surface, and soils that are shallow over nearly impervious material. These soils have a very slow rate of water transmission. If a soil is assigned to a dual hydrologic group (AID, B/D, or CID), the first letter is for drained areas and the second is for undrained areas. Only the soils that in their natural condition are in group D are assigned to dual classes. Rating Options 0 Aggregation Method: Dominant Condition USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 3/12/2015 Tali Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 3 of 4 Time of Concentration PROJECT NO. 21409110 BY ASR `DATE 4/1/2015 I To Detention SHEET FLOW INPUT VALUE VALUE VALUE Type 2 Type 4 Type 5 Surface Description Cultivated (residue Grass (short Fallow(no residue) > 20%) prairie) Manning's"n" 0.05 0.17 0.15 Flow Length, L (<300 ft) - 262 ft 0 ft 0 ft 2-Yr 24 Hour Rainfall, P2 2.5 in 2.5 in 2.5 in Land Slope, s 0.033 ft/ft 0.005 ft/ft 0.0025 ft/ft OUTPUT Travel Time 0.14 hr 0.00 hr 0.00 hr SHALLOW CONCENTRATED FLOW INPUT VALUE VALUE VALUE Surface Description Unpaved Unpaved Unpaved Flow Length, L O ft 0 ft O ft Watercourse Slope*, s 0.060 ft/ft 0.01 ft/ft 0.027 ft/ft OUTPUT _Average Velocity, V 3.95 ft/s 1.61 ft/s 2.65 ft/s Travel Time 0.000 hr 0.000 hr 0.000 hr CHANNEL FLOW _ INPUT VALUE - VALUE VALUE Cross Sectional Flow Area. a 0 ft2 7.5 ft2 15.05 ft2 Wetted Perimeter, P,y 0 ft 11.28 ft 7.69 ft Channel Slope, s 0 ft/ft 0.003 ft/ft 0.00 ft/ft Manning's"n" 0.24 0.24 0.24 Flow Length. L Oft Oft O ft OUTPUT Average Velocity 0.00 ftls 0.26 ftls 0.53 ft/s Hydraulic Radius, r= a/ P,v 0.00 ft 0.66 ft 1.96 ft Travel Time 0.00 hr 0.00 hr 0.00 hr Watershed or Subarea Tc = 0.14 hr 0.00 hr 0.00 hr Watershed or Subarea Tc= 8 minutes 0 minutes 0 minutes U WATER RESOURCES GROUP L Car-drncs Shapi,,q Ihu Future Specialty Retail Store— Schematic Layout (11) Cavana SDCB#2 SDCB#3 Shaping the Future -12 P13 SDMH# P14 P11 P10 SDCO#2 DCB#4 SDCB#1 SDMH-WO#1 15 T!5 S0141#3 SORMH1;16 4 StormTech P SDCB#7 P19 17 RD 3 71 SDCB#5 P8 SDCO#1 P18P4 . Corlitol NH DCB#€ P21 p20(. RD 2 SOMH#4 �2 \\RD 1 P3 ODOT MH P22 SOM H#5 'tea SDCB-W0#1 `()23 ch. „\ \ P2 Outfall \\\\ :end xpswmm RUNOFF DATA(EXISTING CONDITIONS) (I) Specialty Retail Store-Tigard,Oregon Node Information Runoff Information Event Area Impervious SCS Curve Tc Rainfall ,Infiltration Surface Runoff acre % Number min. in in in cfs 2-year 0.52 ' 100 _ 98 5 2.5 1.131 1.369 0.347 0.40 0 74 8 - - - - 0.45 0 1 89 8 - - - - 10-year 0.52 100 98 5-_ t 3.5 1.229 2.221 0.548 0.40 0 74 8 - - 0.45 0 89 8 - - - - 25-year 0.52 100f 98 5 3.9 1.262 2.638 0.646 0.40 0 74 8_ - - - - 0.45 0 89 8 - - - - xpswmm RUNOFF DATA(UNDETAINED AREA) Specialty Retail Store-Tigard,Oregon Node Information Runoff Information Event Area Impervious SCS Curve Tc Rainfall Infiltration Surface Runoff acre % Number min. in in in cfs 2-year 0.02 100 98 5 2.5 1.95_ 0.55 0.021 0.19 0 74 5 - - - 10-year 0.02 100 98 5 3.5 2.317 1.133 0.045 0.19 0 74 5 - 25-year 0.02 100 98 5 - 3.9 2.455 1.445 0.058 4 0.19 0 74 5 - - - - xpswmm RUNOFF DATA(2-YR STORM EVENT) Specialty Retail Store-Tigard,Oregon Node Information Runoff Information Area Impervious SCS Curve Tc Rainfall Infiltration Surface Runoff Node Name - - --- acre % 1 Number min. in in in cfs ODOT MH 16.50 _ 100 74 10 2.5 0 2.167 6,584 i RD 1 - 0.13 100 98 5 2.5 0 2.167 0.052 RD 2 0.11 100 98 5 2.5 0 2.167 0.042 RD 3 0.11 100 - 98 5 2.5 0 2.167 0.044 SDCB#1 0.17 100 98 5 2.5 1.95 0.55 0.069 0.00 0 74 5 - - - - 11 SDCB#2 0.12 100 98 5 2.5 1.95 0.55 0.046 I 0.00 0 74 5 - - - - SDCB#y3 0.20 100 98 5 2.5 1.95 0.55 0.081 0.04 0 74 5 - - - - - _ SDCB#4 0.06 100 98 5 2.5 0 2.167 0.023 SDCB#5 0.05 100 98 5 2.5 _ 0 2.167 _ 0.019 SDCB#6 0.00 100 98 5 2.5 0 2.167 0.001 I [ SDCB#7 0.04 100 98 5 2.5 1.95 0.55 0.014 0.01 0 74 5 - - - - 1 SDCB-WQ#1 0.15 100 98 5 2.5 1.95 -- 0.55 0.06 0.01 074 5 - - - - U xpswmm RUNOFF DATA(10-YR STORM EVENT) Specialty Retail Store-Tigard, Oregon Node Information Runoff Information Node Name Area I Impervious I SCS Curve Tc Rainfall Infiltration Surface Runoff _ acre % Number min. in in in cfs ODOT MH ' 16.50 100 74 10 3.5 - 0 3.11 9.236 RD 1 0.13 100 98 5 3.5 0 3.111 0.073 RD 2 0.11 100 98 5 3.5 0 3.111 0.059 RD 3 0.11 100 98 5 I 3.5 0 3.111 0.062 SDCB#1 0.17 100 98 5 3.5 2.317 1.133 0.098 0.00 0 74 5 - - e SDCB#2 0.12 100 98 5 3.5 2.317 1.133 0.065 1 0.00 - 0 74 5 - 1 SDCB#3 0.20 100 98 5 3.5 2.317 1.133 0.118 0.04 0 74 5 - - - - SDCB#4 0.06 100 98 5 3.5 0 3.111 0.032 SDCB#5 0.05 100 98 5 3.5 0 3.111 0.026 SDCB#6 0.00 100 98 5 3.5 0 3.111 0.001 SDCB#7 0.04 100 98 5 3.5 2.317 1.133 0.021 0.01 0 74 5 - - - - SDCB-WQ#1 0.15 100 98 5 3.5 2.317 1.133 0.085 1 0.01 1 0 1 74 I 5 - _ - I - - xpswrnm RUNOFF DATA(25-YR STORM EVENT) Specialty Retail Store -Tigard, Oregon 0Node Information Runoff Information Area Impious ' SCS Curve Tc • Rainfall Infiltration Surface Runoff Node Name acre % Number min. in in in cfs ODOT MH 16.50 100 74 10 3.9 _ 0 3.558 10.486 RD 1 0.13 100 98 5 3.9 0 _ 3.558 - 0.083 RD 2 0.11 100 98 5 3.9 0 3.558 0.067 RD 3 0.11 100 98 5 3.9 0 3.558 0.07 SDCB#1 0.17 100 98 5 3.9 _ 2.455 1.445 0.111 0.00 0 74 5 - - - - SDCB#2 0.12 100 98 5 3.9 2.455 1.445 0.074 _ 0.00 0 74 5 - - - - ' SDCB#3 0.20 100 98 5 3.9 2.455 - 1.445 _ 0.135 0.04 0 74 5 - - - - SDCB#4 _ 0.06 100 98 5 3.9 0 3.558 0.037 SDCB#5 0.05 100 98 5 3.9 0 3.558 0.03 SDCB#6 0.00 100 98 5 3.9 0 3.558 0.001 SDCB#7 0.04 100 98 5 _ 3.9 r 2.455 1.445 0.024 0.01 0 74 5 - - - - - SDCB-WQ#1 0.15 100 98 5 3.9 2.455 1.445 0.097 0.01 0 74 5 - - - xpswmm CONVEYANCE DATA(2-YEAR STORM EVENT) nLocation Specialty Retail Store-Tigard,Oregon Conduit Properties Conduit Results Node Information(Manhole,Pond,Tee,Outfall,Ditch Inlet,Catch Basin) Station Link Diameter Length Slope Design Omar,/ Max Flow Max Velocity Max Flow y1d0 US Ground DS Ground US IE DS IE US Freeboard DS Freeboard US HGL DS HGL From To Capacity Qdesign Depth Elev. Elev. _ l ft ft % cfs cfs Ws ft ft ft ft ft ft ft ft ft OP1 Bend Outfall 1.00 37.50 18.19 15.18 0.456.88 18.86 0.47 0.47 ' 200.41 200.00 196.82 190.00 3.12 9.53 197.29 ' 190.47 P2 ODOT MH Bend 1.50 219-00 1.30 11.96 0.58 6,88 6 37 0.93 0.62 206.26 200-41 199.66 196.82 5.67 3.12 200.59 197.29 P3 SDMH#4 ODOT MH 0.83 146.08 1.47 2.66 0.12 0.31 2.30 0.93 1.00 210.07 206,26 201.81 199.66 8.07 5.67 202.00 200.59 P4 Ti SDMH#4 0.83 5.00 1.00 2.19 0.14 0.31 2.83 0.21 0.25 209.45 210.07 201.96 201.81 7.28 8.07 202.17 202.00 StormTech 73 T2 2.33 320.00 0.00 1.02 0.34 0.35 0.36 1.02 _ 0.44 209.45 209.45 201.96 201.96 6.47 6.47 202.98 202.98 P5 SDMH-WO#13 0.83 15.28 1.00 2.17 0.18 0.39 2.23 1.02 1.00 208.63 209.45 202.11 _ 201.96 5,64 6.47 202.99 202,98 P6 SDMH#3 SDMH-WQ#1 0.83 14.92 1.00 2.19 0.02 0.03 5.31 0.07 0 09 208.46 208.63 204.32 I 202.11 4.07 5.64 204.39 202,99 P7 SDCB#5 SDMH#3 0.50 25.16 1.67 0.72 0.03 0.02 1.57 0.06 0.11 208.88 208.46 206.38 204.32) 2.44 4.07 206.44204.39 P8 SDCB#6 SDMH#3 0-50 31.55 1.00 0.57 0.00 0.00 1.50 0.01 0.03 207.60 208.46 205.13 204.32 2.46 4.07 205.14 204.39 P9 SDCB#7 SDMH#3 0-50 28.27 1.00 0.56 0.03 0.01 1.21 0.06 0.11 207.13 208.46 204-70 204.32 2.37 4.07 204.76 204.39 P10 SDMH#2 SDMH-WQ#1 0.8394.83 1.00 2.19 0.16 0.36 2.96 0.23 0.27 207.67 208.63 204.86 202.11 2.58 5.64 205.09 202.99 P11 SDCB#4 SDMH#2 0.50 41.03 2.90 0.96 0.02 0.02 7.01 0.05 0.11 208.63 207.67 [ 206.83 204.86 1.75 2.58 206.88 205.09 - iP12 SDCB#3 SDMH#2 0.50 29,09 1.00 0.56 0.15 0.08 2.71 0.13 0.26 207.02 i 207.67 205.25 204.86 1.64 2.58 205.38 205.09 P13 SDCB#2 SDMH#2 0.50 31.15 100 0.56 0.08 0.05 1.72 0.10 0.19 207.24 207.67 205.50 204.86 1.64 2.56 205.60 205.09 P14 SDC0#2 SDMH#2 0-83 65.72 1.34 2.53 0.08 0.21 2.80 0.16 0-19 209.17 207.67 205.84 204.86 p 3.17 2.58 206.00 20509 P15 .14 SDCO#2 0-83 45,29 134 2.54 0.08 0,21 2,81 0,16 0.19 209.74 209.17 206.45 205.84 3.13 3.17 206.61 206.00 P16 SDCB#1 T4 0.50 31.57 _ 1.36 0.65 0.11 0.07 2.16 0.11 0,22 208.93 209.74 207.13 206.45 " 1.69 3.13 207.24 206.61 P17 SDMH#1 T4 0.83 20.52 1.34 2.51 0.06 0.14 2.38 0.16 0.19 209.87 209.74 206.72 206.45 3.02 3.13 206.85 206.61 1 P18 RD 3 SDMH#1 067 24.50 4.41 2.54 0.02 0.04 2.72 _ 0.06 0.09 210.40 209.87 207.90 206.72 2.44 3.02 207.96 206.85 P19 SDCO#1 SDMH#1 0.83 36.50 1.00 2.17 0.04 0.09 1.98 0.12 I 0.14 210.02 209.87 207.18 206.72 2.72 3.02 207-30 206.85 P20 RD 2 _-aSDC0#1 0.67 _ 26.57 2.71 1.99 0.02 0.04 2.27 0.07 0 210.53 210.02 208.09 207.18 2.37 2.72 208.16207.30 P21 RD 1 SDCO#1 0.67 71.86 1.00 1.21 - 0.04 0.05 5.08 0.12 0.18 210.40 210.02 207.90 207.18 2.41 2.72 207.99 . 207.30 ~ /� P22 _ SDCB-WQ#'SDMHiR4 0.50 21.50 1.00 0-55 0.11 0.06 3.39 0.11 0.22 208.56 C 208.55 206.21 205.11 2.24 _ 3 33 206.32 205_22 1 P23 SDCB#8 SDMH#5 0.83 64 1.00 2.10 0.00 0 00 0.28 0.11 0.13 208.76 208.55 205 17 205.11 3.54 3 33 205-22 205.22 s/ xpswmm CONVEYANCE DATA(10-YEAR STORM EVENT) Specialty Retail Store-Tigard,Oregon _ Location Conduit Properties Conduit Results Node Intormation(Manhole,Pond,Tee,Outfall,Ditch Inlet,Catch Basin) Station Design Qmaxl Max Flow US Ground OS Ground ` Link Diameter Length SlopeMax Flow Max Velocity yld0 US IE DS IE US Freeboard DS Freeboard US HGL DS HGL From • To _Capacity Qdesign _ Depth Elev. Elev. _ - I ft cfs cfs ftls ft ft ft ft ft ft ft ft ft P1 Bend Outfall 1.00 37.50 1 18 19 15.19 064 9.65 20.47 0.58 0.58 200.41 1 200.00 ' 196.82 190.00 3.01 942 197.40 190.58 P2 ODOT MH Bend 1.50 219.00 1 30 11.96 0.81 9.65 6 92 1.17 0.78 206.26 200.41 199.66 196.82 5.43 3.01 200.83 197.40 P3 SDMH#4 ODOTMH _5 ;_. '- 266 016 043 264 117 100 + + + 20181 19966 803 543 I 2020420083 P4 T1 SDMH#d • : r+ r+ • + + 0.25 0.30 •' . + + 201.96 201.81 7.24 8.03 202.21 202.04 StormTech T3 T2 +-+ • r •+ + • •. + • 033 1.63 0.70 _ 209.45 20945 20196 20196 5.87_ 5.87 - 20358 203.59P5 SDMH-WQ#T3 • +• • + 1.81 1.62 1.00 208.632094520211201.96 ' 5.04 5.87 20359 20358P6 SDMH#3 SDMH-WQ#1 + = ++ + 009 0.10 20846208.6320432 202.11 l 405 5.04 20441 1 203.59 P7 ISDCB#5 SDMH#3 • • • • • • • • 007 0.13 r; :: r; r. r• 405 20645 20441 P8 SDCB#6 SDMH#3 + • •r + + +• • ++ + + • + + r .r +: rr 4.05 205.15 20441 P9 SDCB#7 SDMH#3 r • rr • r • + + • • r . r rr405 204.77 20441 P10 SDMH2 SDMH-WQ#1 0.83 94.83 1.00 2.19 0,23 0.51 3 27 0.27 • •+ •s 204 c • 5.04 205.13 203.59 P11 SOCB#4 SDMH#2 0.50 41.03 '• 0.96 •• • + 0.06 • •; ,3 207.67 , 206 83 204.86 2.54 206,89 205.13 P12 SDCB#3 SDMH#2 •50 29•' 1.00 + 0_21 • 12 3 48 + 17 0.35 207.02 • • + •• 2.54 205.41 205.13 P13 SDCB#2 SDMH#2 r 50 31,15 1 00 r 0.12 0.07 r 0.12 0.23 207.2407.67 205.50 204.862,54 205.62 205-13 P14 SDCO#2 SDMH#2 • 0.12 0.29 3,09 • + +'.17 207.67 205.84 + 2.54 206.03 205.13 P15 T4 SDCO#2 0.83 2,54 0.12 q 0.29 310 + r •' ••.17 206.45 20584 3.10 3.14 206.64 206.03 P16_ SDCB#1 T4 • • 31.57 0.65 0.15 0.10 2.39 0.13 0.26 + +' • •• 3.10 207.26 206.64 P17 SDMH#1 T4 0.V r 2.51 1 0.08 I 0.19 2.61 0.19 ' 0.23 209.87 209.74r• •-45 2 99 3.10 206.88 206.64 P18 RD 3 SDMH#1 • • 50 4.41 2.54 0.02 0.06 3 02 0.07 , 0.11 210.40 209.87 207.90 206.722.99 207.97 206.88 P19 SDC0#1 SDMH#1 • : r •• 0.06 0.13 _ 2.20 • •.17 210.02 I 209.87 • +• + 299 207.32 20688 P20 RD2 _SDCO#1 + 0-03 0.06 2-54 0.08 CI 12 210 53 210.02208.09 207.182.70 20817 207.32 0 P21 1 SDCO#1 • , ar • r. r • • • • 210.40 r r • 207.90 r 2.70 208 01 20232 P22 rSDC6-WOW SDMH#5 • • • •r + • + •• • r •: r •• • 3.31 206 34 205.24 P23 SDCB#8 .SDMH#5 0.83 6,49 2 1.00 2.10 0.00 0.00 0.21 0.13 0.16 208 76 208.55 205.17 205.11 I 3.52 3.31 2 205.24 205.24 xpswmrn CONVEYANCE DATA(25-YEAR STORM EVENT) Specialty Retail Store-Tigard,Oregon Location Conduit Properties Conduit Results Node Information(Manhole,Pond,Tee,Outfall,Ditch Inlet,Catch Basin) Station Design Amax! Max Flow US Ground DS Ground ! 1 Link Diameter Length I' Slope Max Flow Max Velocity yid0 US IE DS IE US Freeboard DS Freeboard US HGL DS HGL From To Capacity Odesign Depth Elev. Elev. ft ft % cfs ch; Ws ft ft ft ft n ft ft ft ft ft P1 Bend Outfall 1.00 37.50 18.19 15.19 0.72 10.97 21.05 0.63 0.63 200.41 200.00 196.82 190.00 2.96 { 9.37 197.45 190.63 P2 ODOT MH Bend 1.50 219.00 1.30 11.96 0.92 10.97 12 17 1.33 0.88 206.26 _204.41 199.66 196.82 5.27 2.96 200.99 197 45 ®+ i 'P3 SDMH#4 ODOT MH 0.83 146.08 1.47 2.66 0.19 0.50 2.86 1.33 1.00 210.07 206.26 201.81 l 199.66 8.01 5.27 202.06 200.99 P4 T1 SDMH#4 0.83 5-00 1,00 2.19 0.23 0.50 3.25 0.27 0.33 209.45 _21007 201.96 201.81_ 7.22 8-01 202.23 202.06 Storm Tech T3 T2 2.33 320.00 0.00 1.02 0.56 0.57 0.31 1.89 0.81 209.45 209 45 201.96~ 201.96 5.60 5.60 203.85 203.85 P5 SDMH-WQ#T3 0.83 15.28 1.00 2.17 ! 0.29 0.63 19.83 1.89 1.00 208.63 209.45 202.11 _ 201.96 , 4.78 5.60 203.85 203.85 P6 SDMH#3 SDMH-WQ#1 0.83 14 92 1.00 2.19 0.03 0.06 1.70 0.09 0-11 208-46 208,63 204 32 202.11 ' 4.05 4.78 204.41 203.85 P7 SDCB#5 SDMH#3 1 0.50 25.16 1.67 0.72 0.04 0.03 3.68 0.07 0.14 208.88 208.46 206.38 204.32 2.43 4.05 206.45 204,41 P8 SDCB#6 SDMH#3 0.50 31.55 1.00 0.57 0.00 0.00 0.55 0.02 0.04 207.60 208.46 205.13 204.32 2.45 4.05 205.15 204.41 P9 SDCB#7 SDMH#3 1 0.50 28.27 1.00 056 0.04 0.02 1.41 0.07 0.14. , 207.13 208.46 204.70 _ 204.32 2.36 4.05 204.77 204.41 P10 SDMH#2 SDMH-W0#1 0.83 94.83 1.00 219 0.26 0.58 3.39 0.29 0.35 207.67 20863 204.86 202.11 2-52 478 205.15 203,85 P11 SDCB#4 SDMH#2 0.50 1 41.03 2.90 0 96 0.04 0.04 2.33 0.07 0.13 208.63 207.67 206.83 204.86 1.73 2 52 206.90 205 15 'P12 SDCB#3 SDMH#2 0.50 29.09 1.00 0.56 0.24 0.14 3.36 ' 0.19 0.38 207-02 - 207.67 205.25 204.86 1.60 2.52 205.42 205.15 P13 SDCB#2 SDMH#2 0.50 31.15 _ 1.00 0.56 0.13 0.07 1.97 0.12 0.25 207.24 207.67 205.50 204.86 ' 1.62 2 52 205.62 205 15 - P14 SDCO#2 SDMH#2 0.83 65.72 1.34 2.53 0.13 0.33 3.21 0.20 0.24 209.17 207.67 205.84 204.86 3.13 22,52 0.83206.04 205.15 P15 T4 SDCO#2 - -_ 45.29 1.34 2.54 0.13 0.33 3.22' 0.20 0.24 209.74 209.17 206.45 205.84 3.09 .11 3 206.65 206.04 P16 SDCB#1 T4 0.50 31.57 1.36 0.65 0.17 0.11 2.48 0.14 0.28 208.93 209.74 207.13 206.45 1.66 3 09 207.27 206.65 P17 SDMR#1 T4 0.83 20.52 1.34 2.51 0.09 022 2.70 0.20 024 209.87 209.74 206.72 206.45 2.98 3 09 206.89 206.65 P18 RD 3 SDMH#1 0_.67 24.50 4.41 2.54 0.03 0.07 6.36 0.08 0.11 210.40 209.87 207.90 206.72 2.42 2 98 207 98 206 89 P19 SDCO#1 SDMH#1 0.83 36.50 1" 1.00 2.17 0.07 0.15 2.28 0.15 0.18 210.02 209.87 I 207.18 206.72 2.69 2-98 207 33 206 89 P20 -R0 2 SDC0#1 0.67 26.57 2.71 1.99 0.03 0.07 5.15 0.08 1 0.13 210.53 210.02 208.09 207.18 2.36 2.69 - 208 17 207.33 P21 RD 1 SDCO#1 0-67 71.86 1-00 1.21 0-07 008 3-29 0.15 0.22 210 40 210,02 207 90 207.18 2.38 2 69 208,02 207.33 P22 _ SDCB-WQ#'SDMH#5 0.50 21.50 ' 1.00 0.55 0.18 0.10 2.12 0.14 0.28 208 56 208.55 206.21 205.11 2.21 3.30 206.35 205.25 () P23 SDCB#8 SDMH#5 0.83 6.49 1.00 2.10 0.00 0.00 0.19 0.14 0.17 208.76 208.55 205.17 205.11 11=111111. 3.30 205.25 205.25 ' 1 0 Specialty Retail Store (.1.1) Cartldno" Shaping the Future Release Rate Hydrograph 2[Max 0.305] 10[Max 0.429] 25[Max 0.502] 0.50 0.45 0.40 0.35 0.30 3 0 L.1 0.25 0.20 0.15 (1111/1 0.10 0.05 0.00 mi.. - 1 Thu 3AM 6AM 9AM 12PM 3PM 6PM 9PM 2 Fri Time C Exhibit I - Arborist Report RECEIVED JUL 1 G 20�� 971.409.9354 Marc an Haien CITY OF i IGARD 3 Monroe Parkway,Suite P 220 PLANNING�ENG VEERING Lake Oswego,Oregon 97035 Elf OCl A Consulting Arborists and ran ores[ anagement morgan.holen@c©rncast.net Urban Forestry Plan Supplemental Report April 5, 2015 Specialty Retail 13125 SW Pacific Highway Tigard, Oregon 971.409.9354 Marc an Molen 3 Monroe Parkway,Suite P 220 Lake Oswego,Oregon 97035 AJ QCT Consulting Arborists and Urban Forest Management morgan.holen@comcast.net Table of Contents — Purpose 1 General Description .1 Effective Tree Canopy Cover 1 Specifications 2 A. Soil Characteristics and Specifications for Improvement 2 B. Tree Planting Specifications 2 Signature of Approval 2 Enclosures — Attachment A: Existing Tree Inventory Data Attachment B: Planted Tree Inventory Attachment C: Effective Tree Canopy Cover Summary Attachment D:Tree Preservation and Removal Site Plan Attachment E: Tree Canopy Site Plan Not Applicable — Existing Stand Inventory Data Planted Stand Inventory Tree Protection Specifications Stand Preservation Specifications Stand Planting Specifications Tree Canopy Fee Calculation 971.409.9354 Morgan Nolen 3 Monroe Parkway,Suite P 220 Lake Oswego,Oregon 97035 AJf 0CIAT Consulting Arbonsts and Urban Forest Management morgan.holen rrcomcast.net Urban Forestry Plan - Supplemental Report Specialty Retail, 13125 SW Pacific Highway, Tigard, Oregon April 5, 2015 MHA15019 Purpose This Urban Forestry Plan for the specialty retail development project located in a C-G zoning district in Tigard, Oregon, is provided pursuant to the City of Tigard Urban Forestry Manual.The subject property is located at 13125 SW Pacific Highway.This report describes the existing trees located on and directly adjacent to the project site, provides arborist recommendations for tree removal, retention and protection, and describes the effective tree canopy cover needed to meet City requirements. This report is based on observations made by International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) Certified Arborist and. Qualified Tree Risk Assessor Morgan Holen (PN-6145A) during a site visit conducted on March 31, 2015. General Description The existing site is a vacant and undeveloped lot along the northwest side of SW Pacific Highway just north of SW School Street. In all, eight trees were inventoried, including four on-site trees and four trees located off-site within 25-feet of the development impact area. The four on-site trees include one non-native and invasive sweet cherry(Prunus avium), a multi- stemmed Port-Orford-cedar (Chamaecyparis lawsoniana), an unknown deciduous tree with advanced decay, and a purple-leaf plum (Prunus cerasifera)that has been heavily pruned over the years for power line clearance. Removal of these four on-site trees is recommended for the purposes of site development. The four off-site trees include three small ashes (Fraxinus spp.) measuring smaller than the City's six inch diameter threshold for inventoried trees and one red oak(Quercus rubra) measuring approximately six inches. The crowns of these trees do not overhang the project site and existing chain link fencing along property boundaries will remain and provide sufficient protection for these trees during construction. Therefore, no tree protection specifications are provided. A complete description of individual trees located on and adjacent to the project site is included in the enclosed existing tree inventory data (attachment A). Effective Tree Canopy Cover Attachment B, the planted tree inventory, describes 27 trees proposed for planting, including eight street trees and 19 trees located in and around the proposed parking lot. The proposed spacing between trees provides the closest and best spacing possible. The required quantity of street trees is determined by dividing the total right-of-way length by 40. The total length of the right-of-way abutting the project site along SW Pacific Highway is 313.14 feet. Therefore, eight street trees are required (313.14 J 40= 7.83), as is proposed.The width of the right-of- way is approximately 15.5-feet requiring a minimum of 700 cubic feet of soil volume,which is provided for each of the eight street trees. The 27 parking lot trees will provide a total combined mature tree canopy area covering 30.4%of the parking lot area, which satisfies the minimum requirement of 30%. In addition, parking lot trees are ,` required to have 1,000 cubic feet of soil volume each.At least 1,000 cubic feet of open soil volume is available for 26 parking lot trees; however,tree number 122 will require 659 cubic feet of covered soil volume to satisfy this requirement. Urban Forest Plan—Supplemental Report 13125 SW Pacific Highway,Tigard,Oregon Page 2 The overall development site is 58,995 square feet and has 43.2% effective tree canopy.The minimum required effective tree canopy for the overall development site is 33%; therefore,the effective tree canopy cover requirement for the overall development site is met. A summary of the effective tree canopy cover across the overall development site is included as attachment B. The Tree Preservation and Removal Site Plan and Tree Canopy Site Plan are enclosed as attachments D and E as required by Section 10 of the Urban Forestry Manual, which illustrate how the Urban Forestry Plan requirements are met. Specifications A. Soil Characteristics and Specifications for Improvement Native soils at the project site consist of Woodburn silt loam, which is deep, moderately well- drained, and capable of supporting healthy tree growth. No soil improvements are proposed. B. Tree Planting Specifications New trees that are planted to meet the effective canopy requirements shall conform to the applicable standards in the Tigard Urban Forestry Manual.They shall be planted in accordance with the American National Standards Institute (ANSI)standards for tree planting (A300, Part 6) and additional standards adopted by the Oregon Landscape Contractors Board. Nursery stock shall meet the requirements of the American Association of Nurserymen for nursery stock (ANSI Z60.1)for Grade No.1 or better. Double stake trees if needed for stability. Signature of Approval We hereby attest that, to the best of our knowledge: ✓ The attached Tree Preservation and Removal site plan meets all of the requirements in Section 10, Part 1 of the Urban Forestry Manual; ✓ The attached Tree Canopy site plan meets all of the requirements in Section 10, Part 2 of the Urban Forestry Manual; and V This Supplemental Report meets all of the requirements in Section 10, Part 3 of the Urban Forestry Manual. Thank you for choosing Morgan Nolen &Associates, LLC, to provide consulting arborist services for the specialty retail development project at 13125 SW Pacific Highway in Tigard. Please contact us if you have questions or need any additional information. Thank you, Morgan Holen F&Associates, LLC: { Morga E. Nolen, Owner ISA Certified Arborist, PN-6145A ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified Forest Biologist Enclosures: Attachment A: Existing Tree Inventory Data Attachment B: Planted Tree Inventory Attachment C: Effective Tree Canopy Cover Summary Attachment D: Tree Preservation and Removal Site Plan Attachment E: Tree Canopy Site Plan 0 1111110 • -�'- Attachment A: Existing Tree Inventory Data Morgan Haien MHA15019 Natural Grocers -Tree Data 3-31-15 Aff0CIATLj !Ir Page 1 of 1 No. Lot No. Common Name Species Name DBH' C-Rad2 Canopy 0/54 HT5 Condi Pres7 Comments Treatment heavily pruned beneath power lines, 101 1 purple leaf plum Prunus cerasifera 22 16 804 0 N 2 2 some dieback, some decay remove history of branch failure, advanced 102 1 deciduous unknown 2x7 6 113 0 N 1 1 trunk decay remove invasive species, multiple 103 1 sweet cherry Prunus avium 18 12 452 0 N 2 2 attachments at —10' remove codominant stems "1' above ground Chamaecyparis 10,14, level, no major defects, highly 104 1 Port-Orford-cedar lawsoniana 2x15 10 314 0 N 2 2 susceptible to root disease remove 105 off-site ash Fraxinus spp. 3 4 50 0 N 3 3 young tree protect 106 off-site ash Fraxinus spp, 3 4 50 0 N 3 3 young tree protect 107 off-site ash Fraxinus spp. 3 4 50 0 N 3 3 young tree protect 108 off-site red oak Quercus rubra 6 8 201 0 N 3 3 young tree protect 1DBH is tree diameter measured at 4.5-feet above the ground level in inches;trees with multiple trunks splitting below DBH are measured separately and individual trunk measurements are separated by a comma,except multiple trunks of the same size are indicated as quantity x size. 2C-Rad is the average crown radius measured in feet. 3Canopy is the average tree canopy area (in square feet)calculated as follows: Canopy= (Average Tree Canopy Spread/2)2 x p.40/S identifies the trees as either Open Grown or Stand Grown. 'HT identifies whether or not the tree is a Heritage Tree(either Y for yes or N for no).6Cond is the numerical condition rating(0-3)as defined in the Tigard Urban Forestry Manual: RATING VIGOR CANOPY DENSITY DEADWOOD FAILURE HISTORY PESTS DECAY • 0 dead to severe decline <30% major scaffold branches >1 scaffold Infested major conks and cavities 1 declining 30-60% twig and branch dieback scaffold branches Infested one to a few conks;small cavities 2 average 60-90% small twigs small branches Minor present only at pruning wounds 3 good to excellent 90-100% little or none none None absent to present only at pruning wounds 'Pres is the numerical suitability for preservation rating(0-3) as defined in the Tigard Urban Forestry Manual: RATMG CONSIDERATIONS The tree is a"hazard tree"as defined in chapter 18,120 of the Tigard Development Code and"hazard tree abatement"as defined in Chapter 18.120 in the Tigard Development Code 0 cannot be completed in a manner that results in tree retention consistent with tree care industry standards. The tree is dead,in severe decline,or declining but may still be retained if desirable for wildlife or other benefits because it is not considered a"hazard tree"or"hazard tree abatement" 1 could be performed. 2 The tree has average health and/or structural stability that could be alleviated with treatment;the tree will be less resilient to development impacts and will require more frequent management and monitoring after development than a tree rated as a"3". The tree has good to excellent health and structural stability;the tree will be more resilient to development impacts,and will require less frequent management and monitoring after 3 development than a tree rated as a"2". Morgan Bolen & A.s5ocdate5, LLC Consulting Arborists and Urban Forest Management 3 Monroe Parkway, Suite P220, Lake Oswego, OR 97035 morgan.holen@comcast.net 1971.409.9354 '1 Attachment B: Planted Tree Inventory Morgan Holen MFHA15019 Natural Grocers-Tree Data 3-31-15 Alf©CIFaT(gl Page 1 of 1 Tree Mature Canopy Mature Canopy Required Soil Available Soil Structured Soil No. Species Name/Common Name Caliper Spread(ft.) Area(ft2) Volume(ft3) Volume(ft3) Volume(ft3) Location 109 Acer rubrum 'October Glory'/October Glory maple 1.5" 40 1,256 1,000 1,000+ n/a parking lot 110 Ginkgo biloba /ginkgo 1,5" 45 1,590 1,000 1,000+ n/a parking lot 111 Ginkgo biloba /ginkgo 1,5" 45 1,590 1,000 1 1,000+ n/a parking lot 112 Ginkgo biloba /ginkgo 1.5" 45 1,590 1,000 1,000+ n/a parking lot 113 Ater rubrum 'October Glory'/October Glory maple 1.5" 40 1,256 1,000 1,000+ n/a parking lot 114 Ginkgo biloba /ginkgo 1.5" 45 1,590 1,000 1,000+ n/a parking lot 115 Ginkgo biloba /ginkgo 1.5" 45 1,590 1,000 1,000+ n/a parking lot 116 Ginkgo biloba /ginkgo 1.5" 45 1,590 1,000 1,000+ n/a parking lot 117 Acer rubrum 'October Glory'/October Glory maple 1.5" 40 1,256 1,000 1,000+ n/a parking lot 118 Fraxinus pennsylvanico /green ash 1.5" 40 1,256 1,000 1,000+ n/a parking lot 119 Fraxinus pennsylvanlco /green ash 1.5" 40 1,256 1,000 1,000+ n/a parking lot 120 Fraxinus pennsylvanico /green ash 1.5" 40 1,256 1,000 1,000+ n/a parking lot 121 Acer rubrum 'October Glory'/October Glory maple 1.5" 40 1,256 1,000 1,000+ n/a parking lot 122 Zelkova serrata 'Musashino'/columnar zelkova 1.5" 15 177 1,000 347 659 parking lot 123 Zelkova serrata 'Musashino'/columnar zelkova 1.5" 15 177 1,000 1,000+ n/a parking lot 124 Zelkova serrata 'Musashino'/columnar zelkova 1.5" 15 177 1,000 1,000+ n/a parking lot 125 Acer rubrum 'October Glory"/October Glory maple 1.5" 40 1,256 1,000 1,000+ n/a parking lot 126 Zelkova serrata 'Musashino'/columnar zelkova 1.5" 15 177 1,000 1,000+ n/a parking lot 127 Acer rubrum 'October Glory'/October Glory maple 1.5" 40 1,256 1,000 1,000+ 1 n/a parking lot 128 Cornus kousa x C. nutallii 'KN4-43'/starlight dogwood 1.5" 25 491 700 700+ n/a street tree r 129 Cornus kousa x C. nutallii 'KN4-43'/starlight dogwood 1.5" 25 491 700 700+ n/a street tree l 1311 Cornus kousa x C. nutallii 'KN4-43'/starlight dogwood 1.5" 25 491 700 700+ n/a street tree 131 Cornus kousa x C. nutallii 'KN4-43'/starlight dogwood 1.5" ' 25 491 700 700+ n/a street tree 132 Cornus kousa x C. nutallii 'KN4-43'/starlight dogwood 1.5" 25 491 700 700+ n/a street tree 133 Cornus kousa x C. nutallii 'KN4-43'/starlight dogwood 1.5" 25 491 700 700+ n/a street tree 134 Cornus kousa x C. nutallii 'KN4-43'/starlight dogwood 1.5" 25 491 700 700+ n/a street tree 135 Cornus kousa x C. nutalhii 'KN4-43'/starlight dogwood 1.5" 25 491 700 700+ n/a street tree Morgan Nolen &Associates, LLC Consulting Arborists and Urban Forest Management 3 Monroe Parkway,Suite P220,Lake Oswego,OR 97035 morgan.holen@a comcast.net 1971,409.9354 Attachment C: Effective Tree Canopy Cover Summary Morgan Nolen MHA15019 Natural Grocers -Tree Data 3-31-15 Aft OCIAT Ljr Page 1 of 1 2x Canopy Area (ft2) 2x Canopy Area (ft2) 1.25 x Mature Mature Canopy 1.25x Mature Tree Effective % Lot of Preserved Trees of Preserved Stands Canopy Area Area (ft2) of Non- Canopy Area Canopy Canopy Area (w/condition and (w/ condition and (ft2) of Native Native Planted (ft2) of Area (ftz) (Canopy Area Lot No. (ft ) preservation rating > 2) preservation rating > 2) Planted Trees Trees Planted Stands per Lot / Lot Area) Total Development Site 58,995 0 0 0 25,480 0 25,480 43.2% Notes: Effective tree canopy cover is required to be calculated on a lot/tract by lot/tract basis only in the R-1, R-2,R-3.5,R-4.5 and R-7 districts. The standard percentage of effective tree canopy cover for each lot or tract in the R-1,R-2,R-3.5, R-4.5 and R-7 districts shall be at least 15 percent. The standard percentage of effective tree canopy cover for the overall development site shall be at least: i.40%for R-1,R-2,R-3.5, R-4.5 and R-7 districts,except for schools(18.130.050(1)); ii. 33%for R-12,R-25, R-40,C-N,C-C,C-G,C-P,MUE,MUE-1,MUE-2, MUC,MUR and l-P districts,except for schools(18.130.050(J));and iii.25%for MU-CBD,MUC-1,1-1 and I-H districts,and for schools(18,130.050{1})in all districts. Morgan 1oien & A.55ociates, LLC Consulting Arborists and Urban Forest Management 3 Monroe Parkway, Suite P220, Lake Oswego, OR 97035 morgan.holen@comcast.net 1971.409.9354 0 ,. Exhibit J - Traffic Impact Study KITTELSON & ASSOCIATES , INC . TRANSPORTATION € N G I N E E R I N G / PLANNING 610 SW Alder Street, Suite 700, Portland, OR 97205 503.228.5230 503.2738169 July 15, 2015 RECEIVED Project#: 13755.05 Gary Pagenstecher JUL 16 2015 City of Tigard, Community Planning Department CITY Or i It�Hl;a) 13125 SW Hall Boulevard PLANNING/ENGINEERING Tigard, OR 97223 RE: Transportation Impact Analysis for SW School Road/OR 99W Site Rezone—Tigard, OR Dear Mr. Pagenstecher: Leadership Circle, LLC, (the Applicant) is proposing a land use amendment that will change the zoning designation for a vacant 1.33-acre parcel located at 13125 SW Pacific Highway (OR 99W) in Tigard. Figure 1 shows a site vicinity map and the location of the subject property along OR 99W, across from SW Garrett Street, and along the north side of SW School Road. The site is currently zoned R-12 (Medium-density Residential District), which allows a variety of residential developments. The proposed zoning for the site is General Commercial (C-G) which is designed to accommodate a full range of retail, office and civic uses within a city-wide or regional trade area. The proposed zone change will also be consistent with the underlying comprehensive plan and zoning designations for all of the other properties along the OR 99W corridor. TRANSPORTATION PLANNING RULE The analysis contained in this report was prepared to address the requirements of Oregon's Transportation Planning Rule (TPR, OAR 660-012-0060, Reference 1). The TPR institutes criteria under which the transportation impacts of a post-acknowledgement plan amendment and zoning map amendment must be evaluated. The final section of this report contains a detailed review of how the proposed zone change complies with the TPR. SCOPE OF THE REPORT As stated above, this report evaluates the transportation-related impacts of the proposed site rezone and was prepared in accordance with the City of Tigard and Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) transportation standards. The scope of work for this study was developed through a scoping process with City and ODOT staff. The study intersections and overall study area for this project were selected based on a review of estimated site trip generation potential and distribution patterns, and local circulation patterns of the transportation system. It should be emphasized that the Applicant is also preparing a site development application to be processed concurrently with the site rezone. A separate traffic impact analysis, issued under separate cover, has been submitted to the City of Tigard and the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) to support the site development application. FILENAME:H.•1 PROJFILE113755-LEADERSHIP CIRCLE SPECIALTY RETAIL 1005-TIGARDI REPORTI REZONE TM 113755 REZONE REPORT 07152015.DOCX OR 99W/School Road Site Rezone July 2015 le 1 (NO SCALE) Sti„ 910. ars rfi6> i \+. 7464- 0414, , ti%SA CJS 9 ZS ! 9 SW PARK STREET I 9m [ . g. ,. 4 N 45 N i . -, C47 Y I 81 t,1 CO iF1 , in rn S pp, \ O A41:3 it WASHINGTON CouNrY E a. Go Ca .C42 C f1 LillSITE .0. � i A , m -1 LEGEND — — EFIGURE E. • -STUDY INTERSECTION SITE VICINITY OREGON 1 li ,,,,_ 1 K' KITTELSON&ASSOCIATES,INC. L`. TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING/PLANNING SW School Road/OR 99W Site Rezone—Tigard,OR Project#:13755.05 July 15,2015 Page:3 For this report, operational analyses were performed at the following study intersections: y • OR 99W/SW Park Street; • OR 99W/SW School Road (existing site access); • OR 99W/SW Garrett Street; • OR 99W/site driveway (proposed right-in/right-out site access); and, • OR 99W/SW Walnut Street. The following transportation issues were also addressed, as they relate to the proposed zone change: • Assessment of existing land-uses and transportation system conditions within the site vicinity; • Estimates of future traffic volumes for the weekday p.m. peak hour, consistent with the 2035 planning horizon for the City's Transportation System Plan; • Identification of planned transportation improvements in the study area; • Forecast year 2035 background traffic conditions during the weekday p.m. peak hour; • Average daily and weekday p.m. peak hour trip generation estimates for reasonable worst- case site development scenarios under the existing and the proposed zoning; • Forecast year 2035 total traffic conditions during the weekday p.m. peak hour, assuming reasonable worst-case developments occur on the site under the current R-12 and proposed C-G zoning; • Evaluation of traffic operations and safety solutions to mitigate potential "significant affect" on the existing and planned transportation system, under the proposed C-G zoning; and, • Key findings for compliance with the TPR; and, • Conclusions and recommendations. EXISTING CONDITIONS The existing conditions analysis identifies the site conditions, surrounding land uses, and current operational and geometric characteristics of the roadways within the study area. Baseline traffic conditions will be compared with future traffic conditions later in this report. Kittelson & Associates, Inc. (KAI) staff visited and inventoried the proposed rezone site and surrounding study area in December 2014. At that time, KAI collected information regarding site conditions, adjacent land uses, existing traffic operating conditions, and transportation facilities in the study area. 0 Kittelson&Associates,Inc. Portland,Oregon --. SW School Rood/OR 99W Site Rezone—Tigard,OR Project#:13755.05 July 15,2015 Page:4 Site Conditions The subject site is currently owned by the Tigard-Tualatin School District. Although it is vacant today, it served as a school bus storage facility for the school district from 2005 until 2013. Prior to 2005, the subject site was the location of the original elementary school, which is now located nearby to the northwest. A fully-directional site access is currently provided to OR 99W from SW School Road, which is a private road on the subject property that has private access easement leading to behind the subject property, where SW School Road then becomes a public local street. There is a second fully-directional site access driveway to OR 99W, immediately across from SW Garrett Street. This access has not been used in years and once served as one of the primary driveways to the former elementary school parking lot. Adjacent Land Uses The proposed rezone site is located within the City of Tigard limits, is currently vacant, and is zoned for R-12 medium-density residential. The site is bounded by SW Pacific Highway (OR 99W) to the southeast, by an existing specialty retail center to the southwest, by an established residential neighborhood, a Kids Campus daycare facility, and the Charles F. Tigard Elementary School to northwest, and by other established small retail land uses to the northeast. Transportation Facilities The primary street facility in the site vicinity is OR 99W, which is under the jurisdiction of ODOT. The other streets in the site vicinity include an arterial, two neighborhood routes, and local street/private access drive, all of which intersect OR 99W. Table 1 summarizes the existing transportation facilities in the site vicinity. Table 1: Existing Transportation Facilities Number Speed Limit Bicycle On-Street Parking Roadway Functional Classification' of Lanes (mph) Sidewalks Lanes Allowed? Principal Arterial—City OR 99W Statewide Highway-ODOT 5 35 Yes Yes No SW Park Street Neighborhood Route 2 25 Yes Partial No SW School Road Local Street/Private Drive' 2' NP No No No SW Garrett Street Neighborhood Route 2 25 Yes' No No SW Walnut Street Arterial 2-3 30 Yes No No 'Per City of Tigard Transportation System Plan and the Oregon Highway Plan(References 2 and 3). `School Road is a public local street from the rear site property line to SW Grant Avenue to the northwest. It is a private drive on the subject site property,including its connection with OR 99W. 'Although two-way travel is allowed on School Road,the pavement width is narrow,at 16-18 feet on the site property and approximately 16 feet on the public portion of roadway. Continuous sidewalks on the southern side of the street with partial sidewalk on the northern side of the street. Kittelson&Associates,Inc. Portland,Oregon SW Schaal Road/OR 99W Site Rezone—Tigard,OR Project#:13755.05 July 15,2015 Page:5 Figure 2 displays the existing lane configurations and traffic control devices at the existing study intersections along OR 99W. Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities Bicycle lane are currently provided in both directions on OR 99W. The other streets within the site vicinity do not include continuous bicycle facilities. Continuous sidewalks are present along all streets in the study area, with the exception of SW School Road. Along the site frontage of OR 99W, there is a pedestrian activated signal and crosswalk on the north leg of the OR 99W/SW Garrett Street intersection. This signal was installed back when the original elementary school was located on the subject site, but was maintained after the school moved to a new location on SW Walnut Street to the northwest. Current traffic counts indicate only 1 pedestrian used the ped signal crossing during the weekday p.m. peak hour from 4:00-5:00 p.m. and 9 pedestrians used the crossing during the following hour from 5:00-6:00 p.m. Transit Facilities Transit service is provided in the site vicinity by TriMet Bus routes 93, 94, and 45. Route 93 provides service along OR 99W Monday through Friday with 30 minute headways between Tigard and soil Sherwood. Additionally, Route 93 provides service and Saturdays and Sundays with 45-60 minute headways. Route 94 also provides service along OR 99W Monday through Friday with 30 minute headways between Tigard and central Portland. Route 45 provides service nearby along SW Walnut Street Monday through Friday with 30 minute headways between Tigard and central Portland. Additionally, Route 45 provides service and Saturdays and Sundays with 60-90 minute headways. There are bus stops (for Routes 93 and 94) located on the northeast corner of the OR 99W/SW Garrett Street intersection and the southwest corner of the OR 99W/School Road intersection. Existing Traffic Volumes and Peak Hour Operations In December 2014, manual turning-movement counts were obtained at all the existing study intersections along OR 99W. All counts were conducted on a typical mid-week day during the afternoon (4:00 to 6:00 p.m.) time period when commuter travel peaks along the OR 99W corridor. This time period is also consistent with the operational period assessed in the locally adopted TSP. For these reasons and as a requirement of the TPR, the weekday p.m. peak hour was selected as the critical analysis period for this study. Based on the traffic count data, the system peak hour was found to occur between 4:00 p.m. and 5:00 p.m. Figure 3 provides a summary of the existing traffic volumes at all existing study intersections during the weekday p.m. peak hour. Appendix "A" contains the traffic count worksheets used in this study. Kittelson&Associates,Inc. Portland,Oregon 11 OR 9914c of Road Site Rezone July 2015 i, 99W S,a� EN i I s 72 o©�Vii, , 2G 9O i I- to '� 9 SW PARK STREET �� , 7 tp 3 -9«\ A Oii:," 'Y.( r Y./ //‘ ( 77 ).=4" .-'--*T; A' [1 Y /)I4 At 'lir" r� .1 �1:e. 4jt„,"/ 1 Ca U ,4 F2 f GD LEGEND h s - STOP SIGN 'IWr EXISTING LANE CONFIGURATIONS `Ic.LPE lir TRAFFIC SIGNAL AND TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES 2 - TIGARD, OREGON J KKITTELSON& ASSOCIATES,INC. . TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING+ PLANNING OR 99W/School Road Site Rezone July 2015 N 8 I s, c'''bo itottO co 0 3 g SW PARK STREET LP9 b N Ja o �Sa'�. +.��g alp `���''� f`�� j3?v 1,-,'<\"\\411' F.' 0. LOS=A f , CM=SEB f CM=n �LDS=Cie cin 0431=6.2 LOS=F LOS=C Crel.49.2 ti De{=>50 Del=29.2 1 VIC .SS 4 V/C=0.73 t P �,a 1 Y/�=a.oa frIlc=a.rs 6, 1 P ® C er . 1 LEGEND 1 CM=CRITICAL MOVEMENT(UNSIGNALIZED) 1 LOS=INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE (SIGNALIZED)/CRITICAL MOVEMENT LEVEL r OF SERVICE(UNSIGNALIZED) m Del=INTERSECTION AVERAGE CONTROL DELAY e (SIGNALIZED)/CRITICAL MOVEMENT CONTROL EXISTING TRAFFIC CONDTIONS s. DELAY(UNSIGNALIZED) WEEKDAY PM4PEAK FI - SIOUR ` V/C=CRITICAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO TIGARD, OREGON \Kpc, -,LSON& ASSOCIATES,INC. 'ORTATION ENGINEERING/ PLANNING SW School Road/OR 99W Site Rezone-Tigard,OR Project#:13755.05 July 15,20I5 Page:8 Level of Service Standards All level of service (LOS) analyses described in this report were performed in accordance with the procedures stated in the 2010 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM, Reference 4). A description of level of service and the criteria by which they are determined is presented in Appendix "B". Appendix "B" also indicates how level of service is measured and what is generally considered the acceptable range of level of service. Broadly speaking, LOS at signalized intersections reflects the average condition for all approaches to the intersection, whereas LOS at unsignalized intersections reflects conditions for the worst or "critical" approach/movement. All of the existing study intersections intersect OR 99W, where the jurisdictional standards of ODOT apply. ODOT uses a volume-to-capacity (v/c) ratio metric to evaluate mobility conditions. Per the Oregon Highway Plan, the v/c ratio mobility target for OR 99W is 0.99 or less during the peak hours. This metric applies to mainline operations as well as intersecting street approaches and driveways. All intersection level-of-service evaluations used the peak 15-minute flow rate during the weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hours. Using the peak 15-minute flow rate ensures that this analysis is based on a reasonable worst-case scenario. For this reason, the analysis reflects conditions that are only likely to occur for 15 minutes out of each average peak hour. The transportation system will likely operate under conditions better than those described in this report during all other time periods. Peak Hour Conditions Figure 3 also summarizes the existing traffic operations for all study intersections during the weekday p.m. peak hour. As shown, all of the study intersections currently operate at v/c ratios that are below the ODOT mobility standard of 0.99 or less during the weekday p.m. peak hour. Appendix "C"includes the level-of-service worksheets under existing traffic conditions. Traffic Safety The reported crash histories at all study intersections was reviewed to identify potential safety issues. ODOT provided crash records from the study intersections for the five-year period, from January 1, 2009, through December 31, 2013. Table 2 summarizes the crash data at the study intersections. Appendix "D"includes the crash data sheets. Table 2: Intersection Crash Summary(2009-20013) Crash Type Severity Total Crashes Rear Right Ped or Side Crashes per Intersection End Angle Turning Bike Swipe Other PDO" Injury MEV' OR 99W/SW Park Street 6 1 3 - 3 7 10 0.18 OR 99W/SW School Road - - - 1 - - 1 1 0.02 OR 99W/SW Garrett Street 3 - 8 - 1 1 10 3 13 0.23 OR 99W/SW Walnut Street 6 1 14 1 3 2 17 10 27 0.43 Million Entering Vehicles,as determined by multiplying PM peak hour entering volumes by a factor of 10 to estimate daily traffic. Kittelson&Associates,inc. Portland,Oregon SW School Road/OR 99W Site Rezone—Tigard,OR Project 11:13755.05 July 15,2015 Page:9 As shown in Table 2, reported crash rates were low and significantly below 1.0 crashes per million entering vehicles. This indicates there are no potential safety hazards. However, a closer inspection was made of the crash data where there were reoccurring crash type patterns. As shown in the previous table, 6 rear end crashes were reported at the OR 99W intersections with SW Park Street and SW Walnut Street. This crash pattern is common for signalized intersections in a heavily traveled corridor like OR 99W, where the effect of signal cycles create stop-and-go conditions for prevailing highway traffic. Therefore, no measures could be identified or recommended to help alieve the potential for this type of crash. The most prevalent crash pattern was at the OR 99W/SW Walnut Street intersection, which experienced 14 turning type crashes. Closer inspection of the data appear to indicate 8 these crashes involved the northeast-bound left-turning vehicles that turned in front of opposing through traffic. This left-turn movement currently operates with protected-permissive phasing (Flashing Left Arrow), which was modified from protected-only left-turn phasing back in 2010. However,the pattern of left-turning crashes was equally dispersed among the 5-year report history, so any pattern associated with the prior protected phasing and newer protected-permissive phasing could not be detected. It is also important to note that 8 turning-type crashes were reported for the OR 99W/SW Garrett Street intersection. Three of these crashes were related to a driver turning left onto OR 99W from SW Garrett Street and the remainder involved a right turn movement. As noted later in the Mitigation section of this study, a raised concrete island and traffic separator are recommended for the OR 99W/SW School Road intersection immediately south of SW Garrett Street. This measure will eliminate a key conflicting movement (left-out) from SW School Road, and thus, provide a more safe opportunity for drivers accessing OR 99W from SW Garrett Street. FUTURE CONDITIONS ANALYSIS The future conditions analysis identifies the potential impacts that the existing zoning and proposed zone change could have on the surrounding transportation system. The analysis was conducted according to the TPR (OAR 660-012-0060), which requires an assessment of reasonable worst-case development conditions for the subject under a future planning horizon that is consistent with the locally adopted transportation system plan. The City of Tigard TSP relies on a planning horizon year 2035. To analyze the effects of amending the site property rezone from R-12 to G-C, a long-term analysis was conducted for the planning horizon year 2035 as follows: • Planned and funded transportation improvements were identified in the study area; ■ Background traffic conditions for the year 2035 were analyzed at each of the study intersections during the weekday p.m. peak hour. Background growth in the site vicinity, was estimated based on City of Tigard TSP volume forecasts for years 2009 and 2035. Klttelson&Associates,inc. Portland,Oregon SW School Road/OR 99W Site Rezone—Tigard,OR Project#:13755.05 July 15,2015 Page:10 • Reasonable worst case site development scenarios were developed under the current R-12 and proposed G-C zoning. • R-12 and G-C zone site generated trips were distributed to the study intersections based on the existing traffic patterns, knowledge of the local transportation network, and the location of major trip generators and destinations in the region. • Year 2035 traffic conditions were analyzed at each of the study intersections under the existing and proposed zoning development scenarios during the weekday p.m. peak hour. • Traffic operations and traffic safety solutions were identified to mitigate potential "significant affect" on the existing and planned transportation system, under the proposed C-G zoning. Year 2035 Background Traffic Conditions The year 2035 background traffic analysis identifies how the study area's transportation system will operate without any development on the subject site. This analysis serves as a baseline for comparison to other site development scenarios under the current and proposed zoning. Background Traffic Forecast Background year 2035 forecast volumes were derived from traffic growth projections from the City of Tigard TSP. The TSP documents a traffic forecast that accounts for anticipated growth in land uses city- wide as well as "financially constrained" roadway improvement projects that are expected to be built by the year 2035. Expected projects in the study area include a proposed extension of SW Walnut Street, from OR 99W to the existing stubbed ending of SW Ash Avenue to the east. Figure 4 illustrates the planned lane configurations and traffic control devices at the study intersections under year 2035 background traffic conditions. To fully develop the background traffic forecast, City of Tigard TSP volume forecasts for the years 2009 and 2035 were examined to determine a 21-year growth pattern. This growth was then added to the recent 2014 traffic counts at all study intersections to achieve a 2035 estimate. For a few turning movements, the calculated growth rate was negative, but the overall reduction was insignificant compared to the base traffic counts. Figure 5 displays the resulting forecast year 2035 background traffic volumes during the weekday p.m. peak hour. Operations Analysis Figure 5 also summarizes the 2035 background traffic operations for the study intersections under the weekday p.m. peak hour, assuming no development on the subject property. As shown, all intersections, except OR 99W/SW Walnut Street, are forecast to operate at levels which meet the ODOT mobility standard of v/c of 0.99 or less during the weekday p.m. peak hour. The OR 99W/SW Kitte!son&Associates,Inc. Portland,Oregon OR 99W/School Road Site Rezone July 2015 ice—_ 64, 99W NO2- sTR F I oil_ pypp � FZC.Y ©,9p 0 T il‘ SW PARK STREET 9 .1 sA 'A c 81 411 7---rcr-------- ...7,/ 411111(-- r vo."----::N\\\\ .2, ? ( 1 ‘ \\, 4 )x i(/‘ a 1,11 4 y0 It+.- to 1i74. At irf '� r ix 1 i c3 .4 t 1 LEGEND 0 i - STOP SIGN 'Assumed fiscally constrained improvement identified in the City's TSP. ITV 1 f X44; -TRAFFIC SIGNAL YEAR 2035 BACKGROUND LANE CONFIGURATIONS =IGURE - ASSUMED AND TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES 4 � _ TIGARD, OREGON 7'` -ELSON&ASSOCIATES,INC. lti V\ 'ORTATION ENGINEERING/ PLANNING0 QR 93V1 Q1 Road Site Rezone July 201 sew99 siR F I oscti°o 1 �� mac'0 � � s � ?gyp yd .P yr Clk 1- A Qy I SW PARK STREET a, A ,,, 4) 7,-- ------ \\\ ''')r- t II k v<,-1, V-,V----.."----''.*:\\\\..., IlY 1 � �LDS=S f�� CM=SEB CM=N ,, o��LOS=E��, Del=31.,5 LOS=F LO5=D D&=61.7 # VdC-083 4 Del="5Q Dei=26.fi VIC=1.02 f�/ 1, f v!C=o.3R �rVrC=023 t y �,'S i-► + �`'� .,./C=0 l h*a``lc47 �B`' �'`G~'' +.� n. zt t 4 e LEGEND 1 CM=CRITICAL MOVEMENT(UNSIGNALIZED) LOS=INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE (SIGNALIZED)/CRITICAL MOVEMENT LEVEL p OF SERVICE(UNSIGNALIZED) m Del=INTERSECTION AVERAGE CONTROL DELAY a (SIGNALIZED)/CRITICAL MOVEMENT CONTROL 2035 BACKGROUND TRAFFIC CONDTIONS GIGUrRE g DELAY(UNSIGNALIZED) WEEKDAY PM PEAK HOUR Vic=CRITICAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO TIGARD, OREGON K� I KITTELSON&ASSOCIATES,INC. N V TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING/ PLANNING SW School Road/OR 99W Site Rezone—Tigard,OR Project#:13755.05 July 15,2015 Page:13 Walnut Street intersection is forecast to operate with a V/C raja of 1.02. Appendix "E" contains the. year 2035 background traffic level-of-service worksheets. • Year 2035 Total Traffic Conditions The total traffic conditions analysis forecasts how the study area's transportation system will operate in 2035 assuming reasonable worst-case development occurs on the site under the current R-12 and proposed C-G zoning. For the analysis, it is important to emphasize that primary access into and out of the site was assumed to occur at a new access point, or essentially a realignment of SW School Road, to intersect OR 99W directly across from SW Garrett Street. This was an improvement requested by City staff at a pre-application conference to test the concept of consolidating site driveways along OR 99W, eliminating a staggered configuration of intersecting streets on OR 99W, and creating a more efficient and safe four-legged intersection. This solution is illustrated in Figure 6, which shows the assumed lane configurations and traffic control devices at the study intersections under year 2035 total traffic conditions. Trip Generation The year 2035 site-generated traffic volumes were developed based on reasonable worst case estimates for site development under the existing R-12 zoning (16 apartments) and the proposed C-G zoning (two 3,000 SF fast food restaurants with drive-thru windows). Average daily as well as weekday' p.m. peak hour trips were estimate from empirical observations at other similar developments, as summarized in the standard reference manual, Trip Generation Manual, 9th Edition, published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE, Reference 5), as well as ITE's Trip Generation Handbook (Reference 6). Table 3 displays the reasonable worst case trip generation for both zoning scenarios as well as the net difference between the two scenarios. As shown, the proposed rezone has the potential to increase primary site generated trips by 1,268 average daily trips and 71 weekday p.m. peak hour trips. Table 3:2035 Reasonable Worst Case Trip Generation Scenarios Weekday'PM Peak Hour Trips ITE Zoning Land Use Code Size Average Daily Trips Total In Out Fast Food Restaurant w/Drive Thru Window 2,477 196 102 94 G-C(proposed) Pass By Trips(50%) 934 2 @(3,000 SF each) (1,488) (98) (49) (49) Primary Trips 1,489 98 53 45 R-12(existing) Apartments 220 16 units 221 27 17 10 Net Difference in Primary Trips(Proposed—Existing Zoning)) 1,268 71 34 37 Kittelson&Associates,Inc- Portland,Oregon OR 99 of Road Site Rezone July 2015 s4.1., (-99W� s1. $T 1 1 Oil, 1 1 Ilk (11 I 74 CI\'i- 9p 1tA cn Z 9 1004. 9-P 3 SW PARK STREET 9 g Oilo �` REALIGNED TO 41 el jr INTERSECTION } y y jr f� #3 0f�►r i I'f. +. :,...7/1 1.cc 1 _________) 4 m U 1 LEGEND ~ -- - STOP SIGN 'Accounts for fiscally constrained improvement identified in the City's TSP. :a lir e 1_02 -TRAFFIC SIGNAL R-12 and C-G ZONING SCENARIOS FiGLRE a. -ASSUMED ASSUMED 2035 LANE CONFIGURATIONS AND TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES B TIGARD, OREGON KKITTELSON&ASSOCIATES,INC. TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING I PLANNING SW School Road/OR 99W Site Rezone—Tigard,OR Project#:13755.05 July 15,2015 Page:15 Site Trip Distribution/Trip Assignment I Site generated trips for the two zoning development scenarios were distributed to the study intersections based on the existing traffic patterns, knowledge of the local transportation network, and the location of major trip generators and destinations in the region. During the p.m. peak hour, this resulted in 55% of primary trips being routed to/from the southwest towards King City and Sherwood and 45% of the primary trips being routed from the northeast towards Beaverton and Portland. Figures 7 and 8 illustrate the trip distri.ution and total traffic assignments for the R-12 and G-C zoning scenarios, respectively. Also, for information purposes, a separate figure is provided in Appendix "F" to illustrate the separate pass-by and primary trip assignments for the C-G zoning development scenario. Total Traffic Conditions(Existing R-12 Zoning) The weekday p.m. peak hour trip assignments from Figure 7 were added to the 2035 background traffic volumes from Figure 6 to estimate 2035 total traffic conditions for the existing R-12 zoning scenario. Figure 9 displays these volumes and also summarizes the operations at all study intersections. Under the 2035 R-12 zoning scenario, all of the study intersections, except OR 99W/SW Walnut Street forecast to operate within ODOT standards. The OR 99W/SW Walnut Street intersection is forecast to operate with a V/C ratio of 1.03.Appendix "G"includes the 2035 total traffic level-of-service worksheets �.� under the existing R-12 zoning. Total Traffic Conditions (Proposed C-G Zoning) The C-G zoning scenario total trip assignment from Figure 8 was added to the 2035 background traffic volumes in Figure 6 to estimate 2035 total traffic conditions for the proposed C-G zoning scenario. Figure 10 displays these volumes and also summarizes the operations at all study intersections. Under 2035 total traffic conditions with the proposed zoning the OR 99W/SW Walnut Street. intersection is forecast to operate with a V/C ratio of 1.03. Additionally, the assumed realignment of SW School Road opposite SW Garrett Street on OR 99W resulted in a v/c ratio of greater than 3.0 for the SW School Road approach. In the case of the OR 99W/SW Walnut Street intersection, although the intersection is forecast to operate with a v/c ratio greater than ODOT's mobility standard of 0.99, the resulting v/c of 1.03 is no greater than what was determined for this intersection under the existing R-12 zoning scenario. TPR Section 660-012-0060(1) states that a plan or land use regulation amendment "significantly affects" a transportation facility if it would degrade the performance of a transportation facility that is otherwise projected to not meet the performance standards identified in the TSP or comprehensive plan. For guidance on what defines performance degradation, OHP Policy 1F.6 states that an amendment does not "significantly affect" a projected failing facility if the v/c ratio is not increased. Because the v/c ratio remains at 1.03 under both the current and proposed zoning development scenarios, the proposed C-G I, zoning will not "significantly affect" the OR 99W/SW Walnut Street intersection. Kittelson&Associates,Inc. Portland,Oregon 'Th OR 9914 of Road Site Rezone Jury 2016 CST sr 9F0, Z )to . yN bC3 Astst z s+ 90 II\ 'N 1 LJ . - -Q� SW PARK STREET 9 cy 1 M :- Z.' 0 0/7.-- 0 0 41, .Z 3g '"-. vcb Es REALIGNED TO INTERSECTION 9lf #3 g t t A' 1 g t O. V. R-12 ZONING TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND ASSIGNMENT P GuRE WEEKDAY PM PEAK HOUR 7 TIGARD, OREGON 1 _, KJKITTELSON&ASSOCIATES,INC. TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING PLANNING OR 99W/School Road Site Rezone July 2015 ti S`Z i� 1�9W) — ® IN �, .40 N, .2 SbyO tb -_. > ,1-G,p '90 Vila ' RO/ (5 y 75, SW PARK STREET \'`-' c / 1, • 8 ® 40 a 4j z REALIGNED TO I `1..: INTERSECTION I /1 \\\N.,,,,___#3 ______„") #A, ______7/1 %,,./ a_...6. Ild a i 1 U i m r2 mI C-G ZONING TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND ASSIGNMENT FYCG1,i,[ s WEEKDAY PM PEAK HOUR 8 - TIGARD, OREGON KKi 7.LSON& ASSOCIATES,INC. .1_ LN Tr 'ORTATION ENGINEERING PLANNING *Rille OR 99Vr al Road Site Rezone Jury 2015 ,r Si. b, a 1 1 I s' N Sey iS.i 04, ,4 -400 lk kei SW PARK STREET (5) 1 m ,, 41)O (1)(-- ..., L OSB'4 REALIGNED TO lNtM=sEal �~Los-E= LOS=F Oel=1 D.6 Oe 2.5 INTERSECTION ©ei=,� it vrc=o sa vrc=i.o3 #E rao 2 1 .�' \:.:7) a \.,,,:„....______!," 1\‘?, i' SI1 mi q LEGEND �I 1(2 n CM=CRITICAL MOVEMENT(UNSIGNALIZED) LOS=INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVO': (SIGNALIZEDJfCRITICAL MOVEMENT LEVEL OF SERVICE(UNSIGNALIZED) Del=INTERSECTION AVERAGE CONTROL DELAY t (SIGNALIZED}/CRITICAL MOVEMENT CONTROL 2035 TOTAL TRAFFIC CONDITIONS (R-12 ZONING) =icuPE DELAY(UNSIGNALIZED) WEEKDAY PM PEAK HOUR 1V/C=CRITICAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO TIGARD, OREGON k`, KITTEI_SON& ASSOCIATES,INC. TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING/ PLANNING OR 99W/Schots!Road Site Rezone July 2015 1 :1(ti W I I lid/ Y`S'o 4 , ,, A°o A , 0 , _ G '4-1 �s>rra ��" ,, ibljr) U) Q91:1 R 1LJ' 9Lei cv! SW PARK STREET S al O. 3 0 4 0 0 v si,}a Quo�► v°�9ry 41\ �B ::_,LI` r"� l .10 �LOS=6�‘ REALIGNED TO os Fed \ Los=E�,{ B De9=1°2 INTERSECTION Dei=>5o Da=6 o vrc=osn � j f � vrat.oa t <,„ \\N...,.._____ #3 16 - w a LEGEND CM=CRITICAL MOVEMENT(UNSIGNALIZED) 2 LOS=INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE (SIGNALIZED)/CRITICAL MOVEMENT LEVEL OF SERVICE(UNSIGNALIZED) Del=INTERSECTION AVERAGE CONTROL DELAY — - - R- (SIGNALIZED)ICRITICAL MOVEMENT CONTROL 2035 TOTAL TRAFFIC CONDITIONS (C-G ZONING SCENARIO) rIGUnE s DELAY(UNSIGNALIZED) WEEKDAY PM PEAK HOUR VIC=CRITICAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO 1 Q TIGARD, OREGON 1 K.,K,-- -ELSON& ASSOCIATES,INC. \ IT PORTAT ION ENGINEERING 1 PLANNING SW School Road/OR 99W Site Rezone e Tigard,OR Project#:13755.05 July 15,2015 Page:20 As for the realigned OR 99W/SW School Road/SW Garrett Street intersection, the failing conditions onhe-cu , the minor approach constitutes a "significant affect" for this highway facility. Appendix "H"includes the'' 2035 total traffic level-of-service worksheets under the proposed C-G zoning. EVALUATION OF TRAFFIC MITIGATION MEASURES Additional analysis was conducted to identify specific traffic mitigation measures designed to remedy the "significant affect" created by the proposed C-G zoning on the OR 99W/SW School Road/SW Garrett Street intersection. This resulted in a plan to rearrange the access scheme for the OR 99W site frontage and to restrict particular turn movements that were previously projected to fail. One of the two identified solutions is to maintain the current SW School Road alignment and access to OR 99W, and to restrict turn movements at the access to right-in/right-out/left-in (RIROLI) only by constructing a raised concrete island and traffic separator in the center median lane of the highway. A concept of the identified public improvement for the OR 99W site frontage is illustrated in Appendix "1". Figure 11 also illustrates the resulting lane configurations and traffic control devices under this mitigation scenario. As shown in both exhibits, left-out movements from SW School Road would now be effectively and safely restricted by the island and separator. Although this solution will cause some drivers destined for OR 99W to the northeast to turn right onto the highway and find a suitable location to turn around, most drivers are expected to travel back behind the subject site property using SW School Road and SW Grant Avenue to get to the signalized OR 99W/SW Park Street intersection, whichil is a safer and functional route. This pattern is illustrated in the mitigated C-G zoning site trip assignment Figure 12. The second identified solution is to develop a second site access driveway with OR 99W near the northern property limits. This is illustrated as Intersection #4 in Figure 11. As shown, the proposed driveway would be effectively restricted to right-in/right-out (BIRO) only movements due to the raised traffic separator that already exists in the median lane of the highway. This traffic separator was installed when the Jack in the Box restaurant across the street was developed. As shown in Figure 13, with the identified solutions in place, the two turn-restricted site accesses function adequately under year 2035 p.m. peak hour conditions, with a low v/c ratio of 0.28 at SW School Road and a low v/c ratio of 0.19 at the north site driveway. Traffic operations at SW Garrett Street are forecast to reach a v/c ratio of 0.80, which meets the ODOT mobility standard. Appendix "J" includes the 2035 mitigation level-of-service worksheets under the proposed C-G zoning. Based on these findings, the two identified site access treatments for OR 99W will remedy the "significant affect" created by the proposed C-G zoning and are recommended as conditions of approval. Furthermore, the Applicant is reasonably confident that access permits can be secured from ODOT for the identified site access treatments on OR 99W, particularly because there are two full- access connections along the OR 99W site frontage today and the proposed mitigation measures Kittelson&Associates,Inc. Portland,Oregon OR 99W/School Road Site Rezone July 2015 e- —7Sh, W 4,444, (? r� F,), Oil, SCAO � Fi �1-1) `9096 Li- 9 9 h SW PARK STREET -1 TA 118 t C:77.--):: Irrt --/-2/ \\\'` 77::- --::: ):-. /1,,rie /A :_41,) „ t It 4 t 1 LEGEND 'Accounts for fiscally constrained improvement identified in the City's TSP. h - STOP SIGN "Assumes construction of raised concrete median and left separator. D) ""Assumes new site driveway restricted to right-in/right-out only movements by existing raised traffic separator. lr -TRAFFIC SIGNAL C G ZONING MITIGATION rIGURe .9 -ASSUMED ASSUMED 2035 LANE CONFIGURATIONS AND TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES 1 1 TIGARD, OREGON K -ELSON&ASSOCIATES,INC. SORTATION ENGINEERING? PLANNING3 OR 99 ;ol Road Site Rezone July 2015 C ski 99W chs TqF Fr eel.,M 3X., 1 oil, LI) 6,No A ikik*C) 1.-� 0 SW PARK STREET is I o ::: I 5 '3~. i' � �' fah �ti1 �. � .1 /9' r ,/r r r ��r r ti 'E � �' '^a 11 Q ____y/ i 4 Z Q 1 'One existing left-turn trip rerouted from School Road. MITIGATED C-G ZONING SITE TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND ASSIGNMENT =IGiJ4E s WEEKDAY PM PEAK HOUR 12 �._ TIGARD, OREGON KKITTELSON& ASSOCIATES.INC. TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING; PLANNING OR 99W/School Road Site Rezone Jury 2015 )f, s11 �< �99W a w M6,r sr,c 4T 1 1 sit,. soy *` ,(P to 4100 vco 9 N M" 13� alb 0-'f w G��I- A 08 vi SW PARK STREET 1p T., N 1 , C9/7„,--,,,-, .-�`g •• (7------CM:NWtA:41. S ry5� rs� ",i'L - ,tio `?l r., �x� .- b LDS=B rcM3_3/ i CM3E13 , NQS-Er De1=14.0 Del 31.3 Dei..5D.0 Del 30.2 Del-68.D ) V1C=0.87 V/C=1,09 �, �t / we=D.za /we-no t /co19 f t %m :)9P • T H LEGEND CM=CRITICAL MOVEMENT(UNSIGNALIZED) LOS=INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE (SIGNALIZED)/CRITICAL MOVEMENT LEVEL OF SERVICE(UNSIGNALIZED) m Del=INTERSECTION AVERAGE CONTROL DELAY {SIGNALIZED)/CRITICAL MOVEMENT CONTROL 2035 TOTAL TRAFFIC CONDITIONS (MITIGATEDC-G ZONING) nGuRE 5. DELAY(UNSIGNALIZED) z WEEKDAY PM PEAK HOUR Y/C=CRITICAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO TIGARD, OREGON 13 KLLSON&ASSOCIATES,INC. 'ORTATION ENGINEERING/ PLANNING T SW School Road/OR 99W Site Rezone—Tigard,OR Project II:13755.05 July 15,2015 Page:24 move in the direction of conformance with ODOT's access management and permitting policies (OAR Division 51, Reference 7). `" S Lastly, it should be emphasized that although the restricted left-turn movement from SW School Road will result in a modest increase in traffic on SW Grant Avenue, this solution will improve the safety of current users of the SW School Road highway access. Furthermore, this solution was embraced by local area residents who attended the recent neighborhood meeting; with one person noting how this solution is better than the over Iwo dozen buses that frequented SW Grant Avenue to get to and from the former bus storage facility on the subject property. TRANSPORTATION PLANNING RULE COMPLIANCE OAR Section 660-12-0060 Plan and Land Use Regulation Amendments of the TPR sets forth the criteria for evaluating plan and land use regulation amendments. The criteria establish the determination of significant effect on a transportation system resulting from a land use action; where a significant affect is identified, the criteria establish the means for achieving compliance. The relevant portion of this section of the TPR is reproduced below in italics followed by the response for this project in bold text. 660-12-0060 Plan and Land Use Regulation Amendments (1) If an amendment to a functional plan, an acknowledged comprehensive plan, or a land use regulation (including a zoning map) would significantly affect an existing or planned transportation facility, then the local government must put in place measures as provided in section (2) of this rule, unless the amendment is allowed under section (3), (9)or(10) of this rule. A plan or land use regulation amendment significantly affects a transportation facility if it would: (a) Change the functional classification of an existing or planned transportation facility (exclusive of correction of map errors in an adopted plan); Response: The proposed C-G zoning will not require or result in any changes to the functional classification of any transportation facility in the vicinity of the site. (b) Change standards implementing a functional classification system; or Response: The proposed C-G zoning will not require or result in any changes to the standards that implement the functional classification system. (c) Result in any of the effects listed in paragraphs (A) through (C) of this subsection based on projected conditions measured at the end of the planning period identified in the adopted TSP. As part of evaluating projected conditions, the amount of traffic projected to be generated within the area of the amendment may be reduced if the amendment includes an enforceable, ongoing requirement that would demonstrably limit traffic generation, including, but not limited Kittelson&Associates,Inc. Portland,Oregon SW School Road/OR 99W Site Rezone—Tigard,OR Project#:13755.05 July 15,2015 Page:25 to, transportation demand management. This reduction may diminish or completely eliminate the significant effect of the amendment. (A) Types or levels of travel or access that are inconsistent with the functional classification of an existing or planned transportation facility; Response:The proposed C-G zoning will result in future traffic volumes and access in a manner consistent with the functional classification of OR 99W in the study area. Although a component of the C-G zoning site trips are expected to travel behind the subject property along SW School Road and SW Grant Avenue, due to a proposed left- turn egress restriction at the OR 99W/SW School Road intersection, the amount is minor and should not be any more significant than the buses that frequented this route when the subject site property was a bus storage facility for the Tigard-Tualatin School District. (B)Degrade the performance of an existing or planned transportation facility such that it would not meet the performance standards identified in the TSP or comprehensive plan; or Response: The proposed C-G zoning will degrade the operational performance of the SW School Road/SW Garrett Street/OR 99W intersection with a v/c ratio of greater than 3.0 for the SW School Road approach under year 2035 weekday p.m. peak hour conditions. This finding results in a "significant affect" determination, but is remedied by the site access control measures recommended in this report. (C) Degrade the performance of an existing or planned transportation facility that is otherwise projected to not meet the performance standards identified in the TSP or comprehensive plan. Response: The OR 99W/SW Walnut Street intersection is projected to fail with a v/c ratio of 1.03 under year 2035 weekday p.m. peak hour conditions assuming development under the current R-12 zoning. However, because the v/c ratio remains the same at 1.03 under the proposed C-G zoning development scenario, the performance of this intersection is not degraded further. Therefore, a finding of "significant affect" is not triggered by this section of the TPR. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The proposed C-G zoning for the subject site has the potential to create a significant affect at an aligned OR 99W/SW School Road/SW Garrett Street intersection. This significant affect can be remedied by the following mitigation measures, which are recommended as conditions of approval for the C-G zoning: Kittelson&Associates,inc. Portland,Oregon SW School Road/OR 99W Site Rezone—Tigard,OR Project#:13755.05 July 15,2015 Page:26 • Maintain the current SW School Road alignment and ..access to OR 99W, but restrict turn movements to right-in/right-out/left-in only by constructirit a raised concrete island and traffic separator in the center median lane of the highway. • Close the current site access to OR 99W across from SW Garrett Street, and construct a new site driveway near the northern property limits. The new driveway would be effectively restricted to right-in/right-out only movements due to the raised traffic separator that already exists in the median lane of the highway. This concludes our transportation impact analysis for the proposed rezone of the OR 99W/SW School Road property in Tigard. If you have any questions regarding the analysis presented herein, please contact me at {503)-228-5230. Sincerely, KITTELSON &ASSOCIATES, INC. PR • E0027PE �. Brian J. Dunn, P.E. 41111 Patrick Marnell, E.I.T. Associated Engineer Go Transportation Analyst 629/ -/,,,A13,° `'� ts,a9ga 1 441J0 S-EP I E PUREs:)a-31-a0151 References: 1. The State of Oregon. Oregon Administrative Rules OAR 660-012-0060. Effective January 1, 2012. 