Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
City Council Packet - 05/30/1995
Revised 5/30/95 (Agenda item 5 Is Legislative Pudic Hearing) I LAY F O RD f a F f 4 j PUBLIC .NOTICE: Anyone wishing to speak on an agenda item should sign on the appropriate sign-up sheet(s). If no sheet is available, ask to be recognized by the Mayor at the beginning of that agenda Item. Visitor's Agenda items are asked to be two minutes or less. Longer matters can be set for a future Agenda by contacting either the Mayor or the City Administrator. a Times note" are estimated: it is recommended that parsons interested in testifying be present by 7:15 p.m. to sign in on the testimony sign-in sheet. Business aggada-&-em in off . 7: o rr~. ~n be Lear r Assistive Listening Devices are available for persons with impaired hearing and should be scheduled for Council meetings by noon on the Monday prior to the Council meeting. Please call 639-4171, Ext. 309 (voice) or 684-2772 (TDD - Telecommunications Devices for the Daat). Upon request, the City will also endeavor to arrange for the following services: • Qualified sign language interpreters for persons with speech or hearing i impairments; and • Qualified bilingual interpreters. Since these services must be scheduled with outside service providers, it is Important to 1 allow as much lead time as possible. Please notify the City of your need by 5:00 p.m. on j the Thursday preceding the meeting date at the same phone numbers as listed above: ! 639-4171, Ext. 309 (voice) or 684-2772 (TOD - Telecommunications Devices for the Deao. i SEE ATTe4CHED AGENDA COUNCIL AGENDA, - MAY 30, 1995 - FACE 1 ~ . a ' I' CITY COUNCIL AGENDA MAY 30, 1 995 i j 6:30 pm , - 1 STUDY MEETING i > Joint meeting with Planning Commission to Discuss Results of Triangle Transportation Study S > Discussion: Unified Sawerage Agency Water for Cook Park irrigation 7:30 pm t 1. BUSINESS MEETIING 1.1 Call to Order - City Council & Local Contract Review Board 1.2 Rol! Cal! i 1.3 Pledge of Allegiance 1.4 Council Communications/Llaison Reports 1.5 Call to Council and Staff for Boon-Agenda Items 7:35 pm 2. VISI'TOR'S AGENDA (Two Minutes or Less, Please) 7:45 prn k 3. CONSENT AGENDA: These items are considered to be routine and may be enacted in one motion without separate discussion. Anyone may request that an l item be removed by motion for discussion and separate action. Motion to: 3.1 City Council Minutes: May 16, 1995 3.2 Local Contract Review Board: a. Award Janitorial Contract to Pony Express and Authorize the City Administrator to Sign Contract 1 b. Accept Quote from Karr Contractors Inc. for Installing 1, Lineal Feet of 12-inch Ductile Iron Water Main on S.W. Beef Bend Road Consent da e R d for Secange Qi tom: Any Hams _ reWestad to the ConsaW Agenda for s4w" discussion will be ccn ' ed immediately the Counc4l has voted on Umm Be= which do not need disaission s a f 1 ~ F , COUNCIL. AGENDA MAY 30, 1385 - PAGE 2 i 7:50 prn 4. PUBLIC HARING (CkUASWUDICIAL) - COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ~ AMENDMENT (CPA) 9 I/ZONE CHANGE (ZON) 95-0002 ANDREWS r MANAGEMENT A request to amend the Comprehensive Plan Map from C-P (Commercial Professional) and Lome-Density Residential to Medium-High Density Residential, and to change the zoning from C-P and R-4.5 to R-25. LOCATION: South of SW Pfaffle eet at SW 33rd Avenue (WCTM 1S1 38CC, tax lots 200, 300, 400 and l ; 2200). APPLICABLE APPROVAL CRITERIA: Comprehensive Plan Policies 1.1.2, 2, 8, 8 and 12; and Community Development Code Chapters 13.22, 15.32 and 18.55. ZONE: Currently, two parcels (3.44 acres) are C-P and two parcels (2.07 j acres) are R-4.5. The C-P zone allows groups of businesses and offices in centers to provide opportunities for employment and for business and professional. services. The R-4.5 district allows single-family residential units, public support facilities, residential treatment homes, farming, family day care, and home occupations among other uses. (rimes are estimates only.) 3:55 pm a. Open Public Hearing i I b. Declarations or Challenges j 8:00 pm c. Staff Report: Community Development Staff d. Public Testimony (Proponents and Opponents: Please limit testimony to five minutes per person.) a 8:10 pm Applicant 8:20 pm • Proponents 8:30 pm Opponents 8:40 pm • Rebuttal j 8:50 pm e. Council Questions f. Close Public Hearing g. Staff Recommendation { 9:00 pm 11. Council Consideration: Ordinance No. 95-11D i j i I COUNCIL AGENDA - MAY 30, 1995 - PAGE 3 r 5.05 pm UBLIC NEARING (LEGISLATIVE) - ZONE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT (ZOA) ' 9 1 ROBINSONJ O N PROPOSED AMENDMENTS ® A proposal to amend Tigard Community Development Code Sec=tions 18.26.030,18.26.030(B)(4), 18.26.030(9)(5), 18.26.030(c)(3), 13.130.080(A) and 15.80.120(3)6) to allow fee simple townhomes in the planned development district. APPUCABLE REVIEW CRITERIA. Statewide Planning goals 1, 2, 9, 10 and 12, Comprehensive Plan Policies 1, 2 and 5; Community Development Code Chapter 18.030. (gym - are estimates only.) 9:10 pm a. Open Public Hearing b. Declarations or Challenges r 9:15 pm c. Staff Report: Community Development Staff d. Public Testimony (Proponents and Opponents: Please limit testimony to five minutes per person.) 