2. City of Tigard. 2035 Transportation System Plan. November 2010. 3. Oregon Department of Transportation. 1999 Oregon Highway Plan. Including amendments 11/1/1999 - 11/21/2014. http://www.oregon.gov/0DOT/TD/TP/pages/ohp 1999p1an.aspx 4. Transportation Research Board. Highway Capacity Manual. 2010. 5. Institute of Transportation Engineers. Trip Generation Manual, 9th Edition. 2012. 6. Institute of Transportation Engineers. Trip Generation Handbook, 3rd Edition. August 2014. 7. The State of Oregon. Oregon Administrative Rules Chapter 734, Division 51 -Highway Approach Permitting, Access Control, and Access Management Standards.June 30, 2014. Kittelson&Associates,Inc. Portland,Oregon C) Appendix A Traffic Count Worksheets Type of peak hour being reported:System Peak Method for determining peak hour:Total Entering Volume LOCATION: Hwy 99W—SW Walnut St QC JOB#: 13155601 CITY/STATE: Tigard, OR DATE: Wed, Dec 03 2014 1730 1396 Peak-Hour: 4:00 PM --5:00 PM n li * 2.9 4.3 177 1532 21 Peak 15-Min:4:30 PM --4:45 PM f e t 17 3.1 00 d . 4 d i 4 331 «117 1 11 « 48 • t « —1 3.0 4.3 0.0 2.1 12 y amt « 17 0.0 ~ 1111111 « 5.9 268~ 139 141 i P r 20* 45 3.4 s•2.9 , • e r 0.0♦ 2.2 137 1268 12 ii QQuaitY Counts �n4.3 * 1691 1417 tU as L 0 3 13 140 i 4 L o J t. 0 7I : ;. 11 0 « 0 r 12 1 1 1 0 F I 4 NA [ __r NA i V i g i b L NA to,t 0 ma « NA NA r w « NA i • • p t t P NA NA 5-Min Count Hwy 99W Hwy 99W SW Walnut St SW Walnut St Total Hourly Period (Northbound) (Southbound) (Eastbound) (Westbound) Totals Beginning At Left Thru Right _U Left Thru Right U__ Left Thru Riqht U Left Thru Right U 400 PM 14 129 1 0 ' 5 137 13 0 10 1 11 0 4 0 1 0 326 4:05 PM 7 89 0 0 2 134 16 0 6 1 11 0 0 0 1 0 267 4:10 PM 9 87 3 0 2 140 17 0 11 0 14 0 2 2 1 0 288 4:15 PM 9 103 0 0 0 121 14 0 7 0 20 0 3 1 2 0 1 280 4:20 PM 11 110 3 0 2 103 6 0 13 0 9 0 1 2 0 0 260 4:25 PM 14 116 -,_ 1 0 2 115 16 0 12 1 11 0 1 3 2 0___--294 __-_ 4:30 PM 10 101 0 0 1 124 14 0 11 2 11 0 1 1 0 0 276 4:35 PM 11 111 0 0 2 123 21 0 9 1 7 0 2 1 1 0 289 4A0 PM 8 112,.-__.2..-__0 Q—_155__._ 18_ _- 0 8 3 8 Q._._-- 2 Q 1 0 317_ 4:45 PM ' 10 101 2 0 1 117 12 0 11 0 14 0 2 3 1 0 274 4:50 PM 14 96 0 0 0 131 13 0 12 3 10 0 2 2 0 0 283 4:55 PM 20 113 0 0_ 4 132 17 _ 0 7 0 13 0 0 2 1 0 309 34$8__ 5:00 PM 11 83 1 0 4 106 18 0 9 1 19 0 1 1 1 0 255 3392 5:05 PM 10 102 1 0 2 115 24 0 13 0 10 0 1 2 3 0 283 3408 5:10 PM 7 91 1 0 2 137 13 0 12 1 11 0 2 2 3 0 282 3402 5:15 PM 6 108 2 0 2 136 21 0 13 1 15 0 3 3 2 0 312 3434 5.20 PM 12 103 4 0 0 126 26 0 11 0 9 0 1 2 0 0 294 3468 5:25 PM 10 100 1 0 1 122 21 0 11 3 7 0 2 1 1 0 280 3454 5:30 PM 19 119 2 0 2 114 22 0 : 15 1 16 0 1 2 0 0 313 3491 5:35 PM 16 98 1 0 I 2 108 27 0 13 3 16 0 1 2 2 0 289 3491 5:40 PM 9 102 2 0 2 100 29 0 9 1 9 0 0 1 1 0 265 3439 5:45 PM 12 75 0 0 0 108 32 0 10 0 9 0 1 0 1 0 248 3413 5:50 PM 12 100 1 0 2 88 35 0 15 4 13 0 3 0 0 0 273 , 3403 5:55 PM 21 120 1 0 3 101 24 0 10 1 15 0 1 0 3 0 300 I 3394 Peak 15-Min 1 Northbound Southbound Eastbound 1 Westbound Flowrates Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right_ U . Left Thru Right U I Left Thru Right U Totsl All Vehicles 116 1296 8 0 12 1608 212 0 112 24 104 0 20 8 8 0 3528 Heavy Trucks 0 76 0 0 48 8 8 0 0 0 0 0 140 J Pedestrians 8 8 8 16 40 Bicycles 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 Railroad j Stopped Buses , 1 Comments: Report generated on 12/5/2014 4:04 PM SOURCE:Quality Counts, LLC(http:Nwww.qualitycounts.net)1-877-580-2212 Type of peak hour being reported:System Peak Method for determining peak hour:Total Entering Volume LOCATION: Hwy 99W--SW School St/SW Garrett St QC JOB#: 13155602 I CITY/STATE: Tigard, OR - DATE: Wed, Dec 03 2014 1664 1372 Peak-Hour: 4:00 PM -- 5:00 PM 1 i * Peak 15-Min: 4:30 PM --4:45 PM f 4 * zs 161•1 v . L n ! t: , t 28 1 35 44 0.0 I.0.0 �' ~ 29 23 o . 0.99 ~ 1 0.0 ~ 011. 4' o C. . .. z r r s - h * r" 62 0.0 o o h • r'r ";: ~ '`' 1 1336 35 Quality Counts 00 4.6 29 4, ♦ 7 1621 1372 4, * 3.1 4.6 ,,..; L 1l, 2 0 r o 1 Z o 4 it I 8 0 * SID + o II 4 1 L. IF 1 .4****.c, o z r h * P o 1 -1 o z o l � ra41 l4,1 + l NA ~ « NA NA 111 Ill +, NA • 7NIIIIIIIIer r • 7 r i * r- 4 h * r' NA NA 5-Min Count Hwy 99W Hwy 99W SW School St/SW Garrett St SW School St/SW Garrett St Total Hourly Period (Northbound) (Southbound) (Eastbound) (Westbound) Totals Beginning At Left Thru Rdght U , Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U 4:00 PM 0 124 3 0 3 130 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 266 4:05 PM 0 91 3 0 4 136 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 238 4:10 PM 0 102 5 0 2 144 5 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 2 0 262 4:15 PM 0 116 1 0 3 138 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 263 4:20 PM 0 124 2 0 1 122 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 256 4:25 PM 0 115 2 0 ' 2 128 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 251 4:30 PM 0 106 4 0 1 0 131 2 0— 1 0 0 0 2 0 4 0 250 4:35 PM 0 125 2 0 2 125 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 7 0 264 4:40 PM _.0.... 112.___ 4 0 2 140 2 0 0____ 0 1..._ 0 ._..-_-0. _._9 1_.._ 0 262 4:45 PM 0 111 4 0 3 121 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 242 4:50 PM 0 102 3 0 2 142 3 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 3 0 257 4:55 PM 1 108 2 0 3 154 0 __0 .9_ 0 0 _1L_ 1 0 3 0 __272 3083 5:00 PM 1 87 3 0 2 128 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 2 0 228 3045 5:05 PM 0 117 0 0 1 128 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 249 3056 5:10 PM 0 91 3 0 3 129 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 5 0 233 3027 5:15 PM 0 108 3 0 ' 4 140 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 257 3021 5:20 PM 0 122 3 0 ' 4 97 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 3 0 232 2997 5:25 PM 0 107 2 0 3 129 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 7 0 257 3003 5:30 PM 0 120 6 0 4 148 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 283 3036 5:35 PM 0 102 2 0 4 122 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 240 3012 5:40 PM 0 106 0 0 1 105 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 2 0 218 2968 5:45 PM 0 99 2 0 0 108 3 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 3 0 217 2943 5:50 PM 0 107 3 0 2 101 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 216 2902 5:55 PM 0 126 2 0 , 2 109 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 243 0 2873 Peak 15-Min Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Flowrates ,- Left -Thru- Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru_ Right U Left Thru Right IJ Tata) All Vehicles 0 1372 40 0 16 1584 20 0 4 0 4 0 16 0 48 0 3104 1 Heavy Trucks 0 92 4 0 40 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 136 Pedestrians 0 0 8 0 8 Bicycles 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 Railroad Stopped Buses , G[lr merits Report generated on 12/5/2014 4:04 PM SOURCE:Quality Counts, LLC(http://www.qualitycounts.net)1-877-580-2212 Type of peak hour being reported: System Peak Method for determining peak hour:Total Entering Volume LOCATION: Hwy 99W SW Park St QC JOB#: 13155603 CITY/STATE: Tigard, OR DATE: Wed, Dec 03 2014 1` 1613 1366 Peak-Hour: 4:00 PM--5:00 PM 3.4 4.7 a * 1 Peak 15-Min: 4:30 PM --4:45 PM a 1 30 1563 20 ll 00 35 50L 4. 4Y 67 47 t 21 31 0 0 ~2 1 i t 4.8 « 9.7 3 ~ 11.00 • 3 00 • AP • 0.0 B5 35 1 ,�, ` 7~ 29 ct I� i- 12 . 00 1 * e,` 28-6*13,8 L 1 + 1297 7 r Quality Counts 0.0 4.8 42.9 1605 1338 a 3.5 4 9 r L I 2 L 1 0 2 0 1 0 1 t 0 , a 14 1 ILF _ 0 1 r 1--0 , 70 2 0E-- 1 _.' I • NA , _. NA I ` r i 4 NA ~ « NA NA ~ 1111111 ~ NA • 1 t •► 1 r � a * * � -141t � r NA NA 5-Min Count I Hwy 99W Hwy 99W SW Park St SW Park St I Total Hourly Period (Northbound) (Southbound) (Eastbound) (Westbound) Totals Beginning At' Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U 4:00 PM 3 117 2 0 2 130 2 0 6 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 265 4:05 PM 3 98 0 0 0 129 0 0 2 0 3 0 1 2 2 0 240 4:10 PM 3 101 0 0 2 148 2 0 3 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 261 4:15 PM 2 117 0 0 2 130 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 255 4:20 PM 1 119 2 0 4 121 0 0 1 1 5 0 1 0 4 0 259 4:25 PM 3 108 1 0 0 127 4 1 i 4 0 2 0 0 1 1 0_..----250 4:30 PM 5 100 1 0 2 1224 0 7 1 1 0 5 0 2 0 250 4:35 PM 3 116 0 0 3 124 2 , 0 2 0 4 0 0 0 5 0 259 .., 4.'40 PM. __ 4. ._114._..,. .._0___ ..1Z__.._.....0 1118. 5. d .0_. _:..k 8_- 0 .. - _0 Q.-__.._2-.__-:0... 254...---- --___ 4:45 PM 3 106 1 0 2 127 2 0 4 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 248 4:50 PM [ 2 101 0 0 1 140 3 0 8 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 262 1:55 PM__ 2 102 __0__ 0 -_-_ 1 147 5 0 2 0_ 2 0 0 0 3 0___264 __3067 5:00 PM 1 82 0 0 0 126 3 0 2 0 1 0 1 0 4 0 220 3022 5:05 PM 4 114 1 0 0 123 5 0 2 0 3 0 0 0 1 0 253 3035 5:10 PM 8 88 0 0 0 110 7 0 3 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 219 2993 5.15 PM 3 117 0 0 1 136 3 0 4 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 267 3005 5:20 PM 12 117 1 0 1 81 8 0 0 1 5 0 0 1 2 0 229 2975 5:25 PM 0 105 0 0 1 135 6 0 7 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 256 2981 5:30 PM 5 116 1 0 3 149 7 0 5 0 5 0 0 1 1 0 293 3024 5'35 PM 8 95 0 0 4 110 6 0 6 0 5 0 2 0 3 0 239 3004 5:40 PM 3 98 1 0 1 109 6 0 7 1 5 0 2 0 4 0 237 2987 5:45 PM 4 88 0 0 0 105 6 0 3 0 4 0 0 1 1 0 212 2951 5:50 PM 4 107 0 0 1 100 6 0 4 0 6 0 0 0 1 0 229 I 2918 5 55 PM 5 118 0 0 2 100 4 0 9 0 6 0 4 0 1 0 249 i 2903 Peak 15-Min Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Ftowrates Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U , Left Thru Right U Total All Vehicles 48 1320 4 0 20 1456 4-4 0 60 4 40 0 20 0 36 0 3052 Heavy Trucks 0 92 0 0 48 0 0 0 0 4 0 4 148 Pedestrians 0 8 8 0 16 Bicycles 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 (, . ' Railroad Stopped Buses'' ( 1 Comments: Report generated on 12/5/2014 4:05 PM SOURCE:Quality Counts. LLC(httpalwww_qualitycounts.net)1-877-580-2212 1 AI ' CI) Appendix B Level of Service Concept APPENDIX B LEVEL-OF-SERVICE CONCEPT Level of service (LOS) is a concept developed to quantify the degree of comfort (including such elements as travel time, number of stops, total amount of stopped delay, and impediments caused by other vehicles) afforded to drivers as they travel through an intersection or roadway segment. Six grades are used to denote the various level of service from "A" to "F".1 SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS The six level-of-service grades are described qualitatively for signalized intersections in Table B1. Additionally, Table B2 identifies the relationship between level of service and average control delay per vehicle. Control delay is defined to include initial deceleration delay, queue move-up time, stopped delay, and final acceleration delay. Using this definition, Level of Service "D" is generally considered to represent the minimum acceptable design standard. Table B-1 Level-of-Service Definitions(Signalized Intersections) Level of Service Average Delay per Vehicle Very low average control delay,less than 10 seconds per vehicle.This occurs when progression is extremely favorable,and most vehicles arrive during the green phase.Most vehicles do not stop at all.Short cycle lengths may also contribute to low delay. Average control delay is greater than 10 seconds per vehicle and less than or equal to 20 seconds per vehicle.This generally occurs with good progression and/or short cycle lengths.More vehicles stop than for a level of service A,causing higher levels of average delay. Average control delay is greater than 20 seconds per vehicle and less than or equal to 35 seconds per vehicle.These higher delays may result from fair progression and/or longer cycle lengths.Individual cycle failures may begin to appear at this level. C The number of vehicles stopping is significant at this level,although many still pass through the intersection without stopping. Average control delay is greater than 35 seconds per vehicle and less than or equal to 55 seconds per vehicle.The influence of congestion becomes more noticeable.Longer delays may result from some combination of unfavorable progression,long cycle length,or high volume/capacity ratios.Many vehicles stop,and the proportion of vehicles not stopping declines.Individual cycle D failures are noticeable. Average control delay is greater than 55 seconds per vehicle and less than or equal to 80 seconds per vehicle.This is usually considered to be the limit of acceptable delay.These high delay values generally(but not always)indicate poor progression,long E cycle lengths,and high volume/capacity ratios.Individual cycle failures are frequent occurrences. Average control delay is in excess of 80 seconds per vehicle.This is considered to be unacceptable to most drivers.This condition often occurs with oversaturation.It may also occur at high volume/capacity ratios below 1.0 with many individual cycle failures. F Poor progression and long cycle lengths may also contribute to such high delay values. 1 Most of the material in the appendix is adapted from the Transept-11110n Research Board,Rehoay Ciaparny Manwl,(2d Error/No text of specified style in document. Error!No text of specified style in document. Error!No text of specified style in document. Table 82 Level-of-Service Criteria for Signalized Intersections Level of Service Average Control Delay per Vehicle(Seconds) A <10,0 B >10 and 520 C >20 and 535 D >35 and 555 E >55 and 580 F >BO UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Unsignalized intersections include two-way stop-controlled (TWSC) and all-way stop-controlled (AWSC) intersections. The 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) provides models for estimating control delay at both TWSC and AWSC intersections. A qualitative description of the various service levels associated with an unsignalized intersection is presented in Table B3. A quantitative definition of level of service for unsignalized intersections is presented in Table 84. Using this definition, Level of Service "E" is generally considered to represent the minimum acceptable design standard. Table B3 Level-of-Service Criteria for Unsignalized Intersections Level of Service Average Delay per Vehicle to Minor Street • Nearly all drivers find freedom of operation. • Very seldom is there more than one vehicle in queue. A • Some drivers begin to consider the delay an inconvenience. • Occasionally there is more than one vehicle in queue. B • Many times there is more than one vehicle in queue. • Most drivers feel restricted,but not objectionably so. C • Often there is more than one vehicle in queue. • Drivers feel quite restricted. D • Represents a condition in which the demand is near or equal to the probable maximum number of vehicles that can be accommodated by the movement. • There is almost always more than one vehicle in queue. • Drivers find the delays approaching intolerable levels. • Forced flow. • Represents an intersection failure condition that is caused by geometric and/or operational constraints external to the intersection. it 2 Kittelson&Associates,Inc. Error!No text of specified style in document. Error!No text of specified style in document. Error!No text of specified style in document. Table B4 Level-of-Service Criteria for Unsignalized Intersections Level of Service Average Control Delay per Vehicle(Seconds) A <10.0 B >10.0and<15.0 0 >15.0and<_25.0 D >25.0 and<_35.0 E >35.0and 550.0 F >50.0 It should be noted that the level-of-service criteria for unsignalized intersections are somewhat different than the criteria used for signalized intersections. The primary reason for this difference is that drivers expect different levels of performance from different kinds of transportation facilities. The expectation is that a signalized intersection is designed to carry higher traffic volumes than an unsignalized intersection. Additionally, there are a number of driver behavior considerations that combine to make delays at signalized intersections less galling than at unsignalized intersections. For example, drivers at signalized intersections are able to relax during the red interval, while drivers on the minor street approaches to TWSC intersections must remain attentive to the task of identifying acceptable gaps and vehicle conflicts. Also, there is often much more variability in the amount of delay experienced by individual drivers at unsignalized intersections than signalized intersections. For these reasons, it is considered that the control delay threshold for any given level of service is less for an unsignalized intersection than for a signalized intersection. While overall intersection level of service is calculated for AWSC intersections, level of service is only calculated for the minor approaches and the major street left turn movements at TWSC intersections. No delay is assumed to the major street through movements. For TWSC intersections, the overall intersection level of service remains undefined: level of service is only calculated for each minor street lane. In the performance evaluation of TWSC intersections, it is important to consider other measures of effectiveness (MOEs) in addition to delay, such as v/c ratios for individual movements, average queue lengths, and 95th-percentile queue lengths. By focusing on a single MOE for the worst movement only, such as delay for the minor-street left turn, users may make inappropriate traffic control decisions. The potential for making such inappropriate decisions is likely to be particularly pronounced when the HCM level-of-service thresholds are adopted as legal standards, as is the case in many public agencies. f 3 Kittelson&Associates,Inc. � 0 Appendix C Existing Traffic Level-Of- Service Worksheets 0 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 2014 ExistingTraffic Weekday PM Peak Hour 1 : SW Park St & Hwy 99W 41812015 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 'i fit. "i Tla 4 r ) t r Volume(vehJh) 34 1297 7 20 1563 30 7 3 21 47 3 35 Number 5 2 12 1 6 16 3 8 18 7 4 14 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.97 0.99 0.99 0.99 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow,vehlh/In 1900 1806 1900 1810 1846 1900 1900 1579 1810 1863 1900 1900 Adj Flow Rate,vehlh 34 1310 7 20 1579 30 7 3 21 47 3 0 Adj No. of Lanes 1 2 0 1 2 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 Peak Hour Factor 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 Percent Heavy Veh„ % 0 5 5 5 3 3 0 0 5 2 0 0 Cap,vehlh 310 2919 16 374 2916 55 90 29 88 122 109 93 Arrive On Green 0.02 0.83 0.83 0.02 0.83 0.83 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0 00 Sat Flow, vehJh 1810 3499 19 1723 3519 67 800 510 1522 1368 1900 1615 Grp Volume(v),vehJh 34 642 675 20 786 823 10 0 21 47 3 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/hlln 1810 1716 1802 1723 1753 1832 1310 0 1522 1368 1900 1615 O Serve(g__s), s 0.4 13.9 13.9 0.3 19.5 19.6 0.0 0.0 1.8 4.7 0.2 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(gc), s 0.4 13.9 13.9 0.3 19.5 19.6 0.8 0.0 1.8 5.6 0.2 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.01 1.00 0.04 0.70 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),vehlh 310 1431 1503 374 1453 1518 119 0 88 122 109 93 VIC Ratio(X) 0.11 0.45 0.45 0.05 0.54 0.54 0.08 0.00 0.24 0.39 0.03 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a),vehlh 479 1431 1503 545 1453 1518 201 0 185 209 231 196 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1,00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay(d),sJveh 3.1 3.1 3.1 2.4 3.7 3.7 62.6 0.0 63.0 65.2 62.3 0.0 Incr Delay(d2),sJveh 0.1 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.4 1.4 0.2 0.0 0.9 1.2 0.1 0.0 initial 0 Delay(d3),slveh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %Ile BackOfQ(-26165%),vehiln 0.2 6.8 7.2 0.1 9.7 10.2 0.4 0.0 0.8 1.8 0.1 0.0 LnGrp Delay(tt),slveh 3.2 4.1 4.0 2.4 5.2 5.1 62.8 0 0 63 9 66.4 62.3 0.0 LnGrp LOS A A A A A A E E E E Approach Vol.vehJh 1351 1629 31 50 Approach Delay,sJveh 4.1 5.1 63.5 66.2 Approach LOS A A E E Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),s 6.2 121.8 12.1 6.9 121.0 12.1 Change Period(Y+Rc),s 4.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 Max Green Setting(Gmax).s 16.0 94.0 17.0 16.0 94.0 17.0 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+11),s 2.3 15.9 7.6 2.4 21.6 3 8 Green Ext Time(p_c),s 0.0 72.9 0.1 0.0 67.9 0.1 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 6.2 HCM 2010 LOS A H:\projfile\13755-Leadership Circle Specialty Retail1005-Tigard\Synchro'13755.5-2014._PM-Existing.syn Synchro 8- Report %user_name% Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2014 ExistingTraffic Weekday PM Peak Hour 1 : SW Park St & Hwy 99W 4/8/2015 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations `f TT. 1) 11a 4 r 'S t r Volume(vph) 34 1297 7 20 1563 30 7 3 21 47 3 35 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frpb,pedlbikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flpb. ped//bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 !.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.97 1 00 0.95 1 00 1.00 Satd. Flow(prat) 1805 3428 1718 3495 1526 1512 1761 1900 1615 Flt Permitted 0.13 1.00 0.19 1.00 0.84 1.00 0.75 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 250 3428 342 3495 1327 1512 1392 1900 1615 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 Adj. Flow(vph) 34 1310 7 20 1579 30 7 3 21 47 3 35 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 20 0 0 33 Lane Group Flow(vph) 34 1317 0 20 1608 0 0 10 1 47 3 2 Confl. Peds.(#/hr) 3 7 7 3 2 2 Confl. Bikes(#/hr) 2 2 Heavy Vehicles(%) 0% 5% 43% 5% 3% 0% 29% 0% 5% 2% 0% 0% Turn Type pm+pt NA pm+pt NA Perm NA Perm Perm NA Perm Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 8 4 Permitted Phases 2 6 8 8 4 4 Actuated Green, G(s) 118.1 114.9 117.9 114.8 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 Effective Green,g(s) 118.1 114.9 117.9 114.8 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 Actuated gfC Ratio 0.84 0.82 0.84 0.82 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 Clearance Time(s) 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.3 4.8 2.3 4.8 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 246 2813 318 2865 85 97 89 122 103 vis Ratio Prot c0.00 0.38 0.00 c0 46 0.00 v!s Ratio Perm 0.11 0.05 0.01 0.00 c0.03 0.00 v/c Ratio 0.14 0.47 0.06 0.56 0.12 0.01 0.53 0.02 0.02 Uniform Delay,dl 3.0 3.7 2.2 4.2 61.8 61.3 63.4 61.4 61.4 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.40 1.20 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,d2 0.2 0.6 0.0 0.3 0.4 0.0 3.6 0.0 0.0 Delay(s) 3.1 4.2 3.1 5.4 62.1 61.4 67.0 61.4 61.4 Level of Service A A A A E E E E E Approach Delay(s) 4.2 5.4 61.6 64.5 Approach LOS A A E E Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 7.0 HCM 2000 Level of Service A HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.55 Actuated Cycle Length(s) 140.0 Sum of lost time(s) 13.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 65.6% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period(min) 15 c Critical Lane Group H:lprojfle113755-Leadership Circle Specialty Retaill005-Tigard)Synchrol13755.5-2014 PM-Existing.syn Synchro 8- Report %user name% Page 1 ll HCM 2010 TWSC 2014 ExistingTraffic Weekday PM Peak Hour 2: Hwy 99W & SW School St 4//8/2015 Intersection 41 int Delay,s/veh 0.1 Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR 11,1 Vol,vehlh 1 1371 1619 26 1 2 Conflicting Peds,#/hr 4 0 0 4 1 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length 90 - - - 0 - Veh in Median Storage,# - 0 0 - 0 - Grade,% - 0 0 - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 99 99 99 99 99 99 Heavy Vehicles,% 0 5 2 0 0 0 Mvmt Flow 1 1385 1635 26 1 2 Major/Minor Majorl Major2 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 1663 0 - 0 2343 836 Stage 1 - - - - 1649 - Stage 2 - - - - 694 - Critical Hdwy 4,1 - - - 6.8 6.9 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.8 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.8 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.2 - - - 3.5 3.3 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 392 - - - 31 315 Stage 1 - - - - 145 - Stage 2 - - - - 462 - Platoon blocked,To - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 391 - - - 31 314 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 31 - Stage 1 - - - - 145 - Stage 2 - - - - 460 - Approach EB WB SB HCM Control Delay.s 0 0 53 HCM LOS F Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBR SBLn1 1111 Capacity(vehlh) 391 - - - 78 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.003 - - - 0.039 HCM Control Delay(s) 14.2 - - - 53 HCM Lane LOS B - - - F HCM 95th%tile Q(veh) 0 - - - 0.1 H:Iprojfile113755- Leadership Circle Specialty Retail1005-TigardlSynchro113755.5-2014__PM-Existing.syn Synchro 8- Report %user.name% Page 3 HCM 2010 TWSC 2014 ExistingTraffic Weekday PM Peak Hour 3: SW Garrett St & Hwy 99W 4/8/2015 Intersection Int Delay. slveh 0.4 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Vol,veh/h 1337 35 27 1637 8 36 Conflicting Peds,#/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length - - 150 - 0 - Veh in Median Storage,# 0 - - 0 1 - Grade.% 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 98 98 98 98 98 98 Heavy Vehicles, % 5 5 2 3 0 3 Mvmt Flow 1364 36 28 1670 8 37 1 Ma'oraMinor Ma-ori Ma'or2 _ Minor! Conflicting Flow All 0 0 1400 0 2272 700 Stage 1 - - - 1382 - Stage 2 - - - - 890 - Critical Hdwy - - 4.14 - 6.8 6.96 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - 5.8 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.8 - i Follow-up Hdwy - - 2.22 - 3.5 3.33 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 484 35 379 Stage 1 - .. - - 202 - Stage 2 - - - - 366 - Platoon blocked,% - - - May Cap-1 Maneuver - - 484 - 33 379 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 130 - Stage 1 - - - - 202 - Stage 2 - - - - 345 - Approach ES WB NB HCM Control Delay,s 0 0.2 20.2 HCM LOS C Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1' EBT EBR WBL WBT Capacity jveh?hl 281 - - 484 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.16 - - 0.057 - HCM Control Delay(s) 20.2 - - 12.9 - HCM Lane LOS C - - B - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.6 - - 0.2 - H:lprojfile113755-Leadership Circle Specialty Retail1005-Tigard\Synchro113755.5-2014_PM-Existing.syn Synchro 8- Report %user name% Page 4 i HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 2014 ExistingTraffic Weekday PM Peak Hour 5: SW Walnut St & Hwy 99W 0812015 1 rt .r _-. 4- t /* '► 1 4/ Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations ?1i* 't 'H r 4. 'f 1+ Volume(veh/h) 137 1268 12 21 1532 177 20 17 11 117 12 139 Number 5 2 12 1 6 16 3 8 18 7 4 14 Initial Q(Qb) veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Ad,A pbT) 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.97 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow.veh/hlln 1827 1826 1900 1900 1845 1863 1900 1860 1900 1827 1849 1900 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 140 1294 12 21 1563 181 20 17 11 119 12 142 Adj No.of Lanes 1 2 0 1 2 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Percent Heavy Veh, % 4 4 4 0 3 2 6 6 6 4 0 0 Cap,vehih 170 1768 16 127 1552 677 0 40 26 144 18 215 Arrive On Green 0.07 0.50 0.50 0.02 0.44 0.44 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.08 0.15 0.15 Sat Flow,vehlh 1740 3522 33 1810 3505 1528 0 1013 655 1740 121 1431 Grp Volume(v),vehlh 140 637 669 21 1563 181 0 0 28 119 0 154 Grp Sat Flow(s),vehlhfln 1740 1735 1819 1810 1752 1528 0 0 1668 1740 0 1552 0 Serve(g_s),s 6.9 40.5 40.5 0.9 62.0 3.2 0.0 0.0 2 3 9.4 0.0 13.1 Cycle 0 Clear(g_c),s 6.9 40.5 40.5 0.9 62.0 3.2 0.0 0.0 2.3 9.4 0.0 13.1 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.02 1.00 1 00 0.00 0.39 1.00 0.92 Lane Grp Cap(c),vehlh 170 871 914 127 1552 677 0 0 66 144 0 234 WC Ratio(X) 0.82 0.73 0.73 0.17 1.01 0.27 0.00 0.00 0.42 0.83 0.00 0 66 Avail Cap(c_a),vehlh 288 871 914 266 1552 677 0 0 250 261 0 234 I' HCM Platoon Ratio 1 00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1 00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay(d),slveh 62.7 27.4 27,4 29.9 39.0 2,3 0.0 0.0 65.7 63.3 0.0 56.1 Incr Delay(d2),slveh 6.1 5.4 5.2 0.4 24.6 1.0 0.0 0.0 2,6 7,3 0.0 5.9 Initial 0 Delay(d3).slveh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Tile BackOfQ(-26165°/°),vehfln 5.6 20.6 21.6 0.5 35.3 1.5 0.0 0.0 1.1 4.8 0.0 6.0 LnGrp Delay(d),siveh 68.8 32.8 32.6 30.3 63.6 3.3 0.0 0.0 68.3 70.6 0.0 61.9 LnGrp LOS E C C C F A E E E Approach Vol.vehlh 1446 1765 28 273 Approach Delay,siveh 36.2 57.0 68.3 65.7 Approach LOS D E E F Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),s 6.2 75.3 0.0 25.1 14.5 67.0 15.5 9.5 Change Period(Y+Rc), s 4.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 *5 4.0 4.0 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 13.0 68.0 21.0 21.0 19.0 '62 21.0 21.0 Max 0 Clear Time(g_c+t1),s 2.9 42.5 0.0 15.1 8.9 64,0 11.4 4.3 Green Ext Time(p_c),s 0.0 17.0 0.0 0.4 0.7 0.0 0.1 0.3 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 49.2 HCM 2010 LOS D Notes HCM 2010 computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. CO) H:\projfilel13755-Leadership Circle Specialty Retail\005-TigardlSynchro\13755.5-2014_PM-Existing.syn Synchro 8- Report %user_name% Page 5 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2014 ExistingTraffic Weekday PM Peak Hour 5: SW Walnut St & Hwy 99W 4/8/2015 J - c 4- 4\ t /* \* 4" ./ Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR _SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations ''1 TA 'S TT r' 4 ) 1= Volume(vph) 137 1268 12 21 1532 177 20 17 11 117 12 139 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1 00 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.99 1,00 9.97 Flpb,peel/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.97 1.00 0.86 Fit Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.98 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow(prot) 1736 3463 1805 3505 1497 1737 1736 1541 Fit Permitted 0.06 1.00 0.10 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 114 3463 188 3505 1497 1514 1736 1541 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Adj. Flow(vph) 140 1294 12 21 1563 181 20 17 11 119 12 142 i RTOR Reduction(vph) 0 0 0 0 0 41 0 8 0 0 102 0 Lane Group Flow(vph) 140 1306 0 21 1563 140 0 40 0 119 52 0 Conti. Peds.(#/hr) 7 11 11 7 12 13 13 12 Confl. Bikes(#/hr) 1 3 Heavy Vehicles(%) 4% 4% 8% 0% 3% 2% 0% 6% 0% 4% 0% 3% Turn Type pm+pt NA pm+pt NA Perm Prot NA Prot NA Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 3 8 7 4 Permitted Phases 2 6 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 84.9 83.9 67.1 67.1 67.1 20.9 14.4 39.3 Effective Green,g(s) 84.9 83.9 67.1 67.1 67.1 20.9 14.4 39.3 Actuated g!C Ratio 0.61 0.60 0.48 0.48 0.48 0.15 0.10 0.28 Clearance Time(s) 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.3 4.8 2.3 4.8 4.8 _ 2.3 2.3 2.3 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 307 2075 133 1679 717 226 178 432 vis Ratio Prot 0.07 c0.38 0.00 c0.45 c0.07 0.03 vls Ratio Perm 0.21 0.07 0.09 c0.03 i vie Ratio 0.46 0.63 0.16 0.93 0.20 0.18 0.67 0.12 Uniform Delay,dl 45.7 18.0 23.5 34.3 20.9 52.0 60.5 37.5 Progression Factor 0.92 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,d2 0.6 1.4 0.3 10.7 0.6 0.2 7.8 0.1 Delay(s) 42.7 16.7 23.8 45.0 21.6 52.3 68.3 37.6 Level of Service D B C D C 0 E D Approach Delay(s) 19.3 42.4 52.3 51.0 Approach LOS B D D D Intersection Summary __ HCM 2000 Control Delay 33.7 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.73 Actuated Cycle Length(s) 140.0 Sum of lost time(s) 17.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 81.1°%o ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period(min) 15 c Critical Lane Group H:Iprojfile113755- Leadership Circle Specialty Retailt005-Tigard\Synchro113755.5-2014_PM-Existingsyn Synchro 8- Report %username% Page 4 M 0 Appendix D Crash Data 0 11::; CI) 0 N CD53P0 1/15/2E15 OREGON DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION - TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT DIVISION PATE: 1 TRANSPORTATION DATA SECTION - CRASH ANALYSTS AND REPORTING UNIT CONTINCOUS SYSTEM CRASH _-STING 091 PACIFIC HIGHWAY WEST OR 99W Pac.f:c H:n.iyay a SW Walnut Street ! SW Walnut Place January 1, 2009 t'hrngh December 31, 2015 P RSW N.I.* c: TNT-TYP SPPL USE EANCO DATE Cl//NTY COMPNT CONN tr RU CHAR ;MEDIAN) =NT-REL 'ITER: h HR. CRASH TYP TRLR QTY MOVE A SERA E I G H A DAY CITY M«G TYP FIRST STREET DIRECT LEGS =RAF- RNDET SURF COLI TYP OWNER FROM ?RTC -.,. S E LIONS PED INVEST C C S L K TIME :RE.AN AREA MIL.EPNT SECOND STREET LOCTN (*LANES) V . DRVW'f LIGHT SVRTY VI VEH TYPE r,,, E• TYPE S'.RTY E X RES LOC ERROR ACTN EVENT CAUSE ;:1551 NNNNN 04/23/2009 WASHINGTON - 14 INTER CROSS N N ICC) 5-1STOP 01 NONE : STFF.GHT 07,10 CITY Wed TIGARD _ C SW FAC:FIC HY 99W NE =GRN-SIG N DRY 5S-0 PUPLC NE SW CCG 00 12P PORTLAND CA 9.54 SW WALNUT ST 0'4 0 N DAY FOO TRUCK 01 DRYS NONE 31 M OR-Y 045,025 COD 51 OP..<25 02 NONE C STOP PRVTE NE SW .:i2 00 ?SNGR. CAR CI DRY? NONE Ti? F! I5.-7 009 000 10 OR.<2c • 024:6 N N N 01/22x'2009 WASHINGTON 1 14 INTER CROSS N N CIE -'_STOP 01 NONE 0 S.-h-... ..I 01 _ NO APT Fri TIGARD C V SW P ..... FY 99W NE IRE SIGNAL N DRY REAR PAUSE NESW 000 OO 2P PORTLAND UA 3.€4 5W WALNUT ST 54 0 g DAY 400 SO TR CAR 01 DRVR NONE DO ,v, _R-- 225 000 0/ DR<25 02 _.J:1E I STOP PRCTE NE SW 011 015 00 P5NGR CAR 01 DAV?. NONE 66 F CP.-Y 005 CCC 00 ;8.426 C3 NONE C STOP PRVIE N;. SW 022 513 00 95005 CAR Cl DRVR NONE 44 M JR-Y I/IC IGC 00 X 04 NONE 0 STOP PANTS NE SW 022 00 :TENOR CAR 01 DRVR NONE 25 M OR-Y 000 504 00 CR>2I 01269 N N N 05!15/22.LC WASHCNN,T iN 1 14 1NTEE _.-J_0 N. N 0NH 5-'STOP 01 NONE. 0 S ROH: 07 NONEe TIGARD 0 I 5W PACIFIC HY 99N NE TAF SIGNAL N OWN REAR RENTL NE SW COO Cl 8? PORTLAND UA 3.54 SW WALNUT SI 060 N ❑LIT ISO ?5115?. CAR U_ DRVR NONE 36 M OTH-Y 026 025 07 N-REE 02 NONE 0 STOP RENTL NE SW 01I P5NGR CAR CI DRVR INJC 38 . OR-Y COO ,11,30 50 'I OR<25 02150 N N N 04/28/2012 WASHINGTON 1 14 INTER CROSS N N 1NK S-15T0P 01 NONE. 0 STRGHT 47 NONE Sat IGAR.: 0 0 SW PACIFIC HY 99W NE TRF SIGNAL N UNE REAR CORN NW SW 000 00 IF PORTLAND UA 9.5.4 5W WALNUT ST :6 0 N DAY PDO FONDA. CAH DL 0131,08. NONE 50 F UNE 026 OCC 07 UNE 02 NONE 0 STOP FRVTE NE 514 011 CC ?SNGR CAR C_ ;,RYE NONE 3E F 010-Y 000 000 C.C. DR<25 03644 N N N 07/26/2012 WASHINGTON _ 4 N INTER CROSSCL? 0-ONTO? C1. NONE 0 STROHT 07 NO RPT Thu .IGAP.D 0 SW PACIFIC NY 99W NE TRF SIGNAL N DRY REAR PR'V'I'E NE SW 000 OD 4P PIP.TLA.ND UA 9.54 SW WALNUT _. N DAY P_0 FONGR CAR. SII _RVR MIME :3 F OR-Y 026 000 Oa.<25 005380 1/15/20:5 OREGON DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION - TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT DIVISION PAGE: 2 TRANSPORTATION DATA SECTION - CRASH ANALYSTS AND REPORTINGUNIT CONTINUOUS SYSTEM CRASH LISTING 091 PA..__c- HIGHWAY WEST OR 99W Pacific Highway 4 SW WalnUt StNeet / SW Walnut Place January 1, 2009 thrcgh December 31, 22013. S 0 5 RSW RD# FC INT-TYP SPC: USE E A U.0 Cl DATE COUNTY COM..PNT CONN R PD CHAR [MEDIAN) INT-REL OFFRD WTHR CRASH TY? TRLR QTY MOVE A S SEAR ELGHR DAY CITY MLO TYP FIRST STREET DIRECT LEGS TRAP- RNCHT SURF COLL TY? OWNER FROM ?RTC 1NJ 0 E LIONS PED _INVEST DCS L K TIME URBAN AREA _ MILEPNT SECOND STREET LOCTN IMLANES) CNTL DRVWY LIGHT SVRTY Ve VEP. TYPE TO PP TYPE SVRTY E X RES LOC ERROR. ACTS EVENT CAUSE 02 NONE C STOP PRVTE NE SW 011 CO PSNGR CAR 01 DRVR NONE 53 H OR-Y CCC 0000 00 OR>2 5 03734 3155 N N 07/27/2010 WASHINGTON _ 14 INTER CROSS N S CLR HIRE 110 02 CITY Tue TIGARD 0 0SW PACIFIC HY 99W SE TRF SIGNAL N DRY TURN 122 PORTLANC. UA 9..64 SW WALNUT PL 0.5 0 N DAY INC STRGHT 01 BIKE INJH 28 F 02 000 0.50 00 SW NE 01 NONE 0 TURN-R PRVTE $W SE COO 110 00 PSNGR CAR 01 DRVR NONE 65 M OR-Y 027 000 02 OR<25 03353 N N N 06/25/2011 WASHINGTON 1 14 INTER CROSS N N CLR O-:STOP CI NONE C STRGHT 14 i NO RPT Sun TIGARD 0 0 SW PACIFIC HY 99W SE TRF SIGNAL N DRY HEAD PRVTE NW SE 000 00 2P PORTLAND.LA 9.64 SW WALNUT PL 06 0 N DAY PDO PINGR CAR 01 DAVE NONE 55 M 0TH-Y 003 CCC 14 N-RES 02 NONE 0 STOP PRVTE SE NW 012 00 PINGS CAR O1 DRVR NONE '6 M OR-1 000 000 00 OR>25 011.58 N N N 03/06/2513 WASHINGTON 1 14. INTER CROSS N 0 RAIN FIX CB; Ci NONE 0 STRGHT 055 16 it CITY Wed TIGARD 0 0 SW PACIFIC HY. 99W SW TRF SIGNAL N WET FIX. PRVTE NE SW 000 055 CD lIA PORTLAND CA 5.64 SW WALNUT ST 05 0 N DAY INJ PSNGR CAA 01 DRVR :N.IC 47 F OTH-Y 08: 025 16 N-AES 01482 Y N N N N 03/25/20:0 WASHINGTON 14 INTER CROSS N N CLR ANG1_-STP 01 NONE i I RN-R 08,01 CITY Fri TIGARD 0 0 SW PACIFIC HY 99W SW TRY SIGNAL N DRY TURN PRVTE NW 5W 00C 00 3P PORTLAND UA 3.64 SW WALNUT ST 06 0 N DAY INJ MOPED 01 ^RVR 1NJB 26 M N-VAL 006,001,047 0_7 08,01 OR<21 02 NONE 0 STOP PRVTE SW NE 012 00 PSNGR CAR 01 DRVR NONE 49 F OR-Y 000 000 CC OR<25 I� 03974 NN N N N 08/02/2012 WASHINGTON 1 14 INTER CROSS N N CLR S-STRGHT Cl NONE 0 STRGHT 094 12,02 CITY TOG. TIGARD 0 0 SW PACIFIC HY 99W SW TRF SIGNAL N DRY 5S-0 PRVTE SW NE 000 CO 9A PORTLANI UA 9.64 SW WALNUT PL 06 C N DAY P100 PSNGR CAR 01 DRVR NONE 17 F N-VAL 045.028 000 094 13,02 OR<25 02 NONE 0 STRGHT ?RVTE SW NE 000 CO PSNGR CAR GI DRVR NONE 77 F OR-Y 000 000 CO OR<25 00077 N N N N N 01/05/2013 WASHINGTON 1 14 INTER CROSS N N CLD S-1STOP 01 NONE 0 STRGHT 07 CITY Sat TIGARD 0 0 SW PACIFIC HY 99W SW TRF SIGNAL N DRY REAR PACTS SW NE 000 40 3P PORTLAND UA 9.64 SW WALNUT PL 06 C N DAY ?DO PSNGR CAR 01 DRVR NONE 23 F OR-Y 043,026 OCC 07 OR<25 . I 00 3 018380 1/15/20:5 OREGON DEPARTMENT OF TR.A.NSPCRTATICN - TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT DIVISION PAGE: 3 II TRANSPORTATION DATA ..ON - CRASH ANALYSTS AND R-PCa.T100 UNIT CONT_:NUOOS SYSTEM CRASH LISTING 09'1 PACIFIC HIGHWAY WEST CR 39W Pacific Highway ti SW Walnut Scree_ Sri )0 Th.:- Plate January 1, 2009 Lhrogh DeI<tH<r =_, 2013 $ D P RSW ROM FC IN:-TYP SPCL USE E A U C 0 DATE COUNTY COMPNT CONN Y RD CHAR (MEDIAN) INT-REL OFFRD WTHR CRASH TY? TRLR QTY MOVE A SER♦ EIGHR DAY CITY MLG TIP EI-OST STREET' DIRECT LEGS TRAF- SNORT SURF COLL TIP OWNER FROM R.TC INJ ., E LIONS PEO INVEST O C S L K TIME URBAN AREA MICEPNT SECOND STREET LOCTN IM LANES1 CNTL CROW? LIGHT SYPTY 'VH 069 TYPE TO Pa TYPE SVRTY F X RES DCC ERROR ACTH EVENT CAUSE I U2 NONE 0 STOP PRVTE SR NE 0111 CO PSNOR CAR. 131 :SUR NONE 10 .4 OR-51 070 000 OC CR<2 5 05588 N N N 04/05/2013 WASHINGTON1 :4 INTER CROSS N N RAIN S-ISTOP 0: NONE 0 STRGHT 07 NONE Fri TOARU 0 0 SW PACIFIC HY 99W SW TRF SIGNAL N WET REAR PRVTE SW NE -_ -„,• `` .._ CCO 00 3P PORTLAND 0A 9.64 SW WALNUT ST 06 9 N DAY PDO PSNGR CAH H OR-Y 026 COO C7 OR<25 02 NONE C STOP PRVTE SW NE 011 00 PSNGR. CAR Cl CROW NONE -C F 6TH-Y ICG 000 CC U-RAS 0:060 N N N 03/08/2009 WASHINGTON 14 INTER CROSS N N CCR. C-_TORN I1 NONE 0 STRGHT 02 NONE Sun. TIGARD 0 0 SW PACIFIC HY 99W CN TRF SIGNAL N DRY TURN PRVTE NE SW IOC 00 12P PORTLAND 1:A 9.64 5W WALNUT $T 01 0 N DAY PDO PSNGR CAR OL CRUR NONE '2 F CR-Y 000 COC CO OR<25 I 2 NONE C TURNEL PRVTE SW NW CCC 00 PSNGR CAR CI DRVR NONE 4: N CR-I 004,026 000 02 OR<25 03306 NNNNN 07/08/2010 WASHINGTON i. 14 INTER CROSS N N CLR 0-1TURN CI NONE C UP.N-L 04 I CITY Thu IIGARD 0 0 SW PACIFIC HY 99W CN TRF SIGNAL N DRY TURN PRVTE SW NW 000 OU 12A PORTLAND UA 9.64 SW WALNUT Si' Cl C N DLIT TNI PSNGR CAR 01 DRVR NONE 52 M CR-11 020,004 000 04 OR<25 II 12 NONE 0 STRGHT PROTE NE SW 001 00 PSNGR CAR 01 DRVR SNJC 51 M OR-Y 000 000 0O 0R.<2 5 05634 NNNNN 10/21/20:0 WASH:NGT3N _ 14 INTER CROSS N N CLD O-ITURN 01 NONE 0 STRGHT 02 CITY Thu TIGARD 0 0 SW PACIFIC HY 99W ON TRF SIGNAL N DRY TURN PR'✓TE NE SW GCC OC i 5P PORTLAND UA 4.64 SW WALNUT ST 01 0 N DAY PDD PSNGR CAN. 0-_ DRVR NONE 42 M CR-Y III 000 CO CR<25 02 NONE C TURN-1 PRV:'E SW NW 000 CO PSNGR CAR IS DRVR NONE 56 M OR-Y 004,026 000 02 OR<2 5 ^1 01280 N N N 03/C8/2011 WASHINGION 1 14 INTER CROSS N N CLR 0-:TURN 01 NONE 0 STRGHT 02 NONE Tue .IGA.RD C 0 SW PACIFIC HY 99W ON TRF SIGNAL N DRY TURN PRVTE NE SW 000 CC' 7P PORTLAND UA 9.64 SW WALNUT ST Ci 0 N DLIT PDO PSNGR CAR C1 DRVR NONE 36 F OR-"Y 000 000 00 OR<25 12 U1RN 9 TURN-I, LINEN SW NW COC 00 UNHNOWN C: DRVR NONE 00 H DNS 004,028 CCO CO UNE I II CDS3H0 1/15/2015 OREGON DEPARTMENT 3F TRANSPORTATION - TRANSPORTATION DEVELCPMENT DIVISION PAGE: 4 TRANSPORTATION DATA SECTION- CRASH ANALYSIS AND REPORTING UNIT CONTINUOUS SYSTEM CRASH LISTING 091 PACIFIC HIGHWAY WEST OR 99W Pacific H:ghway 6 SW Walnut Street / SW Walnut Plane January 1, 2009. thru h December 31, 2013 S D p RSW RSM FC INT-TYP SPCL USE S ACCO DATE COUNTY COMPNT CONN * RD CHAR MEDIAN) INT-REL OTERD WIHR CRASH TYP TRLR QTY MOVE A S SER* ELIHR DAY CITY MIG TYP FIRST STREET DIRECT LEGS TRAY- RNDBT SURF COLL TYP OWNER FROM PRTC INJ 5 E hICNS PED INVEST D C S L H LIME URBAN AREA MILEPNT SECOND STREET LOCTN (#LANES) CNTL BRVWY LIGHT SVRTY V* VEH TYPE TO Pd TYPE SVRTY E. X RES LOC ERROR ACTN EVENT CAUSE 42229 NNNNN 05/01/2012 WASHINGTON 14 INTER CROSS N N CLD O-(TURN 01 NONE 0 STRGHT 04 CITY Tue TIGARD 0 0 SW PACIFIC HY 99W CN TRF SIGNAL N DRY TURN PRVIE NE SW C00 C0 7A PORTLAND UA 9.64 SW WALNUT ST CI 0 N DAY INJ PSNGR CAR 01 DRVR IN.7C 39 F OR-Y 097 000 00 OR<25 02 PSNG iNJC 43 F .670 000 00 02 NONE 0 TURN-L PRVTE SW NW 000 00 PSNGR CAR Ci. IRNA INJ1 35 M OR-Y 097 000 00 OR<25 02659 NNNNN 01/22/2012 WASHINGTON 1 :4 INTER CROSS N N RAIN 0-1TURN 01 NONE 0 TURN-L 02 CITY Tue TIGARD 0 0 SW PACIFIC HY 99W CN TRF SIGNAL N WET TURN PRVTE SW NW 000 CO 11A PORTLAND UA 9.64 SW WALNUT ST 01 0 N DAY PDO PSNGR CAR 01 DRVR NONE 20 F OR-Y 004,028 COO 02 OR>25 02 NONE 0 STRGHT PRVTE NE SW 000 00 PSNGR CAR C1 _RVR NONE 65 M OR-Y COC 000 00 OR<25 04378 N N N OS/23/2012 WASHINGTON 1 14 INTER CROSS N N CLR 0-LTURN 41 NONE 0 STRGHT 02 NONE Thu TIGARD 0 C SW PACIFIC HY 99W ON 'IRF SIGNAL N DRY TURN PRVTE NE SW 000 DC 4P PORTLAND CA 9.64 SW WALNUT ST 01 0 N DAY PDO PSNGR. CAS 01 DRVR NONE 04 M OR-Y 000 CCC 00 0R<25 02 NONE 0 TURN-L PRVTE SW NW 000 00 PSNGR CAR 01 DRVR NONE 63 F OR-0 C04,028 COO 02 OR<25 02229 N N N N N 05/02/2(13 WASHINGTON 1 14 INTER CROSS N N CLR G-:TURN Cl NONE C TURN-L 02 CITY Thu TIGARD C 0 SW PACIFIC HY 99W CN FLASHBCN-A N DRY TURN PRVTE SW NW 000 00 9? PCRTLAND UA 9.64 SW WALNUT ST DL 0 N DLIT PDO PSNGR CAR 01 DRVR NONE 25 M OR-Y O25 000 02 N-RES 02 NONE 0 STRGHT PRVTE NE SW 0.00 00 PSNGR CAR 01 DRVR NONE 32 M OR-Y 000 000 OC OR<25 033890 NNNNN 07/20/2013 WASHINGTON 1 14 INTER CROSS N N CLR 0-:TURN 01 NONE 0 STRGHT 02 CITY Sat TIGARD C 0 SW PACIFIC HY 99W CN IRF SIGNAL N DRY TURN PRVTE NE SW 0.00 00 11P PORTLAND UA 9.64 SW WALNUT ST 01 0 N DLIT INJ PSNGR CAR Cl DRVR INJB 29 F OR-Y 000 000 00 OR<25 02 PSNG INJB 13 F 000 000 00 02 NONE 0 TORN-L PRVTE SW NW COC 00 1 PSNGR CAR 01 DRUB INJ1 18 N OR-Y 004,028 00C C2 OR<25 I. 02 PSNG INJO 00 F 000 000 00 C 0 '3 1 . C CND C::111/ I 025380 1/15/2015 OREGON DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPIRTATION - TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT DIVISION PAGE: 5 TRANSPORTATION DATA SECTION - CRASH ANALYSIS AN: REPORTINS UNIT CONTTNTDUR RYSITEX CRASH LISTING 091 PACIFIC HIGHWAY WEST OR SOW Pacific Highway a SW Wals,..:. Sireei SW Wal-.: rIsse January I, 2.0.0 I-r,rogh GAGAT.n.Ar SI, 70L3 R n P R S W RUM FC LNG-GIF 5100 URE EAUCO DATE COUNTY COMPNT CONN * RD CHAP. :MEDIAN) INT-REL OFFRD WTHR CRASH TYR [PIP STY M.0.v1 A 0 SEP* ELGHR DAY CITY HOG TSP FIRST STREET DIRECT LEGS TRAF- RNOBT SURF COLL TO? IWNER FPSX FRIT INS C E LIONS FED INVEST 0-CSL0 TIME URBAN AREA MOCEPXT SECOND STREET TODTN (PLANES1 ONTO DRVWY LIGHT SVRTY V. TEH TYRE IC FE TYPE SOFTY E X RES LCC ERRCI. ATTN EVENT _ CAUSE 07255 N N N N N 12/12/20:3 WASHINGTCN 1 :4 INTER CEOSS N N RAIN 7-150051 Cl NONE 0 TYPO-1 013 02 CITY Thu 530000 0 C. SW PACIFIC HY 9185 CN TRF SIGNAL N WET TURN P50-TI SW NW COC 013 CC 2? PORTAND OA 9.64 SW WAINOT ST 1.1 0 N DAY PLO i7,SF. CAS 0.. DRTF, NONE I., F CR-S 028 CIO C2 CP.,21. CL NONE 01007400 PROSE NE Ci? 000 01 0:11101 CAF 1: IHS'N NONE 42 H np,--t 000 no 00 OR<20 :: NGNE 0 STOP PRVTE SW NE 012 00 51000 015? LT SA.06, 11.= 63 M CR-T CII 000 00 I OR.<12S 07340 N N N N N 12/18/2013 WASHINGTON 1 14 INTER CROSS N N (-:L.2. 0-1.1-0P.!: 71 %.1%1 ,:. 17.:00440 02 CITY Wed TTGAPS 0 0 SW PACIFIC HY 99W ON OPT =MAI N DRY TCRN FROZE NE SW 000 00 5F VORTLAND UA 9..64 SW WALNUT ST Cl _ : N DLIT PDT PRNGR CAN DI DRTN. NINE fl, F :.F.-Y COD 000 00 a7,.<25 22 NINE G OURN-L RR= SW NW COO 00 ESNSR CAR. 0: OBvF. NONE EB X GR-Y 028 000 02 OF.<25 03863 N SN 06/10/2009 WASHINGTON I 14 INTER CROSS N N COO S-STRCHT I: ONYX A 217,180 04 so APT Hl,, TIGARD C 0 SW PACIFIC HY 99W CN 0-IRS-SOC N 'SN? SZ-:: PROSE SW NE 020 00 I 125 PORTLAND UA 5.54 SW WALNUT PL 02 C. N 050 05 IGNGR CAR CI 550? NONE 55 M OR-S 003 COO 14 SR. 2t:. 02 1::: 8 : IONSET , SW NE 5')0 00 PSNGR TAR 01 0517.14 INJC 48 M OR-Y CGS OCC 00 • SR<26 02 PINS INJO 49 F 000 000 GO 01578 YNNNN03)27/2012 WASHINGTON 1. 14 INTER, CROSS N N CLR S-OTHER 0.1 NONE 0 TORN-12 004 07 ' CITY Tue TIGARD 0 0 SW PATIFIT HY 998 CN TRF SIGNAL N DRY TORN PRWIE SE SW LOU 00 10P PORTLAND TA 9.54 SW WALNUT IT 03 0 N COOT FTC 03N5R CAR CO DRVR. NONE A M SUSP 047,026 00C 07 . 02 NONE C TURN-L I PROOF SE SW CI! 004 00 , ?INC? CAR 01 DRY? NONE 28 M OR-S CCC CCU 00 CR,25 03982 N 14.N N N 01/23/2013 WASHINGTON 1 14 INTER CRCSS N N CLR ANGL-OTH 01 NONE 0 RTRGHT 013 04 CITY rue TIGARD 0 0 SW PACIFIC HY 99W TN ORE SIGNAL. N CRY ANSI. PRVTE SW NE 000 CO 5P PORTLAND VA 9,64 SW WAINCG ST C4 0 N DAY :N2 PSNGR CAR 01 OF?? NONE OS F 00-0 120 050 04 OF.>25 02 PING. N0<5 02 F 000 000 00 1:5360 1/I5i2C15 OREGON DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION - TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT DIVISION PAGE_ 6 TRANSPORTATION DATA SECTION - CRASH ANALYSIS AND REPORTING UNIT CONTINUOUS SYSTEM CRASH LISTING 091 PACIFIC HIGHWAY WEST OR 99W Pacific Higbway A SW Wa-Fpt Street / SW Walnut Place Jam0ary I, 2009 throgh December 31, 2013 S P R 5 W RUN FC INT-TYP ..PCL USE E A U 0 DATE COUNTY COMPNT CONN N RD CHAR ;MEDIAN) INT-REL OFFRC WT:HR CRASH TYR .RLR QTY MOVE A S SERO ELGHR DAY CITY MLD TYP FIRST STREET DIRECT LEGS TRAF- RNDBT SURF COLL 7YP OWNER FROM PRTC INJ G E L1CNS FED INVEST D C 5 L K TIME URBAN AREA MILEPN'I SECOND STREET LOCTN (PLANES) CNTL DRVWY LIGHT SVR.TY VS VEH TYPE TO Pt TYPE BUSTY F X Pis LOC ERROR ACTN EVENT CAUSE 02 NONE 0 SSTRGHL PRVTE NW SE 000 00 ?SNOB CAR 01 (PUP NONE 32 F 0TH-Y OCG 000 00 I N-REE 03 NONE C TURN-L PRVTE NW NE CCD 013 00 PSNGR CAR Cl URNS INJB 34 F OR-Y 000 CCC 00 UR<25 02 PSNG INJB 20 F 000 000 DO 14 NONE 0 STOP PRVTE NE SW 022 C13 Cl PENGR CAR Cl DRVR NONE 21 F OTH-Y ICC 000 00 N-REE 02 PENG NO<5 02 M 000 000 IC 05 NONE 0 GTO? PRVTE NE SW 011 00 PSNGR CAP Cl ORVR NONE 44 M UP-S 000 00C CC OR>25 C 0 t:::, Q , knEGCN DEPARTMENT IF 7RANSPDE7AT1LN - 71:ANSPHTATICIN VEVELOPMENT DPRUINN PAGE: 1 TRANSP2;RTA77.7;ti DATA GECTION - cRAnm ANALYOIS AN: REPPE7TN1, '.RAN NON-SYSTEM CRAS:i LISTING NP 99W Pacific Hrghway I SW Walnu, IN Ea lr,z P1 4ce JanuErE 1, 20CP 1-,-,gh C.e,emter 11, 2.313 INT-TYP SPCL USE INT-PEL OFF-RD WTHR CRASH TYR TRIP ';.TY MUTE A E , Ti-RE- E:1ET ErEE COLT TSP 2ANEIP FRIIM PRET TNL G F LTCNS ?En ;; ; . ; TEENY c Tii NIp NT HO TYPE INLETS ' S PES TNT ERACR ACTN EVENT CAUSE _NJLP -LTCPN El NONE 0 STRGHT UNITE NE SW CCC CC N CAF INN HINGE CAR SI DRVR CULT 13 F OH-S EEO OCC nR.:25 72 NONE C PRVTE 14 NW USE CC PSNGR CAP CI 2R.::31 F CR-Y T2C.OI4 NUT C4 OFUNL CDS150 01115/2015 OREGON DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION-TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT DIVISION PAGE: 1 TRANSPORTATION DATA SECTION-CRASH ANALYSIS AND REPORTING UNIT CRASH SUMMARIES BY YEAR BY COLLISION TYPE OR 99W Pacific Highway&SW Walnut Street i SW Walnut Place January 1,2009 throgh December 31,2013 NON- PROPERTY INTER- FATAL FATAL DAMAGE TOTAL PEOPLE PEOPLE DRY WET INTER- SECTION OFF- COLLISION TYPE CRASHES CRASHES ONLY CRASHES KILLED INJURED TRUCKS SURF SURF DAY DARK SECTION RELATED ROAD YEAR: 2013 ANGLE 0 1 0 1 0 2 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 FIXED 1 OTHER OBJECT 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 REAR-END 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 1 1 2 0 2 0 0 TURNING MOVEMENTS 0 2 3 5 0 6 0 4 1 2 3 5 0 0 2013 TOTAL 0 4 5 9 0 9 0 6 3 6 3 9 0 1 YEAR: 2012 REAR-END 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 2 0 0 SIDESWIPE-OVERTAKING 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 TURNING MOVEMENTS 0 1 3 4 0 3 0 3 1 3 1 4 0 0 2012 TOTAL 0 1 6 7 0 3 0 5 1 6 1 7 0 0 YEAR: 2011 HEAD-ON 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 TURNING MOVEMENTS 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 2011 TOTAL 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 2 0 1 1 2 0 0 YEAR: 2010 REAR-END 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 TURNING MOVEMENTS 0 3 1 4 0 3 0 4 0 3 1 4 0 0 2010 TOTAL 0 4 1 5 0 4 0 4 0 3 2 5 0 0 YEAR: 2009 REAR-END 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 SIDESWIPE-OVERTAKING 0 1 1 2 0 2 1 1 0 2 0 2 0 0 TURNING MOVEMENTS 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 2009 TOTAL 0 1 3 4 0 2 1 3 0 4 0 4 0 0 FINAL TOTAL 0 10 17 27 0 18 1 20 4 20 7 27 0 1 Disclaimer: A higher number of crashes may be reported as of 2011 compared to prior years. This does not reflect an increase in annual crashes. The higher numbers result from a change to an internal departmental process that allows the Crash Analysis and Reporting Unit to add previously unavailable, non-fatal crash reports to the annual data file. Please be aware of this change when comparing pre-2011 crash statistics. 0 CDS390 1/15/2015 OREGON CE?ARTMEST OF CRANSPCR^.ATION - TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT DIVISION PAGE; 1 TRANSPORTATION DATA SECTION - CRASH ANALYSIS AND REPORTING UNIT CONTINUOUS SYSTEM, CRASH LISTING 091 PACIFIC HIGHWAY WEST OR 99W Pacific Highway 6 SW Schorl Street January 1, 2009 throgh December 31, 2913 S C P ROW RIP FC INT-TYP SPCL USE FAU C C DATE COUNTY COMPNT _0530 t RC CHAR ,"MOIAN) INT-REL OFFRD W.HR CRASH '? TRLF OTT MOVE A S SER♦ ELGHR DAY CITY MLG TY? FIRST STREET DIRECT LEGS TRAF- RNDST SURF COLL `-_ OWNER FROM ?RTC INT C E LICNS FED INVEST 0CS L K TIME URBAN AREA `SILEPNT SECOND STREET LOCTN {PLANES) NTL DRVWY L_GHT SV-_Y :'t VEH TYPE TO P$ TYPE SVR"."_' E X RES LOC ERROR ACTH -'Ct""' CAUSE _ 06435 NNNNIN 11/16/2011 WASHINGTON _4 INTER 3-LEG N N RAIN PE- I: NONE G 'TURN-R 02,19 CITY Wed TIGARD 0 C SW PACIFIC HY 99W NW STOP SIGN N MET PSI PRVTE NW SW O15 00 4P PORTLAND CA 9.83 SW SCHOOL ST 06 0 N TIlE 151 PSNGP CAR 01 DRVR NONE '3 M CR-Y 229 OCC 02 CR:22 STRGHT 01 PEO INeC 74 F 67 :700 C$8 i9 SW NE • • • i I Ili I II � I CDS150 01/15/2015 OREGON DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION-TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT DIVISION PAGE: 1 TRANSPORTATION DATA SECTION-CRASH ANALYSIS AND REPORTING UNIT CRASH SUMMARIES BY YEAR BY COLLISION TYPE OR 99W Pacific Highway&SW School Street January 1,2009 throgh December 31,2013 NON- PROPERTY INTER- FATAL FATAL DAMAGE TOTAL PEOPLE PEOPLE DRY WET INTER- SECTION OFF- COLLISION TYPE CRASHES CRASHES ONLY CRASHES KILLED INJURED TRUCKS SURF SURF DAY DARK SECTION RELATED ROAD YEAR: 2011 PEDESTRIAN 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 2011 TOTAL 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 FINAL TOTAL 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 Disclaimer: A higher number of crashes may be reported as of 2011 compared to prior years. This does not reflect an increase in annual crashes. The higher numbers result from a change to an internal departmental process that allows the Crash Analysis and Reporting Unit to add previously unavailable, non-fatal crash reports to the annual data file. Please be aware of this change when comparing pre-2011 crash statistics. N PAGE: - --.--.- 005380 1/.15'2015 CREGON DEPARTMENT CF TRANSPORTATION - TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT TIVISION PAGE: 2 TRANSPORTATION DATA SECTION - CRASH ANALYSIS AND REPORTING GNI: CONTIINTOLIS SYSTEM, CRASH LISTING 091 PACIFIC HIGHWAY WEST OR 99W Pac_f_c Highway & SW Park Street January 1, 2009 thregh December 31, 2013 S U P R°S W RDi FT INT-TYP SPCL USE E AUC 0 DATE 030NCY COMPNT CONN 4 R1 CHAR ;MEDIAN) INT-RFS OFFRO WTHR CRASH TIP TALK QTY MOVE A _. SER/ E LGH R DAY CITY MLG TSP FIRST STREET DIRECT LEGS TRAY- RNDHT SURF COLL TYP OWNER FROM PROC IN0 G E LIONS PED INVEST DCS L K TIME CREAN AREA MILEPNT SECOND STREET 1OCTN (YLANES) CNTL DROSS L:GHI SVRTY V4 VEH TYPE TO PA TYPE S✓RTY D X RES LOC ERROR ACTN EVENT CAUSE 0'+722 N N N N N 09/10/2112 WASHINGTON 1 14 INTER 3-LEG N N WA.:N S-1STOP 01 NONE 0 STRGHT 07 CITY Mon TIGARD 0 0 SW PACIFIC HY 99W SW TRF SIGNAL N WET REAR PRVTE SW NE 000 CO TA PORTLAND UA 9.91 SW PARK ST 06 0 N DAY INJ PENCE CAR Cl DRVR NONE 31 M OR-Y 026 000 07 OR<25 02 NONE C STOP PRVTE SW NE 111 04 P0008 CAR 01 DRVR 1NJC 63 M OR-Y 000 1044 00 OR>25 COC70 NNNNN 01/07/2010 WASHINGTON _ 14 INTER 3-LEG N N CLD 0-ITTCRN 01 NONE 0 STRGHT 053,040 04 CITY Thu TIGARD 0 G SW PACIFIC HY 9910 CN TRY SIGNA:. N OR? TURN ?ROTE NE SW 000 053,040 00 2P PORTLAND JA 9.91 SW PARK ST 01 1 N DAY INJ SONGS CAR 01 DRVR OSJR 57 F CR-Y 097 000 00 JR<25 02 NONE C TORN-_ PRVTE SW W CCI 040 00 PSNGR CAR CI DRVR. INJC 29 M OR-Y 097 CCC 00 DR<25 05626 N.N N N N 10/21/2010 WASHINGTON 1 14 INTER 3-LEG N N CLR O-:TURN 01 NONL 0 STRGHT 02 NO RPT Thu TIGARD 0 0 SW PACIFIC HY 99W CN TRY SIGNAL N OR? TURN PRVTE NE SW 004 00 OR PORTLAND UA 9.91 SW PARK ST 01. 0 N DUSK PDO ?SNGR CAR 01 DRVR. NONE 43 M 04-Y OCC 000 00 OR<25 02 NONE C TURN-L PRVTE SW W 000 00 PSNGR CAR 01 DRVR NONE 24 F GR-Y 004,026. CCI 02 OR<25 00350 NNNNN 01/2C/2011 WASHINGTON 1 14 IN:ER 3-LEG N N CLR 0-1TUP:N _I NONE 0 TURN-I. 02 CITY Thu TIGARD C 0 SW PACIFIC NY 99W ON TRF SIGNAL N DRY TURN PRVTE SW W 000 00 6? PORTLAND UA 9.91 SW PARK 37 01 1 N IL:T INC PSNGR CAR 01 IRON INJC 54 F OR-Y 004,926 000 02 OR<25 02 NONE C STRGHT PRVTE NE SW 010 00 PSNGR CAP. 0: DRVR NONE 42 M OR-Y 000 040 00 0R<25 04939 NNNNN 09(19./2010 WASHINGTON 1 14 INTER. 3-LEG N N OLD ANLL-0141 01 NONE. C STRGHT 04,27 CITY Our, TIGARD 0 0 SW PACIFIC HY 3910 Cl] TRF SIGNAL N DRY ANLL PRVTE SW NE 000 00 SA PORTLAND UA 9.91 SW PARK ST 04 0 N DLIT 1NJ PSNGR CAR 01 !RVR NONE 33 91 OR-Y 020,016 035 04,27 OR<25 02 LONG IN.T9 46 F 000 000 00 02 NONE C STRGHT PRVTE W F. 019 GC PSNIR OAR 01 DRVR INJC 56 1 CR-Y 000 000 CO CR<25 02 P5NG INJB 16 F 300 00C 00 CI: 0 r':::!1 CDS150Oi X015 OREGON DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTAT TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT DIVISION AGE 1 TRANSPORTATION DATA SECTION-\.,rASH ANALYSIS AND REPORTING UNIT CRASH SUMMARIES BY YEAR BY COLLISION TYPE OR 99W Pacific Highway 8 SW Park Street January 1, 2009 throgh December 31,2013 NON- PROPERTY INTER- FATAL FATAL DAMAGE TOTAL PEOPLE PEOPLE DRY WET INTER- SECTION OFF- COLLISION TYPE CRASHES CRASHES ONLY CRASHES KILLED INJURED TRUCKS SURF SURF DAY DARK SECTION RELATED ROAD YEAR_ 2013 REAR-END 0 1 0 1 0 2 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 2013 TOTAL 0 1 0 1 0 2 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 YEAR: 2012 REAR-END 0 2 2 4 0 4 0 1 2 2 2 4 0 0 2012 TOTAL 0 2 2 4 0 4 0 1 2 2 2 4 0 0 YEAR: 2011 TURNING MOVEMENTS 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 C 1 1 0 0 2011 TOTAL 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 C 1 1 0 0 YEAR: 2010 ANGLE 0 1 0 1 0 3 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 REAR-END 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 TURNING MOVEMENTS 0 1 1 2 0 2 0 2 0 1 1 2 0 0 2010 TOTAL 0 3 1 4 0 6 0 3 1 1 3 4 0 0 FINAL TOTAL 0 7 3 10 0 13 0 6 3 4 6 10 0 0 Disclaimer: A higher number of crashes may be reported as of 2011 compared to prior years. This does not reflect an increase in annual crashes. The higher numbers result from a change to an internal departmental process that allows the Crash Analysis and Reporting Unit to add previously unavailable,non-fatal crash reports to the annual data file. Please be aware of this change when comparing pre-2011 crash statistics. CDS380 1/15/2015 OREGON DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION - TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT DIVISION PAGE: 1 TRANSPORTATION DATA SECTION - CRASH ANALYSIS ANC REPORTING UNIT CONTINUOUS SYSTEM CRASH LISTING 091 PACIFIC HIGHWAY WEST CR 99W Pacific Highway 4 SW Park Road January 1, 2009 tkrcg:o December 31, 2013 S ❑ P RSW RDI FC INT-TYP SPCL USE. E AUC 0 DATE COUNTY COMPNT CONN I RD CHAR IMEDIAN} INT-REL OFPRD WTHR CRASH TYP TRLR QTY MOVE A S SERI ELGHR DAY CITY MLG TIP FIRST STREET DIRECT LEGS TRAF- RNDHT SURF COLL T._ v OWNER FROM PRTC INJ G E LIONS PED INVEST DCSLK TIME URBAN AREA MILEPNT SECOND STREET LOCTN IILANESI CNTL DRVWY LIGHTT SVRTY VI VEH TYPE TO Pr TYPE SVRTY E X RES LOC ERROR _. ACTN EVENT CAUSE 00634 N N N 02/05/2012 WASHINGTON 1 14 INTER 3-LEG N N UNK S-1STOP Cl NONE 0 STRGHT 07 NO RPT Sun TIGARD I 0 SW PACIFIC HY 999 NE TRF SIGNAL N UNK REAR TURN NE SW 000 00 7P PORTLAND OA. 9.91 SW PARK ST 06 0 N DLI1 PUO PSNGR CAR. 01 DRVS. NONE 51 M OR-Y 026 COO 07 OR<25 02 NONE 0 OTC? PRVTE NE SW Cli 00 PSNGR CAR 01 DRVR NONE 22 N OR-Y 000 CCC 00 OR<2 01343 Y N N 03/14/2012 WASHINGTON 1 14 INTER CROSS N N RAIN S-1STOP Dl UNY.N 0 STRGHT 01 ' NONE Wed TIGARD 0 0 SW PACIFIC HY 99W NE TRF SIGNAL N WET REAR PRVTE NE SW COO 00 1P PORTLAND UA 9.91 SW PARK ST 06 1 N DAY P❑0 UNKNOWN Cl DRVR NONE 22 M OR-Y 047,026 000 01 OR<25 I 02 NONE C STOP PRVTE NE SW 011 CC PSNGR CAR CI DRVR NONE 35 F UNK 000 000 00 CR<25 06846 N N N 11/25/2013 WASHINGTON 1 14 INTER 3-LEG N N CLR S-ISTOP 01 NONE 0 STRGHT 07 NONE Man TIGARD 0 0 SW PACIFIC HY 99W NE TRF SIGNAL N DRY REAR PRVTE ME SW 00C 00 11A PORTLAND TA 9.91 SW PARR ST C6 1 N DAY 1NJ PSNGR CAR C1 DRVR NONE 26 M CR-Y 026 000 07 OR>25 12 NONE 0 STOP PRVTE NE SW 011 00 PSNGR CAR 01 DRVR INJC 32 M OR-S 000 CID CC CR<25 02 PING INJC 63 F 000 CCC CO I 75682 NNNNN 10/23/2010 WASHINGTON I 14 INTER 3-LEG N N RAIN S-1STOP 0: NONE 0 STRGHT 07 CITY Sat TIGARD 0 0 SW PACIFIC HY 99W SW TRF SIGNAL N WET REAR PRVTE SW NE OCC 00 5? PORTLAND TA 9.91 SW PARE ST 06 0 N DUSK INJ PSNGR CAR 01 ORVR NONE 00 M OR-Y 043 000 07 OR-? 02 NONE 0 STOP PRVTE SW NE 011 00 PSNGR CAR 01 DRVR INJC 50 M OTH-Y 000 500 00 N-RES 02506 NNNNN 05/15/20:2 WASHINGTON 1 14 INTER 3-LEG N N CLR S-1STUP 01 NONE 0 STRGHT 07 CITY Tue TIGARD 0 C SW PACIFIC HY 99W SW TR_ SIGNAL N DRY REAR PRVTE SW NE CC1 OC 9F PORTLAND DA 9.91 SW PARK ST 06 0 N DLIT INJ PSNGR CAR 01 DRVR INJC 24 M NONE 043,026 000 07 OR<25 02 NONE 0 STCP PRVTE SW NE 011 00 PSNGR CAR 01 TRVR IEJC 41 FOR-Y 000 000 CO OR<25 02 PING INJC 12 M 001 000 00 11(::: ID 3 , C 0 (11:0 CDS380 1/15/2015 OREGON DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION - TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT DIVISION PAGE: 2 TRANSPORTATION DATA SECTION - CRASH ANALYSTS AND REPORTING UNIT CONTINUOUS SYSTEM CRASH LISTING 091 PACIFIC HIGHWAY WEST OR 99W Pacific Highway 6 SW Park. Road January 1, 2009 throgh December 31, 2013 5 D P RSW RDH FC INT-TYP SPCL USE EAUCO DATE COUNTY COMPNT CONN 4 RD CHAR :MEDIAN) INT-REL OFFRD WTHR CRASH TYP TRLR QTY MOVE A S I SER# ELGHR DAY CITY MLG TYP FIRS: STREET DIRECT LEGS TRAP- MST SURF COLL TYP OWNER RROR PRTC INT G E LICNS FED INVEST 0 C S L K TIME URBAN AREA MILEPNT _ SECOND STREET _LOCTN :#LANES) CNTL DRVWY LIGHT SVRTY V9 VEH TYPE TO PH TYPE S,VRTY E X RES LOC ERROR ACTN EVENT CAUSE 07722 NNNNN 09/10/2012 WASHINGTON I 14 INTER 3-LEG N N RAIN 5-:STOP 01 NONE 0 STRGHT 07 , ' CITY Mon TIGARD 0 0 SW PACIFIC HY 99W SW TRF SIGNAL N WET REAR PRVTE SW NE 000 00 7A PORTLAND ISA 9.91 SW PARR ST C6 C N DAY IN.] PSNGR CAR 01 DRVR NONE 31 M OR-Y 026 000 07 OR<25 02 NONE 0 STOP PRVTE SW NE 01 00 ` PSNGR CAR 01 DRVR INJ.0 63 M OR-Y 007 000 00 OR>25 00070 NNNNN 01/07/2010 WASHINGTON 1 14 INTER 3-LEG N N CLD 0-:TURN 01 NONE 0 STRGHT 053,040 04 CITY Thu TIGARD 0 0 SW PACIFIC HY 99W CN IRE SIGNAL N DRY TURN PRVTE NE SW 000 053,040 00 2P PORTLAND UA 9.91 SW PARK ST 01 1 N DAY INS PSNGR CAR 0: DRVR INJS 67 F OR-Y 097 001 00 OR<25 02 NONE C TURN-L PRVTE SW W 000 040 00 PSNGR CAR 01 DRVR 19120 29 M OP-Y 097 000 CC OR<25 0562£ NNNNN 10/21/2010 WASHINGTON 1 14 INTER 3-LEG N N CLR 0-1TURN 01 NONE 0 STRGHT C2 NO RPT Thu TIGARD 0 0 SW PACIFIC HY 99W CN 'IRE SIGNAL N DRY TURN PRVTE N.E. SW 000 00 6P PORTLAND UA 9.91 SW PARK ST CI 0 N DUSK PDC FSNGR CAR 01 DRVR NONE 43 M OR-Y. CII 000 CC OR<25 02 NONE 0 TORN-L PRVTE SW W 000 00 PSNGR CAR 01 DRVR NONE 24 F OR-Y C04,028 000 02 , OR<25 00350 NNNNN 01/20/2011 WASHINGTON 1 14 INTER 3-LEG N N CLR 0-1TURN 0I NONE 0 TURN-I. 02 CITY Thu TIGARD 0 0 SW PACIFIC HY 99W CN TRF SIGNAL N DRY TURN PRVTE SW W 000 CO 6P PORTLAND UA 9.91 SW PARK ST 01 1 N DLII :NJ PSNGR OAR 01 DRVR INJC 64 F OR-Y 404,028 000 02 OR<25 02 NONE 0 STRGHT PRVTE NY SW COO 00 PSNGR CAR 01 DRVR NONE 42 M OR-Y: 000 000 CC OR<25 04939 N N N N N 09/19/2010 WASHINGTON _ :4 INTER 3-LEG N N OLD ANLL-OTA OI NONE C STRGHT 04,27 CITY Sun TIGARD �0 C SW PACIFIC HY 99W CN TRF SIGNAL N DRY ANLL PRVTE SW NE 000 00 5A PORTLAND CA 9.91 SW PARK ST 04 0 N DLIT !NJ PSNGR CAR 01 DRVR NONE 33 M OR-I 020,016 030 04.,27 0R<25 C2 POND INJ'S 46 F 000 000 00 12 NONE 0 STRGHT PRVTE W E 019 00 PSNGR CAR 01 DRVR. INTO 55 M OR-Y 000 000 00 1 OR<25 02 P'99)5 13153 18 F 000 000 00 CDS150 01/15/2015 OREGON DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION-TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT DIVISION PAGE: 1 TRANSPORTATION DATA SECTION-CRASH ANALYSIS AND REPORTING UNIT CRASH SUMMARIES BY YEAR BY COLLISION TYPE OR 99W Pacific Highway&SW Park Road January 1,2009 throgh December 31,2013 NON- PROPERTY INTER- FATAL FATAL DAMAGE TOTAL PEOPLE PEOPLE DRY WET INTER- SECTION OFF- COLLISION TYPE CRASHES CRASHES ONLY CRASHES KILLED INJURED TRUCKS SURF SURF DAY DARK SECTION RELATED ROAD YEAR: 2013 REAR-END 0 1 0 1 0 2 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 2013 TOTAL 0 1 0 1 0 2 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 YEAR: 2012 REAR-END 0 2 2 4 0 4 0 1 2 2 2 4 0 0 2012 TOTAL 0 2 2 4 0 4 0 1 2 2 2 4 0 0 YEAR: 2011 TURNING MOVEMENTS 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 2011 TOTAL 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 YEAR: 2010 ANGLE 0 1 0 1 0 3 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 REAR-END 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 TURNING MOVEMENTS 0 1 1 2 0 2 0 2 0 1 1 2 0 0 2010 TOTAL 0 3 1 4 0 6 0 3 1 1 3 4 0 0 FINAL TOTAL 0 7 3 10 0 13 0 6 3 4 6 10 0 0 Disclaimer: A higher number of crashes may be reported as of 2011 compared to prior years. This does not reflect an increase in annual crashes. The higher numbers result from a change to an internal departmental process that allows the Crash Analysis and Reporting Unit to add previously unavailable,non-fatal crash reports to the annual data file. Please be aware of this change when comparing pre-2011 crash statistics. f 0 CD5390 1/15/2015 OREGON DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPERTATION - TRANSPORTATICV OEVELOPMENT 21VISTON PAGE: i TRANSPORTATION LATA SECTION - CRASH ANALYSIS AND REPORTING UNIT CONTINUOUS SYSTEM CRASH LISTING 091 FA:' r• HIGHWAY WES- 09 99W Rao.'.- Haqaway 6 SW Garrett Street :anger'? 1, 2009 throgh December 31, 2013 3 2 P R S W RD* PC INT-TIP SPOT USE EARCO DATE TCVNTY 2OXENT CONN ft RD CHAR (MED:AN) INT-REL 2FFRO WTHR ORASH TYP TRL9 OTY MOVE A S SER.* ELGHR DAY CITY NLG TY? FIRST STREET DIRECT LEGS 057.0- R10:37 SURF COLL TYP OWNER FROM ?FTC 1110 2 E L:CNS F10 INVEST 2CSLF TIME URBAN AREA MILEPNT SECOND STREET LOOTN (OLANE() CNTL ERVNY TIGHT SVRTY V* VEH TYPE TO PO TYPE SVRTY E X RES 20C ERROR _ ACTN EVENT CASSE 02323 N N N 015/19/2119 WASHINGTON 1 ;4 1N1E9 CROSS N N RAIN 0-STRGHT 01 UNKN S STRGHT 050 Cl NONE Tue TIGARD C 5 SW GARRETT ST NE TRY SIGNAL N 901 SS-M 1./MEN SW NE 1I5 050 00 3? ?c,RTLAN: 115 9.63 SW PACIFIC HY 99W 06 0 N :AY RDO PSNGR CAR 01 DRVR NONE OC N :FRY 040,060 000 Ot OR,: 02 NONE I STR237 I FACTS NE 231 CSC 00 PENG? CAR 01 SAYS NONE 3E M 5:P-1 CCC 000 00 TR.(28 0801 NN1INN 10/19/201: WASHINGTON 1 14 INCE? 3-LEG N N CLP 5-1STOP ill NONE S STRGH7 07 CITY Wed TIGAR2 0 0 SW GANNETT ST SW TRY SIGNAL N DRY REAR PRVTE SW NE 00C 00 60 PORTLAND UA 9.93 SW 95075:C HY 805 06 0 N EUTT EDO PSNGR CAR 01 DRVR NONE 76 M CR-Y 043,026 CCC 07 OR<29 I CO NONE 0 STOP FIRVTE SW NE 011 00 FSN.SR CAR 0: DOVE NONE 27 N 09-Y ISO CU, II CR‹25 05253 N ION 09/18/2013 WASHINGTON 1 14 INTER 3-LEG N N CIR. 51-13TOP Cl. NONE 0 STRGHT 07 NONE Wed TIGARC C 0 SW GARRETT ST SW IRE SIGNAL N ORY REAR PRVTE SW NE 000 00 EP PORTLAND VA 9.83 SW PACIFIC HY 9951 CR C N DAY PDC 7510.15 CAR 01 IST'? NOTE 00 N OR-Y 026 000 07 019,25 1:-,2 N=E 0 STOP PANTS SW NE 011 00 PSNOR CAR 111 15.38. NONE 53 F OR-S 000 000 00 OR.:25 I 00965 N N N 02/28/2009 WASHINGTON I 14 INTER 3-LEG N N 7.1,7. ANGL-ICH 10 1110511 0 TURN-I 02 NONE Sat TIGARD 0 5 SW GARRETT ST CN STOP SIGN N ERN TORI; =ON SE SW 015 OU IP PORTLAND TA 9.83 SW PACIFIC HY 99W 02 6 N DAY PDO PSNCR CAR II DRVR NONE 00 M uNF 028 000 02 UNE IC NONAL 0 STRGHT FACTS SW NE 106 CC 0505 eas Cl NRVR 10750 41 81 013-Y CDC 000 50 00420 02762 N N N 06/09/2019 8959151 SON 1 14 INTER 3-LEG N N CLR ANGL-OTO Cl NONE D 1-5RN-S 02 NC 8/7 Tue TIGARD C 0 SW GARRETT ST IN THE SIGNAL N DRY TURN ?FITS SE NE 0:0 00 2A ponTLANT 177. 3.03 Sw PA0IF10 HY 998 02 0 S DLI: 20.1 0.5N2R OAR 01 DRVR NONE 40 M OPRY 0213 000 02 OR.<21t 12 NONE 1 STRGHT PRVIN EX ME CIO IC SEM: 729 01 DRVR NONE 52 M 013.-1Y 000 CCI. 00 09923 • 01091 NNNN1403/06/2010 WASHINGTON 1. 14 INTER 3-7E5 x N CLR ANVL-OTH 51 NONE 0 STRGHT 04 1 CITY Sat T.:GARD 0 0 SW GARRETT ST CN 7FF SIGNAL N DRY TURN PR= SW NE 000 CC 9? PORTLAND DA 9.83 SW PACIFIC HY 99W 02 0 N DLIT PDC PS= CAR Ci DRVR NONE 63 M OR-Y 000 000 SC 07.410 1 , • 065380 1/15/2015 OREGON DEPARTMENT CF TRANSPORTATION - TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT DIVISION PAGE; 2 TRANSPORTATION DATA SECTION - CRASH ANALYSIS AND REPORTING UNIT_ CONTINUOUS SYSTEM CRASH LISTING 091 PACIFIC HIGHWAY WEST OR SOW Pacific Highway 6 SW Garrett Street January 1, 2009 throgh December 31, 2013 S P HEW RDW FC INT-TYP SAM. USE S AUC 0 DATE COUNTY COMPNT CONN Y RD CHAR ;MEDIAN) TNT-REL OFFRD WINS CRASH TYP TRLR QTY MOVE A S SERV E LGH R DAY CITY MEN TYP FIRST STREET DIRECT LEGS TRAP- RNDBT,SURF COIL TYP OWNER FROM ?RTC INJ G E LIONS POD INVEST D C S L R TIME URBAN AREA MILEPYT SECOND STREET LOOTS MANES, CNTL DRVWY LIGHT SVRTY V* VON TYPE TC PH TYPE SVRTY E X RES LOC ERROR ACTN EVENT CAUSE 02 NONE 0 TORN-L PRVTE SE SW 000 00 55NGR CAR 01 DRVR NONE 4C M OR-Y 020 000 04 OR<25 00182 N N N N N 01/11/201: WASHINGTON 1 14 INTER 3-LEG N N RAIN ANGL-CDH 0: NONE 0 TURN-L 02 CITY Tue TIGARD 0 0 SW GARRETT ST ON TRE SIGNAL N WET TORN SAUTE SE SW 016 CC 7P PORTLAND UR 9.83 SW PACIFIC HY 99W 02 0 N DLIT INJ PSNGR CAR 01 DRVR NONE 61 M OR-Y. 028 00C 02 05<25 02 NONE 0 STRGHT PRVTE SW NE 000 CO PSNGR CAR Cl DRVR INJC 51 M OR-Y 000 000 00 OR>25 01247 N N N NN 03/11/2.012 WASHINGTON I 14 INTER 3-LEG N N RAIN ANOL-OTH 01 NONE C STRGHT 02 CITY Sun TIGARD 0 0 SW GARRETT ST ON TRF SIGNAL N WET TURN PRVTE SW NE 000 00 1A PORTLAND 'JA 9.83 SW PAC/FIC HY 99W 02 0 N DLIT POD PSNGR CAR 01 DRVR. NONE 53 M OR-Y. 000 000 00 OR<25 02 UNKN 0 TURN-A UNKN SE NE 016 00 I ONCA CAR 01 DRVR NONE 00 U LINK 028 000 02 UNE 03283 NNNNN 06/20/2012 WASHINGTON I 14 INTER 3-LEG N N OLD ANGL-0TH 01 NONE 0 STRGHT 02 CITY Tue TIGARD 0 0 SW GARRETT ST CN STOP SION N DRY :URN PRVTE SW NE CCC 00 7A PORTLAND CA 9.83 5W PACIFIC HY SOW 02 0 N DAY POO SENOR CAR 01 DRVR NONE 40 M OR-Y 000 CCC 00 OR<25 C2 NONE 0 TURN-R PRVTE SE NE 01.5 00 PSNGR CAR 11 DRVR NONE 49 F DR-Y 028 000 02 OR<25 01178 N N N N N 03/07/2013 WASHINGTON114 INTER 3-LEG N N. CLR S-STRGHT 01 NONE 0 STRGHT 27,07 CITY Thu TIGARD 0 0 SW GARRETT ST CN TRE SIGNAL N DRY REAR PRVTE SW NE COG 00 10A PORTLAND UA 9.83 SW PACIFIC HY 99W 02 0 N DAY INT SONGS CAR CI DAVR NONE 33 F OR-Y 016,043,042 038 27,07 OR<25 02 POND N0<5 02 F C00 000 CC 02 NONE 0 STRGHT PRVTE SW NE 000 00 PSNGR CAR Cl DRVR URIC 65 M CR-Y 000 000 CC CR<25 01394 N N N N N 03/25/2010 WASHINGTON 1 14 INTER 3-LEG N N OLD 0-:TURN 01 NONE C STRGHT 094 02 CITY Thu TIGARD 0 0 SW GARRETT ST CN TRF SIGNAL N WET TURN PRVTE SW NE 000 CI 2A PORTLAND 0A 9.83 SW PACIFIC HY 99W 04 0 N DLIT INT PSNGR CAR 01 DRVR INTO 45 M OR-Y 000 000 00 OR<25 C 0 0 C 0 3 I CDS380 21/5/2015 OREGON DEPARTINIENT OF TRANSPORTATION - TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT DIV1STGN PAGE: 3 TRANSPORTATION DATA SECTION - CRASH ANALYSIS AND REPORTING CONTINUOUS SYSTEM! CRASH LISTING C91 PACIFIC HIGHWAY WEST OR 39W Pacific H.Hhway I SW Garrett 5__eet January 1, 200'3 thrnOF. Dereaber 21, 2013 S D P 5 N RD6 FC INT-TYP SPCL USE E A 1 C 0 DATE COUNTY COMPNT CONN i RD CHAR ;MEDIAN) NT-REL OFFRD 15189 CRASH IIF TRIP 511 MOVE A S SEP* ELSHR DAY CITY MTG TYP FIRST STREET DIRECT LEGS RAF- RNORT SURF CULL TIP OWERRIl\" P1411 1N3 G E LICNS PSI INVEST D C S L K TIME URBAN AREA MTLEPNT SECOND STREET LOCIN (ALANES CNTL DRVWY LIGHT_ SURTY .♦ .c1 TYPE TC PA TYPE SVRTY 0 X RES LOC .:PROR ACTN EVENT CAUSE I 02 NONE 0 TURN-L SII PAVTE NE SE 000 00 PSNGR CAR II _7'JR NINE 16 I N-VAL 004,0:26 000 049 02 II D2 TONG INTO 16 F GR<2 a CUD 00C 00 01606 NPINNN 03/29/20:2 WASH:NSTON _ IC INTER 3-LEG N 14 RAI': _I,PN __ 13105 0 STRGUT 02 .._ � _ CITY 115: 7 C: ; _ C :W GARRET ST 'i K: s':4 + "'.SAN PR'JTE SW 1: CCI: CO 13P 6':.R._Aug IA 4.t13 SW PACIFIC HY 14915 04 , N. -_ PDO VIE 'CAR ' DRVI, .:C1% 6 CR-YF. 2 003 100 00 <,5 II _J NINEI 7.:40-1 .-_ INE SE DCI GS 95NGR CAR 01 LEVI NONE 84 F IH-'f )04.5..28 000 02 OR<2° 05786 N N N N :0/10/2013 WASHINGTON 1 14 INTER II O OLD FIX 1051 Il NONE I TURN-0 053 CE iI CITY Thu TIGARD 0. 0 SW GARRETT ST IN TIF SIGNAL N DRY FIX PRV1, NE SE CSC 053 CO 5P PORTLANC UA 9.158 SW PACIFIC HY 999W 04 1 N DAY RIO .0117 OAR Cl LAVA NONE 58 N OR-Y 001,081 110 OF i IRc25 1 II • I CDS150 01/15/2015 OREGON DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION-TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT DIVISION PAGE: 1 TRANSPORTATION DATA SECTION-CRASH ANALYSIS AND REPORTING UNIT CRASH SUMMARIES BY YEAR BY COLLISION TYPE OR 99W Pacific Highway&SW Garrett Street January 1,2009 throgh December 31,2013 NON- PROPERTY INTER- FATAL FATAL DAMAGE TOTAL PEOPLE PEOPLE DRY WET INTER- SECTION OFF- COLLISION TYPE CRASHES CRASHES ONLY CRASHES KILLED INJURED TRUCKS SURF SURF DAY DARK SECTION RELATED ROAD YEAR: 2013 FIXED/OTHER OBJECT 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 REAR-END 0 1 1 2 0 1 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 0 2013 TOTAL 0 1 2 3 0 1 0 3 0 3 0 3 0 1 YEAR: 2012 TURNING MOVEMENTS 0 0 3 3 0 0 0 1 2 1 2 3 0 0 2012 TOTAL 0 0 3 3 0 0 0 1 2 1 2 3 0 0 YEAR: 2011 REAR-END 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 TURNING MOVEMENTS 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 2011 TOTAL 0 1 1 2 0 1 0 1 1 0 2 2 0 0 YEAR: 2010 TURNING MOVEMENTS 0 1 1 2 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 2 0 0 2010 TOTAL 0 1 1 2 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 2 0 0 YEAR: 2009 SIDESWIPE-MEETING 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 TURNING MOVEMENTS 0 0 2 2 0 0 1 2 0 1 1 2 0 0 2009 TOTAL 0 0 3 3 0 0 1 2 1 2 1 3 0 0 FINAL TOTAL 0 3 10 13 0 4 1 8 5 6 7 13 0 1 Disclaimer: A higher number of crashes may be reported as of 2011 compared to prior years. This does not reflect an increase in annual crashes. The higher numbers result from a change to an internal departmental process that allows the Crash Analysis and Reporting Unit to add previously unavailable, non-fatal crash reports to the annual data file. Please be aware of this change when comparing pre-2011 crash statistics. Appendix E 2035 Background Traffic Level-Of-Service Worksheets r HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 2035 Background Traffic Weekday PM Peak 1 : SW Park St & OR 99 W 41812015 t - r `- i- 4\ t P `► 4' Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations '1 1'1~ ) rt T. 4 fi 11 T r+ Volume(veh/h) 34 1513 7 20 2393 30 7 3 21 47 3 35 Number 5 2 12 1 6 16 3 8 18 7 4 14 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1 00 1.00 0.97 0.95 0.97 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow,veh/hlln 1845 1845 1900 1845 1845 1900 1900 1881 1881 1845 1845 1845 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 35 1544 7 20 2442 31 7 3 21 48 3 0 Adj No.of Lanes 1 2 0 1 2 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Percent Heavy Veh, % 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 3 3 3 Cap,vehlh 143 2942 13 304 2894 37 110 40 106 137 128 109 Arrive On Green 0.02 0.82 0.82 0.02 0.82 0.82 0.07 0.07 0 07 0.07 0.07 0.00 Sat Row,veh/h 1757 3578 16 1757 3544 45 957 576 1523 1329 1845 1568 Grp Volume(v).vehfh 35 756 795 20 1205 1268 10 0 21 48 3 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),vehlhlln 1757 1752 1842 1757 1752 1837 1533 0 1523 1329 1845 1568 Q Serve(g_s),s 0.5 18.9 18.9 0.3 56.5 57.3 0.0 0.0 1.8 4.9 0.2 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 0.5 18.9 18,9 0.3 56.5 57.3 0.7 0.0 1.8 5.6 0.2 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.01 1.00 0.02 0.70 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 143 1441 1515 304 1431 1500 150 0 106 137 128 109 V.0 Ratio(X) 0.24 0.52 0.52 0.07 0.84 0.85 0.07 0.00 0.20 0.35 0.02 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 306 1441 1515 478 1431 1500 228 0 185 206 224 190 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(l) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 17.8 3.9 3.9 3.2 7.5 7.6 61.0 0.0 61.5 63.6 60.7 0.0 'nor Delay(d2),slveh 0.5 1.4 1.3 0.1 6.2 6.0 0.1 0.0 0.6 0.9 0.0 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),slveh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(-26165%),vehlln 0.8 9.6 10.0 0.1 29.2 30.7 0.4 0.0 0.8 1.8 0.1 0.0 LnGrp Delay(d).slveh 18.3 5.3 5.2 3.3 13.7 13.7 61.1 0.0 62.0 64.5 60.8 0.0 LnGrp LOS B A A A B B E E E E Approach Vol,vehfh 1586 2493 31 51 Approach Delay.s/veh 5.5 13.6 61.7 64.3 Approach LOS A B E E Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7' 8 Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc). s 6.2 120.1 13.7 7.0 119.3 13.7 Change Period(Y+Rc),s 4.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 16.0 94.0 17.0 16.0 94.0 17.0 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+11),s 2.3 20.9 7.6 2 5 59.3 3.8 Green Ext Time(p_c),s 0.0 72.8 0.1 0.0 34.6 0.1 Intersection Summary Ad HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 11.5 HCM 2010 LOS B H:\projfile113755-Leadership Circle Specialty Retaih005-Tigard\Synchrol13755.5-2035_PM-BGsyn Synchro 8- Report PSM Page 2 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2035 Background Traffic Weekday PM Peak 1 : SW Park St & OR 99 W 4/812015 }' - . * c t 4\ t P `- 1 d Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations ) T1a `t T1+ 4 r ) + i" Volume(vph) 34 1513 7 20 2393 30 7 3 21 47 3 35 Ideal Flow(vphp1) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 4,0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1 00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.96 1.00 1.00 0.97 Fipb, pedlbikes 1.00 1.00 1 00 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Fit Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow(pro!) 1752 3502 1752 3497 1808 1542 1723 1845 1527 Fit Permitted 0.03 1.00 0-14 1.00 0.84 1.00 0.75 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 64 3502 264 3497 1577 1542 1362 1845 1527 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Adj. Flow(vph) 35 1544 7 20 2442 31 7 3 21 48 3 36 RTOR Reduction(vph) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 0 0 34 Lane Group Flow(vph) 35 1551 0 20 2473 0 0 10 1 48 3 2 Confi. Peds. (#Ihr) 2 2 3 7 7 3 Confi. Bikes(#/hr) 2 2 Heavy Vehicles(%) 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 1% 1% 1% 3% 3% 3% Turn Type pm+pt NA pm+pt NA Perm NA Perm Perm NA Perm Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 8 4 Permitted Phases 2 6 8 8 4 4 Actuated Green. G(s) 118.9 114.7 116.7 113.6 9.2 9.2 9.2 9.2 9.2 Effective Green,g(s) 118.9 114.7 116.7 113.6 9.2 9.2 9.2 9.2 9.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.85 0.82 0.83 0.81 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 Clearance Time(s) 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.3 4.8 2.3 4,8 2,3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 104 2869 253 2837 103 101 89 121 100 vas Ratio Prot c0.01 0.44 0.00 c0.71 0.00 v/s Ratio Perm 0.27 0.06 0.01 0.00 c0.04 0.00 v/c Raba 0.34 0.54 0.08 0.87 0 10 0.01 0.54 0.02 0.02 Uniform Delay,dl 21.4 4.1 2.8 8.5 61.5 61.2 63.3 61.2 61.2 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.22 1.54 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,d2 1.1 0.7 0.0 0.4 0.2 0.0 4.1 0.0 0.1 Delay(s) 22.5 4.8 3.4 13.5 61.7 61.2 67.5 61.3 61.3 Level of Service C A A B E E E E E Approach Delay(s) 5.2 13.4 61.4 64.7 Approach LOS A B E E Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 11.7 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.83 Actuated Cycle Length(s) 140.0 Sum of lost time(s) 13.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 90.7% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period(min) 15 c Critical Lane Group H:lprojfilel13755-Leadership Circle Specialty Retail\005-Tigard\Synchro113755.5-2035_PM-BG.syn Synchro 8- Report PSM Page 1 HCM 2010 TWSC 2035 Background Traffic Weekday PM Peak 2: OR 99 W & SW School St 4/8/2015 Intersection Int Delay,siveh 0 2 Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Vol, vehlh 1 1587 2356 26 1 2 Conflicting Reds,#/hr 1 0 0 1 8 4 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length 90 - - - 0 - Veh in Median Storage,# - 0 0 - 0 - Grade,% - 0 0 - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 98 98 98 98 98 98 Heavy Vehicles.% 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 1 1619 2404 27 1 2 Major/Minor Majorl Major2 Minor2 All Conflicting Flow Ail 2439 0 - 0 3237 1224 Stage 1 - - - - 2425 - Stage 2 - - - - 812 - Critical Hdwy 4.14 - - - 6.84 6.94 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.84 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.84 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.22 - - - 3.52 3.32 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 190 - - - 7 171 Stage 1 - - - - 52 - k Stage 2 - - - - 397 - Platoon blocked.°/° - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 190 - - - 7 170 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 7 - Stage 1 - - - - 52 - Stage 2 - - - - 392 - Approach EB WB SB HCM Control Delay.s 0 0 227,9 HCM LOS F Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBR SBLn1 _ Capacity(vehrh) 190 - - - 19 HCM Lane WC Ratio 0.005 - - - 0.161 HCM Control Delay(s) 24.1 - - - 227.9 HCM Lane LOS C - - - F HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - - 0.5 H:Iprojfile113755-Leadership Circle Specialty Retail\005-Tigard\Synchro113755.5-2035 PM-BGsyn Synchro 8- Report PSM Page 5 HCM 2010 TWSC 2035 Background Traffic Weekday PM Peak 3: SW Garrett St & OR 99 W 4/8/2015 Intersection Int Delay.srveh 0.4 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Vol,veh/h 1553 35 27 2374 8 36 Conflicting Peds,#/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length - - 150 - 0 - Veh in Median Storage,# 0 - - 0 1 - Grade„% 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 98 98 98 98 98 98 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 1585 36 28 2422 8 37 Major/Minor Majorl Major2 Minor1 Conflicting Flow All 0 0 1620 0 2869 810 Stage 1 - - - - 1603 - Stage 2 - - - - 1266 - Critical Hdwy - - 4.14 - 6.84 6.94 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - 5.84 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5,84 - Follow-up Hdwy - - 2.22 - 3.52 3.32 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 398 - 13 323 Stage 1 - - - - 150 - Stage 2 - - - - 229 - Platoon blocked, % - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 398 - 12 323 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 86 - Stage 1 - - - - 150 - Stage 2 - - - - 213 - Approach EB WB NB HCM Control Delay,s 0 0.2 26.1 HCM LOS D Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBT Capacity(vehlh) 215 - - 398 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.209 - - 0.069 - HCM Control Delay(s) 26.1 - - 14.7 - HCM Lane LOS D - - B - HCM 95th%tile Q(veh) 0,8 - 0.2 - H:1projfile113755-Leadership Circle Specialty Retail\005-Tgard\Synchro113755.5-2035 PM-BG.syn Synchro 8- Report PSM Page 7 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 2035 Background Traffic Weekday PM Peak 5: SW Walnut St & OR 99 W 4/9/2015 t � z r `it\ t t \ l r Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 'I ?1. .1 ft r '1 1. '1 1. Volume(vehlh) 227 1312 61 8 1984 47 245 200 2 115 52 120 Number 5 2 12 1 6 16 3 8 18 7 4 14 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A pbT) 1.0'1 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.93 Parking Bus,Adj 1.0;' 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, vehlhiln 1863 1863 1900 1881 1881 1881 1845 1845 1900 1845 1845 1900 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 232 1339 62 8 2024 48 250 204 2 117 53 122 Adj No. of Lanes 1 2 0 1 2 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 1 1 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 Cap,vehlh 229 2261 105 182 1991 880 264 257 3 141 34 78 Arrive On Green 0 10 0.66 0 66 0.01 0.56 0.56 0.15 0.14 0 14 0.08 0.07 0.07 SatFlow,veh/h 1774 3443 159 1792 3574 1580 1757 1823 18 1757 473 1089 Grp Volume(v),vehlh 232 687 714 8 2024 48 250 0 206 117 0 175 Grp Sat Flow(s),vehlh/ln 1774 1770 1833 1792 1787 1580 1757 0 1841 1757 0 1562 o Serve(g_s).s 14.0 30.5 30.7 0.3 78.0 1.3 19.7 0.0 15.2 9.2 0.0 10.0 Cycle 0 Clear(g_c),s 14.0 30.5 30.7 0.3 78.0 1.3 19.7 0.0 15.2 9.2 0.0 10.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.09 1.00 1.00 1.00 0 01 1.00 0 70 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 229 1162 1203 182 1991 880 264 0 259 141 0 112 VIC Ratio(X) 1.01 0.59 0 59 0.04 1,02 0.05 0.95 0.00 0.79 0.83 0.00 1,57 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 229 1162 1203 335 1991 880 264 0 259 213 0 112 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay(d), siveh 61.4 13.5 13.5 18.6 31.0 6.7 59.0 0.0 58.2 63.4 0.0 65.0 Incr Delay(d2),sJveh 63.1 2.2 2.2 0.1 24.4 0.1 41.3 0.0 14.8 11.5 0.0 294.4 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0,0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0,0 0.0 %ile Back0fQ(-26165%),vehlln 12.8 15.4 16.2 0.1 44.9 0.6 12.6 0.0 8.8 4.9 0.0 13.4 LnGrp Delay(d).s/veh 124.6 15,7 15.7 18.6 55,4 6.8 100.2 0.0 73.0 74.9 0.0 359.4 LnGrp LOS F B B B F A F E E F Approach Vol,veh/h 1633 2080 456 292 Approach Delay, s/veh 31.2 54.1 87.9 245.4 Approach LOS C D F F Timer 1 2 3 4 5 04111116111111111011111116111110111111110 Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),s 5.1 96.9 25.0 14.0 19.0 83.0 15,3 23.7 Change Period (Y+Rc),s 4.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 '5 4.0 4.0 Max Green Setting(Gmax).s 13.0 79.0 21.0 10.0 14.0 '78 17.0 14.0 Max Q Clear Time(g 0+11).s 2.3 32.7 21.7 12.0 16.0 80 0 11.2 17.2 Green Ext Time(p_c),s 0.0 27.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 61.7 HCM 2010 LOS E Notes • HCM 2010 computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. H:lprojfilet13755-Leadership Circle Specialty Retail1005-Tigard\Synchro113755.5-2035_PM-BG-2010.syn Synchro 8- Report PSM Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2035 Background Traffic Weekday PM Peak 5: SW Walnut St & OR 99 W 419/2015 I C 4- k- h t I` 4 .I Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 't t1• I tt r vi T. ) Volume(vph) 227 1312 61 8 1984 47 245 200 2 115 52 120 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1, Total Lost time(s) 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.30 1.00 1.00 Frpb,ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.92 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Fri 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.90 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow(prot) 1770 3504 1787 3574 1472 1752 1841 1752 1612 FII Permitted 0.05 1.00 0.11 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 100 3504 199 3574 1472 1752 1841 1752 1612 Peak-hour factor. PHF 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0,98 0.98 0,98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Adj. Flow(vph) 232 1339 62 8 2024 48 250 204 2 117 53 122 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 2 0 0 0 22 0 0 0 0 59 0 Lane Group Flow(vph) 232 1399 0 8 2024 26 250 206 0 117 116 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 13 12 12 13 7 11 11 7 Confl. Bikes(#/hr) 1 3 Heavy Vehicles(°/°) 2% 2% 2% 1% 1% 1% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% Turn Type pm+pt NA pm+pt NA Perm Prot N.A Prot NA Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 3 8 7 4 Permitted Phases 2 6 6 Actuated Green, G(s) 91.9 90.9 74.8 74.8 74.8 20.9 17.5 13.5 10.1 Effective Green,g(s) 91.9 90.9 74.8 74.8 74.8 20.9 17.5 13.5 10.1 Actuated g1C Ratio 0.66 0.65 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.15 0.12 0.10 0.07 Clearance Time(s) 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension(s: 2.3 4.8 2.3 4.8 4.8 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 270 2275 118 1909 786 261 230 168 116 v/s Ratio Prot c0.11 0.40 0.00 c0.57 0114 c0.11 0.07 0.07 v/s Ratio Perm 0.46 0.04 0.02 vic Ratio 0.86 0.62 0.07 1.06 0.03 0.96 0.90 0.70 1.00 Uniform Delay,dl 56.1 14.3 19.2 32.6 15.5 59.1 60.4 61.3 64.9 Progression Factor 0.93 0.75 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,d2 20.2 1.1 0.1 38.7 0.1 43.6 32.4 10.5 82.0 Delay(s) 72.3 11.9 19.4 71.3 15.5 102.7 92.7 71.7 146.9 Level of Service E B B E B F F E F Approach Delay(s) 20.5 69.8 98.2 116.8 Approach LOS C E F F Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 57.7 HCM 2000 Level of Service E HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 1.02 Actuated Cycle Length(s) 140.0 Sum of lost time(s) 17.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 107.2% ICU Level of Service G Analysis Period(min) 15 c Critical Lane Group H:\projfile113755- Leadership Circle Specialty Retaill005-Tigard\Synchro113755.5-2035 PM-BG.syn Synchro 8- Report PSM Page 1 r) Appendix F Pass-by and Primary Trip assignments for the C-G Zoning Development Scenario OR 99W/School Road Site Rezone July 2015 S AY (99W I `fi,sT P g. °CIA% AO° un ty Z y 100tPi- WI �� 0 R 9 li li SW PARK STREET S It ,"( ' * * 00 0/7i---; 2 vi rah fI. •?SSD... wti �e E CI 2 / / '9 6a LC A"t+ 4-.. 8 C ro ,04,,,— (-------- , , 2 / a NO NET NO NET l 11115 NO NET m PASS-BY TRIPS PASS-BY TRIPS PASS-BY TRIPS d) a titin I cn I C-G ZONING PRIMARY AND PASS-BY TRIP ASSIGNMENT PIc,ur c WEEKDAY PM PEAK HOUR x - TIGARD, OREGON F1 Kl7 ,.LSON& ASSOCIATES,INC. e -.. ,. ■L.!` °ORTATION ENGINEERING/ PLANNING ...pe, r) Appendix G 2035 Total Traffic Level- Of-Service Worksheets Under the Existing R-12 Zoning HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 2035 R-12 Zone - Weekday PM Peak Hour 1 : SW Park St & OR 99 W 419/2015 s -, 1 *- t 4\ t / \ 1 r Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT'' Lane Configurations '1 Tit+ '1 414 4 r 't T r Volume(vehlh) 34 1522 7 20 2399 30 7 3 21 47 3 35 Number 5 2 12 1 6 16 3 8 18 7 4 14 Initial 0(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1 00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1 00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow,vehfhlln 1845 1845 1900 1845 1845 1900 1900 1845 1845 1881 1881 1881 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 35 1553 7 20 2448 31 7 3 21 48 3 0 Adj No.of Lanes 1 2 0 1 2 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Percent Heavy Veh.% 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 Cap,vehlh 150 3005 14 312 2956 37 92 32 81 116 97 83 Arrive On Green 0.02 0.84 0.84 0.02 0.83 0.83 0.05 0.05 0.05 0 05 0.05 0.00 Sat Flow,vehlh 1757 3578 16 1757 3544 45 930 614 1568 1395 1881 1599 Grp Volume(v).veht 35 760 800 20 1208 1271 10 0 21 48 3 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),vehlhlln 1757 1752 1842 1757 1752 1837 1544 0 1568 1395 1881 1599 Q Serve(g s),s 0.4 17.2 17.2 0.2 51.5 52.2 0.0 0.0 1.8 4,8 0.2 0 0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 0.4 17.2 17.2 0.2 51.5 52.2 0.7 0.0 1.8 5.5 0.2 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.01 1.00 0.02 0.70 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),vehih 150 1472 1547 312 1462 1532 124 0 81 116 97 83 VIC Ratio(X) 0.23 0.52 0.52 0.06 0.83 0.83 0.08 0 00 0.26 0.41 0.03 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a),vehlh 313 1472 1547 486 1462 1532 228 0 190 214 228 194 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1 00 1.00 Upstream Filter(1) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay(d),slveh 14.7 3.2 3.2 2.6 6.2 6.3 63,3 0.0 63.8 65.9 63.3 0.0 Incr Delay(d2),siveh 0.5 1.3 1.2 0.1 5.5 5.4 0.2 0.0 1.0 1.4 0.1 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),slveh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(-26165%),vehlln 0.7 8.6 9.0 0.1 26.4 28.1 0.4 0.0 0.8 1.9 0.1 0.0 LnGrp Delay(d),slveh 15.2 4.5 4.4 2.7 11.7 11.6 63.5 0.0 64.8 67.3 63.1 0.0 LnGrp LOS B A A A B B E E E E Approach Vol,vehlh 1595 2499 31 51 Approach Delay,slveh 4.7 11.6 64.4 67.1 Approach LOS A B E E Timer 1 2 3 - 4 5 6 7 8 iiimoi.,,,, Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc), s 6.2 122.6 11.2 7.0 121.8 11.2 Change Period (Y+Rc),s 4.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 16.0 94.0 17.0 16.0 94.0 17.0 Max Q Clear Time(g c+11), s 2.2 19.2 7.5 2.4 54.2 3.8 Green Ext Time(p_c),s 0.0 74.5 0.1 0.0 39.7 0.1 Intersection Summa HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 10.0 HCM 2010 LOS B H:tprojfile113755-Leadership Circle Specialty Retai11005-Tigardt5ynchro113755.5-2035_PM-R-12.syn Synchro 8- Report PSM Page 2 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2035 R-12 Zone - Weekday PM Peak Hour 1 : SW Park St & OR 99 W 4912015 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR i NBL _ NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 'I 1'1. 'I Tia 4 r 't T f' Volume(vph) 34 1522 7 20 2399 30 7 3 21 47 3 35 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Utii. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow(prot) 1752 3502 1752 3498 1782 1568 1787 1881 1599 Flt Permitted 0.03 1.00 0.14 1.00 0.84 1.00 0.75 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 64 3502 261 3498 1552 1568 1413 1881 1599 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Adj. Flow(vph) 35 1553 7 20 2448 31 7 3 21 48 3 36 RTOR Reduction(vph) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 0 0 34 Lane Group Flow(vph) 35 1560 0 20 2479 0 0 10 1 48 3 2 Heav Vehicles % 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 1% 1% 1% Turn Type pm+pt NA pm+pt NA Perm NA Perm Perm NA Perm Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 8 4 Permitted Phases 2 6 8 8 4 4 Actuated Green.G(s) 119.0 114.8 116.8 113.7 9.1 9.1 9.1 9.1 9.1 Effective Green,g(s) 119.0 114,8 116.8 113.7 9.1 9.1 9.1 9.1 9.1 Actuated g!C Ratio 0.85 0.82 0.83 0.81 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 Clearance Time(s) 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4,0 4.0 Vehicle E.xtenson(s) 2.3 4.8 2 3 4.8 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 105 2871 250 2840 100 101 91 122 103 vis Ratio Prot c0.01 0.45 0.00 c0.71 0.00 v!s Ratio Perm 0.27 0.06 0.01 0.00 c0.03 0.00 v,c Ratio 0.33 0.54 0.08 0.87 0.10 0.01 0.53 0.02 0.02 Uniform Delay,dl 21.6 4.1 2.8 8.5 61.6 61.2 63.4 61.3 61.3 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.02 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,d2 1.1 0.7 0.0 1.2 0.3 0.0 3.5 0.0 0.1 Delay(s) 22.6 4.8 2.9 8.4 61.9 61.3 66.9 61.3 61.3 Level of Service C A A A E E E E E Approach Delay(s) 5.2 8,4 61.5 64.4 Approach LOS A A E E Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 8.7 HCM 2000 Level of Service A HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.83 Actuated Cycle Length(s) 140.0 Sum of lost time(s) 13.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 88.1% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period(min) 15 c Critical Lane Group H:Iprojfile113755- Leadership Circle Specialty Retail1005-Tigard\Synchrol13755.5-2035 PM-R-12.syn Synchro 8- Report PSM Page 1 I HCM 2010 TWSC 2035 R-12 Zone - Weekday PM Peak Hour 3: SW Garrett St & OR 99 W 419,2015 Intersection Mt Delay. siveh 0.8 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Vol,vehih 9 1553 35 27 2374 8 8 0 36 5 0 8 Conflicting Peds.#Thr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length 50 - 150 - - - - - - - - Veh in Median Storage,# - 0 - - 0 - - 1 - - 1 - Grade,% - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 98 98 98 98 98 98 98 98 98 98 98 98 Heavy Vehicles,% 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Murnt Flow 9 1585 36 28 2422 8 8 0 37 5 0 8 Major/Minor Majorl Major2 Minorl Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 2431 0 0 1620 0 0 2887 4107 810 3293 4121 1215 Stage 1 - - - - - - 1621 1621 - 2482 2482 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 1266 2486 - 811 1639 - Critical Hdwy 4.14 - - 4 14 - - 7.54 6.54 6.94 7.54 6.54 6.94 • Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 6.54 5.54 - 6.54 5.54 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - 6.54 5.54 - 6.54 5.54 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.22 - - 2.22 - - 3.52 4.02 3.32 3.52 4.02 3.32 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 191 - - 398 - - -7 2 323 -3 2 173 Stage 1 - - - - - - 107 160 - 30 58 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 179 58 - 339 157 - Platoon blocked, % - - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 191 - - 398 - - -6 2 323 -2 2 173 • Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - 58 32 - 24 35 - Stage 1 - - - - - - 102 152 - 29 54 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 159 54 - 286 150 - Approach EB WB NB - SB Ai HCM Control Delay,s 0.1 0.2 32.3 98.8 NCM LOS D F Minor Lane/Major Mvrnt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1 ,. Capacity(veh/h) 176 191 - - 398 - - 51 HCM Lane WC Ratio 0.255 0.048 - - 0.069 - - 0.26 HCM Control Delay(s) 32.3 24.8 - - 14.7 - - 98.8 HCM Lane LOS D C - - B - - F HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 1 0.2 - - 0.2 - - 0.9 Notes Aillitaiiiiiii -:Volume exceeds capacity $:Delay exceeds 300s +:Computation Not Defined `:All major volume in platoon H:tiprojfile\13755-Leadership Circle Specialty Retail\005-Tigard\Synchro113755.5-2035 PM-R-12.syn Synchro 8- Report PSM Page 4 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 2035 R-12 Zone - Weekday PM Peak Hour 5: SW Walnut & OR 99 W 4/9/2015 j- i 't C 4- 4\ t t \* t ..1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 'S 1'3+ '1 +1` r ) 3. '1 3-i Volume(vehlh) 227 1316 61 8 1992 47 245 200 2 115 52 120 Number 5 2 12 1 6 16 3 8 18 7 4 14 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Red-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.0') 0.99 1.00 0.98 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.0) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow,veh/hlln 1881 1881 1900 1863 1863 1863 1845 1845 1900 1845 1845 1900 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 232 1343 62 8 2033 48 250 204 2 117 53 122 Adj No, of Lanes 1 2 0 1 2 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Percent Heavy Veh. % 1 1 1 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 Cap,veh/h 231 2284 105 181 1972 878 264 257 3 141 35 81 Arrive On Green 0.10 0 66 0.66 0.01 0.56 0.56 0.15 0.14 0.14 0.08 0.07 0.07 Sat Flow,veh/h 1792 3479 160 1774 3539 1576 1757 1823 18 1757 490 1127 Grp Volume(v).veh.h 232 689 716 8 2033 48 250 0 206 117 0 175 Grp Sat Flow(s),vehlhlln 1792 1787 1852 1774 1770 1576 1757 0 1841 1757 0 1617 Q Serve(g_s),s 14.0 30.2 30.3 0.3 78.0 1.3 19.7 0.0 15.2 9.2 0.0 10.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 14.0 30.2 30.3 0.3 78.0 1.3 19.7 0.0 15.2 9.2 0.0 10.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.09 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.01 1.00 0.70 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 231 1174 1216 181 1972 878 264 0 260 141 0 116 V/C Ratio(X) 1.01 0.59 0.59 0.04 1.03 0.05 0.95 0.00 0.79 0.83 0.00 1.51 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 231 1174 1216 332 1972 878 264 0 260 213 0 116 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay(d), s/veh 61.4 13.4 13.5 18.5 31.0 6.7 59.0 0.0 58.2 63.4 0.0 65.0 Incr Delay(d2),siveh 60.8 2.2 2.1 0.1 28.7 0.1 41.3 0.0 14.8 11.5 0.0 270.9 Initial 0 Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Toile BackOfQ(-26165%),vehiln 12.8 15.4 16.0 0.1 45.7 0.6 12.6 0.0 8.8 4.9 0.0 13.2 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 122.3 15.6 15.6 18.6 59.7 6.8 100.2 0.0 72.9 74.9 0.0 335.9 LnGrp LOS F B B B F A F E E F Approach Vol, veh/h 1637 2089 456 292 Approach Delay.s/veh 30.7 58.3 87.9 231.3 Approach LOS C E F F Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),s 5.1 96.9 25.0 14.0 19.0 83.0 15.3 23.7 i Change Period (Y+Rc). s 4.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 *5 4.0 4.0 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 13.0 79.0 21.0 10.0 14.0 *78 17.0 14.0 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+I1),s 2.3 32.3 21.7 12.0 16.0 80.0 11.2 17.2 Green Ext Time(p__c),s 0.0 27.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 Intersection Summa HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 62.5 HCM 2010 LOS E Notes HCM 2010 computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. H:lprojfile113755-Leadership Circle Specialty Retail\005-Tigard\Synchro\13755.5-2035_PM-R-12.syn Synchro 8- Report PSM Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2035 R-12 Zone - Weekday PM Peak Hour 5: SW Walnut & OR 99 W 4/9/2015 { ~ k- 4\ t /* `► Jr 1/ Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations T1 i 'fit i "f U 1) I. Volume(vph) 227 1316 61 8 1992 47 245 200 2 115 52 120 ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1 00 Frpb, pedibikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.96 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 Flpb,ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.90 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow(prat) 1787 3544 1770 3539 1515 1752 1842 1752 1627 Flt Permitted 0.05 1.00 0.10 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 101 3544 195 3539 1515 1752 1842 1752 1627 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Adj. Flow(vph) 232 1343 62 8 2033 48 250 204 2 117 53 122 RTOR Reduction(vph) 0 2 0 0 0 22 0 0 0 0 59 0 Lane Group Flow(vph) 232 1403 0 8 2033 26 250 206 0 117 116 0 Confl. Peds.(#/hr) 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 Heavy Vehicles(%) 1% 1% 1% 2% 2% 2% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% Turn Type pm+pt NA pm+pt NA Perm Prot NA Prot NA Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 3 8 7 4 Permitted Phases 2 6 6 Actuated Green, G(s) 91.9 90.9 74.8 74.8 74.8 20.9 17.5 13.5 10.1 Effective Green,g (s) 91.9 90.9 74.8 74.8 74.8 20.9 17,5 13.5 10,1 r, Actuated g/C Ratio 0.66 0.65 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.15 0.12 0.10 0.07 Clearance Time(s) 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 4,0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension(s) 2.3 4.8 2.3 4.8 4.8 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 273 2301 116 1890 809 261 230 168 117 vis Ratio Prot c0.10 0.40 0.00 c0.57 c0.14 c0.i1 0.07 0.07 vis Ratio Perm 0.45 0.04 0.02 v/c Ratio 0.85 0.61 0.07 1.08 0.03 0.96 0.90 0.70 0.99 Uniform Delay.dl 56.0 14 3 19.3 32.6 15.4 59.1 60,4 61.3 64.9 Progression Factor 0.93 0.76 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay.d2 18.7 1.1 0.1 44.4 0.1 43.6 32.4 10.5 78.7 Delay(s) 70,6 11.8 19.4 77.0 15.5 102.7 92.7 71.7 143.6 Level of Service E B B E B F F E F Approach Delay(s) 20.2 75.4 98.2 114.8 Approach LOS C E F F Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 60.1 HCM 2000 Level of Service E HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 1.03 Actuated Cycle Length(s) 140.0 Sum of lost time(s) 17.0 1 Intersection Capacity Utilization 106.9% ICU Level of Service G Analysis Period(min) 15 c Critical Lane Group (4- H:/projfile/13755-Leadership Circle Specialty Retail1005-Tigard/Synchro113755.5-2035_PM-R-12.syn Synchro 8- Report PSM Page 5 I 0 Appendix H 2035 Total Traffic Level- Of-Service Worksheets Under the Proposed C-G Zoning 0 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 2035 C-G Zone - Weekday PM Peak Hour 1 : SW Park St & OR 99 W 4/9/2015 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations ) TT.* ) T14 4 r '9 T r Volume(veh/h) 34 1542 7 20 2418 30 7 3 21 47 3 35 Number 5 2 12 1 6 16 3 8 18 7 4 14 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-E,<e Adj(A pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1 00 Parkin 1 Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow.veh/hlln 1845 1845 1900 1845 1845 1900 1900 1845 1845 1881 1881 1881 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 35 1573 7 20 2467 31 7 3 21 48 3 0 Adj No.of Lanes 1 2 0 1 2 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0,98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Percent Heavy Veh, 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 Cap,veh/h 147 3006 13 307 2957 37 92 32 81 116 97 83 Arrive On Green 0.02 0 84 0.84 0.02 0.83 0.83 0.05 0 05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.00 Sat Flow,veh/h 1757 3578 16 1757 3545 44 930 614 1568 1395 1881 1599 Grp Volume(v).vehlh 35 770 810 20 1217 1281 10 0 21 48 3 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1757 1752 1842 1757 1752 1837 1544 0 1568 1395 1881 1599 0 Serve(g s), s 0.4 17.6 17 6 0.2 52.8 53.5 0.0 0.0 1.8 4.8 0.2 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 0.4 17.6 17.6 0.2 52.8 53.5 0.7 0.0 1.8 5.5 0.2 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.01 1.00 0.02 0.70 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),vehJh 147 1472 1547 307 1462 1532 124 0 81 116 97 83 V/C Ratio(X) 0 24 0.52 0.52 0.07 0.83 0.84 0.08 0.00 0.26 0.41 0.03 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 311 1472 1547 480 1462 1532 228 0 190 214 228 194 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay(0), slveh 15.5 3.2 3.2 2.7 6.3 6.4 63.3 0.0 63.8 65.9 63.0 0.0 Incr Delay(d2),slveh 0.5 1.3 1.3 0.1 5.7 5.6 0.2 0.0 1.0 1,4 0.1 0.0 Initial 0 Delay(d3),s1veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0.0 %ile BackOtQ(-26165%),veh/In 0.7 8.9 9.3 0.1 27.0 28.7 0.4 0.0 0.8 1.9 0.1 0.0 LnGrp Delay(d).s/veh 16.0 4.5 4.5 2.7 12.0 11.9 63.5 0.0 64.8 67.3 63.1 0.0 LnGrp LOS B A A A B B E E E E Approach Vol,veh/h 1615 2518 31 51 Approach Delay,slveh 4.8 11.9 64.4 67.1 Approach LOS A B E E Tmer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 `,.X r Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),s 6.2 122.6 11.2 7.0 121.8 11.2 Change Period(Y+Rc),s 4.0 5.0 4.0 4 0 5.0 4.0 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 16.0 94.0 17.0 16.0 94.0 17.0 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+11), s 2.2 19.6 7.5 2.4 55.5 3.8 Green Ext Time(p_c),s 0.0 74.1 0.1 0.0 38.4 0.1 intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 10.2 HCM 2010 LOS B H:lprojfile113755-Leadership Circle Specialty Retail1005-TigardlSynchrol13755.5-2035_PM-C-G.syn Synchro 8- Report PSM Page 2 n HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2035 C-G Zone - Weekday PM Peak Hour 1 : SW Park St & OR 99 W 4/9/2015 t -* r 4- 4\ t P `► -' Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations ) T10 ) T1. 4 r ) + r Volume(vph) 34 1542 7 20 2418 30 7 3 21 47 3 35 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 4,0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Mil. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.01) 1.00 0.85 Fit Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.9 ; 1.00 1.00 Satd. Row(plot) 1752 3503 1752 3498 1782 1568 178 1881 1599 Fit Permitted 0.03 1.00 0.14 1.00 0.84 1.00 0.75 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 64 3503 255 3498 1552 1568 1413 1881 1599 Peak-hour factor. PHF 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0 98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Adj. Flow(vph) 35 1573 7 20 2467 31 7 3 21 48 3 36 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 0 0 34 Lane Group Flow(vph) 35 1580 0 20 2498 0 0 10 1 48 3 2 Heavy Vehicles(%) 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 1% 1% 1% Turn Type pm+pt NA pm+pt NA Perm NA Perm Perm NA Perm Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 8 4 Permitted Phases 2 6 8 8 4 4 Actuated Green, G(s) 119.0 114.8 116.8 113.7 9.1 9.1 9.1 9.1 9.1 Effective Green,g(s) 119.0 114.8 116.8 113.7 9.1 9.1 9.1 9.1 9.1 Actuated g!C Ratio 0.85 0.82 0.83 0.81 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 Clearance Time(s) 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension(s) 2.3 4.8 2.3 4.8 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 105 2872 245 2840 100 101 91 122 103 v/s Ratio Prot c0.01 0.45 0.00 c0.71 0.00 vis Ratio Perm 0.27 0.07 0.01 0.00 c0.03 0.00 vlc Ratio 0.33 0.55 0.08 0.88 0.10 0.01 0.53 0.02 0.02 Uniform Delay,dl 22.5 4.1 2.9 8.6 61.6 61.2 63.4 61.3 61.3 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.01 0.81 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,d2 1.1 0.8 0.0 1.4 0.3 0.0 3.5 0.0 0.1 Delay(s) 23.6 4.9 2.9 8.4 61.9 61.3 66.9 61.3 61.3 Level of Service C A A A E E E E E Approach Delay(s) 5.3 8.4 61.5 64.4 Approach LOS A A E E Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 8.7 HCM 2000 Level of Service A HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.84 Actuated Cycle Length(s) 140.0 Sum of lost time(s) 13.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 88.6% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period(min) 15 c Critical Lane Group H:lprojfile113755-Leadership Circle Specialty Retaill005-TigardlSynchro\13755.5-2035_PM-C-G.syn Synchro 8- Report PSM Page 1 HCM 2010 TWSC 2035 C-G Zone - Weekday PM Peak Hour 3: SW Garrett St & OR 99 W 419/2015 Intersection - Int Delay,siveh 28.3 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Vol,veh/h 56 1526 35 27 2352 46 8 0 36 47 0 47 Conflicting Peds,#/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length 50 - - 150 - - - - - - - - Veh in Median Storage,# - 0 - - 0 - - 1 - - 1 - Grade,% - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 98 98 98 98 98 98 98 98 98 98 98 98 Heavy Vehicles,% 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 57 1557 36 28 2400 47 8 0 37 48 0 48 Major/Minor Majorl Major2 Minorl Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 2447 0 0 1593 0 0 2944 4191 796 3372 4186 1223 Stage 1 - - - - - - 1689 1689 - 2479 2479 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 1255 2502 - 893 1707 - Critical Hdwy 4.14 - - 4.14 - - 7.54 6.54 6.94 7.54 6.54 6.94 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 6.54 5.54 - 6.54 5,54 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - 6.54 5.54 - 6.54 554 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.22 - - 2.22 - - 3.52 4.02 3.32 3.52 4.02 3.32 Poi Cap-1 Maneuver 188 - - 408 - - -7 2 330 -3 2 171 Stage 1 - - - - - - 97 148 - 30 58 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 182 57 - 303 145 - Platoon blocked, % - - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 188 - - 408 - - -4 1 330 -2 1 171 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - 32 --4 - - 17 29 - Stage 1 - - - - - - 68 103 - --21 54 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 122 53 - 188 101 - Approach EB WB NB _ SB' HCM Control Delay. s 1.1 0.2 50.2 S 1211.8 HCM LOS F F Minor Lane/Major Mvntt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity(veh/h) 123 188 - - 408 - - 31 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.365 0.304 - - 0.068 - - 3.094 HCM Control Delay(s) 50.2 32.3 - - 14.5 - S 1211.8 HCM Lane LOS F D - - B - - F HCM 95th%tile Q(veh) 1.5 1.2 - - 0.2 - - 11.3 Notes -:Volume exceeds capacity S. Delay exceeds 300s +: Computation Not Defined '. All major volume in platoon H:\projfile\13755-Leadership Circle Specialty Retail\005-TigardlSynchro\13755.5-2035 PM-C-G.syn Synchro 8- Report PSM Page 4 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 2035 C-G Zone - Weekday PM Peak Hour 5: SW Walnut & OR 99 W 41912015 f - `- ` 4\ t r' ti 1 r Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations '1 'FA i ++ r vl 1+ ) 14 Volume(veh/h) 233 1319 68 8 1992 47 253 200 2 115 52 128 Number 5 2 12 1 6 16 3 8 18 7 4 14 Initial 0(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Fed-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.98 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow,vehlhlln 1881 1881 1900 1863 1863 1863 1845 1845 1900 1845 1845 1900 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 238 1346 69 8 2033 48 258 204 2 117 53 131 Adj No. of Lanes 1 2 0 1 2 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 M Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0,98 Percent Heavy Veh. °/a 1 1 1 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 Cap, veh/h 231 2272 116 179 1972 878 264 257 3 141 33 82 Arrive On Green 0.10 0.66 0.66 0.01 0.56 0.56 0.15 0.14 0.14 0.08 0.07 0.07 Sat Flow,veh/h 1792 3459 177 1774 3539 1576 1757 1823 18 1757 465 1148 Grp Volume(v).vehlh 238 694 721 8 2033 48 258 0 206 117 0 184 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1792 1787 1849 1774 1770 1576 1757 0 1841 1757 0 1613 Q Serve(g_s),s 14.0 30.5 30.7 0.3 78.0 1.3 20.5 0.0 15.2 9.2 0.0 10.0 Cycle 0 Clear(g_c),s 14.0 30.5 30.7 0.3 78.0 1.3 20.5 0.0 15.2 9.2 0.0 10.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.10 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.01 1.00 0.71 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 231 1174 1214 179 1972 878 264 0 260 141 0 115 V/C Ratio(X) 1.03 0.59 0.59 0.04 1.03 0.05 0.98 0.00 0.79 0.83 0.00 1.60 Avail Cap(ca),veh/h 231 1174 1214 330 1972 878 264 0 260 213 0 115 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 i Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 61.4 13.5 13.5 18.6 31.0 6.7 59.3 0.0 58.2 63.4 0.0 65.0 Ince Delay(d2),slveh 67.9 2.2 2.1 0.1 28.7 0.1 49.3 0.0 14.8 11.5 0.0 305.4 Initial 0 Delay(d3),s/veh 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(-26165%),vehlln 13.3 15.8 16.3 0.1 45.7 0.6 13.6 0.0 8.8 4.9 0.0 14.2 LnGrp Delay(d),slveh 129.4 15.7 15.7 18.7 59.7 6.8 108.6 0.0 72.9 74.9 0.0 370.4 LnGrp LOS F B B B F A F E E F Approach Vol,vehlh 1653 2089 464 301 Approach Delay.slveh 32.0 58.3 92.8 255.6 Approach LOS C E F F Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),s 5.1 96.9 25.0 14.0 19.0 83.0 15.3 23.7 Change Period(Y+Rc), s 4.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 '5 4.0 4.0 Max Green Setting(Gmax), s 13.0 79.0 21.0 10.0 14.0 *78 17.0 14.0 Max 0 Clear Time(g c+11),s 2.3 32.7 22.5 12.0 16.0 80.0 11.2 17.2 Green Ext Time(p_c), s 0.0 27.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 65.4 HCM 2010 LOS E Notes "HCM 2010 computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. H:tiprojfile113755-Leadership Circle Specialty Retail\005-Tigard\Synchro113755.5-2035-QPM-C-G-2010.syn Synchro 8- Report PSM Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2035 C-G Zone - Weekday PM Peak Hour 5: SW Walnut & OR 99 W 419/2015 f -. c Al- `-- 4\ t P \* 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WOR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations '1 11+ TT r" 1 14 '1 1w Volume(vph) 233 1319 68 8 1992 47 253 200 2 115 52 128 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1 00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frpb,pedlbikes 1.00 1.00 1 JO 1.00 0.96 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 Flpb, pedlbikes 1.00 1.00 1 JO 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.89 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow(prot) 1787 3541 1770 3539 1515 1752 1842 1752 1622 Flt Permitted 0.05 1.00 0.10 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd.Flow(perm) 101 3541 191 3539 1515 1752 1842 1752 1622 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Adj. Flow(vph) 238 1346 69 8 2033 48 258 204 2 117 53 131 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 2 0 0 0 22 0 0 0 0 63 0 Lane Group Flow(vph) 238 1413 0 8 2033 26 258 206 0 117 121 0 Confl.Peds.(#/hr) 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 Heavy Vehicles(°/0) 1% 1% 1% 2% 2% 2% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% Turn Type pm+pt NA pm+pt NA Perm Prot NA Prot NA Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 3 8 7 4 Permitted Phases 2 6 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 91.9 90.9 74.8 74.8 74.8 21,7 17.5 13.5 9.3 Effective Green.g (s) 91.9 90.9 74.8 74.8 74.8 21.7 17.5 13.5 9.3 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.66 0.65 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.15 0.12 0.10 0.07 Clearance Time(s) 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension(s) 2.3 4.8 2.3 4.8 4.8 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 273 2299 114 1890 809 271 230 168 107 v/s Ratio Prot c0.11 0.40 0.00 c0.57 c0.15 c0.11 0.07 0.07 v/s Ratio Perm 0,47 0.04 0.02 v/c Ratio 0.87 0.61 0.07 1.08 0.03 0.95 0.90 0.70 1.13 Uniform Delay,dl 56.2 14,3 19.4 32.6 15.4 58.6 60.4 61.3 65.3 Progression Factor 0.93 0.76 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 22.3 1.1 0.2 44.4 0.1 41.4 32.4 10.5 125.0 Delay(s) 74.5 12.0 19.5 77.0 15.5 100.0 92.7 71.7 190.4 Level of Service F B B E B F F E F Approach Delay(s) 21.0 75.4 96.8 144.3 Approach LOS C E F F Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 62.2 HCM 2000 Level of Service E HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 1.03 Actuated Cycle Length(s) 140.0 Sum of lost time(s) 17.0 Intersection Capacity'Utilization 108.1% ICU Level of Service G Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group H:lprojfile113755-Leadership Circle Specialty Retail\005-Tigard\Synchro113755.5-2035_PM-C-G.syn Synchro 8- Report PSM Page 1 Appendix I Mitigation Concept . 11 KI PROPOSED REMOiiMY ` a 7a,. MOO(MY TO RERAN - )ik; 1 "R.,r.aa,.aa_a. a�.�a - — 1 FROVOSEO SPECIALTY RETAIL I COMMERCGI L USE l F G E ND: - { (GENERAL COMMERCIAL - BOUNDARY u.E �* ' ' -� ,, { ZONING) EXISIL.OOAS LOA _ PROPOSED MR MID 5.5� 0 I wAls V 1R - / • PRLll'OBEDSTRw9LD CURS { /, 1•ROPosfD CONCRETE 1! / f t - ril 1 -{,T r I 1[-- L�feST,NO CONCRETE SURFACE P166 Paw fO PRDpp IOOf1 - - _ . -• Y �i !�n' - PROP'OSED PLAN CONMETE NALA - uLrr..r L0T., 1rpn 'N-,....„ 1 _3b-- • 9+enr. rY -f7SETI G MEW SUS STOP Y- - ��� • .. ~r Y g0WCR1 It .,T - 'tel .• - . � �' el" ypPRpK.MTRYY,D'"PROM PR:1' .hylar \ ;�/Ay' • _ - •- - -. - J PROPOSE RENFORCED ORNEWA ,1 moi- 7LY,a I 'lls '::-7 .` • �* '� "' -, r - _ _ SUR)ACC D ON �� PROPOSED LANDSCAPE BIRiPACf - _ — I�mi:P06E7 -mord DACCESS WO v..r•-no. __ -lif � - , C718r1'G 5%Lwa GBPI€r � SAAGUr LIE nr]rr yWP00,1r OUr - PRDPO6EDS *C fT INE - S M wr. { E STNGMINNPOLE SIVPAChrICIAY mvosY I Owl O EXISTING PEDESTRIAN SIGNAL SIN ! L MEW WD Pu6F aL 1tWl O I_ Wig -.er PtDRSTRIE/LAr141P4.MEM Mli _ - _ _ 1 NA 'O ivega - --- 'Olt avr�ostcLus a .rLryw 1 Y�^�` -,+ - architecture 11c llw '�, �I f1aBrT1a aPa ro ILOLA/, lui Iv w ,----- sYr 4 �6 fifi /m0 3151,I' RECEIVED LLu Pr,ae�aw _ ---0. UL 6 2015 --------" 0.,0 1 L RI1___.— WM 1 _____( -__.-- EP CITY OF fIt3ARD V COMMERCIAL USE (11147 , COMMERCIAL USE PLANNING/ENGINEERING \-- y–A (GENERAL COMMERCIAL ZONING), ! (GENERAL COMMERCIAL ZONING) Ce L SCALE IWO' 11=LI M11.11 co Clill JO 10 0 /0 N 0 N 70 I I / ��l�I�ialO CO cc W co CD l Y2naftIlr4.`y-iw,I 4 N Q 1.10N 1.00 4+00 2+50 i-I SII .+w 5.29./S EXISTING SW PACIFIC HIGHWAY PROFILE SCALE.1`-20.NDRLIONTA. 1-,7 ARITCM i i ROW Ct ROW L - _- SO PITO S]B8' - -- - - I !IN•'iMi1� «HALF ROW MVIt I F]OSINO fOOE of P'ROiPOSE0 �//---Eff]330006��1TTI�LNNN[OOi ROAD I PAVE#EDDf ASPPNIr5UR1 ACE I I 1�ZAYYf:AI r t- 11.111, 1V UM I I I , I I I 4,142.1 1 PUBLIC I IMPROVEMENTS c) PLAN - L� I %I19111, - 1W - IA. _1101011! �_ s1�s� _ .- �S__WI ��rl-._- 11BMSELY T�LY- LEV(TUM)LNE 1ps�J� 11Ma� r.,F. DJM 4; 16trulI• ruirri1. I I EXISTING - Lf nye o_ �r L„�Y�Lf L.�LE dP 04/06/2015 I'LON ram TYPICAL SECTION:SW PACIFIC HIGHWAY 8 ,.'-/l,L Ni/-, �] .V 1 r.) 0 Appendix Mitigated 2035 Total Traffic Level-Of-Service Worksheets Under the Proposed C-G Zoning 0 HCM 2010 Signalized intersection Summary 2035 - C-G Zone Mit - Weekday PM Peak Hour 1 : SW Park St & OR 99 W 4)9/2015 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations '1 1"1-. T1 r 11t 1' Volume(veh/h) 34 1542 7 20 2418 30 7 3 21 90 3 35 Number 5 2 12 1 6 16 3 8 18 7 4 14 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A,pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow,vehlh/ln 1845 1845 1900 1845 1845 1900 1900 1845 1845 1881 1881 1881 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 35 1573 7 20 2467 31 7 3 21 92 3 0 Adj No.of Lanes 1 2 0 1 2 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Percent Heavy Veh, °/° 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 Cap,vehlh 133 2889 13 288 2842 36 126 47 132 162 159 135 Arrive On Green 0.02 0.81 0.81 0.02 0.80 0.80 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.00 Sat Flow,vehlh 1757 3578 16 1757 3545 44 977 552 1568 1395 1881 1599 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 35 770 810 20 1217 1281 10 0 21 92 3 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),vehlh/In 1757 1752 1842 1757 1752 1837 1529 0 1568 1395 1881 1599 0 Serve(g s),s 0.5 21.1 21.2 0.3 63.1 64.0 0.0 0.0 1.7 9.1 02 0.0 Cycle 0 Clear(g_c),s 0.5 21.1. 21.2 0.3 63.1 64.0 0.7 0.0 1.7 9.8 0.2 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0 01 1.00 0.02 0.70 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 133 1415 1487 288 1405 1472 173 0 132 162 159 135 V/C Ratio(X) 0.26 0.54 0.54 0.07 0.87 0.87 0.06 0.00 0.16 0.57 0.02 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 297 1415 1487 462 1405 1472 228 0 190 214 228 194 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 22.3 4.6 4.6 3.9 9.0 9.1 59,0 0.0 59.5 63.5 58,8 0.0 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 0.6 1.5 1.4 0.1 7.4 7.3 0.1 0.0 0.3 1.9 0.0 0.0 Initial 0 Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %Ile BackOfQ(-26165%),vehfln 0.9 10.6 11.2 0.1 32.6 34.6 0.4 0.0 0.8 3.6 0.1 0.0 LnGrpDelay(d),slveh 22.9 6.1 6,1 4.0 16,4 16.4 59.1 0.0 59.8 65.4 58.8 0.0 LnGrp LOS C A A A B B E E E E Approach Vol.vehlh 1615 2518 31 95 Approach Delay,slveh 6.5 16.3 59.6 65.2 Approach LOS A B E E Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),s 6.2 118.0 15.8 7.0 117.2 15.8 Change Period(Y+Rc),s 4.0 5A 4.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 16.0 94.0 17.0 16.0 94.0 17.0 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+I1),s 2.3 23.2 11.8 2.5 66.0 3.7 Green Ext Time(p_c),s 0.0 70.5 0.1 0.0 27.9 0.2 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 14.0 HCM 2010 LOS B H:Iprojfile113755-Leadership Circle Specialty Retail\005-Tigard\Synchro113755.5-2035_PM-C-G-MIT.syn Synchro 8- Report PSM Page 2 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2035 - C-G Zone Mit - Weekday PM Peak Hour 1 : SW Park St & OR 99 W 4/9/2015 i 4- k- ti t rfr \ 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations '1 it 1+ 'I 'PI, 4 r ) 'F r' Volume(vph) 34 1542 7 20 2418 30 7 3 21 90 3 35 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Utik. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1 00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Fri 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt f rotected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satc'. Flow(prot) 1752 3503 1752 3498 1782 1568 1787 1881 1599 Flt Permitted 0.04 1.00 0.13 1.00 0 87 1.00 0.75 1.00 1.00 Satd.Flow(perm) 67 3503 244 3498 1605 1568 1413 1881 1599 Peak-hour factor. PHF 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0,98 0.98 0.98 Adj. Flow(vph) 35 1573 7 20 2467 31 7 3 21 92 3 36 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 19 0 0 33 Lane Group Flow(vph) 35 1580 0 20 2498 0 0 10 2 92 3 3 Heavy Vehicles(%) 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 1% i 1% 1% Turn Type pm+pt NA pm+pt NA Perm NA Perm Perm NA Perm Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 8 4 Permitted Phases 2 6 8 8 4 4 Actuated Green, G(s) 115,0 110.7 112.6 109.5 13.2 13.2 13.2 13.2 13.2 Effective Green,g (s) 115.0 110.7 112.6 109.5 13.2 13.2 13.2 13.2 13.2 Actuated gfC Ratio 0.82 0.79 0.80 0.78 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 Clearance Time(s) 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.3 4.8 2.3 4.8 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 106 2769 229 2735 151 147 133 177 150 v/s Ratio Prot c0.01 0.45 0.00 c0.71 0.00 v/s Ratio Perm 0.26 0.07 0.01 0.00 c0.07 0.00 v/c Ratio 0.33 0.57 0.09 0.91 0.07 0.01 0.69 0.02 0.02 Uniform Delay,dl 28.4 5.6 4.1 11.6 57.8 57.5 61.4 57.5 57.5 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 0.96 0.70 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,d2 1.1 0.9 0,0 2.2 0.1 0.0 12.7 0.0 0.0 Delay(s) 29.5 6.4 4.0 10.4 57.9 57.5 74.2 57.5 57.6 Level of Service C A A B E E E E E Approach Delay(s) 6.9 10.3 57.6 69.2 Approach LOS A B E E Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 11.2 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.87 Actuated Cycle Length(s) 140.0 Sum of lost time(s) 13.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 88.6% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period(min) 15 c Critical Lane Group H:\projfile113755-Leadership Circle Specialty Retail\005-Tigard\Synchro\13755.5-2035 PM-C-G-MIT.syn Synchro 8- Report PSM Page 1 HCM 2010 TWSC 2035 - C-G Zone Mit - Weekday PM Peak Hour 2: OR 99 W & SW School Street 4/9/2015 Intersection Int Delay. s:veh 0.6 Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL _ SBR Vol..vehih 52 1608 2361 33 0 22 Conflicting Peds,#/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length 90 - - - - 0 Veh in Median Storage,# - 0 0 - 0 - Grade,% - 0 0 - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 98 98 98 98 98 98 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 53 1641 2409 34 0 22 Major/Minor Majorl Major2 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 2443 0 - 0 3353 1221 Stage 1 - - - - 2426 - Stage 2 - - - - 927 - Critical Hdwy 4.14 - - - 6.84 6.94 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.84 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5 84 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.22 - - - 3,52 3.32 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 189 - - - 6 172 Stage 1 - - - - 52 - Stage 2 - - - - 346 - Platoon blocked,% - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 189 - - - 4 172 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 4 - Stage 1 - - - - 52 - Stage 2 - - - - 249 - Approach ER WB SB HCM Control Delay,s 1 0 29 HCM LOS D Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity(veh?h) 189 - - - 172 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.281 - - - 0.131 HCM Control Delay 1st 31.3 - - - 29 HCM Lane LOS D - - - D HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 1.1 - - - 0,4 H1 ro1fle113755-Leadership Circle Specialty Retail005-Tigard\Snchro\13755.5-2035_PM-C-G-MIT.s n Synchro 8- Report PSM Page 4 HCM 2010 TWSC 2035 - C-G Zone Mit - Weekday PM Peak Hour 3: SW Garrett St & OR 99 W 4//912015 Intersection Int Delay. slveh 2-1 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Vol,vehlh 1573 35 27 2386 8 36 Conflicting Peds,#/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length - - 150 - 0 - Veh in Median Storage,# 0 - - 0 0 - Grade,% 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 98 98 98 98 98 98 Heavy Vehicles,% 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 1605 36 28 2435 8 37 Major/Minor Majori Major2 _ Minorl Conflicting Flow All 0 0 1641 0 2895 820 Stage 1 - - - - 1623 - Stage 2 - - - - 1272 - Critical Hdwy - - 4.14 - 6.84 6.94 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - 5.84 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.84 - Follow-up Hdwy - - 2.22 - 3.52 3.32 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 391 - 13 318 Stage 1 - - - - 147 - Stage 2 - - - - 227 - Platoon blocked, % - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 391 - 12 318 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 12 - Stage 1 - - - - 147 - Stage 2 - - - - 211 - Approach EB WB NB HCM Control Delay,s 0 0 2 183.4 HCM LOS F Minor LanelMajor Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBT Capacity(vehlh) 56 - - 391 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.802 - - 0.07 - HCM Control Delay(s) 183.4 - - 14 9 - II HCM Lane LOS F - -- B HCM 95th%tile C�(veh) 3,50.2 H:lprojfile113755-Leadership Circle Specialty Retaill005-Tigard\Synchro\13755.5-2035 PM-C-G-MIT.syn Synchro 8- Report PSM Page 5 HCM 2010 TWSC 2035 - C-G Zone Mit - Weekday PM Peak Hour 4: OR 99 W & RIRO 419/2015 Intersection Int Delay.slveh 0 2 Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Vol,veh/h 0 1609 2329 44 0 32 Conflicting Peds,#!hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length - - - - - 0 Veh in Median Storage.# - 0 0 - 1 - Grade,% - 0 0 - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 98 98 98 98 98 98 Heavy Vehicles,% 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 0 1642 2377 45 0 33 Major/Minor Majorl Major2 Minor2 ..-- Conflicting Flow All 2421 0 - 0 4041 1211 1 Stage 1 - - - - 2399 - Stage 2 - - - - 1642 - Critical Hdwy 4.14 - - - 6.63 6.93 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.83 - Cntical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5 43 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.22 - - - 3.519 3.319 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 193 - - - 2 175 Stage 1 - - - - 55 - Stage2 - - - 173 - Platoon blocked,% - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 193 - - - 2 175 May Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 39 - Stage 1 - - - - 55 - Stage 2 - - - - 173 - 1 iikj:iproach EB _ WB SB HCM Control Delay,s 0 0 30.2 HCM LOS D Minor LaneIMajor Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBR SBLn1 1 Capacity(vehlh) 193 - - - 175 HCM Lane VC Ratio - - - - 0.187 HCM Control Delay(s) 0 - - - 30.2 HCM Lane LOS A - - - 0 HCM 95th%tile Q(veh) 0 - - - 0.7 Haprojflle\13755- Leadership Circle Specialty Retaih005-Tigard\Synchro113755.5-2035-PM-C-G-MIT.syn Synchro 8- Report PSM Page 6 I HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 2035 - C-G Zone Mit - Weekday PM Peak Hour 5: SW Walnut & OR 99 W 4/9/2015 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations T1+ 1 t4 x 1. '` T. Volume(veh/h) 234 1319 67 B 1992 47 253 200 2 115 52 128 Number 5 2 12 1 6 16 3 8 18 7 4 14 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.98 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/in 1881 1881 1900 1863 1863 1863 1845 1845 1900 1845 1845 1900 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 239 1346 68 8 2033 48 258 204 2 117 53 131 Adj No. of Lanes 1 2 0 1 2 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Percent Heavy Veh, % 1 1 1 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 Cap,veh/h 231 2273 115 179 1972 878 276 257 3 141 30 74 Arrive On Green 0.10 0.66 0_66 0.01 0.56 0.56 0.16 0.14 0.14 0.08 0.06 0.06 Sat Flow,veh/h 1792 3462 175 1774 3539 1576 1757 1823 18 1757 464 1146 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 239 694 720 8 2033 48 258 0 206 117 0 184 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1792 1787 1850 1774 1770 1576 1757 0 1841 1757 0 1610 1 Q Serve(g s),s 14.0 30.5 30.7 0.3 78.0 1.3 20.3 0.0 15.2 9.2 0.0 9.0 Cycle 0 Clear(g_c),s 14.0 30.5 30.7 0.3 78.0 1.3 20.3 0.0 15.2 9.2 0.0 9.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.09 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.01 1.00 0.71 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 231 1174 1215 179 1972 878 276 0 260 141 0 104 V/C Ratio(X) 1.04 0.59 0.59 0.04 1.03 0.05 0.93 0.00 0.79 0.83 0.00 1.78 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 231 1174 1215 330 1972 878 276 0 260 213 0 104 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Fitter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 61.4 13.5 13.5 18.6 31.0 6.7 58.3 0.0 58.2 63.4 0.0 65.5 Incr Delay(d2),slveh 69.1 2.2 2.1 0.1 28.7 0.1 36.7 0.0 14.8 11.5 0.0 386.0 Initial 0 Delay(d3).s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 °/vale BackDf4(-26165%),veh/ln 13.3 15.6 16.3 0.1 45.7 0.6 12.7 0.0 8.8 4.9 0.0 15.1 LnGrp Delay(d),slveh 130.6 15.7 15.7 18.6 59.7 6 8 95.0 0.0 72.9 74.9 0.0 451.5 LnGrp LOS F B B B F A F E E F Approach Vol,veh/h 1653 2089 464 301 i Approach Delay,s/veh 32.3 58.3 85.2 305.1 Approach LOS C E F F Timer 1 2 3 _ 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc),s 5.1 96.9 26.0 13.0 19.0 83.0 15.3 23.7 I Change Period(Y+Rc). s 4.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 '5 4.0 4.0 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 13.0 79.0 22.0 9.0 14.0 *78 17.0 14.0 Max 0 Clear Time(g_c+11), s 2.3 32.7 22.3 11.0 16.0 80.0 11.2 17.2 Green Ext Time(p_c),s 0.0 27.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 68.0 HCM 2010 LOS F Notes * HCM 2010 computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. i H:lprojfile113755- Leadership Circle Specialty Retail1005-Tigard\Synchro113755.5-2035_PM-C-G-MIT-2010.syn Synchro 8- Report PSM Page 1 i HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2035 - C-G Zone Mit - Weekday PM Peak Hour 5: SW Walnut & OR 99 W 4!9/2015 1 C 4- k- 4\ t / . \* 1 -/ Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 1 1'1; ) tt 1r 1. ) 11, Volume(vph) 234 1319 67 8 1992 47 253 200 2 115 52 128 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1 00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.96 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 Flpb,ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.89 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow(prat) 1787 3541 1770 3539 1515 1752 1842 1752 1622 Flt Permitted 0.05 1.00 0.10 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 101 3541 192 3539 1515 1752 1842 1752 1622 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Adj. Flow(vph) 239 1346 68 8 2033 48 258 204 2 117 53 131 RTOR Reduction(vph) 0 2 0 0 0 22 0 0 0 0 63 0 Lane Group Flow(vph) 239 1412 0 8 2033 26 258 206 0 117 121 0 Confi.Peds.(#!hr) 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 Heavy Vehicles(%) 1% 1% 1% 2% 2% 2% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% Turn Type pm+pt NA pm+pt NA Perm Prot NA Prot NA Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 3 8 7 4 Permitted Phases 2 6 6 Actuated Green, G(s) 91.9 90.9 74.8 74.8 74.8 21.7 17.5 13.5 9.3 Effective Green,g(s) 91.9 90.9 74.8 74.8 74.8 21.7 17.5 13.5 9.3 Actuated g1C Ratio 0.66 0.65 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.15 0.12 0.10 0.07 Clearance Time(s) 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension(s) 2.3 4.8 2.3 4.8 4.8 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 . 1 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 273 2299 114 1890 809 271 230 168 107 vis Ratio Prot call 0.40 0.00 00.57 c0.15 c0.11 0.07 0.07 vis Ratio Perm 0.47 0.04 0.02 vlc Ratio 0.88 0.61 0.07 1.08 0.03 0.95 0,90 0.70 1.13 Uniform Delay,dl 56.3 14.3 19.4 32.6 15.4 58.6 60.4 61.3 65.3 Progression Factor 0.92 0.74 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,d2 22.1 1.1 0.2 44.4 0.1 41.4 32.4 10.5 125.0 Delay(s) 73.8 11.7 19.5 77.0 15.5 100.0 92.7 71.7 190.4 Level of Service E B B E B F F E F Approach Delay(s) 20.6 75.4 96.8 144.3 Approach LOS C E F F Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 62.1 HCM 2000 Level of Service E HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 1.03 Actuated Cycle Length(s) 140.0 Sum of lost time(s) 17.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 108.2% ICU Level of Service G Analysis Period(min) 15 c Critical Lane Group H:\projfile\13755-Leadership Circle Specialty Retail\005-Tigard\Synchro113755.5-2035_PM-C-G-MIT.syn Synchro 8- Report PSM Page 7 KITTELSON & ASSOCIATES , INC . TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING / PLANNING 610 SW Alder Street, Suite 700, Portland, OR 97205 503 228 5230 503.273 5169 July 15, 2015 Project#: 13755.05 Kim McMillan City of Tigard— Development Engineering t4.C4 �'PR( )Fe 13125 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard, OR 972237, 60e27PE Marty Jensvold GC5 ce Oregon Department of Transportation - Region 1 �y �i P 3,19 •123 NW Flanders Street /� J1�Sp"�� Portland, OR 97209 EC317 S: )d-31-o2o1S RE: Transportation Impact Analysis for SW School Road/OR 99W Retail Development—Tigard, OR Dear Ms. McMillan and Mr.Jensvold: Leadership Circle, LLC, (the Applicant) is proposing to construct a 15,000 square-foot retail store on a vacant 1.33-acre parcel located at 13125 SW Pacific Highway (OR 99W) in Tigard. Figure 1 shows a site vicinity map and location of the subject property along OR 99W, across from SW Garrett Street, and • along the north side of SW School Road. Figure 2 shows the site development plan. The site is currently zoned R-12 (Medium-Density Residential), and a land use amendment has been submitted concurrently to rezone the site for C-G (General Commercial) to allow the proposed use. SCOPE OF THE REPORT This report evaluates the transportation-related impacts of the proposed retail development and was prepared in accordance with the City of Tigard and Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) transportation standards.The scope of work for this study was developed through discussions with City and ODOT staff. The study intersections and overall study area for this project were selected based on a review of estimated site trip generation potential and distribution patterns, local circulation patterns of the transportation system, and the presence of two nearby signalized intersections in the OR 99W corridor at SW Walnut Street and SW Park Street. It should be emphasized that the Applicant has already prepared and submitted under separate cover a traffic impact analysis to support the land use amendment to change the zoning of the site. This separate report will herein be referred to as the Zone Change TIA. FILENAME'H:JPROJFILEIl3755-LEADERSHIP CIRCLE SPECIALTY RETAIL 1005-77GARD1REPORT7SITE DEVELOPMENT TIA 113755 REPORT TIA_FINAL 07152015.DOC' SW School Road/OR 99W Retail Development July2015 15 (NO SCALE) 44, (99W) si tit$,tn 121 '9°R, • tG43p 9�'9p 9� SW PARK STREET • A 47 Iti ' C16,110"' 4 �8 } 26: Pr WASHINGTON COUNTY al p _/� 4130 SITE Lo. 4141 LEGEND _ ui • - STUDY INTERSECTION SITE TIGARD, O VICINITY FIGURE V7KITTELSON& ASSOCIATES,INC. K„ TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING/PLANNING SW Sc1T �a JOR 99W Reran orsvatopmenr Jury 2015 T -..c.-1 - a INS €Lf auroras uora NT IRr SCHOOL ELEN1EATARYSCHOOL rREsIDEMrMLL ZOAMC.PI2) IRE'SSOEATJAL IOR/AG.RrE. c".• I • '' rii ! 4 �v TT I • 1 • _ , .. �.1 � _ , 1 _ I �� 4 # PARCEi / { L___ h J d i , L_ I wi -.' PROWOSEO SPECIAL rY R€TiVl. •1- - 1 '— -. O"REAIL r Z AVM PART STORE IS OM SF 1 I 1 11 -1 !IMMORAL COWrIERCeAL Zi7O1003; s EEE Ira y _ -1 ` 1 . I MME ,:L_ ,5E N- ! _. r , . , [ 1 I ^ A✓wa- — _ ,11,1,_.']Ep- a-- Q SW PACIFIC NJGRWAY CC ICI11114:PVC'WW1 `r1 CO `-- COMMERCAL uSE i S (7------ COMMERCIAL(ISE 1 �' erMAERAL CCNOMERC/.U.ZONING) IGERERAL CESINIEWCJAZ ZONAIh6J 1 1 1 ` 1 en F} PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN TIGARD, OREGON KKITTELSON&ASSOCIATES,INC. TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING PLANNING SW School Rood/OR 99W Retail Development—Tigard,OR Project#:13755.05 July 15,2015 - Page:4 For this report, operational analyses were performed at the following study intersections: ti. • OR 99W/SW Park Street; • OR 99W/SW School Road (existing site access); • OR 99W/SW Garrett Street; • OR 99W/site driveway (proposed right-in/right-out site access); and, • OR 99W/SW Walnut Street. The following transportation topics are also addressed, as they relate to the proposed development: • Assessment of existing land uses and transportation system conditions within the site vicinity; • Identification of planned transportation improvements in the study area; • Evaluation of year 2016 background traffic conditions (without site development) during the weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hours; • Average daily and weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hour trip generation estimates for the proposed site development; • Evaluation of year 2016 total traffic operations (with site development) during the weekday a.m.. and p.m. peak hours; I' • Evaluation of vehicle queueing impacts and conditions at key locations; • Evaluation of the location, spacing, sight distance, and safety of proposed site access driveways, including an assessment of compliance with ODOT Division 51 access management policies; • Identification of traffic mitigation measures; and, • Conclusions and recommendations. EXISTING CONDITIONS The existing conditions analysis identifies the site conditions, surrounding land uses, and current operational and geometric characteristics of the roadways within the study area. Baseline traffic conditions will be compared with future traffic conditions later in this report. Kittelson & Associates, Inc. (KAI) staff visited and inventoried the proposed development site and surrounding study area in December 2014. At that time, KAI collected information regarding site conditions, adjacent land uses, existing traffic operating conditions, and transportation facilities in the study area. ,. Kittelson&Associates,Inc. Portland,Oregon SW School Road/OR 99W Retail Development—Tigard,OR Project#:13755.05 July 15,2015 Page:5 Site Conditions The development site is currently owned by the Tigard-Tualatin School District. Although it is vacant today, it served as a school bus storage facility for the school district from 2005 until 2013. Prior to 2005, the subject site was the location of the original elementary school, which is now located nearby to the northwest. A fully-directional site access is currently provided to OR 99W from SW School Road, which is a private drive on the development property. An access easement exists on the private portion of SW School Road leading to an O'Reilly Auto Part Store to the south and to the public portion of SW School Road behind the development site to the northwest. There is a second fully-directional site access driveway to OR 99W, immediately across from SW Garrett Street. This access has not been used in years and once served as a primary driveway to the former elementary school parking lot. Adjacent Land Uses The proposed development site is located within the City of Tigard limits and is currently vacant. The site is bounded by SW Pacific Highway (OR 99W) to the southeast, by an existing specialty retail center to the southwest which includes an O'Reilly Auto Parts store, by an established residential neighborhood, a Kids Campus daycare facility, and the Charles F. Tigard Elementary School to northwest, and by other established retail land uses along the highway corridor to the northeast, Transportation Facilities The primary street facility in the site vicinity is OR 99W, which is under the jurisdiction of ODOT. The other streets in the site vicinity include an arterial, two neighborhood routes, and local street or private access driveways, all of which intersect OR 99W. Table 1 summarizes the existing transportation facilities in the site vicinity. Figure 3 displays the existing lane configurations and traffic control devices at the existing study intersections along OR 99W. Table 1: Existing Transportation Facilities Number Speed Limit Bicycle On-Street Parking Roadway Functional Classification' of Lanes (mph) Sidewalks Lanes Allowed? Principal Arterial—City OR 99W Statewide Highway-ODOT 5 35 Yes Yes No SW Park Street Neighborhood Route 2 25 Yes Partial No SW School Road Local Street/Private Drivel 2' NP No No No SW Garrett Street Neighborhood Route 2 25 Yes4 No No SW Walnut Street Arterial 2-3 30 Yes No No 'Per City of Tigard Transportation System Plan and the Oregon Highway Plan(References 1 and 2). l School Road is a public local street from the rear site property line to SW Grant Avenue to the northwest. It is a private drive on the subject site property,including its connection with OR 99W. Although two-way travel is allowed on School Road,the pavement width is narrow,at 16-18 feet on the site property and approximately 16 feet on the public portion of roadway. °Continuous sidewalks on the southern side of the street with partial sidewalk on the northern side of the street. Kittelson&Associates,Inc. Portland,Oregon SW School Road/OR 99W Retail Development July 2015 . (.. 99W I s I. 6bAr°0 Atet° . , , ) m2G-33 m 9090 es �,9 G) h SW PARK STREET `" w 2 (13 711 r y� -L,- <------;"\\O r j `' Mfr P. lir 4 0 i I /A. a\t ),,,,, ,,,A.. :t.„.7) //:4 4t4 t 7a 1m `e U' .4 LEGEND 2 -0 - STOP SIGN TRAFFIC SIGNAL EXISTING LANE CONFIGURATIONS F+ uF4 �� r_ AND TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES - TIGARD, OREGON 3 KLSON& ASSOCIATES,INC, y T 'ORTATION ENGINEERING/ PLANNING SW School Road/OR 99W Retail Development—Tigard,OR Project#:I3755.05 July 15,2015 Page:7 Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities Bicycle lanes are currently provided in both directions on OR 99W. The other streets within the site vicinity do not include continuous bicycle facilities. Continuous sidewalks are present along all streets in the study area, with the exception of SW School Road. Along the site frontage of OR 99W, there is a pedestrian activated signal and crosswalk on the north leg of the OR 99W/SW Garrett Street intersection. This signal was installed when the original elementary school was located on the subject site, but was maintained after the school moved to a new location on SW Walnut Street to the northwest. Current traffic counts indicate 8 pedestrians used the pedestrian signal crossing during the weekday a.m. period from 7:00 - 9:00 a.m. and 10 pedestrians used the pedestrian signal crossing during the weekday p.m. period from 4:00- 6:00 p.m. Transit Facilities Transit service is provided in the site vicinity by TriMet Bus routes 93, 94, and 45. Route 93 provides service along OR 99W Monday through Friday with 30 minute headways between Tigard and Sherwood. Additionally, Route 93 provides service and Saturdays and Sundays with 45-60 minute headways. Route 94 also provides service along OR 99W Monday through Friday with 30 minute headways between Tigard and central Portland. Route 45 provides service to the north along SW Walnut Street Monday through Friday with 30 minute headways between Tigard and central Portland. Additionally, Route 45 provides service and Saturdays and Sundays with 60-90 minute headways. There are bus stops for Routes 93 and 94 located on the northeast corner of the OR 99W/SW Garrett Street intersection and the southwest corner of the OR 99W/School Road intersection. Existing Traffic Volumes and Peak Hour Operations In December 2014, manual turning movement counts were obtained at all the existing study intersections along OR 99W during the weekday afternoon peak period (4:00 - 6:00 p.m.). In April of 2015 manual turning movement counts were obtained at all the existing study intersections along OR 99W during the weekday morning peak period (7:00 — 9:00 a.m.). All counts were conducted on a typical mid-week day when commuter travel peaks along the OR 99W corridor. Based on the traffic count data, the system a.m. and p.m. peak hours were found to occur from 7:25 - 8:25 a.m. and 4:00 - 5:00 p.m. Figure 4 provides a summary of the existing traffic volumes at all existing study intersections during the weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hours. Appendix "A"contains the traffic count worksheets used in this study. Level of Service Standards All level of service (LOS) analyses described in this report were performed in accordance with the procedures stated in the 2010 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM, Reference 3). A description of level of service and the criteria by which they are determined is presented in Appendix "B". Appendix "B" also indicates how level of service is measured and what is generally considered the acceptable range of Kittelson&Associates,inc. Portland,Oregon . . ---...-- SW --..-SW School Road/OR 99W Retail Development July 2015 SEL SSR4/&) 0 _i-9-‘:1\- Oil, O°5 0, ti �j uo C. rya 11 5?p SW PARK STREET Rs 1v I Li® 7-:"--- g = � '"LOS=A 1 } CM=SEBf CM=Nw6 '`\ / F` Y LOS=E LOS=D i LOS=p J DeF6.1 De1=37 7 Q Del=37.4 Oe6=26.1 LU t V1C 0.55 t 1 V7C=0.12 /V/C=0.24 t �t VIC=©82 } 1 I II -g, i g i ji �' `Yv4, ^ �� / � rR s� r � =Q } LOS- � Del=8,2 CM-SEB/LOS=F DBI=>50 CM=N4 LOS=D De1�6 6 9�►OlSC / m V1C=0.55t pyic,0.04LD rvrc=a.