9:25 pm Applicant 9:35 pm Proponents 9:45 pm Opponents i 9:55 pm e. Council Questions f. Close Public Hearing j g. Staff Recommendation 10:10 pm h. Council Consideration: Ordinance No. 95-_d 10:15 pm 5. MOO-AGENDA ITEMS 10:35 pm I 7. EXECUTWE SESSION: The Tigard City Council will go into Executive Session l under the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) (d), (e), & (h) to discuss labor relations, ` real property transactions, current and pending litigation issues. As you are aware, all discussions within this session are confidential; therefore nothing from this - meeting may be disclosed by those present. Representatives of the news media are allowed to attend this session, but must not disclose any information discussed during this session. 11:00 prn } 8. ADJOURNMENT i i i COUNCIL AGENDA • MAY 30, 1995 - PAGE 4 3 . i 3 i Council Agenda Item 1 ARD CITY COUNCIL E ~ MEETING MINUTES - MAY 30, 1995 i i Meeting was called to order at 6:57 p.m. by Mayor Nicoll. 1. ROLL CAS. r Council Present: Mayor Jim Nicoll; Councilors Wendi Conover Hawley, Paul Hunt, Bob Rohlf, and Ken Scheckla. Staff Present: Bill Monahan, City Administrator; John Acker, Property Manager; Will D"Andrea, Assistant Planner; Pam Beery, Legal Counsel; Senior Planner Bewersdorff; Jim Hendryx, Community Development Director; Carol Landsman, Senior Planner; Liz Newton, Community Involvement Coordinator; Ray Valone, Associate Planner; Catherine Wheatley, City Recorder; and Randy Wooley, City Engineer. F " i E Tl~1DY SESSION - Manning Commissioners present: Carolyn DePrang, James Griffith, and Ron Holland. Tigard Triangle Traffic Study •i Senior Planner Landsman introduced this topic. Council met with consultants who recently completed the Traffic Study for the Tigard Triangle. Several months ago, Council directed staff to begin the work necessary to amend the Comprehensive Plan by changing area in the Triangle presently designated low density and public facilities to general commercial. The first step was to conduct a transportation I study to see if the street network could support these changes. [ The report reviewed by Council indicates that without making any changes to the transportation network, the proposed land use changes will lead to a service level of "P° at almost all intersections in the Triangle area. The consultant reviewed potential transportation strategies which were offered in the report. a t ` Cn Y COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MAY 30, 1` 95 - PAGE 1 } 's a There will be a "Town Hall" type of meeting with the residents and commercial " property owners in the area on June 5 at 7 p.m. to discuss options. ODOT has concerns with a rezone of the area. The Mayor asked that a representative from ` O DOT also be at this Town Hail meeting to tell the persons attending what these concerns are. Handy McCourt of DOS Associates reviewed the consultant report. Robin McArthur Phillips of the Oregon Department of Transportation was present, and advised that with regard to traffic impacts and resulting needs for transportation improvements, there is no available funding. Any transportation improvements would have to be submitted in the six year transportation program; j it would be ten to fifteen years before any improvements would be realized. Council discussed the various alternatives offered, including the 1-5/217 study, which may offer some benefit. to the area by identification of transportation K improvements. i . F USA EFFLUENT WATER FOR COOK PARK IRRIGATION! F Property Manager John Acker reviewed his memorandum, which is on file in the i Council packet material. After discussion, Council consensus was to approve that ~ f staff pursue the concept of cooperating with the Tualatin Country Club and the City of Tualatin in a project to build an effluent water distribution system for irrigation. • SELECTION) OF CONSULTANT FOR WATER RATE :STUDY Councilor Hunt noted the recent Intergovernmental Water Board review of consultants for the neater rate study. After brief discussion, City Council members decided to consider this matter on June 13, 1995. _ INJESS MEETINQ i 2. VISIT'OR'S AGENDA: • Jack Polans, 16000 SW Queen Victoria Place, I('ing City, Oregon, 97224, questioned whether the effluent water project as referred to in Mr. Acker's t report to Council during the Study Session would have any effect on the