�� t Vc4.68t cz tU `1 c LEGEND CM_CRITICAL MOVEMENT(UNSIGNALIZED)2 LOS=INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE (SIGNALIZED)/CRITICAL MOVEMENT LEVEL OF SERVICE(UNSIGNALIZED) m Del=INTERSECTION AVERAGE CONTROL DELAY - _ - (SIGNALIZED)ICRITICALMOVEMENT CONTROL EXISTING TRAFFIC CONDTIONS IGu� i DELAY(UNSIGNALIZED) VWEEKDAY AM AND PM PEAK HOURS { z Q/C=CRITICAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO TIGARD, OREGON KP LSON&ASSOCIATES,INC. ■!, T 'ORTATIONENGINEERING i PLANNING SW School Road/OR 99W Retail Development-Tigard,OR Project#:13755.05 July 15,2015 Page:9 level of service. Broadly speaking, LOS at signalized intersections reflects the average condition for all approaches to the intersection, whereas LOS at unsignalized intersections reflects conditions for the critical approach or movement. All of the existing study intersections intersect OR 99W, where the mobility standards of ODOT apply. ODOT uses a volume-to-capacity (v/c) ratio metric to evaluate mobility conditions. Per the Oregon Highway Plan, the mobility target for OR 99W, which is a Statewide Highway, is a v/c ratio of 0.99 or less during the peak hours. This metric applies to mainline operations as well as intersecting street approaches and private driveways. All intersection level-of-service evaluations used the peak 15-minute flow rate during the weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hours. Using the peak 15-minute flow rate ensures that this analysis is based on a reasonable worst-case scenario. For this reason, the analysis reflects conditions that are only likely to occur for 15 minutes out of each average peak hour. The transportation system will likely operate under conditions better than those described in this report during all other time periods. Peak Hour Conditions Figure 4 also summarizes the existing traffic operations for all study intersections during the weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hours. As shown, all of the study intersections currently operate at v/c ratios below the ODOT mobility standard of 0.99 or less during the weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hours. Appendix "C" includes the level-of-service worksheets under existing traffic conditions. Traffic Safety The reported crash histories at all study intersections were reviewed to identify potential safety issues. ODOT provided crash records from the study intersections for the five-year period, from January 1, 2009, through December 31, 2013. Table 2 summarizes the crash data at the study intersections. Appendix "D"includes the crash data sheets. Table 2: Intersection Crash Summary(2009-20013) Crash Type Severity Total Crashes Rear Right Ped or Side Crashes per Intersection End Angle Turning Bike Swipe Other PDO'" Injury MEV` OR 99W/SW Park Street 6 1 3 - 3 I 7 10 0.18 OR 99W/SW School Road - - 1 - - - 1 1 0.02 OR 99W/5W Garrett Street 3 8 - 1 10 3 13 0.23 OR 99W/SW Walnut Street 6 1 14 1 3 2 17 10 27 0.43 'Million Entering Vehicles,as determined by multiplying PM peak hour entering volumes by a factor of 10 to estimate daily traffic. As shown in Table 2, reported crash rates were low and significantly below 1.0 crashes per million entering vehicles. This indicates there are no potential safety hazards. However, a closer inspection was made of the crash data where there were reoccurring crash type patterns. Kittelson&Associates,Inc. Portland,Oregon SW School Road/OR 99W Retail Development—Tigard,OR Project it:13755.05 July 15,2015 Page:10 R �,,, As shown in the previous table, 6 rear end crashes were reported at the OR 99W intersections with SW Park Street and SW Walnut Street. This crash pattern is common for signalized intersections in a heavily traveled corridor like OR 99W, where the effect of signal cycles create stop-and-go conditions for prevailing highway traffic. Therefore, no measures could be identified or recommended to help reduce the potential for this type of crash. The most prevalent crash pattern was at the OR 99W/SW Walnut Street intersection, which experienced 14 turning type crashes. Closer inspection of the data appear to indicate 8 of these crashes involved the northeast-bound left-turning vehicles that turned in front of opposing through traffic. This left-turn movement currently operates with protected-permissive phasing (Flashing Yellow Arrow), which was modified from protected-only left-turn phasing in 2010. However, the pattern of left-turning crashes was equally dispersed among the 5-year report history, and any pattern associated with the prior protected phasing and newer protected-permissive phasing could not be detected. It is also important to note that 8 turning-type crashes were reported for the OR 99W/SW Garrett Street intersection. Three of these crashes were related to a driver turning left onto OR 99W from SW Garrett Street and the remainder involved a right turn movement. As identified in the Traffic Mitigation Measures section of this report, a raised concrete island is recommended for OR 99W between the OR 99W/SW School Road intersection and the SW Garrett Street intersection. This measure will eliminate a key conflicting movement (left-out) from SW School Road, and thus, provide safer opportunities for 0 drivers accessing OR 99W from SW Garrett Street. FUTURE CONDITIONS ANALYSIS The future conditions analysis identifies how the transportation system will operate in the year the proposed retail development is expected to be build out and fully occupied (2016). The impacts of traffic generated by the proposed development were examined as follows: • Planned and funded transportation improvements were identified in the study area; • Year 2016 background traffic conditions (without site development) were analyzed at each of the study intersections during the weekday a.m. p.m. peak hours; • Site trips were estimated for the a.m. and p.m. peak hours and then distributed to the study intersections and proposed site accesses based on the existing traffic patterns, knowledge of the local transportation network, and the proposed site access scheme for the OR 99W site frontage; • Year 2016. total traffic conditions (with site development) were analyzed at the study intersections and proposed site accesses during the weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hours. Planned Transportation Improvements kJNo short term improvements could be identified for the transportation system in the site vicinity over the next 1-2 years. Kittelson&Associates,Inc. Portland,Oregon SW School Road/OR 99W Retail Development—Tigard,OR Project fit:13755.05 July 15,2015 Page:11 Year 2016 Background Traffic Conditions r Year 2016 background traffic volumes were estimated by applying an annual traffic growth rate to existing traffic volumes determined from existing counts. Using 2009 and 2035 traffic volume projections presented in the City of Tigard Transportation System Plan (Reference 1), a linear annual traffic growth rate of just under 1% was determined for the OR 99W corridor. To insure a conservative analysis, this study relies on a 2% annual growth rate applied to existing volumes to forecast year 2016 volumes. This resulted in a 2% growth rate applied to the a.m. volumes and a 4% growth rate applied to p.m. volumes, due to the year when counts were performed. Figure 5 displays the forecast year 2016 background traffic volumes during the weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hours. Figure 5 also summarizes the 2016 background traffic operations for the study intersections under the weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hours. As shown, all intersections are forecast to continue operating at v/c ratios below the ODOT mobility standard of v/c of 0.99 or less during the weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hours. Appendix "E" includes the level-of-service worksheets under year 2016 background traffic conditions. Proposed Development Plan The proposed site development will consist of a 15,000 square foot Natural Grocers store. The building will be situated up against the highway site frontage and against SW School Road, with parking provided on the northeast and northwest faces of the building. The store is expected to be built out and operational by the year 2016. As show in the site plan in Figure 2, and as demonstrated by the assumed lane configurations and traffic control devices shown in Figure 6,two site accesses are proposed along OR 99W. These accesses and their justification are described in further detail in the following sections. South Site Access to OR 99W(SW School Road) The southern site access to OR 99W will be from SW School Road, which will remain in its current location but reconfigured from a private drive to a public local street. This will allow for public access to the site development as well as to the adjacent O'Reilly Auto Parts store to the south and the public portion of SW School Road behind the subject site to the northwest. Although SW School Road has a fully directional access to OR 99W today, the proposed development plan will change this access to allow for right-in, right-out, left-in (R1ROLI) only movements by constructing a raised concrete median along OR 99W. This change will restrict left-turns onto the highway from SW School Road. Appendix F shows a preliminary concept for the median design at the SW School Road access, which may be modified as part of ODOT's design review and permitting process. The left-turn egress restriction at SW School Road will require rerouting of a small number of trips that currently turn left from School Road. Figure 7 illustrates the rerouting of these trips during the weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hours. Kittelson&Associates,Inc. Portland,Oregon SW School Road/OR 99W Retail Development July 2015 sly 99W Y ,II s� soya AtO 4 (,D O<,AO o (I) X99 SW PARK STREET i P: Q .+ LOS=Af4. 1 CM=SEB/ CM= +j __ • s , Q Del=5.2 Deo-38 2 Del-27.3 Del=38.3 VIC=0.56 t 1 V1C=6.12 /V/C=0.28 t V1C=6.83 } ` iljQ pa ri► • 1s I Ar Ay��"]%� '~,"5 Aoo s`�� (1A11110 SEBT CM=MNB LQS=C j Y Del=6.4 LDS=F LOS=F Del-28.7 1 Q Del=>50.6 Del= 50.6 W +//lC=0.51�t y1C=0.04 JrV1C=6.38 t 3 YIC 6 71 t t `L . v a. A + ��a� ..e? ..,"W-s. ..&ar ^�::3:-.' ��8� I m LEGEND z j CM=CRITICAL MOVEMENT(UNSIGNALIZED) a LOS=INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE (SIGNALIZED)/CRITICAL MOVEMENT LEVEL OF SERVICE(UNSIGNALIZED) 36 Del=INTERSECTION AVERAGE CONTROL DELAY L - - (SIGNALIZED)ICRITICALMOVEMENT CONTROL IYEAR 2016 BACKGROUND TRAFFIC CONDTIONS Flr_l=' s DELAY(UNSIGNALIZED) WEEKDAY AM AND PM PEAK HOURS I, V/C=CRITICAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO TIGARD, OREGON 5 , NN EL.SON&ASSOCIATES,INC. PORTATIONENGINEERING! PLANNINGel ',s., ...'") SW Self lad/OR 99W Retail Development July 2015 i sry ST41/ RF$;?, &T 0 P 99W) 9 -- I sky d'C1/2`00 AO) . , cri 1 74i. NI 2 9 /0 p R � 1<\m2A 9vc199 R I SW PARK STREET i i tgF (/',l," —:`4.-4' .47. 7;• /// �5L` {�t0 \\\\,,:ii. .1::) cil- ls ct I (.3 1 4 , LEGEND } : STOP SIGN *Assumes construction of raised concrete median and left separator. "Assumes new site driveway restricted to right-in/right-out only movements by existing raised traffic separator. s ;Ali -TRAFFIC SIGNAL — ASSUMED 2016 TOTAL TRAFFIC LANE CONFIGURATIONS FIGUPE - ASSUMED AND TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES TIGARD, OREGON 1 KLN KITTELSON&ASSOCIATES,INC. TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING! PLANNING SW School Road/OR 99W Retell Development July 2015 e si,y -9rIV I .? k.%., orp _. 0 c, _., , � � 600� 4��� 4! 90 mZG�v '92, 3 N�cP A 79 N SW PARK STREET h R .>>IA •I _ _ I 3 b w , rc:, .„D M = Lu NO NET CHANGE NO NET CHANGE NO NET CHANGE 3 ¢ I I B 1 .4,, 177,,,---:)."‘„ ------,...\) 1 ii__-- 8i z a Dcc 0 _______7 NO NET CHANGE NO NET CHANGE NO NET CHANGE 1! i \\-.. \\::: ..--,""il 2 N---..___ ______,) \\N-..____ c 26. ASSUMED IMPROVMENT REROUTED TRIPS FIGURE WEEKDAY AM AND PM PEAK HOURS 7 TIGARD, OREGON K 7LSON& ASSOCIATES,INC. •\ T6 ` 'ORTATPON ENGINEERING! PLANNING SW School Rood/OR 99W Retail Development—Tigard,OR Project P:13755.05 July 15,2015 Page:15 North Site Access to OR 99W The northern site access to OR 99W is essentially a relocation of the existing fully-directional site driveway that is directly across from SW Garrett Avenue. At its new location near the northern property limits, it will provide access to the main parking lot area of the proposed retail store. However, movements will be restricted to right-in/right-out (RIRO) only due to the raised concrete traffic separator that exists today along the highway median. This traffic separator extends approximately 180 feet north from SW Garrett Avenue and was installed when the Jack-in-the-Box fast- food restaurant on the opposite side of the highway was established. Basis for Site Access Scheme Along OR 99W The proposed site plan, including the building location, parking lot layout, and site access scheme for OR 99W represents the best possible plan for the success of this project and for the transportation system. The following are 7 reasons to support this position: 1. Both site accesses along the OR 99W site frontage will operate adequately, in terms of level of service, delay, and v/c ratios, and vehicle queues will not exceed available lane storage. (See Year 2016 Total Traffic Conditions section of this report). 2. The raised median treatment and left-turn egress restriction proposed for the SW School Road access to OR 99W will improve highway safety, particularly for drivers using SW Garrett Avenue. (See Traffic Safety section of this report). 3. The proposed site accesses and associated design treatments meet the highway approach permitting, access control and access management standards of ODOT, which has jurisdiction over OR 99W. (See Review of Access Management Policies section of this report) 4. The site plan establishes a reasonable level of access for site customers and a functional circulation pattern for truck deliveries, (See the Site Access and Circulation Review section of this report) 5. The site plan minimizes site traffic impacts on the residential neighborhood behind the subject site. This is achieved by allowing left-in movements off of OR 99W at the south site access, and by locating the primary parking area on the north side of the building to encourage use of the northern site driveway. (See the Site Access and Circulation Review section of this report) 6. The site plan minimizes the potential for cut-through traffic across the retail properties immediately south of the subject site. The placement of the proposed retail building up against the highway frontage and against the easement along SW School Road will discourage drivers from traveling through the parking lots of the adjacent retail properties to get to unrestricted driveways to OR 99W and SW Park Street. (See the Site Access and Circulation Review section of this report) 7. The proposed site accesses and associated design treatments will maintain adequate operating conditions for drivers on OR 99W and at SW Garrett Avenue over the long-term 2035 planning horizon. Whereas, the establishment of the single site driveway directly across from SW; Garrett Avenue will result in poor operating conditions. (See findings of Zone Change TDA).. Kittelsan&Associates,Inc. Portland,Oregon SW School Road/OR 99W Retail Development-Tigard,OR Project#:13755.05 July 15,2015 Page:16 4,60, Business Description of Retailer for Proposed Site Development The proposed site development will consist of a Natural Grocers store. Although Natural Grocers does sell organic produce, it is commonly misclassified as a grocery store or supermarket. The fact is, because of its business practices and company philosophy, Natural Grocers operates in a substantially different manner than a large-chain supermarket, such as Albertsons or Safeway, or a specialty grocery store, such as Trader Joe's or Whole Foods. One primary differentiator is that Natural Grocers dedicates approximately 30% of its floor space to vitamins a id supplements, which generates a corresponding 30% of revenue. Natural Grocers also does not feature an alcohol section, bakery department, deli and meat counter, limited service banking, photo center, or pharmacy. But is does feature cooking and nutrition classes and healthy living events. Natural Grocers also operates with more limited hours, usually from 9:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m., as opposed to typical supermarkets which open much earlier in the morning and close much later in the evening. Natural Grocers is also smaller than most supermarkets, with store sizes ranging from 8,000 to 26,000 square feet; this is equivalent to one quarter to one third the size of a typical Whole Foods. Site Trip Generation Trip generation estimates were prepared for the proposed site development using rate information contained in the Institute of Transportation Engineers standard references Trip Generation Manual, 9th Edition (Reference 4) and Trip Generation Handbook, 3rd Edition (Reference 5). As described previously, the unique business characteristics, limited store hours, and smaller building sizes do not qualify Natural Grocers stores for ITE Code 850 {Supermarket), or even ITE Code 826 (Specialty Retail Center). The only compatible use in the manual is ITE Code 820(Shopping Center). Using ITE Land Use Code 820 (Shopping Center), average daily as well as weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hour trips were estimated for the proposed development. Table 3 displays the trip generation results. As shown, the proposed development has the potential to generate primary, or net new trips on the system by an amount of 423 average daily trips, 9 weekday a.m. peak hour trips, and 37 weekday p.m. peak hour trips. Table 3: Estimated Site Trip Generation ITE Size Average Weekday AM Peak Hour Trips Weekday PM Peak Hour Trips Land Use (Square Daily Code Feet) Trips Total In Out Total In Out Shopping Center 641 14 9 5 56 27 29 Pass By 34%(Daily,AM,PM) 820 15,000 218 5 3 2 19 9 10 Primary Trips 423 9 6 3 37 18 19 Site Trip Distribution/Trip Assignment Site-generated trips were distributed to the study intersections based on observed traffic patterns and knowledge of the local transportation network, while considering the turn movement restrictions at the two proposed site accesses to OR 99W. This resulted in 55% of primary trips being routed to/from the Kittelson&Associates,Inc. Portland,Oregon SW School Road/OR 99W Retail Development-Tigard,OR Project#:13755.05 July 15,2015 Page:17 southwest towards King City and Sherwood and 45% of the primary trips being routed from the northeast towards Beaverton and Portland. Figure 8 illustrates the trip distribution and total traffic assignments for the proposed development during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. For more information on the separate pass-by and primary trip assignments for both the a.m. and p.m. peak hour periods, please see the figure provided in Appendix "G". Year 2016 Total Traffic Conditions The site trip assignments shown in Figure 8 and the rerouting of existing traffic shown in Figure 7 were added to the 2016 background traffic volumes shown in Figure 5 to estimate 2016 total traffic volumes with the proposed development. Figure 9 displays these volumes. Traffic Operations Figure 9 also summarizes the resulting traffic operating conditions at all study intersections and proposed site accesses. As shown, all intersections are forecast to operate at v/c ratios that are below the 0D0T mobility standard of v/c of 0.99 or less during the weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hours. Appendix "H"includes the level-of-service worksheets under year 2016 total traffic conditions. Vehicle Queueing Vehicle queuing conditions were assessed at key study intersections and at both site accesses along OR 99W to ensure vehicle queuing demand does not exceed available or proposed lane storage. For the analysis 95th percentile queues were estimated for future year 2016 total traffic conditions during the weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hours. Table 4 summarizes the forecast 95th percentile queues, which demonstrates adequate queue results at key locations. Queuing analysis results for the unsignalized study intersections is included in the year 2016 total traffic condition level-of-service worksheets (Appendix H). Appendix "1" includes the queuing analysis worksheets for signalized study intersections under year 2016 total traffic conditions. Kittelson&Associates,Inc. Portland,Oregon SW School Road/QR 99W Retail Development July 2015 5'i sTR44t/r C) 9W� 1 4 1 0 66'9 400 SW PARK STREET h 4 v 3 , I b ti 0 t e 0 6. E cc t. W D , 0 c 8 I't' IE O 9 +�-ids. t' 6'1. ^I. :L v Q`� t'` ,� s r r' Y 1 w /}}} c_ ,`q� ti1O� .:z hpf gyp/ d v t, ASSUMED TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND ASSIGNMENT P1GUPE a. WEEKDAY AM AND PM PEAK HOURS 8 TIGARD, OREGON -1 K K„ ,LSON& ASSOCIATES,INC. ',, ..ORTATION ENGINEERING/ PLANNING SW Sch° fad/OR 99W Retail Development .44Di Jury 2015 I 99W • 6 64 b0 4 kiktetes Zh 90 t"t 9 SWev PARK STREET u!I+ -- ,-i:Ntl:\ e (------- O °'v .47: fir'5 9 .._;°4?) C'ti K ��' '~• •�,�� �4, LOS=A�+ i CM=SEB, CM=NW(, /CM=SEB+( e,�LOS=D�ir LOS=B LOS=D LOS=B Del=B B DeE=38.4 0e123 VPC=d 02 Os1=27 2 fIV1G=0.28 tDel=12.4 1C=0 01 V1G=0.57 V C 0:83 h M 3 ,yc l � 1 il Y r LOS=A7� i GM=SEB, GM=NVJFl KMrSEH/ i'a ��♦♦♦( LOS=C LOWLOS=B LOS=C Os1=7.3 Ds1=28.2 < Del=1 7 8 Del=s50 Del=18.a ♦ VPC=D 71 I m Lu t VrC=O 58 sIIC4 04 /V/C=0 38 t 11IC=0 02 J C0- Ohl n a,� by J' h .�&a� ha�yr 7�'v A LEGEND ,E CM=CRITICAL MOVEMENT(UNSIGNALIZED) LOS=INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE (SIGNALIZED)/CRITICAL MOVEMENT LEVEL N. OF SERVICE(UNSIGNALIZED) m Del=INTERSECTION AVERAGE CONTROL DELAY (SIGNALIZED)ICRITICAL MOVEMENT CONTROL YEAR 201E TOTAL TRAFFIC CONDTIONS rIGuRE DELAY(UNSIGNALIZED) WEEKDAY AM AND PM PEAK HOURS (, V/C=CRITICAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO 9 . TIGARD, OREGON K.K. KITTELSON&ASSOCIATES,INC. '.- TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING/ PLANNING 5W School Rood/OR 99W Retail Development-Tigard,OR Project#:13755.05 July 15,2015 Page:19 Table 4: 95th Percentile Vehicle Queue Results(Year 2016 Total Traffic Conditions) 95t Percentile Queues' Available or Adequate AM Peak PM Peak Proposed Storage Intersection Turn Lane Hour Hour Lane Storage Available? SW Park Street/OR 99W Southwestbound Left-Turn <25 feet <25 feet 100 feet Yes SW School Road Site Southeastbound Right Turn <25 feet <25 feet >50 feet Yes Access/OR 99W Northeastbound Left-Turn <25 feet <25 feet >50 feet Yes Southwestbound Left-Turn Lane <25 feet <25 feet 135 feet Yes SW Garrett Street/OR 99W Northwestbound Left/Right-Turn 50 Feet 25 Feet >100 feet Yes RIRO Site Access/OR 99W Southeastbound Right Turn Lane <25 feet <25 feet >50 feet Yes 'Queues rounded to nearest 25-foot increments.Assumes queued vehicle storage length of 25 feet. Sight Distance Analysis An analysis was conducted to determine the adequacy of intersection sight distance (ISD) based on guidance provided in A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets (AASHTO, Reference 6) and considering the limited turn movements that will be allowed at the proposed site accesses to OR 99W. For the analysis, a design speed of 40 MPH was assumed, which is 5 MPH higher than the posted speed (4") of 35 MPH. it At the SW School Road/OR 99W site access, MUTCD criteria for intersection traffic control Case B2 (Right-turn from Stop) and Case F (Left-turn from the Major Road) apply, given that traffic movements will be limited to right-in/right-out/left-in only. For Case B2, AASHTO recommends a minimum intersection sight distance of 290 feet for the right-turn movement onto the highway. For Case F, AASHTO recommends a minimum ISD of 245 feet for the left-turn off the highway. Based on a field survey, available ISD is greater than 400 feet in both directions along the highway. Therefore, minimum AASHTO standards will be satisfied. The same result is true for the northern site access with OR 99W, which will be limited to right-in/right- out only movements. For Case B2, the minimum AASHTO standard of 290 feet will be satisfied, as available ISO is greater than 400 feet in north direction along the highway. It should also be emphasized that any landscaping and above-ground utilities established along the proposed site development frontage should be planned and maintained in a manner that does not obstruct sight distance. Review of ODOT Access Management Policies OAR 734-051 (commonly known as Division 51) governs access control, spacing standard, and median on state highway approaches. Per OAR 734-051-3020, an application is required for permitting all Kittelson&Associates,Inc. Portland,Oregon SW School Road/OR 99W Retail Development—Tigard OR Project#:13755.05 July 15,2015 Page:20 private connections to a state highway where certain criteria is satisfied for a change of use. The following specifies the change of use criteria, followed by responses (in bold): (a) The number of peak hour trips increases by fifty(50)trips or more from that of the property's prior use and the increase represents a twenty(20)percent or greater increase in the number of peak hour trips from that of the property's prior use; or Response: Total combined external vehicle trips at northern and southern site accesses to OR 99W are forecast to increase by 12 and 42 during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours, respectively.Therefore, criterion A is not met. (b) The average daily trips increases by five hundred(500) trips or more from that of the property's prior use and the increase represents a twenty(20)percent or greater increase in the average daily trips from that of the property's prior use;or Response: The proposed development is forecast to generate 641 external new trips. Therefore, criterion B is met. (c) The daily use of a connection increases by ten (10) or more vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating of twenty-six thousand(26,000)pounds or greater; or Response: The proposed development is anticipated to receive several large deliveries (WB-67 design vehicle) on a weekly basis, but far less than 10 on a daily basis. Therefore, criterion C is not met. (d) 000T demonstrates that safety or operational concerns related to the connection are occurring as identified in OAR 734-051-4020(3); Response: The existing (full movement) southern site access is slightly staggered with the SW Garrett Street/OR 99W intersection, with overlapping left-turn movements. Per OAR 734-051-4020(3b) overlapping left-turn movements may be considered a safety/operational concern. With the increase in site traffic, we anticipate that ODOT will consider this a concern, and criterion D would be met. However, we believe the proposal to restrict egress left-turns from the southern site access will remedy any safety/operational concern of ODOT. (e) The connection does not meet the stopping sight distance standards, as measured in feet, of ten (10) times the speed limit established in ORS 811.111 or the designated speed posted under ORS 810.180 for the highway as measured in miles per hour, or ten (10) times the 85th percentile speed of the highway where the 85th percentile speed is higher or lower than the speed limit established in ORS 811.111 or the designated speed posted under ORS 810.180. The permit holder may perform a study to determine if the 85th percentile speed is higher or lower than the speed limit established in ORS 811.111 or the designated speed posted under ORS 810.180. Kittelson&Associates,Inc. Portland,Oregon SW School Road/OR 99W Retail Development-Tigard,OR Project#:13755.05 July 15,2015 Page:21 . , The sight distance measurement and the study to determine the 85th percentile speed shall be performed according to published department procedures by or under the supervision of an engineer registered in Oregon. The measurement shall be taken under existing and proposed site conditions. Response: As documented in this study, adequate intersection sight distance can be provided at the northern and southern site accesses. Also, given that OR 99W is relative straight and flat in the site vicinity, there is adequate stop.ing sight distance along the highway mainline. Therefore, criterion E is not met. As described above, one or more of the OAR 734-051-3020 criteria are met and ODOT review is required to permit the proposed site accesses. In conjunction with this study, applications are being filed with ODOT to permit the proposed site accesses at the locations identified in Figure 2. These accesses are proposed with treatments that limit movements at the northern access to right-in/right- out and at the southern (School Road) access to right-in/right-out/left-in. Per OAR 734-051-3020(6) ODOT shall approve applications for access that meet the following criteria: The department shall approve an application for a state highway approach that does not pose a safety or highway operations concern, as set forth in OAR 734- 051-4020(3), or all such concerns are sufficiently mitigated pursuant to OAR 734- 051-3070, and: (a) The application meets the applicable approach road spacing, channelization and sight distance standards set forth in OAR 734-051-4020(2)(a) through (c); or (b) The department and the applicant reach agreement that the application moves in the direction of conforming to approach road spacing, channelization, and sight distance standards under sections(7) through (9) of this rule; or (c) The applicant and the department reach agreement under section (6)(b) that the existing condition without change is sufficient to support approval of an application. OAR 734-051-3020(8) defines several criteria applicable for moving in the direction of conformity. The following criteria were identified as ways in which proposed site accesses move in the direction conformity. (a) Eliminating or combining existing connections to the highway resulting in a net reduction in the number of connections. Applicability: The southern site access (SW School Road) already provides access r to the site, but also serves the adjacent O'Reilly Auto Part Store and other land uses behind the property (i.e. daycare, elementary school, and single family Kittelson&Associates,Inc. Portland,Oregon SW School Rood/OR 99W Retail Development-Tigard,OR Project#.13755.05 July 15,2015 Page:22 residents). Therefore, the access in its current state already represents a combination of existing accesses. In addition, the proposed restriction of the left- turn egress movement onto the highway will reduce the number of conflicting movements, which achieves the spirit of ODOT's policy to eliminate existing connections. (b) Improving the distance between connections. Applicability: The proposed northern access will be moved to the northern edge of the site providing more distance between it and the southern site access (SW School Road). The relocation of this driveway and modification to right-in/right- out only, will have a positive effect on the function of SW Garrett Avenue. (d) Widening an existing connection to accommodate truck turning radius requirements. Applicability: The proposed site accesses will be constructed to accommodate a WB-67 design vehicle, which will need to access and circulation through the proposed development. As shown above, the proposed access plan can be approved by ODOT as moving in the direction of conformity. Further, the proposed access plan enhances the long-term safety and operation of the highway compared to a scenario that relies on a single full-movement access aligned with SW Garrett Street. From the Zone Change TIA, it was demonstrated that: • Turning traffic from a single full-movement access across from SW Garrett Avenue would compete for acceptable gaps with this public road. The proposed access plan eliminates this conflict and enhances operations at the SW Garrett Street/OR 99W intersection. • The restriction of left-out movements at both accesses site prohibits the most challenging turning maneuvers. The allowed right-out movements have less conflict points than left-out movements, enhancing safety at both site accesses. Review of Tigard Access Management Policies In addition to ODOT's Division 51 access management policy, the City of Tigard enforces its own access standards. Per Chapter 18.705.030(H.3) of the Tigard community development code (CDC) "the minimum spacing of driveways and streets along an arterial shall be 600 feet." Because OR 99W is designated as a Principal Arterial roadway in the City's Transportation System Plan, this minimum access spacing standard applies. As shown in the site plan (Figure 2), the proposed site accesses to OR 99W are less than 600 feet apart and a Special Adjustment from the City Engineer is necessary to allow the accesses. Such an adjustment has been prepared in a memorandum submitted concurrently to the City of Tigard titled Special Kitte!son&Associates,Inc- Portland,Oregon SW School Road/OR 99W Retail Development—Tigard,OR Project II:13755.05 July 15,2015 Page:23 Adjustment Request for Specialty Retail Grocer Site Development and dated July 15, 2015. As documented in this memorandum, the proposed access plan meets all criteria for seeking a Special Adjustment to the City's 600 feet spacing standard. Site Access and Circulation Review Internal site circulation was evaluated to ensure that the proposed site plan and accesses to OR 99W provide sufficient on-site circulation for pedestrian movements and internal traffic, including large trucks. Traffic Circulation The placement of the proposed retail building up against the highway and up against SW School Road will encourage site users to utilize the main parking area on the north side of the building and discourage site drivers destined to travel north on OR 99W from accessing the retail properties immediately to the south and the unrestricted driveways they have to OR 99W and SW Park Street. To further discourage such actions, optional signage could be placed on the development site directing drivers to use the back route along SW School Road, SW Grant Avenue, and SW Park Street to head north on OR 99W. Pedestrian Access Pedestrians will be able to access the site by a new sidewalk facility constructed along the site frontage of OR 99W and along SW School Road, and new sidewalks placed along the north and west sides of the building to provide access to the main building entrance. In addition, the current site plan relies on maintaining the existing signalized pedestrian crossing of OR 99W at SW Garrett Avenue. Truck Accessibility The ingress and egress movements of a WB 67 design vehicle, which is used by the proposed retail business, were simulated on the site plan to ensure the access, circulation and parking needs of large delivery trucks can be met. As shown by the exhibit in Appendix "J", the selected design vehicle can be accommodated by having trucks enter at the southern site access (SW School Road) and leave from the north site access. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The results of this traffic impact analysis report indicate that with the recommended mitigation measures, the proposed retail development can be constructed while maintaining acceptable levels of service and safety on the surrounding transportation system for the build-out year. The findings of this analysis and our recommendations are summarized below. Kittelson&Associates,Inc. Portland,Oregon SW School Road/OR 99W Retail Development—Tigard,OR Project It:13755,05 July 15,2015 Page:24 Existing Conditions • All of the study intersections currently operate at acceptable levels of service during the weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hours. • A review of crash history did not reveal any patterns at study intersections that require mitigation associated with this project. Year 2016 Background Traffic Conditions • All of the study intersections are forecast to continue meeting operational standards during the weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hours. Proposed Development Plan • The proposed 15,000 square foot retail development is forecast to generate 423 net new average daily trips, 9 net new weekday a.m. peak hour trips, and 37 net new weekday p.m. peak hour trips. • SW School Road will be reconfigured on the site development property from a private drive to a public local street. The existing accesses to the adjacent O'Reilly Auto Parts store and land uses behind the site along SW School Road will be maintained. • The existing SW School Road access to OR 99W will remain in place, but with movements restricted to right-in/right-out/left-in only. • The existing northern site access to OR 99W across from SW Garrett Avenue will move to the northern site limits, with movements restricted to right-in/right-out. • The proposed site access scheme for OR 99W represents the best possible plan for the success of this project and for the transportation system, for the following reasons: 1. Both accesses will operate adequately in the build-out year, in terms of level of service and delay, and vehicle queues will not exceed available lane storage. Also, sight distance will be adequate at both accesses. 2. The turn restriction for the SW School Road access will improve highway safety, particularly for drivers using SW Garrett Avenue. 3. The site accesses and associated design treatments meet the permitting standards of ODOT, which has jurisdiction over OR 99W. 4. The site plan establishes a reasonable level of access for site customers and a functional circulation pattern for truck deliveries. 5. The site plan minimizes site traffic impacts on the residential neighborhood behind the subject site by allowing left-in movements off of OR 99W at the south site access, and by locating the primary parking area on the north side of the building to encourage use of the northern site driveway. Kittelson&Associates,Inc. Portland,Oregon 1 SW School Road/OR 99W Retail Development-Tigard,OR Project N:13755.05 July 15,2015 Page:25 6. The site plan minimizes the potential for cut-through traffic across the retail properties immediately south of the subject site. 7. Over the long-term planning horizon, the proposed site accesses will operate adequately. Whereas, the establishment of the single site driveway directly across from SW Garrett Avenue will result in poor operating conditions in the long-term, as per the findings of Zone Change TPA. Year 2016 Total Traffic Conditions • With proposed site access improvements in place, all study intersections are forecast to continue meeting operational standards during the weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hours of the build-out year. • Queuing at the site accesses and critical intersections in the site vicinity is forecast to be minimal and adequate storage is provided. Recommendations • Reconfigure SW School Road on the site development property from a private drive to a public local street. Maintain the existing access to the adjacent O'Reilly Auto Parts store and land uses behind the site along SW School Road. • Maintain the SW School Road access to OR 99W and restrict movements at this access to right-in, right-out, left-in (RIROLI) by constructing a raised concrete median along OR 99W. • Relocated the northern site driveway to the northern site limits and restrict movements to right-in and right-out only. • Landscaping and aboveground utilities along the proposed site frontage should be planned and maintained in a manner that does not obstruct sight distance. This concludes our transportation impact analysis for the proposed retail development at 13125 SW Pacific Highway (OR 99W) in Tigard. If you have any questions regarding the analysis presented herein, please contact me at (503)-228-5230. Sincerely, KITTELSON & ASSOCIATES, INC. Brian J. Dunn, P.E. Patrick Marnell, E.I.T. Associated Engineer Transportation Analyst Appendices: A through F Kittelson&Associates,Inc. Portland,Oregon SW School Rood/OR 99W Retail Development—Tigard,OR Project#:1375505 July 15,2015 Page:26 References: 1. City of Tigard. 2035 Transportation System Plan. November 2010. 2. Oregon Department of Transportation. 1999 Oregon Highway Plan. Including amendments 11/1/1999 - 11/21/2014. http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/TD/TP/pages/ahp 1999p1an.aspx 3. Transportation Research Board. Highway Capacity Manual. 2010. 4. Institute of Transportation Engineers. Trip Generation Manual, 9th Edition. 2012. 5. Institute of Transportation Engineers. Trip Generation Handbook, 3`d Edition. August 2014. 6. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets. 2011 6th Edition. Kittelson&Associates,Inc. Portland,Oregon Appendix A Traffic Count Worksheets Type of peak hour being reported:System Peak Method for determining peak hour:Total Entering Volume LOCATION: Hwy 99W--SW Walnut St QC JOB#: 13155601 CITY/STATE: Tigard, OR DATE: Wed, Dec 03 2014 i1730 1396 Peak-Hour:4:00 PM--5:00 PM .;, * 2 9 4.3 577 1537 21 Peak 15-Min: 4:30 PM --4:45 PM t t 1.7 31 DD .. / J i t► J i to 331 «117 t_ t 11 * 48 3.0 «4.3 t D-0 ~ 2.1 12 0.98 ' * 17n.0 ♦ - « 5.9 268~ 139 Ir2D 45 3A .II2.9 1 � * �r 0.0.11. 2 2 137 1268 12 t * aQuaLtY Counts 4.4 4.3 8.9 1891 1417 t 3.0 4.4 13 L 10 , 01 d t 4 fl 1 t U 7 I 0 ����I 11 D � , « D IIt IJ111. z C 12 --i1 1 op NA r 4 t. t---— _; J •� t 4 « : t « ITT' s -ice t NAillheio• « NA NA y �� NA .► z c . r .1 it I. --I .1 . e• r M NA NA 4 ' 5-Min Count ' Hwy 99W Hwy 99W SW Walnut St SW Walnut St Total Hourly Period (Northbound) (Southbound) (Eastbound) {Westbound) Totals Beginning At Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U _ 4:00 PM I 14 129 1 0 5 137 13 0 10 1 11 0 , 4 0 1 0 326 4:05 PM 7 89 0 0 2 134 16 0 6 1 11 0 , 0 0 1 0 267 4:10 PM 9 87 3 0 2 140 17 0 11 0 14 0 2 2 1 0 288 4:15 PM 9 103 0 0 0 121 14 0 7 0 20 0 3 1 2 0 280 4:20 PM 11 110 3 0 2 103 6 0 13 0 9 0 1 2 0 0 w 260 4:25 PM 14 116 1 0 2 115 16 0 12 1 11 0 1 3 2 0 294 4:30 PM i 10 101 0 0 1 124 14 0 11 2 11 ' 0 1 1 0 0 276 4:35 PM 11 111 0 0 2 123 21 0 9 1 7 0 2 1 1 0 289 4:40.PM 8 112_-- 2--_._--0._J__ Q _.._155 .--__18__.__ .0.. _—__8_.__.__.3 8 0 .... 2 __._.0 ...__1_. 0 -__ 317_. 4:45 PM 10 101 2 0 1 117 12 0 11 0 14 0 2 3 1 0 274 4:50 PM 14 96 0 0 0 131 13 0 12 3 10 0 . 2 2 0 0 283 _4:55.PM 20 113 0 0 4 132 17 0 7 0 13 0 0 2 1 0__ 309_ 3463 5:00 PM 11 83 1 0 4 106 18 0 9 1 19 0 1 1 1 0 255 3392 5:05 PM 10 102 1 0 2 115 24 0 13 0 10 0 1 2 3 0 283 3408 5:10 PM 7 91 1 0 2 137 13 0 12 1 11 0 2 2 3 0 282 3402 5:15 PM 6 108 2 0 2 136 21 0 13 1 15 0 3 3 2 0 312 3434 5.20 PM 12 103 4 0 0 126 26 0 11 0 9 0 1 2 0 0 294 3468 5:25 PM ' 10 100 1 0 1 122 21 0 11 3 7 0 2 1 1 0 280 3454 5:30 PM 19 119 2 0 2 114 22 0 15 1 16 0 1 2 0 0 313 3491 5:35 PM 16 98 1 0 2 108 27 0 13 3 16 0 1 2 2 0 289 3491 5:40 PM 9 102 2 0 2 100 29 0 9 1 9 0 0 1 1 0 265 3439 5:45 PM 12 75 0 0 0 108 32 0 10 0 9 0 1 0 1 0 248 3413 5:50 PM 12 100 1 0 2 88 35 0 15 4 13 0 3 0 0 0 273 3403 5:55 PM 21 120 1 0 3 101 24 0 10 1 15 0 1 0 3 0 300 3394 Peak 15-Min Northbound Southbound _ Eastbound Westbound FIowrates Left Thru_ Right U i_Left Thru_ Right_ U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U ` Total All Vehicles 116 1296 8 0 12 1608 212 0 112 24 104 0 20 8 8 0 3528 Heavy Trucks 0 76 0 0 48 8 8 0 0 0 0 0 140 Pedestrians 8 8 8 16 40 Bicycles 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 r Railroad Stopped Buses I - l Comments: Report generated on 12/5/2014 4:04 PM SOURCE:Quality Counts. LLC(http:f/www.qualitycounts.net)1-877-580-2212 i Type of peak hour being reported:System Peak .Method for determining peak hour:Total Entering Volume LOCATION: Hwy 99W--SW School St/SW Garrett St QC JOB#: 13155602 CITY/STATE:_ Tigard, OR DATE: Wed, Dec 03 2014 1664 1372 Peak-Hour: 4:00 PM -- 5:00 PM0 I + I 3.0 4.6 26 1611 22 Peak 15 Min: 4:30 PM --4:45 PM • t 00 3.1 0.0 J a w J a to 2 P1 J 35♦ 44 •00 ~0.0 J t •2.9+ 2.3 ~ 0.99 , « 1 0.0 ♦ Of ~ 0.0 h * f r 8~ 62 •0.0 • 0.0 1�1 * f r 0.0* 1.6 1 1331 35 a Q.QUaUtY Counts �D.fl4.62.9� 1621 1372 3.1 4.6 1 L 1 0 2 0 J # V I 1 0 't R 0 4 I I 8 0 * • 0 it, *a * t'' 1.__1 . -t s 7 4:0 p --1 0 2 0 ] L 4. 1J .. t. NA • <N)t ~ Nr.. NA A �� « NA i * 3 /7 r * z r -t t r '+ t r NA N 4, lt f 1 5-Min Count Hwy 99W Hwy 99W SW School StfSW Garrett St SW School SUSW Garrett Stl Total Hourly Period (Northbound) (Southbound) (Eastbound) (Westbound) Totals Beginning At Left Thru Right _U , Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U_ Left Thru Right - U 4:00 PM 0 124 3 0 3 130 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 1 266 1 4:05 PM 0 91 3 0 4 136 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 238 4:10 PM 0 102 5 0 2 144 5 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 2 0 262 4:15 PM 0 116 1 0 3 138 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 263 4:20 PM 0 124 2 0 1 122 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 256 4:25 PM 0 115 2 0 2 128 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 251 4:30 PM 0 106 4 0 0 131 2 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 4 0 250 1 4:35 PM 0 125 2 0 2 125 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 7 0 264 4:40.P_M 0___ 12 4 0 . 2_ 140 2 0_. 0 4_. 1 0 0 0 _-.1 -_-- 0 _262 4:45 PM 0 111 4 0 3 121 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 242 4:50 PM 0 102 3 0 2 142 3 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 3 0 257 4:55 PM 1 1 10$ 2 0 . 3 154 _0 —0 0 Q- 0 0 1 0_ 3 0 1 272 _ 3083 5:00 PM 1 87 3 0 2 128 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 2 0 228 3045 5:05 PM 0 117 0 0 1 128 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 249 3056 5:10 PM 0 91 3 0 3 129 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 5 0 233 3027 5:15 PM 0 108 3 0 4 140 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 257 3021 rt 5:20 PM 0 122 3 0 4 97 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 3 0 232 2997 5:25 PM 0 107 2 0 3 129 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 7 0 257 3003 r 5:30 PM 0 120 6 0 4 148 3 0 I 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 283 3036 5:35 PM 0 102 2 0 4 122 6 0 0 0 0 0 I 0 0 4 0 240 3012 5:40 PM 0 106 0 0 1 105 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 2 0 218 2968 5:45 PM 0 99 2 0 0 108 3 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 3 0 217 2943 5:50 PM 0 107 3 0 2 101 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 216 2902 5:55 PM 0 126 2 0 2 109 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 243 2873 Peak 15-Min Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound 1=lowrates Left Thru Right U _, Left Thru Right g_ , Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U , Total __ All Vehicles 0 1372 40 0 16 1584 20 0 4 0 4 0 16 0 48 0 3104 Heavy Trucks 0 92 4 0 40 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 136 Pedestrians 0 0 8 0 8 Bicycles 0 1 0 0 1 0 G 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 Railroad Stopped Buses I Comments• Report generated on 12/5/2014 4:04 PM SOURCE:Quality Counts,LLC(http://www.qualitycounts.net)1-877-580-2212 4 Type of peak hour being reported: System Peak Method for determining peak hour:Total Entering Volume LOCATION: Hwy 99W--SW Park St QC JOB#: 13155603 CITY/STATE: Tigard, OR DATE: Wed, Dec 03 2014 1613 1366L Peak-Hour: 4:00 PM --5:00 PM Ia * 3.4 47 30 1563 20 Peak 15-Min: 4:30 PM--4:45 PM a • 0.03.55.0 d # 4 67 4 47 J t 21 ~ 31 • 0.0 2.1 J �" •4.8~ 9 7 • 3 4 1.00 '30.0 . A 40 0.0 85 •35 M t A` 7~ 29 1.2 * 0.0 7 * A; 28.6*13.8 34 12`'7 7 a * QQUaL1tY Counts 0.0 48 42.9 1005 1338 + • 3.5 4.9 A 2 L I0 2 0I J 4. 4 0 L 0 3 I i I 7 I I 0 ♦ dA9 4 0 i Y 7 L 0 � # 0 0 fl 20T- , , . 1 NA ...119 #4 iA I -1 J i 4 l- t . it 4111* , NA * NA i''' r_ NA rt NA • l P ► 7 P -1 4 • • * A NA NA 1-- 5-Min Count I Hwy 99W Hwy 99W SW Park St SW Park St Total Hourly Period (Northbound) (Southbound) (Eastbound) (Westbound) Totals Beginning At Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U 4:00 PM 3 117 2 0 2 130 2 0 6 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 265 ' 4:05 PM 3 98 0 0 0 129 0 0 2 0 3 0 1 2 2 0 240 4:10 PM 3 101 0 0 2 148 2 0 3 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 261 4:15 PM 2 117 0 0 2 130 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 255 4:20 PM 1 119 2 0 4 121 0 0 1 1 5 0 1 0 4 0 259 4:25 PM 3 106 1 0 0 127 4 1 4 0 2 0 0 1 1 0 250 4:30 PM 5 100 1 0 2 122 4 0 7 1 1 0 5 0 2 0 250 4:35 PM 3 116 0 0 3 124 2 0 2 0 4 0 0 0 5 0 259 ` 4:40 PM..._. . 4 114-___. 0__ 0 ..0- 118 .__50._....,...Et..__ ..__0_._____.5.. .0a_._. 0__.._ 0 2 0 254 4:45 PM 3 106 1 0 2 127 2 0 4 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 248 4:50 PM 2 101 0 0 1 140 3 0 8 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 262 ' 4:55 PM 2_ 102 0 0 1__147 5 0_ 2_- 0 2 0 0 0 __ 3 0 264 3067 5:00 PM 1 82 0 0 0 126 3 0 2 0 1 0 1 0 4 0 220 3022 5 05 PM 4 114 1 0 0 123 5 0 i 2 0 3 0 0 0 1 0 ' 253 3035 5:10 PM 8 88 0 0 0 110 7 0 ' 3 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 219 2993 5:15 PM 3 117 0 0 1 136 3 0 4 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 267 3005 5:20 PM 12 117 1 0 1 81 8 0 0 1 5 0 0 1 2 0 229 2975 5:25 PM 0 105 0 0 1 135 6 0 7 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 256 2981 5..:30 PM 5 116 1 0 3 149 7 0 5 0 5 0 0 1 1 0 293 3024 5'.35 PM 8 95 0 0 4 110 6 0 6 0 5 0 2 0 3 0 239 3004 5:40 PM 3 98 1 0 1 109 6 0 7 1 5 0 2 0 4 0 237 2987 5,45 PM 4 88 0 0 0 105 6 0 3 0 4 0 0 1 1 0 212 2951 550 PM 4 107 0 0 1 100 6 0 4 0 6 0 0 0 1 0 229 2918 5'55 PM 5 118 0 0 2 100 4 0 9 0 6 0 4 0 1 0 249 i 2903 Peak 15-Min Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Ftowrates , Left Thru Right U _Left _ Thru Rigf U j Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right tJ Total All Vehicles 48 1320 4 0 20 1456 44 0 ' 60 4 40 0 20 0 36 0 3052 Heavy Trucks 0 92 0 0 48 0 0 0 0 4 0 4 148 Pedestrians 0 8 8 0 16 Bicycles 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 Railroad i Stopped Busesi _ _ Cc??rrleri s Report generated on 12/512014 4:05 PM SOURCE:Quality Counts,LLC(http://www.qualitycounts.net)1-877-580-2212 I, Appendix B Level of Service Concept • c) APPENDIX B LEVEL-OF-SERVICE CONCEPT Level of service (LOS) is a concept developed to quantify the degree of comfort (including such elements as travel time, number of stops, total amount of stopped delay, and impediments caused by other vehicles) afforded to drivers as they travel through an intersection or roadway segment. Six grades are used to denote the various level of service fror,) "A"to "F".1 SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS The six level-of-service grades are described qualitatively for signalized intersections in Table B1. Additionally, Table B2 identifies the relationship between level of service and average control delay per vehicle. Control delay is defined to include initial deceleration delay, queue move-up time, stopped delay, and final acceleration delay. Using this definition, Level of Service "D" is generally considered to represent the minimum acceptable design standard. Table B-1 Level-of-Service Definitions(Signalized Intersections) Level of Service Average Delay per Vehicle Very low average control delay,less than 10 seconds per vehicle.This occurs when progression is extremely favorable,and most A vehicles arrive during the green phase.Most vehicles do not stop at all.Short cycle lengths may also contribute to low delay. Average control delay is greater than 10 seconds per vehicle and less than or equal to 20 seconds per vehicle.This generally occurs with good progression and/or short cycle lengths.More vehicles stop than for a level of service A,causing higher levels of B average delay. Average control delay is greater than 20 seconds per vehicle and less than or equal to 35 seconds per vehicle.These higher delays may result from fair progression and/or longer cycle lengths.Individual cycle failures may begin to appear at this level. C The number of vehicles stopping is significant at this level,although many still pass through the intersection without stopping. Average control delay is greater than 35 seconds per vehicle and less than or equal to 55 seconds per vehicle.The influence of congestion becomes more noticeable.Longer delays may result from some combination of unfavorable progression,long cycle length,or high volume/capacity ratios.Many vehicles stop,and the proportion of vehicles not stopping declines.Individual cycle D failures are noticeable. Average control delay is greater than 55 seconds per vehicle and less than or equal to 80 seconds per vehicle.This is usually considered to be the limit of acceptable delay.These high delay values generally(but not always)indicate poor progression,long E cycle lengths,and high volume/capacity ratios.Individual cycle failures are frequent occurrences. Average control delay is in excess of 80 seconds per vehicle.This is considered to be unacceptable to most drivers.This condition often occurs with oversaturation.It may also occur at high volume/capacity ratios below 1.0 with many individual cycle failures. f Poor progression and long cycle lengths may also contribute to such high delay values. 1 Most of the materia m lhts appends.Is adapted from the rraroponal:Wn Researrlh Board,HIRhotay Capacay Manual,{2(K)0) U ti error!No text of specified style in document. Error!No text of specified style in document. Error!No text of specified style in document. Table B2 Level-of-Service Criteria for Signalized Intersections level of Service Average Control Delay per Vehicle(Seconds) A <10.0 8 >10 and 5_20 C >20 and <35 D >35 and 555 L >S5 and 580 F >80 UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Unsignalized intersections include two-way stop-controlled (TWSC) and all-way stop-controlled (AWSC) intersections. The 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) provides models for estimating control delay at both TWSC and AWSC intersections. A qualitative description of the various service levels associated with an unsignalized intersection is presented in Table B3. A quantitative definition of level of service for unsignalized intersections is presented in Table B4. Using this definition, Level of Service "E" is generally considered to represent the minimum acceptable design standard. Table 83 Level-of-Service Criteria for Unsignalized Intersections Level of Service Average Delay per Vehicle to Minor Street • Nearly all drivers find freedom of operation. • Very seldom is there more than one vehicle in queue. A • Some drivers begin to consider the delay an inconvenience. • Occasionally there is more than one vehicle in queue. B • Many times there is more than one vehicle in queue, • Most drivers feel restricted,but not objectionably so. C • Often there is more than one vehicle in queue. • Drivers feel quite restricted. D • Represents a condition in which the demand is near or equal to the probable maximum number of vehicles that can be accommodated by the movement. • There is almost always more than one vehicle in queue. • Drivers find the delays approaching intolerable levels. E • Forced flow. • Represents an intersection failure condition that is caused by geometric and/or operational constraints external to the intersection. F 1 2 Kittelson&Associates,Inc. Error!No text of specified style in document. Error!No text of specified style in document. Error!No text of specified style in document. Table B4 Level-of-Service Criteria for Unsignalized Intersections Level of Service Average Control Delay per Vehicle(Seconds) A c10.0 8 >10.0and<_15.0 C >15.0and 525.0 D >25.0 and<_35.0 E >35.0 and<_50.0 F >50.0 it should be noted that the level-of-service criteria for unsignalized intersections are somewhat different than the criteria used for signalized intersections. The primary reason for this difference is that drivers expect different levels of performance from different kinds of transportation facilities. The expectation is that a signalized intersection is designed to carry higher traffic volumes than an unsignalized intersection. Additionally, there are a number of driver behavior considerations that combine to make delays at signalized intersections less galling than at unsignalized intersections. For example, drivers at signalized intersections are able to relax during the red interval, while drivers on the minor street approaches to TWSC intersections must remain attentive to the task of identifying acceptable gaps and vehicle conflicts. Also, there is often much more variability in the amount of delay experienced by individual drivers at unsignalized intersections than signalized intersections. For these reasons, it is considered that the control delay threshold for any given level of service is less for an unsignalized intersection than for a signalized intersection. While overall intersection level of service is calculated for AWSC intersections, level of service is only calculated for the minor approaches and the major street left turn movements at TWSC intersections. No delay is assumed to the major street through movements. For TWSC intersections, the overall intersection level of service remains undefined: level of service is only calculated for each minor street lane. In the performance evaluation of TWSC intersections, it is important to consider other measures of effectiveness (MOEs) in addition to delay, such as v/c ratios for individual movements, average queue lengths, and 95th-percentile queue lengths. By focusing on a single MOE for the worst movement only, such as delay for the minor-street left turn, users may make inappropriate traffic control decisions. The potential for making such inappropriate decisions is likely to be particularly pronounced when the HCM level-of-service thresholds are adopted as legal standards, as is the case in many public agencies. 3 Kittelson&Associates,Inc. Appendix C Existing Traffic Level-Of- Service Worksheets HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2014 ExistingTraffic Weekday AM Peak Hour 1 : SW Park St & OR 99 W 4/3012015 Movement EBL _ EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT AI Lane Configurations '1 Ti ) TI. 4 * ',t + r Volume(vph) 26 1465 3 5 898 16 1 1 5 66 2 45 ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frpb,pedlbikes 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.99 Flpb. pedlbikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Fit Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow(prot) 1516 3437 1805 3306 1235 1328 1716 1900 1562 Flt Permitted 0.28 1.00 0.15 1.00 0.93 1.00 0.76 1.00 1.00 Said. Flow(perm) 441 3437 277 3306 1173 1328 1367 1900 1562 Peak-hour factor,PHF 0.96 0,96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Adj. Flow(vph) 27 1526 3 5 935 17 1 1 5 69 2 47 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 5 0 0 43 Lane Group Flow(vph) 27 1529 0 5 951 0 0 2 0 69 2 4 Confl. Peds.(#/hr) 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 1 Heavy Vehicles(%) 19% 5% 0% 0% 9% 0% 0% 100% 20% 5% 0% 2% Turn Type pm+pt NA pm+pt NA Perm NA Perm Perm NA Perm Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 8 4 Permitted Phases 2 6 8 8 4 4 Actuated Green,G(s) 116.7 113.3 111.9 110.9 12.7 12.7 12.7 12.7 12.7 Effective Green,g(s) 116.7 113.3 111.9 110.9 12.7 12.7 12.7 12.7 12.7 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.83 0.81 0.80 0.79 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 Clearance Time(s) 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Vehicle Extension(s) 2.3 5.2 2.3 5.2 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 393 2781 232 2618 106 120 124 172 141 vis Ratio Prot c0.00 c0.44 0.00 0.29 0.00 v/s Ratio Perm 0.06 0 02 0.00 0.00 c0 05 0.00 vie Ratio 0.07 0.55 0.02 0.36 0.02 0.00 0.56 0.01 0.03 Uniform Delay,dl 2.3 4.6 3.6 4.2 58.0 57.9 61.0 57.9 58.0 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 0.48 1.01 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 Incremental Delay.d2 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.3 0.1 0.0 4.3 0.0 0.1 Delay(s) 2.3 5.4 1.7 4.6 58.0 57.9 65.2 58.0 58.1 Level of Service A A A A E E E E E Approach Delay(s) 5.3 4.6 57.9 62.3 Approach LOS A A E E Intersection Summary k HCM 2000 Control Delay 7.7 HCM 2000 Level of Service A HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.55 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 140.0 Sum of lost time(s) 13.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 63.0% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group H:lprojfile113755-Leadership Circle Specialty Retail\005-Tigard\Synchro113755.5-2014_AM-Existing.syn Synchro 8- Report %user_name% Page 1 4 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 2014 ExistingTraffic Weekday AM Peak Hour 1 : SW Park St & OR 99 W 4/30/2015 14- ti t I' " i' I 0 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations - 1 T1+ ) 11a 4 r ) + r Volume(veh/h) 26 1465 3 5 898 16 1 1 5 66 2 45 Number 5 2 12 1 6 16 3 8 18 7 4 14 Initial Q(Qb).veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Fed-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/In 1597 1810 1900 1900 1746 1900 1900 1267 1583 1810 1900 1863 Adj Flow Rate,vehfh 27 1526 3 5 935 17 1 1 5 69 2 0 Adj No. of Lanes 1 2 0 1 2 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 Peak Hour Factor 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Percent Heavy Veh, °l0 19 5 5 0 9 9 100 100 20 5 0 2 Cap,vehlh 460 2950 6 307 2747 50 66 45 86 137 122 102 Arrive On Green 0.02 0.84 0.84 0.01 0.82 0.82 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.00 M Sat Flow,veh/h 1521 3521 7 1810 3333 61 429 698 1340 1358 1900 1583 Grp Volume(v),vehfh 27 745 784 5 465 487 2 0 5 69 2 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1521 1719 1808 1810 1658 1735 1126 0 1340 1358 1900 1583 0 Serve(g s),s 0.4 17.4 17.4 0.1 9.6 9.6 0.0 0.0 0.5 7.0 0 1 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 0.4 17.4 17.4 0.1 9.6 9.6 0.2 0,0 0.5 7.2 0.1 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.03 0.50 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 460 1440 1515 307 1367 1430 111 0 86 137 122 102 V/C Ratio(X) 0.06 0.52 0.52 0.02 0.34 0.34 0.02 0.00 0.06 0.50 0.02 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 562 1440 1515 453 1367 1430 146 0 129 180 183 153 Hal Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1 00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay(d), s/veh 2.1 3.3 3.3 2.9 3.0 3.0 61.4 0.0 61.5 64.8 61.3 0.0 Incr Delay(d2),slveh 0.0 1.3 1.3 0.0 0.7 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.2 2.1 0.0 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3).slveh 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(-26165%),veh/ln 0.2 8.6 9.0 0.0 4.5 4.7 0.1 0.0 0.2 2.7 0.1 0.0 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 2.1 4.6 4.5 2.9 3.7 3.7 61.4 0.0 61.7 66.9 61.4 0.0 LnGrp LOS A A A A A A E E E E Approach Vol,veh/h 1556 957 7 71 Approach Delay.slveh 4.5 3.7 61,6 66.7 Approach LOS A A E E Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc),s 4.7 121.8 13.5 6.6 119.9 13.5 Change Period(Y+Rc),s 4.0 4.5 4.5 4.0 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 12.0 101.5 13.5 12.0 101.5 13.5 Max 0 Clear Time(g_c+11), s 2.1 19.4 9.2 2.4 11.6 2.5 Green Ext Time(p_c).s 0.0 72.3 0.0 0.0 78.2 0.1 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 6.1 HCM 2010 LOS A H:Iprojfile113755-Leadership Circle Specialty Retail\005-Tigard\Synch re)13755.5-2014_AM-Existing.syn Synchro 8- Report °/°user name% Page 1 HCM 2010 TWSC 2014 ExistingTraffic Weekday AM Peak Hour 2: OR 99 W & SW School St 413012015 intersection Int Delay,slveh 0.2 moment EBL, EBT WBT WBR - - SBL SBR Vol,veh/h 2 1519 923 21 7 7 Conflicting Peds,#/hr 2 0 0 2 2 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length 90 - - - 0 - Veh in Median Storage,# - 0 0 - 0 - Grade,% - 0 0 - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 94 94 94 94 94 94 Heavy Vehicles,% 0 4 8 10 0 0 1 Mvmt Flow 2 1616 982 22 7 7 Major/Minor Majorl Major2 Minor2 1410.04 Conflicting Flow All 1006 0 - 0 1807 506 Stage 1 - - - - 995 - Stage 2 - - - - 812 - Critical Hdwy 4.1 - - - 6.8 6.9 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.8 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.8 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.2 - - - 3.5 3.3 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 697 - - - 72 517 Stage 1 - - - - 323 - Stage 2 - - - - 402 - Platoon blocked,% - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 696 - - - 72 515 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 72 - , Stage 1 - - - - 322 - Stage 2 - - - - 400 - Approach EB HCM Control Delay,s 0 0 37.4 HCM LOS E Mucor LanelMajor Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBR SBLn1 -,: - . ... _e ------ _ _- 7 Capacity(veh/h) 696 - - - 126 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.003 - - - 0 118 HCM Control Delay(s) 10.2 - - - 37.4 HCM Lane LOS B - - - E HCM 95th%tile Q(veh) 0 - - - 0.4 H:Iprojfile113755-Leadership Circle Specialty Retail1005-TigardlSynchro113755.5-2014_AM-Existing.syn Synchro 8- Report %user name% Page 3 HCM 2010 TWSC 2014 ExistingTraffic Weekday AM Peak Hour 3: SW Garrett St & OR 99 W 5/412015 Intersection Int Delay. s/veh 0.7 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Vol,vehfh 1503 23 24 941 3 48 Conflicting Peds,#ihr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length - - 150 - 0 - Veh in Median Storage.# 0 - - 0 0 - Grade,% 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 94 94 94 94 94 94 Heavy Vehicles,% 4 9 4 8 0 2 Mvmt Flow 1599 24 26 1001 3 51 Major/Minor Majorl Major2 Minorl Conflicting Flow All 0 0 1623 0 2163 812 Stage 1 - - - - 1611 - Stage 2 - - - - 552 - Critical Hdwy . 4.18 - 6.8 6.94 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.8 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.8 - Follow-up Hdwy - - 2.24 - 3.5 3.32 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 388 - 41 322 Stage 1 - - - - 152 Stage 2 - - - - 546 - Platoon blocked,% - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 388 - 38 322 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 38 - Stage 1 - - - - 152 - Stage 2 - - - - 509 - Approach EB WB NB HCM Control Delay,s 0 0.4 26.1 HCM LOS D Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBT Capacity(vehlh) 224 - - 388 - HCM Lane WC Ratio 0.242 - - 0.066 - HCM Control Delay(s) 26.1 - - 14.9 - HCM Lane LOS D - - B - HCM 95th %tile Q{veh) 0.9 - - 0.2 - H:1projfile113755-Leadership Circle Specialty Retai11005-TigardlSynchrol13755.5-2014_AM-Existing.syn Synchro 8- Report %user_name% Page 1 HCM Signalized intersection Capacity Analysis 2014 ExistingTraffic Weekday AM Peak Hour 5: SW Walnut St & OR 99 W 4/30/2015 J --* ' * T ' " `\ I r 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations ) ?t-, `t ft r 40 ) 1 Volume(vph) 99 1558 9 10 867 113 20 6 18 325 17 124 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 4.0 4.5 4.0 5.0 5.0 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane UN. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1 00 1.00 Frpb. ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.96 0.98 1.00 0.98 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.94 1.00 0.87 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.98 0.95 1.00 Satd.Flow(prot) 1702 3466 1805 3343 1416 1648 1770 1516 Flt Permitted 0.20 1.00 0.07 1.00 1.00 0.98 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 355 3466 142 3343 1416 -1648 - 1770 1516 Peak-hour factor.PHF 0 94 0,94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0 94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0 94 Adj.Flow(vph) 105 1657 10 11 922 120 21 6 19 346 18 132 RTOR Reduction(vph) 0 0 0 0 0 49 0 18 0 0 102 0 Lane Group Flow(vph) 105 1667 0 11 922 71 0 28 0 346 48 0 Cond. Peds.(#/hr) 5 4 4 5 7 4 4 7 Confl.Bikes(#!hr) 3 Heavy Vehicles(%) 6% - 4% 11% 0% 8% 10% 5% 0% 6% 2% 12% 6% Turn Type pm+pt NA pm+pt NA Perm Split NA Split NA Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 8 8 4 4 Permitted Phases 2 6 6 Actuated Green. G(s) 82.3 81.8 55.9 55.9 55.9 6.4 31.9 31.9 Effective Green,g(s) 82.3 81.8 55.9 55.9 55.9 6.4 31.9 31.9 Actuated gIC Ratio 0.59 0.58 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.05 0 23 0.23 Clearance Time(s) 4.0 4.5 4.0 5.0 5.0 4.5 4.5 4.5 Vehicle Extension(s) 2.3 5.1 2.3 5 1 5.1 2.3 2.3 2.3 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 476 2025 85 1334 565 75 403 345 vis Ratio Prot 0.04 c0.48 0.00 c0,28 c0.02 c0.20 0.03 vis Ratio Perm 0.09 0.05 0.05 vlc Ratio 0.22 0.82 0.13 0.69 0,13 0.37 0.86 0.14 Uniform Delay,dl 26.3 23.3 34.2 34.9 26.6 64.8 51.9 43.1 Progression Factor 1.17 1.06 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay.d2 0.1 3.6 0.4 3.0 0.5 1.8 16.1 0.1 Delay(s) 30.9 28.2 34.6 37.8 27.0 66.7 67.9 43.2 Level of Service C C C D C E E 0 Approach Delay(,$) 28.4 36.6 66.7 60.5 Approach LOS C D E E intersection Summary 4 HCM 2000 Control Delay 36.2 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.82 Actuated Cycle Length(s) 140.0 Sum of lost time(s) 18.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 82.3% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period(min) 15 c Critical Lane Group H:iprojfile113755-Leadership Circle Specialty Retai11005-Tigard\Synchro113755.5-2014 AM-Existing.syn Synchro 8- Report %user name% Page 5 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 2014 ExistingTraffic Weekday AM Peak Hour 5: SWWalnut St & ©R99W 413012015 1 - 4 r ~ k- 4\ t /' \' 1 4/ Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT IBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations '1 T1 '1 +1 r 4• "1 T. Volume(veh/h) 99 1558 9 10 867 113 20 6 18 325 17 124 Number 5 2 12 1 6 16 3 8 18 7 4 14 Initial 0(Ob),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A pbT) 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.95 1.00 0 99 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/In 1792 1826 1900 1900 1759 1727 1900 1814 1900 1863 1780 1900 Adj Flow Rate,vehTh 105 1657 10 11 922 120 21 6 19 346 18 132 Adj No. of Lanes 1 2 0 1 2 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 094 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Percent Heavy Veh, 9/0 6 4 4 0 8 10 0 0 0 2 12 12 Cap,veh/h 559 2178 13 69 1162 507 26 8 24 378 39 287 Arrive On Green 0.27 0.62 0.62 0.01 0.35 0.35 0 04 0.04 0.04 0.21 0.21 0.21 Sat Flow,veh/h 1707 3535 21 1810 3343 1458 739 211 668 1774 183 1344 Grp Volume(v), vehlh 105 813 854 11 922 120 46 0 0 346 0 150 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/hfln 1707 1735 1822 1810 1671 1458 1618 0 0 1774 0 1527 0 Serve(g_s),s 0.0 47.4 47.5 0.6 34.8 8.2 3.9 0.0 0.0 26.7 0.0 12.0 Cycle Cl Clear(g_c),s 0.0 47.4 47.5 0.6 34.8 8.2 3.9 0.0 0.0 26.7 0.0 12.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.01 1.00 1.00 0.46 0.41 1.00 0.88 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 559 1069 1122 69 1162 507 58 0 0 378 0 326 V/C Ratio(X) 0.19 0.76 0.76 0.16 0.79 0.24 0.80 0.00 0.00 0.91 0.00 0.46 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 559 1069 1122 207 1361 593 144 0 0 513 0 442 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay(d),sJveh 34.7 19.4 19.4 38.6 41,1 32.5 67.0 0.0 0.0 53.8 0.0 48.1 Incr Delay(d2),slveh 0.1 5.1 4.9 0.6 5.6 1.1 14.0 0.0 0.0 15.7 0.0 0.6 Initial 0 Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %Ile BackOfQ(-26165%),veh/in 3.0 24.1 25.3 0.3 16.9 3.5 2.0 0.0 0.0 14,7 0.0 5.1 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 34.8 24.5 24.3 39.3 46.7 33.6 81.0 0.0 0.0 69.6 0.0 48.7 LnGrp LOS C C C 0 D C F E 0 Approach Vol.veh/h 1772 1053 46 496 Approach Delay, s/veh 25.0 45.1 81.0 63.2 Approach LOS C D F E Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),s 5.4 90.8 34.3 42.5 53.7 9.5 Change Period(Y+Rc), s 4.0 4.5 4.5 4.5 '5 4.5 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 12.0 57.5 40.5 12.0 "57 12.5 Max 0 Clear Time(g c+11),s 2.6 49.5 28.7 2.0 36.8 5.9 Green Ext Time(p_c), s 0,0 7.5 1.1 7.5 11.9 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 37.7 HCM 2010 LOS D Notes HCM 2010 computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. H:\projfile113755-Leadership Circle Specialty Retai11005-Tigard\Synchro\13755.5-2014 AM-Existing.syn Synchro 8- Report %user_name% Page 2 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2014 ExistingTraffic Weekday PM Peak Hour 1 : SW Park St & OR 99 W 4/30/2015 f - , r 4- k- 4\ t /* \* 1 4/ Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations ti- ) T ii. 4 r ) + r Volume(vph) 34 1297 7 20 1563 30 7 3 21 47 3 35 ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.5 4.5 4.5 4,5 4.5 4.5 Lane Utll. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frpb,pedlbikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flpb.pedlbikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0 95 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow(prot) 1805 3428 1719 3495 1526 1515 1764 1900 1615 Flt Permitted 0.13 1.00 0.19 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.75 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) _ 243 3428 336 3495 1339 1515 1395 1900 1615 Peak-hour factor,P'HF 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 Adj. Flow(vph) 34 1310 7 20 1579 30 7 3 21 47 3 35 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 19 0 0 32 Lane Group Flow(vph) 34 1317 0 20 1608 0 0 10 2 47 3 3 Cont. Peds. (#1hr) 3 7 7 3 2 2 Cond. Bikes(#Nhr) 2 2 Heavy Vehicles(%) 0% 5% 43% 5% 3% 0% 29' 0% 5% 2% 0% 0% Turn Type pm+pt NA pm+pt NA Perm NA Perm Perm NA Perm Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 8 4 Permitted Phases 2 6 8 8 4 4 Actuated Green,G(s) 116.1 112.8 115.9 112.7 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 Effective Green,g(s) 116.1 112.8 115.9 112.7 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 Actuated g(C Ratio 0.83 0.81 0.83 0.81 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 Clearance Time(s) 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Vehicle Extension(s) 2.3 5.2 2.3 5.2 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 238 2761 309 2813 105 119 109 149 126 vis Ratio Prot c0.00 0.38 0.00 00.46 0.00 vls Ratio Perm 0.11 0.05 0.01 0.00 c0.03 0.00 vlc Ratio 0.14 0.48 0.06 0.57 0.10 0.01 0.43 0.02 0.02 1 Uniform Delay,dl 3.7 4.3 2.7 4.9 59.9 59.5 61.5 59.5 59.5 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.56 1.51 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,d2 0.2 0.6 0.0 0.6 0.3 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.1 Delay(s) 3.8 4.9 4.2 8.1 60.2 59.5 63.5 59 6 59.6 Level of Service A A A A E E E E E Approach Delay(s) 4.9 8.0 59.7 61.8 Approach LOS A A E E intersection Summary _ HCM 2000 Control Delay 8.6 HCM2000 Level of Service A HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.55 Actuated Cycle Length(s) 140.0 Sum of lost time(s) 13.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 66,6% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group H:`prolfile113755-Leadership Circle Specialty Retail1005-Tigard\Synchro113755.5-2014_PM-Existing.syn Synchro 8- Report %user name% Page 1 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 2014 ExistingTraffic Weekday PM Peak Hour 1 : SW Park St & OR 99 W 4130/2015 t - . " c ~ t 4\ t r' \+ 4/ Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 'S 1'1'+ 'S tii 4 rr ) it r Volume(vehlh) 34 1297 7 20 1563 30 7 3 21 47 3 35 Number 5 2 12 1 6 16 3 8 18 7 4 14 Initial Q(0b),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.9$ 1.00 0.97 0.99 0.99 0.99 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow,vehlhlln 1900 1806 1900 1810 1846 1900 1900 1579 1810 1863 1900 1900 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 34 1310 7 20 1579 30 7 3 21 47 3 0 Adj No.of Lanes 1 2 0 1 2 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 Peak Hour Factor 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0,99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 Percent Heavy Veh, % 0 5 5 5 3 3 0 0 5 2 0 0 Cap,veh/h 311 2926 16 376 2922 55 88 29 85 119 106 90 Arrive On Green 0.02 0 84 0.84 0.02 0.83 0.83 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.00 SatFlow,veh/h 1810 3499 19 1723 3519 67 797 514 1521 1368 1900 1615 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 34 642 675 20 786 823 10 0 21 47 3 0 Grp Sat Fiow(s),vehlhlln 1810 1716 1802 1723 1753 1832 1311 0 1521 1368 1900 1615 0 Serve(g_s),s 0.4 13.7 13.7 0.3 19.3 19.4 0.0 0.0 1.9 4.7 0.2 0.0 Cycle 0 Clear(g_c),s 0.4 13.7 13.7 0.3 19.3 19.4 0.8 0.0 1.9 5.6 0.2 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.01 1.00 0.04 0.70 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), vehlh 311 1435 1507 376 1456 1522 117 0 85 119 106 90 WC Ratio(X) 0.11 0.45 0.45 0.05 0.54 0.54 0.09 0.00 0.25 0.39 0 03 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 428 1435 1507 497 1456 1522 169 0 147 175 183 156 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(t) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay(d),sfveh 3.1 3.0 3.0 2.3 3.6 3.6 62.8 0.0 63.3 65.5 62.5 0.0 Incr Delay(d2),slveh 0.1 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.4 1.4 0.2 0.0 1.1 1.6 0.1 0.0 Initial 0 Delay(d3),slveh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Tile BackOf0(-26165%),vehlln 0.2 6.8 7.2 0.1 9.7 10.2 0.4 0.0 0.8 1.8 0.1 0.0 LnGrp Delay(d).slveh 3,2 4.0 4.0 2.3 5.1 5.0 63.1 0.0 64.4 67.0 62.6 0.0 LnGrp LOS A A A A A A E E E E Approach Vol, veh/h 1351 1629 31 50 Approach Delay,slveh 4.0 5.0 64.0 66.8 Approach LOS A A E E Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 __ 7 8 Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),s 6.2 121.6 12.3 6.9 120.8 12.3 Change Period(Y+Rc),s 4.0 4.5 4.5 4.0 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 12.0 101.5 13.5 12.0 101.5 13.5 Max 0 Clear Time (g_c+l1),s 2.3 15.7 7.6 2.4 21.4 3.9 Green Ext Time(p_c), s 0.0 81.5 0.1 0.0 76.4 0.1 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 6.2 HCM 2010 LOS A H:Iprojfile113755-Leadership Circle Specialty Retail\005-Tigard\Synchro113755.5-2014_PM-Existing.syn Synchro 8- Report %user name% Page 1 HCM 2010 TWSC 2014 ExistingTraffic Weekday PM Peak Hour 2: OR 99 W & SW School St 4/30/2015 Intersection Int Delay. siveh 0.1 Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Vol,vehfh 1 1371 1619 26 1 2 Conflicting Peds,#/hr 4 0 D 4 1 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length 90 - - - 0 - Veh in Median Storage,# - 0 0 - 0 - Grade,% - 0 0 - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 99 99 99 99 99 99 Heavy Vehicles, % 0 5 2 0 0 0 Mvmt Flow 1 1385 1635 26 1 2 Major/Minor - Majorl Major2 Minor2 Conflicting Flow Ad 1663 0 - 0 2343 836 Stage 1 - - - - 1649 - Stage 2 - - - - 694 - . Critical Hdwy 4.1 - - - 6.8 6.9 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.8 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.8 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.2 - - - 3.5 3.3 • Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 392 - - - 31 315 Stage 1 - - - - 145 - Stage 2 - - - - 462 - Platoon blocked,% - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 391 - - - 31 314 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 31 - Stage 1 - - - - 145 - Stage 2 - - - - 460 - Approach EB WB SBm HCM Control Delay,s 0 0 53 HCM LOS F Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBR SBLnI Capacity(veh/h) 391 - - - 78 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.003 - - - 0.039 HCM Control Delay(s) 14.2 - - - 53 HCM Lane LOS B - - - F HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - - 0.1 UH:lprojfile113755-Leadership Circle Specialty Retail\005-TigardlSynchro113755.5-2014_PM-Exlsting.syn Synchro 8- Report %user_name% Page 3 1 HCM 2010 TWSC 2014 Existing Traffic Weekday PM Peak Hour 3: SW Garrett St & OR 99 W 5/412015 Intersection _ Int Delay. s;veh 0.8 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Vol,vehrh 1337 35 27 1637 8 36 Conflicting Peds.#!hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length - - 150 - 0 - Veh in Median Storage,# 0 - - 0 0 - Grade,% 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 98 98 98 98 98 98 Heavy Vehicles, % 5 5 2 3 0 3 Mvmt Flow 1364 36 28 1670 8 37 Major/Minor Majorl Major2 _ Minorl Conflicting Flow All 0 0 1400 0 2272 700 Stage 1 - - - - 1382 - Stage 2 - - - - 890 - Critical Hdwy - - 4.14 - 6.8 6.96 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.8 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.8 - Follow-up Hdwy - - 2.22 - 3.5 3.33 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 484 - 35 379 Stage 1 - - - - 202 - Stage 2 - - - - 366 - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 484 - 33 379 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 33 - Stage 1 - - - - 202 - Stage 2 - - - - 345 - Approach EB WB NB HCM Control Delay, s 0 0.2 46.6 HCM LOS E Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBT Capacity(vehih) 130 - - 484 - HCM Lane WC Ratio 0.345 - - 0.057 - HCM Control Delay(s) 46.6 - - 12.9 - HCM Lane LOS E - - B - HCM 95th%tile O(veh) 1.4 - - 0.2 - H:lpro}file113755-Leadership Circle Specialty Retail\005-Tigard\Synchro113755.5-2014_PM-Existing.syn Synchro 8- Report %user_name% Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2014 ExistingTraffic Weekday PM Peak Hour 5: SW Walnut St & OR99W 4/30/2015 f --, r 4- k- 4\ t t \" j r Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations " T1* `i 1"T r 4• °t 1+ Volume(vph) 137 1268 12 21 1532 177 20 17 11 117 12 139 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 4.0 4.5 4.0 5.0 5.0 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1 00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frpb. ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.96 0.98 1.00 0.97 Flpb,pedlbikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.97 1.00 0.86 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.98 0.95 1.00 Satd.Flow(pro() 1736 3463 1805 3505 1514 1731 1736 1551 Flt Permitted 0.11 1.00 0.15 1.00 1.00 0.98 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 196 3463 286 3505 1514 1731 1736 1551 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.98 0.98 0 98 0.98 0.98 0 98 0.98 0.98 0 98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Adj. Flow(vph) 140 1294 12 21 1563 181 20 17 11 119 12 142 RTOR Reduction(vph) 0 0 0 0 0 29 0 8 0 0 129 0 Lane Group Flow(vph) 140 1306 0 21 1563 152 0 40 0 119 25 0 Confl. Peds.(#/hr) 7 11 11 7 12 13 13 12 Confl.Bikes(#/hr) 1 3 Heavy Vehicles )_ 4% 4% 8% 0% 3% 2% 0% 6% 0% 4% 0% 3% Turn Type pm+pt NA pm+pt NA Perm Split NA Split NA Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 8 8 4 4 Permitted Phases 2 6 6 Actuated Green, G(s) 99.5 99.0 89.8 89.8 89,8 7.1 12.9 12,9 Effective Green,g(s) 99.5 99.0 89.8 89.8 89.8 7.1 12.9 12.9 Actuated g!C Ratio 0.71 0 71 0.64 0.64 0.64 0.05 0.09 0 09 Clearance Time(s) 4.0 4.5 4.0 5.0 5.0 4.5 4.5 4.5 Vehicle Extension(s) 2.3 5.1 2.3 5.1 5.1 2.3 2.3 2.3 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 273 2448 221 2248 971 87 159 142 vis Ratio Prot 0.04 c0.38 0.00 00.45 c0.02 0107 0.02 Ws Ratio Perm 0.32 0.06 0.10 v!c Ratio 0.51 0.53 0.10 0.70 0.16 0.46 0.75 0.18 Uniform Delay,dl 32.3 9.6 11.4 16.2 10.0 64.6 62.0 58.6 Progression Factor 1.08 1.02 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,d2 0.9 0.8 0.1 1.8 0.3 2.3 16.1 0.3 Delay(s) 35.6 10.6 11.5 18.0 10.3 66.9 78.1 59.0 Level of Service D B B B B E E E Approach Delay(s) 13.0 17.2 66.9 67.3 Approach LOS B B E E Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 20.0 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.68 Actuated Cycle Length(s) 140.0 Sum of lost time(s) 18.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 81.5% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period(min) 15 c Critical Lane Group H:lprojfNle113755-Leadership Circle Specialty Retail\005-TigardlSynchro113755.5-2014_PM-Existing.syn Synchro 8- Report %user_name% Page 5 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 2014 Existing Traffic Weekday PM Peak Hour 5: SW Walnut St & OR 99 W 511/2015 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations i 1'1+ 'i tt r 4+ 'I 1. Volume(veh/h) 137 1268 12 21 1532 177 20 17 11 117 12 139 Number 5 2 12 1 6 16 3 8 18 7 4 14 Initial 0(0b),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A pbT) 1.00 0 97 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.96 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow,veh/hlln 1827 1826 1900 1900 1845 1863 1900 1860 1900 1827 1849 1900 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 140 1294 12 21 1563 181 20 17 11 119 12 142 Adj No.of Lanes 1 2 0 1 2 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Percent Heavy Veh, % 4 4 4 0 3 2 6 6 6 4 0 0 Cap,veh/h 403 2533 23 228 1941 849 26 22 14 180 12 147 Arrive On Green 0.17 0.72 0.72 0.02 0.55 0.55 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.10 0.10 0.10 SatFlow, vehlh 1740 3522 33 1810 3505 1533 712 605 392 1740 120 1415 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 140 637 669 21 1563 181 48 0 0 119 0 154 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/hiln 1740 1735 1819 1810 1752 1533 1710 0 0 1740 0 1534 0 Serve(g_s), s 1.4 22.8 22,8 0.8 50.3 8.4 3.9 0.0 0.0 9.2 0.0 14.0 Cycle 0 Clear(g_c),s 1.4 22.8 22.8 0.8 50.3 8.4 3.9 0.0 0.0 9.2 0.0 14.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.02 1.00 1.00 0.42 0.23 1.00 0.92 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 403 1248 1309 228 1941 849 62 0 0 180 0 159 V/C Ratio(X) 0 35 0 51 0 51 0.09 0.81 0.21 0.77 0.00 0.00 0.66 0.00 0.97 Avail Cap(c_a),vehlh 403 1248 1309 329 2078 909 153 0 0 180 0 159 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1 00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 43.4 8.7 8.7 17.3 25.2 15.8 66.9 0.0 0.0 60.4 0.0 62.5 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 0.3 1.5 1.4 0.1 3.7 0.6 11.8 0.0 0.0 7.6 0.0 61.8 Initial 0 Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ire BackOfe(-26165'.4),vehlln 4.5 11.3 11.8 0.4 25.3 3.7 2.0 0.0 0.0 4.8 0.0 8.7 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 43.7 10.2 10.2 17.4 28.9 16.4 78.7 0.0 0.0 68.0 0.0 124.3 LnGrp LOS D B B B C B E E F Approach Vol,veh/h 1446 1765 48 273 Approach Delay,slveh 13.4 27.4 78.7 99.8 Approach LOS B C E F Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),s 6.2 105.2 19.0 28.9 82.5 9.6 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 4.5 4.5 4.5 *5 4.5 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 10.0 85.5 14.5 12.0 *83 12.5 Max 0 Clear Time (g c+11),s 2.8 24.8 16.0 3.4 52.3 5.9 Green Ext Time(p_c),s 0.0 30.3 0.0 6.0 25.2 0.1 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 28.0 HCM 2010 LOS C Notes 1 ` HCM 2010 computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. 1 H:lprojfiilel13755-Leadership Circle Specialty Retail\005-Tigard\Synchrol13755.5-2014 PM-Existing.syn %user Warne°/° Synchro 8 Report Page 1 I o 0 Appendix D Crash Data I , co) cos350 3/15/2015 OREGON DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION - TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT DIVISION PAGE: I 7R51777OR0A0ION DATA SECTION - 07/ASH ANALYSIS AND REPORTINS UNIT CONTINUOUS SYSTEM CRASH LISTING • 091 PACIFIC HIGHWAY WEST ON 99W Pacific HIghway 4 SW Watou'i Scree: / SW WaIrrat Placa 2anDery 1, 2009 thrtgO Lecember 31, 2013 5 D P RSW RS* FS INT-TYP SPCL LSE EAUCO DATE COUNTY CCM11147 CONN 4 RD CHAR (MEDIAN) IN7-RET O7/FRU W7HR CRASH TYP TRIR OTY MOVE A 5 SNIX# ELCHR DAY CITY MLO TYP FIRST STREET DIRECT LEGS TREE- RNIIBT SURF COLL TYP OWNER FRCM FRTC :NJ t 0 LIONS FED nivEsTocsLF .TIm0 GROAN AREA MiLEPNT SECOND STREET LacTN (dLANES) CNTI DRVWY LIGHT SVRTY V. 033 TYPE IC PO TYPE SVRTY F X RES LOC ERS:CR ACTN EVENT CAUSE 01951 NNNNNO•4129/2009 WASHINGTON : :4 INTER. CROSS N N OLD S-1SIDE 01 NONE 0 STRGHT 07,10 CITY Wed TIGARD 0 1 SW FAL.<is HY 999; NE I-GRN-SIG N DRY 5S-0 ?CHIC NE SW 300 00 12P PORTLAND UA 3.94 079 WALNUT ST 06 0 11 DAY PDC TRUCE 01 DPVR NONE 11 N CR-Y 243,323 000 07 CR<25 S2 NONE 0 STOP PRVTE NE SW 012 00 HEllO? CAP CI SRV? NONE Ba M OR-Y 009 000 10 oR'<25 02418 N N N 05/22/2009 WASHING= i 14 INTER CROSS N N CL? 5-1500? 01 NONE C 5763HT 013 37 NO RPT Fri TISARC U 0 SW PACIFIC HY 998 NE TOE SIGNAL N DRY REAR FRVTE NE SW 00C 00 • 2? PORTLAND UA 9.64 SW WALNUT ST 06 0 N DAY FCC PSNSF. CAR Cl DOUR NONE 3E M 0 -.Y 11 .6 ,,00 07 OF.<26 ,02 NONE 0 S7DP PPVTE NE SW 011 013 00 1 PSNGR CAR 01 DRV?. 1/CNN 66 F CR-? OR<25 000 000 00 C9 NONE C STC? PRVTE NE SW 022 019 CC PSNGR CAP. Ci CRVR NONE 94 M OBRY 000 003 00 DP<25 04 NONE 0 37CP PSV7E NE SE 022 00 FSNCR CAR 0: DRVP NONE 25 M CR-Y CCO 509 00 DE,25 ti I 31268 N 7173 03/16/2010 WASHINGTON I 14 INTER CROSS N N UNF .4-1500P Cl NONE C STRGHT 07 NONE Tue TIGARD. 0 0 SW PACIFIC HY 39W NE OAF 1107751 N UN? REAR RENTL NE SW 000 00 eP POPTLANS DA 9.E4 SW WALNUT ST CE 0 N DLIT INS PSNGR OAP 01 .90? NCNE 38 M OTH-Y 026 000 37 N-RES 772 NONE 0 STOP RENT:. NE SW 011 CC ( PINCH CAR 01 CAVE :ICC 38 F OA-C CCC 100 00 09425 02160 N N N 04/28/2012 WASHINGTON 1 14 INTER CROSS N N INK S-ONTO? 01 NONE 1 176CHT Ci I NONE Sat TIGARD C 0 SW PACIFIC HY 99W NE TOE SIGNAL N UNE REAR =RN NE SW INC 00 IP FORTLAN: CA 9.64 SW WALNUT ST 06 0 N DAY PDC PSNGR CAR 01 CRY? NONE 00 F UN? 026 COO 07 ONE Cl NONE 0 STOP I PRVTE NE SW 050 CO I PSNGR CAR Cl SRVR NONE ad F OTH-Y CEO 000 00 01-.. 3 03644 N N N 07/26/2012 WASHINGTON 1 14 INTER CROSS N N Cili 3-15106 01 NONE 0 STRGHT 0T I . NC RP:" TOD TLGARC 7 0 SW PACIFIC 9Y SEW NE Tay SIGNAL N DRY REAR ERVIE NE SW 000 GC 4P PORTLAND CA 9.64 SW WALNUT ST OE 0 N DAY PDO PSNGR CAR 01 DRVR NONE 53 F CR-N 026 CCI Cl OR<29 CDS380 1/15/2015 OREGON DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION - TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT DIVISION PAGE; 2 TRANSPORTATION DATA SECTION - CRASH ANALYSIS AND REPORTING UNIT CONTINUOUS SYSTEM CRASH LISTING 091 PACIFIC HIGHWAY WEST OR. 99W Pacific Highway 6 SW Walnut Street / SW Walnut Place January I. 2009 throgh December 31, 2013 S 0 P RSW R09 FC INT-TYP SPCL USE E A U C 0 DATE COUNTY COMPNI CONN 0 RD CRAB IMEDIANI INT-REL OFFRO WTHR CRASH TY? TRLR DC? MOVE A S SEM £ 1. 5 H 6 DAY CITY WIG TYP FIRST STREET DIRECT: LEGS TRAF- RNDBT SURF COLL TYP OWNER FROM FRTC /NJ G E LICNS RED INVEST DCS L K TIME URBAN AREA MILEPNT SECOND STREET LOCTN IS ANESI CNTL. DRVWY LIGHT SVRTY V1 VEH TYPE TO Pi TYPE SVRTY 0 X RES LOC ERROR ACTN EVENT CAUSE 02 NONE 0 STOP PRVTE NE SW 011 00 PSNGR CAR Dl DRVR NONE 53 N OR-Y 000 00C 00 OR>25 03734 N N N N N 17/27/2010 WASHINGTON 1 14 INTER CROSS N N CL? BIKE 110 02 CITY Tue TIGARD 0 C SW PACIFIC HY 99W SE TRF SIGNAL N DAY TURN 12P PORTLAND UA 9.64 SW WALNUT PL 05 0 N DAY INJ STR.NHT 01 SINE INJH 25 F 01 000 OTT CC SW NE 01 NONE I TURD-R PRVTE SW SE 000 110 00 PSNGR CAR 01 OR'.'_? NONE 65 M OR-Y 02' 030 02 OR<25 03353 N N N 06/26/2011 WASHINGTON114 INTER. CROSS N N CLR 0-1STOP 01 NONE 0 STRGHT :4 NO RPT Sun TIGARD 0 0 SW PACIFIC HY 99W SE TRF SIGNAL N CRY HEAD PRVTE NN SE 000 00 2P PORTLAND VA 9.64 SW WALNUT PC. 06 C N DAY PGO PSNOR CAS.. 01 CRVR. NONE 55 M OTH-Y CC3 000 14 N-RES 02 NONE 0 STOP PRVTE S£ NW 012 00 FSNGR CAR 01 DRVR NONE 7.6 M OR-Y 000 000 00 OR>25 01155 N N N 03/06/2013 WASHINGTON 1 1,4 INTER CRSS N Y RAIN FIX OB." 01 NONE C STRGHT 055 16 CITY Wed TIGARD 0 C SW PACIFIC HY 99W SW TRF SIGNAL N WET FIX PRVTE NE SW 000 055 CO 11A PORTLAND UA 9.64 SW WALNUT ST 05 0 N DAY INJ PSNGR CAR II DRVR INJC 47 F OTH-Y 081 025 16 N-RES 01482 Y N N N N 03/26/2011 WASHINGTON _ 14. INTER CROSS N N CLR ANGI-STP 01 NONE 0 TURN-A 08,01 CITY Fri TIGARD 0 0 SW PACIFIC HY 99W SW TRF SIGNAL N DRY TURN PRVTE NW SW 000 00 3P PORTLAND CA 9.64 SW WALNUT ST 06 9 N DAY IN.7 MOPE/. OI DP.4K INT 26 M N-VAL 006,001,047 017 08,01 OR<25 02 NONE 0 STOP PRVTE SW NE 012 00 PSNGR CAR 01 DRYS. NONE 49 F OR-Y 000 GOO DD GR<25 03974 N N N N N 08/02/2012 WASHINGTON 1 14 INTER CROSS N N CLR S-STRGHT 0: NONE C STRGHT 094 13,02 CITY Thu TIGARD 1 0 SW PACIFIC HY 99W SW IRF SIGNAL N DRY SS-C PRVTE SW NE 000 00 9A PORTLAND CA 9.64ySW WALNUT PL 06 0 N DAY PIO PSNGR CAR 01 DRVR NONE 17 F N-VAL 045,02E 000 094 13,02 OR<25 02 NONE 0 STRGHT PRVTE SW NE 000 CC PSNGR CAR 01 DRVR NONE 77 F OR-Y 000 GOC 00 OR<25 C01'7 HNNNN 01/05/2013 WASHINGTON 1 14 INTER CROSS N N CLD S-:STOP 01 NONE 0 STRGHT 07 CITY Sal TIGARD 0 0 SW PACIFIC HY 99W SW TRF SIGNAL N DRY REAR PRVTE SW NE 000 00 3P PORTLAND SSA 9.64 SW WALNUT PL 06 0 N IA? PDC PONGR CAP. 01 DRVR NONE 23 F OR-Y 043,1026 000 07 OR<25 I C (:::) '11:1,1 I C 0 3 C05360 1/15/2015 OREGON DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION - TRANSPORTATION DEVELDPMENT DIVISION PAGE: 3 TRANSPORTATION DATA SECTION - CRASH ANALYSIS AND REPCR.T:NG UNIT CONTINUOUS SYSTEM CRASH LISTING 1 091 PACIFIC HIGHWAY WEST OR 99W Parifac H1ghway 6 SW Walnut Street i SW Walnut P!a_e January I, 2009 throgh December 3:, 2013 S D P RSW RC• FC ISI-TYP SPUN USE SAC C C DATE COUNTY CONSIST CONN 6 RD CHAR 04EDIAIO INT-REL OYERD WTH3 CRASH TYP TRIP( QTY MOV- SERB ELCHR DAY CITY NLG TYP FIRST STREET DIRECT LEGS TRAF- RNDRT SURF COLL TYP OWNER FROM PRTC INJ G E LICNS PET INVEST DCS L i< TIME URBAN AREA MTLEPNT SECOND STREET LOUTS (4LAN5S1 CNTL DAVWY LIGHT SVRTY 76 TEE TYPE TO, PA TYPE STATE E X RES LOC ERROR ACTN EVENT CAUSE 32 NONE 0 STOP PRVTE SW NE 011 00 PSNGR CAR Oi DRB? NONE 19 M OR-Y 000 COC 00 l' OR<25 I 05599 N N N 04/05/2013 WASHINGTON _ :4 INTER CRSS N N RAIN 5-15TC? 01 NONE I STRGHT 07 NONE Fri TIGARD I C SW PACIFIC HY 99W 5W TRF SIGNAL N WET REAR PRVTE SW NE CCC CO 3P PORTLAND TA 9.64 SW WALNUT ST 06 0 N DAY PDO PSNER CAR Ci :JAVA NONE 21 M OR-Y U26 000 07 OR<25 12 NONE 0 STOP PRVTE OW NE 01: 00 BENDS CAR Cl DRVR NONE. 50 F 0TH-Y 000 000 00 N-RES 0:C6C N N N 03/06/2559 WASHINGTON' 1 14 INTER CROSS N N CLR17TRN 01 NONE MIGHT 02 NONE Sun TIGARD 0 C SW PACIFIC HY 99W ON 105 SIGNAL DRY TU URN PRVTE NE SW 006 00 12? PORTLAND TA 9.64 SW WALNUT ST 01 C N DAY PDC: PSNGR CAR CI DATA NONE 72 F CR-Y 000 COC 03 OR<25 C2 NONE C TURN-L PRVTE SW NW 000 II PSNGR CAR Ci LAIR NONE 43 M OR-Y 004,025 000 02 OR<25 03306 N N N N N 07/0S/2010 WASHINGTON 1 14 INTER CROSS N N OLA ,_U"AN 01 NONE 0 TURN-L 04 CITY Thu TIGfRD C 0 SN PACIFIC HY 99W CN TRF SIC-NAL N DRY :DAN PRVTE SW NW 000 00 12A PORTLANI UA 9.64 SW WALNUT ST 01 a N DLIT TNS PSNGR CAR 01 tow/F. NONE 52 :4 CR-Y 020,004 000 04 OR<25 02 NONE C. 000400T - - PRVTE NE SW 000 CC PSNGR CAR '0: DAYS 51 M DR-Y 000 000 CC M OR<25 05634 N N N S N 11/21/2010 WASHINGTON I 14 INTER CROSS N N CLD 0 .._n.. 01 NONE 0 STRGHT 02 CITY TOO TIGARD C 0 SW PACIFIC NO 99W CN. TRF SIGNAL N DRY TURN PRVTE NE 5W 000 00 5P PGATLAN: UA 9.44 SW WALNUT ST 01 0 N DAY 7010 PINED CAP 31 0010 5055 42 5 0:5-Y COO 000 00 OR<25 C2 NONE 0 TURN-L PRVTE SW NW 000 00 PINGR CAR DATA NONE 56 M. 0R-Y 004,129 000 C2 3R<25 I 01290 N N N 03/05/2011 WASHINGTON 1 14 INTER CROSS N N CLR 0-ITURN CI NONE 0 STRGHT 02 NONE Tue TIGARD C 0 SW PACIFIC HY 99W CN TRF SIGNAL N DRY TURN PRVTE NE 5W 000 00 7P PORTLAND UA 9.64 SW WALNUT ST Cl C N DLIT PDO PINGS CAF O1 IR'JR NONE 36 F 0R-Y 000 000 on 09<25 02 INION 9 TORN-L UNION SW NW 110 00 UNKNOWN 0: DATA NONE CO M CNA 004,029 000 02 053< I' I CDS390 1/15/2015 OREGON DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION - TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT DIVISION PAGE: 4 TRANSPORTATION DATA SEC_IIN - CRASH ANALYSIS AND REPORTING UNIT CONTINUOUS SYSTEM CRASH LISTING 091 PACIFIC HIGHWAY WEST OR 99W Paci_.c Highway s SW Walnut Street / SW Walnut Place January 1, 2009 throgh December 31, 2013 S C P R S W RDS FC INT-TYP SKI. USE S A.0 C 0 DATE COUNTY COMPNT CONN 6 RD CHAR !MEDIAN) INT-REL OFFRD WTHR CRASH TY? TRLR 0TY MOVE A S SER# FLGHR DAY CITY MID TYP FIRST STREET DIRECT LEGS TR/4E- RNDST SURF COLL TY? OWNER FROM PRTC INC G E LIONS PED INVEST CCSLE TIME URBAN AREA MDLYPNT SECOND STREET LOCTN )#LANES) CNTL CROWS LIGHT SVRTY VS YEN TYPEPS TYPE SORTS E N RES LOC ERROR ACTN EVENT CAUSE 02223 N N N N N 05/01/2012 WASHINGTON 1 14 INTER CROSS N N CID O-1TCRN 0: NONE 0. STRGHT 04 CITY The TIGARD 0 0 SW PACIFIC HY 99W CN TRF SIGNAL N DRY TURN ?ROTE NE SW C01 00 7A PORTLAND DA 9.64 SW WALNUT ST 0.1 0 N DAY INC PSNGR CAR. 01 DRVR INJC 33 F OR-Y 097 000 00 OR<25 C2 PSNG INJC 43 F C00 CCC 00 C2 NONE 0 TURN-L PRVTE SW NW 000 00 HONOR CAR 01 DRVR 1N10 35 N OR-Y 09/ 000 0C I 0R<25 02659 11 N I N N 05/22/2012 WASHINGTON 1 14 INTER CROSS N N RAIN 0-1TURN II NONE 0 TURN-L 02 CITY The TIGARD 0 Q SW PACIFIC HY SOW CT TRF SIGNAL U WE' TURN PRVTE SW NW 000 00 ILA PORTLAND TA 9.64 SW WALNUT 57 01 0 N DAY ADD HONOR CAR Ii CRVR NONE 20 F DR-Y 004,123 000 02 0R>25 C2 NONE 0 STRGHT PRUTE NE SW 000 01 PSNGR CAR. 0: DRVR. NONE 65 M OR-Y 000 000 CO 0RQ5 04379 N S N 06/23/2012 WASHINGTON 1 14 INTER CROSS N N CLR 0-1TIIRN 01 NONE 0 STRGHT 02 NONE Thu TIGARD 0 C SW PACIFIC HY 99W ON TRF SIGNAL N DRY TURN PRVTE NE SW 00C 00 OP PORTLAND UA 9.64 SW WALNUT ST CO 0 N :AY POO HONOR TAR D1 DROP. NONE 64 M DR-Y TOO COC 00 OR<25 02 NONE C TURN-L PRVTE SW NW CCI 00 PING?. CAR 01 DRVR NONE 53 F CR-Y 004.025 CCC 02 CR<25 02229 N N N N N 05/12/2013 WASHINGTON 1 14 INTER CROSS N N TIP T%RN 01 MONS C TURN-L 02 CITY Thu TIGARD C 0 SW PACIFIC HY 99W CN FLASHBCN-A N U1Y TURN PRVTE SW NW 000 00 HP PORTLAND UA 9.64 SW WALNUT ST 01 0 N :LIT PDC P5NGR. CAR Cl DRVR NONE 25 M OR-Y 1028 000 02 N-RES 02 NONE 0 5TR:HT PROOF NE SW 000 CC HONOR CAR 01 DAV? NONE 32 N. OR-Y 000 COO OC OR<25 03990 ONE N N 07/20/2013 WASHINGTON 1 14 INTER CROSS N N C-. 0-1TURN 01 NONE 0 STRGHT. 02 CITY Sat TIGARD C 0 SW PACIFIC HY 99W CN ORF SIGNAL N IRE TURN PRVTE NE SW 000 00 11P PORTLAND UA 9.64 SW WALNUT S, CI 0 N DLIT CNS PSNGR TAR Cl CRVR INJB 29 F OR-Y CII 000 00 OR<25 C2 P5NG INJB 13 F CCC 000 00 02 NONE C TURN-L PRVTE SW NW 000 CC HONOR CAR CI DRVR INJC 1b M OR-Y 004,028 CCO 02 OR<25 02 PING IN.IC 00 F COC 000 DO C 0 0 1 , • r C (ID 3 f CDS360 :!15/2115 OREGON DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION - TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT DIVISION ?AGE, 5 TRANSPORTATION DATA SECTION - CRASH ANALYSIS AND REPORTING UNIT CONTINUOUS SYSTEM CRASH LISTING 091 PACIFIC HIGHWAY WEST OR 94W Pacific Highway 6 SW Walnut Strett / SW Walnut Place January 1, 2019 thrush December 31, 2013 S C P RSW RI26 FC INT-TYP SPCL USE E AUC C DATE COUNTY COMPNT CONN t RD CHAR :MEDIAN) INT-REL OFFR.0 WINN CRASH TY? TRLR QTY 150V£ A S SERO ELGHR DAY CITY MDG TY? FIRST STREET DIRECT LESS TRAP- RNDPT SURF COLL TYP OWNER FROM ?RTC INJ C E LIONS FED INVEST BCS i K TIME URBAN AREA MILEPNT SECOND STREET LOCTN IOLANESI CNTL 0RVWY LIGHT SVRTY 'VO 'JEH TYPE TO PO TYPE SVRTY E X RES LOC ERROR ATTN EVENT CAUSE 07255 NNNNN 12/12/2013 WASHINGTON 1 14 INTER CROSS N N RAIN 9-1TURN 0: NONE C TURN-L 013 02 CITY Thu -IGARD 0 C SW PACIFICC HY 99W CN ;RF SIGNAL N WET TURN PRVTE 3W NW 000 013 00 2? PORTLAND UA 9.64 SW WALNUT ST 01 ,. N BAY PDO PONGR CAR C'_ DRYS NONE 53 F OR-Y 028 000 02 II OR<25 ) 02 NONE 0 STRGHT PRVTE NE SW 000 00 I PSNGR CAR C: ORVR NONE 42 M OR-Y 100 000 00 OR<25 07 NONE 0 STOP PRICE SW NE 012 00 PSNGR CAR CI DRVR NONE 59 M OR-Y 000 COC OC OR<25 07390 NNNNN 12/18/2013 WASHINGTON I 14 INTER CROSS N N CLR 0-17URN C3 NONE 0 STRGHT 02 CITY Wed TIOARD C 0 SW PACIFIC HY 99W CN IRE SIGNAL N DRY 'TURN PRVTE NE SW 000 00 1 91, PORTLAND CA 9.64 SW WALNUT ST Cl C N DLIT PTO PSNGR CAR CI 'RVR NONE 33 5 DR-Y COD 000 00 OR<25 02 NONE I: TURN-L PRVTE SW NW 000 00 I PSNGR CAR Cl DEWS NONE 68 M CR-Y 026 000 02 OR<25 C3863 N N N 08/10/22009 WASHINGTON 1 14 INTER CROSS N N CLR 1-2_RGHT CI UNION 9 STRGHT 14 NO RFT Mon -IGARD 0 0 SW PACIFIC HY 99W CN 1-GAN-SIO N 0\1 SS-C PRVTE SW NE 000 00 12P PORTLAND UA 9.64 SW WALNUT P1 02 C N :AY- INJ PSNGR CAR 01 IRIS NONE 55 X OR-1, 003 000 14 { OR<25 02 NONE C STRGHT FRVTE SW NE 000 00 Ill PSNGR CAR OI DRVR INJ0 46 M OR-w 000 000 01 OR<25 02 RUNG INJ0 49 F 000 000 00 II 01519 YNNNN 03/2.7/2012 WASHINGTON _ :4 INTER CROSS N N CTR S-OTHER 01 NONE C TURN-L 004 07 CITY Tue .IGARD 0 0 SW PACIFIC HY 99W CN TRF SIGNA1. N DRY TURN PRVTE SE: SW 000 00 10? PORTLAND UA 9.64 SW WALNUT ST 03 C N DLIT PDC PSNGR CAA Cl DRVR NONE 34 M SUSP 047,026 000 07 OR<25 02 NONE 0 TURN-L PRVTE SE 5W 013 004 00 PSNGR CAR 01 DRVR NONE 26 M OR-Y 000 00C OC OR<25 03992 NNNNN 07/23/2013 WASHINGTON 14 INTER CROSS N N CLR ANLL CON D_ NONE 0 STRGHT 013 04 ! CITY The TIGARI 0 0 SW PACIFIC HY 99W CN TRF SIGNAL N DRY ANOL PRVTE SW NE 000 OC 5P PORTLAND. OA 9.64 3W WALNUT ST 04 0 N DAY INJ PSNGR CAR 01 2RVP. NONE 25 F ?R-Y 020 000 14 DR>25 I 02 PSNG N005 02 . 000 070 00 1 l II I 015300 1/15/2015 OREGON DEPARTMENT CF TRANSPORTATION - TRANSPORTAT:QN DEVELOPMENT DIV:SION PAGE: H TRANSPORTATION DATA SECTION - CRASH ANALYSIS AND REPORTING UNIT CONTINUOUS SYSTEM CRASH LISTING 091 PACIFIC HIGHWAY WEST OR 99W Pacific Highway S SW walnut_ Street / SW Wainvt Place January 1, 2009 :hrcgh December 31, 2013 S D P RSW ROt FC INS-TYP SPCL USE E AUC O DATE COUNTY COMPNT CONN t RD CHAR (MEDIAN} TNT-REL OFFRD WTHR CRASH T.YR. TRLR QTY MOVE A S II SERI ELGHR DAY CITY NLG TYP FIRST STREET DIRECT LEGS THAT- RNDBT SURF COLL TY? OWNER FROM PR:C :NJ C E LIONS PED INVEST DCS L R TIME URBAN AREA MILEPNI SECOND STREET LOCTN (*LAEESy CNTL DIR'VWY LICHT SVRTY Vi VEH TYPE TO PI! TYPE SVRTY E x RES LOC ERROR _ ACTN EVENT CAUSE 02 NONE C STROHT PRVTE NW SE 000 OC PSNGR CAR OI DRVR NONE 32 F 0=H-Y C00 000 CO N-RES 03 NONE C TURN-L PRVTE NW NE 000 013 00 PSNGR CAR. 01 DRVR INJH 34 F OR-Y OCC CCC 00 OR<25 02 PSNG IBIS 20 F 000 000 00 C4 NONE 0 STOP PRVTE NE SW 022 013 00 PSNGR CAR 01 DRVR NONE 21 F 0TH-Y 000 000 OO N-RES 02 PSNG NO<5 02 M COC 000 CO ,, C5 NONE 0 STOP PRVTE NE SW 011 CO PSNGR CAR 0". DRVR NONE 44 M CR-Y 030 000 OC CR>25 0 0 0 00S3B0 1/15/2015 OREGON DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPOPTAT-JN - TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT DIVISION PACE: I TRANSPORTATION DATA SECTION - CRASH ANALYSIS AND REPORTING UNIT URAAN NON-SYSTEM CRASH LISTING- CITY OF TIGARD, WASHINGTON COUNTY OR 09W Pacific. Hfyhway F. S4: Walnut Street SW Walnut Place Janu r _, 2.009 _..regS. S ceeeer 31, 2001 S D P SSW _. 3PC:. USE E ACCO DATE CLASS CITY STREET RD CHAR {MEDIAN) :NT-REL OFF-RD WTHR CRASH TYP TR'.R. )._IY MOVE A S SERI ELCHR DAY DUST FIRST STREET DIRECT LEGS TRAY- RN59T SURF =___ -.P v SWOOP FROM PRTC '-N/ 0 _ LICNS PEC INVEST DCS LK TIME FROM SECOND STREET LOOTS IYLARTSI TINTS. DAVNY L RUSTY VS VDU TYPE TO PO 'TYPE SVRTY E S ._,. LCC ERROR ACTH EVENT CAUSE 04321 N N N N 00/00/2013 ':7 SW PACIFIC HY 99W INTER CROSS N N CLF 3-ITCIN II NONE STR"HT 04 CITY Thu 0 SW WALNUT ST CN TAO SIGNAL N DRY TURN PRVTF NE SW CCC 00 BA 0; 0 N DAY INJ HINGE CAR 0_ CRVR :CLIC 13 F ._R-Y -..t. 000 OG 52 NONE I TORN-1. P_RVTE SW NW {300 0.0 5S>:0R CAR 01 DRVR. INS:^_ I2 F DR-Y _23.504 000 04 OR<25 it 1 41 it u CDS150 01/15/2015 OREGON DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION-TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT DIVISION PAGE: 1 TRANSPORTATION DATA SECTION-CRASH ANALYSIS AND REPORTING UNIT CRASH SUMMARIES BY YEAR BY COLLISION TYPE OR 99W Pacific Highway&SW Walnut Street/SW Walnut Place January 1,2009 throgh December 31,2013 NON- PROPERTY INTER- FATAL FATAL DAMAGE TOTAL PEOPLE PEOPLE DRY WET INTER- SECTION OFF- COLLISION TYPE CRASHES CRASHES ONLY CRASHES KILLED INJURED TRUCKS SURF SURF DAY DARK SECTION RELATED ROAD YEAR: 2013 ANGLE 0 1 0 1 0 2 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 FIXED/OTHER OBJECT 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 REAR-END 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 1 1 2 0 2 0 0 TURNING MOVEMENTS 0 2 3 5 0 6 0 4 1 2 3 5 0 0 2013 TOTAL 0 4 5 9 0 9 0 6 3 6 3 9 0 1 YEAR: 2012 REAR-END 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 2 0 0 SIDESWIPE-OVERTAKING 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 TURNING MOVEMENTS 0 1 3 4 0 3 0 3 1 3 1 4 0 0 2012 TOTAL 0 1 6 7 0 3 0 5 1 6 1 7 0 0 YEAR: 2011 HEAD-ON 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 TURNING MOVEMENTS 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 i 0 0 1 1 0 0 2011 TOTAL 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 2 0 1 1 2 0 0 YEAR: 2010 REAR-END 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 TURNING MOVEMENTS 0 3 1 4 0 3 0 4 0 3 1 4 0 0 2010 TOTAL 0 4 1 5 0 4 0 4 0 3 2 5 0 0 YEAR: 2009 REAR-END 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 SIDESWIPE-OVERTAKING 0 1 1 2 0 2 1 1 0 2 0 2 0 0 TURNING MOVEMENTS 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 2009 TOTAL 0 1 3 4 0 2 1 3 0 4 0 4 0 0 FINAL TOTAL 0 10 17 27 0 18 1 20 4 20 7 27 0 1 Disclaimer: A higher number of crashes may be reported as of 2011 compared to prior years. This does not reflect an increase in annual crashes. The higher numbers result from a change to an internal departmental process that allows the Crash Analysis and Reporting Unit to add previously unavailable,non-fatal crash reports to the annual data file. Please be aware of this change when comparing pre-2011 crash statistics. 0 CDS39C 1/I5/2C15 OREGON DEPARTMENT OF TRANS PORTRT:ON - TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT DIVIS:ON PAGE. 1 TRANSPORTATION DATA SECTION - CRASH ANALYSIS AND REPORTING UNIT CONTINUOUS SYSTEM CRASH LISTING 091 PACIFIC HIGHWAY WEST OR 99W Pac.fi: Highway 6 SW SC0oci Stree_ Jaroary .. 20(19 throgh December 31, 2013 JF„ RSW PD* FC INT-IYP SPCL USE `u ` �` C O DATE COUNTY COMPNT :NN I R C CHAR MEC�IAN) INT-HEL OF=RO °WTHR CRASH TYP -R MOVE A SERI) E L (. H R DAY CITY 10; T. FIRST STREET DIRECT LEGS TRAP- RNDST SURF COLL .SP OWNER FROM PRTC INT G _ LIONS PAZ II INVEST DCS. L H TIME URBAN AREA MTI.YPNT SECOND( STREET LOCTN (*LANES) CNTL DRVWT LISIT, SVRTY V6 VEH TYPE TO P6 TYPE SVRT'' A 0 RES LOC ERROR ACTN EVENT CAUSE 06435 N N N N N 111:_6,2011 WASHINGTON _ 14 INTER 4-LEG N N RAIN PED CI NONE C TURN-P. 02,19 CITY Wed TIGARD (1 C SW PACIFIC FY 99W NW STOP SOON N WET PSD r'RVTE NW SW CIS CC 4P PORTLAND CA 9.61 SW SCHOOL ST 06 0 N COOP IN.' PSNGR CAR DI DRVR NONE 73 M 'CP-Y 029 000 12 ,DR* - STFIH .. ._- IN.TC '4 F CI 000 C98 19 SW NE it I II I CDS150 01115/2015 OREGON DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION-TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT DIVISION PAGE: 1 TRANSPORTATION DATA SECTION-CRASH ANALYSIS AND REPORTING UNIT CRASH SUMMARIES BY YEAR BY COLLISION TYPE OR 99W Pacific Highway&SW School Street January 1,2009 throgh December 31, 2013 NON- PROPERTY INTER- FATAL FATAL DAMAGE TOTAL PEOPLE PEOPLE DRY WET INTER- SECTION OFF- COLLISION TYPE CRASHES CRASHES ONLY CRASHES KILLED INJURED TRUCKS SURF SURF DAY DARK SECTION RELATED ROAD YEAR: 2011 PEDESTRIAN 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 2011 TOTAL 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 FINAL TOTAL 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 Disclaimer: A higher number of crashes may be reported as of 2011 compared to prior years. This does not reflect an increase in annual crashes. The higher numbers result from a change to an internal departmental process that allows the Crash Analysis and Reporting Unit to add previously unavailable, non-fatal crash reports to the annual data file. Please be aware of this change when comparing pre-2011 crash statistics. 1 C 0 0 1 105380 1/15/2015 OREGON DEPARTMENT IF TRANSPORTATION - TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT DIVISION PAGE: 1 ISI TRANSPORTATION DATA SECTION - CRASH ANALYSIS AND REPORTING UN:0 I' CONTINUOUS SYSTEM CRASH LISTING C91 PACIFIC HIGHWAY WEST OR 99W Pacific Highway a SW Park C.oree- January 1, 2019 1:';r-ugh De_etDer 31, 20:3 S D P R $ W RD* FC TNT-TYP SAIL USE EAUCO DATE COUNTY COMPNT CONN i RID CHAR :MEDIAN) TNT-REL OFFRD WTHR CRASH TYP TRLRGTE MOVE A S SEER ELGHR DAY CITY MLG TYP FIRST STREET DIRECT LEGS TRAF- RNDBT SURF COLL TYP OWNERFROM PRTC INS G E LICNS PED INVEST D C S L K TIME URBAN AREA MILEPNT SECOND STREET LOCTN (RLANESI CNTL ORVEY LIGHT S'✓RTY Vt VE€? TYPE TO PR TYPE SVRTY E X RES LOC CARO?. ACTN EVENT CAUSE I 00534 N N N 02/03/2012 WASHINGTON _ 14 INTER 3-LEG N N CNE 5-1STOP 01 NONE 0 STRGHT 07 NO RFT SJn TIGARD 0 0 SW PACIFIC HY 39W NE TRE SIGNAL N UN? REAR 3NKN NE SW 000 00 7P PORTLAND TA 9.91 SW PARK ST 06 0 N D'LIT PDC POSSE TAR. 01 1IRVR NONE 31 M OR-Y 026 000 07 OR<25 02 NONE 0 STOP PRVTE NF. SW .. 011 OC PSNGR. CAR _ D.3O? NONE 22 M JR-Y 000 000 CC OR<25 013:43 Y N N 03/14/2012 WASHINGTON 1 14 INTER CROSS N N RAIN S-_STOP 01 L'NEN 0 STRGHT 01 NONE Wea TIGARD 0 0 5W PACIFIC HY 99W NE TRF SIGNAL N WIT REAR PRVTE; NE 5W 000 00 1P PORTLAND UA 9.41 SW PARK ST 06 N DAY PDO 'UNKNOWN II DRVR NONE 22 M OR-Y 047,026 000 Cl OR<25 0.. NINE 0 STOP PRVTE NE SW 011 CC PSNGR CAR 0: DRVR NONE 35 F C'NE 000 OCO CC OR<2_5 0E846 N N N 11/25/2013 WASHINGTON 1 14 INTER 3-LEG N N CUR -ISTCP 01 NONE C STRGHT 07 NONE Man TIGARD is ) 5W PA IFIL HY 99W NE THF SIGNAL N DRY HEAR PRVTE NE SW 000 DO :IA PORTLAND VA 9.91 SW PARK ST 06 1 N DAY INT PONGR CAR 01 DRVR NONE 20 M OR-Y 025 000 07 DR>25 12 NONE 0 STOP PRVTE NE SW 011 00 . HONOR CAR. 01 DRVR INJC 32 M CR-Y CDI 00C 00 Ip OR<25 OI PSNG INTO 1;3 F 000 OCC 00 05682 NNNNN 10/23/2010 WASHINGTON - 14 INTER 3-LEG N N RAIN S-:STIP CI NONE C STRGHT- 07 CITY Sat TIGARD 0 C SW PACIFIC HY 39W SW TRF SIGNAL N WET REAR HAUTE SW NE CCC 00 I 5P PORTLAND CA 9.9: SW PARE ST 06 0 1 D<SE INJ PSNGR CAR 0: DRVR NONE :1 M CR-Y 043 000 07 II 02 NONE C STOP PRUDE SW NE DI: 00 V PSNGR CAR Cl DRVR IN.0 5C M 0TH-Y OCC 000 00 N-RES 02506 NNNNN N 55/15!2012 WASHINGTON 1 14 INTER 3-LEG N N CLR -1STOP 01 NONE 0 STRGHT 07 CITY The TIGARD C 0 SW PACIFIC HY 49W SW TRF SIGNAL N CRY REAR PRVTE SW NE 001 00 9P PORTLAND VA 9.91 SW PARR ST 06 0 N DLIT I14 HONOR CAR 01 DRVR INTO 24 M NONE 043,026 000 07 I C14<20 02 NONE 0 STOP PRVTE SW NE 011 CO PSNGR CAR 01 DRVR INTO 41 F CR-Y 000 007 00 1 OR<25 02 P51'3 INTO 12 M 000 000 00 II II CDS390 1/15/2015 OREGON DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION - TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT DIVISION PAGE: 2 TRANSPORTATION DATA SECTION - CRASH ANALYSIS AND REPORTING UNIT CONTINUOUS SYSTEM CRASH LISTING 091 PACIFIC HIGHWAY WEST OR 99W Pacific Highway & SW Perk Street January 1, 2009 throgh December 31, 2013 D P RSW RD4 FC INT-TYP SPCL USE EAUCO DATE COUNTY COMPNT CONN Y RD CHAR EMED1AN) INT:REL OFFRD NUR CRASH TYP TRLR QTY MOVE A SERI& ELGHR DAY CITY MLG TYP FIRST STREET DIRECT LEGS TRAP- RNDST SURF COLL TYP CWNER FROM PRIC TEl G E LIONS PED INVEST D C S L K TIME URBAN AREA MILEPNT SECOND STREET LCCTN (4LANES) CNTL DRVWY LIGHT SVRI'Y Vi VEH TYPE TO P9 TYPE SVRTY E X RES LOC ERROR ACTN EVENT CAUSE 07722 N N N N N 09/10(2012 WASHINGTON 1 14 INTER 3-LEG N N RAIN 5-1STOP 01 NONE 0 STRGHT 07 CITY Mon TIGARD 0 0 SW PACIFIC HY 99W SW TRF SIGNAL N WET REAR PRVTE SW NE 000 CC 7A PORTLAND UA 9.91 SW PARK ST 06 C N 5AY INJ PSNGR CAR CI DRVR NONE 31 M OR-Y 026 000 07 ' OR<25 02 NONE 0 STOP PRVTE SW NE 011 CO HONOR CAR 01 DRVR IHIC 63 M OR-Y 000 000 CC OR>25 C0070 NNNNN 01/07/2010 WASHINGTON 1 14 INTER 3-LEG N N CLD 0-1TURN 01 NONE 0 STRGHT 053,040 04 CITY Thu TIGARD C 0 SW PACIFIC HY 99W CI TRF SIGNAL N DRY TURN PRVTE NE SW 000 053,040 00 2P PORTLAND OA 9.91 SW PARK ST Cl 1 N DAY INJ PSNGR CAR Cl DRVR INJB 67 F OR-Y C97 000 00 OR<25 C2 NONE 0 TORN-L PRVTE SW W 000 040 GO PSNGR CAR 01 DRUB INJC 29 M OR-Y 097 Opo 00 OR<25 05626 NNNNN 10./21/2010 WASHINGTON 1 14 INTER 3-LEG N N CLR 0-1TU6.N 01 NONE 0 STRGHT 02 NO APT Thu. TIGARD C 0 SW PACIFIC HY 99W ON IRF SIGNAL N DRY TURN PRVTE NE SW 000 00 6P PORTLAND UA 9.91 SW PARR ST Cl C N DUSK PDD PSNGR CAR CI DRVR. NONE 43 M OR-Y 000 000 00 ORk25 02 NONE 0 TURN-L PRVTE SW W 000 00 PSNGR CAR 01 DRVR NONE 24 F OR-Y 004,028 CEO 02 OR<25 • 00350 NN N N N 01/20/2011 WASHINGTON 1 14 INTER 3-LEG N N CLR 0-1TURN D1 NONE 0 TURN-L 02 CITY Thu TIGARD 0 0 SW PACIFIC HY HOW CN TAF SIGNAL N DRY TURN PRVTE SW 19 000 00 6P PORTLAND UA 9.91 SW PARK ST 01 1 N DLII INJ PSNGR CAR 01 DRVR INJC 64 F DR-Y 094,029 000 02 OR<25 12 NONE C STRGHT PRVTE NE SW 000 OC PSNGR CAR 01 DRVR. NONE 42 M OR-Y 000 000 00 OR<25 04939 N N N N N 09/1912010 WASHINGTON 1 14 INTER 3-LEG N N CLD ANGL-OTH 01 NONE 0 STRGHT 04,27 CITY Sun TIGARD 0 0 SW PACIFIC HY 99W CN TRF SIGNAL N DRY ANGL PANTE SW NE 000 00 5A PORTLAND UA 9.91 SW PARK ST 04 7 N DLIT INJ PSNGR CAR 01 DRVR NONE 33 M OR-Y 020,016 030 14,27 OR<25 I`I 02 PSNG I6:CS 46 F OCC 000 CO 02 NONE 0 STRGHT PRVTE W E 019 CC PSNGR CAR Cl DRVR INJC 56 M OR-Y 000 000 00 OR<25 02 PING INJB 16 F III 00C 00 11::::4: 0 0 CDS150 0 015 OREGON DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTAT, TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT DIVISION /AGE: 1 TRANSPORTATION DATA SECTION- SH ANALYSIS AND REPORTING UNIT CRASH SUMMARIES BY YEAR BY COLLISION TYPE OR 99W Pacific Highway&SW Park Street January 1.2009 throgh December 31,2013 NON- PROPERTY INTER- FATAL FATAL DAMAGE TOTAL PEOPLE PEOPLE DRY WET INTER- SECTION OFF- COLLISION TYPE CRASHES CRASHES ONLY CRASHES KILLED INJURED TRUCKS SURF SURF DAY DARK SECTION RELATED ROAD YEAR: 2013 REAR-END 0 1 0 1 0 2 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 2013 TOTAL 0 1 0 1 0 2 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 YEAR: 2012 REAR-END 0 2 2 4 0 4 0 1 2 2 2 4 0 0 2012 TOTAL 0 2 2 4 0 4 0 1 2 2 2 4 0 0 YEAR: 2011 TURNING MOVEMENTS 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 2011 TOTAL 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 YEAR: 2010 ANGLE 0 1 0 1 0 3 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 REAR-END 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 TURNING MOVEMENTS 0 1 1 2 0 2 0 2 0 1 1 2 0 0 2010 TOTAL 0 3 1 4 0 6 0 3 1 1 3 4 0 0 FINAL TOTAL 0 7 3 10 0 13 0 6 3 4 6 10 0 0 Disclaimer: A higher number of crashes maybe reported as of 2011 compared to prior years. This does not reflect an increase in annual crashes. The higher numbers result from a change to an internal departmental process that allows the Crash Analysis and Reporting Unit to add previously unavailable, non-fatal crash reports to the annual data file. Please be aware of this change when comparing pre-2011 crash statistics. C00380 1/15/2015 OREGON DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION - TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT DIVISION PAGE: : TRANSPORTATION DATA SECTION - CRASH ANALYSIS AND REPORTING UNIT CONTINUOUS SYSTEM CRASH LISTING 091 PACIFIC HIGHWAY WEST OR 99W Pacific Highway 6 SW Park Road January 1, 2009 throgh December 31, 2013 S P 5 5 H RD# £C INT-TYP SPCL USE E A C C 0 DATE COUNTY COMPNT CONI: O RD CHAR (MEDIAN) INT-REL CFFPO WTHR CRASH TYP 'ALR 2TY MOVE A S SERO ELGHR DAY CITY MLG TIP FIRST STREET DIRECT LEGS TRAF- RICHT SURF CULL TIP OWNER FROM PRIG INS C E LIONS PED INVEST D C S L K TIME URBAN AREA MI.EPNT SECOND STREET LOCTN (*LANES) CNTL DAVWY LIGHT SVRTY VO VEH TYPE TO PO TYPE SVRTY E X RES LOC ERROR ACTN EVENT CAUSE 00634 N N N 02/05/2012 WASHINGTON 1 14 INTER 3-LEG N N UNE 0-:STOP 01 NONE 0 STRGHT 07 NO RFT Sur, TIGARD 0 0 SW PACIFIC HY 99W NE TRF SIGNAL N UNK REAR LINEN NE SW 000 00 7P PORTLAND UA 9.9: SW PARK ST 06 0 N DLIT PDO PSNGR CAR CI 191K NONE 51 M OR-Y 026 000 07 OR<25 02 NONE C STOP PRVTE NE SW C11 CO. SINGE CAR 01 IRIS NONE 22 M CR-Y 000 C60 00 DMZ! C1343 I N N 03/14/2012 WASHINGTON 1 14 INTER CROSS N N RAIN 5-1113? 0: CNKN 0 STRGHT 01 NONE Wed TIGARD 0 0 SW PACIFIC HY 99W NE TRF S:GNA:.. N WET REAR PRVTE NE SW 000 00 IF PORTLAND UA 9.9] SW PARK ST 05 1 N DAY PLO UNKNOWN 01 DRIR NONE 22 M OR-Y 047,026 C00 01 OR<25 02 NONE 0 STOP PRVTE NE SW 011 OC PSNGR CAR 01 DRVR NONE 35 F UNE 000 000 00 OR<25 06846 N N N 11/25/2013 WASHINGTON 1 14 INTER 3-LEG N 0 CLE S-1STOP 01 NONE 0 STRGHT 07 NONE Mor, TIGARD 0 0 SW PACIFIC HY 99W NE TRF SIGNAL N DRY REAR PRVTE NE SW 000 OC IIA PORTLAND UA 9.91 SW PARK ST 06 1 N DAY IN.' PSNGR CAR 01 DRVR NONE 26 M OR-1 026 000 07 OR>25 02 NONE 0 STOP PRVTE NE SW 011 00 PSNGR CAR C: DRVR :NJC 32 M OR-Y COO 000 00 OR<25 02 PING INJC 63 F OCC 000 00 05692 NNNNN 1C/23.12010 WASHINGTON - 14 INTER .3-LEG N N RAIN S-1STOP 01 NONE C STRGHT 07 CITY Sat TIGARD 0 0 SW PACIFIC HY 99W SW TRY SIGNAL N WET REAR PRVTE SW NE 000 00 5P PORTLAND UA 9.91 SW PARK ST 06 C N DUSK INT PSNGR CAR 01 DRVR NONE 00 M OR-Y 043 000 07 DR-7 C2 NONE 0 .STOP PRVTE SW NE 011 00 PSNGR CAR 01 DRVR INJO 50 M OTE-Y 000 000 00 N-RES 02506 NNNNN 05/15/2012 WASHINGTON 1 14 INTER 3-LEG X N 015 S-1STOP 01 NONE 0 5I-RUNT 07 CITY Tue TIGARD 0 0 SW PACIFIC HY 99W SW TRF SIGNAL N DRY REAR PRVTE SW NE 00: 00 9P PORTLAND CA 9.91 SW PARR ST 06 0 N DLIT TNT PSNGR.CAR 31 ]RVR INTO 24 M. NONE 043.,076 000 07 0R<25 02 NONE 0 STOP PRVTE SW NE 011 00 PINUP CAR 01 DRVR INTO 41 F OR-Y 000 000 00 OR<25 02 PSNG INTO -2 M 000 C00 CO 1 o 0 0 11 C 552001 ' :.,21:1 OREGON DEPARTMENT OF IPANGPORTATION - TRANS55,?7AI:20 TSTEL1FMENT 7.0:7:0n7; PAGIF: 2 TRANSPORTATION IAEA SECTI5N - :RASH ANA:70:F ANT ?EP50TINO 011,0 CONTINUCES SYS7F1: 1?AS6 L:ST:NG 091 PACIFIC H75,H4AY 100277 76 ,c46 pa—P.- ,Il/way # SW .7...7., Read :an4ary 1. 1.009 701'10. Co2cerber 31, 24/7i S 0 O ? S W R5# NO 1NG-TY0 TEN 7:0 E A T C 0 PATE TOCNTY 009PN2 CONN a FE CHAR 7?E1C5AN4 :NT-19EL =RD WTH? 501401 IMP :61? .TY 07/4TS A :0 5E144 ELRHR DAC, 5ITY MLG 51? 710:11 :IRE= 000E57 LEON :RAF- RNOST SnY T:LL TY? JWNER 031:14 IRCO 1N: n E 215745 PE: :WEST DGSLY TIME CFBAN AREA M:LERNT SSTONC 25P02T LI/CTE {OLANES1 COIL DR.:WY L:GHT 0/ROY '.', 700 1100 IC 0# TYPE SVRTY 6 X 000 LTC: O0,000 14.0171: EVEN: OACSE 07722 NIIKNN 09/10/2012 wAl-trm-= 1 14 INTER 2-EEC .. N RA:N 0-:ET00 01 N,NL 0 STAT/FT 57 C:TY Mon 7:OAR: c 0 SW PACIF:5 HY 99W SW TPF //9'.A7 N NET REAR PKVIE SW 100 000 Eli 514 200721451: 214 9.91 SW PARF ST 06 : N TAY IN: PSNPA GAR :: 7.15.7, NONE 1: M 59-7 120 005 .77 541,25 1.1 NnNS ' S71,P PFTTE sW AL C:: 00 F0,147/0 CAR 0: 1007 IN:: C3 V 50-'5 ,... 9.06 00 D0070 NNNNI40: 0202515 WASH:N7:720: 1 14 :N:0? 5-LEO N N TL: 0-1TCR11 0: NONE C STROHT 051,540 54 5171' Th, T:GAI.D 0 0 SW PACIFIC WY 99W 511 700 ',IONA: N THY TURN 007:0 NE SW 000 01,4,C4C CC 2? 05107LAND GA 9.91 SW PAR? ST n: 7 N PAY IN.: 10070 :AA .:: CRT?, :1170 67 ? OF-N; 097 001 O 9025 :: NONE 0 T1/ON-1 PRVTE SW W CCC 040 00 50NE14 CAR 51 :ATP 1N:5 22 M 00/-7 000 00 09626 051400 IC'21'20:0 WASH:NG:ON 1 14 107110 J-LEG N N CLP 0-1TURN 01 NONE D SIRE/F7 0: NC RFT Th, 71GARS 0 0 /10 PACIF::: HY 9910 27 7RF SISNAL N PRY TURN 007:1 NE SW 000 rr 60 PORTLAND IA 9.91 R'S PARR S: 74 1 N 00 irT".' NON/CF 200 /1 ERA'? NONE 42. M 0R-7 010 05 :R<S, 52 :DAL 0 TURN-L PRVTE SW W CCD 00 PSI//OR ,:A.R. 5: :RV? 11700 :4 F SF-Y 504,079 1400 5,T OR,27 SGSRE NNNNN 71/20,201: WASHINGTON 1 14 :NTER 7-LOG N N CL? 0-1,NRN 51 NINE: r '7/JON-1 02 CITY Thu 720AR0 0 , SW PATIFIT I/O 906. :N 5R0 SIGNAL N CRY TORN 0205F 014 14 007 DC AP PORTLAND CA 2.21 SW PARR S7 01 1 N 5117 INS PSNS? 5AR CI DRVR IN:C 64 F :70-7 550 02 5F<GS" 02 N//NO 0 STFEHT PRO/0 NE SW 000 07 P50OR /7140 .:1 513::? NONE 47 7 0/R-7 000 005 01 O 0,21 54909 NNNNN 09/19/2010 WASHINGTON : :4 IN100 3-LEG N N TL: ANOL-OTH II NCNE u S7RSHT 04,2, CITY Sun 71SART 7, C 5o PAO:FI5 147 9914 CN TRF StSNAL N THY ANON E0010. 0/4 1:0 9.10 00 5A P0071.1402 014 9.91 SW FARR ST 04 r , 0 ::::: :r: EON/OR /AR El CRT? NONE 33 M IR-Y 0271076 GIN 04,27 6: P0000 IN:S 40 F 000 coo cc C2 NONE' 0 S:FGHT SET50 X 1' DID 30 000/0 714? CI DRVR IN:C 50 M OP-7 r,cr. oc, 516.62C 02 9900 I0/72 70 4 000 RO CDS150 01/15/2015 OREGON DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION-TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT DIVISION PAGE: 1 TRANSPORTATION DATA SECTION-CRASH ANALYSIS AND REPORTING UNIT CRASH SUMMARIES BY YEAR BY COLLISION TYPE OR 99W Pacific Highway&SW Park Road January 1,2009 throgh December 31,2013 NON- PROPERTY INTER- FATAL FATAL DAMAGE TOTAL PEOPLE PEOPLE DRY WET INTER- SECTION OFF- COLLISION TYPE CRASHES CRASHES ONLY CRASHES KILLED INJURED TRUCKS SURF SURF DAY DARK SECTION RELATED ROAD YEAR: 2013 REAR-END 0 1 0 1 0 2 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 2013 TOTAL 0 1 0 1 0 2 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 YEAR: 2012 REAR-END 0 2 2 4 0 4 0 1 2 2 2 4 0 0 2012 TOTAL 0 2 2 4 0 4 0 1 2 2 2 4 0 0 YEAR: 2011 TURNING MOVEMENTS 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 2011 TOTAL 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 YEAR: 2010 ANGLE 0 1 0 1 0 3 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 REAR-END 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 TURNING MOVEMENTS 0 1 1 2 0 2 0 2 0 1 1 2 0 0 2010 TOTAL 0 3 1 4 0 6 0 3 1 1 3 4 0 0 FINAL TOTAL 0 7 3 10 0 13 0 6 3 4 6 10 0 0 Disclaimer: A higher number of crashes may be reported as of 2011 compared to prior years. This does not reflect an increase in annual crashes. The higher numbers result from a change to an internal departmental process that allows the Crash Analysis and Reporting Unit to add previously unavailable,non-fatal crash reports to the annual data file. Please be aware of this change when comparing pre-2011 crash statistics. II 0 0 3 , I Il II CDS380 1/15/2015 OREGON DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION - TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT_ DIVISION PAGE: 1 I TRANSPORTATION DATA SECTION - CRASH ANALYSIS AND REPORTING UNIT III CONTINUOUS SYSTEM CRASH LISTING 091 PACIFIC HIGHWAY WEST OR 9'9W Pacific Highway S SW Garrett Street January 1, 2009 thragh December 31, 2013 I S D P R S W RDM FC INT-TYP SPCL USE EAUCO DATE COUNTY COMPNT CONN * RD GEAR (MEDIAN) I.1=-FEL OPFRD W:HR CRASH TYP CRLR QTY MOVE A SEA* EIGHR DAY CITY MLS TIP FIRST STREET DIRECT LEGS TRAP- RNDPT SURF COLL TIP OWNER FROM PRTC IN: U E LIONS FED Il INVEST I C S L K TIME URBAN: AREA MILEPNT SECOND STREET LOCTN (MLA:` S) CNTL DRVWY LIGHT SVRTY VM VER TYPE TO PM TYPE SVP.T.Y E X RES LOC ERROR ACTN EVENT CAUSE � A 02323 N N N 05/19/2009 WASHINGTON 1 14 INTER CR000 N N RAIN C-ETRGHT 01 UNEN 9 S 3G3T C50 05 I NONE Tue TIGARD 0 0 SW GARRETT ST NE TRF SIGNAL N WET SS-M 051521 SW NE COC 050 00 III I 3P PORTLAND UA 9.63) SW FACIFTC HY 998 06 0 N DAY ?DO PINCE CAR 01 DRVR NONE 00 N OR-1( 043,0.90 000 05 O3>25 'l 02 NONE I STRCH: I PRVTE NE SW 030 CC PSNGR CAP DRVR NONE 36 M CR-Y 000 CCC 00 CR<25 001511 NNNNN 10/19/2011 WASHINGTON } 14 INTER 3-LEG N N C..D :-OTOP 01 NONE 0 STRGHT 07 It CITY Wed TIGARD U 0 SWGARNETT ST SW TNT SINAL N ? REAR PRVTE SW NE CCO 00 Illll 5P PORTLAND IA 9.63 SW PACIFIC HY 99W 06 1 N :LIT PIO FINER CAR 0: 1915 N3110 %5 M C 043,02E CCD 07 OR<25 I 02 NONE C STOP I PACTS SW NE 00I1 00 PSNGR CAR C1 DRVR NONE 27 M UR-Y CCC 000 OG . OR<2_ I 05253 N N N 09/1812013 WASHINGTON 1 14 INTER EG N N CLR 5-ISTOP Cl NONE 0 STRGHT 07 NONE Wed TIGARD 0 0 SW GARRETT ST SW TAF SIGNAL N DRY REAR PRVTE SW NE 000 00 6P PORTLAND UA 9.93 5W PACIFIC HY 99W CC 0 N DAY PDO PINGPCAR 0I :RVR NONE OD M OR-Y 026 000 07 Ga<29 , 02 NONE 0 STOP , PRVTE SW NE 011 00 PINGR ::AR CI DRVR NONE 53 F OR-Y 000 COC 00 ) GR<25 III 00985 N N N 02/28/2009 WASHINGTON 1 14 INTER 3-LEG N N CI.R. ANLL-O^.H 0: 'UNRN 9 TURN-L 02 NONE Sat TIGARD 0 1 SW GARRETT ST CN STOP SIGN N CR? TURN UNION 5E 5W 015 OC 1P PORTLAND 'UA 9.63 SW PACIFIC HY 99W 02 0 N CAI PDC PSNGR CAR 0: DRVR NONE OC M UNE 026 000 C2 I UNE 02 NONE 0 STRGHT 5 PRVTE SW NE 006 00 PSNGR) CAR C1 DRVR NONE 41 M 04-Y CCC 000 00 II 03<25 II 02762 N N N 06/09/2.009 WASHINGTON 1 14 INTER 3-LEG N N CLR AWOL-OTH OI NONE 0 TORN-R 02 NO RPT Toe TIGARD 0 0 .SW GARRETT ST CP: RN F SIGNALDRY TURN RPVTS SE NE 016 OC VIII 2A PORTLAND UA 9,83 SW PACIFIC MY 33W C2 0 N DLIT 053 PSNGR -CAR CI DRVR NONE 46 M OR-Y 028 000 02 OR<2 5 02 NONE I STRGHT PRVTE SW NE 000 DC SEMI TOW 01 15CR NONE <2 10 CR-Y ICC, 000 00 OR>25 I 0109: NNNNN 03!06/2011 WASHINGTON 1 14 INTER 3-LEG N N CLR ANLL-OCH 01 NONE C STRGHT 04 CITY Sat TIGARD 0 0 SW GARRETT ST CN TRF SIGNAL N DRY TURN SPOTS SW NE 000 CG 9P PORTLAND OA 9..8.3 SW PACIFIC HY 99W 02 0 N DLIT PDO P5NG9 CAR 01 DRVR NONE 63 M OR-I 000 000 00 DR<25 II I DI CDS380 1/15/2015 OREGON DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPCRTAa ICN - TRANSPORTATION :EVE-O'PMFNiT DIVISION CAGE: 2 TRANSPORTATION DATA SECTION - CRASH ANALYSIS.AND REPORTING UNIT CONTINUOUS SYSTEM CRASH LISTING 091 PACIFIC HIGHWAY WEST OR 99W Pacific Highway & SW Garret_ S[reet January. 1, 2009 thrcgh De:_e^tiee 31, 2013 D P ROW RCA FC INT-THP SPOL USE E A U C 0 DATE COUNTY COMPNT CONN Y RD C1-:AR (MEDIAN) TNT-REL 0FERJ WTHR CRASH TYP TRLR 07Y MOVE A SER# ELGHR DAY CITY MLG TY? FIRST STREET DIRECT LEGS TRAF- ROOST SURF COLL TYP OWNER FROM PRTC :N: G r LICKS PECK INVEST 0 C S L K TIME URBAN AREA MILEPNT SECOND STREET LOCIN (*LANES) CNTL ORVWY LIGHT SVRTY V# t H TYPE TO P# MI 0/80Y E 10 RES L00 ERROR ACTN EVENT CAUSE 02 NONE 0 TURN PRVTE Si SW 110 00 PSNGR CAR 01 DRVR NCNE 40 M CR-Y 020 1.01 04 u9<211 00182 NNNNN 01/11!2011 WASHINGTON 1 14 INTER 3-LEG N N RAIN ANLL-JTH Cl NONE 0 TUPN-L 02 CITY Tue TIGARD 0 0 SW GARRETT ST CN ORF SIGNAL N WET TURN PRVTE SE SW 0010 00 7P PORTLAND JA 9.83 SW PACIFIC HY 999 02 0 N =LIT 1NJ POND? CAR CI DRVR NONE 61 M OR-Y 028 003 02 0R<25 02 NONE C STRICT PRVTE SW NE Con 00 PONDS CAR 01 DRVR INJC 51 M OF-_ 000 _00 GG OR>2S 01247 NNNNN 03/11/2012 WASHINGTON I 14 INTER 3-LEG N N RAIN ANLL-OTH 01 NONE 0 STRGHT 02 CITY Sun TIGARD 0 0 SW GARRETT ST TN TAF SIGNAL N WET TURN PRVTE 5W NE 000 00 1A PORTLAND UA 9.83 SW PACIFIC HY 99W 02 0 N CLI PCO PSNGR CAR 01 DRVR NONE 03 M OR-Y CCC 000 00 OR<25 02 UNFIT C TURN-14 UNE:N 5.E NE OIC CC PSNGR CAR OS DRVR NONE OO J ONE 026 CI UNE 03283 NNNNN 06/26/2012 WASHINGTON 1 14 INTER 3-LEG A N OLD ANLL-0TH 01 NONE 0 STRGHT 02 CITY Tue TUGASC 0 0 SW GARRETT ST CN STOP SIGN N DRY TURN PRVTT SW NE 000 00 7A PORTLAND DA 9.83 SW PACIFIC HY 99W 02 0 N JAY PDO PENCE( CAR 01 DRIV9 NONE 40 M CR-Y CCI 000 00 0R<20 02 NONE 0 TURN-R. •4J i 1ti' il''A-. PRVTE SE NE C15 E. GC PSNGR CAR 0: DRVR NONE 49 F CR-Y 026 C2 CR<25 01179 NNNNN 03/07/2013 WASHINGTON - 14 INTER 3-LEG N N CLR. -STRGHT CI NONE 0 STRGHT 27,01 CITY Thu TIGARD 0 0 5W GARRETT ST CN TRF SIGNAL N DRY REAR PRVTE SW NE COI 00 1C41 PORTLAND UA 9.93 SW PACIFIC NY 999 02 0 N DAY :NO PSNGR. CAR 01 DRVR NONE 33 F OR-0 016,043,042 038 27,07 09.<25 02 PSNG NO<5 02 F COO 000 00 02 NONE 0 STRGHT PRVTE SW NE CCI 00 PSNGR CAR. 01 DRVR INJC 65 M OR-Y 000 OCT CC 08425 01394 NNNNN 03/25/2010 WASHINGTON I 14 INTER 3-LEG N N CLC O-1TURN CI NONE C STRGHT U94 12 CITY Thu TIGARD 0 0 SW GARRETT ST CN TAF SIGNAL N WET TURN PRVTE SW NE ICC 10 2A PORTLAND VA 9.93 SW PACIFIC HY 99W 04 1 N DLIT 1NJ PSNGR TAR 01 DRVR INJC 45 14 CR-'V 0.00 000 00 CR<25 0 D 0 0 0 CDS380 1/15/2015 OREGON DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION - TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT DIVISION, PAGE: 3 TRANSPORTATION DATA SECTION CRASH ANALYSIS AND REPORTING UNIT CONTINUOUSSYSTEM CRASH LISTING 041 PACIFIC HIGHWAY WEST OR 99W Pacific Highway 6 SW Garrett Street January 1, 2009 throgh December 31; 2013 S D P R 5 91 RD* FC 1A.TYP SPCL USE EAUCO DATE COUNTY COMPNT CONN f RD CHAR 1MEDIAN) INT-REL OFFRD WTHR CRASH TYP TRLR QTY MOVE A S SER. ELGHR DAY CITY MLG TIP FIRST STREET DIRECT LEGS TRAF- MIDST SURF COLL TYP OWNER FROM FRIG TNJ G E LICKS PED INVESTD C S L K TIME URBAN AREA MILEPNT SECOND STREET 1OCTN f4LANES) CNTI. DIME LIGHT SVRTY Vi VEH TYPE TO PA TYPE SV'RTY E X RES LOC ERROR ACTN EVENT CAUSE 02 NONE 0 TURN-L PRVTE NE SE 000 00 PSNGR CAR CI DRVR NONE 16 F N-VAT. 004,028 000 094 02 OR<25 02 PING INJC 16 F 000 000 00 I 01606 NNNNN 03/29/2012 WASHINGTON I 14 INTER 3-LEG N N RAIN 0-1TURN 01 NONE 0 STRGHT 02 CITY Thu TIGARD C C SW GARRETT ST ON TRF SIGNAL N WET TURN PRVTE SW NE 000 00 10P PORTLAND UA 9.63 SW PACIFIC HY 98W 04 0 N DLIT PDO PSNGR CAR 01 DRVR NONE 18 M OR-1 000 000 00 09<25 02 NONE 0 TURN-L PRVTE NE SE 000 00 PSNGR CAR OI DRVR NONE 84 F CR-Y 004,928 00C 02 CRE25 05786 NM NN N 10/10/2013 WASHINGTON _ 14 INTER 3-LEG N Y CLE FIX 083 01 NONE 0 TURN-L 053 08 CITY Thu TIGARD 0 0 SW GARRETT ST CN TRF SIGNAL N DRY FIX PRVTE NE SE 000 053 00 5P PORTLAND OR 9.83 SW PACIFIC HY 99W 04 0 N DAY PDO PSNGR CAR 01 DRVR NONE 58 N GR-Y 001,081 000 08 09<25 I II I I I • CDS150 0111512015 OREGON DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION-TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT DIVISION PAGE: 1 TRANSPORTATION DATA SECTION-CRASH ANALYSIS AND REPORTING UNIT CRASH SUMMARIES BY YEAR BY COLLISION TYPE OR 99W Pacific Highway&SW Garrett Street January 1,2009 throgh December 31,2013 NON- PROPERTY INTER- FATAL FATAL DAMAGE TOTAL PEOPLE PEOPLE DRY WET INTER- SECTION OFF- COLLISION TYPE CRASHES CRASHES ONLY CRASHES KILLED INJURED TRUCKS SURF SURF DAY _ DARK SECTION RELATE D ROAD YEAR: 2013 FIXED/OTHER OBJECT 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 REAR-END 0 1 1 2 0 1 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 0 2013 TOTAL 0 1 2 3 0 1 0 3 0 3 0 3 0 1 YEAR: 2012 TURNING MOVEMENTS 0 0 3 3 0 0 0 1 2 1 2 3 0 0 2012 TOTAL 0 0 3 3 0 0 0 1 2 1 2 3 0 0 YEAR: 2011 REAR-END 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 TURNING MOVEMENTS 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 2011 TOTAL 0 1 1 2 0 1 0 1 1 0 2 2 0 0 YEAR: 2010 TURNING MOVEMENTS 0 1 1 2 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 2 0 0 2010 TOTAL 0 1 1 2 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 2 0 0 YEAR: 2009 SIDESWIPE-MEETING 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 TURNING MOVEMENTS 0 0 2 2 0 0 1 2 0 1 1 2 0 0 2009 TOTAL 0 0 3 3 0 0 1 2 1 2 1 3 0 0 FINAL TOTAL 0 3 10 13 0 4 1 8 5 6 7 13 0 1 Disclaimer: A higher number of crashes may be reported as of 2011 compared to prior years. This does not reflect an increase in annual crashes. The higher numbers result from a change to an internal departmental process that allows the Crash Analysis and Reporting Unit to add previously unavailable,non-fatal crash reports to the annual data file. Please be aware of this change when comparing pre-2011 crash statistics. ri) Appendix E Year 2016 Background Traffic Operations Worksheets HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analyg016 Backgroudn Traffic Weekday AM Peak Hour 1 : SW Park St & OR 99 W 4/3012015 i' -iC 4- 4\ t t `► d Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 'l 't°1- ) t1+ 4 rr ) T r Volume(vph) 27 1495 3 5 916 16 1 1 5 67 2 46 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1 00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frpb,ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.99 Flpb, pedlbikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow(prat) 1516 3437 1805 3306 1235 1328 1716 1900 1562 Flt Permitted 0.27 1.00 0.14 1.00 0.93 1.00 0.76 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 429 3437 263 3306 1180 1328 1367 1900 1562 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0 96 0.96 0.96 0,96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Adj. Flow(vph) 28 1557 3 5 954 17 1 1 5 70 2 48 RTOR Reduction(vph) 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 4 0 0 43 Lane Group Flow(vph) 28 1560 0 5 970 0 0 2 1 70 2 5 Conti. Peds. (#/hr) 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 1 Heavy Vehicles(`Yo) 19% 5% 0% 0% 9% 0% 0% 100% 20% 5% 0% 2% Turn Type pm+pt NA pm+pt NA Perm NA Perm Perm NA Perm Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 8 4 Permitted Phases 2 6 8 8 4 4 Actuated Green, G(s) 115.3 111.9 110.5 109.5 14.1 14.1 14.1 14.1 14.1 Effective Green.g(s) 115.3 111.9 110.5 109.5 14.1 14.1 14.1 14.1 14.1 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.82 0.80 0.79 0.78 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 Clearance Time(s) 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.5 4.5 4.5 4,5 4.5 4.5 Vehicle Extension(s) 2.3 5.2 _ 2.3 5.2 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 379 2747 218 2585 118 133 137 191 157 Ws Ratio Prot c0.00 c0.45 0.00 0.29 0.00 vis Ratio Perm 0.06 0.02 0 00 0.00 c0.05 0.00 vlc Ratio 0.07 0.57 0.02 0.38 0.02 0.00 0.51 0.01 0.03 Uniform Delay,dl 2.6 5.2 4.1 4.7 56,7 56.6 59.7 56.7 56.8 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 0.61 1.08 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay.d2 0.0 0.9 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 2.4 0.0 0.1 Delay(s) 2.6 6.0 2.5 5.4 56.7 56.6 62.1 56.7 56.8 Level of Service A A A A E E E E E Approach Delay(s) 6.0 5.4 56.7 59.9 Approach LOS A A E E Intersection Summary i " HCM 2000 Control Delay 8.3 HCM 2000 Level of Service A HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.56 Actuated Cycle Length(s) 140.0 Sum of lost time(s) 13.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 63.8% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period(min) 15 c Critical Lane Group H:\projfile113755-Leadership Circle Specialty Retail1005-Tigard\Synchro113755.5-2014AM-BG.syn Synchro 8- Report %user name% Page 1 HUM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary2016 Backgroudn Traffic Weekday AM Peak Hour 1 : SW Park St & OR 99 W 4/30/2015 -4 - ► Z C 4- k- `1 t /* \* 1 r' Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations )r ' 1- 'I t1" 4 r vl t r Volume(veh/h) 27 1495 3 5 916 16 1 1 5 67 2 46 Number 5 2 12 1 6 16 3 8 18 7 4 14 Initial 0(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A pbT) 1 00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Ac:j 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow.veh/h/In 1597 1810 1900 1900 1746 1900 1900 1267 1583 1810 1900 1863 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 28 1557 3 5 954 17 1 1 5 70 2 0 Adj No.of Lanes 1 2 0 1 2 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 Peak Hour Factor 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0,96 Percent Heavy Veh, % 19 5 5 0 9 9 100 100 20 5 0 2 Cap,vehlh 452 2947 6 298 2744 49 67 45 87 138 124 103 Arrive On Green 0.02 0.84 0.84 0.01 0.82 0.82 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0,07 0.00 Sat Flow,veh/h 1521 3521 7 1810 3334 59 430 696 1340 1358 1900 1583 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 28 760 800 5 475 496 2 0 5 70 2 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1521 1719 1808 1810 1658 1735 1126 0 1340 1358 1900 1583 0 Serve(g s),s 0.4 18.1 18.1 0.1 9.9 9.9 0.0 0.0 0.5 7.1 0.1 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.4 18.1 18.1 0.1 9.9 9.9 0.2 0.0 0.5 7.3 0.1 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.03 0.50 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 452 1439 1514 298 1365 1428 112 0 87 138 124 103 V/C Ratio(X) 0.06 0.53 0.53 0.02 0.35 0.35 0.02 0.00 0.06 0.51 0.02 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 553 1439 1514 444 1365 1428 146 0 129 180 183 153 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay(d), slveh 2.2 3.3 3.3 3.0 3.1 3.1 61.3 0.0 61.4 64.7 61.2 0.0 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 0.0 1.4 1.3 0.0 0.7 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.2 2.1 0.0 0.0 Initial 0 Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 °/vile BackOfQ(-26165%),veh/In 0.2 9.0 9.4 0.0 4.7 5.0 0.1 0.0 0.2 2.8 0.1 0.0 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 2.2 4.7 4.7 3.0 3.8 3.7 61.3 0.0 61.6 66.8 61.3 0.0 LnGrp LOS A A A A A A E E E E Approach Vol,veh/h 1588 976 7 72 Approach Delay,s/veh 4.6 3.8 61.5 66.7 Approach LOS A A E E 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),s 4.7 121.7 13.6 6,7 119.7 13.6 Change Period(Y+Rc),s 4.0 4.5 4.5 4.0 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 12.0 101.5 13.5 12.0 101.5 13.5 Max 0 Clear Time(g_c+I1),s 2.1 20.1 9.3 2.4 11.9 2.5 Green Ext Time(p c),s 0.0 72.7 0.0 0.0 79.1 0.1 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 6.2 HCM 2010 LOS A H:\projfile113755-Leadership Circle Specialty Retail\005-Tigard\Synchro\13755.5-2014_AM-BG.syn Synchro 8- Report %user_name% Page 1 HCM 2010 TWSC 2016 Backgroudn Traffic Weekday AM Peak Hour 2: OR 99 W & SW School St 4/3012015 Intersection Int Delay, slveh 0 2 Movement EBL FBI WBT WBR SBL SBR Vol,vehlh 2 1550 943 21 7 7 Conflicting Peds,Whir 2 0 0 2 2 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length 90 - - - 0 - Veh in Median Storage,# - 0 0 - 0 Grade,% - 0 0 - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 94 94 94 94 94 94 Heavy Vehicles,% 0 4 8 10 0 0 Mvmt Flow 2 1649 1003 22 7 7 Major/Minor Majorl Major2 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 1028 0 - 0 1845 517 Stage 1 - - - - 1016 - Stage 2 - - - - 829 - Critical Hdwy 4.1 - - - 6.8 6.9 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.8 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.8 - Follow-up Hdwy 2-2 - - - 3.5 3.3 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 683 - 68 509 Stage 1 - - - - 315 - Stage 2 - - - - 394 - Platoon blocked,% - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 682 - - - 68 507 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 68 - Stage 1 - - - - 314 - Stage 2 - - - - 392 - Approach EB WB SB Ilk, HCM Control Delay,s 0 0 39.2 HCM LOS E Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity{vehlh) 682 - - - 120 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.003 - - - 0.124 HCM Control Delay(s) 10.3 - - - 39.2 HCM Lane LOS B - - - E HCM 95th%file Q(veh) 0 - - - 0.4 0 H:lprojfile113755-Leadership Circle Specialty Retail1005-Tigard\Synchro113755 5-2014 .AM-BG.syn Synchro 8- Report %user name% Page 3 HCM 2010 TWSC 2016 Backgroudn Traffic Weekday AM Peak Hour 3: SW Garrett St & OR 99 W 5/4/2015 Intersection Int Delay, s+'veh 0.7 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Vol,vehlh 1534 23 24 961 3 49 Conflicting Peds,#/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length - - 150 - 0 - Veh in Median Storage.# 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 - 1 Peak Hour Factor 94 94 94 94 94 94 Heavy Vehicles,% 5 5 0 3 0 3 Mvmt Flow 1632 24 26 1022 3 52 Major'Minor Majorl Major2 Minorl Conflicting Flow All 0 0 1656 0 2206 828 Stage 1 - - - 1644 Stage 2 - - - - 562 - Critical Hdwy - - 4.1 - 6.8 6.96 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.8 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.8 - Follow-up Hdwy - 2.2 - 3.5 3.33 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 395 - 39 312 Stage 1 - - - - 146 - Stage 2 - - - - 540 - Platoon blocked, % - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 395 - 36 312 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 36 - Stage 1 - - - - 146 - Stage 2 - - - - 504 - Approach EB WB NB HCM Control Delay.s 0 0.4 27 3 HCM LOS D Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBT Capacity(vehlh) 216 - - 395 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.256 - - 0.065 - HCM Control Delay(s) 27.3 - - 14.7 - HCM Lane LOS D - - B - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 1 - - 0.2 - H:lprojfile113755-Leadership Circle Specialty Retail\005-Tigard\Synchrol3755.5-2014-AM-BG.syn Synchro 8- Report %user name% Page 3 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Ana14116 Backgroudn Traffic Weekday AM Peak Hour 5: SW Walnut St & OR 99 W 4/3012015 -'4' - c 4\ t ti l ,r Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT. _.. Lane Configurations ) tt i ft r 4. 11 t' Volume(vph) 101 1589 9 10 885 115 20 6 18 332 17 127 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 4,0 4.5 4.0 5.0 5.0 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1 00 0 95 1.00 1 00 1.00 1.00 Frpb,ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.10 0.96 0.98 1.00 0.98 Flpb, pedlbikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1., 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.94 1.00 0.87 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.98 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow(prot) 1702 3466 1805 3343 1416 1648 1770 1515 Flt Permitted 0.19 1.00 0.07 1.00 1.00 0.98 0.95 1.00 Said. Flow(perm) 341 3466 142 3343 1416 1648 1770 1515 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Adj. Flow(vph) 107 1690 10 11 941 122 21 6 19 353 18 135 RTOR Reduction(vph') 0 0 0 0 0 49 0 18 0 0 104 0 Lane Group Flow(vph) 107 1700 0 11 941 73 0 28 0 353 49 0 Confl. Peds.(#/hr) 5 4 4 5 7 4 4 7 Con8.Bikes(#Ihr) 3 Heavy Vehicles(%) _ 6% 4% 11% 0% 8% 10% 5% 0% 6% 2% 12% 6% Turn Type pm+pt NA pm+pt NA Perm Split NA Split NA Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 8 8 4 4 Permitted Phases 2 6 6 Actuated Green, G(s) 81.9 81.4 56.1 56.1 56.1 6 4 32.3 32.3 Effective Green,g(s) 81.9 81.4 56,1 56.1 56.1 6.4 32.3 32.3 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.59 0.58 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.05 0.23 023 Clearance Time(s) 4.0 4.5 4.0 5.0 5.0 4,5 4.5 4.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.3 5.1 2.3 5.1 5.1 2.3 2.3 2.3 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 463 2015 85 1339 567 75 408 349 vis Ratio Prot 0.04 c0.49 0.00 c0.28 c0.02 c0.20 0.03 • v!s Ratio Perm 0,09 0.05 0.05 vlc Ratio 0.23 0.84 0.13 0.70 0.13 0.37 0.87 0.14 Uniform Delay,dl 27.4 24.1 34.2 35.0 26.5 64.8 51.8 42.8 Progression Factor 1.12 1.02 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,d2 0.1 4.1 0.4 3.1 0.5 1.8 16.8 0.1 Delay(s) 30.7 28.7 34.6 38.1 27.0 66.7 68.6 42.9 Level of Service C C C D C E E D Approach Delay(s) 28.8 36.8 66.7 60.8 Approach LOS C D E E Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 36.6 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.83 Actuated Cycle Length(s) 140.0 Sum of lost time(s) 18.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 83.4% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period(min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 0 H.tprojfile113755-Leadership Circle Specialty Retail1005-Tigard\Synchro113755.5-2014_AM-BG.syn Synchro 8- Report %user_name% Page 5 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary2016 Backgroudn Traffic Weekday AM Peak Hour 5: SW Walnut St & OR 99 W 4/3012015 J r 4- ti 4\ t \ 1 4/ Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations ) ti. '1 tT r 4. 11 k Volume(veh/h) 101 1589 9 10 885 115 20 6 18 332 17 127 Number 5 2 12 1 6 16 3 8 18 7 4 14 Initial Q(Ob),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1 00 0.97 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.99 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow,vehlh/In 1792 1826 1900 1900 1759 1727 1900 1814 1900 1863 1781 1900 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 107 1690 10 11 941 122 21 6 19 353 18 135 Adj No. of Lanes 1 2 0 1 2 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Percent Heavy Veh, % 6 4 4 0 8 10 0 0 0 2 12 12 Cap,vehlh 543 2165 13 69 1178 514 26 8 24 385 39 292 Arrive On Green 0.26 0 61 0.61 0.01 0.35 0.35 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.22 0.22 0.22 Sat Flow,veh/h 1707 3536 21 1810 3343 1458 739 211 668 1774 180 1348 Grp Volume(v),vehlh 107 829 871 11 941 122 46 0 0 353 0 153 Grp Sat Flow(s),vehlhlln 1707 1735 1822 1810 1671 1458 1618 0 0 1774 0 1527 0 Serve(g_s),s 0.0 49.6 49.7 0.6 35.5 8.3 3.9 0.0 0.0 27.2 0.0 12.2 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 0.0 49.6 49.7 0.6 35.5 8.3 3.9 0.0 0.0 27.2 0.0 12.2 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.01 1.00 1.00 0.46 0.41 1.00 0.88 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 543 1062 1116 69 1178 514 58 0 0 385 0 331 V/C Ratio(X) 0.20 0.78 0.78 0.16 0.80 0.24 0.80 0.00 0.00 0.92 0.00 0.46 Avail Cap(ca),veh/h 543 1062 1116 207 1361 594 144 0 0 513 0 442 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 35.7 20.1 20.2 38.4 40.9 32.0 67.0 0.0 0.0 53.6 0.0 47.7 lncr Delay(d2),slveh 0.1 5.7 5.5 0.6 5.7 1.1 14.0 0.0 0.0 16.4 0.0 0.6 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(-26165%),veh/In 3.1 25.4 26.6 0.3 17.3 3.5 2.0 0.0 0.0 15.1 0.0 5.2 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 35.8 25.8 25.6 39.0 46.6 33.1 81.0 0.0 0.0 70.0 0.0 48.3 LnGrp LOS D C C D D C F E D Approach Vol, veh/h 1807 1074 46 506 Approach Delay,s/veh 26.3 45.0 81.0 63.5 Approach LOS C 0 F F 1 Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc),s 5.4 90.2 34.9 41.3 54.3 9.5 Change Period(Y+Rc), s 4.0 4.5 4.5 4.5 *5 4.5 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 12.0 57.5 40.5 12.0 *57 12.5 Max Q Clear Time(g _c+11),s 2.6 51.7 29.2 2.0 37.5 5.9 Green Ext Time(p_c),s 0.0 5.4 1.1 6.9 11.8 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Defay 38.3 HCM 2010 LOS D Notes * HCM 2010 computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. H:lprojfile11.3755-Leadership Circle Specialty Retail1005-TigardlSynchro113755.5-2014_AM-BG.syn Synchro 8- Report %user_name% Page 2 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analy§1016 Background Traffic Weekday PM Peak Hour 1 : SW Park St & OR 99 W 5/1/2015 1 -1 z s- ~ 4\ t P ti l d Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 'S ti. '5 ti. 4 r ) T r Volume(vph) 35 1349 7 21 1626 31 7 3 22 49 3 36 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 4.0 4,5 4.0 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Util, Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frpb,ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flpb,ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Fit Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow(prot) 1805 3428 1719 3495 1526 1515 1764 1900 1615 Fit Permitted 0.12 1.00 0.18 1.00 0.83 1.00 0.75 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 223 3428 321 3495 1318 1515 1395 1900 1615 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0,99 0.99 0.99 0.99 Adj. Flow(vph) 35 1363 7 21 1642 31 7 3 22 49 3 36 RTOR Reduction(vph). 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 21 0 0 34 Lane Group Flow(vph) 35 1370 0 21 1672 0 0 10 1 49 3 2 Confl. Peds. (girl 3 7 7 3 2 2 Confl. Bikes(#/hr) 2 2 Heavy Vehicles(%oL 0% 5% 43% 5% 3% 0% 29% 0% 5% 2% 0% 0% Turn Type pm+pt NA pm+pt NA Perm NA Perm Perm NA Perm Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 8 4 Permitted Phases 2 6 8 8 4 4 Actuated Green, G(s) 118.6 114.4 116.4 113.3 9.5 9.5 9.5 9.5 9.5 Effective Green,g(s) 118.6 114.4 116.4 113.3 9.5 9.5 9.5 9.5 9.5 Actuated gfC Ratio 0.85 0.82 0.83 0.81 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 Clearance Time(s) 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Vehicle Extension(s) 2.3 5.2 2.3 5.2 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 236 2801 297 2828 89 102 94 128 109 vls Ratio Prot c0.00 0.40 0.00 c0.48 0.00 v/s Ratio Perm 0.12 0.06 0.01 0.00 c0.04 0.00 vlc Ratio 0.15 0.49 0.07 0.59 0.11 0.01 0.52 0.02 0.02 Uniform Delay.dl 3.7 3.9 2.5 4.9 61.3 60.9 63.1 60.9 60.9 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.62 1.69 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,d2 0.2 0.6 0.0 0.7 0.4 0.0 3.9 0.1 0.1 Delay(s) 3.8 4.5 4.1 8.9 61.7 60.9 67.0 61.0 61.0 Level of Service A A A A E E E E E Approach Delay(s) 4.5 8.8 61.2 64.3 Approach LOS A A E E Intersection Summary 7111 HCM 2000 Control Delay 9.0 HCM 2000 Level of Service A HCM 2000 Volume to'Capacity ratio 0.57 Actuated Cycle Length(s) 140.0 Sum of lost time(s) 13.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 68.4% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period(min) 15 c Critical Lane Group H:\projfle113755-Leadership Circle Specialty Retail1005-Tigard\Synchro113755.5-2014_PM-BG.syn Synchro 8- Report %user name% Page 1 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary2016 Background Traffic Weekday PM Peak Hour 1 : SW Park St & OR 99 W 5/112015 f ir i' "- k- 4\ t t 4 1 d Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL Sift SBR Lane Configurations '1 fik 1 4 r ) T r' Volume(veh/h) 35 1349 7 21 1626 31 7 3 22 49 3 36 Number 5 2 12 1 6 16 3 8 18 7 4 14 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Fed-Bike Adj(A, pbT) 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.97 0.99 0 99 0.99 1.00 Parking(Bus,Adj 1.00 1.30 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/In 1900 1806 1900 1810 1846 1900 1900 1579 1810 1863 1900 1900 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 35 1363 7 21 1642 31 7 3 22 49 3 0 Adj No.of Lanes 1 2 0 1 2 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 Peak Hour Factor 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0 99 0.99 0.99 0.99 Percent Heavy Veh, ole 0 5 5 5 3 3 0 0 5 2 0 0 Cap,veh/h 294 2920 15 358 2916 55 89 29 87 121 109 92 Arrive On Green 0.02 0.83 0.83 0.02 0.83 0.83 0.06 0.06 0 06 0.06 0 06 0.00 Sat Flow,veh/h 1810 3500 18 1723 3519 66 800 511 1522 1367 1900 1615 Grp Volume(v),vehfh 35 668 702 21 817 856 10 0 22 49 3 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),vehlhlln 1810 1716 1802 1723 1753 1832 1310 0 1522 1367 1900 1615 Q Serve(g_s),s 0.4 14.8 14.8 0.3 20.9 21.0 0.0 0.0 1.9 4.9 0.2 0.0 Cycle 0 Clear(g_c),s 0.4 14.8 14.8 0.3 20.9 21.0 0.8 0.0 1.9 5.8 0.2 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.01 1.00 0.04 0.70 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),vehfh 294 1431 1503 358 1453 1518 119 0 87 121 109 92 V/C Ratio(X) 0.12 0.47 0 47 0.06 0.56 0.56 0.08 0.00 0.25 0.40 0.03 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 411 1431 1503 478 1453 1518 169 0 147 175 183 156 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(l) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay(d), s/veh 3.4 3.2 3.2 2.5 3.8 3.9 62.6 0.0 63.1 65.4 62.3 0.0 Incr Delay(d2),slveh 0.1 1.1 1.0 0.0 1.6 1.5 0.2 0.0 1.1 1.6 0.1 0.0 Initial 0(Delay{d3).s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Toile BackOfQ(-26165%),vehfln 0.2 7.3 7.7 0.1 10.6 11.1 0.4 0.0 0.8 1.9 0.1 0.0 LnGrp Delay(d),slveh 3.5 4.3 4.2 2.5 5.4 5.4 62.8 0.0 64.3 67.0 62.4 0.0 LnGrp LOS A A A A A A E E E E Approach Vol, vehrh 1405 1694 32 52 Approach Delay,siveh 4.2 5.4 63.8 66.7 Approach LOS A A E E Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc), s 6.2 121.3 12.5 7.0 120.5 12.5 Change Period(Y+Rc),s 4.0 4.5 4.5 4.0 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 12.0 101.5 13.5 12.0 101.5 13.5 Max 0 Clear Time(g_c+11),s 2.3 16.8 7.8 2.4 23.0 3.9 Green Ext Time(p_c), s 0.0 81.5 0.1 0.0 75.7 0.1 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 6.4 HCM 2010 LOS A H:1projfile113755-Leadership Circle Specialty Retaih005-Tigard\Synchro113755.5-2014_PM-BG.syn Synchro 8- Report %user_name% Page 1 HCM 2010 TWSC 2016 Background Traffic Weekday PM Peak Hour 2: OR 99 W & SW School St 5/1/2015 Intersection Int Delay,slveh 0.1 Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR 1111 Vol,vehth 1 1426 1684 27 1 2 Conflicting Peds.#/hr 4 0 0 4 1 0 Sign control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length 90 - - - 0 - Veh in Median Storage,# - 0 0 - 0 - Grade,% - 0 0 - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 99 99 99 99 99 99 Heavy Vehicles,Ti) 0 5 2 0 0 0 Mvmt Flow 1 1440 1701 27 1 2 Ma.or/Minor Ma ort Ma'or2 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 1729 0 - 0 2438 869 Stage 1 - - - - 1716 - Stage 2 - - - - 722 - Critical Hdwy 4.1 - - - 6.8 6.9 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.8 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.8 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.2 - - - 3.5 3.3 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 370 - - - 27 299 Stage 1 - - - - 133 - Stage 2 - - - - 447 - Platoon blocked,% - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 369 - - - 27 298 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 27 - Stage 1 - - - - 133 - Stage 2 - - - - 445 - Approach EB WB SB HCM Control Delay,s 0 0 59.6 HCM LOS F Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity(veh?h} 369 - - - 69 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.003 - - - 0.044 HCM Control Delay(s) 14.8 - - - 59.6 HCM Lane LOS B - - - F HCM 95th%tile Q(veh) 0 - - - 0.1 H:Iprojfile113755- Leadership Circle Specialty Retail\005-Tigard\Synchro113755.5-2014 PM-BG syn Synchro 8- Report %user name% Page 3 HCM 2010 TWSC 2016 Background Traffic Weekday PM Peak Hour 3: SW School St & OR 99 W 5/412015 Intersection Int Delay, sNeh 0.8 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Vol. vehlh 1391 36 28 1703 8 37 Conflicting Reds,#/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length - - 150 - 0 - Veh in Median Storage,# 0 - - 0 0 - Grade,% 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 99 99 99 99 99 99 Heavy Vehicles,% 5 5 2 3 0 3 Mvmt Flow 1405 36 28 1720 8 37 Major/Minor Majorl Major2 Minorl Conflicting Row All 0 0 1441 0 2340 721 Stage 1 - - - - 1423 - Stage 2 - - - - 917 - Critical Hdwy - - 4.14 - 6.8 6.96 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.8 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.8 - Follow-up Hdwy - - 2.22 - 3.5 3.33 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 467 - 31 368 Stage 1 - - - - 192 - Stage 2 - - - - 355 - Platoon blocked,% - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 467 - 29 368 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 29 - Stage 1 - - - - 192 - Stage 2 - - - - 334 - Approach EB WB NB HCM Control Delay, s 0 0.2 52.2 HCM LOS F Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBT Capacity(vehdh) 120 - - 467 - HCM Lane WC Ratio 0.379 - - 0.061 - HCM Control Delay(s) 52.2 - - 13.2 - HCM Lane LOS F - - B - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 1.6 - - 0.2 - H:lprojfile113755-Leadership Circle Specialty Retail1005-Tigard\Synchro113755.5-2014_PM-BG.syn Synchro 8- Report %user_name% Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analydt16 Background Traffic Weekday PM Peak Hour 5: SW Walnut St & OR 99 W 5/1/2015 - C 4- k- h t I' \ 4/ 1 ' Dement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations ) c. '1 f4 '1 A Volume(vph) 142 1318 12 22 1593 184 21 18 11 122 12 144 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 4.0 4.5 4.0 5.0 5.0 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.96 0.98 1.00 0.97 Fipb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Fri 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.97 1.00 0.86 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.98 0.95 1.00 Said. Flow(prat) 1736 3463 1805 3505 1514 1734 1736 1550 Flt Permitted 0.09 1.00 0.14 1.00 1.00 0.98 0.95 1.00 Said. Flow(perm) 171 3463 262 3505 1514 1734 1736 1550 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0,98 Adj. Flow(vph) 145 1345 12 22 1626 188 21 18 11 124 12 147 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 30 0 8 0 0 133 0 Lane Group Flow(vph) 145 1357 0 22 1626 158 0 42 0 124 26 0 Confl. Peds. (#!hr) 7 11 11 7 12 13 13 12 Conti. Bikes(#/hr) 1 3 Heavy Vehicles(%) 4% 4% 8% 0% 3% 2% 0% 6% 0% 4% 0% 3% Turn Type pm+pt NA pm+pt NA Perm Split NA Split NA Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 8 8 4 4 Permitted Phases 2 6 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 99.2 98.7 89.3 89.3 89.3 7.2 13.1 13.1 i Effective Green.g(s) 99.2 98.7 89.3 89.3 89.3 7.2 13.1 13.1 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.71 0.71 0.64 0.64 0.64 0.05 0.09 0.09 Clearance Time(s) 4.0 4.5 4.0 5.0 5.0 4.5 4.5 4.5 Vehicle Extension(s) 2.3 5.1 2.3 5.1 5.1 2.3 2.3 2.3 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 259 2441 205 2235 965 89 162 145 vis Ratio Prot 0.05 c0.39 0.00 c0.46 c0.02 c0.07 0.02 vis Ratio Perm 0.35 0.07 0.10 vic Ratio 0.56 0.56 0.11 0.73 0.16 0.48 0.77 0.18 Uniform Delay, dl 34.2 10.0 12.0 17.1 10.3 64.6 61.9 58.5 Progression Factor 1.11 1.09 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,d2 1.7 0.8 0.1 2.1 0.4 2.3 18.0 0.3 Delay(s) 39.6 11.8 12.1 19.2 10.6 66.9 80.0 58.8 Level of Service D B B B B E E E Approach Delay(s) 14.5 18.3 66.9 68.1 Approach LOS B B E E Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 21.2 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.71 Actuated Cycle Length(s) 140.0 Sum of lost time(s) 18.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 84.4% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period(min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 0 ( H:I roJfle113755-Leadership Circle Specialty Retail\005-Ti ard\S nchro113755.5-2014 PM-BG syn S nchro 8- Report %user name% Page 5 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary2016 Background Traffic Weekday PM Peak Hour 5: SW Walnut St & OR 99 W 51I2015 I' - l C - 4k- 4\ t P \' 1 "V Movement _ EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT_ NBR SBL _ SBT SBR Lane Configurations 't 1$ ) TT f' €1, ) 11+ Volume(veh/h) 142 1318 12 22 1593 184 21 18 11 122 12 144 Number 5 2 12 1 6 16 3 8 18 7 4 14 Initial 0(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A pbT) 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.96 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.70 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow,vehlhiln 1827 1826 1900 1900 1845 1863 1900 1860 1900 1827 1849 1900 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 145 1345 12 22 1626 188 21 18 11 124 12 147 Adj No. of Lanes 1 2 0 1 2 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0,98 Percent Heavy Veh, % 4 4 4 0 3 2 6 6 6 4 0 0 Cap, vehfh 379 2528 23 221 1975 864 27 23 14 180 12 147 Arrive On Green 0.16 0.72 0.72 0.02 0.56 0.56 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.10 0.10 0.10 Sat Flow,veh/h 1740 3523 31 1810 3505 1533 719 617 377 1740 116 1418 Grp Volume(v),vehfh 145 662 695 22 1626 188 50 0 0 124 0 159 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/hfin 1740 1735 1820 1810 1752 1533 1713 0 0 1740 0 1533 Q Serve(g_s),s 2.3 24.4 24.4 0.8 52.9 8.5 4.1 0.0 0.0 9.6 0.0 14.5 Cycle 0 Clear(g_c),s 2.3 24.4 24.4 0.8 52.9 8.5 4.1 0.0 0.0 9.6 0.0 14.5 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.02 1.00 1.00 0.42 0.22 1.00 0.92 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 379 1245 1306 221 1975 864 64 0 0 180 0 159 V/C Ratio(X) 0.38 0.53 0.53 0.10 0.82 0.22 0.78 0.00 0.00 0.69 0.00 1.00 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 379 1245 1306 321 2078 909 153 0 0 180 0 159 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 45.6 9.0 9.0 17.0 24.9 15.2 66.8 0.0 0.0 60.6 0.0 62.8 lncr Delay(d2),slveh 0.4 1.6 1.6 0.1 4.0 0.6 11.8 0.0 0.0 9.5 0.0 71.7 Initial 0 Delay(d3),sfveh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOf0(-26165%),vehlln 4.8 12.2 12.7 0.4 26.6 3.7 2.1 0.0 0.0 5.1 0.0 9.3 LnGrp Delay(d),sfveh 46.0 10.7 10.6 17.2 28.9 15,8 78.6 0.0 0.0 70.0 0.0 134.5 LnGrp LOS D B B B G B E E F Approach Vol, vehJh 1502 1836 50 283 Approach Delay,s/veh 14.0 27.4 78.6 106.2 Approach LOS B C E F Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc), s 6.3 105.0 19.0 27.4 83.9 9.7 Change Period(Y+Rc),s 4.0 4.5 4.5 4.5 "5 4.5 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 10.0 85.5 14.5 12.0 *83 12.5 Max 0 Clear Time(g c+11),s 2.8 26.4 16.5 4.3 54.9 6.1 Green Ext Time(p_c), s 0.0 31.8 0.0 3.9 24.0 0.1 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 28.7 HCM 2010 LOS C Notes HCM 2010 computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the harrier. H:lprojfile113755-Leadership Circle Specialty Retail1005-Tigard\Synchro113755.5-2014_PM-BG.syn Synchro 8- Report %user_name% Page 2 r, Appendix F Median Design Concept 11 ANS 4 TONE DREAM M6YNr of*AY ro MAN -- PROPOSED SPECIAL 1Y RETAIL ` / -'I I1 \1.,(1.1 Q COMMERCIAL USE LEGEND: sauNnNRv L 6E _ JI[ (G€NE ZONING)COMMERCIAL -- EXISTING CUM UNE RAL s45.1627•E Mr�$7r '�� o r .r ',, - 1 [ ✓r NLr 511)BUILDING �`. '+1 -�'— -_ - ' _ - -•-____L v -+ 1-. w4i.L/ii/! PROPOSED STRIPING CURB ,� ' t'► _ ._ / �'_ ° -- rxrsnaccowrTE suRc�ce r�rwr. PI CIACCESS-- T TIC -1_ -"�c--"---'--.. -' h- �� .J un.r.RLorr b.baa+Tw _-3114 ,-......,7�. c. + • T �_ I 6 6` q �w a PLAIN CONCRETE wxx - EMIL MTEI r MD STOP RIME ; I ,.� 7 4� I .1::-4.14-1. . PRGPoeEa REINFORCED oRwElwLv CONCRETE vrPRm644TEir+rPRLa.PRGfcmvyiE j;` � . L�1! 'a--....E- a — mom surana 1 ► _ — — Y 1 Pro>srosED IAN08C AFESURFACE PROPOS_ ii! `-�- u ��, waraeEurcas: WIN ..�--V`�-�"' L ` s Neil "s TIG DOW CAINET rl� M WprrIpLLIC.RQ' _ - - -- PROPOSED sAwcu r LINE ..-. I - r SW PACIFIC HIGHWAY �r --- �y 1 V �! NI�� L L w�t�G I O - EXISTING PEafsTRWl SIGNAL `�]_ 9I PEmwl CROSSING — OM 0 11 I vega ZOE { ON i 1VPPoFC>tEpfW.�n CONCRETE 1 Ir _ I _ - --` _ - -+—a -- - ___ architecture Ilc E�Tro COI rol�rr M. WPM MEM Sae NM 1 ,ams;+vr SE . 500111m -�-- Si ---- - I _ tea,,.--� - _ �4,-�LL�, \, r.4, *to _-# _�--5„ ",,,N Now f "��+mar LAN 1[! , E30 SY I- ^I R1T IQ �� 81142' 1 �1 moi : COMMERCIAL USE ` COMMERCIAL USE �....V (GENERAL COMMERCIAL ZONING) ;� (GENERAL COMMERCIAL ZONING) s [ 4-4 ;14 Ce 11 1 000,4‘‘ >— L I SCALE[Nar LJ IIII:t CI (V 14- I •zm V 0) 11). ��Iw1�na d OC ICN.-NN'NN:L/11. . , LLJ elm iv ILO Ce 205 — i 10 1+1066 1+90 1+00 3+50 l•O0 NSI] 4.01: 4.50 5.00 51�b Tp AS EXISTING SW PACIFIC HIGHWAY PROFILE SCOPE 1'=217.OraZONTAL -– 1•.TVERTICAL ROW Ii ROW I-. - - - SC NO TO S3 93 - - 311111100,111` HAL ROW Ii Min= I EXISTING EDGE Of .-PROPOSED ,DUSTING WINO I PA FMENr 1 / ASRIALT SURF ACE / SURFACE 1 �' SA etUT �! — _ E,;`r EINE , L 1 1 l! I i % ✓. � I I I � L I PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS -1- - A� _ _,_ lis _ 111/10110 wswxls - , H PLAN w�� -k- T 11181011/ 1W O 110 I, -"' llWafalM >wLIaM LEF7TLIWILAIE n�AI1As IMAM#11 Pews DP DJM 3 ` 47TO Mir NL1M1� EmwTRaG - !IyII l - ii MITIS LANE a 5: 04I06/20 TYPICAL SECTION:SW PACIFIC HIGHWAY RrAl E NTS C5.Q i 0 Appendix G Pass-by and Primary Trip Assignments 0 SW School Road/OR 99W Retail Development July 2015 si, S jR�/'i j2 i) - 991-AID AR .... '.. x ' 742 1 11 IS'C>Y0 AlkAV4.,: ' ,/ G� 19p LP Cc'.A 9,p SW PARK STREET i R .6 t 0 rn 0 ti a- ',- ti w. , ti ek cc Jir E P 0 v.- .!..I tid y } 0 03 Q \if / a.t 0. co 6 1 PRIMARY AND PASS-BY TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND ASSIGNMENT FIGugE WEEKDAY AM AND PEAK HOUR G1 TIGARD, OREGON dKLSON&ASSOCIATES,INC. cI'-A T 'ORTATION ENGINEERING! PLANNING0 SW Sc _ lad/OR 99W Retail Development July 2015 sh, srglti 4ti411' #91,--V) a / !di o ti J po(�� 3 9 SW PARK STREET N f A m 1a (5 r �o,r / I �r 9r d k -„s____ ______.--/i g 6a 0 0m U ..r ,r L Q_ m 0 ill m PRIMARY AND PASS-BY TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND ASSIGNMENT (443 z I WEEKDAY PM AND PEAK HOUR - -- - TIGARD, OREGON 1 KITTELSON&ASSOCIATES,INC. r-, TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING I PLANNING CIA) J t. 0 Appendix H Year 2016 Total Traffic Operations Worksheets HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2016 Total Traffic Weekday AM Peak Hour 1 : SW Park St & OR 99 W 4/30/2015 } --* Z c 4 t /* \* 1 1 Movement _ EBL EBT EBR VVBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 't tt, '1 ?i+ •-i r ) t r Volume(vph) 27 1498 3 5 918 16 1 1 5 76 2 46 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frpb,pedlbike, 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.99 Flpb. pedibike 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0,95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow(prat) 1516 3437 1805 3306 1235 1328 1716 1900 1562 Flt Permitted 0.27 1.00 0.14 1.00 0.93 1,00 0 76 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 426 3437 260 3306 1183 1328 1367 1900 1562 Peak-hour factor. PHF 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0,96 0 96 0.96 0.96 Adj. Flow(vph) 28 1560 3 5 956 17 1 1 5 79 2 48 RTOR Reduction(vph) 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 4 0 0 43 Lane Group Flow(vph) 28 1563 0 5 972 0 0 2 1 79 2 5 Confi.Peds. (#/hr) 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 1 Heavy Vehicles(%) 19% 5% 0% 0% 9% 0% 0% 100% 20% 5% 0% 2% Turn Type pm+pt NA pm+pt NA Perm NA Perm Perm NA Perm Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 8 4 Permitted Phases 2 6 8 8 4 4 Actuated Green,G(s) 114.6 111.2 109.8 108.8 14.8 14.8 14.8 14.8 14.8 Effective Green, g(s) 114.6 111.2 109.8 108.8 14.8 14.8 14,8 14,8 14.8 Actuated giC Ratio 0.82 0.79 0.78 0.78 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 Clearance Time(s) 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.5 4.5 4.5 4,5 4.5 4.5 Vehicle Extension(s) 2.3 5.2 2.3 5.2 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 375 2729 214 2569 125 140 144 200 165 v/s Ratio Prot c0.00 c0.45 0.00 0.29 0.00 v/s Ratio Perm 0.06 0.02 0.00 0.00 c0.06 0.00 vie Ratio 0.07 0.57 0.02 0.38 0.02 0.00 0.55 0.01 0.03 Uniform Delay,dl 2.8 5.4 4.4 4.9 56.1 56.0 59.4 56.0 56.2 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 0.63 1.04 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,d2 0.0 0.9 0.0 0.3 0.0 0,0 3.3 0.0 0.1 Delay(s) 2.8 6.3 2.7 5.5 56.1 56.0 62.8 56.1 56.2 Level of Service A A A A E E E E E Approach Delay(s) 6.3 5.5 56.0 60.2 Approach LOS A A E E Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 8.7 HCM 2000 Level of Service A HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.57 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 140.0 Sum of lost time(s) 13.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 63.9% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group H:Iprojfilel13755-Leadership Circle Specialty Retail"005-TigardlSynchro113755.5-2014_AM-Totai.syn Synchro 8- Report %user name% Page 1 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 2016 Total Traffic Weekday AM Peak Hour 1 : SW Park St & OR 99 W 4/30/2015 z r t- � 4\ t P `- 4 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT _ NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations ' T ) ?i- 4 r `I t r Volume(veh/h) 27 1498 3 5 918 16 1 1 5 76 2 46 Number 5 2 12 1 6 16 3 8 18 7 4 14 Initial Q(0.b),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A pbT) 1.00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.‘)0 1.00 Adj Sat Flow.vehlhfln 1597 1810 1900 1900 1746 1900 1900 1267 1583 1810 1900 1863 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 28 1560 3 5 956 17 1 1 5 79 2 0 Adj No. of Lanes 1 2 0 1 2 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 Peak Hour Factor 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0,96 Percent Heavy Veh, % 19 5 5 0 9 9 100 100 20 5 0 2 Cap,veh/h 446 2923 6 293 2721 48 70 49 97 147 137 114 Arrive On Green 0.02 0.83 0.83 0.01 0.82 0.82 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.00 Sat Flow,veh/h 1521 3521 7 1810 3334 59 440 683 1340 1358 1900 1583 Grp Volume(v). vehih 28 762 801 5 476 497 2 0 5 79 2 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),vehlhlln 1521 1719 1808 1810 1658 1735 1123 0 1340 1358 1900 1583 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.4 18.9 18.9 0.1 10.3 10.3 0.0 0.0 0.5 8.0 0.1 0.0 Cycle 0 Clear(g_c),s 0.4 18.9 18.9 0.1 10.3 10.3 0.2 0.0 0.5 8.2 0.1 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.03 0.50 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 446 1427 1501 293 1354 1416 119 0 97 147 137 114 V/C Ratio(X) 0.06 0.53 0.53 0.02 0.35 0.35 0.02 0.00 0.05 0.54 0.01 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 548 1427 1501 439 1354 1416 146 0 129 180 183 153 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay(d).sfveh 2.3 3.6 3.6 3.3 3.3 3.3 60.4 0.0 60.5 64.2 60.3 0.0 lncr Delay(d2),s/veh 0.0 1.4 1.4 0.0 0.7 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.2 2.2 0.0 0.0 Initial 0 Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Toile BackOfQ(-26165°%,veh/ln 0.2 9.2 9.7 0.0 4.9 5.1 0.1 0.0 0.2 3.1 0.1 0.0 LnGrp Delay(d),s+veh 2.4 5.1 5.0 3.3 4.0 4.0 60.4 0.0 60.7 66.4 60.4 0.0 LnGrp LOS A A A A A A E E E E Approach Vol.vehih 1591 978 7 81 Approach Delay, s/veh 5.0 4.0 60.6 66.3 Approach LOS A A E E Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc), s 4.7 120.7 14.6 6.7 118.8 14.6 Change Period(Y+Rc),s 4.0 4.5 4.5 4.0 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 12.0 101.5 13.5 12.0 101.5 13.5 Max 0 Clear Time(g_c+l i), s 2.1 20.9 10.2 2.4 12.3 2.5 Green Ext Time(p_c),s 0.0 72.1 0.0 0.0 78.9 0.1 Intersection Summary _ HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 6.6 HCM 2010 LOS A H:\projfile\13755-Leadership Circle Specialty Retail,005-Tigard\Synchrol13755.5-2014_AM-Total.syn Synchro 8- Report %user_name% Page 1 HCM 2010 TWSC 2016 Total Traffic Weekday AM Peak Hour 2: OR 99 W & SW School St 4/3012015 Intersection _ Int Delay. slveh 0 Movement _ EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Vol,vehlh 7 1557 943 22 0 9 Conflicting Peds,Or 2 0 0 2 2 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length 90 - - - - 0 Veh in Median Storage,# - 0 0 - 0 - Grade,% - 0 0 - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 94 94 94 94 94 94 Heavy Vehicles,% 2 4 8 10 2 2 Mvmt Flow 7 1656 1003 23 0 10 Major/Minor Majorl Major2 Minor2 • Conflicting Flow All 1029 0 - 0 1860 517 Stage 1 - - - - 1017 - Stage 2 - - - - 843 - Critical Hdwy 4.14 - - - 6.84 6.94 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5-84 - Critical Hdwy Sig 2 - - - 5.84 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.22 - - - 3.52 3.32 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 671 - - - 65 503 Stage 1 - - - - 310 - Stage 2 - - - 382 - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 670 - - - 64 501 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 64 - Stage 1 - - - 309 - Stage 2 - - - - 377 - Approach EB WB SB HCM Control Delay,s 0 0 12,3 HCM LOS B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBR SBLnl Capacity tvehtl 670 - - - 501 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.011 - - - 0.019 HCM Control Delay(s) 10.4 - - - 12.3 HCM Lane LOS B - - - B HCM 95th %tile O(veh) 0 - - - 0.1 H:lprojfsle113755-Leadership Circle Specialty Retail1005-TigardtSynchro113755.5-2014_AM-Total.syn Synchro 8- Report %user_name% Page 3 HCM 2010 TWSC 2016 Total Traffic Weekday AM Peak Hour 3: SW Garrett St & OR 99 W 4/30/2015 Intersection lnl Delay. s/veh 0.7 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Vol,vehih 1534 23 24 962 3 49 Conflicting Peds,#/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length - - 150 - 0 - Veh in Median Storage,# 0 - - 0 0 - Grade,% 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 94 94 94 94 94 94 Heavy Vehicles,% 4 9 4 8 0 2 Mvmt Flow 1632 24 26 1023 3 52 Major/Minor Major! Major2 Minor! Conflicting Flow All 0 0 1656 0 2207 828 Stage 1 - - - - 1644 - Stage 2 - - - - 563 - Critical Hdwy - - 4.18 - 6.8 6.94 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.8 Critical Hdwy Sig 2 - - - - 5.8 - Follow-up Hdwy - - 2.24 - 3.5 3.32 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 376 - 39 314 Stage 1 - - - - 146 - Stage 2 - - - - 539 - Platoon blocked,% - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 376 36 314 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 36 - Stage 1 - - - - 146 - Stage 2 - - - - 502 - Approach EB WB _ NB HCM Control Delay. s 0 0.4 27.2 HCM LOS D Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBT Capacity(vehr'hj 217 - - 376 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.255 - - 0.068 - HCM Control Delay(s) 27.2 - - 15.3 - HCM Lane LOS D - - C - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 1 - - 0.2 - H:\projfile113755-Leadership Circle Specialty Retail\005-Tigard\Synchro113755.5-2014 AM-Total syn Synchro 8- Report %user name% Page 4 HCM 2010 TWSC 2016 Total Traffic Weekday AM Peak Hour 4: OR 99 W & RIRO 4/30/2015 Intersection Int Delay, slveh 0 Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Vol. vehh 0 1583 985 3 0 1 Conflicting Peds,#/hr 7 0 0 7 13 12 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length - - - - - 0 Veh in Median Storage.# - 0 0 - 0 - Grade,% - 0 0 - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 98 98 98 98 98 98 Heavy Vehicles,% 0 4 8 2 0 2 Mvmt Flow 0 1615 1005 3 0 1 Major/Minor Majorl Major2 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 1021 0 - 0 1828 524 Stage 1 - - - - 1020 - Stage 2 - - - - 808 - Critical Hdwy 4.1 - - - 6.8 6.94 Critical Hdwy Sig 1 - - - - 5.8 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.8 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.2 - - - 3.5 3.32 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 688 - - - 70 498 Stage 1 - - - - 313 - Stage 2 - - - - 404 - Platoon blocked.% - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 684 - - - 68 490 May Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 68 - Stage 1 - - - - 310 - Stage 2 - - - - 400 - Approach EB WB _ SB HCM Control Delay,s 0 0 12.4 HCM LOS B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity(vehlh) 684 - - - 490 HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - - - 0.002 HCM Control Delay(s) 0 - - - 12.4 1 HCM Lane LOS A - - - B HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - - 0 H:lprojfilel13755-Leadership Circle Specialty Retail\005-Tigard\Synchro113755.5-2014_AM-Total.syn Synchro 8- Report °/ouser-name% Page 5 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2016 Total Traffic Weekday AM Peak Hour 5: SW Walnut St & OR 99 W 4/30/2015 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT NBR NBL NBT NBR SEL SBT SBR Lane Configurations T 11 fi' r 15 Volume(vph) 101 1589 9 10 887 115 20 6 18 332 17 128 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 4.0 4.5 4.0 5.0 5.0 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Util Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1 00 Frpb,pedlbikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.96 0.98 1.00 0.98 Flpb, pedlbikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.94 1.00 0.87 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.98 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow(prot) 1702 3466 1805 3343 1416 1648 1770 1515 Flt Permitted 0.19 1.00 0.07 1.00 1.00 0.98 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 3.39 3466 141 3343 1416 1648 1770 1515 Peak-hour factor. PHF 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Adj. Flow(vph) 107 1690 10 11 944 122 21 6 19 353 18 136 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 49 0 18 0 0 105 0 Lane Group Flow(vph) 107 1700 0 11 944 73 0 28 0 353 49 0 Conti. Peds. (#/hr) 5 4 4 5 7 4 4 7 " Canft. Bikes(#/hr) 3 Heavy Vehicles(%) 6% 4% 11% 0% 8% 10% 5% 0% 6% 2% 12% 6% Turn Type pm+pt NA pm+pt NA Perm Split NA Split NA Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 8 8 4 4 Permitted Phases 2 6 6 Actuated Green, G(s) 81.9 81.4 56.2 56,2 56.2 6.4 32.3 32.3 Effective Green,g(s) 81.9 81.4 56.2 56.2 56.2 6.4 32.3 32.3 Actuated 9/C Ratio 0.59 0.58 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.05 0.23 0.23 Clearance Time(s) 4.0 4.5 4.0 5.0 5.0 4.5 4.5 4.5 Vehicle Extension(s) 2.3 5.1 2.3 5.1 5.1 2.3 2.3 2.3 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 462 2015 85 1341 568 75 408 349 v/s Ratio Prot 0.04 c0.49 0.00 c0.28 c0.02 c0.20 0.03 v/s Ratio Perm 0.09 0.05 0.05 v!c Ratio 0.23 0.84 0.13 0.70 0.13 0.37 0.87 0.14 Uniform Delay,dl 27.5 24.1 34.1 35.0 26.4 64.8 51.8 42.8 Progression Factor 1,10 1.01 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.1 4.1 0.4 3.1 0.5 1.8 16.8 0.1 Delay(s) 30.4 28.5 34.5 38.1 26.9 66.7 68.6 42.9 Level of Service C C C D C E E D Approach Delay(s) 28.6 36.8 66.7 60.8 Approach LOS C D E E Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 36.4 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.83 Actuated Cycle Length(s) 140.0 Sum of lost time(s) 18.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 83.4% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period(min) 15 c Critical Lane Group H:\projfile\13755-Leadership Circle Specialty Retail\005-Tigard\Synchro113755,5-2014_AM-Tota1_syn Synchro 8- Report %user name% Page 6 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 2015 Total Traffic Weekday AM Peak Hour 5: SW Walnut St & OR 99 W 413012015 -' -* z r t 4\ t t `► l 41 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations "i 1'14 'i T4 r 44 '' F• Volume(vehlh) 101 1589 9 10 887 115 20 6 18 332 17 128 Number 5 2 12 1 6 16 3 8 18 7 4 14 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Fed-Bike Adj(A pbT) 1.00 0.97 1 00 0 99 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.99 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow,vehlhlln 1792 1826 1900 1900 1759 1727 1900 1814 1900 1863 1781 1900 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 107 1690 10 11 944 122 21 6 19 353 18 136 Adj No.of Lanes 1 2 0 1 2 1 0 1 8 1 1 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Percent Heavy Veh, °Q 6 4 4 0 8 10 0 0 0 2 12 12 Cap,vehlh 541 2165 13 69 1180 515 26 8 24 385 39 293 Arrive On Green 0 26 0.61 0.61 0.01 0.35 0.35 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.22 0.22 0.22 Sat Flow.vehlh 1707 3536 21 1810 3343 1458 739 211 668 1774 178 1349 Grp Volume(v), vehlh 107 829 871 11 944 122 46 0 0 353 0 154 Grp Sat Flow(s),vehlhlln 1707 1735 1822 1810 1671 1458 1618 0 0 1774 0 1527 0 Serve(g_s),s 0.0 49.6 49.7 0.6 35.6 8.3 3.9 0.0 0.0 27.2 0.0 12.3 Cycle Q Clear(gc), s 0.0 49.6 49.7 0.6 35.6 8.3 3.9 0.0 0.0 27.2 0.0 12.3 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.01 1.00 1.00 0.46 0.41 1.00 0.88 Lane Grp Cap(c),vehlh 541 1062 1116 69 1180 515 58 0 0 385 0 331 VIC Ratio(X) 0.20 0.78 0.78 0.16 0.80 0.24 0.80 0.00 0.00 0.92 0.00 0.46 Avail Cap(c_a),vehlh 541 1062 1116 207 1361 594 144 0 0 513 0 442 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(l) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 35.8 20.1 20.2 38.4 40.8 32.0 67.0 0.0 0.0 53.6 0.0 47.7 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 0.1 5.7 5.5 0.6 5.7 1.1 14.0 0.0 0.0 16.4 0.0 0.6 Initial 0 Delay{d3),slveh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 °bile BackOfQ(-26165%o),vehlln 3.1 25.4 26.6 0.3 17.3 3.5 2.0 0.0 0.0 15.1 0.0 5.2 LnGrp Delay(d),slveh 35.9 25.8 25.6 39.0 46.5 33.0 81.0 0.0 0.0 70.0 0.0 48.4 LnGrp LOS D C C D D - C F E D Approach Vol,vehlh 1807 1077 46 507 Approach Delay,s/veh 26.3 44.9 81.0 63.4 Approach LOS C D F E Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration(G+Y'-Rc),s 5.4 90.2 34.9 41.2 54.4 9.5 Change Period(Y+Rc),s 4.0 4.5 4 5 4.5 *5 4.5 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 12.0 57.5 40.5 12.0 *57 12.5 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+I1),s 2.6 51.7 29.2 2.0 37.6 5.9 Green Ext Time(p_c),s 0.0 5.4 1.1 6.8 11.8 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 38.4 HCM 2010 LOS D Notes 'HCM 2010 computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. H:\projfile\13755-Leadership Circle Specialty Retail1005-TigardlSynchro113755.5-2014__AM-Total.syn Synchro 8- Report °r'ouser name% Page 2 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2016 Total Traffic Weekday PM Peak Hour 1 : SW Park St & OR 99 W 5/1/2015 - -. r `- t 4\ t P \ 1 .i Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations '1 +14 t14 4 r ) 't' 1* Volume(vph) 35 1359 7 21 1636 31 7 3 22 64 3 36 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Util, Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frpb, pedlbikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1,00 1.00 1.00 Flpb, pedlbikes 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow(prot) 1805 3429 1719 3495 1526 1515 1764 1900 1615 Flt Permitted 0.11 1.00 0.17 1.00 0.84 1.00 0.75 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 217 3429 315 3495 1331 1515 1395 1900 1615 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 Adj. Flow(vph) 35 1373 7 21 1653 31 7 3 22 65 3 36 RTOR Reduction(vph) 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 20 0 0 33 Lane Group Flow(vph) 35 1380 0 21 1683 0 0 10 2 65 3 3 Cone. Peds. (#ihr) 3 7 7 3 2 2 Conti. Bikes(#Ihr) 2 2 Heavy Vehicles(%} 0% 5% 43% 5% 3% 0% 29% 0% 5% 2% 0% 0% Turn Type pm+pt NA pm+pt NA. Perm NA Perm Perm NA Perm Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 8 4 Permitted Phases 2 6 8 8 4 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 117.7 113.4 115.5 112.3 10.4 10.4 10.4 10.4 10.4 Effective Green,g(s) 117.7 113.4 115.5 112.3 10.4 10.4 10.4 10.4 10.4 Actuated gIC Ratio 0.84 0.81 0.82 0.80 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 Clearance Time(s) 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.3 5.2 2.3 5.2 2.5 2.5 _ 2.5 2.5 2.5 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 231 2777 291 2803 98 112 103 141 119 vis Ratio Prot 20.00 0.40 0.00 c0.48 0.00 vis Ratio Perm 0.12 0.06 0.01 0.00 c0.05 0.00 vlc Ratio 0.15 0.50 0.07 0.60 0.10 0.01 0.63 0.02 0.02 Uniform Delay,dl 4.1 4.2 2.8 5.3 60.4 60.1 62.9 60.1 60.1 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.17 1.13 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.2 0.6 0.1 1.0 0.3 0.0 10.5 0.0 0.1 Delay(s) 4.2 4.9 3.3 6.9 60.8 60.1 73.5 60.1 60.1 Level of Service A A A A E E E E E Approach Delay(s) 4.9 6.9 60.3 68.5 Approach LOS A A E E Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 8.5 HCM 2000 Level of Service A HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.59 Actuated Cycle Length(s) 140.0 Sum of lost time(s) 13.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 68.6% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period(min) 15 c Critical Lane Group H:iprojfile113755-Leadership Circle Specialty Retaill005-Tigard\Synchro113755.5-2014 PM-TT.syn Synchro 8- Report %user name% Page 1 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 2016 Total Traffic Weekday PM Peak Hour 1 : SW Park St & OR 99 W 5/12015 s --0' C 4- 4, t t `► l 4/ Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations "i 1`I• "1 11, i+ 'i T r Volume(veh/h) 35 1359 7 21 1636 31 7 3 22 64 3 36 Number 5 2 12 1 6 16 3 8 18 7 4 14 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.97 0.99 0.99 0.99 1 00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/In 1900 1806 1900 1810 1846 1900 1900 1579 1810 1863 1900 1900 Adj Flow Rate,vehfh 35 1373 7 21 1653 31 7 3 22 65 3 0 Adj No. of Lanes 1 2 0 1 2 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 Peak Hour Factor 0.99 0.99 0,99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 Percent Heavy Veh, % 0 5 5 5 3 3 0 0 5 2 0 0 Cap,veh/h 285 2880 15 348 2877 54 99 34 104 137 130 110 Arrive On Green 0.02 0.82 0.82 0.02 0.82 0.82 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.00 Sat Flow, vehfh 1810 3501 18 1.723 3520 66 816 491 1525 1369 1900 1615 Grp Volume(v),vehfh 35 673 707 21 822 862 10 0 22 65 3 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1810 1716 1803 1723 1753 1832 1306 0 1525 1369 1900 1615 0 Serve(g s).s 0.4 16,0 16.0 0.3 22,5 22.7 0.0 0.0 1.9 6.5 0.2 0.0 Cycle 0 Clear(g_c),s 0.4 16.0 16.0 0.3 22.5 22.7 0.8 0.0 1.9 7.4 0.2 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.01 1.00 0.04 0.70 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),vehfh 285 1412 1483 348 1433 1498 133 0 104 137 130 110 V C Ratio(X) 0.12 0.48 0.48 0.06 0.57 0.58 0.08 0.00 0.21 0.47 0.02 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 402 1412 1483 468 1433 1498 169 0 147 175 183 156 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay(d), s/veh 3.9 3.6 3.6 2.8 4.4 4.4 61.1 0.0 61.6 64.6 60.9 0.0 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 0.1 1.2 1.1 0.0 1.7 1,6 0,2 0.0 0.7 1.9 0.1 0.0 Initial 0 Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Toile BackOfQ(-26165%),veh/In 0.3 7.9 8.3 0.1 11.4 11.9 0,4 0.0 0.8 2.5 0.1 0.0 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 4.1 4.8 4.7 2.9 6.1 6.0 61.3 0.0 62.4 66.5 60.9 0.0 LnGrp LOS A A A A A A E E E E Approach Vol,vehfh 1415 1705 32 68 Approach Delay,sfveh 4.7 6.0 62.1 66.2 Approach LOS A A E E Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),s 6.2 119.7 14.1 7.0 119.0 14.1 Change Period(Y+Rc), s 4.0 4.5 4.5 4.0 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 12.0 101.5 13.5 12.0 101.5 13.5 Max 0 Clear Time(g c+11),s 2.3 18.0 9.4 2.4 24.7 3.9 Green Ext Time(p__c), s 0.0 80.6 0.1 0.0 74.3 0.1 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 7.3 HCM 2010 LOS A H:lprojfile113755-Leadership Circle Specialty Retail\005-Tigard\Synchro113755.5-2014 PM-TT.syn Synchro 8- Report %user_name% Page 1 HCM 2010 TWSC 2016 Total Traffic Weekday PM Peak Hour 2: OR 99 W & SW School St 5/1/2015 Intersection Int Delay, siveh 0 2 Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Vol,vehlh 15 1437 1685 30 0 11 Conflicting Pads,#(hr 4 0 0 4 1 0 Sign Contro Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channels ed - None - None - None Storage Length 90 - - - - 0 Veh in Median Storage.# - 0 0 - 0 - Grade, % - 0 0 - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 99 99 99 99 99 99 Heavy Vehicles,% 0 5 2 0 0 2 Mum'Flow 15 1452 1702 30 0 11 Jor1Minor Major! Major2 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 1733 0 - 0 2474 871 Stage 1 - - 1718 - Stage 2 - - - - 756 - Critical Hdwy 4.1 - - - 6.8 6.94 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - 5.8 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - 5.8 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.2 - - - 3.5 3.32 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 369 - 25 294 Stage 1 - - - - 133 - Stage 2 - - - - 430 - Platoon blocked,% - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 368 - - - 24 293 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 24 - Stage 1 - - - - 133 - Stage 2 - - - 412 - Approach EB WB SB HCM Control Delay, s 0.2 0 17 8 HCM LOS C N Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity(veh/h) 368 - - - 293 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.041 - - - 0.038 HCM Control Delay(s) 15.2 - - - 17.8 HCM Lane LOS C - - - C HCM 95th%tile Q(veh) 0.1 - - - 0.1 H:lprojfilel13755-Leadership Circle Specialty Retail\005-Tigard\Synchrol13755.5-2014 PM-TT.syn Synchro 8- Report %user name% Page 3 HCM 2010 TWSC 2016 Total Traffic Weekday PM Peak Hour 3: SW Garrett & OR 99 W 5/1/2015 Intersection Int Delay,slveh 0.8 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Vol,vehlh 1401 36 28 1707 8 37 Conflicting Peds,#/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length - - 150 - 0 - Veh in Median Storage,# 0 - - 0 0 - Grade,% 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 99 99 99 99 99 99 Heavy Vehicles,% 5 5 2 3 0 3 Mvmt Flow 1415 36 28 1724 8 37 .`=/Minor Ma'or1 Ma'. Minorl Conflicting Flow All 0 0 1452 0 2352 726 Stage 1 - - - - 1433 - Stage 2 - - - - 919 - Critical Hdwy - - 4.14 - 6.8 6.96 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.8 - Cntical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.8 - Follow-up Hdwy - - 2.22 - 3.5 3.33 ' f Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 462 31 365 Stage 1 189 Stage 2 - - - - 354 - Platoon blocked,% - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 462 - 29 365 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 29 - Stage 1 - - - - 189 - Stage 2 - - - - 333 - Aph EB WB NB . . HCM Control Delay,s 0 0.2 52.8 HCM LOS F MtneeLanelMaIor Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBT Capacity(vehlh) 119 - - 462 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.382 - - 0.061 - HCM Control Delay(s) 52.8 - - 13.3 - HCM Lane LOS F - - B - HCM 95th%tile Q(veli) 1.6 - - 0.2 - - H:1pro}file113755-Leadership Circle Specialty Retail\005-Tigard\Synchro113755.5-2014_PM-TT.syn Synchro 8- Report %user_name% Page 1 HCM 2010 TWSC 2016 Total Traffic Weekday PM Peak Hour 4: OR99W & BIRO 5/1/2015 Intersection Int Delay, s veh 3 Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Vol,vehlh 0 1438 1729 10 0 6 Conflicting Peds,#/hr 7 0 0 7 13 12 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length - - - - - 0 Veh in Median Storage,# - 0 0 - 0 - Grade,% - 0 0 - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 98 98 98 98 98 98 Heavy Vehicles, °l0 2 5 3 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 0 1467 1764 10 0 6 h Major/Minor Majorl Major2 Mnor2 Conflicting Flow All 1787 0 - 0 2516 907 I Stage 1 - - - - 1782 - Stage 2 734 - Critical Hdwy 4 146.84 6.94 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.84 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.84 Follow-up Hdwy 2.22 - - - 3.52 3.32 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 343 - - - 23 279 Stage 1 - - - - 120 - Stage2 - - - - 436 - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mav Cap-1 Maneuver 341 - - - 23 274 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 23 - Stage 1 - - - - 119 - Stage 2 - - - - 431 - Approach EB WB SB HCM Control Delay,s 0 0 13.4 HCM LOS C Minor Lane/Major Mvmt _ _ EBL EBT WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity(vehlh) 341 - 274 HCM Lane WC Ratio - - - - 0.022 HCM Control Delay(s) 0 - - - 18.4 HCM Lane LOS A - - - C HCM 95th%tile Q(veh) 0 - - - 0.1 H:Iprojfile113755-Leadership Circle Specialty Retail\005-Tigard\Synchro113755.5-2014-PM-TT syn Synchro 8- Report %user name% Page 5 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2016 Total Traffic Weekday PM Peak Hour 5: SW Walnut St & OR 99 W 5/1/2015 -' - 7 C .- 4\ t '. \' 1 d Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations '5 +1. '1 fi"f r :i. '1 T. Volume(vph) 142 1327 12 22 1597 184 21 18 11 122 12 148 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 4.0 4.5 4.0 5.0 5.0 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0 95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frpb,pedibikes 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 0.96 0.98 1.00 0.97 Flpb. ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.97 1.00 0.86 Fit Protected 0,95 1 00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.98 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow(prot) 1736 3464 1805 3505 1514 1734 1736 1550 FIt Permitted 0.09 1.00 0.14 1.00 1.00 0.98 0.95 1.00 Said. Flow(perm) 170 3464 259 3505 1514 1734 1736 1550 Peak-hour factor.PHF 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Adj. Flow(vph) 145 1354 12 22 1630 188 21 18 11 124 12 151 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 30 0 8 0 0 137 0 Lane Group Flow(vph) 145 1366 0 22 1630 158 0 42 0 124 26 0 Confl. Peds.(#!hr) 7 11 11 7 12 13 13 12 Confl.Bikes(#!hr) 1 3 Heavy Vehicles(°�o) 4% 4% 8% 0% 3% 2% 0% 6% 0% 4% 0% 3% Turn Type pm+pt NA pm+pt NA Perm Split NA Split NA Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 8 8 4 4 Permitted Phases 2 6 6 Actuated Green, G(s) 99.2 98.7 89.3 89.3 89.3 7.2 13.1 13.1 Effective Green,g(s) 99.2 98.7 89.3 89.3 89.3 7.2 13.1 13.1 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.71 0.71 0.64 0.64 0.64 0.05 0.09 0.09 Clearance Time(s) 4.0 4.5 4.0 5.0 5.0 4.5 4.5 4.5 Vehicle Extension(s) 2.3 5.1 2,3 5.1 5.1 2.3 2.3 2.3 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 259 2442 203 2235 965 89 162 145 v/s Ratio Prot 0.05 c0.39 0.00 c0.47 c0.02 c0.07 0.02 vis Ratio Perm 0.35 0.07 0.10 vic Ratio 0.56 0.56 0.11 0.73 0.16 0.48 0.77 0.18 Uniform Delay,dl 34.3 10.1 12.1 17.2 10.3 64.6 61.9 58.5 Progression Factor 1.02 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,d2 1.9 0.9 0.1 2.1 0.4 2.3 18.0 0.3 Delay(s) 36.9 11.0 12.2 19.3 10.6 66.9 80.0 58.8 Level of Service D B B B B E E E Approach Delay(s) 13 5 18.3 66.9 68.0 Approach LOS B B E E Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 20.9 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.71 Actuated Cycle Length(s) 140.0 Sum of lost time(s) 18.0 intersection Capacity Utilization 84.5% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period(mon) 15 c Critical Lane Group H:Iprojfiie113755-Leadership Circle Specialty Retail1005-Tigard\Synchro\13755.5-2014 PM-TT.syn Synchro 8- Report %user_name% Page 6 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 2016 Total Traffic Weekday PM Peak Hour 5: SW Walnut St & OR 99 W 5/1/2015 -' -* C 4- k" 4\ t t \ 1 r Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations ) ?t-, '1 t't r 44 'i 1.4 Volume(veh/h) 142 1327 12 22 1597 184 21 18 11 122 12 148 Number 5 2 12 1 6 16 3 8 18 7 4 14 initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Fed-Bike Adj(ApbT) 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.96 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow,vehlhlln 1827 1826 1900 1900 1845 1863 1900 1860 1900 1827 1849 1900 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 145 1354 12 22 1630 188 21 18 11 124 12 151 Adj No.of Lanes 1 2 0 1 2 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Percent Heavy Veh, % 4 4 4 0 3 2 6 6 6 4 0 0 Cap,veh/h 378 2529 22 220 1977 865 27 23 14 180 12 147 Arrive On Green 0.16 0.72 0.72 0.02 0.56 0.56 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.10 0.10 0.10 Sat Flow,veh/h 1740 3524 31 1810 3505 1533 719 617 377 1740 113 1420 Grp Volurne(v), vehlh 145 667 699 22 1630 188 50 0 0 124 0 163 Grp Sat Flow(s),vehlhlln 1740 1735 1820 1810 1752 1533 1713 0 0 1740 0 1533 Q Serve(g_s), s 2.4 24.7 24.7 0.8 53.1 8.5 4.1 0.0 0.0 9.6 0.0 14.5 Cycle 0 Clear(g_c),s 2.4 24.7 24.7 0.8 53.1 8.5 4.1 0.0 0.0 9.6 0.0 14.5 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.02 1.00 1.00 0.42 0.22 1.00 0.93 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 378 1245 1306 220 1977 865 64 0 0 180 0 159 V/C Ratio(X) 0.38 0,54 0.54 0.10 0.82 0.22 0.78 0.00 0.00 0.69 0.00 1.03 Avail Cap(c_a),vehlh 378 1245 1306 319 2078 909 153 0 0 180 0 159 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Fitter(l) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay(d),slveh 45.7 9.1 9 1 17.1 24.9 15.2 66.8 0.0 0.0 60.6 0.0 62.8 Incr Delay(d2),slveh 0.4 1.7 1.6 0.1 4.1 0.6 11.8 0.0 0.0 9.5 0.0 78.7 Initial Q Delay(d3).slveh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 %ile BackOfQ(-26165%),vehlln 4.8 12.2 12.8 0.4 26.7 3.7 2.1 0.0 0.0 5.1 0.0 9.6 LnGrp Delay(d).s/veh 46.1 10.7 10.6 17.2 29.0 15.7 78.6 0.0 0.0 70.0 0.0 141.7 LnGrp LOS 0 B B B C B E E F Approach Vol,vehlh 1511 1840 50 287 Approach Delay,slveh 14.1 27.5 78.6 110.7 Approach LOS B C E F Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),s 6.3 105.0 19.0 27.3 84.0 9.7 Change Period(Y+Rc),s 4.0 4.5 4.5 4.5 *5 4.5 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 10.0 85.5 14.5 12.0 *83 12.5 Max 0 Clear Time(g_c+I1), s 2.8 26.7 16.5 4.4 55.1 6.1 Green Ext Time(p__c),s 0.0 32.1 0.0 3.8 23.9 0.1 Intersection Summary _ HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 29.2 HCM 2010 LOS C Notes * HCM 2010 computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. H:1projfile113755-Leadership Circle Specialty Retaih005-TigardlSynchro113755.5-2014 _PM-TT.syn Synchro 8- Report %user name% Page 2 0 Appendix I Queuing Analysis Worksheets HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2016 Total Traffic Weekday AM Peak Hour 2: OR 99 W & SW School St 5/112015 -, t- k \, 4/ Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR 1.1111,9 Lane Configurations Volume(vehlh) 7 1557 943 22 0 9 Sign Control Free Free Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Hourly flow rate(vph) 7 1656 1003 23 0 10 Pedestrians 2 2 Lane Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 Walking Speed(ft/s) 4.0 4 0 Percent Blockage 0 0 Right turn flare(veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal(ft) 325 1069 pX,platoon unblocked 0.79 0.88 0.79 vC,conflicting volume 1029 1862 515 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2,stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 502 782 0 tC,single(s) 4.1 6.8 6.9 tC,2 stage(s) tF(s) 2.2 3.5 3.3 p0 queue free% 99 100 99 cM capacity(veh/h) 834 288 854 Direction,Lane# EB 1 EB 2 EB 3 WB 1 WB 2 SB 1 Volume Total 7 828 828 669 358 10 Volume Left 7 0 0 0 0 0 Volume Right 0 0 0 0 23 10 cSH 834 1700 1700 1700 1700 854 Volume to Capacity 0.01 0.49 0.49 0.39 0.21 0.01 Queue Length 95th(ft) 1 0 0 0 0 1 Control Delay(s) 9.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.3 Lane LOS A A Approach Delay(s) 0.0 0.0 9.3 Approach LOS A intersection Summary Average Delay 0.l Intersection Capacity Utilization 46.4% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 H:lprojf le113755-Leadership Circle Specialty Retail\005-Tigard\Synchrol13755.5-2014_AM-Total.syn Synchro 8- Report %user name% Page 1 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2016 Total Traffic Weekday PM Peak Hour 2: OR 99 W & SW School St 5/1/2015 Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configuration. Tfi ?ty Volume(veh/h) 15 1437 1685 30 0 11 Sign Control Free Free Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 Hourly flow rate(vph) 15 1452 1702 30 0 11 Pedestrians 1 4 Lane Width(ft) 12.0 12.0 Walking Speed(ft/s) 4.0 4.0 Percent Blockage 0 0 Right turn flare(veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal(ft) 325 1069 pX, platoon unblocked 0.87 vC,conflicting volume 1736 2478 870 vC1. stage 1 conf vol vC2,stage 2 conf vol vCu,unblocked vol 1736 2399 870 tC,single(s) 4.1 6.8 6.9 tC, 2 stage(s) tF(s) 2.2 3.5 3.3 p0 queue free% 96 100 96 cM capacity(veh/h) 366 24 294 Direction, Lane# EB 1 EB 2 EB 3 WB 1 WB 2 SB 1 Volume Total 15 726 726 1 135 598 11 Volume Left 15 0 0 0 0 0 Volume Right 0 0 0 0 30 11 cSH 366 1700 1700 1700 1700 294 Volume to Capacity 0.04 0.43 0.43 0.67 0.35 0.04 Queue Length 95th (ft) 3 0 0 0 0 3 Control Delay(s) 15.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 17.7 Lane LOS C C Approach Delay(s) 0.2 0.0 17.7 Approach LOS C Intersection Summa Average Delay 0.1 Intersection Capacity Utilization 57.5% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 Haprojfiie113755- Leadership Circle Specialty Retail\005-Tigard\Synchro113755.5-2014_PM-TT.syn Synchro 8- Report %user name% Page 1 Appendix Site Truck Circulation Exhibit SW School Road/OR 99W Retail Development July 2015 1 i __, , , ,.fww Nlr gwnN.n.w�,, .iJ11 •Ivom1.111111w111 j1111PA N11R711�111111111�.N••••ww wwRwwrwr.w 1.1.R 01.1.•••••••••••••111119i�llw111111, M SIM. 7....„,..41.•••••••••04••• I yy L., 7 44,14414pb . ' 1 (Dr r -1 ! 1 , O 1 Y.71- : r 1. 41 O J it fp J 99 °EATERY DOORS -- . --i-i• OYERNANG IS O•ACCESS ROAD,STREP I l PARCEL f I"'I 0 .....:. NE!LTTLITY«<�1+ 14 7 //A 4f _ i ' › v IC a ACCESS ROAD.STREET.I• "il AND irk fIY EASEIEIFT • s I I • V / X�•1 h C PAVE°STRUT feu V PROPOSED SPECIALTY RETAIL i O REILL Y'S AUTO PART STORE 15,01155F 13 l (GENERAL COMMERCIAL ZONING) I FFE:2!0.90 . • ITL IDE i,l X I n 50a WOOL.N • �. -‹ I I oI -I PRCPOIED RIG.T Oc- AY _ COMMERCIAL USE TO BE De)CMtD ail (GENERAL COMMERCIAL i 1 d �+1J ZONING) i y� : is 1 f o ill ARA r E1: DIEING RIGHT.Of 4MAY 3W RIGHT#- TORE VACATED ' •- -• I � t-1' - DEO1CATi0N *_ - aalnwl�' �a�� py 1 j d011 _ 34 PROPOSED ACCESS \ 1t, ■.B1 • f • .w�"' .. f • - 3�'(:YT?81lA — LEFT IN,RIOT-WAdOM{IUT ` •� URR• ! .. � • '."".-• Asa. ,' "- • - • 1noN . gI� -j- r •. R1orr • , e EXI'_T14GTRI-E-BUSSTOP DtwA_A• r' IIIIIIIi4P.ROXIMATELY 115 FROM PROPERTY LINE} _ i • _ - - '. _-.. -.- - -- a. k -:.•.% -•' _ yr II, ,.(.a'O. B► � � �~ ' - t!C$T�HG � PROPOSED PE0E5'R.- •1S�D ACCESS 'ori F'!'.aE C:,LA,ye w?�T Sr:.N 8i — .........4_..w S Tikiji • SIGNAL CABINET C NI• J1.5•,. 1 IAS RIGH'SS R5.0' •'..i. SEDSIXWALN NJT I ` •. 4i+' -- p8 � ��, ,.- F 1111.111111.1cp it w - - - '1 e" M _ 1120" LIB _ INAMIEW. , rip - .1111.6 .10 POSED RAEED CONCRETE IE_DIN4 - 40 a f`` I7.0'PROPOSE: IMII wuISEDI�D1r•,, - SWPAC •j HWAY � ,�.As�= e ros [•] 1- - SW PACIFIC H/GHWA Y t n' 8 - - •7P (PUBLIC) 1.0'PROPOSED RAISED CONCRETE MEDIAN- ,. X 115' - •7a EXISTING CURD To REWN 4r a,..... moi-- '— --4i— —moi Z' - — 17a _� - 5A - CII OW dm rm - d COMMERCIAL USE COMMERCIAL USE (GENERAL COMMERCIAL ZONING) I (GENERAL COMMERCIAL ZONING) ii S II SITE TRUCK CIRCULATION — — — TIGARD, OREGON KA Kittelson & Associates, Inc. TRANSPORTATION FNGINFFRING ; PLANNING F�1 Exhibit K - Architectural Plans CCPYI O.'CCPr NG 7 3..S r.O .tiP.ta, •.r. ...yn..oa...< RECEIVED spECIALTy RETAIL JUL 16 2015 ICJ)earths,' CITY OF TIGARO PLANNING/ENGINEERING vega ..„7=;:ture Ilc I 111 LU 1 ■■ M Ce luuuul >- J 0_, 0 lict i N CJ N V am CC N Q Oe--- I.,— Ekmanttaryr School • O .104).y wt. Rl,...N.'AK Rn.Thrar•. . Kid.lamDus PROJECT DIRECTORY :,'`41.4' OWMER: `ti' Papa John's PTrA - — LEADERSHIP CIRCLE LLC Sheet Index PO.BOX 239 y ixcr LcuTIO% -L�e t srd k10RITROSE.CO 81402 S \ ca M.nro.ksr ca..9.1 CONTACT MONET RAGSOALE r. T 9,0269 3398 •1 A' vbele. E.97C.249.1230 = F.MONET.$LEADETi.SHIPCIRCLLLLCCOM 5,� Sanchez TsQuens Al Aman//>i Pan 4'1 k1 f MRi Wev C/M P.+ ARCHITECT. ''A .. c.....r 6...o. VELA ARCHITECTURE LLC O'Rdly Auto Pati Al Jack Ir Me Ba. '%T/. :saa�Ic..xxa. 1.335 ELATI ST UNITA _ _ . DENVER.0090225 hl gar ner Imnp•m• 52 CONTACT DOUG POPPE IsDel So. 'I ''y co Af c.....xr,F , a Cover Sheet T 3C3 872 OW T 720 882.3822 n e [mom a.wo..sv.. 4 UG4VEGAARCHITECTURE COM - - U E DO �. 070 to.I. CML Emma* LY n O..s�os+e..•aA..r: CA I CAROHO DQ 5415 SW VIESTOATE DRIVE SUITE 130 SW Park., • PORTlAAN6 CR 97221 G n MIMI~'ElI CONTACT UARIO DE LA RCSA . 0x7 cul*w..+r<wn - �� 0 P 503-43925355 CMIOert's Waageyrs -...•••••••••••••-...-Pot IN 600 E:MARIODELAROSAL4CARONO COM Day Sc L1- Andcaor^^''aw” VICINITY MAP 0 7 ! 0:4•••••s.•GA•.4,....•4.5 I ' (17 COrldrio ve ga • . _ .Irr�•F M,.a• -- c F �.i .� • s� +` .Z ranaV r ' r % ♦ `. :. rer . . 1 4 y v •+ • t " ♦ y ati:f: - , , " .i k �• . , +f, - # l ,, 1,.r 'T '�� 1r 'r. - c31', Al l',t.�Y. I't' I A C '.r + �r - , es * 1 . .� , a.` R .�./ • + a � �! 7.� - lr ''s - Y yr ai �7• y y�r�� ,. - • 4.. ..dh, 4. .'..- • :„../ • 46.5;; P. '''' - '''-' " --' { .a ZZ �i �f�`•• + ,}gam., rS44111Y� 4� f 14 q) • •y''rf .4 �! " • 1' -4 .' .k it • • t • 1,,341._. '♦ • -- —v.; i (••• et ' • .s 41. y`� 4.0.-14./.1 1� a i. a e i ' 111 4 • t �.• �y %. V_ ` _ . .",. y.� 'rMs,r k ''...1:21-• X t ` ; �i i \ r� �S h i � i r e y. * at' N -,F• . -, . --. _ •.wL �`1 '. , 4 \ 1114• C. 03 J... .�. -�'..� '1TTT� r.• +�✓r• 11 'FOttPllf. �• Inv; :.f d 4 iFr,' ''ii,."}'• ..i. }� •�'s• {` /f'�+ h2 j' g '� /#7 � .C' t • � ' \ •. ;' 9� ••l #; ' „, - •} • `1 3,y.•-.�• _,, 1. - > a , .� W fa.�� + ..SIN fmnn•S 's w - - '' - • Mill >imi � l� ! 47 y :sr ytL_ itTs. , - .'•... !�, •• i �, �I .�'", - r"rr C➢1,ryare • Al F '. ;� .,.. ..:.. 3` Y : i. ! j' �:e . . `eor, A.T,.. --14,`-, ...• 1 ,.-• 1114t ,6 a 106 6 �' 'r i � ^� - ~'�' -f �. /JP .+� : • 3w y' . - •,: ` ` t•^ ' '.. _- •i. ..p. . �l+ FMY1e I Jr.k PYrk s t� . •; { • t • S!' •�U4 •�ir t v `r ,r,. ",J�"y .t. t'r f • # .� j ti 1. SO 11! 'w: 4t . ' / •• r• �. ex ..044...1....1._. . 'i. d� t, r�►[ LU O" +•, v `mss,_'. • " - - A. '.,•� }; Lt Y ' d s y" i , ,ir _�•� CL i_ci Q cc cq 116 • lit '# � 1 ,f If ►�sw�v r �op Ort:4 :.+ is rh,rerr,SV c y �tMll'11i` ,..4, �! t � i';V`. _ f't, _ .• > •r-• I— tilfsk '!-} ..h ' -...i's �rnwem t { ... ,. .. .• • F .' �-� a•,. yC♦- ..._. s� - -• ' , 1 a , _` jy wa 4, •- f y,. . t ;-., S 10 4i, •++ j�j. ,i-1 - p:'�T¢ '~ r•,a . i , f - • •� � • Al; V' .� a t.- E.- W,+ �. .... , k3-1 r `� "1 �j-�Jj. ' I h - r• •+`£ rt - _.,� • }. - - I• -C� •n- - SW,FaahavenWay - 'k. > JSgt -0, _ �� i ; . -� , � y' 7 %. ET - - T `` _ -F4 - . • ' r1y • �^ V3/47•••••••• •• kow in f� � • . J • • Y Ait • • A > N • a r . • rd - I, i _ ,. 1111tVii, ' M.' 1-' S .w ry r E • i •. r '_ _/ 40. , . 44 1i ; u ;.q: n _ ; 'i'IGINITY P.ilA,P• 2 Vicinity Map 4 SDP 2' dp I I A1 • 7 11 ' l - [ COPYFIGYI.C.01,POGNI 201S ZONING.C-G PARKING PATIO 1,300 SF PARKING REQUIRED.MI PARKING PROVIDED BO LANDSCAPE REQUIRED.IS% LANDSCAPE PROVIDED'17% SIGNAGE ALLOWED 1 MONUMENT SIGN SIGNAGE PROVIDED I MONUMENT SIGN • r" . • • rill ., . .-....,.., • . .. , . f.,. . ..• .:. lippiippt ..... ..,. .4,. . . , . _ , ,. .. .......k... - t--- Alec , PUFCLAND ' .4_ _...... _. . ''.;1 IA,W.M.T.I1Dil 1.11•00 POR11,.0 .o. I .411..7. '" -.,... A*:::q:i:',F'Y.rt-1,-.0,.,.1.1‘:;' .-.. .... ..§ MI..VII,I 11.0 ,•,,15111 4.0 MA '—i,,.,._ .' • ....,..,..,.. ,., .. . _.: .:7\44\ ' '. i' '' . ... .1 . ' . ,., .. -...---. . ... . . . .. , . ... . . . . „-:: -:• •Y - ;„:, . ,,,,, ,_!ipi :.J.:,1',.•4-3".\\ ,••E , i ,,,.,,\ lvega • . , ..... . , .. . : . , ....,,,„ .....„ architecture Ilc ,,...\::_:\:::,;\ PROPERTY LINE 1 .:.... ..:• .s..-,,.-,„'•••,,,\ d, -'-\:• _/. ,,, :N .., • . . ...,-., • , . . TYPICAL 3'LANDSCAPE OVERHANG Att.).:3\\,\ ... . -_ .... .:„i, -.• : -•.'::-..-:':, • BUILDING SETBACK ‘,., ...•-„:-:•., -: .-,"..:' //I iP .... LANDSCAPE SETBACK •• 0.' . . . .-,.'• \ .....,...:J......., ._ „.......... .. . '•", ..,' c.' •\...." . • '''C..° 2' ' ' ,,. ,,, ,,„„., ,. „ •. _:_ ii,e; , • , .! ,:. -::•::://:..,E /\\C ---------- - CART CORRAL - ,,....-A 7 • lit- , „, i-;.'!0!elkl-O.i"'"(;) '''"' .. LLI ..•. t . . . •„-. Ak,f,r, .:....-,1,1 '<;t''''IL'ikr.<4111111111 - . 7144‘ ' -'''' 4 _,..6.,.2.., : :-':. •/ \\,..,) ..; , ,40,-- r. -a_ . . / , -....\ ,..p fr .._ -,..._ POLE SIGN 17 el; - - - - ._.--...4:in-, :..,,...!:'. -,,i1•11 AMMI .,4• -. . -,_•iiiia-E:s-ii,. 4, • ..,.. ..„-- i,. - - -• ..-., :r..- . , \\\45‘ • .•• :./ . / 0 , —__ . . -.'.•,AW'i,r4 , E N'.C.iL-lE,6•:Q':g.--_.ii:.EiilidifilVi,Sii,.ai.i'.:i-ik:i,i0i,,i1,..,1."•;,.!i-,,.1.l1;i.T4::s-.-!;•.:, ;-3:\• AMAFAI I MP' r BIKPEICRNAICC KTSAB-LAE_../1/4.46*\\\\\%6..',..<\N`„,.1.'',,-.-..:\i.j,,•.-,:.'..' ,\ -..—.,..-., ,'..,.'•.•,!-,:.,,.'..,....,r,--i-. . ' . ,- -- '. / / // .'' / / 11141C 14.a>005-73.. CcC1a1"2\,-O ,)- Cans) .•.. SPECIALTY GROCERY C ERY \. ,,.>/. ..,. / /'A/ / / e . LelLmI 4 FOOTPRINT: / / / 15,000 SF . / / • 1Cf) \ / // , • , ..,-,,„1,w.\ /.:• 4 / %),Nt‘ICP. , .., . . . .. .,_., •z-i..:* ?,:i,,,\ ,, - --z41111101111k \ \ 141tRi,\ - .. . .._ , ..,.., / iy,„. / . C.) // s le - . r,\ / •,,„„.. I CrileillY Atit ur 0 '''' / t,..._%.0 ..„, .,._ • . . 1 \ \/ .:- N . Architectural Site i Plan 4 , / l'tallillit. •.,, I OP -•• - - CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN ; dp I I A2 , 7 i ca..ac.I-cor.w.-nro / (Ill _. Mk A, 9 C. I p 1 ..v••••••••.i,,..44..AnII�. A !AFF WOlYJ 1.E h.WY N--AE^��R�M"4 rfIW) /� IV NV F9CMf.'YEAH!• � - (1[_T.M I.Fn �. a..Iw.Y4Mr. �s Ali. mir 3 r WI y Wo ow al VW. I cup9/ FIFA 1 •U/Yt 11B� serYln ram sn-os 7' I MAK f: i 1` P.M rjcauf i[11 B.Lp1�1you ME LH .ArrnrHrm.rrr ncn•wro WON I IRINPPI 4 Cry r-.+...... ..�... emissm ♦1, u!LIMP' r ems ■ u in_ In- 2.,. 1 - k tI E rr1F I •- STOCK vega 1 MAaL e Allk H w I. a' - R __ xtr.ara Wro. d Ot 4,4C111 I' C dfCfllt2Cil. • PT ry (- «rrel>F 1, :. s, =E■IIM�OMa ._ ,, - `�LKRSUMO ORT3 u. A,oc ^QiI/E Cr BI.IG[f0 *� I.Y1+A'I /�i�' UE OF 11 MAN IK 1Nit:MA:t Ilii I.LMEM mow eau f - i F f 1 x . 11 1 IL P j ! Q 3 - - A - NA - -4- - 1,1 ......_ UJI 1 1�1 11 I VITAMINS. a�i Ce I I y, 1 1 II— : LO e 6-1:1!' I:: P < z cq w Y I V 41 1 .v' - —i f ` I 1'2 i Ce r Alb I1 l A1WF1.JNLS O 1� I �1 ( ,.n 1 IliILLI 0.14•1.IIV VT PMIII. wncFOm cei— to Ce ywpaE�.e! RETAIL :1 Ician p (' or) 0 am wwgr -_ 1I*__ !REEF 1 mown. — M ME MNOOUCE ' 1 WI O Cr) i �. �___ _u . I I I L • I n MIA Br orifForo Tr AM WALL se 0 il l� rl '' 1�l�� 1 Aw..s r,u . F. RR i=0 f--IT nom prinin MI 6h1111f IWi ' a ��, '. VAR 7. !II:u. k ar lor Pi rein OAR 1'A1Cl•rc XT TGR NNE MIL I eltailERS 0 OP IT d• �! .II �'a" 1 't r4r14^eN►^raa ".s. I a • h � iliII , —fl © - HALL l COUNT p6 — 4,1, S{ I 1 P2 MTI1 MI Pr I.uFAEWWIPANEL d 6 — - ''- - I .. e. . - : - ..ea., .,.n.r ( I- - --e 6 WOME[mEF NTTCHEN ` •0(74 �` MI I—'�t.) OPNCS NUTR i66 iNATINQl11'N ,r- --1 el - I MER+N I MO 3 0 L/' M _.. - - 9 8 I .1 . ink — a T• T tel'nit ' rw1fr - - I I Aei43> I -} CAMP, 1 ~ ! BI4MPK }:NLi1W 1 Ix..r.nrcw; II " Conceptual Mae+ MAM'AF 6•AM w+wo.For coo 1 LeVee PIa13 • BRM SM Alb q4- __ WCA 41,1.Srw, 11 Ule MNV 1.c' 1cv I 1 PP E -- - . Deo F PLAN A ® C TE CONCEPTUAL PLAN DFCOTPFNN NAY FT4RN vDE $GN Burrdp I OPLL a+4'vF SIMILAR ROOM-YPES AND S'MILAA$17.ES CONCEPTUAL MAIN LEVEL PLAN 2 SCALE 1.6'=I A' _— - — - - I A3 n1 7 .l 1 I _ n (r, Caren° 3 l83 SFI.3&4 SF J :.. r,,,4 s• 5.E:M1 fof4GL.V 5a.: p.Jf YF"y Y-R.:t. t.-t.•.t. ..w B.iM1VET:.AIw.M 'fW.ePwrtas, - ..o-efe. k w;+Yk v, .r .r' pega architecture Ilc J I- _ W CieIf >II MINS Ir . (11 ,tt < co NORTHEAST ELEVATIONcu cv ti U 0 as O. W C7 V) CI CILLc) cr ce N Q GNALAC,,L.�"EA Cr)O H 3.52A SFfG€A.LOWANCE Set SF 1S%F 'EM1aL+ ;;l657- tilt@.r 8E11 mew 4Ac t5lEty..vv Ma —E%TEMOR LUIT SIVT"c9n.40,EU MEI 4, 1 I i IJIIIIIIIIIIIIII Q Conceptual iElevations U I DP E NORTHWEST ELEVATION cip NOT TO SCALE A4 7 1 .� r. 1 07....4.s..a. .14.1EF I n GNAGE AI:.CMANCE 15%FACACCARFA 2,31."SF:•35•SF .+.F a• EKAAGE l n.u...1!5• n wan 120^St I 0 )':G.RVG4TFD 4.tTA4l . iVa , , Ili a ii- , u., . ix 1, ii. , _I >, r ) N SOUTHWEST PERSPECTIVE o 1 or , T ` TO SCALE U v' Ct.III ©L N 4 rIGNAGE ALLOWANCE.15F..FACADE AREA (' 0 3t 3SFi=6?3 Sf. Om . to rErn o T S+JMn,E B. 5'GM.GE Fr tE,,.. ♦it TEM.S*if1 SE;-. .tT\”ft..Eat 5 ...5 5 v.- i11C.h;ORRyGETFO 4f'u- GREE*,sIBp COKE W VD*, 1 111111111111 3 Conceptual 1 EYevat�ons SOUTHEAST ELEVATION ' DP NI) tr.SCALE_ - _ - - --- - # dp I A5 7 C0.0.647 I COO.Af 1!.,3 1.exun.•z a..n....s..a.n .. w.fn ...•e ....a a 11.40M/14 UMW *UMW•••••••!WV P.'.'.. b...i... .l..p.�..cYwi Cill,Card". MEOW IN PIM 11 Vega , . D„,r,_, ,. uc a f ,, .i 4 It Q 1 W REAR PERSPECTIVE J _ Ni co c"). co C . CI_ C . �0 CD a Fx Lo Q pECIACIII TA1L , R 4 111111111t. ' f iiiuu U a Conceptual Perspectives 0 '1 , 1 DP m II • -4 dpI POLE SIGN 70 SF MAX ENTRY PERSPECTIVE A6 7 j 1_•SCALE COP4MOk•Crr.+u.-FN5 wMAN.,.. '..,+i AYw.R Ur •os" T— -- - I -` EL,x4.-0,.- Alk--- ( I 10 I 1I i . 1 1 I I I 11--I2--09 I ` I I - e . 1 I I ........... .... . 4 I I 1 - /vega •ESt8ULE RETAIL I 1 �..- I _ - I Lad, .1 architecture He 0 BUILDING SECTION 4 _ -- 5 -S` 0 ~ J •0 SILO, I ) 1 -. T t EL'YYR I 1 I r _ 1 I 1 4 ,_ - _ mimmononmi I !lI I l I -- --------------. 11 1 I L -. f ,-T - I /11 113=1 IA I 1 I MANAGER ,COUNT RH RETAIL •�LBREAK � I_IF'i! �°rc.....LEYEL I h I QBUILDING SECTION 3 3/) z cy A e U N _IoIc UJ co I CV fY I , 1 IC7 � 1/.°".11r ., am • Tom— - -- I 1 ! T: , S IT COUNT BOOKS VESTIBULE I p . ; a =I KITCHEN T- OEMO KITC E • _„ .-• ? 1 - � -azva.rw.ai s-a.owc'+-cis--a$s _ = - - _ I •J r_FMEL - fL 06C BUILDING SECTION 2 g A MI T O 5T1,0 + I - - - - .. E6 IM-0 re " • I ^I _ - I I u SH./0I I '� i_.i I I EL 7774 AMIFAI7i�i.ZIEri���/1 111MaWA UMIIIMAZOIKAMAMIIZMILW,I1 I I I I I I 1 I I ` Concepiuel I •I I 4 Sections } a - x - x - x _ x -1 I 11 U I WEAK Pt COMPRESSOR STOCK I I = I 1 OP $ _ _ _n I TO WI.lEtEl_ ..--T.J_..,.- - -�� .---_--___ ...`. I • TO YYLuC.4_ U �._� _ — !` � iaT� coNCE�ovusEcnoNsaRawoE, FINAL I -- I EL IC TT , �p - _ - - - — - EL tE64 i dp 4^ I III 4 LAE1 MAY DIFFER DUE TO STRUCTURAL AND 1 .y,;I RAINAGE REOU,REFAENTS 0 BUILDING SECTION 1 A7 € C 0 a Exhibit L - Civil Plans o a ArwramTOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY '"4en,It. r'°"�' _ .550'= ...age.ucarc;nw lCIO jlyA "NORTH 7IGARDVILLE1ADD1TION" LOCATEDENUTHSOUTHWEST•NE-STARERofSECTION C `'� I� LOT 42 TOWNSHIP z TIGARD. .WAS •WEST RAI LAME FI hffRlotlAR +! Cm OF T1SMBD.WhSRINGTON COUNTY,DREGOAI O 1 1 CHARLES F. TIGARD 1• CHARLES F.TIGARD 1 N ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 1 ELEMENTARY SCHOOL OF cr, /�y�. I I1`�, a al �.els 6. fi��il I , ii, „e (RESIDENTIAL ZONING-R17) a+..1 (RES/DENT/AL ZONING-817) I II 10 ST �, % _ ... .�. z 1 /10 ar --�— �� , o 1 \9'aF LEGEND: )o I I ,fes, ...-- -1 — -1 I I � 8��= �5 ._-------- PROCOSED TREE PROTECTION FENCE I I fi - 1 g I .-- - EY,S.11N�PROPER-iv LINE >�EOI6TRUCTKW R-IWC6FIP)PCMS CU ^ - Ek,fTING OURP I.NF I - EXESTIIG EASEMENT LINE I -"� i _— _ - EXSTMG STORW DRAIN 4,,, i I I _ -_. -- - ExISTNG SANS TAR,SLINLRL NE arc,itec,l e Ilc l - EXISTING WATER UNE dI[JO'RS4C,SPAEET,■ t-•. #_ 1 - wows PpEIJNE I - EXISTING GAS LINE JTWr LASEIIEXT I NT / - ExISTING PLANER_INE r ARION0 L01 r PAroE3F - - - - EXISTING CONSTRUCTION FENCE fn I Il 0 - EXISTING STORK MANHOLE . I La �/y CORE.0URP CRL . ER'STING STORM CATCH BOSH 0 EXISTING SA'NTCARY MANHOLE O Iy I EXISTING FIRE-IYORAVT --+ Yx a11Z I zSCHOOLHOUSE TRACT `I DIETING WATER ME Ea 0 - EXISTING WATER VALVE V I "NORTH TIGARDVILLE ADDITION" w ET,!STING GAS MALUE " \ TAX LOT 200 1 - EMS LIN;;TELEPHONE SAUL' 1.37 ACRES ExssTINC LIGRT POLE 1I17wtt EASEMENT A I =AA IX4) 1F +r - EXISTING UTILITY POLE L I a ENO'IiXG ONTO CT - CLL.STFq 1 J"f""- • - FASTING GUY WIRE �YT11O EASEMENT / i Si°'O - EA/SUNG SIGN O REILL Y'S AUTO PART STORE I ' IX (GENERAL COMMERCIAL ZONING) ° ° - ErIsnNG MA+IT,c z 1. 11 I �X7-�]C - TREES IO BE REMOVED ! - f I I ' /, A}///\ - EXEST7NG BULLONG TC19E OEM016MEG I I --` .-_ - •I COMMERCIAL USE v s iii - EXISTING ASPHALT SURFACE I I ef�<T T r5 -• I (GENERAL COMMERCIAL `- I R=2.14.74' I SPAT OF C p 11.'"'' \ L.2 9 E' caisTBucvrn ( ZONING) . I 6 _ _ _� -_ Cir E3 - EXISTING CONCRETE SURF ACE �"r �.- I ` COI151AU ClION C^5=$611443" W, _i' - - _ -, y ... - I-` ( ` `% T _I I. i y R OF 214-53. ; { ; .�._-tC•?t N I .- 1 y 0 4 I i s - FLOW ARROSGRAVEL SM.RFACE = N Rr 1' ii FLOW ARROW. Q N j .-. - -' 1 --1---,, - - - - I •e - EX5TFU DGES\ --- -- C 013 F • 1 " - EXISTING PEDES-KLAN SIGN L LL yT1 - •-20........1....' � y �4..1.+1 --'-.. (:(''.-- - -- 1\ SPI A CURVE (.l H ....r+a - '� EML57rWi°E0E E51NWe-�. ""--JJ L B-Ba EMVSTaW'IMFHE- 17'WATER Tac CHORD=98.7E' CC ., - - SIGNAL CARNET CH BROS. J'So' w Cif) 1 SW PACIFIC H1GHWd Y _ _ 0 `,.` fusniz RA:SECwruk4 Z Q CC 1 - - _-----_.-----_--_--_--- uj 1..47 Lu l ` _F � (�-- 1 1 C.) _.__I ° 0r '�� COMMERCIAL USE I <n COMMERCIAL USE Z �...,..../......- ' (GENERAL COMMERCIAL ZONING) 1 (GENERAL COMMERCIAL ZONING) `? 1 -4 I GENERAL NOTES STORM DRAINAGE TABLE: SANITARY SEWER TABLE NOISE SOURCES EXISTING DATUM: EAST OF PROPERTY-SW PACIFIC HWM WASH NOT ON CCI-P Y BENC7IHARJL N0.949 (- RIM=20925 D STORM HOF `'-''RIM,21578RpLEC. RRA DII5.3.6 ER MANMOC.E SOUTH Of PROPERTY-O'REILLY AUTO WEST OF PROPER SCHODLLAWN TRACKS AND FIIELC AREApI�J /'} Al-3.S'BRASS DISK IN FIRST CONCRETE STEP ON THE SW 24'IE IN SNWI='99.66 17 IE INEIUT=206.73 B IE INCST=4E7.26STUB •+A", u CONDI TIONS SIDE OF THE STEPS OF THE TX:ARp GRANGE HALL NW 17 IE IN f WI=204.56 TIE OUT IRE)=19113 NO 00.YR FLOOD PLAIN EXISTS ON SITE THE SUBJECT PROPER . 5 CATCH RASIII ENTRANCE.TH STEPS OF TELT 2 045 FEET SW OF LL CORNER 74 IF OCT iNE1=199.6fi LIES WITHIN AN AREA DESIGNATED TO BE OUTSIDE THE 0.716CO . DJM OF PROPERTY,OPPOSITE SIDE OF HIGHWAY. GRATE"23425 ANNUAL CHANCE(500-YEAR FLOOD PUUN FEB FLOOD INSURANCE 411.1 I [IP UJ1V1 ELEVATION 289 597 ( CATCH BASIN 4E OUT SSI•`205-80 RATE MAP ND.4102T60517C,DATED FEBRUARY,I3.2005. GRATE=206.74 Q CATCH BASIN �F�� Za IE OUT IS)'405.1I GWS E•2i]6.64 f�7/ �'` �] .F BASIS OF BEARINf�NS U3 CATCH BASIN 17-E OUT NNEI.203.43 SCALE 1,217 dp 07/16/2015 BASIS OF BEARING IS PER FOUND AND HELD MONUMENTS GRATE-206.55 ALONG THE CENTER.NE OF SW SCHOOL STREET.'AWN AS 17IE CLT 151=204.75 x f0 0 20 N 45.0"40"W PER SURAE"N029124.WASHINGTON CCIUNIY I SURVEY RECORDS. CIA© 1111 IGS,,Nc:COPYN{,N�:a,A Ini,.n.rrwls•wale P•nrawm Pa64.0•ln N. n.nNnh.. ia....im exievw mhnY AM., rot-via,.semeNcg•IL 1 LEGEND 0 �' - BOUNEXISTING IST UCUNE X k -- - - PR,' USED R �OIHG URB LINE PROPOSED CONCRE I E(;URE. ILLe� N.IQ - " PROPOSED STRIPING C� ) � 1/I - t%151NG CONCRETE SURAACk r , Swig le Rim CHARLES F TLGARD CHARLES F. TIGARD O ELEMENTARY SCHOOL ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PROPCSE'LP,AM1CONCRETE'A'ALK Z (RESIDENTIAL ZONING-R12) /RESIDENTIAL ZONING-R12) - PROPOSED REINFORCED DRIVEWAY CONCRETE :-.00$IJE4'i A.w - .:i!�tr[L ii.E::'.iK I+--'' I 1'� SURFACE I - PROPOSED LIG/Er ASPHALT SURFACE "- _TL— .. -_ - -- - --fi•'_--_ s ry . fII .. .. - PROPOSED HEAV Y ASPHALT SUR ACE I I/ 1 _ __ - I - PROPOSED LANDSCAPE SURFACE `'} L � — ' - PROPOSED DIRECTIONAL PAJEEN-MARKNGS I vega PROPOSED SIGN , architecture Ilc l - I } 1 I H U _I1 ` '� \ •rI 1 .:l \ -", IPROPOSED AEA PARKNG STAII u I ••411. \ I . I i C'. ' 1 .. _ PROPOSED PARKING STALL COUNT PET R01,4IIIIIIIIIIIII� yy ff '1 12 _I I_1-jA ii 1 1 1 \ - . 1 ORDfMG,ZOti! ._ �a f'—� I q.II 71 PROPOSED TRNNSFCRA ER - - / -j '�T - PROPOS"D BOLL AND PRUWSE77 Rr„n--CE.war r.-. _ ___ r i .y - aL Q TO BE DEDICAIT2 III ` "-� 1 ,C - 1! r. \. I I 1 14 SE —Ea aP . ' �` 1 I MI - PROPOSED 750 GAL GREASE INTERCEPTOR F.- DELIVER,COORS "" 4■ 4 _ D - PROPOS=D FIRE LINE DOUBL F CHECK ASSFE44I& I, PARCEL 1 p. �50 071� '�, _ '�\ -� W I I 11' ,-- 1k1ESXCRIGHT-0F-Y;A1' � ( 1 E 1i \\ (I I E - PROPOSED SIR[GEPMI�L[NI CAHNECTION 1. 1C SF OEC-ICA-ED {r i- -vi ff -- PRLIPOSZI MCf1IJAlEY7 Sf::N I N I 5.3� —no— -PROPOSED MAJOR CONTOI.SlCe 1 ID' -PROPOSED MINOR CONTOUR - I '&5' I ! nl...r: - - - - - zuPwTncIEr-} 11. PROPOSED SPECIALTY RETAIL L.D ,,; �_ -n4 ----{- I. .PROPDSED$nwVrLINE OREILLY"SAUTO PART STORE I I 1.5085 SF '. I - IIil_ , iii (GENERAL COMMERCIAL ZONING)' I 1. 1 FEE:210.50 i - RUE—, I 1 01 f •ExISI NL.PEOEsrRIAN SIGNAL. ++ fes,. sf _� 17 I SDP SOLNA.. FIR AP ✓' o - PROPOSPO SANRARY SE'A'F.R C. (LIT I 1 } . ., r - PROPOSED SITE LIGHTING J 7, I I 1, ER,,NSEDRKA1 ,,'_ - Rid - I la COMMERCIAL USE 1 EDU :ACA S. .n. I CO k' 1 / �1L jI C"(GENERAL COMMERCIAL I , - PROPOSED BICYCLE PARKING CO 0 �.-. i �} i i I:- I ZONING) ICE EJ I I I ENURE R CFi7.71-WAY- ` L_ ! .. IRS 11„KT-0I Ac, TJ8€vAGTEO .1 } :- e _ I. .. r �' OEDI Tph I, ;7 7 "---1— Tr -- - .. —.I... .:14�'lL: 3N PROEM-ED `- L`M1ERErb` - __ LEE"Is P}7:*.RRAGN'{rJT I , _.�.�aaa. L. , 1 _ \ �. W .rW..-.rz.T _ w. a { 5 . �� �� ZONING DATA: � } 1 _ S F%IS?ING ZONING R12 v, I-E%L�IQ.(INVEL.I:'S',,,DP I yf /••.• ! L "- - ._. .. A' PROPOSED ZONNG-CG GENERA.COMM€RCIAL LL ,IUPoAK•U4Jt•cL•I'S',,,DA,PRC!PcRTI.RE" L I- - I t - _ I ..- ,._Aimiikur '-' - - - Om F— � - = — �' ! _ ^_� 1 _ — — - I E1LL_— L PARKING DATA: Q 4) 0 d ■ MING �"P'°""'PEDE_rraAxCr) - -1- So4d.CABP�T CONECIlON .�,1� \\ PROPOSED AMESS ADA ACCESSIBLE STAJ.S. 3 r+�"' - 1 1 1 PI, - / Y -XIS ?L PR'JP ED S#wALK PoCa121�N 18CM-JUT � —2A"—:-.4 1� RS.V _I _ — STANDI STALLS' FT PROPOSED TION SGN -- _ 2'a 1, EASING.RONAL_POO-] - -_ `f1 x.17' - TOTAL PARKING: 3.PARKING STA I AIITN PUSH-BUTTON PARKING RnTID, 3.5&'1000 ' IPa PEXSTWlW CROSSING _ NOTE ,'T r� — •,,,, IAfc%. ..-45EDCONCRETEMEaAK'- 7L'PgO.D9E➢RA9EC CON;LETE NE7M -"�— -_uD �' , -1 - - _ _ _ =- _ ' I-2 PROPOSES t.15TANDARO PARKING STALLS ARE 4%1&S'AFID ` 4 } RAISEGR9•✓WN-_ —_ 40 5X15.5 1Y8TR 3 OVEAFtANG1 1 ,55 2.,ACA ACDESSIRI E PARKING STALLS ARE ITA'ES �1^ — - _ -__ — SW PACIFIC HIGHWAY , 3.i EacvaE'PA2KFNG REQUIRED IT2T OO65FI s 4 SPACES '2.0 _ - _- - BICYCLE PARKING PROYiDEE,S S'ACES - 1DPRCPOS31PASaC-CALRE If_NAA J T I 4.ICART CORRAL STALLS IB'%+8,5'I.I SPACE - 1 - '2D' E1®S-Nti CV*TO REW4N I•'� -- - - - fil -----I - 1---k------_- —,--,911 _ r s r- /� SITE DATA: `` � �L�r-' i / -- I PARCEL 1=SPEEDESA RETAIL STORE 'O7 AQIES RK�/T-CF-WAY DFdIGAT1dN Oat ADR ss f COMMERCIAL USE { k COMMERCIAL USE TOTAL SNE 1.35 ACRES J�' (GENERAL COMMERCIAL ZONING) 11 (GENERAL COMMERCIAL ZONING) LANDSCAPE AREA t 0 12 ACRE PARCEL 1 1. T 1 7a 1 III rn sh II BUILDING DATA: PROPOSED SPECIALTY GROCERY '5,01101 Li M = TDr SITE 1 1 PLAN 44 I i\ I CP DIM i r dr, 07/16/2015 SC.41£ -.V' CMM LOP.,=...PM 70..77.w144f ORlI.... LEGEND: �irvre>4M+n�gM'R+ �.�.��I --„--- BOUNDARY LINE EXISTING CUR!LINE 141 PROPOSED BULDING - - PROPOSED CONCRETE CUR] CI PR04'OSEC STRIPING r, - ExISTING CONCRETE 4IWFACE V4 CHARLES F. TIGARO CHARLES F. TIGARO Swim 11.1.4m `r ELEMENTARY - PROPOSED ca:BETE SIMCACE mMu� mELEMENTARY (PARKS AND RECREATION) ---. •-i (PARKS AND RECREATION) - PROPOSED LANCSCAPE SURFACE J, 1 '--r^ 7--r-=7 tccm.'P+s1=6-r�-t----T '7p---,--=T---T=-'"-"-'L max-" ----, PFtOPOS_D DIRCCTK EL P7KELLENT MARKINGS PROPOSED SIGN T 'L'1.L`U LI -------A 444,,,,s7 LIe 21cso 071003 .-... IR20b114._T t I razt,L,. {lN / •/i -//., ivega PROPOSED ADA pARMNGSTALL architecture liC L ` LL lt.,.t I I ! `'y - P}2OPOMED TRA'FISFORMER T SE _.�T021C2G TC 20011/, C+�,UA �M�' 1 m �C 74• BC--;2924 'ly"+'I1 � BC 2102. 20T 34 /,^ I. - PROPOSE°MONUMENT SIGN I 1 ••• —014. ••s /i,',:-•,.` �/ 41207 02 1 C 1 _ p 1'1; I I I L ...,- ..•�*, - , Irl - PROPOSED'SO GAL GRE ASF INTERCFuTOR 1 -6 y _ ^M r I a 1 b �� fT T I PROPOSED FIRE I MRF MALE CNE ASSE fes ' I i 11� III bC o�9t • ____ _—_--_ - 0®B! —_ ��I PROP08ED FIRE DE 4RTTAENT CONNECTION T T e . eC2091 R76Bfi3! .. r �' ` �k . -PROPOSED roP AND Bur D+euR!sPD2 Orta _ i 1 021)0 06 PARCEL i 1 ,5. 1t:�-LTTpp, •I S2013 Pe • .I •/BC2dEA6 5209 FS -PROPOSEc spot GRAI2E 6 ._.- 1 •. I. l SW In .PROPOSED RIM GRADE .�-. 1' - I IT TG21B39' \ 4 LIMI {f� BC 2dI.B8 1 TC/De_P I 13°: f I.l 0_ 9 BC 1:•c alxnwnM.D s'.DPF ARUD'n h ® -PROPOSED CATCH BASIN I I TCx BM 1 Tc 204 I.- G •PNOPOSLD SI?RM CLLANOUI I a2094P ' 9{DJS PROPOSED SPECL4LTY RETAIL I I �i' •PROPcsED STo.aA MANHOLE LII l; li� --� is EXISTING MAJOR CONTOUR OWEILL YS AUTO PART STORE r, I' 15.OB5 SF , A - (GENERAL COMMERCIAL ZONING) IM q I 11, FF£:240-90 _ .' P - - - -!�. Tca9s1 _- }i -"� -�Rc�Gs n Mr.IDR X*TING MINOR aNrouR O , — _ Tc�2o9.Bi ®..23c1 ' —_— BC.2119 57 -PROPOSED MINOR CONTOUR 0-, I 1 ICs ,_4, —' I`D I Tc26R-R COMMERCIAL USE -PROPOMEDMAWCO UNE Y I 5"MI•28 -aROPOSEO RIJGELINE 0 I r 4c:00.1i rc 7,o.sa �R2uB eM I12 .te I / (COMMERCIAL ZONING) ` til.f].' •P.0 210.03 29 1 11°(1 -'i -°ROPOSEC SEDIMENT FENCE M Fli '.1, -� I TC.�$Q, _PRa'OMED 1M ET PROTE{T30N = N yP . 14290.'.5 _ 'r 1 0 -LDOMIM4G PLOESI MAN SIGNAL M• iH 0 CA '� 8C 11620 - . " I 1 6 • 5209 J5� .R1pA.EJ ! V -J i I _ • S204,..- /" - .i-i-t_"442. 'k} \ i\ L—_ -'S1041BC18. J- •R:f71. '� 1III p �.F (y CD rt -•r" TC 709.04 Tc 20.34 TC'47 14 TC,2 .99 CO _ - -- '-- — T Z, �'�'�' PC 2U'_^i 10207.14 t SC.20049 Q ,,..rr-r•�` — ------- - -\\ - TC ie_ t2C 7flS4T 1 rrsr �- 1 -I Ivl4G'f S20AAi BC 268.3E -- II TC 1f^h 73 -- 7C 1 T� 2 � _ - BC 206 __ BC2GM.T4 -- Bc.70C 7J __ -.• _ -- y� —10 l - - SW PACIFIC HIGHWAY - r--�`... 7! 1- COMMERCIAL USE .--•'''' f, I 1 COMMERCIAL USE� III(COMMERCIAL ZONING) V (COMMERCIAL ZONING) / I Z I 4 rn 01 I GRADING/EROSION 1 rn �� _ CONTROL PLAN I L:F' LJ,1dA = 1I, 67/16:'2015 :4:i 11111 1 20 10 :r. C3.4 LEGEND ...... '..,..r.:..Nae.+ FKLSTEiG AfM tE1M#Y_!WE ,.., ,„ C• --__ UNITA*EASEMENT UNE r) r CHARLES F HOARD (PARKS FRSTNG CURB INE Oi ELEMENTARY - r(TUPCSkD 11.11-01840 FADE T /PARMS AND RECREA F1CNJ NeoeosE:tulle UNE PROPOSAL STRPING ----� - E W*T1M6 riNCEOTE S.TREACE PROPOSED C(7KJETE SERFAGE N 1 1 1 /Nos) ,. _ # - TREAoS[D DOMES:....404 ASSE Hip..NNI:VA..-' �1 / �' . — . S&(f__ - PROPOSED DOMESTIC WATER PETER 1 1 [:, I ..I I ., �106a F 111 - s - _� I { - AR_^KPSEI?,Y[iG4 CAW MERCFiIOR _ 1 Vega A_w_I - r T.T :�I I PROPOSED SANG AR+CLEF/40v" I 1 ` »��w • - {RiJP'JtEO TF;MYORANL hr ems, I r :^ /I 1 - PR'O)SED IHK'i TE FOE DEP.*MOW:ONMECT iY� - FRJIA,SF7.STDRYu•CT.EAw arcn•;ecture 7k qII 111 li II I .. _ .e 1 - PROPOSED STORM CLEAN OUT 1 I 1 r r _ ' I - _-_. _ -_ e.I - PROPi'' D9Tt7RM MANMI:ck /A ` _- 1. + • PROPOSED 517E-1UHT NC. I f "" '1 ��IEh17.S: '� IF3GT 9Pi - 7rt I raoPOSEo TT+..hsoalE[S 1 �� C: SOLS. 1 IF?D2 A,/`. II - FROIED BTCRYEtiI1 N li .3: 10-- PROPOSED SANr ARV RFWEP ANE 1 I I 7` L I - • I P14)PD9EL,SIC**MAIN LI: ,- _. i i Y PROPOSED El ECD1:W65ERV CE PARCEL l _i. I r•ROPON)EOFIFc-RIGSEIrAIEF / �k RROPOSFDTE-FACE SEANCE (l I 'V IRQOEJI I �'� L•ROPOSlD RELOI:J,"LL F-akP CY-K9l+vlGk i< I I 1 9T57N1 I _ _ I I LKIS'1X-ST URS(ORAE. i zISTIN.SAP'FTPP.SFWF", INF PROPOSED SPECIAL 77'RETAIL Ia - �•~ I .j JI.11 LAIS'MI.WA/ER LNNE I EIDa-IMG GAS ERIE OREILLrSAUTO 1117 , x I FFE210.90 �" _-- - - _ tib.i G - EXIS'INGLtl91Q#LIIL PART STORE 1 I 4 '�. 11�� �Ite I ENERAL COMMERCIAL I I LA I Efifl= M — 1 COMMERCIAL USE - - vRTENTSEO MDNAOYEW SN(ik ,TONING, I i 1 .�M =�= 1 !COMMERCIAL 1 - 'S MA —f I I ZONING,L �_� :� - - ! • r 1 Rl��-" I 1 r� 0 f -� ' =^ =--tea TabsL. ., /_ 1 •� C_. N fas ..!- a _ _ ir _ . - ,tiL / AMC AIME Mw p.Is I 514�G (n Mi (] aT•l-�lr`� /L Q4,EEA 1 !'\ 1 AM1► Q. �'— < / 1,1 F-->, +T•' V 4:f I Li N 1 �"_' �... �` _ _ ___w:-_ -_- .r--- _ -�-r-' _�avc... I 1 I C/I g T- �— r SW PACIFIC HIGHWAY -- 1� , tK ..r ,. 1 ', '� —TINVEaGF,L� F I AA 'F- —* _-------------- _ _�` COMMERCIAL USE -•���` --r tn� (COMMERCIAL ZONING) x+ ,D I A. �` - COMMERCIAL USE rn A A' .•Sw.N.DA1)sSPc ! • LEE !COMMERCIAL ZONING) r^,m ;us r, ---,low I 1 / PRIVATE ON-SITE STORM STRUCTURE DATA +� ci.-i:,si.S•V1N I DA 1 /LAL€!A r1 CLE AIR}U"DATA 3 SO-IR A 1 r STORM UTILITY CONSTRUCTION NOTES Ow DEA Oso aus• sxor __ - IRI,DEA NY:1C RW•SOL. .. CNNMTMI t0'1014 STORM DRAM SEER MI FOR i PIM)*ANC SLOPE. 11 REMOVE LX TNG CATCW BASIN AILD CONSTRUCT PROFUSED MAMSRE E Cu"ITR•?16.1 E IS WNW,III), 11,S..,1PT w 1 Pic OM -- - ---- f"�� OVER E105TNG la•STORM ORALS SEWER TC STORY DATA TAKE ON THE �.� F IiT10'7'.G�A�y � SLA 1 ./E 44 , ,O cc,.' L'/,i INSTALL G'HOPE STORM DRAW SEE PLAN FOR EENT,A/O SI OPE_ STET FOR RN A#0 MTOT FI.ELATION P FORNATKlN REL Vila - -- ,y•1 Rr-7i.L9 ,OI INSTA-L 0007 SEANCV,RD TVI;Qt CONCTE:TE E1LLT REFER TO STOIM ECM Rte'.-70153 SDWrf E OO•MAI _ CVIAti•HDPE STORY 0./..allS 0 FROM R •NO Q 0.DFAFOR Roof RAM DDATA TABLE ON EWIS SWEET FOR R1Y NO INVERT F L FVATKIN Nra sIIOA 'REI WWI, -- - -I- - -1 In CONNECTION SEE PLAN FOR LENpTH AND S.CPE O CORE FAMTIO WAA01 p Aro CONNECT PROPOSED 10!S DIVATO WOW E h RLE''ANA: • 1 G MORA 45-ST VFW EC.5C-.110 OE TEMKIN EDTANEL7RSN N. FJOETRGETON MI ORAN TAOI1 REFER tO STORM OA TA TMILE O16M 0ME 7'24 EN'i♦A.i16IV'AN 9MEE1 FC PI - F•r .CPE• ATTERNONE NE ROW¢OPLL BE AM 6CLA-OR ROAR N)ti D INSERT ELEVATION NF ORMAntlk k C41'L 49F•p'J.Y E,',l•L G•+E.R 1: 1 bl9O♦W fB CINETM L I-5 CARTRIDGE LOW DROP COVTECAI STWR1/II TER AAAAAIONE IN SWIM 904014c STA?.Y?*Jig,*M T2'YANIOLE IMI XL* MI A•IT C MSALL A%SITAR CRAIN YuaPLE REFER TO STORE r•MTA TART F:IN'NIS PUBLIC OFF-SITE STORM STRUCTURE DATA "cw tyl.alLa [w tLs. w I STORM sNEEf EOR RN WC hNER'FL FYATTDN IP1FpEAATKKN vA 7C',IA-SO%[A'A MANWA",7AT/ CORN E 111 ORE,AIM GT'1 1845-Ali10'STORY DORMSCLECLEANOUT REFER TO O'ORY DAIS- EON TTY AEU R 01••III,54 I L AINAGE PLAN ToIS SHEET FCR NW ANC NMERT ELEVATION INf:)R1MTION i 05 45.041-VA 1.0017E IN_A E CUT ETR,•AE& E A',+77E•:.N 16 O INSTALL AE STORY DRAM M/MrpLE 10TH rLC1 COMROI CAME REFS RN.1i., RMT i • -. REFER TO STORM!DATA TABLE ON TMS SHEET Eno RW AAO INVERT a'N •�'".. F h >`I•. FH TRDPI15=f1 !GCVO SDM#1 �- EL EWATgN PtF•OIiA,AT)CIN. EN 9,1•• MEA A7; IW Ma MR ATA DJM E 17L OFR•IN16E 517 EDJI ITTE,Ed16f EN♦'ST ?G•: I C; P15 ALL TRAPPED GAIL.BASE.REFER TO STORE CAT TALE ON"I40 ENT 53,61 Ir)I 5 1-10 f.1• !� SHEET FOR RIO AHO INVENT FIF'lATO%5(ORNATION. 2VM.• WINS EN(. XA V 0711&/2015 `'•J INSTALL 1CAR0-WOOF ST05ORLTER CATCH BASIN REFER-CSTORY DAT A RV WMV 1N P:'R IE=UT WI•10(7: V! 162l/IV1 TABLE ON 0145 SHEET r UR TWO NC INVERT E..EVATION*FORMAI ION F N-ss-:•-r Al R W RTI :♦E n STORM PROFILE(SD LINE A) E R .7:1 GAR.,STA 2.1 ISISO JE 4 .)UTiZ SCALE,�77 (04'1"V•..:•v 5*Y'wriir ROP:'cP' E04Dei,_:- ' NU TT I: Ehw•Cil.-lo,14 VERT SCALE,tit //�� ,E /� E OUT!MR'. 2o.r1 5_55 I.5•..1'7l C4. + 2 LEGEND 1n e:PSI M 4.frIMI O ____.• EXISTING BOUNDARY LINE 4.... .>.s P.az..m.IVR..rI CHARLES F. TIGARD - - Ex1SrINGFANEMENruNE P.� AWve...me 1F..�f y ELEMENTARY - EXISTING CURB LINE (PARKS AND RECREATION) - PROPOSED BUILDING FACE IR . PROPOSED CURB LME 'I __-—-—_—----—_--i - - . PROPOSED STRIPING - DUSTING CONCRETE SLRE ACE Cr)Caren/0 I 1 1 R - PROPOSED CONCRETE SURFACEV' f ' _� ❑ - PROPOSED DOM F CHECK ASKEW/11Y AND VAUI T •-" 1 1 --I I I� - PROPOSED DOMESTIC WAT ER METER I I �. P _I �� I I.^O CIS - PROPOSED e'00 GAL GREASE IN'ERCEPTOR __ _ _ lvega 1 1 I „ ,_ _ _ _ - - PHDPDSEC SANITARY CLEANOUT 1 Y - PROPCSEC FIRE HYDRANT �: I - PROPOSED REMOTE FRE DEPARTMENT CONNECTION I. I I • - PROPOSED STORM CA IC/1 BASIN architecture Iic I *f{`— --�•.� \ .\ T - _`� `) -- / I I - - PROPOSED STORM Ct.EAR CUT I ”' F e` _,;\;->f,,-,•_,,,\. '•` -,\ I - I I�V i 11-y� 3� ,� PROPDSEC STORM MANHOLE i13 I ►�J - PROPOSED SITE LIGI TMG I _ f j �/ 4 fir I -I ry,II • PROPOSEDTRANSFOaMCR T'�� 17I .�.- ti !I IA� I �• PROPOSED STORM LINES -�� - 'R..R -- PFROPOSED 5* ARV FMJER I fNE 6 + I J �, I - EXISTING STORE GRAIN I NEimml I PARCEL f - _/ I I ., , PROPOSED STORM DRAIN LINE M I,,A I - I --- / -I.i I -I PROPOSED NATJRAL GAS SERVICE \, I °V I . PROPOSED ELECTRIC SERVICE F L=I Y- I _ • PROPOSED TELEPHONE SERVICE 41( PROPOSED SPECIALTY RETAIL PROPOSED RELOCATES FIRER ON IC St INCE O''REILL Y'S AUTO I yI - I - EXISTING STORM DRAIN l A\ 150855€ - EXISTINGSANDARY SEWER LINE PART STORE 1 I ; II �� FEE'210.90 " .y I - -. - - EXIsTING WATER UNE111 (GENERAL COMMERCIAL I O'� �'i/ _I- 1 C I I I ZONING) I 4' I , ! 1. I_- -1 T�-1 I COMMERCIAL - EwsTINCGAsuNE NI � LISE - ExISTING POWER LINECe I b � I� - [�I _- - �, I . ,COMMERCIAL m t'lir � _,�- IE SA2U _ ,_ ` 1 L L _1--I I I I I I - ZONING! -I IE 205.40 • . "1(1111 ::.i - 1-C-)77r2,7,,,,c29E �� IE�w4a � -! '��` Ij� SANI7A,RY SENIER STRUCTURE DATA0 /'\ SXs oRLR / CLEAV OUT DATA MAPJRKILE OA TA s - v FETW.STA TOU ISSUE AI IEY Y ! '�� 1 ..5 \ NFf A:b� ¢tlV YJ8.J81• ENE-4106 WATERMAN 3 T .. E.b40'J'N-NM x50/d7 Ebl','SWi' 4'U • I ---- ' ---.*..---"'"".".'-'-'---7.5. - ^„^� � v: a IN ym•110261E-MST.: CO s - `I - --- EDLnrPrt IT b'TR.Yi=IRE EYSRANT-` .� > � �__ - . .:. - .p ' ----;=-T/ — /.�.. _.._ ' N- �� 03.7.. - - _ ENMHtt2 LL �$� �_� ©63LF T / QJ GAN.® T O saF�''�, '. - SS F 2' a 2.COT. 3 -SS IFCA W L_EXISTING IT KATERYN, / - - __— 710 RE _ — CO4/! �{ __ - - PRIVATE•Y76ECTFROPTRRTY FVOL/C-SWPIIDNCHW' ~ (v < ti, IX -it — _ SW PACIFIC Hk,;HWAY -s ---�'--=-'--J_-_� - FILMED GRADE 1Cr)`� r I— _ -t - _.-7 .__ 1 Y ' - _ _ li EXISTING GRADE --` raj" tn COMMERCIAL USE 1 - j -- __---— .I L1 �'-- '. (COMMERCIAL ZONING) S -- - --- -- - - ,', 111111441 COMMERCIAL USE Z ---- (COMMERCIAL ZONING) f 1 111114111111111111111 SI I y y SSCDPI Y Y STA 7.3E62155 THE AI I FRANCHISE UTILITY CONSTRUCTION NOTES /A 1 "A6ee — /c+` CONTRACTOR TO COORDINATE WITH GAS COMPANY TO PROVIDE AND INSTALL II WATER UTILITY CONSTRUCTION NOTES GAS PIPE AND METER //'�\ CONTRACTOR TO COORDINATE INSTALLATION OF RI.4'CONSOLES FOR //--SS UE A COAPPROVED CONTRACTOR TO INSTALL 6-X6-WET TAP UNDER DIRECTOR OF / V TELEPHONE CONNECTION WTI TELECOM PROAWER y,.; 1 �J ,TOO TGARD WATER DISTRICT REPRESENTATIVE. I -IC STORM CROSSING 2. //�\ TRANSF O ME TO COORDINATE VATH PGE FOR INSTALLATION 9F GABLE ANO Elm 115 C 7? INSTALL 486 LF OF 6'FIRE WATER UNE. SCALE / TRANSFORMER. <T 5 INSTALL ID EIRE LINE DOUBLE CHECK VALVE ASSLMRLY IN 67K-WA UTILITY1 CONTRACTOR TO COORDINATE ELECTRICAL CONNECTION W[TH POE. V 7d is G 2Y! VAULT WITHI INTEGRATED REMOTE FOC_ < INSTAL_REMOTE FOC. SANITARY UTILITY CONSTRUCTION NOTES LR7At2 i,ra �^� STA+-W,R IBS Jiff A S g C 5' STUB 6'FIRE WATER SERVICE 5 FROM BUILDING FACE- Q CONTRACTOR TO REMOVE EXISTING 6-SANITARY SEWER STUB TO INSTALL I \\\ _ UTILITIES V PROPOSED 4•SANITARY SEWER LINE AT PROPOSED IE.REFER TO SANITARY PLAN O TAP EXISTING B'WATER LINE WITH 1-1.-7 C0/0'STOP. INSTALLSEWER STRUCTURE DATA IEVESDIN SHEET -a 2 A'PVC SANATORY SEWER_PE REFER TO PI AN FOR 1 0IG1E AND E 7 INSTALL 46 LF OF TIES DOMESTIC WATER LINE 4"l INSTALL 4-SAN TART SEWER CLEANOI.i.REFER TO SOOT ANY SEWER 2,6562 2-43(1 2-NI 1+55 1.10UJ . STRUCTURE DATA ON THIS SHEET FOR RIM AND INVERT ELEVATION I PTVT -<C� INFORMATION. I > INSTALL 1-1 fC WATER METER IN METER VAULT () SF55 4'SANITARY SEWER LATERAL 5E'FROM THE FACE OF RUR DING. 7.} /�j .I (f�J REFER TO PLAN FOR PROPOSES INVERT ELEVATION. DIP 0716/2015 V INSTALL 1.1iT DOMESTIC DOUBLE CHECK ASSEMBLY N VAULT. 0 NSiALL T50 GAL GREASE INTERCEPTOR WITH;2;4'SANITARY SEWER LINES- SANITARY PROFILE ISS LINE A) V REFER TO PLAN FOR INVERT AND RIM ELEVATION INFORMATION HORIZ SCALE 522 VERT.SCALE:152 ''J/j = C4. 1 IC" I V/W' T.W r rr>.w+4>t R yr Rr _ '9111. e -....+�Rw T�>sN a/11.01.•••• ur I 1 rk:x. _. - / I 11 _ .~.rwr.rrr.w�a• + I r� .�>a wf4ti, PROPOSED.SPECIAL lYRETAIL / - COMMERCIAL USE LEGEND. 1 I I -1 y (GENERAL COMMERCIAL -_ - eoLwoRll.-Lsll ell I I I ' 1 - ElIl4TNG MAO l Af I LsRF�lip�1.7-NA1 r ZONING,. G4'.jP(`i os,M-AAT' .f..., �+ I _ i - - one0POSEL CONCRETE COO T 1 �-- `. __ / —L .r. ----- • oao1r .s•+ertle .0 fO wW7YAe['6=1 ES- Y T-. -�--� �J--��•.-tl-c-��� I 1 - tlmime.CONCRETE SURFACE �� �Yi t.ar L.�- CORT-JJL arta aKiN'MWGXTCVt 1 - ��,�^`:1`--�-- r _ C ' �- t I �n�^_R'lA7P}: - MDO09LC'aJJY[OWCArrt WAIN ,. -tAG1146-61M11 LA$'0' I ' I • ♦ -� -ice== " '--' y' s - t A.33 - 1 IAVAI4YYATk1Y'15 Min sy+SX1V}aE.1 X• i 5 i- _ ..,.� .i 14_1 _ '�'-- - I - Pini SOK F4` 14rORLEL Mt Wrote LOMOR[•1 ;a 3A ey x -_ .- - - -- - t-:#- - ` r -'-` - x'�' - •�i f 4 ,'- enmr. I_ - P6 CPC SFC I ANDSCAPr Sunlit.= ���� "�� CIEs - _ 4.- - i% ^\\ F�'I✓SKill::x11 --G 1.01:0Cn r .i I- „ppm,.,-Fu '2L AC:k iS 14*IO76 _ - R 1 � , I MRC' / •' A0. ` SAw:1 RE III:g1�.dI'itiUf 1`9'Y'CSL:54NC'J1 LI.E /ti, _ _ FIS+ Iwoos: �I.I itc- / SWPACIFlCH1GHWAY• Ti ., -r1gat 1 il�"Iril SfiMl/il-E- I FASTING of-OF 5T914YT1A. -- •.: t- - Vir.I MrsrutOl IN W ,. ,. �V ga _ taint • .4.01.6064.MIL. F .-i 1- 1 R7R 1 r R1vc9t MAtY[CKWtT_K01.0. 1j,„_____-ICA- --' w —_ _ - - - _� J�,g.,76•,..;.114bai[.1�C11ttc Ytu+N 1 � dfC'11CeLtu-e IR. - kraPM0..."a _ - --y14 j- _ ia-=--��_ _ _--- -� _p• =HO _ _. NF15ti7wE17FY Y® — i Lll' ,, `ir i- �'- ! - LTT -- ' _tl ID / \ -Eiisn. — -----, • --, .—.----___. ......"'"f 1- - --1--- 14.MON - 1 'F 27 :5 -1 61 xi >&'S N' L +-I In I LYl!.l li 4 0'. 1 -4 COMMERCIAL USE A?yig+1 COMMERCIAL USE (GENERAL COMMERCIAL ZONING) +5'11 !GENERAL COMMERCIAL ZONrNGI W 1- 1 I1roe u a 1 1 IMIIII SCALF/"-,1170 Ill IIMMI >s tr RI a x < CFS = N U N w 1+ L109t11G FApFC MAW.GMT_.T1 (1■0111 CV L3 Cr) a >. _ eL 0 CO CI T1� .N.....,,.. / \\ ,/ 11- H A- �hiD X1 1.-10 Mp 1.Y.. 1-rX f.4' a.11• +.'. •.. 5.74 11 EXISTING SW PACIFIC HIGHWAY PROFILE SCALE Y.M..C.RLCOWTAl I.4 VERTICAL i 1 ROW c. ROW 1,44/T04.1A1 I -- KF'TG:YM .14_F ROK ��I 441.r ROW I E.IQSTU$G FOCI OF-1 (-614006413 I 1'1R TNG ROAD I PA'h YE41 1 ASNM,T Wt.ACIL / SLOW6C-E I Ifl4KCGR i 5 I 107 ARE I / f 1 1 1 I • y r.1'•rr: PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS .Ic,.. -1¢ PLAN oR090SEn •1510,7 117 .. _ 1151Ci1.0 - 11n101I17 SiDe.KAA 71141.11 i4\r 111A iT.1A4i MR TagV.LME moat.AFI' TN LEL LANE ds ,r I IExISTING DP DJM MOON- OROPOSEO 1.7 iC 3, S.WF FVyATEN STRIF NR7P05F11- I•V1'1ti:WJS1eU 40'0d LAIR ^ dp 0410612015 CURS WZYLLLLAN- TYPICAL SECTION:SW PACIFIC HIGHWAY t &ME RTS �),/'+J�� . V 1/ PROPOSED SPECIALTY RETAIL I 1 al -. p"'i""^ ' COMMERCIAL USE LEGEND ti L (GENERAL COMMERCIAL E10S1M{:l.A Oki 1 - 1_! 1 ZONING) . PROPOSED• PROPOSED•JL 'd.. r a E wie 1 _ ,._ r. - - + - •,OA ACJ 1, , .I , • PROPOSED!TWINE, �rdao 4 CIRS'PVG CONCIS IE SURE ACE �� SCHOOL STREET i SCHOOL SIRE£ 1111 ) ..- r.t ` i----.-... ....�..� ,�A, l • PROPOSED P.AIti CC'N!-AETS Mr.o.K 1M 1 4' 1 anoPC5EIDNEmrostcCL DRKKAr cawaa it ______ __—,--.----;.. ----. .-- ,-----44. PROFOSEC I CCM SURFACE 1. .1+-J.R':ue11.FU E.,-,.,- , PROFC6FDL :CSEAPf SURFACE l� 1 _ _ _ - - PROPOSED E.AMC111 L NE4 ifr\ 1 , 1 O'REILLVSAUTO PART STORE i \• ` 1 d��'tl«CL4ft: TIL (GENERAL COMMERCIAL ZONING) 1y . I , ,.....D1RI.IP A:-SDF r J UPM%1s 4,00,/ Kfr OF MCtab 111. INU Ce fHE. ,•�T l C9MIECT IO E,76F,E S/rRFFEgSTYf.,q.Al11.rNMIf e'.Q r 4hEO'OaE7*OCDNwr ROMEsi 0 fA:7P ..7...; M 11. Q = N >r SCHOOL STREET SA 1::IVY U N ,RRRRRRRRRR- -- f• . ancf L7) . 0 I U EULLI „ a_ O U) ❑ O.i 1 N 4 WE a 01 c? - ,..SL` .E..C.E SCHOOL STREET PROFILE Y_4 11'=Yr'M11RZON 1 N -- --- 1' UE4'I::AL i ROW ROW I DEDICATION c_ DEDICATION 1— - -1A. AO%- — - -- 1 PROPOSED V 1,1-.4 -*L1 SLINE. I MFI�[K 1., • I SCHOOL STREET IIMPROVEMENTS PLAN _ANC$GAPE _-_�_ - ex S0 - PRO,..i e.E �.R DP DJM 94EA4K FMN PROPOSED L MC-INCISE n G S. AS1 SAfj ASEENA:T SURFACE Pg.,Prsir r 7/16/2015 a TYPICAL SECTION:SCHOOL STREET - C5. 1 ell 0. 6 4 - Y` 'NORTH TICARDVI LLE ADDITION" _ " m v R iE,� - �a E'IaSTINGR oM. )7 43 1S l O2C8 1 °` $ C L-.A - f a LGT 42 ouTSTDE PROJECT APE. TAX LOT 0100 1 `'. SURVEY LEGEND 2 w 25;44 ' I:..<� TOSEPREI€_,ED TRANSFERRED 1N A a �1 N ■ F�asrwc..r« 5. p € / ar e7SrNGSOWN Jw%FENCE TCREMMAND COURT CASE CF9754 II t Q E2 r. S.C? Gm ME 6S d _ ` / �k, PROVIDE PROIECTON FOR OFF-SITE TREE \ \ 7�, ap \\\ 1 A �. N 45'CO'3©" !_ 312.97` R PXRSIMi3 FINER 61 EI6sRRG s.wRMl.Nwa.E . _ -_ _ -_ _- --_ - - - • eXRerwa6uv AwcaDR EXasr•G s1NRARh SEWER LME n 7,¢6 "a I - - , 0 MS TING OW POLE E•91Ma FENCE A5R0r!o S ,„:_, 1'OS « - EXSSTIIIC wEa.fA6 POVFER s1)o IF CNAN Llx PQFC2 J i ..,'2 a- ,'�� _ .. 4 C�4P I ,/ __ 01 Tn � 0°vicar Pvsr..In r.R+ne, fs-s• _ „U F !. f '� cxlsTa6 a6Hcrcrc r '1'' I s J' • E�Tr,1s ISA•w+f-LR - ens„ws.orOO, A 1 EXISTING V 2ANA N FENCE TC REINA MO INR E nnLn ONTO ® Ln5FNG 4rDM6 x I ` I 1 PROVCE PROTECTION FOR OFF_SETE TREES a oo.o uIOERGROu.G w.reo e EIPSIW G OEGIDLOJS TROT w TR;AuR R II DAIE7ER IIMC'ESICICLLSTERI • / it eT,,orurr.vux < ` •L 11IP kxL♦P3UMIkRwIOU 0 en51NJ•RHOuOL•VORO.SIRLEI ITER Iraj .TTM{To] IIR I o Roca kl+le •-, 1000'ROAM,SWR[' k I I I - 10.00'WATER PPE LINE 4 1 OI' 1 M CB COSRMOCATC9B.eS Q Elu0lx000100 FISOOT 1, UT:L r1)E.5•_Y"Nl , I.ASEMEN' I yam. v- E ]SATING S"RRI SEWER SPE • MAO MONUMEN16F 11ECORCIM AR'E•NQ 7541. N . 1)13[0-PARILMG 1 -lTI / W ERE 0 05 0M MN.N01E F0 TWP IR LOT EASING ASH TREES C m •.I OIJTSEEPROJECT MEL 19B {] RTLE REPORT ETGEP131NIOEA1 aS a3IORSCIe_w AU>_ I / TD ff PROTECTS I .,M1C h In <> PNU10...J•CwT OEN IR RM ROO a A :. TGBH Dal 2' I-� RPE REc,...s-1C CRP .'r. 6'1 I Of 2 Mao b -�J ▪ I x .w w INE SOW,WAS PEW-CAVED FOR GVlarq.pF a c.1)VIESMR,E COLS,ILO PEW u.OR SIMI 'I 1 t ail)10X7 e O 18 "IPC PROPER`V IS LOCATED N TRO[RMP SS,NCR FAA 10,06 • R Ej cony I 'C SCHOOLHOUSE TRACT c" r- 10)Im11w«1•Is I orwlEO IR T.+-RaJT«Wrs o.r-0rwTER Or BECTIINT.101++316'7 ROUII R.N6r,3rsr or TIC L3▪ �, -e y f i• o 'NORTH T I G A R D V I LLE A D D I T 1 O N” 1� . N 0 b WsiwuErrE MEvpuecm Of Ramo wuNwolgF CGur'rv.p1EGp+ 4 Z I T a P EA:SITq CEDAR CLUSTER I t '-3 12 n C,.t C - I OBE REMOVED I x W x n f - L T T.R y+ 1P.u•,24IS 4)311 N C'-R I a aFF MwasA '; )Y_`-a6 TREE REMOVAL! PRESERVATION LEGEND: R•4 PRO tO'-,N'WJIC EASEMOR) 109 5,� 1x if✓-'Wt///, 'I A ` I EALPTNTO BE MO k....' / /](� TREE TO OE REMOVED O' C I 1C']BH x l g l d 1P7 I % F [. I+f DIEING UM311,ON7l C1OSTH{ I ✓ Z {r '� I I 10 BE REMO3E0 % I J TREE CANOPY AREA I I NT E..4; I ✓ °'N.'',* L 1 �a i 1 i aA41 r ' 96, a r .1 J 1, a 11 _J r 4+, � F� 1)s 'C"FF / r i.�Ti .srd.4 'P ° 0 'e r. ` ' �'�, �s ErNCFLwTF�° �QfQL "�' JC ��U[J •' GENERAL NOTES: TDBF BBYQPFA m StxW �1 Q .. I 13.„,:::. ,� moss r- BY PJBLC ✓ > Y • T . - #, ✓i✓`l 1 EXISTING 6 CHAIN LINK FENCE TO REMAIN AND PROVIDE TREE PROTECTION L V -, `:.-.Tia ; FOR TREES ON ADJACENT PROPERTY Et UJ l• 1 4 I - �..: P-` 2. TREE REPLACEMENT FOR TREES REMD'JEb WILL COLLOID THE STANDARDS P I 4...-= a all' ANN 4 °�F1RF•TJ SET FORTH IN THE CITY OF TIGARD ARRAN FORESTRY MANUAL (�} ▪ gSwa➢eP UJ 0 '.fr.,,,,,d - 48311)101 so'''' .. - -__- - _.__3 �eww��.- ■ 't.,2' '�'}.. 3 ALL TREES TO BE REMOVED ARE LOCATED IN AREAS OF PROPOSED N _J Q �� _ _,.,., - "Eta.,,, r�4 8"DA.SS DEVELOPMENT.SEE SHEET L 12 TREE CANOPY PLAN FOR EXAMPLE OF LL J .—aa--. 1}i 10 �DK.,Cr& _ PROMISED DEVELOPMENT. NV \ —- K , SPIRAL ( .err Z w J 0--i. ->atA.-.� 9311 L 'ay.44„6,�cr'q� L=9&.B<` e; qr' � 0-.L _ V y !� ,2g'-2,�"q�q_, {'- e,T4 J'Id,-y, CHOUO=95.75' •P.�,. t 6 r, J 4 \ -npC �� CeaS p-S�` . 4 q, '@rf e-I--9 a-S 44'13'50" W �c} ,r,'t 40,7 < U �r ,,,,,,A,§ oke ,,,,s. . 4a, _ — —I.:4,, N't QO i. �4 'e. ¢2 a�=xz `' '''.2.../.3 „TSG Q .� g«� . 1 t;'• Ya '' \ S.W. PACIFIC HIG-WAY 0-g I,fan KEW.low+r,�meTl..FrwlrodrreP a3a-3r,.,AMErw 0 �j 4. ne F.N3N.er.5•moR TD.part 1 a B1)ON a r s3m AwT=ocsPY Nm 1 f 2 11.1 U-1 CEO '° 0-'a' 32, \\\\a W a w ♦ `� — — new Q Q I tom'+- y _��--_--_--------_-----_- %Pow Holes LL W o mfr _ -- ISA Cern TNI Arbrn1 PN5145A =r- _� Dale �� � jam_ r F' "Sb _,_----y• 1-- ,x �- I , .,�e'aary1', Olt `p� 1 `4, �1 EXISTING TREE SUMMARY: •r. ®, $, • j TREE I OCATw]N SPECIES DOS [-MAD CANOPY COMOITX'J'l TREATMENT 41 II ` 1 0T ONSITE PURPLE LEAF 0.1JM 27 1B 304 SF AVERAGE REMOVE 4-PE � +� 'I I 102 ONSITE DECIDIJOUSUNKNOWN 2%7• 6 113 SF DECLINING REMOVE -P a 103 ONSITE SWEET CHERRY IB' 12 4525E AVERAGE REMOVE '�C 4 J 101 DN-SIZE PORT ORFORO CEDAR TO",14',2%15' 10 304 SF AVERAGE REMOVE 50 SF EXCELLENT PROTECT MP=OS/31/i6 105 OFF-SITE ASH )" 4 1 l I 106 OFF-SITE0.SH 3' 4 Se SF EXCELLENT PROTECT I (1')Xi • 107 OFFSITE PSH 3' 4 SO SF EXCELLENT PROTECT -I ` 1 106 OFFER€ RED 040 e• 8 2015E EXCELLENT PROTECT PROJECT NO_ 0140115 fTT t t DOT-I•DIAMETER AT BREAST IrEIOFr I/) LATE. E711BlID15 I ra-I CRL5+CANOPY RADIUS GE0G'ASD BY SFS I - NONE OF THESE TREES ME CONSIDERED S010TAL'#TREES DRONED. EFS g �u BS VVV 1k CHECKED e- BAT 5 i 111155i ` �aqr I ''�§D 100„..„‘k ITC= TREE RSM©4/AL/ PRESERV. PLAN E1,- - - ! 0 10 20 40 80 J L1.0 r g l IT r.11II 1 FEESSING%GE TO EREMNN LL 9_iC -IkASH.NC_OA°E LANDSCAPE SETBACK g _• • " LANDSCAPE PLANTMATERIAL SCHEDULE ,. PROPERTY LINE •„•MA —midis � -': -17'•i ir'� ie.Tr-+iE.iT", .+Re+ nr.il tF . wr r.r.JrF'F tlr"aF•rtTaF'ii »-.r .FaFT7wFxMeOLE en En nli�lA �p ., r ..C„ ,. - . .. •G7e '•"1":40".-+" D IIEM SDI GIY GL7 . ,AlltMillir ilit. —— IAA nipj •• �. � O Q _ CDRNVS KDI/SA A e NUTT Attu TTAI4.4T 1.S CAL. 6 ❑. g. °'r 4 `� , ■� f Pi ■ ! IIIIPF• f) o sTN r =tirolgiel • „LEES 76.GdD'V; m®07 ITEM WE arx. 3<k A d4 �, I '1 - . • - rj` OCT ACENAARON GLORY MAPLE TOBER Gc`1RY 1. e �� Iti 4- DINKGD BILOBA 1,5'CAL 8 I I •. x GINKGp 1.51;B 01 H I _- u Jim �� FRARRALS PENNSYL NANICA 1.S'CAL 3 W I s I �j GREEN ASH 658IIIMMII CO . ..—...T.' CA) Q I ul ++. _ _.�ce F 1` p ?I , S. V 2ELAONA SERRATA HUSASMA'O' 1.5•CAL. N Mu5lSHINO COLUMMM 2ELKOVA BAD 4.1 U a Ih ¢I .ems : ,�' a ,. +� ! NCETDsM�.l r•: SNMDIet ACCiN74 co ¢; ,� ITEM S@ atY. yT„/,.� PROPOSED SPECIALTY RETAIL STORE �.. ... m f a Ac OSS% Lw�EORA GAL SOC ci 1 I III R 15.000 S(].FT. ✓ f r 1RSCRIS TIA,NBERGA CRIMSON MART �+i d O aC N PIGMY JAPANESEE BARBERRY 3 GAL. 56 I I 'Tl - �� - A i-TLE NUSKITE$NAIADS$lITIS XRTEN' i GAL 55 j I '1 LiTTF=KTfTEN MAIDEN GRA-55 rO.C. SOMAS•P RGA. 0 • - /1.\ NIOMAN DA VIDS DAVIDV16URNAN 1.Q73 Ii �1 /// t,�`i. Os pQCORNUS TOLON1FERA FARROW ASIC'ICSRA REO TNYIG OOOWOOD3GAL 0C. 25 I014 delliii FJ Z3 GAL. I S O O ,ef?OAtiLAFOLIUM TAL OREGON GRAPE F O.C. 143 N. 1 <�.M�}::r CiOQT+. } -4.0001/,+Oo: er',Is j � -/ui/i�Cf. I Ir J?AC.Q rti r;ti•}^O�i a ANNNNNNN! O YAHONIA AOIAFOLIUSf•CCWPACTA• 3GAL IC 0 I pj'f WP pi'NA/ -_ +I�Ys�' 'YYL00.0 MMA 6it_�M�©et 6;'al _�1. - `r uNE+-- COMPACT OREGON GRAPENdLLY SO.c. - ,Ali' PROPERTY -�,.•. n _ AMM7MIA DOMAE5TAG ODAI'PACTA' 3 GAL. 22 I �^ r� -4XEXEIXEEEII COMPACT HEAVENLY BAMBOO 3.O-C- w ill . . 7v DEM SIN OTT, Z -,+•.:`"•� --— I. .I FRAGARM CIRLOENSIS 4'POT A 246 SF U COAST STRAWBERRY 7 O.C. 1225 PLANTS IZ J J SW PACIFIC HIGHWAY(HWY 99W) ARCHTOsrAPNWOsuvA.lJRS1 t•ROT 6.526 ST C'] J I RINNMIMICK 2'O.C. 1.660 PLANTS Z +r 1_ „ 1 ..� _r______ ” .:—'=-- , • - - sssx=ca2.11 xs»^'^^,•s��. LL LANDSCAPE AREA SUMMARY: IX /CL's NET SETE AREA=44 110 SF L! REOURED Y■INIUM LAIOSCAPE AREA=661?SF 115%1 a Z PROPOSED LANDSCAPE AREA:13253 SF 127.7BEI W Q.' 0 PERIMETER LANDSCAPE AREA•10,144 SF CL ,I Z W ° rMULCH INTERIOR LANDSCAPE AREAS VCR SF `1 < N W ° 11 i1 N • f° TOPSGL V LL HOTELS' I TS ° _ TREE NSIetIATgN STEPS . PLACE MULCT•rIlk U) w •.DARE TRfF G OUT OF TtE HOLE 4 • AWAY FROM TRUNK �' 0 •°° • TOPSdLE1EPINTD GENERAL NOTES:LANDSCAPE PLAN LII • REMOVE WIRE BASKET COMPLETELY °W • o BL A MINMUAH Of II S� (. am, P I u `� - - . LOOSEN TWINE FROM ROOIAALL • Y IN PLANTER 15LANDS. f.. . i LANDSCAPE PLANTING SHALL CONFORM TO THE STANDARDS ESTABLISHED 1.4DER THE CITY OF TIGARD Q W C) EM)REMOVE COAP_ETEITV ( if • SEF 5-AXING DETNL TOP O6 BINK YULCO PLANNING DEPT AND THE JRBAN FORESTRY MANUAL —I icn 3 U FN CE.D2.PLACE T LL IN TIDAL .AP AND 02€AWAY „ ! - ° FOR 6TAKNiG IN '�� TO BE 1F CURB J h IRANI HRS. i- - BACK OF CURB. 2. ALL PLANT BEDS SHALL HAVE A I DEPTH OF SAW MULCH. AT LEAST 14 OF BURLAP. 411111" • l BACKFILL TREE ROOTBALL INFER ° �' ,wry ` O- 3 LANDSCAPE AREAS SHALL HAVE A COMPLETE UNDERGROUND AUTOMATIC,`IRRIGATION SYSTEM WITH FULL APKiOu€D WENDED SOIL ' /.'°.7� Gi:!� ° °: ,1DTE•A-. ., HEAD TO HEAD COVERAGE. CCGIST�•',p� �` � QAMDSCN S * -`CO OD NOT CUT • /AnteRF_R515 VARIES BASED ON 57 PLANT414MATERIAL DELIVERED TO THIS SITE SHALL MEtiI'!E AMERICAN NURSERYMAN$ASSOCIATION 2ND 41AV1 -A- R •�+l:I 3,4•*MTA Pt.STIC TREE > PLATER WDTH AS FOIL OWS STNWARDS. DE•CRAINL -NUR ��f, 0 4, l APPROVED EDEN_ TREE PLANTING A ADE MSLINDMK' ♦ _ ° S. ALL TREES IN BEPARKING D TO WILL BE PROVIDED*MI i,p6D CUBIC FEET OF GROWING MEDIUM AND ST-iiE3" BARK L %11N FDR LAYOUT MOTMR HEIGHT TREES WILL PROVIDED 700 CUBIC FEET Of GROAMNG MEDIUM,WHERENDT PROVIDED IN OPEN SONS, r BARK SLACK DEPTH.- .MIN -- 3,,4. r CL MED SOILS WILL BE ENGINEERED ACCORDING TO THE URBAN'FORESTRY MANU AL SPECIFICATIONS FOR 7 •LISFTiTv, INSTALL BARK MULCH IN S'dA PP I iiii. A I °D _ 'I ,:.,..- BACKFILL WITH iB OF TOPSOIL. BRANCH WG STRUCTI.WIA.SOIL. \\' SAUCER_SAUCER SiIALL BE A HEIGHT MERE TOPSOIL PRT LAD HEIGHT 5.4T R "C• SOAKED WITS WATER AFTER ANALYSE ANO PROJE0T e- AL_ON-SITE TOPSOIL'M.L BE STOCK.PEED ANO REUSED WHERE PRACTICAL THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR 4Pr. j.SL. $ PLATING �� ! 'W EX.OWISTNQ OR FD SP:CIFICATiON3. — `R R OET€T MINE THE TE SU/'VA-14IL A AND LICENSED SOL LABORATORY 511 TOHE SOIFLANDSCAPE ARCHITECT.GT TO I` 'RBF LOSS EI CA.43 0 DETERMINE THE SUI'ABILITY ANLL A1AA,NBILrLY OF THE EXISTING SITE TOPSOIL.IF THE EXISTING AS IS FINISH GRADE SOY.AND LON3 ENOWN CURB TO BE USED,TRE CONTRACTOR SNAIL ADD THE RECOMMENDED AMENDMENTS AMC FERTILIZERS AS STATED 11 14 11- +-II ,�_ I �._ —IITi TO SECORE LOWER 2.3 G PAVPMFNT 1 NI `- - M - $ARES-SEE NOTE A'ABOVE IN THE SOILS ANALYSIS AMENDED 10150€,SHALL INCWDE ALL NECESSARY FERTILIZERS ORGANIC AND. —N=11=11 �Iy��-" 11=11= TRF TRUNK FROM SYMY. Or 1�I II II H II 11 / II II—II 1 eR �1 �, 111=11 11 • 1 ILIII�11II=- 4N,1)�l� l ll` RDRGANIC AMENDMENTS.RASED ON INDUSTRY STANDARDS TOR EK CEPTIO N AY PLANT DEVELOPMENT. PROJECT ND 21404T ID II-11 ��j f s�,r �"$ 5 T. REFER TO GRADING 1 EROSION CONTROL PLAN FOR EROSION CONTROL MEASURES, CATE 6TT1E0315 11 1�\ j-I II-1 yy sy v Il II II y,,,/ 4�6 iI 1= IIII ~, II fia I—!I Ilfr'`ya 10/o �+�4 .W.,��f��I-1IS�I r(� II GiZI -Uel BAC/TEELMATNTOPSCR fi Nay _�I Ilay�yy�4S o� -/`Y'�ae'`Jl: `air"7''` eESKNIEDeY EFS MI /II=1 TO MNIM.M DEPTH OI iR. 7' B REFER TO TREE REMOVAL n PRESERVATION PLAN FOR LOCATION,SIZE ANO SPECIES OF EXISTING TREES TO 1 ALF:=11=6 I ADENO TOPSOE PER LAB rfi w.f.4S. 4vWfifi-4 a`L f$.. fi _ ' 9E REMOVED- DRAM SY °I5 I B u= B=B=r n r, fi...,.,/. ., 13+-11 11- 1=.11 W+uYSIS MMALAACL;t —RE-COMPACT soli. SIL RELATIVE COEp Cill i g a TO ACTNW OELIEC BI PAPP AND Y F PEEP - 11-11- SPECFI ATIONS 9 REFER TO COIL SITE GRACING.STG3A WATER ANO UTILITY PLANS FOR EXPLANATION OF ALL SITE AND REF�OA•PACT DX51 UR SANCES PROPOSED. iim Cij ,1 III II l O II I U111 PLANTINGa 9y DECIDUOUS TREE PLANTING HOT TosCALE OIL MOUNDING IN PLANTER ISLAND NLTiTOSCALE � II 1[1 II IQ IC Ha 111111. PLAN D 10 20 40 aG L1.1 ?` ' - .1 Li 0 , itet, „ , , „. F .1 11'1 Els-s1Nc.R5D 9Nc \ 'S. a. t ONSIDE PROJECT AREA //r TORE PROTECTED 1 E71STT436 CNAFIBIK . yTT 4 �/ FENCE TO REMAIN , o //7/// TRASK ENCLOSURE WOSUi'E SEr911CF( y12 IR \ / n4�#f4r�4�x ♦fl r4�4 �'R��►"#1�4 K �►•• � j4�4�#ti' C]3 - 1 RE":- .4 "•�r1t:.i,f.PERTYL1�Lt�4 1w_�,„tAr1�►i .44 7„,:.„ ' i ii o,vi ts. "K v'4" 4•r O -'.i r;PT'y prr Oh" i r'9'�- .6� Y *•l• i •V"• •.rjr l,�� - F1 r y? L y i 14y{S y r 1 4ir s'ry i,i,s+b/',/ , 11yti 4y yi i /r''*Y i 9 ,e If I i i 1 , i '/iq4:,, rev k4:� ►6g9�f4r /r,,y ,,ri„'." cr S#4 4.0.4.r 1 �' 'o' ';W, , LANDSCAPE PLANT MATERIAL SCHEDULE j "-,. r "� 4 SY- ° 4'41 r 1,9 "t y .' ,,� 4�'�' q� rfi'ELNOL STELN7 nEEBI I Q4'4r'# 4y �. '� ie'�4., s�4y :44 i .� gr. B ISti.*%!/y �rCl�'44 '''4 r16M S¢E WY I - .4 • nAt x i1ie --4 .A• r.,- 5• ASI - ,qj F, 4s ger cs� s' - ilio •1•'. A d A IJ�A .O' 4Y9' r d' 4o ►^'+!"44414,AO. 0.-114AC rw►0}•4} 4.414-.1,";00.4 44111!•11111,1:4•44...111101.1).#6:11:40 7'f4 , :4`� 0 r f ,�, Istiy�¢ 1.;$10.4;41, ,4�, ::. i*, '1=•4+I Vt1►`"-v 4, -,, ...4.4r4r. 4rip•M�t 'r•'4. i►A.plj`4''jelr a/74,4'' ca+NUSxausA.c rwTTALLJ cv.+r •S 6 4tp+4 ,#�4��4�4Ry+4 f+��4• ��41►P s#k tA4 ►+►�4♦ $...4i 4'► ►i1►: "P+y'�,�h L sT6RUG4TDOG6 O� sae t n 4tb1+►4 ,,Ar !1.4411 4140 �U 1L41-0, 94 4 sfsEsei'g •:. 11 !I ��a24�► +44#ZEA• ep�z�sn. tiuuE NWT PATH r`�#144� 1••-4•441.,r 4" ♦.A#49,♦4A!� 0043 NADIR DEMI 4•414,4-40-' 144`•0►4 ✓`�i- 700813 I I 1 .'+4.4-4,V �^^• ,I.` sr.�4�,,`.; RF/A SUE GPI I 1 '1 _w. -• CCYEI Ds-RUCTUR4.369 �44�'4.-4 44', AGER UC/gir:.v flCTF38ER GLORY %S.CAL 6 11 Y i w"�Y Z 4# OCTOBER GLORY'MAPLE BELE q .� Iii#�►y�rir4t_�>41 EausTNGASN Res ° `. t_ brri'/ %IY/// ;11P�.�j�'� !*� TIa eEIvR+JTIDE IEGr®ARJI frill �\ V 1 - - --. ..it" •i rr4,•.fr%f��y IL& *4 TDLYi EACH GINKGOBILD8A 1.5*CAL 8 /H/ ��s�* ri GINFCG'� Bali 1-1i� '� I•' f4y`'�.,A 4• GY �iil•�%• 0 1. FRA£EN 0.sPE•BNSW VAUFCA 1 S.CAL 3 o a w ►�r"441t . RI► O aI ;�►•E'f4 4�i4' 1- u) .15 ...4C..•'•.IS{4,4 ZELNOVA SERRATA 11N B 2 L O' `;LA L 4 ELI ^A+EL'�� 4-4,•,-,..-....:„.94„7 FISTING FIBTINGBCHN4:R6t () MVSASFYNO COLUMIVAN ZELKCVA } 4L• 'IPA FEN�TO RERAN ����dddd } 4444�4w 4 rhI 4444#4i ♦irti' �` ,9,',","72'. PROPOSED SPECIALTY RETAIL STORE 114* 411004,Villk, �g A3� )./ •�'►�4 4F `4A 1 r 15,000 SQ.FT. r f,A4,�i49Y� 11 s4444f L*40. 0 ilIi�••1�'4�a ,► r ~$ �4V *4'+�9'' �'• TREE CANOPY COVER SUMMARY: I Ij I I '44'! /±► 'Ea A v SEN nom„+/6y "1'Y. 10;444a4#1e\ #�� # !o • '4t4y#40 1� 44# 4i�•. IAl „l��'yi'9f��� ds4413F r aaE�44 ,y�yy►.�'�� I I _•Al i 4fr4 r,v6� i.. rr.. 1 tl 1�I '9' �r 4- 1104.• \. QpALFF'YINI MA1WEfJLNLR•Y WYERNPAR40IK-AILAis1,9/ 0 ti*4 err Hry�l f' � /6, :f '✓•,.44' r/,4 4 • �i it►410 r ! G 74YTr'i 44j 1 ! I <i .4 A•4 it i4 (i rii�friri' '/% irr s. ;!% • //f/�� /JfJ//��/� ///J/ *2 .-1:,...s. 4•4 2o- fid L J ' /r /!,.4. // lF //f////f!//J•'.�� •!.5.-5•rJ••...;•-‘41". X11."tl/: IN€RVDIALL THEE MATURE CANOPY OUTLINE q .-r ♦is •t ♦�♦ P{iOPRTY LINE 9 '.*. -'�I� ♦ ra`����•/%/''�Jfj/•ff���•�^4 r•, '''rs •-•4!.� 4.44`44 TOTAL(ON AND OFF 9'6)CANOPY COVERAGE 22207 S. `�~�_- rr 4�tiE %,„.A.,‘„.• �� �� •44* 44# � } C-9.-'...a 4#4 U 4 i•413.14 04• AM + f �vv5 •i r ri B •••••. s- „fr ardr;,�r�rs1::...prr•• <�resi ,,i ►4y•c.4A = Yfi.:�s.a�®•' ` wig• p �:. Ir/ r'` 4C'`jI`i,I. f'�F4 F•t 'moi`;7��j1'`0i Ab+•.'.444�i► "'p. ~ - - '� PARaNG Los AREA_ zs,360 SF CL - i+• �1�i4� f��,� ,�.• �.f• • �>'0. + �.t 46.NA dI� ~�i INSTALL ROOT BARRERSIYOER FDLR le STREET TREES TOTAL QUALIWING MARIA TREE CANOPY AREA. 7E SF w 4 ♦��• Ni,.•+y's •` TO PROTECT THE FxL4t11G,!'EOCENE Fp0A1 ROOT tiTR`.19CP4. (CANOPY AREA DIRECTLY OVER PARKING ARFA1 w J AP*. PENCE NI OF Y COVER 34 4.4 tea. , _FNSIIRE8AR71ER FlLlSENFFE ELF-00.12f CF PLNiFER PO. RE 060,70 3113133.44%CMOPY COVER 301E - DO NCT INSTALL BARRIER ORM INAL.S DF PLNRERNr. PEI ALL RDDr8ARRERS WEEP.FOUR 06STREET TREES SW PACIFIC HIGHWAY(HWY 99W) I U TO 0031510108 EASnNG ITLRv'.NIE FROM R00°14104003.4 - - ENSIIREBI/ Ra'LSENTIREBDITONOFFLAMERPF. - - _ -,-,- Q.. d Z 0011DT BOTN.L BARRIER OA SIDE WALLS OFPL.wTJJI PIT. _ �� „_ - - Q �- ___ aceasa_-`s-r_r_.4 amewa s,..--.mss �� �. -�' SOIL VOLUME SUMMARY: OLil -- Q TREE CANOPY AND SOIL N00 LG M`LE - - - - ////%/ OPEN SOL VOLUME-11.795 9w ^ ED OPEN COCAN OP,TOS AL %COPY OVER AREA(MIC UJ CL L TREE 0 SPECIES SOIL VCLLISE SDK VOLUME SOIL'VOLUME AVG,MATIRE CANOPY PARKING LOT PARKINGw1 G LOT LL 105 ASA(OFF-BITE') N/A. NIA FLA If SPREAD 15C 5C.Fr NA N/A 108 ASH(OFFSITE') NA NIA NA R SPREAD 15C SC.FT N/A N/A COVERED SOL V[3.JIIE 466 SF I- _ 107 ASH(OF F-SITE( WA N/A WA F SPREAD I SO 50.FT N/A NA 1 W RED OMI OFF-srTEl N/A NA NA 16'SPREAD 1201 50.FT. NA NA. Illi '09 OCT GLORY MAPLE 4.100 CU.FT. 712 4.117 CO F T. 40 SPREAD 1 1,257 SO.FT 802% 1006 SQ.FT. FOLLOW SC%VOLUME 51AN04REB Sr"IORTH PA THE DIVOT TIGAFD URBAN -10 GINKGO 5160 CU.FT 5.'60 CU.FT 45SPREAD 11 590 SD FT. 30,9% 492 sal FT. FGREST•Y 444NUAL. GIST 'I I GINKGO 5 196 CL.FT 5196 CU FT 45'SPREAD/1 590 90 PT 332% 529 57 FT f' •12 GINKGO 5 65.5 CL.FT 5-550 CU FT 45'SPREAD'1 590 SQ FT 332% 529 50 FT 29e `� •13 OCT GLORY MAPLE 5.254 CU.FT 5,25E CU FT 40 SPREAD,1257 SEI FT fi34% 79750.FT '''3 114 GINKGO 5.556 CI,FT. 5.556 CL Fl 46'SPREAD I 1 590 SQ.FT 332% 529 SQ.FT. • V 115 GINKGO 5,182 Cu FT. 5,182 Cu FT 45'SPREAD 11.590 SO.FT 332% 529 SO.FT. 116 GINKGO 1423 CJ FT. 8,423 Cu.FT. 45'SPREAD/1.59050,/I 33.2`0 529 SO..Fl 7 _ 117 OCT,GLORY MAPLE 5,619 CU.FT, 5,619 CU.FT 40 SPREAD/1257 SO.FT 31.0% 392 SO.FT. , lam'1- ',E. GREEN ASH 3.614 CU.FT. 3,514 CU FT 40 SPREAD/1,257 50.FT 35.6% 443 50.FT. 119 GREEN ASH 2,513 CJ.FT. 2,545 CU.FT. 49 SPREAD/1,257 SC FT 35.65E 446 SQ.TT. I.Nurse,,Helenarms/the TATL 1 me Ca-43A.See War AAA IA na0Arc 11a/As IT 120 GREEN ASH 3.415 Cli FT- 3.475 CU FT AO SPREAD 11257 SO FT 35.85E 44650,FT seo x'.'0 50e 2.co the CFR,V TA"u+ean F4.001 VA'ON IFy, A AI '21 OC'.GLORY MAPLE 2071 CJ.FT. 2.671 CU.FT, 40'SPREAD 11,257 SC FT •9.9% 251 Safi'. TSPO=96/al/l2 122 MAMA 347 Cil.FT. 6629 CF 1 008 CU.FT. 15'SPREAD f 177 SO.FT. 46 554. 55 50.TT. 123 2a1054 1.526 CU.FT. 1.526 CO.FT. 15 SPREAD!177 SQ.FT 542% 96 S61 TT. MIIIIl 124 2ELK0'VA 1 626 CU.FT. 1.528 CU.FT. 15 SPREAD 1177 50.FT. 62% 11 SO.FT. 125 OCT GLORY MAPLE 1 Q'•1 CV.FT. 1,918 Cu.Ff. 40 SPREAD i'1,257 50 FT 69 5% 874 50 FT. PR0.EC1 ND_ 214/9117 •26 2ELKOVA 2,36/CU.FT 2..360 CU.FT. 16'SPREAD/177 SO.FT 350% 62 SC.R, ISA Morgan Hales 0 0100161 PV-51450 I DALE -0iY55R0Y5 '2, OCT GLOWMAPLE 3105 CU.FT 3.106+ Cu.FT 40-SFR4EAO I t 257 SO FT 406 54 FT, '26 '29 STARLK#4T DOGWOOD 2307 CU.FT. +.032 CU.FT, 25'SPREAD.491 50-FT. NA NINA ORLe. CESIp4E01Y BFS STARLIGHT DOGWOOD 2.307 CU.FT 296 CL.FT. 25•SPREAD 1491 5O,FT, 322% A NM DRANK BY bF6 '30 STARLIGHTDOGWOOD 2307 Cu.FT. 3,525 Cu FT2/SPREAD'091 SO.R. NANA 6w6 Pv ese-Yn FOLATLO w len.ees/5 1 xe rAr AT TA •31 STM/551(1 DOGWOOD 23a7 CU.FT 5,591 CLI FT 255641E AD'291 SO.FT. NA NAC1/Ef.•T'R+ 580 132 STARLIGHT DOGWOOD 2317 CJ.FT 3,522 CU FT 25 SPREAD'491 SO.FT. NIA N/A TEICer3t+YISLOCATED M6-60010061 OTWOLA'EROF 9cmA 21oa*•15510%1100*•YEVT 0411E Pt i '33 STARLIGHT DOGWOOD 2.30700.FT. 3.700 CO FT 26 SPREAD'49'5O.FT. NA N/A PN.. 5114Wee %CRY O'T 6.661 NARAND212N cow,.50GON 1 SI 134 STARLIGHT DOGWOOD 2.307 CJ F-T. 3.510 00 FT 25'SPREAD'491 SQ.FT. NA NIA 6E-�r-�� 135 STARLIGHT DOGWOOD 2.307 CJ.IT. 1,093 CU FT, 25'SPREAD'491 SQ.FT. N/A NA AT i` '' r I ry r TREE CANOPY EITI §'_ OTAL OLIALWFYING MATURE CANOPY AREA DIRECTLY OVER THE PARKING LOT SURFACE•6,463 5Q.FT. .9 Fa- -u-L�+ (SUN OF CANOPY AREA OVER PAWING LOT, SITE PLAN 1�a lull III & El 11IIIII0 � __-,1 L1.2 p,1 N 1 I1 ..-• ' al i k i k4 (4..) , 4.1 `. ;: -----....... C .; 1 LOADING 4 t ' >! f 64o- iii - t ' .,,t - r - -..i e 2;-; tr III i 1 11 1 .'r• -.' . :ri - „,N ...,,,vot -... ... .,” 1011440111101.000115. r irf •S A . . . -_ _._. , , ..... _ ......i.............- - ..-- --- - ,- ...-- ----1..t li f . �a., .BASES pF 1111, L. 4 ,, -l �. Vis. 1 a ao 46 1 j Cavaln° / " IN N31, Shaping the Future • • 1I 1 TtRetaii AND Pro osed S ec POSW RTLAND Ef7R 57E 100 PORTLAND 3k 87711 3<? 4wv ow)419 FAX�5p3J d'8 2600 www.®+:fro.crnn School Street Property Exhibit 1 PRE - APPLICATION CONFERENCE NOTES CITY OF TIGARD PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE NOTES e (Pre-Application Meeting Notes are Valid for Six (6) Months) TIGARD PRE-APP MTG.DATE: 6-23-2015 STAFF AT PRE-APP: GBP1KM -F- NON-RESIDENTIAL APPLICANT: Leadership Circle LLC/Monet Ragsdale AGENT: CARDNO/Recd Stapleton Phone: (970) 249-3398/ (970) 497-0066 Phone: 503-419-2513 PROPERTY LOCATION: ' ADDRESS/GENERA].LOCATION: 13125 SW Pacific Hwy - TAX 1 AP(S)/LOT#(S): 2S102CB 00200 NECESSARY APPLICATIONS: DI Site Development Review !feces, 14.61a E"�s�f' (✓Ifit) U PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION: Specialty Retail- 15K sf building on a L38 acre site with 60 parking spaces, two driveways,one on Pacific Hwy, the other on School Street. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION: Medium Density Residential (General Commercial proposed with 4/15 pre)_ ZONING MAP DESIGNATION: R-12 (Change to CG proposed with 4/15 Preapp,Notes presume CG zone) ZONING DISTRICT DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS (Refer to Code Section 18.520.2) MINIMUM LOT SIZE: None. Average Min.lot width: 50. Max. Building height: 45 ft.;Min. NA Setbacks: Front: 0 ft Side: 0/20* ft. Rear: 0/20* ft. Corner: 0 ft. from street. MAXIMUM SITE COVERAGE: 85%. Minimum landscaped or natural vegetation area: 15%. * 20-foot setback when abutting a residential district. 11! NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING (Refer to the Neighborhood Meeting Handout) THE APPLICANT SHALL NOTIFY ALL PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 500 FEET, IN TERES FED PARTIES, AND THE CITY OF TIGARD_PLANNING DIVISION of their proposal. A minimum of two (2) weeks between the mailing date and the meeting date is required. Please review the Land Use Notification handout concerning site posting and the meeting notice. Meeting is to be held prior to submitting your application or the application will not be accepted. * NOTE: In order to also preliminarily address building code standards, a meeting with a Plans Examiner is encouraged prior to submittal of a land use application. ►:1 NARRATIVE (Refer to Code Chapter 18.390) The APPLICANT SHALL SUBMIT A NARRATIVE which provides findings based on the applicable approval standards. Failure to provide a narrative or adequately address criteria would be reason to consider an application incomplete and delay review of the proposal. The applicant should review the code for applicable criteria. CITY OF TIGARD Pre-Application Conference Notes Page 1 of 8 N(1N-Rol&nnal Application iPlann rg Dig i.n in Section Z IMPACT STUDY (Refer to Code Sections 18.390.040 and 18.390.050) 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. ACCESS (Refer to Chapters 18.705 and 18.765) Minimum number of accesses: 1. Minimum access width:30 ft. Minimum pavement width: 24 ft. All driveways and parking areas,except for some fleet storage parking areas,must be paved. Drive-in use queuing areas: NA 1i/ WALKWAY REQUIREMENTS (Refer to Code Section 18.705.030) WALKWAYS SHALL EXPEND FROM THE GROUND FLOOR EN FRANCES 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. la SPECIAL SETBACKS (Refer to Code Chapter 18.730) r- STREETS: feet from the centerline of i. LOWER INTENSITY ZONES: 20 feet,along the site's NW boundary. ➢ FLAG LOT: 10-FOOT SIDE YARD SETBACK.NA Q SPECIAL BUILDING HEIGHT PROVISIONS (Refer to Code Section 18.730.020.B.) BUILDING HEIGHT EXCEPTIONS- Buildings located in a non-residential zone may be built to a height of 75 feet provided that: ► 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 half(1/2) of the building's height; and ► The structure will not abut a residential zoned district. ® BUFFERING AND SCREENING (Refer to Code Chapter 18.745& 18.620) 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 Development Code. The ESTIMA 1'ED REQUIRED BUFFER WIDTHS applicable to your proposal area are: nia feet along north boundary. fl/afeet along east boundary. Iiia feet along south boundary. ilia feet along west boundary. IN ADDITION,SIGHT OBSCURING SCREENING IS REQUIRED ALONG: all parking areas. CITY OF TIGARD Pre-application Conference Notes Page 2 of 8 NON-Rc>rdcnttal Apphcusnnihlanninn}I),vi inn.Sectxm SCREENING: SPECIAL PROVISIONS- 18.745.050E Screening and landscaping of parking and loading areas is required per specifications in section 17.745.050E (1). In no cases shall nonconforming screening of parking and loading areas be permitted to become any less conforming. In addition, screening of service facilities and refuse areas also applies to all development with the exception of one and two family dwellings. LANDSCAPING (Refer to Code Chapters 18.745, 18.765 and 18.620) STREET TREES SHALL BE REQUIRED AS PART OF TI IE APPROVAL PROCESS FOR A TYPE I CONDITIONAL USE MINOR MODIFICATION, TYPE I SIZE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW MINOR MODIFICATION,ANY TYPE H AND TYPE HI LAND USE REVIEW. The minimum number of required street trees shall be determined by dividing the linear amount of street frontage within or adjacent to the site (in feet) by 40 feet (if the number is a fraction, round to the nearest whole number). The trees shall be placed within the public right-of-way whenever possible but no more than six (6) feet from the right-of-way boundary. Street trees shall be planted according to Section 2 of the Urban Forestry Manual and adequate soil volumes shall be provided in accordance with Section 12 of the Urban Forestry Manual. Existing trees may be used to meet the street standards. Further information on regulations affecting street trees may be obtained from the Planning Division. All parking areas,including parking spaces and aisles, shall be required to achieve at least 30% tree canopy cover at maturity directly above the parking area in accordance with Section 13 of the Urban Forestry Manual. I2 RECYCLING (Refer to Code Chapter 18.755) Applicant should CONTACT FRANCHISE HAULER FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF SITE SERVICING COMPATIBILITY. Locating a trash/recycling enclosure within a clear vision area such as at the intersection of two (2) driveways within a parking lot is prohibited. Much of Tigard is within Pride Disposal's Service area. Pride Disposal can be reached at (503) 625-6177. 1'1 PARKING (Refer to Code Section 18.765.040) REQUIRED parking for this type of use: General Retail/sales oriented: Min 3,0 spaces/1000 sf, 15 x 3=45 spaces; Max 5.1 spaces/1000 sf, 15 x 5.1=76 spaces. Parking SHOWN on preliminary plan(s): 60 spaces SECONDARY USE REQUIRED parking NA Parking SHOWN on preliminary plan(s): NO MORE TI IAN 50% OF REQUIRED SPACES MAY BE DESIGNATED AND/OR DIMENSIONED AS COMPACT SPACES. PARKING STA'.T S shall be dimensioned as follows: ► Standard parking space dimensions: 8 feet, 6 inches x 18 feet, 6 inches.All spaces proposed as standard. ► Compact parking space dimensions: 7 feet,6 inches x 16 feet,6 inches. Note: Parking space width includes the width of a stripe that separates the parking space from an adjoining space. Note: A maximum of three (3) feet of the vehicle overhang area in front of a wheel stop or curb can be included as part of required parking space depth. This area cannot be included as landscaping for meeting the minimum percentage requirements. HANDICAPPED PARKING: ► All parking areas shall PROVIDE APPROPRIATELY LOCA.CED AND DIMENSIONED DISABLED PERSON PARKING spaces. The minimum number of disabled person parking spaces to be provided, as well as the parking stall dimensions,is 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. ►Zf LOADING AREA REQUIREMENTS (Refer to Code Section 18.765.080) CITY OF TIGARD Pre-Application Conference Notes Page 3 of 8 N4)N Rckick nuai-lpplicati+m!Planning 1),‘ul,n SLIM(n Every COMMERCIAL OR INDUS"TRIAL 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. ►/ BICYCLE RACKS (Refer to Code Section 18.765) BICYCLE RACKS are required FOR MULTI-FAMILY, COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENTS. Bicycle racks shall be located in areas protected from automobile traffic and in convenient locations. REQUIRED bicycle racks for this type of use: .3/1000sf= .3 x 15 =4.5 or 5 spaces) [] SENSITIVE LANDS (Refer to Code Chapter 18.775) The Code provides REGULATIONS FOR LANDS WHICH ARE POTENTIALLY UNSUITABLE FOR DEVE!OPIITENT DUE TO AREAS WITHIN THE 100-YEAR FLOODPLAIN, NATURAL DRAINAGEWAYS,\ ETLAND 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 land 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 18.775 also provides regulations for the use, protection, or modification of sensitive lands areas. RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IS PROHIBITED WITHIN FLOODPLAINS. STEEP SLOPES (Refer to Code Section 18.775.080.C) When STEEP SLOPES exist, prior to issuance of a final order, a geotechnical report must be submitted which addresses the approval standards of the Tigard Community Development Code Section 18.775.080.C. The report shall be based upon field exploration and investigation and shall include specific recommendations for achieving the requirements of Section 18.775.080.0. CLEAN WATER SERVICES (CWS) BUFFER STANDARDS (Refer to CWS R&O 07-20/USA Regulations-Chapter 3) LAND DEVELOPMENT ADJACENT TO SENSITIVE AREAS shall preserve and maintain or create a vegetated corridor for a buffer wide enough to protect the water quality functioning of the sensitive area. Design Criteria: The VEGETATED CORRIDOR WIDTH is dependent on the sensitive area. The following table identifies the required widths: TABLE 3.1 VEGETATED CORRIDOR WIDTHS SOURCE: CWS DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS MANUAL/RESOLUTION& ORDER 07-20 SENSITIVE AREA DEFINITION SLOPE ADJACENT WIDTH OF VEGETATED TO SENSITIVE AREA4 CORRIDOR PER SIDES • Streams with intermittent flow draining: <25°/a I 10 to<50 acres 15 feet I >50 to <100 acres 25 feet • Existing or created wetlands<0.5 acre 25 feet • Existing or created wetlands >0,5 acre <25% 50 feet • Rivers,streams,and springs with year-round flow • Streams with intermittent flow draining>100 acres • Natural lakes and ponds • Streams with intermittent flow draining: >25% 10 to<50 acres 30 feet I >50 to <100 acres 50 feet • Existing or created wetlands >25% Variable from 50-200 feet. Measure in 25- • Rivers,streams,and springs with year-round flow foot increments from the starting point to • Streams with intermittent flow draining>100 acres the top of ravine(break in <25%o slope), • Natural lakes and ponds add 35 feet past the top of ravine' 4Starting point for measurement = edge of the defined channel(bankful flow) for streams/rivers,delineated wetland boundary,delineated spring boundary,and/or average high water for lakes or ponds,whichever offers greatest resource protection. Intermittent springs,located a minimum of 15 feet within the river/stream or wetland vegetated corridor,shall not serve as a starting point for measurement. CITY OF TIGARD Pre-Application Conference Notes Page 4 of 8 Nt1N-Residential Applieatxmil lanning Dn,sinn Seeti..nr 55\'cgctated corridor averaging or reduction is allowed only when the vegetated corridor is certified to be in a marOnal or degraded condition. 'The vegetated corridor extends 35 feet from the top of the ravine and sets the outer boundary of the vel;ctated corridor. The 35 feet may be reduced to 15 feet,if a stamped geotechnical report confirms slope stability shall be maintained with the reduced setback from the top of ravine. Restrictions in the Vegetate Corridor. NO structures, development, construction activities, gardens, lawns, application of chemicals, dumping of any materials of any kind, or other activities shall be permitted which otherwise detract from the water quality protection provided by the vegetated corridor, except as provided for in the CU% To assist in the preservation and/or planting of trees and significant tree groves, the director may apply one or more of the following flexible standards as part of the land use review approval. Use of the flexible standards shall be requested by the project arborist or landscape architect as part of the land use review process. The I flexible standards are only applicable to trees that are eligible for credit towards the effective tree canopy cover of the site. 11 Appropriate species of trees in good condition and suitable for preservation receive a 200 percent credit based on their existing canopy area. Refer to Section 11-Part 3 of the Urban Forestry Manual for submittal requirements. ® CLEAR VISION AREA (Refer to Code Chapter 18.795) The City requires that CT F.AR VISION AREAS BE MAINTAINED BETWEEN THREE (3)AND EIGHT (8) FEET IN HEIGHT at road/driveway, road/railroad, and road/road intersections. The size of the reSuired clear vision area depends upon the abutting street's functional classification and any existing obstructions within the clear vision area. I ] ADDITIONAL LOT DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS (Refer to Code Section 18.810.060) MINIMUM LOT FRONTAGE: 25 feet unless lot is created through the minor land partition process. Lots created as part of a partition must have a minimum of 15 feet of frontage or have a minimum 15-foot-wide access easement. The DEPTH OF ALL LOTS SHAT.T NOT EXCEED 21/2 TIMES THE AVERAGE WIDTH,unless the parcel is less than 11/2 times the minimum lot size of the applicable zoning district. CODE CHAPTERS 111 18.330(Conditional Use) © 18.620(Tigard Triangle Design Standards) n 18.760(Nonconforming Situations) ▪ 18.340(Directors Interpretation) ® 18.630(Washington Square Regional Center) / 18.765(QflSlreet Parking/Loading Requirements) n 18.350(Planned Development) n 18.640(Durham Quarry Design.Standards) ❑ 18.775(Sensitive Lands Review) z 18.300(Site Development Review) ® 18.705(Access/Egress/Circulation) 0 18.780(signs) O 18.370(Vanances//Adjustments) [] 18.710(Accessory Residential Units) ❑ 18.785(Temporary Use Permits) ❑ 18.380(Zoning Mapaext Amendments) ❑ 18.715(Density Computations) 1'1 18.790(Urban Forestry Plan) ❑ 18.385(Miscellaneous Permits) n 18.720(Design Compatibility Standards) ..v (visual Clearance Areas) :k 18.390(Decision Making Procedures/Impact Study) u I 18.725(Environmental Performance Standards) 0 18.798(Wireless Communication Facilities) ❑ 18.410(Lot Line Adjustments) ❑ 18.730(Exceptions To Development Standards) Al 18.810(Street&Utility Improvement Standards) El 18.420(Land Partitions) n 18.740(Historic Overlay) n 18.430(Subdivisions) n 18.742(Home Occupation Permits) ❑ 18.510(Residential Zoning Districts) ® 18.745(Landscaping&Screening Standards) ►1 18.520(Commercial Zoning Districts) n 18.750(Manufactured/Mobil Home Regulations) n 18.530(Industrial Zoning Districts) El 18.755(Mixed Solid Waste/Recycling Storage) ADDITIONAL CONCERNS OR COMMENTS: The proposed sales oriented general retail use is a permitted use in the proposed CG zone. Application fees for SDR valued at under 1 million dollars is$5,434; > 1 million = $7,059 + $6/additional $10K Your application must include a narrative that addresses all of the applicable approval criteria in the development code chapters identified above. The findings in the narrative must include the text of each standard, application of the facts of the case to the standard and a conclusion whether the standard is met by the proposal. PROCEDURE 1 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. CITY OF TIGARID Pre-Application Conference Notes Page 6 of 8 NON ltcsidcnnalApplication/Planning 131%N.inSccti,m ) • APPLICATION SUBMITTAL PROCESS All APPLICATIONS MUST BE ACCEPTED BY A PLANNING DIVISION STAFF MEMBER of the Community Development Department at Tigard City Hall offices. PLEASE NOTE: Applications submitted by mail or dropped off at the counter without Planning Division acceptance may be returned. The Planning counter closes at 5:00 PM. Maps submitted with an application shall be folded IN ADVANCE to 81/2" x 11". One,8'/2" x 11" map of a proposed project shall be submitted for attachment to the staff report or administrative decision. Applications with unfolded maps shall not be accepted. The Planning Division and Engineering Department will perform a preliminary review of the application and will determine whether an application is complete within 30 days of the counter submittal. Staff will notify the applicant if additional information or additional copies of the submitted materials are required. 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-day public appeal period follows all land use decisions. An appeal on this matter would be heard by the TigardHearings Officer. A basic flow chart which illustrates the review process is available from the Planning Division upon request. Land use applications requiring a public hearing must have notice posted on-site by the applicant no less than 10 days prior to the public hearing. This PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE AND THE NOTES OF THE CONFERENCE ARE INTENDED TO INFORM the prospective applicant of the primary Community Development Code requirements applicable to the potential development of a particular site and to allow the City staff and prospective applicant to discuss the opportunities and constraints affecting development of the site. BUILDING PERMITS PLANS FOR BUILDING AND OTHER RELATED PERMITS 1\ELL NOT BE ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW UNTIL A LAND USE APPROVAL HAS BEEN ISSUED. Final inspection approvals by the Building Division will not be granted until there is compliance with all conditions of development approval. These pre-application notes do not include comments from the Building Division. For proposed buildings or modifications to existing buildings, it is recommended to contact a Building Division Plans Examiner to determine if there are building code issues that would prevent the structure from being constructed, as proposed. Additionally, with regard to Subdivisions and Minor Land Partitions where any structure to be demolished has system development charge (SDC) credits and the underlying parcel for that structure will be eliminated when the new plat is recorded, the City's policy is to apply those system development credits to the first building permit issued in the development (UNLESS OTHERWISE DIRECTED BY THE DEVELOPER AT THE TIME IN WHICH THE DEMOLITION PERMIT IS OBTAINED). PLEASE NOTE: The conference and notes cannot cover all Code requirements and aspects related to 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. AN ADDITIONAL PRE-APPLICATION FEE AND CONFERENCE WILL BE REQUIRED IF AN APPLICATION PERTAINING TO THIS PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE IS SUBMITTED AFTER A PERIOD OF MORE THAN SIX (6) MONTHS FOLLOWING THIS CONFERENCE (unless deemed as unnecessary by the Planning Division). CITY OF TIGARD Pre-.Ipplicalion Conference Notes Page 7 of 8 N()N-Ito ki,tial r\pphcattnn%i'ianning l)n-isirm ticcti,m PREPARED BY: Gary Pagenstecher CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING DIVISION PHONE: 503-639-4171 FAX: 503-624-3681 DIRECT: 503-718-2434 EMAIL: garyp@tigard-or.gov TITLE 18(CITY OF TIGARD'S COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE) INTERNET ADDRESS: www.tigard-or.gov CITY OF TIGARD Pre-Application Conference Notes Page 8 of 8 Nd)N-Idcsrdrnnal hppiicaraon,Planning I)i.mini Sccra..n City of Tigard s " Pre-Application Conference Notes Ph TIGARDEngineering Division Land Use Name: Specialty Retail Land Use No.: PRE 36 Tax Map(s): 2S102C3 Tax Lots(s): 200 These notes were prepared based on information provided by the applicant showing a proposal for a i 15,085 SF retail building 1. The extent of necessary public improvements and dedications which shall be required of the applicant will r be recommended by City staff and subject to approval by the appropriate authority. There will be no final recommendation to the decision making authority on behalf of the City staff until all concerned commenting agencies, City staff and the public have had an opportunity to review and comment on the application. The following comments are a projection of public improvement related requirements that may be required as a condition of development approval for your proposed project and are subject to change as the project develops and is better understood PUBLIC FACILITIES 18.810.030.E Minimum Rights-of-Way and Street Widths The City of Tigard requires that land area be dedicated to the public: 1. To increase abutting public rights-of-way to the ultimate functional street classification right-of-way width as specified by the Community Development Code; or 2. For the creation of new streets. Approval of a development application for this site will require right-of-way dedication for: Z SW School Street to 27 feet from centerline plus any additional width required for 4a street improvements. ❑ SW to feet 18.810.030 Street Improvements 11 ❑ 3/4 width street improvements will be necessary along SW School Street,to include: ►0 Right of wasp dedication of 27 feet from centerline ❑ 24 feet of pavement City of Tigard Pre-Application Notes for Click here to enter text. June 23, 2015 1 of 6 Z concrete curb or curb and gutter ® storm sewers, sanitary sewers and other underground utilities Z 5-foot wide concrete sidewalk ® 5-foot wide curb tight planter strip ® street trees F� street signs, traffic control devices,streetlights and a two-year streetlight fee. Z Other: Highway connection details and access reservation. .1 narrower public street standard could be proposed with a showing that traffic volume limits are met. 18.730.040 Additional Setback Requirements: This section sets requirements for additional setback distance from roadways. The minimum yard requirement shall be increased in the event a yard abuts a street having a right-of-way width less than required by its functional classification on the city's transportation plan map and, in such case, the setback shall be not less than the setback required by the zone plus one- half of the projected road width as shown on the transportation map. 18.810.030 Future Street Plan and Extension of Streets In some cases, where street improvements or other necessary public improvements are not currently practical, the improvements may be deferred. In such cases, a condition of development approval may be specified which requires the property owner(s) to provide a future improvement guarantee. The City Engineer will determine the form of this guarantee. The following street improvements may be eligible for such a future improvement guarantee: 1. 1. 18.810.070.2 Sidewalks 2. If there is an existing sidewalk on the same side of the street as the development within 300 feet of a development site in either direction, the sidewalk shall be extended from the site to meet the existing sidewalk, subject to rough proportionality (even if the sidewalk does not serve a neighborhood activity center). Continue the sidewalk along the SW School Street ball field. Proposed an alignment that accounts for right-of-way encrouchments. 18.810.120 Overhead Utility Lines: City of Tigard Pre-Application Notes for: Click here to enter text. Jane 23, 2015 2 of 6 This section requires all overhead utility lines adjacent to a development to be placed underground or,if approved by the City Engineer, a fee in-lieu of undergrounding can be paid. This requirement is valid even if the utility lines are on the opposite side of the street from the site. If the fee in-lieu is approved, it is equal to $35,00 per lineal foot of street frontage that contains the overhead lines. Describe overhead lines along the SW School Street frontage. The existing high voltage overhead utility lines along the highway do not require undergrounding. 18.810.090 Sanitary Sewers Sanitary sewers shall be installed to serve each new development and to connect developments to existing mains in accordance with the provisions set forth in Design and Construction Standards for Sanitary and Surface Water Management (as adopted by the Unified Sewerage Agency in 1996 and including any future revisions or amendments) and the adopted policies of the comprehensive plan. The nearest sanitary sewer line to this property is a(n) 8- inch line located in SW Pacific I iwy.. The proposed development must be connected to a public sanitary sewer in accordance with city standards, including paying appropriate connection fees. It is the developer's responsibility to obtain an ODOT permit for work in SW Pacific Hwy. 18.810.100 Storm Drainage All proposed development within the City shall be designed such that storm water runoff is conveyed to an approved public drainage system. The applicant will be required to submit a proposed storm drainage plan for the site, and may be required to prepare a sub-basin drainage analysis to ensure that the proposed system will accommodate runoff from upstream properties when fully developed. Provide a plan that shows how the storm drainage system for the site connects to the public system and how the development would meet the standards of Clean Water Services and other applicable standards. An appropriate storm drainage plan and calculation shall be submitted with the application in order for it to be considered complete. Connection to drainage in the highway will require an ODOT permit. Storm Water Quality: Surface Water Management (SWM) regulations established by Clean Water Services (Resolution and Order No. 07-20) which requires 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 impervious surfaces. The resolution contains a provision that would allow an applicant to pay a fee in-lieu of constructing an on- site facility provided specific criteria are met. The City will use discretion in determining whether or not the fee in-lieu will be offered. If the fee is allowed, it will be based upon the amount of impervious surfaces created; for every 2,640 square feet, or portion thereof. Please contact the Building Division for the current fee. Preliminary sizing calculations for any proposed water quality facility shall be submitted with the development application. City of Tigard Pre-Application Notes for: Click here to enter text. /nne_-' Q I ? 3 of 6 It is anticipated that this project will.require: • NPDES 1200-C or 1200-CN permit. 0 Construction of an on-site water quality facility. ❑ Payment of the fee in-lieu. L Review and compliance with provisions of Chapter 4 Clean Water Services Design and Construction Standards (Runoff Treatment and Control). Table 4-1 of Clean Water Services Design and Construction Standards applies. O Water quality and detention facility design and construction to be certified by a professional engineer as meeting Clean Water Services requirements. 1� An Applicant/City of Tigard agreement for long term maintenance of the facilities. This will occur after completion of the construction. This agreement will use city-furnished forms and shall be recorded. City staff will be periodically inspecting the facilities for compliance with the terms of the agreement. Water Supply City of Tigard provides public water service in this area. Coordinate with City of Tigard, Public Works Department for information regarding adequate water supply for the proposed development. A 6" is available in SW School Street and a 12"in the highway. Street Lights Portland General Electric provides street lights for roadways within the City of Tigard. Contact: Jeff Steigler, jeffery.steigler@pgn.com pgn.com for information regarding street lighting. Schedule A fiberglass pole and LED lamps. In addition, Fire Protection Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue District provides fire protection services within the City of'Tigard. Contact: John Wolff, 503-259-1504 for information regarding the adequacy of circulation systems, the need for fire hydrants,or other questions related to fire protection. This project will require Additional Documentation Required It is anticipated that this project will require: ❑ Geotechnical Report ® Traffic Impact Study- Include a showing of the adequacy of truck turning raduii. City of Tigard Pre-Application Notes for: Click here to enter text. .June 23, 2015 4 of 6 TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT FEES The Washington County Transportation Development Tax (TDT) became effective 7/1/09. The TDT program collects fees from new development based on the development's projected impact upon the City's transportation system. The applicant shall be required to pay a fee based upon the number of trips which are projected to result from the proposed development. The calculation of the TDT incorporates the proposed use of the land and the size of the project. The TDT is calculated, due, and payable at the time of building permit issuance. In limited circumstances payment of the TDT may be allowed to be deferred until the issuance of an occupancy permit. Deferral of payment until occupancy is permissible only when the TDT exceeds the TDT rate for a single-family home. The Applicantshall pay fee as required. In April 2015, the City of Tigard adopted a Transportation System Development Charge (TSDC) for residential development with an effective date of July 1, 2015. The fee will apply to building permits issuing on or after July 1, 2015. The fee is in addition to and similar to the TDT. It is collected from new development, and redevelopment projects in some cases, based upon the projected impact of the proposed development on the city's transportation system. TSDC estimates are included in the city's pre-application conference notes and are also calculated at the time of building permit submittal. They are due upon building permit issuance. In addition to TSDCs, development is responsible for paying all other SDCs that are in effect at the time of building permit issuance, including but not limited to parks, sewer, and stormwater. The city is currently considering the adoption of a new non-residential TSDC and an update to its Parks SDC. Currently, the Applicant will not be required to pay a fee. PERMITS Public Facility Improvement (PFI) Permit: Any work within a public right-of-way in the City of Tigard requires a PFI permit from Development Engineering. A PFI permit application is available at the Planning/Engineering counter in the Permit Center at City Hall. For more extensive work such as street widening improvements, main utility line extensions or subdivision infrastructure, plans prepared by a registered professional engineer must be submitted for review and approval. The PFI permit application shall include any on-site water quality and detention facilities that may be required as part of the land use approval. The Applicant will also be required to post a performance bond, or other such suitable security. Where professional engineered plans are required, the Applicant must execute a Developer/Engineer Agreement,which will obligate the design engineer to perform the primary inspection of the public improvement construction work. 11 A PFI Permit is required. NOTE: The Applicant must obtain the PFI permit prior to release of any permits from the Building Division. City of Tigard Pre-Application Notes for: Click here to enter text. June 23, 2015 5 of 6 CONTACTS Organization ' Contact Phone/Email City of Tigard 503.718.2704 (Wastewater and Storm) Theresa Reynolds Theresa aitigard-or.gov City of Tigard 5()3.718.2607 (Wastewater and Storm) Rob Block rob u,tigard-or.gov Comcast Margret Porter 503.596.3809 Frontier Communications Tam Nguyen 503.641.4463 Frontier Communications John Cousineau 503.643.0371 503.226.4211 x2964 Northwest Natural Gas (NWN) Bob Keller rink@nwnatural.com nwnatural.com Portland General Electric (PGE) Jeff Steigleder jeffery.steigleder@pgn.com Streetlighting Portland General Electric (PGE) Lorraine Katz 5()3.672.5483 L ndergrounding `Tigard/Tualatin School District Maryann Escriva 503.431.4049 Operations Manager _inescriva@ttsd.k12.or.us Tualatin Valley Water District TVWD) Ryan Smith 50 3.6 F2.1511 503.846.7639 Washington County (WACO) Naomi Vogel v()gcl@co.washington.or.us 503.731.8219 Oregon Department of Transportation Marty )ensvold martin.r.jensvoldaodot.state.or.us (ODO) PREPARED BY: >ssurkleit, 6-23-15 Der'eloprent Review Ensiveer- Duce Contaa lajorrrurtioe: 503.718.2468,gres@tigard-or.gov City of Tigard Pre-Application Notes for: Click here to enter text. June 23, 2019 6 of 6 RECEIVED City of Tigard JUN 1 1 2015 n COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY OF TtGARp ' TIGARD Pre-Application Conference Reque NNlNGlENGlNEEFIlNG PROJECT DESCRIPTION REQUIRED SUBMITTAL Project name/title: 13125 SW Pacific Highway Specialty Retail ELEMENTS Please write a brief description of proposed project: (Note: applications will not be accepted Proposed specialty retail development of approximately 15,085 SF building area without the required submittal elements) on approximately 1.38 acres 60 parking stalls will be provided. Of which,3 are ADA 6 COPIES OF EACH OF THE FOI,I OWING: accessible and 57 are standard stalls.Two driveways are proposed, one granting 'l,��l f Brief description of the proposal and access directly from SW Pacific Highway west-bound,the second is proposed from any site-specific questions/issues that School Street, a private driveway, bordering the western property line. you would like to have staff research prior to the meeting. PROPERTY INFORMATION Site Plan.The site plan must show the Property address/location(s): 13125 SW Pacific Highway proposed lots and/or building layouts drawn to scale. Also,show the location of the subject property in relation to the nearest streets;and the Tax map and tax lot #(s): 25102CB00200 locations of driveways on the subject property and across the street. Zoning: residential R-12 „ie.-Vicinity Map. PROPERTY OWNER/HOLDER INFORMATION Ache Proposed Uses. Name(s): Tigard-Tualatin School District#23J 'ropographic Information. Include Contour Lines if Possible. Address: 6960 SW Sandburg St Phone: X Filing Feee. City/state: Tigard. OR Zip: 97223 APPLICANT INFORMATION FOR S 'AFF USE ONLY Name: Leadership Circle LLC - Case No.: P -C 10 is -- 0003� Address: Pd Box 239 Phone: 970-249-3398 Related Case No.(s): — City/state: Montrose co Zip: 81402 Application fee:+ 10 I Contact person: Monet Ragsdale Application accepted: Phone: 970-497-MR6 Email: monet@leadershipcirclellc.com b /I I ) 1.S Bv: 1\116 Date: 1 Pre-application Conference Information Date of pre-app: G / 25 All of the information identified on this form is required and must be Time of pre-app: 1. 0 Ginn submitted to the Planning Division a minimum of ten (10)days prior to officially scheduling a pre-application conference. Pre-application Planner assigned to pre app: conferences are one (1) hour long and are typically held between the IACl1RPll1 Masters land use Applications Rex.01/06/201.5 hours of 9-11 a.m. on either Tuesday or Thursday mornings. Pre-application conferences must be scheduled in person at the Community Development counter from 8-4:30 p.m. Monday–Thursday. If more than four(4) people are expected to attend the pre-application conference in your group, please inform the city in advance so that alternate room arrangements can be made to accommodate the group. City of Tigard • 13125 SW flail Blvd. • Tigard,Oregon 97223 • wwnvtigard-or.gov • 503-718-2421 • Page 1 of 1 June 11, 2015 CarcInQ' Shaping the Future City of Tigard Planning Department Attn.:Gary Pagenstecher 5415 SW Westgate Drive 13125 SW Hall Blvd Suite 100 Tigard,OR 97223 Portland,Oregon 97221 USA Re: Pre-Application Conference Request for a Site Development Review for 13125 SW Pacific Highway Specialty Retail Phone (503)419-2500 Fax (503)419-2600 Dear Gary, www.cardno.com Please accept the attached Pre-Application Conference Request form, $701 submittal fee and this letter for a pre-application conference request with the City of Tigard.As you know, in April, Leadership Circle LLC applied for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Site Development Review and an Adjustment(case file numbers CPA2O15-00003, Z0N2O15-00004, SDR2O15-00002 and VAR2O15-00028) for the site. This pre- application conference request is intended to supplement the previous pre-application conference in which comprehensive plan amendment/zone change details were primarily discussed. For this meeting, we would like to focus on the site development review aspects of the project and better understand any potential concerns with the design from the City's planning and engineering staff. The proposed site development review proposal includes the development of a proposed specialty retail space of approximately 15,085 square feet (SF). 57 standard parking stalls, 9' x 18.5' are proposed with three (3) ADA compliant stalls for a total of 60 parking stalls. Additionally, five (5) bicycle parking stalls are proposed. Off-site improvements include reconstructing the sidewalk along SW Pacific Highway to align a pedestrian waiting area with the existing pedestrian signalized crossing and half street improvements along the School Street. Per our conversation the other day, because the City currently has the applicant's preliminary site development review package,we would like for the City to simply use the existing application submittal as the basis for discussion and feedback at the pre-application conference. We have included with this package the Site Plan and the Existing Conditions Plan from the initial submittal. At the conference we would like to discuss preliminary input from the City regarding the site design and, in particular, any questions or concerns regarding the proposed site accesses. We look forward to having a thorough discussion of the project at the upcoming pre-application conference. If you have any questions regarding the submittal materials before we meet, please do not hesitate to contact me at 503-419-2500. Sincerely, L a -- Read Stapleton, Australia • Belgium • Indonesia • Kenya • New Zealand • Papua New Guinea United Arab Emirates • United Kingdom • United States • Operations in 60 Countries V)PYNONI COn'NKMI RIMS Nn-i-ldrAo r.^ lielmui TOPOGRAPUIC aSIJRV€' Y •.`°"°12",w"-'a`^,'•• bum[Ala Anearmorl is WNW �r-.c.=.Ia:4..t ,VV LOCATED N SOUTHWEST ONEdUARTER OF SECT/ON 2, "NORTH TIGARDVILLE ADDITION" TOYANSHIP 2 SOUTH RANGE I WEST.WILLAMETTE MERIDIAN 1 LOT 42 CITY OF TIGARD.WASHINGTON COUNTY,OREGON 1- 14 y CHARLES F.J7GARD 1 CHARLES F. J7GARD _- ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 'ti B.cu ELEMENTARY SCHOOL le \ RESIDENTIAL ZONING-R12 a LEA e'aF a. ��� cre,daimon f/�,s f J (RESIDENTIAL ZONING-R12) L Z f' O 1 7, ! of LEGEND: I -1 1 �^ rs PROPOSED PROTECTION FF N::F I RHOOOOENDEYAN �^ — - EXISTING PROPERTY LINE __CONS RUETON _ v'e g a IAF `� t�"'�' EXISTING CURB UNE I �z - - EXISTING EASEMENT LINE _ .__ —sae _ - EXISTING STORM DRAIN .X7 s; , - EXISTING SANITARY SEWER LINE ID _ architecture Ile < 10.00•ROAD,SIREET•& i.Ot1 MAIER PPEU E 9— EXISTNG WATER LINE _ UTIUT•/EASEMENT E ` a I �i� \ - EXISTING GAS LINE r � ' C- =AyTD PRIMING LOT _- " - EXISTING POWER UNE Z _ __ I G - - • - EXISTING CONSTRUCTION FENCE m ti R 0 42. - EXISTING STORM MAPLIOI_E I B CO4ICRETE CURB ER 0 - EXISTING STORM CATCH BASIN 0 10 J }.-�, @ - EXISTING SANITARY MAIWIOLE f4 •• I I TX - EXISTING EIRE HYDRANT-I — ti W • III '1Q I - EXISTING WATER METER p y� SCHOOLHOUSE TRACT - - EXISTING WATER VALVE z I "NORTH TIGARDVILLE ADDITION' e TAX LOT 200 1 1 w XI VALVES G GAS VALVE 1 ® - EXISTING TELEPHONE VAULT - } ' 1.37 ACRES LU i 0 - EXISTING LIGHT POLE 10.04sNT i - 10-0811 54) 1 aha EX ING TRAVELED WAY ! CEDAR I 4A. - EXISTING UTLITY POLE 1 ENCROACHES ONTO 5419551 I GA/5 - r , . - EXISTING GUY WIRE TY REWIND EASEMENT J r, - EXISTING SIGN Ce O'NEILLYSAUTOPART STORE I PROPER1, j� ' ■ - EXISTING MAILBOX (GENERAL COMMERCIAL ZONING) a I i - t �$ - TREES TO BE REMOVED i: .S� -- .1 ✓/�j 7 - EXISTING BLEEDING TO BE DEMOLISHED S-413'05- a I COMMERCIAL USE v`n } R=2914 79' I (GENERAL =I - EXISTING ASPHALT SURFACE t COMMERCIAL STOAT OF 1 L=21 a,56' j CON51•LKOON s9-0e.,0} ZONING) g CS-S 4120.44 w• !'-" -� CLI �1w pplpy. 1.::-`,,-;�I - EII6TNGCONCR'BTESURFACE hi >, ' ; 1 n,.s3 D o ;J CIO�0L !F4( 1 E� CO +'`" - I - EXISTING GRAVEL SURFACE _ ° \ 0 - 1 , rte _ - _ �� FLOW ARROW (.,) CV r - — �r . •._— _ �`- .-_ _ -ter " _ \ 29'�^�,__ - -I -r I FLOW AR HEDGES r\:::, I c+4 �•- • — 0 Cr) co t,Ir— _�_� __Yr ldla3a _ _ .-1A- y :L Q. - EXISTING PEDESTRIAN SIGNAL 0 d CIL PEDESTRIAN Ex611NG TRAFFIC 1T WAEIE SPIRAL CURVE CO In LL Ex5nC Da' Fy°� CHEM -98-76' Ce CV < SGCABINET CPRG 4x73'5 ` W COV CO ■I _ — ,4 _=_ �. o' c� • SW PACIFIC HIGHWAY Z (PUBLIC) DIETING F4X4F1'NEDIN/ Q Q ill l'-c2 It LLI ^ � SO W 3 f ` 6. P ��/� COMMERCIAL USE 11 t4 I COMMERCIAL USE wcE V Z �. (GENERAL COMMERCIAL ZONING) 1 7~O (GENERAL COMMERCIAL ZONING) Z 1 ITL eel j j 0_ III GENERAL NOTES: STORM DRAINAGE TABLE SANITARY SEWER TABLE: NOISE SOURCESEXISTING DATUM. EAST OF PROPERTY 'W-5PACIFIC WAN (I STORM MANHOLE 0 STORM MANHOLE SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE SOUTH OF PROPERTY-ONEIL-Y AUTO PARTS STORE WASHIA$.3/13-BRASS DIBHGTON HTY N FIRST BENCHMARK CONCRETE STEP ON THE SW 24E N(NW).199.60.208 213 TM IE NeDUT-206-73•2E328 `J r E IN SWI=197 25 STUB WEST OF PROPERTY-SCNGOfAAWN TRACE AND FIELD AREA G CONDITIONS SIDE OF THE STEPS OF THE TIGARD GRANGE HALL NW 12-E N IWI.200.56 //�� 9-IE OUT(NE)-197,23 NO 100-YR FLOOD PLAIN EXISTS ON SITE.THE SUBJECT PROPERY I ENTRANCE.APPROXIMATELY 2.045 FEET SW OF SW CORNER 24-IE OUT(NE)-199 66 0 CATCHRB'W9 29 LIES WRHN AN AREA.DESIGNATED TO BE OUTSIDE THE 02Ts DJM OF PROPERTY OPPOSITE SIDE OF HIGHWAY. �� ANNUAL CHANCE(50D-YEAR)FLOOD PLAIN PER FLOOD INSURANCE D P _ ELEVATION 269.547 \`.l CATCH BASH IE OUT(S,=205 60 RATE MAP ND 41027 0517C DATED FEBRUARY 16,2005. GRATE-206-74 O,CATCH BASIN a\ 24-IE 04.1T(Si=205.11 I BASIS OF BEARINGS �!`� GRATE-206.64 sure r=� dp l_l CATCHGRATE BASH 12-E OUT(RE;=203,93 04/06/201 BASIS OF BEARING IS PER FOUND AND HELD MONUMENTS GRATE-206.39 ALONG THE CENTERLINE OF SW SCHOOL STREET,TAKEN A.S. 12'IS OUT IS)),104.73 .20 To it N A5-01510-*PER SURVEY 90.29424 WASHINGTON COUNTY SURVEY REODRpS. ^ - _ .r."3 1 ' brae a e. US{PM,...Na. �a.....,.,.t .�. LEGEND: __ - BOUNDARY LINE • EXISTING CURB LINE WIT.".., -;- -. .—L— - PROPOSED BUILDING LU IWy - - PROPOSED CONCRETE CURB I.1. - PROPOSED STRIPING C.)Chirang, 003g 04 • EXISTING CONCRETE SJREACE 1110.110410, G CHARLES F. TIGARD CHARLES F. TIGARD PORTLAND ELEMENTARY SCHOOL ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 'I - PROPOSED PLAN CONCRETE WALX (Z,) (RESIDENTIAL ZONING-R12) (RESIDENTIAL ZONING-R12) [! - PROPOSED REINFORCED DRIVEWAY CONCRETEEn 9.1 �5m'SIDFwALK /^ EW WALL RE WITH �`.. l,,- a /f L I SURFACE _I I�. --.. 1 N[.S. A'k - PROPOSED OGHT ASPHALT SURFACE Ivega I // '�-- T 2tY• - PROPOSED HEAVY ASPHALT SURFACE �' - -.-- --_- -__. -'^C Ea^ANO - __ -• ... 1 .+, ... - .`.,� -d I:_ _ _ PROPOSED LANDSCAPE SURFACE I ' �- I t f 1 —' - PROPOSED ONE NAL PAVEMENT MAR1UNG.S Cf10 . ISE 1S 1 I PROPOSED MGR I R7`��*i* -' // R I� III //////// G1 rchltectu re I I c ■ r. R72 J q \ `\ RI C •r . e'1 1 - PROPOSED ADA PARKING sIAL_ 0 f 110 F - —00- ` 30 \ \1 `-i - I A RSA' CAR-COPRA.' C - //��, - PROPOSED PARKING STALL COUNT PER ROW R2[ 1`-� OBRA.\ I �J q /-R12 RIDU ti 1 i / I ` 1 J 1 © - PROPOSED TRANSFORMERIII :PP', GOADWG�pRE 29,a— I PFUYATE DRIVE FASE4EI11 fI t a q '.. ,�.�,` t,{ \ a \ A� � 1j 1 — BOIMRl,R,' �w I1,rY T7d" '27,..,f 9, 7 y/ !",': r, ..,, r, ' }' sAa 8'0' f� I u • PROPOSED BOLLARD 11 I lar- I% �r -411 L i- • &P 1t. 1 �.-0.. - PROPOSED 75a GAL GREASE INTERCEPTOR (((���I� - CE:IVERY(I ONS k�' B� _ 1 3 J'Ot'ERHMn_ - PROPOSED FINE LINE DOUBLE CHECK ASSEMBLY IIMIMM IRR AC SRRDA0`IRI FT t �g^ I�. I . BR CI�. \ 1i ANBururYEA,SEN_NT Z y PARCEL 1 r \ ,s+,„ i a_ , 6I7 t} _ yap 9A' Ra[\ k � - PROPOSED ENE[)ERNRTMEN"CONNECTIONLIJ f0.0 ACCESS ROAD.STREET / . 145 5d'+ /�, `` L-_J - PROPOSED MONUMENT SIGN Ce NC UTGRT EASEMENT ..„.„,... ....1 /�{ `/' + I � 100 -PROPOSED MAJOR CONTOUR ` Y 6S 1 •,II.S.—.-L_ 9 ` I di %".•--:.J / _ —_NH_ O1 — _ -PROPOSED SAWCCUT UNE N,c PAYED Mown OWE PROPOSED SPECIALTY RETAIL iAa i-0.—2+n 4^r.a—�I—+s \ I5,085 SF 1 T T 0 .EXISTING PEDESTRIAN SIGNAL (GENERAL ENEN1 YS AUTO PART STORE y ffE.'T(0.90 �.�__ 9� I ,!• ' O c ir�RAL COMMERCIAL d 11 f / 'QRS tJ17 I t S.LC'S10EWA1K f N. 1-9 ft MD ! '_1IN1 G 0 - PROPOSED SANITARY SEWER CLEAN OUT 1 / PROPOSEDRICwT�-WAY r _ R760 _.sE-f 1 % °TO - PROPOSED SITE LIOHtNG J TO BE OEDICATOII n �...... pp aT.9' R]a i`I f COMMERCIAL USE 01 ( .,�, .:.. .. l• (GENERAL COMMERCIAL I I I _ PROPOSED BICYCLE PARKING N 0 ZONING) l I +1I PxnsDMB3 BICYCLE: 18 . U cr1 L ' PARKING - 1 % w N- 1 �j EYJ$TNG NIGKT{T-WAY-> -HO --- - t` I % U ]e6'RIONT-OF-W$.. ¢¢ TO VACATED : 1111111.1PIII. co /�/ I OEOIGTY3R. _ ! ffi RNNYL- �P—+•1,i 2p /'r,'I:•,..f;. Li. 31 PROPO6E0 ACCESS— 7 1--INii�� `^�� _—� -_ r ..._ � -"C°. _-_�__ LEFT M.RIGHT.►+ IRR II .. wv `-. -O ^:._ CL '�}. _ - b� �� -'j rt LZONING DATA:LI-111. . `.. _ .._ is .. i' E%ISTNGZOMNG R11 CO EATGTNGTREAET 4436 STOP I - 1aa STENALK- - • PROPOSED ZONING-CC GENERAL COMMERCIAL tAFPROl0EMTRO 11q mU+P0.CPEaP.LtEI :.•.� I ..,,. '-,---'- _ - - _ - - ' --1 cv 70- rf et r � VipR•Ca_ NV — — I- R — — — pROPosEDVVSXIr bC EIS•NS PROPOSSED PEDESIRLW1. _ \ S1CVRA.CA44NE' OORAECTION `PROPOSED ACCESS..���� _ - - `RS.P RIf]i'�a WG'ff11UR TDD• " K STANDAR STALLS. 5T >m� ss�4�s -711 - - 26.1' �Id R6d i _ - TOTAL PARKING BO PARKING STALLS • -�__._ 120 I% - EXISTING FILyiON 1---111.0) PARKING RATIO. 3 981100 _ - - . r - - -42A' PEOESTp1M CROSSING — -- - - - . _--.' NOTE 11.0 I P PROPOSED RAISED CONCRETE AIEOIAIRj-.----ADD' {. �` : —0—.11151--IS EXISTING W45E0 CONCPFE IEpFN I.}STANDARD PARKING STALLS ARE 4'0183'AND --0•111-4------1" tOS � ^� RAISED MEDIAN"- '� {i1ST 9'%15.5'IWPTM 3'OVERHANG I } _ SW PACIFIC HIGHWAY 24 ADA ACCESSIBLE PARKING STALLS ARE 9'X1RN — Ip PROPOSED RAISED CONCRETELECIAN 121 ,v,-__ V fPUBLICJ It'd J,1 CYCLE PAFmtNG REQUIRED YO,a ACESF}!-S SPACES 11 BICYCLE PARKING PROVIDED S SPACES ¶15 ! 120 On +.I CART CORRAL STA1L51B'X78.5'}.1 SPACE MUM DAB TO REMAIN-� - ���__��_���_.�_�.�� a 125 SP _ ��-:sem-�� r--� _� 1 _--- -_----- At SITE DATA: PARCEL 1-SPECIALTY RETAL STORE 1.3T ACRES /�! 1 RGIT-OF-WAY DEDICATION 0.01 ACRES Yn � COMMERCIAL USE ��/' COMMERCIAL USE TOTAL SITE 1.38 ACRES ..•••'''' (GENERAL COMMERCIAL ZONING) Cs (GENERAL COMMERCIAL ZONING) ' D LANDSCAPE AREA i 0.12 ACRES PARCEL 1 I I m 1 1 BUILDING DATA: PROPOSED SPECIALTY GROCERY 15.000 i SF E Tide SITE j PLAN y I op DJM - CD 04/06/2015 I SCALE,--x 26 TO 0 In- C2, wR O Gary Pagenstecher From: monet@leadershipcirclellc.com Sent: Tuesday, May 26, 2015 1:45 PM To: Gary Pagenstecher Cc: Greg Berry;JENSVOLD Martin R; Tom McGuire; karen@leadershipcirclellc.com; Brian Dunn; Mario De la Rosa; david grooms Subject: Re: 13125 SW Pacific Hwy Gary The checklist you sent doesnt make sense. It appears to match the engineering notes from prior to the pre application but contradicts the actual pre application meeting (specifically the alignment of School St). My team has actually been working with ODOT for months on design but the City(Greg Berry) has been completely non responsive and elected not to participate. When I brought this to your attention in April you suggested we start working with Kim McMillan instead but now it appears that this has been sent back to Gary who does not respond to emails or phone calls making it extremely difficult to proceed with our application. I dont quite understand how you can say that the public facilities checklist makes my application incomplete as it is a document that you provide to me and not the other way around. In any event, the only outstanding item from your incomplete letter(which I received after the 30 day timeframe) is the development narrative which we will send you later today. Perhaps it would make sense for my team to have an in person meeting with you and whoever our development engineer is going to be to resolve any outstanding confusion. Please let me know if this works for you. Regards- Monet Ragsdale Leadership Circle LLC 970 497 0066 On May 26, 2015, at 1:12 PM, Gary Pagenstecher<Garyp@tigard-or.gov>wrote: Monet, Please find attached, Development Engineering Notes for your review. We have been waiting for written comments from the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT), but will forward later when received. ODOT's early comments on the intersection design will be relevant in developing an approvable plan. I spoke with David Grooms of Vega Architecture regarding the narrative and suggested that it would be useful to have the Engineering notes before submitting the narrative. There are some basic street alignment issues that may change the proposal. Thanks, Gary Gary Pagenstecher, ACIP Associate Planner Community Development City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 1 3 Phone: 503-718-2434 Fax: 503-718-2748 Email:garyp@tigard-or.gov From: monet@ leadershipcirclellc.com [mailto:monet@leadershipcirclellc.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 26, 2015 7:05 AM To: Gary Pagenstecher Cc: Greg Berry; Tom McGuire Subject: RE: Specialty Grocer Completeness Review Letter Hi Gary We will have the narrative for you today but we cannot get the public facility plan checklist as Greg Berry does not respond to his email or phone messages-can you suggest another way for us to obtain that checklist (also fyi- it is not listed as a requirement on the Land Use Permit Application checklist you provided me). Thanks Monet Ragsdale Development Director Leadership Circle. LLC 1521 Oxbow Dr Ste 210 PO Box 239 Montrose, CO 81402 (970) 249-3398 office (970) 497-0066 cell CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail message and any attachments contain confidential and/or privileged information for the sole use of the intended recipient.If you are not the intended recipient,you may not read,disseminate,distribute or copy this e-mail message or any attachments,Please notify the sender immediately by reply e-mail if you received this e-mail message by mistake and delete this e-mail message and any attachments from your system.E-mail transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free as information could be intercepted,corrupted,lost,destroyed,delayed,incomplete,or contain viruses.The sender,therefore,does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the contents of this e-mail message or any attachments,which arise as a result of e-mail transmission.If verification is required, please request a hard-copy version. From: Gary Pagenstecher [mailto:Garyp@tigard-or.gov] Sent: Monday, May 18, 2015 12:43 PM To: monet@leadershipcirclellc.com Cc: Greg Berry; Torn McGuire Subject: Specialty Grocer Completeness Review Letter Monet, Please find attached our Completeness Review Letter; hard copy in the mail. I will be back in the office May 26`h if you have any questions, Thanks, Gary Gary Pagenstecher, AICP Associate Planner Community Development City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd. 2 Tigard, OR 97223 Phone: 503-718-2434 Fax: 503-718-2748 Email:garyp@tgard-or.gov DISCLAIMER: E-mails sent or received by City of Tigard employees are subject to public record laws If requested e-mail may be disclosed to another party unless exempt from disclosure under Oregon Public Records Law E-mails are retained by the City of Tigard in compliance with the Oregon Administrative Rules "City General Records Retention Schedule " <Specialty_Retail_(Completeness)-SDR2015-00001.docx> <CPA2015-00003 Incomplete I.doc.pdf� 3 Y‘i Mit DCrti 41 3. 5E711 a c PRE-APPLICATION NOTES FOR Lookl COMPREHENSIVE PLAN & ZONING MAP ANIS?NDMENT October 30,2014 STAFF PRESENT: Gary Pagenstecher /yLf , �" r4 APPLICANT: Monet Ragsdale,Leadership Circle LLC PROPERTY LOCATION: 13125 SW Pacific Hwy TAX MAP/ LOT#'s: 2S102CB00200 PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION: Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zoning Map Amendment to change the Comprehensive Plan Designations and Zoning Map Classifications of the subject parcel from Medium Density Residential (R-12) to General Commercial(C-G). COMP PLAN DESIGNATIONS: Medium Density Residential ZONING: R-12 NEIGI IBORE IOOD MEETING A neighborhood meeting is required for a quasi-judicial zoning map amendment. RRATIVE IV Include a narrative that responds to the applicable review criteria. Provide background and findings of fact as to why the comprehensive plan amendment and zoning map amendment are necessary, or what public benefit is being promoted. Note: The list of specific goals and standards below is intended to provide guidance in preparation of your application, and that additional criteria may be identified dependant upon the nature of the specific application,or as other issues are raised. This is not an exhaustive list of all criteria. It is the applicant's responsibility to ensure that all applicable standards are met. APPLICABLE CRITERIA Standards for making quasi-judicial decisions apply to the proposed zoning map amendment. A recommendation to approve, approve with conditions or to deny an application for a quasi-judicial amendment shall be based on all of the following standards: 1. Demonstration of compliance with all applicable comprehensive plan policies and map designations (e.g., Land Use Planning Policies 2.1.14 and 2.1.15). 2. Demonstration of compliance with all applicable standards of any provision of the Tigard Development Code or other applicable implementing ordinance (including but not limited to 1€3,3130.020 Zoning Map and Text Amendments, 18,390.050/.060 Decision Making Procedures);and 3. Evidence of change in the neighborhood or community or a mistake or inconsistency in the comprehensive plan or zoning map as it relates to the property which is the subject of the development application, In addition, the recommendation by the Commission and the decision by the Council shall be based on consideration of the following factors: 1.The Statewide Planning Goals and Guidelines adopted under Oregon Revised Statutes Chapter 197; 2.Any federal or state statutes or regulations found applicable; 3. Any applicable MEI RO regulations; 4.Any applicable comprehensive plan policies;and 5. Any applicable provisions of the City's implementing ordinances. APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS: a. Include the information requested on the application form; b. Address the relevant criteria in sufficient detail for review and action; c. Be accompanied by the required fee; d. Include two sets of pre-stamped, pre-addressed envelopes for all persons who are property owners of record as specified in Section 18.390.050C. e. Include an impact study.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 requirements,or provide evidence which supports the conclusion that the real property dedication requirement is not roughly proportional to the projected impacts of the development;and f. Be accompanied by 18 copies of the narrative. PROCESS The Commission shall make a recommendation to the Council on a zone change application which also involves a concurrent application for a comprehensive plan map amendment. The Council shall decide the application on the record as provided by Section 18.390,as a Type IV review. DECISION The decision timeline is generally about 4 months from receipt of a complete application. The rezone and site development review processes may be concurrent (Policy 2.1.17) APPLICATION FEES: Comprehensive Plan Amendment: $10,755.00 Quasi-judicial Zoning Map Amendment 4.046.00 Total Fees: $14,801.00 r 7F PREPARED BY: I f Gary Pagenstecher,AICP Associate Planner 2 PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE NOTES DEVELOPMENT ENGINEERING TIGARD• City of Tigard,Oregon .S!'iaping Better CoFlirf u nt l PUBLIC FACILITIES Tax Maids]: 2S102CB Tax Lott51: 200 Leadership Circle-2C Use Type: Residential These notes were prepared based on information provided by the applicant requesting a zone change from R12 to CG and are expected to apply if the zone change is approved. The extent of necessary public improvements and dedications which shall be required of the applicant will be recommended by City staff and subject to approval by the appropriate authority. There will be no final recommendation to the decision making authority on behalf of the City staff until all concerned commenting agencies, City staff and the public have had an opportunity to review and comment on the application. The following comments are a projection of public improvement related requirements that may be required as a condition of development approval for your proposed project. Right-of-way dedication: The City of Tigard requires that land area be dedicated to the public: (1.) To increase abutting public rights-of-way to the ultimate functional street classification right-of-way width as specified by the Community Development Code; or (2.) For the creation of new streets. Approval of a development application for this site will require right-of-way dedication for: ® SW Pacific Hwy, an arterial, to 52 feet from centerline of right-of-way or as required by ODOT. a SW School Street to 58 feet Street improvements: (Subject to rough proportionality) Z Partial street improvements would be necessary to meet standards along SW Pacific Hwy to include: ►� ??38 feet of pavement from face of curb to centerline or as required by ODOT ® concrete curb (or curb and gutter) 1 5-foot planter exclusive of curb storm sewers and other underground utilities Z 8-foot concrete sidewalk street trees Z street signs, traffic control devices, streetlights and a two-year streetlight fee. CITY OF TIGARD Pre-AnnIicetion Conference Notes Page 1015 geuelopmentEngineering 1111 Other: Pavement tapers as needed. An ODOT permit will be required. Z Partial or full street improvements along SW School Street extended to Pacific Hwy to include: /L1 36 feet of pavement from face of curb to centerline Z concrete curb (or curb and gutter) Z 5-foot planter exclusive of curb each side ® storm sewers and other underground utilities Z 5-foot concrete sidewalk each side /t street trees along back of walk street signs, traffic control devices, streetlights and a two-year streetlight fee. ® Other: Pavement tapers as needed An approved plan for School Street must include the elimination of the existing access to Pacific Hwy. School Street is expected to align with Garrett Street. Full street improvements will be necessary along internal public streets: [ [ _feet of pavement (parking on both sides) or 28 feet (parking on one side only) ❑ concrete curb (or curb and gutter) [l 5-foot planter exclusive of curb ❑ storm sewers and other underground utilities [ 15-foot concrete sidewalk I I street trees street signs, traffic control devices, streetlights and a two-year streetlight fee. [ I Other: A traffic study will be required for this zone change. Work with the city and ODOT to establish the traffic study scope. Mitigation measures (such as street improvements and/or traffic signals) are likely to be necessary. It is possible that the existing infrastructure (particularly the street network) may not be adequate to support the proposed zone change. It is anticipated that no other access to Hwy 99W will be allowed other than an extension of School Street. Cross-access easements will be required to allow adjacent properties to use this access. Approval from ODOT will be necessary for any revisions to the access or use of accesses to Hwy 99W. An adjustment to the 600-foot access spacing requirement of 18.705 would need to be obtained (see 18.370). 18.730.040 Additional Setback Requirements: This section sets requirements for additional setback distance from roadways. The minimum yard requirement shall be increased in the event a yard abuts a street having a right-of-way width less than required by its functional classification on the city's transportation plan map and, in such case, the setback shall be not less than the setback required by the zone plus one-half of the projected road width as shown on the transportation map. CITY OF TIGARD Pre,Applicatien Conference Motes Page 2 of 5 dsweIopinent Englneedng This does not appear to be applicable in this case Agreement for Future Street Improvements: In some cases, where street improvements or other necessary public improvements are not currently practical, the improvements may be deferred. In such cases, a condition of development approval may be specified which requires the property owner(s) to provide a future improvement guarantee. The City Engineer will determine the form of this guarantee. The following street improvements may be eligible for such a future improvement guarantee: (1.) Overhead Utility Lines: ® Section 18.810.120 of the Tigard Municipal Code (TMC) requires all overhead utility lines adjacent to a development to be placed underground or, if approved by the City Engineer, a fee in-lieu of undergrounding can be paid. This requirement is valid even if the utility lines are on the opposite side of the street from the site. If the fee in-lieu is approved, it is equal to $ 35.00 per lineal foot of street frontage that contains the overhead lines. There are overhead lines along School St. adjacent to the site. The lines along Pacific Hwy do not require to be placed underground if over 50 kV. All utilities serving the property shall be placed underground. Sanitary Sewers: The applicant will need to verify adequacy of existing lines to accommodate the proposed development. Contact the City of Tigard Utility Billing Department for connection fees. Sanitary sewer appears to be available from Pacific Hwy. An ODOT permit is required to connect to the sewer. Water Supply: The City of Tigard provides public water service in this area. There is a line in School St. and Pacific Hwy. Coordinate with the City of Tigard Public Works Department for information regarding adequate water supply for the proposed development and connection fees. Fire Protection: Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue District [Contact: John Wolff, 503-259-1504] provides fire protection services within the City of Tigard. The District should be contacted for information regarding the adequacy of circulation systems, the need for fire hydrants, or other questions related to fire protection. Storm Sewer Improvements: All proposed development within the City shall be designed such that storm water runoff is conveyed to an approved public drainage system. The applicant will be required to submit a proposed storm drainage plan for the site, and may be required to prepare a sub-basin drainage analysis to ensure that the proposed system will accommodate runoff from upstream properties when fully developed. CITY OF TIMARO Fro-Application Conference Notes Page 3 of 5 Development Engineering Provide a plan that shows how the storm drainage system for the site connects to the public system. Storm drainage plan and calculations shall be submitted with the application for it to be considered complete. Discharging to ODOT facilities will require a permit. Storm water detention is required. Storm water detention facilities must be reviewed and approved by the city. Storm water detention calculations shall be submitted to the Development Engineer for review and approval. The stormwater plan and facilities must meet Clean Water Services (CWS) standards. See CWS standards for potential Low-Impact Development Approaches (LIDA). 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. 00-7) which requires 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 impervious surfaces. The resolution contains a provision that would allow an applicant to pay a fee in-lieu of constructing an on-site facility provided specific criteria are met. The City will use discretion in determining whether or not the fee in- lieu will be offered. If the fee is allowed, it will be based upon the amount of impervious surfaces created; for every 2,640 square feet, or portion thereof. Please contact the Building Division for the current fee. Preliminary sizing calculations for any proposed water quality facility shall be submitted with the development application. It is anticipated that this project will require: G Construction of an on-site water quality facility. Payment of the fee in-lieu. Water quality treatment is required. Calculations for sizing of water quality treatment facilities must be . submitted to the Development Engineer for review and approval. Water quality facilities also must be reviewed and approved by the city. Review and comply with provisions of Chapter 4 Clean Wafer Services Design and Construction Standards (Runoff Treatment and Control). If the applicant can demonstrate that it is practically impossible to provide detention on specific small areas of the site, a fee-in-lieu may be considered for those specific areas. Water quality and detention facility design and construction must be certified by a professional engineer as meeting Clean Water Services requirements. After completion of the construction of these facilities, the applicant shall enter into an agreement with the city on city-furnished forms for long-term maintenance of the facilities. This agreement will be recorded and city staff will be periodically inspecting the facilities for compliance with the terms of the agreement. Other Comments: Provide preliminary sight distance evaluation (TMC 18.705.030.H.1) TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT TAX The Transportation Development Tax (TDT) became effective 711109. The TDT program collects fees from new development based on the development's projected impact upon the City's transportation system. The applicant shall be required to pay a fee based upon the number of trips which are projected to result from the CITY OF TIGARD Pre-ApalicatIon Conference Notes Page 4 of 5 Itvelepnent Eolloeerinl proposed development. The calculation of the TDT incorporates the proposed use of the land and the size of 'the project. The TDT is calculated, due, and payable at the time of building permit issuance. In limited circumstances payment of the TDT may be allowed to be deferred until the issuance of an occupancy permit. Deferral of payment until occupancy is permissible only when the TDT exceeds the TDT rate for a single- family home. Pay TDT as required. PERMITS Public Facility Improvement (PFI) Permit: Any work within a public right-of-way in the City of Tigard requires a PFI permit from Development Engineering. A PFI permit application is available at the Planning/Engineering counter in the Permit Center at City Hall. For more extensive work such as street widening improvements, main utility line extensions or subdivision infrastructure, plans prepared by a registered professional engineer must be submitted for review and approval. The PFI permit application shall include any on-site water quality and detention facilities that may be required as part of the land use approval. The Permittee will also be required to post a performance bond, or other such suitable security. Where professional engineered plans are required, the Permittee must execute a Developer/Engineer Agreement, which will obligate the design engineer to perform the primary inspection of the public improvement construction work. The PFI permit fee structure is as follows: NOTE: If an PFI Permit is required,the applicant must obtain that permit prior to release of any permits from the Building Division. A PFI permit is required for this project. This permit must be obtained before any work begins on site. Building Division Permits: The following is a brief overview of the type of permits issued by the Building Division. For a more detailed explanation of these permits, please contact the Development Services Counter at 503-639-4171, ext. 304. Site Improvement Permit (SIT). This permit is generally issued for all new commercial, industrial and multi-family projects. This permit will also be required for land partitions where lot grading and private utility work is required. This permit covers all on-site preparation, grading and utility work. Home builders will also be required to obtain a SIT permit for grading work in cases where the lot they are working on has slopes in excess of 20% and foundation excavation material is not to be hauled from the site. Building Permit (BUP). This permit covers only the construction of the building and is issued after, or concurrently with, the SIT permit. Master Permit (MST). This permit is issued for all single and multi-family buildings. It covers all work necessary for building construction, including sub-trades (excludes grading, etc.). This permit cannot be issued in a subdivision until the public improvements are substantially complete and a mylar copy of the recorded plat has been returned by the applicant to the City. For a land partition, the applicant must obtain an Engineering Permit, if required, and return a mylar copy of the recorded plat to the City prior to issuance of this permit. CITY OF TIGARD Pre-Application Conference Notes Page 5 el S Develsomenl Eealaeerleq Other Permits. There are other special permits, such as mechanical, electrical and_ plumbing that may also be required. Contact the Development Services Counter for mor information. PREPARED BY:_ Greg Berry 10130114 DEVELOPMENT ENGINEER DATE. Phone: (5031118-2468 E-mail: greg©tigard-or.gov Revised: March 2012 I:IENGIDevelopment Engineering\_Hwy 99W\Preapp ZC 13125.docx CITY OF TIGARO Pre-Application Conference Notes Page 6 o15 Development Engineering RECEIVED City of Tigard . COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT QCT $ 2014 Pre-Application Conference Re ► OF TIGARD TIGARD G/ENGINEERING=_ PROJECT DESCR IONREQUIRED SUBMITTAL Project name/title: 1 ll. i(teELEMENTS Pie -e write a brief f ddescripti-oon ofjropooss project: (Note: applications will not be accepted `' Fet..'ipt+ t —12 ID C'6 without the required submittal elements) 6 COPIES OF EACH OF THE FOLLOWING: -- — - yi Brief description of the proposal and any site-specific questions/issues that PROPERTY INFORMATION n �} you would like to have staff research Property address/location(s): 1 1F(.�C*f [s6 prior to the meeting. Site Plan.The site plan must show the Ir proposed lots and/or building layouts drawn to scale. Also,show the Tax map and tax lot #(s): 2 132ce . 002.li'E-J location of the subject property in 1 relation to the nearest streets;and the Zoning: i -- - locations of driveways on the subject property and across the street. PROPERT WIs ER � INFO ATION • Vicinity Map. Name(s): 1 ` ' -aSlri Jrt y.The Propsecl Uses, �,[� /�,�y� 'r -R-Topographic Information. Address: 4 S Car hone; LIN WC' Include Contour Lines if Possible. City/state: 1 Zip: C _22 $ Filing Fee. APPLI ANT INFORMATION Name: I? ent � U. + / l n FOR QSTAFF USE' ONLY Address: jFEa' ' i f Phone:TIT) ' `� .�,8C Case No.: ! ! ,E2L/'I Li-`�v4J,39 City/state: t1 O is e V ip C,1 LACCE Related Case No. a : - Contact erson: 6 �' "' ' I •sack Application fee: 701,00 Phone: ` 'D Emai1: YY1 h S14eC IY TIC' Apph lti L ccepted: f By: Date: 10 g ly Pre-application Conference Information Date of pre-app: 10 0 1 .All of the information identified on this form is required and must beTime of pre app: I ! 00 tk U\• submitted to the Planning Division a minimum of ten(10) days prior �S� to officially scheduling a pre-application conference.Pre-application Planner assigned to pre-app: F conferences are one (1) hour long and are typically held between the I:\CURPLN\Masters\Land Use Applications Rey.07/17/2014 hours of 9-11 a.m.on either Tuesday or Thursday mornings. Pre-application conferences must be scheduled in person at the Community Development counter from 8-4:30 p.m. Monday-Thursday. If more than four(4) people are expected to attend the pre-application conference in your group, please inform the city in advance so that alternate room arrangements can be made to accommodate the group. City of Tigard • 13125 SW Hall Blvd. • Tigard,Oregon 97223 • www.tigard-or.gov • 503-718-2421 • Page 1 of I CITY OF TIGARD RECEIPT 111 S 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard OR 97223 503-639.4171 TIGARD Receipt Number: 197924 - 10/08/2014 CASE NO. FEE DESCRIPTION REVENUE ACCOUNT NUMBER PAID PRE2014-00039 Pre-Application Conference-LRP 100-0000-43117 $90.00 PRE2014-00039 Pre-Application Conference 100-0000-43116 $611.00 Total: $701.00 PAYMENT METHOD CHECK# CC AUTH.CODE ACCT ID CASHIER ID RECEIPT DATE RECEIPT AMT Check 4685 TLEHRBACH 1010812014 $701.00 Payor: Leadership Circle, LLC Total Payments: $701.00 Balance Due: $0.00 Page 1 of 1 A LEADERSHIP DECEIVED CIRCLE LLCOCT 08 __ REAL ESTATE IDEVELC,P/v'EN4T �01 970.249.3398 office CITY OF TIGARD 970.249.7353 fax PLANNING/ENGINEERING P.O. Box 239, 1521 Oxbow Drive, Suite 210 Montrose, Colorado 81402 October 7, 2014 John Floyd,Associate Planner City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd Tigard,OR 97223 RE: Pre Application Conference Request and Project Description 13125 SW Pacific Hwy Rezone John: Enclosed please find our pre-application conference request packet for the above referenced address. The parcel located at 13125 SW Pacific Hwy is currently zoned R12 with a comprehensive plan designation of M (multi-family). Our proposal is a rezone and comprehensive plan amendment changing the zoning and land use designation to CG. The purpose of the rezone is to bring the parcel into alignment with the parcels along that stretch of SW Pacific Hwy as they are all zoned CG and to allow development of the parcel with a specialty retail use which is permitted by right in the CG zone. I would like to cover the following topics at a pre-application conference: 1. Planning a. Confirmation that rezone application meets code requirements for approval. b. Timeline for rezone and site development review processes(concurrent or consecutive). c. Process for rezone(are neighborhood meetings required). 2. Traffic a. Access management i. Will the existing driveway on SW Pacific Hwy be allowed to remain? ii. Who has authority for access,City or ODOT? iii. What are TIA requirements? Any other information such as utility location information,specialized stormwater requirements, or other site specific development concerns would also be appreciated. My preference for a pre application conference date and time is Thursday October 30, 2014 at 11:00 am. If that date and time are not available, please call me with alternates. Sincerely, AN ' 111 I . Monet Ragsd.4 Development Director T-amis-0=-0.----- . .. idEADERsHip RECEIVED CIRCLE LLC OCT 08 2014 REAL ESTATE �EVELOPMErVT CITY OF TIGARD 970.249.3398 office PLANNING/ENGINEERING 970.249.7353 fax P.O. Box 239, 1521 Oxbow Drive, Suite 210 Montrose, Colorado 81402 October 7, 2014 John Floyd,Associate Planner City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd Tigard, OR 97223 RE: Pre Application Conference Request and Project Description 13125 SW Pacific Hwy Rezone John: Enclosed please find our pre-application conference request packet for the above referenced address. The parcel located at 13125 SW Pacific Hwy is currently zoned R12 with a comprehensive plan designation of M (multi-family). Our proposal is a rezone and comprehensive plan amendment changing the zoning and land use designation to CG. The purpose of the rezone is to bring the parcel into alignment with the parcels along that stretch of SW Pacific Hwy as they are all zoned CG and to allow development of the parcel with a specialty retail use which is permitted by right in the CG zone. I would like to cover the following topics at a pre-application conference: 1. Planning a. Confirmation that rezone application meets code requirements for approval. b. Timeline for rezone and site development review processes(concurrent or consecutive). c. Process for rezone(are neighborhood meetings required). 2. Traffic a. Access management i. Will the existing driveway on SW Pacific Hwy be allowed to remain? ii. Who has authority for access,City or ODOT? iii, What are TIA requirements? Any other information such as utility location information,specialized stormwater requirements,or other site specific development concerns would also be appreciated. My preference for a pre application conference date and time is Thursday October 30,2014 at 11:00 am. if that date and time are not available, please call me with alternates. Sincerely, AA / ,- 9 / . 1111 Monet Ragsd. Development Director CO _ 0) IP.i. fill 1'' r ;4:;1:qr 4,..k.'•-:--- . ''N.S....4.'rr A.,.-a. sir .-. - •.. iir- --.), ;ftek 6...,- ....>-.....';-:- -.-,,,:-.,•:-.:-/-zir w_ir,-..v,---z,.... , • . ' 1- ' r4 '. - V`.G-„ -.K, ',,,. , ' �:... . J1 ° "r; ./of,y•fir. ,r! b,� ,. ”--- '` - v40,1 'ire. iv; i I , a. I. OI. -•l. . :.• .. gok i_4s0 ft -;:#1 1 ," . . 4 ;11t' _ "t ., fs� : ': ?-'' kri. i�. , ^ r• ' w_2 4� +� - "-•* -- '' • 1"6 O •.. tp. •,_ •;/Ft Ea' i►f`1 . •. C! as . k-- civ e. �. h „�, �^T + �.F� ` _M1' - 'PI V. �, . 4 0, F. �• 6._,� +wx ,� iit Y + 1 _ . j ,PS" 4 . '''-• •It" P"... I B - .gire; .i"' P... i'!" I:". \\S.• 4.:Tfil ...tL46-..ii0,ts ` S� ;'4 o'�� .re , T; j ,. �C�; •',�i , h .-,..-..ir .r ' '. ,.7.1, r,,;,.t :140 p,,*a►ae.' "�.. 1, .. !-. ,t ^fII•i,'� •1 PS�7,`` C1, 1'T r . may. . ,01,2-1 , ‘...1-:47.t:t"ti. 1f*r..r 5.t,! %'1tJ1� f`r r ) •1 �[r. .... ; �_Jf4'.' ..!.. dt ,14-s.'"1." T '.- -' 7'4 __I. . ,- "? '� t VICINITY MAP ZONING'C-G ' PARKING RATIO"11300 SF '- PARKIN G REQUIRED:45 PARKING PROVIDED 63 LANDSCAPE REQUIRED:15% -- - LANDSCAPE PROVIDED:15 1% SIGNAGE ALLOWED:1 MONUMENT SIGN h '-' SIGNAGE PROVIDED:1 MONUMENT SIGN 1011ft)I IE p^ ro h, Ir Yz I.." Iiiii ' \ 9 Q - ! Ems-M„'.I f PR_iPCI. _r.L- .�Y. \ x OJT Y -.. �1: � - A6.1 OAS W r, BUILDING SMACK I \\ ,(1iiir ` EZ _ x11 +Y \ Ll 1 1111111t: 3'LANDSCAPE OVERMAN i �. - Q a I11 r,\ +� SPECIALTY GROCERY U Airtiill ' ..., \ FOOTPRINT: Z a^\ 15,000 SF 0Iiil i I 0 4 Ai .. . 01 0 .35, 9 \,\ I” d 64 11 J q ', ti • okO" \. , a. .r� OA \• \ l I S ti ,‘ y ri",, //// \/ CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN ! SCALE.1' =4C' r' .r 12975 11.2' 1.3 ;' , 51111X0 1 1,1111B ,12:1.3{) • 13on XIS ' 2) ITAD Two //� ‘i,' 1 29 EA 4 59.3 alig) Na aZ6-30 4�� R-1 3573 13045 . s 13 55 . - - .j _ 13040 0, 13044 Q( : - X73 IS'T 9915 13040 • 9915 X00 10270 '• ._� R-4.5 �'�F 9915915 _ !y9915 10250 13125 14/ 9915 9915 13070 T 9915 9915 MO 13130 10230 9915 C68,§ ZjX12 1143 '1r10 13150 LP1, 13170 9900 13155 9900 9900 9900 9900 7 5k1f44 9900 9900 9900 10055 l 10055 055 10055 9870 9870 W '' O 10055 10055ili010055 9870 9870 IEMB 9870 9870 � � 10055 10055 9850 9850 3=b 13 10055 10055 9850 9850 13 10055 9'850 9850 10365INCA 10035 9820 9850 10035 10035 9820 N Feet 10070 10035 10035 4820 9820 9800 0 125 10068 10035 10035 9820 Imi 10066 10035 9820 9800 9800 4 • LEADERSHIP CIRCLE LLC REAL ESTATE CPEVELOPMEIVT 970.249.3398 office 970.249.7353 fax P.O. Box 239, 1521 Oxbow Drive, Suite 210 Montrose. Colorado 81 402 NOTICE OF NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING March 6, 2015 RE: 13125 SW Pacific Hwy Application for Rezone and Site Development Review Dear Neighbor: Leadership Circle, LLC represents the owner of the property located at 13125 SW Pacific Hwy. We are considering proposing a change of zone from R-12 (high density residential)to C-G (Commercial- General); in addition to the change of zone, we are considering proposing a site development review for a new 15,000 sf retail building at this location. Prior to applying to the City of Tigard for the necessary land use approvals, I would like to discuss the proposal in more detail with surrounding property owners and residents. You are invited to attend a meeting on: Tuesday March 31, 2015 Charles F Tigard School Library RTU-3 12855 SW Grant Ave 6:00pm—7:00pm Please notice this will be an informational meeting based on preliminary plans. These plans may be altered prior to submittal of the application to the City. I look forward to more specifically discussing the proposal with you. Please call me at 970 249 3398 if you have any questions. Sincerely, Monet Rags• Development Director • • a : _ a • x /' 1 "A _� i ;�by,oz-p1.. e 74'7 ' il, r Y y' , to iiii -,,,,Li..,ei . o . 1 '.- _, i _ i 'gyre p r, ,, Ptt, • ._ "" M I� 7",,, ` _ • Ix R. •F �' , � L`! Ql. .. " .a Sia �� 1";, Vis -3kalltAi y 967 Y"' • 8'► % y } '. j _• *' .,I • ° $ '! r 1v Y+4 r � �i .l .. a ammiuniiitm ir ---11 � •f ..-" 1I� g _ +MSS T �_M SCF k.'1 yis-a lo,,,,,;.. ,._.. .,,,,...... , .410.. iiiImmall , , k__v.. -4601,ii.,0, 1 ,,,... ! _ rip, i.44,‘7. ''-"7"._ ...z.!. --, . .ip -ww.... 1.1.;:71,74.tel;,‘ r:04..-.1,4„kir ‘410, .a• vs,. .. 4.1' . sc tt 74'. I. •N .s I, fir•>�M a _, % „,c, A .�, * Ilij +0;: .-4-,„'-' 4 P 4.14'9. •H+", " 'r • •-, • �'.A� . , ***V4,- ay. 1Sl t 7 I I • •11y ..-eV;' ! .. eta a,.� 4' `3 .` . 4l ' ,ma k ^ ,. 1 �� • ili ,� - 1� s• } 1. dil a • -. arras►_ S ll--l 'i 1: i erh° •a K0. ' .* ''7 .41;7— 'f",-. **If -;-,„,- ,';;e•ler . ,,.-•:- f 41.44;4;14.* *,!' "-,_.,...1" _ ' .,,_ '..-14i.-. - ' ,'' -J.- 14; t= ,-",-*.• ''',144-' ' "rbtti=4= ' '".;-.7--}. "V '.' .4p.:1 02/060015!TIGARD,OR A CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN ve g a -- - - ��y,yuyrr- ' vegl,ar,Av."�;n .4 af[111Iectun.II ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS 114 i TIGARD May 14, 2015 City of Tigard Monet Ragsdale Leadership Circle LLC P.O. Box 239 Montrose, CO 81402 RE: Completeness Review- Leadership Circle Specialty Grocery, Case File Nos. CPA2015- 00003/Z ON2015-00004/SD R2015-00002/VAR2015-00028 Dear Ms. Ragsdale: The City received your application for Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Site Development Review, and an Adjustment for street spacing on April 14, 2015 for the redevelopment of a 1.37-acre parcel located at 13125 SW Pacific Hwy. Please submit the following additional information to complete your application: Narrative. Your application does not include a narrative addressing the applicable sections of the development code. The pre-application notes only identified code sections relating to the zone change and comprehensive plan amendment. You could either have a separate pre-app for the proposed site development review, or include the required elements through this completeness process. The narrative must include findings for each applicable code section, application of the facts related to your proposal, and conclusions whether the standards are met. A land use planner familiar with this process is recommended. Pre-Application Conference Notes: Your submittal did not include copies of the Development Engineering pre-application conference notes. Public Facility Plan Checklist: Please address any deficiencies identified in die Public Facilities Completeness Checklist. This can be obtained from Development Engineering (contact Greg Berry at 503-718-2468). Once this additional information is submitted, staff will review the additional materials to determine if the application is substantively complete. If you have any questions regarding this letter or your application, please don't hesitate to contact me at 503-718-2434. Sincerely, Gary Pagenstecher, AICP Associate Planner 13125 SW Hall Blvd. • Tigard, Oregon 97223 • 503.639.4171 TTY Relay: 503.684.2772 • www.tigard-or.gov ---,,e .• . 5*E'lir 5=26 -/c 4,),E7H/FiL" IVP r fzr-4(17- "i/C4A-r2,6. " PUBLIC FACILITY PLAN Project: Specialty Retail a`' Case Nos.: SDR2015-00002 & ZON2015-00004 COMPLETENESS CHECKLIST Date: May 5, 2015 GRADING Z Existing and proposed contours shown. _ Does proposed grading impact adjacent parcels? O. Yes /1 No ❑ Adjacent parcel grades shown. None shown STREET ISSUES ® Right-of-way clearly shown. Z Centerline of streees) clearer shown. _ - Z Street name(s) shown. - - Existing/proposed curb or edge of pavement shown, ❑ Street profiles shown. _ None shown ❑ Future Street Plan: Must show street profiles, School Street to connect with 99W at topo on adjacent parcel(s), etc. Garrett Street _ Z Traffic Impact Report O Street grades compliant? School Street not shown ►i1 Street widths dimensioned and appropriate? 7 lane arterial (64' from centerline) ❑ Private Streets? Less than 6 lots and width N/A appropriate? 11 Other: As per pre-app notes (not included in narrative), School Street to be extended and realigned with Garrett Street at 99W. SANITARY SEWER ISSUES a Existing/proposed lines shown. Need ODOT permit. Proposed lateral too long iE Stubs to adjacent parcels required/shown? None needed WATER ISSUES Existing/proposed lines w/ sizes noted? Not clear Z Existing/proposed fire hydrants shown? Existing hydrant LPC on 99W Z Proposed meter location and size shown? Not shown E Proposed fire protection system shown? Shown STORM DRAINAGE AND WATER QUALITY ISSUES l4 Existing/proposed lines shown? Need ODOT permit Z Preliminary sizing calcs for water quality/detention provided? isi Water quality/detention facility shown on plans? ►1 Facility area matches requirements from calcs? 11 Facility shown outside wetland buffer? L Storm stubs to adjacent parcels required/shown? Not Applicable The submittal is hereby deemed — COMPLETE (Provide information noted above with PFI) I INCOMPLETE C:1UserstiGaryplAppdatalLocal\Microsoft\windows\Temparary Internet Files\Content.OutlooktWSH3CD431Specialty_Retail_(Completeness)- S D R2015-00001.Docx RECEIVED JUL 16 2015 " City of Tigard CITY OF TIGARD TlGARQ Land Use Permit Application PLANNING/ENGINEERING APPLICATIONS WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED IN PARTIAL SUBMITTALS. ALL ITEMS MUST BE SUBMITTED AT ONE TIME. This form is required to complete your submittal. The applicant must check the box next to the item verifying that the information is present. Staff will check off the items at intake. Three (3)copies of all materials are required for the initial review process. The balance of the copies will be requested once your submittal is deemed substantially complete. ➢ Each packet must be collated. Plans are required to be a minimum of 24"x 36"or 22"x 34". ii Plans must be FOLDED,rolled plans are not accepted. Applicant Staff Documents,Copies and Fees Required X Completed Master"Land Use Permit"Application with property owner's signature or name of agent and letter of authorization Title transfer instrument or grant deed C \\ ntten summary of proposal N o r.trive demonstrating compliance with LI applicable development standards and approval f� crtterti ;as specified in the Pre- Application Conference notes) Documentary evidence of Neighborhood Meeting:Neighborhood Meeting Affidavits of Posting& Mailing Notice,Minutes,Sign-in Sheets Service Provider Letter Impact Study per Section I8.390.040.l3..2(e) X Copy of the Pre-Application Conference notes Filing Fee (sue fee schedule) Preliminary Sight Distance Certification Preliminary Storm Calculations Arborist Report Traffic Report(if Required) Maps or Plans (Plans must be at least 24"x 36") Architectural Drawings (elevations& floor plans) Existing Conditions Map X. Landscape Plan • Preliminary Grading/Erosion Control Plan ( Preliminary Partition/Lot Line Adjustment Plan Preliminary Storm Drainage Plan Preliminary Utilities Plan Public Improvements/Streets Plan Site Development Plan — -- - - 1 //c Subdivision Preliminary Plat Map - - `�, 'Topography Map 'Free Preservation/Mitigation Plan Vicinity Map i Once your application has been deemed substantially complete you will be notified by the Planning Division in the form of a completeness letter indicating that you will need to provide envelopes (please see Request for 500' Property Owner Notification form). 11,i,rar<\NC'Arplication C inn rence I'xckc1Submitt;tlRe9u,rcmentad;bceklist2(1151i4 9.d x :updated: 1-4/10/2111 5) ' IN to TIGARD August 6, 2015 City of Tigard Monet Ragsdale Leadership Circle LLC P.O. Box 239 Montrose, CO 81402 RE: Completeness Review- Leadership Circle Specialty Grocery, Case File Nos. CPA2015- 00003/ZGN2015-00004/SDR2015-00002/VAR2015-00028 Dear Ms. Ragsdale: The City received your revised application materials for Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Site Development Review, and an Adjustment for street spacing on July 16, 2015 for the redevelopment of a 1.37-acre parcel located at 13125 SW Pacific Hwy. Please submit the following additional information to complete your application: Narrative. Findings for 18.795, Visual Clearance Areas, should be amended to include a Triangle area on sheet L1.1 at the intersection of School Street and Pacific Hwy, consistent with the attached Completeness Review Checklist comments for that intersection design. Pre-Application Conference Notes; In addition to the June 23, 2015 notes, please include copies of October 30, 2014 Pre-Application Notes. Public Facility Plan Checklist: Please address any deficiencies identified in the Public Facilities Completeness Checklist. (contact Greg Berry at 503-718-2468). Once this additional information is submitted, staff will review the additional materials to determine if the application is substantively complete. If you have any questions regarding this letter or your application,please don't hesitate to contact me at 503-718-2434. Sincerely, OF Gary Pagenstecher, AICP Associate Planner 13125 SW Hall Blvd. • Tigard, Oregon 97223 • 503.639.4171 TTY Relay: 503.684.2772 • www.tigard-or.gov RECEIVED SEP 232015 CITY OF TIGARD PANNING/ENGINEERING TRANSMITTAL y Cardno Shaping the Future To: City of Tigard City Hall Date: 9/2312015 - 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Project: Natural Grocers 5415 SW Westgate Drive Suite 100 Tigard, OR 97223 Project#: 21409110 _ Portland,Oregon 97221 USA Case/File#: CPA15-03 Phone (503)419-2500 Fax#: Total Pages: 330 Fax (503)4t9-2600 From: Cardno www.cardno.com Transmitting Via: Purpose: ❑ UPS ® For your approval Other: Messenger ❑ Other: Quantity Description 6 Written Statement/Narrative 6 Site Plans Comments: Resumbittal items for 13125 SW Pacific Highway - Specialy Retail in response to Completeness Checklist from August 26, 2015 Signature: — C: Australia • Belgium • Indonesia • Kenya • New Zealand • Papua New Guinea United Arab Emirates • United Kingdom • United States • Operations in 60 Countries PUBLIC FACILITY PLAN Project: Leadership Circle s COMPLETENESS CHECKLIST Case No.: SDRI5-02 TIGARD Date: 8-6-15 GRADING Z Existing and proposed contours shown. Z Does proposed grading impact adjacent parcels? ►zi Adjacent parcel grades shown. E Geotech report submitted Not required STREET ISSUES ❑ Right-of-way clearly shown. Show required dedications. IN Street name(s) shown. ►� Exist/proposed curb or edge of pavement shown. N Street profiles shown. E4 Future Street Plan: Must show street profiles, topo on adjacent parcel(s), etc. a Traffic Impact Report Street grades compliant? _ N Street widths dimensioned and appropriate? Private Streets? Less than 6 lots and width Not proposed appropriate? ! Show: - 25— 30' curb radius for School St. - side of adjacent building and any appurtenances. ❑ Other: - sidewalk ramp to AC - ADA ramp crossing at loading zone - Provide continuous AC at driveway (Highway connection details must be approved by ODOT for PFI permit). SANITARY SEWER ISSUES Keep lateral perpendicular to highway El Existing/proposed lines shown. while in the right-of-way. May be parallel onsite. ❑ Stubs to adjacent parcels required/shown? Not required WATER ISSUES ►� Existing/proposed lines w/ sizes noted? • Existing/proposed fire hydrants shown? N Proposed meter location and size shown? ► Proposed fire protection system shown? Other: (Hydrant location and flows to be approved by TVFD for PFI permit) C:1UserslGarypAAppdatalLocat\Microsoftlwindows\Temporary Internet f=ifes\Content.OutlooklWSH3CD43lLeadership Circle SDR15-01 Cornpleteness.Docx STORM DRAINAGE AND WATER QUALITY ISSUES El Existing/proposed lines shown? ElPrelim. sizing tales for WQ/detention provided? (For PFI permit, WQ#1 must be of a type permitted for use in a right-of-way.) !BI I Water quality/detention facility shown on plans? 0, Facility area matches requirements from calcs? E _Facility shown outside wetland buffer? Doesn't apply ❑ Storm stubs to adjacent parcels required/shown? Not required ❑ Other: The submittal is hereby deemed ❑ COMPLETE (Provide information noted above with PFI) ❑ INCOMPLETE (Resubmit) By: Date: 8-6-15 C'\Users\GaryplAppdatahLocal\Microsoft\Windows\Temporary Internet Files\Content,Outlook\WSH3CD43\Leadership Circle SDR15-41 Compl teness.Docx C0414Z.o/S=4!) 3 LAND USE APPLICATION P`o'eet:r.oi� L0,r—oaaoY Date: S t)/2.z,t)/S' -"00 - COMPLETENESS REVIEW ❑ COMPLETE WINO MP TE � 't`,3— STANDARD INFORMATION: „ErdrDeed/Title/Proof of Ownershi Neighborhood Mtg.Affidavits,Minutes,List of Attendees USA Service Provider Letter Construction Cost Estimate Pre-Application Conference Notes #Sets Of Application Materials/Plans-"Paper Copies" Impact Study(18.390) te #Sets Of Application Materials/Plans—"CD's" 2 Sets of#10 Envelopes with Postage (Verify Count) NOTE: Envelopes are not due until your application has been deemed substantially complete by the Planning Division. You will be notified by letter when it is time to obtain your labels for the envelopes. PROJECT STATISTICS: i3uilding Footprint Size ,... 1-70 of Landscaping On Site Lot Square Footage 2t— 4/0 of Building Impervious Surface On Site PLANS DIMENSIONED: Building Footprint Parking Space Dimensions(Accessible&Bike Parking) Access Approach and Aisle 5Tuilding Height V'sual Clearance Triangle Shown [I] "ruck Loading Space Where Applicable ADDITIONAL PLANS: J tctroty Map Architectural Plan Tree Inventory Existing Conditions Plan 12---Landscape Plan hting Plan Site Plan TREE PLAN/MITIGATION PLAN: ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ADDITIONAL REPORTS: st any special reports) , b‘r4/4-6,01-(4.45rj Er (..3 r p • 141.-11.-•-t'cVode.,_ 0 RESPONSE TO APPLICABLE CODE SECTIONS: ❑ 18.330(Conditional Use) ❑ 18.630(Washington Square Regional Center) ❑ 18.775(Sensitive Lands Review) ❑ 18.340(Director's Interpretation) ❑ 18.705(Access/I?grecs/Circulation) ❑ 18,780(Signs) ❑ 18.350(Planned Development) ❑ 18.710(Accessory Residential Units) ❑ 18.785(Temporary Use Permits) ❑ 18.360(Site Development Review) ❑ 18.715(Density Computations) E 18.790(free Removal) ❑ 18.370(\"ariance•s/Adjustments) ❑ 18.720(Design Compatibility Standards) ❑ 18.795(Visual Clearance Areas) ❑ 18.380(Zoning Map/Text Amendments) ❑ 18.725(Isnvironmental Performance Standards; ❑ 18.798(Wireless Communication Facilities) ❑ 18.390(Decision Making Procedures/Impact Study) ❑ 18.730(1sxcepnons To Development Standards ❑ 18.810(Street&Utility Improvement Standards) 1 ❑ 18.410(Lot Line Adjustments) ❑ 18.740(1 listoric Overlay) ❑ 18.420(Land Partitions) ❑ 18.742'(I tome Occupation Permits) ❑ 18.430(Subdivisions) ❑ 18.745(Landscaping&Screening Standards) • 18.510(Residential Zoning Districts) ❑ 18.750(Manufactured/Mobil I Ione Regulations) ❑ 18.520(Commercial Zoning Districts) El 18.755(Mixed Solid Waste/Recycling Storage) ❑ 18.530(Industrial Zoning Districts) ❑ 18.760(Nonconforming Situations) ❑ 18.620(Tigard'Ft-tngle Design Standards) ❑ 18.765(Off-Street Parking/Loading Requirements) ADDITIONAL ITIONAL ITEMS: /t/ /7 > ri(erE I:\curpin\rnasters\forms-revised\land use application completeness review.doc (Updated:20-May-08) 1 9 Gary Pagenstecher From: Gary Pagenstecher Sent: Thursday, August 27, 2015 11:48 AM To: 'Sou Souvanny; Read Stapleton (Portland) (read.stapleton@cardno.com) Cc: Greg Berry; Kim McMillan Subject: RE: Tigard Leadership Circle Specialty Grocers: Additional completeness items Sou and Read, The information in your August 27th letter needs to be incorporated into the narrative: findings for the TPR under Applicable State Regulations, and findings for 18.380 under the Development Code section. Otherwise, the application could be considered substantively complete for planning. I have discussed the project with Greg Berry and there are outstanding issues with School Street that will need to be addressed in revised plans concerning off-site street profiles and improvements for School Street from the edge of the site to Grant Street.The mitigation measures identified in the TPR analysis indicate the importance of School Street for alternative access to Hwy 99 through Grant.Therefore, your application should reflect this rather than leaving it for a condition of approval. I imagine an additional sheet showing the School street profile between the site and Grant street, section details, and 1/2 street improvements to the east of centerline. Greg (503-718-2468)will follow with specifics for application completeness. -- -- ?"- . I will be out on vacation the month of September, but will track the project to keep it moving. Thanks, Gary Gary Pagenstecher, AICP Associate Planner Community Development City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 Phone: 503-718-2434 Fax: 503-718-2748 Email:garvp@tigard-or.goy From: Sou Souvanny [mailto:Sou.Souvanny©cardno.comj Sent: Thursday, August 27, 2015 10:38 AM To: Gary Pagenstecher Subject: Tigard Leadership Circle Specialty Grocers: Additional completeness items Hello Gary, Read forwarded me your voicemail and I have attached the following response letter to address the additional requested items. The applicable standards in Section 18.380 have been added to the letter and a response is provided for the TPR. I have also attached the Kittelson and Associates report dated July 15, 2015 which references the TPR. Would this electronic copy suffice or would you like us to drop off hard copies to the City? Thank you, Sou Sou Souvanny PLANNER ENGINEERING & ENVIRONMEN .L Lk CARDNO Cs, Cardno Shaping the Future Office (+1) 503-419-2500 Direct(+1) 503-419-2532 Fax(+1) 503-419-2600 Address 5415 SW Westgate Drive, Ste 100, Portland, OR 97221 Email sou.souvanny cz,cardno.com Web www.cardno cam CONNECT WITH CARDNO ® irjD 7,J YEARS of shaping the future 1945.7016 This email and its attachments may contain confidential and/or pnvileged information for the sole use of the intended recipient(s).All electronically supplied data must be checked against an applicable hardcopy version which shall be the only document which Cardno warrants accuracy.if you are not the intended recipient. any use distribution or copying of the information contained in this email arid its attachments is strictly prohibited If you have received this email in error.ptease email the sender by replying to this message and immediately delete and destroy any copies of this email and any attachments The views or opinions expressed are the author's own and may not reflect the views or opinions of Cardno 2 TIGARD City ©f Tigard October 16, 2015 Monet Ragsdale Leadership Circle LLC P.O. Box 239 Montrose, CO 81402 RE: Completeness Review- Leadership Circle Specialty Grocery, Case File Nos. CPA2015- 1 00003/ZON2015-00004/SDR2015-00002/VA R2015-00028 Dear Ms. Ragsdale: The City received your revised supplemental application materials for Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Site Development Review, and an Adjustment for street spacing on September 23, 2015 for the redevelopment of a 1.37-acre parcel located at 13125 SW Pacific Hwy. The application is substantively complete. Please submit the following additional items to complete your application: ' Notice: In an effort to control visual clutter in the public realm, the city now requires as a matter of practice that surface mounted transformers associated with electric utility service (18.810.120.A.2) must be located as described in 18.330.050.B.15.f.iii-v. Please coordinate with PGE to locate the proposed • transformers in a revised plan set consistent with these standards. 1 ! Application Copies: Please Submit 27 copies ofyour revised and new materials (includingall elements K Pp p of the submittal, collated, tabbed, and bound). Plan sets may be printed at 11" x 17" size as long as you include 3 copies of large set plans. Also, submit 9 additional copies of your reduced plan sets only, plus one copy at 8 1/2" x 11" for our records, and a compact disc including all elements of your proposal. If you have any questions regarding this letter or your application, please don't hesitate to contact me at 503-718-2434. Sincerely, P c_ J ` Gary Pagenstecher,AICP Associate Planner 13125 SW Hall Blvd. • Tigard, Oregon 97223 • 503.639.4171 TTY Relay: 503.684.2772 • www.tigard-or.gov � I Gary Pagenstecher Subject: Specialty Grocer Location: CR 3 Permit Center • Start: Thu 10/29/2015 1:00 PM End: Thu 10/29/2015 2:00 PM Recurrence: (none) Meeting Status: Meeting organizer Organizer: Gary Pagenstecher Required Attendees: 'Read Stapleton'; Tom McGuire;John Floyd; monet@leadershipcirclellc.com Resources: CR - 3 Permit Center Meeting to discuss applications for R-12 zone conversions. Teleconference access codes below: Teleconference #: 1-877-366-071; Participant Code: 20417401# o 0 Host Code: 64840103# (for Cardno only) From: Read Stapleton [mailto:readstapleton@cardno.com] Sent: Friday, October 23, 2015 7:33 AM To: Gary Pagenstecher Subject: RE: Specialty Grocer Ps' • I'm available between 9:30 and noon on Monday.Just let me know. Thxl # , /) r t /) c K t 7-0 /c&. ) Read Read Stapleton, AICP . PLANNING GROUP MANAGER CARDNO Cardno. Shaping the FON* Phone(+1) 503-419-2500 Fax(+1) 503-419-2600 Direct (+1)503-419-2513 Mobile(+1) 971-219-5013 Address 5415 SW Westgate Drive, Suite 100 Portland, OR 97221 Email read.stapleton c(�i,cardno.com Web www.cardno.com lois email and its attachments may contain confidential andior privileged information for the sole use of the intended recipiunt(si.All electronically supplied data must be checked against an applicable hardcopy version which shall be the only document for which Cardno warrants accuracy.If you are not the intended recipient any use distribution or copying of the information contained in this email and its attachments is strictly prohibited If you have received this email in error. please email the sender by replying to this message and immediately delete and destroy any copies of this email and any attachments the views car opinions expressed are the authors own and may not reflect the views or opinions of Cardno. From: Gary Pagenstecher [mailto:Garyp(altigard-or.gov] Sent:Thursday, October 22, 2015 5:31 PM 1 • To: Read Stapleton Subject: RE: Specialty Grocer Read, Tom McGuire has asked that you join us in a discussion on your application.With the experience we are having with Heritage Crossing, it seems prudent to coordinate to ensure a positive staff recommendation, where at this point it is unclear. Would you be available on Monday? Thanks, Gary From: Read Stapleton [mailto:read.stapletonPcardno.com] Sent: Thursday, October 22, 2015 8:40 AM To: Gary Pagenstecher Cc: monet©leadershipcirclellc.com; Sou Souvanny; Ben Williams Subject: RE: Specialty Grocer Gary— Thanks for the note. Regarding Metro Title 1, below is our analysis and our applicant statement regarding compliance. Please let me know of any concerns regarding this analysis and with the City's ability to make findings consistent with our findings below. Thank you. Read Applicant Statement Section 3.07.120(A) of the Metro Urban Growth Management Functional Plan (UGMFP) states that a "city or county may reduce the minimum zoned capacity of the Central City or a Regional Center,Town Center, Corridor, Station Community or Main Street under subsection D or E." (emphasis added) The proposed rezone site (red dot) is within a Corridor(yellow) as identified below in the snapshot from the 2040 Growth Concept map and as attached. Because the site is within a "Corridor",Title 1 compliance can be demonstrated through either 3.07.120(D) OR (E). (J ) Cc?!'inc Shaping the Future The applicant's proposal is compliant with UGMFP Section 3.07.120(E), which states: "A city or county may reduce the minimum zoned capacity of a single lot or parcel so long as the reduction has a negligible effect on the city's or county's overall minimum zoned residential capacity." Findings are provided in our narrative and summarized below regarding the negligible impact that the application will have on residential capacities within the City. Specifically, the following findings support a compliance finding with UGMFP 3.07.120(E): • As identified in the City's most recent BL1 map, dated January 1, 2014, the project site has not been identified as a buildable, likely due to its ownership by the school district and aggregation with adjoining school properties. Therefore, the conversion of the site's zoning district to C-G will not have a demonstrable effect on the planned residential capacity of the City as the City has recognized, through its own buildable lands analysis, that the site is unlikely to be realized for residential development. 2 • If the site were developed for medium density residential use,the 1.37-acre site could be developed with approximately 16-units based on the R-12 zoning designation. It is not anticipated that the elimination of this limited housing capacity will result in a significant impact on the City's R-12 residential capacity.This is evident in the fact that the City's January 1, 2014 BLI map indicates that an additional 34.26-acres of buildable land zoned R-12 would remain available.Therefore, the potential 16 multi-family units that could be developed on the site represent only 4%of the of total 411 units that can be built on available R-12 lands in the City. • The proposed site acreage, at 1.37-acres, represents just 0.4%of the total buildable residential land area (307.2-acres) identified in the City's 2014 buildable lands inventory. For all of the reasons above, the applicant's proposal demonstrates a negligible impact on the city's overall minimum zoned residential capacity. Read Stapleton, AICD PLANNING GROUP MANAGER CARDNO Lbt >nurra `f . Tig'ardk. Scholl` �. a , 2 4. King ' V) • ! Phone (+1) 503-419-2500 Fax(+1) 503-419-2600 Direct (+1) 503-419-2513 Mobile (+1) 971-219-5013 Address 5415 SW Westgate Drive, Suite 100 Portland, OR 97221 Email read.stapletonta@cardno.com Web www.cardno.com This email and its attachments may contain confidential andlor privileged information for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) All electronically supplied data must be checked against an applicable hardcopy version which shall be the only document for which Cardno warrants accuracy If you are not the intended recipient,any use.distribution or copying of the information contained in this email and its attachments is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please email the sender by replying to this message and immediately delete and destroy any copies of this email and any attachments.The views or opinions expressed are the authors own and may not reflect the views or opinions of Cardno. From: Gary Pagenstecher [mailto:Garyp@tigard-or.gov] Sent: Wednesday, October 21, 2015 5:23 PM To: Read Stapleton Subject: Specialty Grocer Read, I just spoke to Brian Harper of Metro who reminded me that the zone change from R-12 to C-G would require a Metro Title 1 analysis. I see that has not been addressed in your application, even though it is applicable.There is a focus on 3 this issue with another application downzoning R-12 zoned land that is currently on appeal at the Council (see attached Harper letter). I think a supplemental memo to your application would suffice by Thursday the 29th My call to Brian was to confirm that they would accept a 35-day notice period prior to the PC hearing date instead of the 45 days on the books. At 35 days, and noticed prior to November 2nd we can book the December 14th Planning Commission hearing. The first available City Council hearing would be January 26, 2015. Thanks, Gary Gary Pagenstecher,AICP Associate Planner Community Development City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 Phone: 503-718-2434 Fax: 503-718-2748 Email:garyp@tigard-or.gov DISCLAIMER: E-mails sent or received by City of Tigard employees are subject to public record laws. If requested. e-mail may be disclosed to another party unless exempt from disclosure under Oregon Public Records Law. E-mails are retained b the Cit of Tigard in compliance with the Oregon Administrative Rules "City General Records Retention Schedule." tux k I lilyrrai4. .' '79 11. #4. 3Ch0LS +(: `may' • .± . Kin - (.1", Cardna Cimr, Carcina iv) f _ Shaping the Future Shaping the Future 11 4 Gary Pagenstecher From: Gary Pagenstecher Sent: Tuesday, November 03, 2015 2:15 PM To: 'Read Stapleton' Cc: Monet Ragsdale; Ben Williams Subject: RE: Specialty Grocer Application Read, Your email below is accepted as your intent to withdraw applications CPA2015-00003, ZON2015-00004, SDR2015-00002, and VAR2015-0002 under the assumptions the City agrees to. I will initiate a refund request, which will take several weeks to process. At the effective date of the legislative zone change by the city, the city anticipates you will submit a new application for SDR and VAR with associated fees for the proposed development of the subject property. In the meantime, I look forward to working with you to resolve site design issues for your revised application. Thank you, Gary r Gary Pagenstecher, AICP 14eti-j` Associate Planner 11 `1 Community Development Z 0--tt� C C2 ( /L1r`tf City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd. f r' _ / Tigard, OR 97223 Phone: 503-718-2434 Fax: 503-718-2748 Email:garypWtigard-or.gov From: Read Stapleton [mailto:read.stapleton@cardno.com] Sent: Monday, November 02, 2015 2:06 PM To: Gary Pagenstecher Cc: Monet Ragsdale; Ben Williams Subject: Specialty Grocer Application Gary— I spoke with Monet from Leadership Circle and she has confirmed that Leadership Circle, the applicant, is OK with withdrawing the site development review and plan amendment and zone change application to allow the City to proceed with the plan amendment/zone changes as a legislative matter. This is based on our discussion earlier and understanding of the following: • Application fees for the current request will be refunded. • The legislative change will be noticed this week and a Planning Commission hearing date will be December 14th. • Barring any hangups at the planning commission stage, a City Council hearing will be held on January 19t" • An emergency ordinance adoption will occur making the decision effective immediately allowing a new site development review request to be filed on January 20th. • The City will work with us in the interim period and during the legislative update to resolve road design, pedestrian pathway and transformer location and design concerns that have been raised. Please let me know what else you need from us, if anything, to formally withdraw the application and requests. 1 Thank you! Read Read Stapleton, AICP PLANNING GROUP MANAGER CARDNO (.:1) Cardno Shaping the Future Phone (+1) 503-419-2500 Fax(+1) 503-419-2600 Direct(+1)503-419-2513 Mobile (+1) 971-219-5013 Address 5415 SW Westgate Drive, Suite 100 Portland, OR 97221 Email read.stapieton@cardno.com Web www.cardno.com This email and its atlachments may contain confidential and/or privileged information for the sole use of the intended recipients) All electronically suppled data must be checked against an applicable hardcopy version which shall be the only document for which Cardno warrants accuracy. If you are not the intended recipient.any use.distribution or copying of the information contained in this email and its attachments is strictly prohibited.If you have received this email in error. please email the sender by replying to this message and immediately delete and destroy any copies of this email and any attachments The views or opinions expressed are the author's own and may not reflect the views or opinions of Cardno 2 LARGE PLANS FOR THIS FILE ARE IN THE RECORDS ROOM i - RECEI' 'ED CO document is aTCOPYRIGHT2015 V This documentis an instrument of service,and as such,remains the property of the Architect SEPSSP9 � i� Permission for use of this document is limited 3 1 and can be extended only by written agreement t LEGEND: CITY OF TIGARD with vega architecture[lc 1 PLANNINr/ENCHNEFRING �---� - BOUNDARY LINE - EXISTING CURB LINE [ \ \ ` \ ` \ \ s...,\, - PROPOSED BUILDING PROPOSED CONCRETE CURB CD 14 I. - PROPOSED STRIPING - EXISTING I G CONCRETE SURFACE Fulum CO CHARLES F. TIGARD CHARLES F. TIGARD PORTLAND - PROPOSED PLAIN CONCRETE WALK 5415 swwEsrcATE DR, PORTLAND,ice,powtD,oR 97221 ELEMENTARY SCHOOL \ ELEMENTARY SCHOOL e ,E�(so3)4,9-2500 FAX{503)4,9-2600 POTENTIAL SIDEWALK CONNECTION TO GRANT STREET (RESIDENTIAL ZONING-R12) \ (RESIDENTIAL ZONING-R12) ^"""`pro"°�°"' - PROPOSED REINFORCED DRIVEWAY CONCRETE \ f 1 20.00'BUILDING SETBACK SURFACE 5.00'SIDEWALK PROPOSED LIGHT ASPHALT SURFACE vega TYPE 3 BARRICADE � .x: - E Irlt :;:; :::11.09' .TRASH ENCLOSURE WITH" $ - PROPOSED HEAVY ASPHALT R 1` ! I .: : 6'SCREEN WALL 3 OVERHANG �< SURFACE IjI I ..�..,.. ._. .... ._ ._„. . _...._.......,.�.. �... .v...� ..�. .,..�.. ... �. .�.... .... _ _, .,.. .�.. .�,..�,... _. ..�. .. .� ....... .... ._. ..�. ......� ..� 1 - PROPOSED LANDSCAPE SURFACE - 1 .'"f'`S-' 'a'�<' s- r1'',/'r 1t+ :F.ate#'�it---#-:"#°:f.r"f 's �''_"�,>r:� .� ..,-. ,.^,. fi _ - - --- - - - -� - • 19.0. :�� d ,i r�E a _III , , �'> ,°�/' r`' r �� PROPOSED DIRECTIONAL PAVEMENT MARKINGS r �. � � 15.5' (171, Vis: v - PROPOSED SIGN I 6.DD' --:I ' i i i . ----- 0.4s09 , . IJI ,r architecture Ilc j �/ et/xi,/ 7 ,, ,J r ' .�` ,/;// V r 4 'fid 1 t f 1.1. r-, PROPOSED RIGHT-OF-WAY R2.0 • ' - PROPOSED•4� � _0.0 .. � ' :: ADA PARKING STALL f .. ,R3•0 4ttz�4� �'< , d 9.0 R3.0 TO BE DEDICATED lsiiiin l- ..: , 4 _. s �: war & *• �Sw Fx r a@„,i4',17 lo, `�e t h .��s,�, , �.�. g i :�,.y,..�,. , CART RAMP ;,e. -.a .Fp F;#".....�m e. . ,r,> } c +, yy 's;rt, ...E' w,9s'?' w:a,a, '±u..... k :., 's.. $.. �;. 3 t I 1 b P $., , , .ro & _., .. .,...: r..... ,.s>.a&' , ., r L., ._ :a!�h SF:.. "a ,.;..4441,4' r,::,:,. '3"x..,, �asr: ,. ,, iaz .. „ y I �d'� ®� �. �5 a*�C wsk;. R .,.'re¢.rx r,.,, ,.,. ,ta..:> .;�.�.s3„E�.? .n.. m� .,3... r«4� "'� 30.0 b „gr � .. > :, t e�;.�, .,x, . _. _ r .� ., ,� '1,74.4"1"0:1 30.0 �. � � �, ..-..: >a4-.,s ,.:t... tt ,j S:$.4 .: n.: .f ..,a.,if a.:.. :.. .�' -.r, �. --, ,._. W # 3a , v <.rE;a. S... E, 4,.,,., .a: , 6 .4 ., ..P. e.�«�....%1x".. ''' y. 7i, : g.[ .. I • .. F , , .,£< fi..,x i�"'„ .,,. i:,.: �aP. 4' Y,E$F -: •xN' '��' ,}, v 6$ �.,., xfz..>f.8 §. ,4 ,-. ;<.... ,.: <, K...... `�..#k 4�-. .. :.� r .. . ...,.. � , ,� .. .§ 's'4, ,"n..,,, it., �s....E i,.. {... w.}L � ,,..Vii. x ..,.d. �' «+{.. . $., <.�� � � .. ,.. ,... „ §: A, .,EE.. .. " Eta ...'w .< ..,t. > �.' '5.,.....-«�, ,A-. .: :......... „ . ,.ax..:• E. :;s 3� r,} e.. €.».. fie n 6 f x ,5 ..:: ...,9 r:.,� : a'u4Yi ,, �. <.. ., �,� �E � � . � , .,� ., y. � x rc �� CART CORRAL �.�. F`< #E"' �+°ei,S.«.,t, e ...x i'. .{. e 4 .. ..�.... .., <. a,, ��( ...� ?f , ......n Y-. ...,4., • � r w ... ,.,.. , v '. ... %g� F ... ... y} .r>... ._. :.... :...x ...#,3'. .. ..:....:.. ........... ..s..r. M+ .v,a.A, O .,,,p.i.-... .t.>..: . .. � . .t,r:`<Y a. r.., ,.. a .. ;L. `9,. ▪ ....[ .. 'h s.'7*Y . 1 3. �► i°::.:0,,,:',:':2:!-.4:, R € r_ . ,. . ,w . . < , . ,._. .. , PROPOSED PARKING �2:47'" . x �� ..<: , � � �,, ,��F� { 1 . � � , _�, .,k m �, ,. <. # STALL COUNT PER ROW 5.00 -�, .� ,,.....�, .. ��� ,r�, �„ ,,¢, , . ,-, -� ,�. � � , � .�p $ z�. . : � ,� .. .... . :-/ � '1E. �.°�z. f,:FY,., UY.'.siR,'}" [� 4`,.i..e., f ,�.d. 4-'''''''4".* ,.... _^ &, ,. .::11▪',,,,,, 2 .:T ..::.:Vi: a. `B:'"F .. ..''':17, .. k4,14r © -. es:.rx. E .b .. ,r '� . .1. , .,.... {`..y �:'.:. �'^. .3 .- . a, .x..,.e ,u. i ,.t. <.,. ,.. .. „ .. a.. 1 .,�,3 a . F =,£:'.,.,,P ; ,< ..,... [.: Y v.4a i >.. .!Y .. e... r... ,.) , ,,.,4..C- .9i, ar$ .4'x. y...... .' • Cq„„,r F ,$._..SF.9... R ., ". {,F ! ,, .,9,..s 2 `«eE..,.. <w'x4 $ _. . . ... s ' ._. V , < . ' ' Cl) ..- :, ,...:......h :��Ff. ,,,(';-'+<`,,t", Ld,.k xt.�,: ... �.E.�&,., „d�..,,:.� r=r.�sx-E<.. ,. ;a, ,�.. 344, .... s- .�. u; I.. ..1 b , Y li - PROPOSED TRANSFORMER .1-I '� I L.0„ �/NG ON111WIX%76".LII‘7 1e1k. 1,141. 77 1, _ - �� 20 700'- 1�.14.DD' S,0010 t� t �r �� 1 Q Q - , ,.. .. . ' O - PROPOSED BOLLARD 4. E W � /iii iiiii/i/� . . Framu, ,, x900' ii___< 8.0 ... 4W II Ft : I 102 /. W. ..... 41.v1,41,4 r' 1 O O O - PROPOSED 750 GAL GREASE INTERCEPTOR 11 ' o , A. 44,- ' r •` 3.0'OVERHANG O r ir-f) .v • ; DELIVERY DOORS ill -7,0"/"--./.44RiD.OD 0. ::.. ,� - PROPOSED FIRE LINE DOUBLE CHECK ASSEMBLY PARCEL 1 `� ' j{ .. '1.04C) ---. PROPOSED RIGHT-0F-WAY v :: 1 ,� ,� a�' � ;.; 53 0 �;f - 1 ,,. - PROPOSED FIRE DEPARTMENT CONNECTION ,/ , W�21.1 I 1 0 ,... ° TO BE DEDICATED 1 b rrirApplAr 6 0 _. „ '1. ,�//-' }' 9,0' R3 0 cLLI `.� I 'ter. , .. [� '° , .9 0, ' //..; ( ) - PROPOSED MONUMENT SIGN 1� Ce 4 V ! � var` w.a ,,,- mgr'iso' i✓`taf f •r- 3 < `''ap.4r �; o - PROPOSED SAWCUT LINE s I 18,5' ' r , 24.0'PAVED STREET :: 16.0' . 24.0' -- 18,5: 24 0' 15,5'- - EXISTING PEDESTRIAN SIGNAL PROPOSED SPECIAL TYRETAIL 0° 0 15,085 SF / b 18 5' Ififi"#'' 10 7', g a q' � a.m. zzzzzzzzzA 1 9,0 I; I >11.1 FFE'210.90 ��� � �� � IMMII: I • ' ` �p R5 0' r „ r � ,� � R5 0 0 - PROPOSED SANITARY SEWER CLEAN OUT �. 1 b ,v v.. 6 ... ms's e� r7 1 a!,;,,, : - - .f ''a �'� sp r•'' d.r '°r^ 'P r 44 D lyb� I _.1 E i 5 00 SIDEWALK b �� ,,, - PROPOSED SITE LIGHTING ,,,,,,,, f II r/i, 0 R30' �° >1 I i PROPOSED RIGHT-OF-WAY COMMERCIAL USE Iff. icc„,„, I I - PROPOSED BICYCLE PARKING � _ co TO BE DEDICATED '-' 9.0' .„70.,9,41„,` . `, f ; R7.9 R3.0' :.� � -- _ (GENERA ZONING)COMM I-1 uj o El :. 001 PROP05ED BICYCLE 15.5' l SANITARY 1114111C 0 •1 : I 11°1- PARKING : I CLEANOUT a}= hI ° / EXISTING RIGHT-OF-WAY i 3.86'RIGHT-OF-WAY' - > : 4I TO BE VACATEDq . °." -�:: �I } 0) DEDICATION . ::OAO'RIG 30.0' (1) co :15.93` iii�iii,�i�i�w�. .��iiliilr*I�.1■rii�i�I■riiii�/I���ii� DEDICATION i dOIS 3/4 PROPOSED ACCESS S -- S.DD' R10.0'-R5.0' ° ' ,� `' � xw,: 3.0' • OVERHANG , 1.11 LEFT IN,RIGHT-IN/RIGHT-OUT j • �� .. O O O .. • �- •••• _ -. _ •_-�M.. . ----,. - .. ,.. b •'v ''s ,-q q q n,, .'v 'q v ' F o ZONING DA .r V PROPOSED 4 9_-_-__a_._ . p o 10- PYLON SIGN _ _ TA: 1Ps .. EXISTING ZONING: R12 .: s �_ro-a�- �a ' -q .--t- R1DrD °. +. • b. h VJ 0 R20.50' ) L.....firWI& 10.00'SIaEWALK ., :o PROPOSED ZONING-CG GENERAL COMMERCIAL T � 8,06 . r . Iffq ° •,,,. - EXISTING TRI-MET BUS STOP 8.1T \ r. iiiip 10.0''; 5 : -� - - -, L.L P di �,•y�,� ..:...�; ^;..,o 13 v;. t..s ° , 4„'3. , .}�,„, '.a.a p wow€�°aA s-p.:, APPROXIMATELY 115 FROM PROPERTY LINE R30.OD . . . R10.00; . `�'" ,�,.', .Io, „ 6.0 °w ,w 4 R�o.a w itgi ) > *.t-- I- �,i 1 .�` 5.0 .•.•. 7 50 .00 �x ss .ry CN �C 1 s:o' Ilk 2975' 7 r 7.00' PARKING DATA: �' .74p, ! 4.00 7.�$' - " STING PROPOSED PEDESTRIAN R30.00' .. -- r SIGNAL CABINET CONNECTIONADA ACCESSIBLE STALLS: 3 r'� ammo-- �f- �` R10,0' (11.5') PROPOSED ACCESS TO PROPOSED SIDEWALK ,o.:::',--•••,•:,-,•--. :..-,.„.,-,,•-•-•.•;� -ice .,,,,,,:4*.,. #ri �- R5.0' RIGHT-IN/RIGHT-OUT STANDARD STALLS: 57 1---:-_,,.•-•-- ----~�- 12 0' R5.0' TOTAL PARKING: 60 PARKING STALLS EXISTING SIGNAL POLE (11.0') 12.0' 18' ___� WITH PUSH-BUTTON PARKING RATIO: 3.98/1000 12.0' PEDESTRIAN CROSSING -- 11,0' {11.5'} NOTE: 1.0'PROPOSED RAISED CONCRETE MEDIAN 40.0' 0 1.0'EXISTING RAISED CONCRETE MEDIAN � 1,}STANDARD PARKING STALLS ARE 9'X18.5'AND 12.0'PROPOSED �' ,,.r...,--.. , - ..�-,.� -- ==""-Z.,========...... 0 « ,..,^':w� v"'Sri��"° �,.�as..:..=ra.��r...ri �,.:' Z.. ... ^�.:.i..wrx-r,c � 10.5 RAISED MEDIAN , 0 (11.5') 9'X15.5' (WITH 3'OVERHANG) SW PACIFIC HIGHWAY 2.)ADA ACCESSIBLE PARKING STALLS ARE 9'X18.5' ..11:JP 3.) BICYCLE PARKING REQUIRED: (0,3/1000SF)4.5 SPACES 12.0' BICYCLE PARKING PROVIDED: 5 SPACES 1.0'PROPOSED RAISED CONCRETE MEDIAN (11,0') 11'5' 12'0' EXISTING CURB TO REMAIN 4'7� 4.)CART CORRAL STALLS (8'X1$,5'): 1 SPACE a 12.0' mil 5.0' jp, ............ %\),-- \N\\\__,_ -,. vii 11 . ....''''.'''''''. _______._________________.__ 4,9' �!� �� �j �� SITE DATA: ����� PARCEL 1 -SPECIALTY RETAIL STORE 1.37 ACRES 1 1 (01 COMMERCIAL USE RIGHT-QF-WAY DEDICATION 0.01 ACRES �� COMMERCIAL USE 70TAL SITE 1,38 ACRES (GENERAL COMMERCIAL ZONING) (GENERAL COMMERCIAL ZONING) n LANDSCAPE AREA ±0.12 ACRES PARCEL I 1 � 1 1nri 1 BUILDING DATA: V3I PROPOSED SPECIALTY GROCERY 15,000± SF cp 1 5 TItIe SITE 1 n1 0 PLAN 1 ek‘ DP DJM dp 08/25/2015 SCALE: 1"=20' 20 W 0 20 °c C2a� cu 1 u)