Intergovernmental Water Board. Mayor Nicoli advised this was independent r of the IWB; the agreement would be among the City of Tigard, City of Tualatin and Tualatin Country Club. City Administrator Monahan pointed out this would represent a water conservation measure by using effluent water, rather than potable water, to irrigate Cook Park. R CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MAY 30,190-5 - PAGE 2 G i I r i. l Mr. Polaris questioned the status of the Dolan case. Mayor Nicoll noted j some of the information Mr. Polaris was requesting was privileged (potential y` and pending litigation), and he could not respond, as those issues are under negotiation. He advised Mr. Polaris that a public hearing on the matter was tentatively scheduled for June 27, 1995; a staff report would be available one week in advance. Councilor Scheckla added that the Dolans i and their attorneys have asked for the extra time on this matter. • Martha Bishop, 10590 SW Cook Lane, Tigard, Oregon, 97223, spoke with t regard to Music in the Park. She noted the purpose of the effort by Music ' in the Park supporters was to provide a facility for musical and cultural programs for the public. She noted that people have approached her and j indicated they are interested in the concept. She said she would appreciate unanimous support by City Council of the Music in the Park concept. ! s Mary Payne, 16277 SW 130th Terrace, Tigard, Oregon, 97223, advised she f was a member of the Music in the Park committee. She noted this effort had begun about twenty years ago; however, funding was transferred to provide for soccer fields. The original plan has been resurrected. Cook Park is the park of choice because of the ability to provide police protection. They would like to have a permanent stage of treated Wood on concrete, similar to other improvements already in place at Cook Park. In the past, stage presentations were conducted on flatbed trucks; however, there are concerns about liability (safety issues) with this type of structure. Ms. Payne thanked Council in advance for their support. i There was discussion about when Council would consider funding for this proposal. When discussed- at the last Council meeting, the plan was to a have Council consider funding once the committee had put together a f proposal with consideration of funding scheduled for June 13, 1995. f r Gene McAdams, 13420 Sal Brittany Drive, Tigard, Oregon, distributed 4 information to Council which supported his assertion that the 1 130th/Winterlake connection has been part of the planned connection in the area as it has developed over the years. He recommended that Council I remember, when setting capital improvement project priorities, that 130thnteriake is a collector street. (Handouts distributed by Mr. McAdams are on file with the Council meeting packet.) i Mr. McAdams noted the Planning Commission approved the Capital I 1 Improvement Project list by a six-to-one vote at their last meeting. r CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MAY 30, 1995 - PAGE 3 -j r_ c . CONSENT AGENDA: Motion by Councilor Hunt, seconded by Councilor S-heckla, to approve the i Consent Agenda as follows: 3.1 City Council Minutes: May 16, 1995 3.2 Local Contract Review Board: a. Award Janitorial Contract to Pony Express and Authorize the City Administrator to Sign Contract b. Accept Quote from Kerr Contractors Inc. for Installing 1,000 Lineal Feet of 12-inch Ductile Iron Water fain on S.W. Beef Bend Road Motion was approved by unanimous vote of Council present. (Mayor t"licoli and Councilors Hawley, Hunt, Rohlf, and Scheckla voted "yes.") 4. PUBLIC HEARING (QUASI-JUDICIAL) - COMPREHENSIVE PLAN E AMENDMENT (CPA) 9 1/ZCNE CHANGE (ZON) 9 ANDREWS NAGEMENT ' A request to amend the Comprehensive Plan Map from C-P (Commercial Professional) and Low-Density Residential to Medium-High Density Residential, and to change the zoning from C-P and R-4.5 to R-25. LOCATION: South of SW Pfaffle Street at SW 83rd Avenue (WCTM 1 S1 360C, tax lots 200, 300, 400 and t 2). APPLICABLE APPROVAL CRITERIA: Comprehensive Plan Policies 1.1.2, 2, 6, 8 and 12; and Community Development Code Chapters 18.22, 18.32 and j I 18.56. ZONE: Currently, two parcels (3.44 acres) are C-P and two parcels (2.07 acres) are R-4.5. The C-P zone allows groups of businesses and offices in centers to provide opportunities for employment and for business and professional services. The R-4.5 district allows single-family residential units, public support facilities, residential treatment homes, farming, family day care, and home occupations among other uses. 1 a. Public Hearing was opened. b. Declarations or Challenges. i i Mayor Nicoli read the following statement: - Do any members of Council wish to report any ex parte contact or information gained outside the hearing, including any site visits? (None were reported.) - Have all members familiarized themselves with the application? (All l indicated they had familiarized themselves with the application.) Are there any challenges from the audience pertaining to the I Council's jurisdiction to hear this matter or is there a challenge on F f. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MAY 30, 1995 - PAGE 4 i 'I 3 1 ~ the participation of any member of the Council? (There were none.) C. Staff Report. F Associate planner Ray Valone summarized the staff report. Mr. Valone referred to a map indicating location of the proposal. He referred to comments from the Oregon Department of Transportation. (See letter from ODOT on file with the Council packet material.) In general, ODOT does not oppose this Comprehensive Plan Amendment and re-zone. r I Mr. Malone advised that staff agrees that a mistake has been made and this would warrant that the request of the applicant be granted... E The portion of the subject site now zoned C-P has no direct access s to SW Pacific Highway and does not have good visibility from the 'l highway. Trips to any commercial business activity would be required to use SW Pfaffle to get to the site. This would draw commercial traffic through a predominantly residential area. E The portion of the subject site now zoned R-4.5, low density residential, no longer meets locational criteria. It abuts Pacific a Highway on the south and the commercially zoned lot on the SW corner of SW Hall and Pfaffie. New apartment development has occurred on the corner of SW Dail and Pfaffie. This is not indicative of an area "committed to lorry density development." F Based on the above, a mistake can be said to have been made in the j original plan designation for these properties. There are terrain differences and access problems which separate these lots from the other commercial zones and business activities fronting on SW Pacific Highway. Surrounding features such as Hail Blvd. and Pacific Highway, as well as being adjacent to commercial zones, takes the R-4.5 lots out of an area committed to low density development. i Council then asked several questions to clarify issues on this property and about the uses of adjacent properties. It was noted there are single-family homes in the area which will remain. There were some questions with ' regard to traffic patterns/concerns. Associate Planner Valone advised i those issues would be addressed during the pre-application meeting at the f time a development project is proposed. i CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MAY 30, 1995 PACE 5 a E 1 k t d. Public Testimony. F mayor Nicoll read the following statement: For all those wishing to testify, please be aware that failure to raise an issue with sufficient specificity to i afford the Council and parties an opportunity to respond to the issue will preclude an appeal to the land Use Board of Appeals on this issue. Testimony and evidence must be directed toward the criteria that staff will describe or other criteria in the plan or land use regulation which you t believe apply to the decision. Spencer Vale, 4505 NE 24th Avenue, Portland, Oregon 97211, testified on behalf of the applicant. He said they concurred with staff findings and asked that Council approve the request. Mr. Vale noted there are four c properties included in the application and authorization was received from all property owners named in the application. He noted the reason the properties were put together as a package is because it appeared this r„ would create a logical re-zone of the area and could be completed in one process. He referred to the traffic analysis which is contained in the Council packet. Mr. Vale advised there was a neighborhood meeting plus a hearing F byre the Planning Commission. No objections have been raised by property owners. t I Jack Polaris, 15000 SW Queen Victoria Place, Wng City, Oregon, 97224, j- stated that this property represented more development and more traffic. He recommended that ODOT be aware of and do something about increased traffic which resulted in more auto-exhaust pollutants. He noted the traffic auto exhaust emissions contribute to a higher risk of cancer. e. Council Questions Associate Planner Valone clarified for Councilor Scheckla the urban planning area agreement and its effect on zoning of the property at the time of annexation in 1957. The property when viewed in relationship to the surrounding properties, advised Mr. Valone, appears to be zoned erroneously. f. Public Hearing was closed. h g. Staff Recommendation. s { Associate Planner Valone advised the staff recommends that City Council i approve the proposed application. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MAY 30, 1995 - PAGE 6 i ' i i i. ORDINANCE NO. 95-10 - AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS TO APPROVE A TIGARD COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT AND ZONE CHANGE REQUESTED BY ANDREWS MANAGEMENT (CPA 95-0001/ZON 95-0002). j. Motion by Councilor Rohlf, seconded by Councilor Hunt, to adopt Ordinance No. 95-10. k. Motion was approved by unanimous vote of Council present. (Mayor Nicoll and Councilors Hawley, Hunt, Rohlf, and Scheckla voted "yes.") f qq.-' AMENDMENT PUBLIC, H HEARING (LEGISLATIVE) ° ZONE LEGIIr ORDINANCE C E OA) C 9 1 ROBINSON/BOWEN PROPOSED AMENDMENTS L- A proposal to amend Tigard Community Development Code Sections 18.26.030,18.26.030(13)(4), 18.26.030(13)(5), 18.26.030(c)(3), 18.180.080(A) and 18.80.120(3)0) to allow fee E simple townhomes in the planned development district. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Statewide Planning goals 1, 2, 9, 10 and 12; Comprehensive Plan ' 1 i Policies 1, 2 and 6; Community Development Code Chapter 18.030. 1 a. Public Hearing was opened. b: Staff Report. Senior Planner Bewersdorff introduced Associate Planner Will D'Andrea who summarized the staff report for Council. Mr. D'Andrea reviewed the current and proposed language in the Community Development Code with regard to single-family attached, common wall town homes. Mr. D'Andrea advised I the Planning Commission recommended approval. There was clarification of the cluster parking concept which would allow some parking to be elsewhere on the site rather than directly in front of the J residence. C. Public Testimony. i Applicant: ' Mike Robinson, 9,00 SW 5th Avenue, Suite 2300, Portland, Oregon, 97204, testified on behalf of the applicant. He noted he agreed with the staff and Planning Commission recommendation. He advised the architect, Mr. Bob Moreland, was also present and available to answer any questions. Mr. Robinson asked Council to approve the ordinance with an emergency j clause in order to make the ordinance effective immediately. Cllr. Robinson j advised he would be glad to draft findings to support the emergency clause. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MAY 30, 1995 - PAGE 7 Opponent: 3 Jack Volans, 16000 SW/ Queen Victoria Place, King City, Oregon, 97224, ; requested clarification of the type of dwellings proposed. Mr. Polaris noted concerns with this type of housing and that it would bring down the value j of other housing. d. Council Questions. E Council discussed the requested emergency clause for the proposed F ordinance. Legal Counsel Beery advised that emergency clauses are j granted in those instances where there is a need for the ordinance immediately to provide for the public welfare and good. In absence of compelling evidence, an emergency clause should not be used. With regard to timing concerns of the applicant, it was noted the applicant could begin processing their development application, with the final approvals to be delayed until after the thirty-day waiting period for the effective date of the ordinance. i There was Council discussion on this type of housing and its acceptance by existing residents. Senior Planner BewersdorfF noted that, generally, residents already in an area would prefer to have a development with this type of housing over multi-famcly housing. i- There were also questions with regard to driveway set-backs and private streets usually within such developments. Private streets would be maintained by the developer. F e. Public Nearing closed. f. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommended approval of the application as presented. g. Council Consideration: Councilors noted in general they had no problems t with the proposed application; however, Councilors did note they could not see any value or reasoning to add an emergency clause to the ordinance.. ORDINANCE NO. 95-11 - AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND PROVISIONS OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE, SECTIONS 18.26,18.56,18.80, AND 18.164 TO PERMIT SINGLE FAMILY ATTACHED COMMON WALL TOWN HOMES ON FEE SIMPLE OWNERSHIP LOTS. j h. Motion by Councilor Rohlf, seconded by Councilor Hawley, to approve 1 Ordinance No. 95-11. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MAY 30,1695 - PAGE 8 { i- , Motion was approved by unanimous vote of Council present. (Mayor Nicoll 1 and Councilors Hawley, Hunt, Rohlf, and Scheckla voted "yes.") 1 6. NON-AGENDA I`ll EFA . a. Music in the Park Council discussed this issue at length. They considered possible funding r options and the number of events which might be held. Councilor Hunt advised he wanted to make funding available so the committee sponsoring this program could make plans for the summer. After some discussion, k Councilor Hunt withdrew a motion he had made (seconded by Councilor Scheckla) to allocate $5,000 to the City Administrator to provide temporary facilities for the summer. Mayor Nicoll and individual Councilors noted they were in agreement with the concept of the Music in the Park program. It was de-; dad that Council would delay action until June 13, 1995. In the interim, staff will be meeting f with the committee members, at which time details and a proposal will be prepared for Council review. b. Tualatin River Watershed Council Council considered membership on the newly formed Tualatin River Watershed Council at the May 23, 1995, Council meeting. At that meeting, Councilors Hunt and Scheckla advised they were not in support. Mayor E Nidoli and Councilor Hawley had advised they would support membership. Councilor Rohlf was not present at the May 23 meeting; therefore, Council decided to delay final consideration of this item until the May 30 meeting in l order to obtain comments from Councilor Rohif. City Administrator Monahan summarized this agenda item and advised he supported membership on the Watershed Council. This Council will provide a central source of information on current research and activities related to the health and management of the watershed. It also would provide a forum for coordinating the research and activities of the large number of j agencies and organizations involved in watershed protection. Councilor Rohlf advised he sew no reason not to be involved. He noted { that if dollars would be requested at a later time, then Council could discuss future participation at that point. The majority consensus of Council was to approve membership on the Tualatin River Watershed Council. (Note: F Mayor Nicoll and Councilors Hawley and Rohlf supported membership; Councilors Hunt and Schackla were against membership.) i CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MAY 30, 1995 - PAGE 9 I - F t f C. MPAC Membership Council nominated Mayor Nicoll as a canlidate to serve as the alternate k Washington County cities delegate to the Metro Policy Advisory Committee. d. 1-5/217 Interchange Mayor Nicoll updated the work to date on the 1-5/217 interchange. He advised four to five new designs for the intersection have been identified. Funding Wil be a problem. The proposals identified will take approximately $11 million dollars more than what funds are available. Mayor Nicoll noted the proposed improvements could probably be built in two phases. In k addition, fees for the consultant will be more than originally anticipated; Tigard has paid $12,500, so far, as their share. It may be necessary for the different agencies involved to provide in-house assistance; (i.e., printing and 1 mailings); in order to avoid paying more dollars in consultant fees. Mayor Nicoll noted that within two to three weeks maps identifying options will be available. These options address the problems that the Cities of Lame Oswego and Tigard had with the previous "Phoenix Plan" offered by the Oregon Department of Transportation. It was noted that the East CIT will be getting an update on this issue at their next meeting. City Administrator Monahan noted that, to date, residents from the Lake f t - Oswego area have dominated the attendance at open house sessions offered by the planners of the project. He advised he would like to see j more Tigard people attend these meetings. e. Tigard Triangle Transportation Plan Review r A meeting will take place next week as was announced by Mayor Nicoll at the beginning of the meeting, Mayor Nicoll noted he did not think the Mate Highway Department will suppose what Tigard plans to do in the Triangle. in looking at the incremental change between what is currently zoned in the proposed Comprehensive Plan and what the changes would offer, Mayor i Nicoll reported that r. Warner, Region 1 Director of ODOT, appeared to be willing to acknowledge that this was an incremental change they could live with. In addition, Mayor Nicoll noted Tigard would not have to find funding for everything. j Council briefly discussed what would occur at the meeting on June 5. k Single-family homeowners and other property owners need to be advised of the Oregon Department of Transportation's role as Tigard considers zone changes. It may be that if Tigard proceeds with zone changes, then i i CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES MAY 30, 1995 - PAGE 10 4 r k. i l i a additional time will be needed to put those changes in place. Council discussed the need to give this information to the residents so they are i aware of why the process is moving slower now. j ' The benefits; to derive at the June 6 meeting would include identification of options available in the Triangle, assist the property owners and residents to understand what the problems are, and to ask the Oregon Department of Transportation to give a presentation to the meeting participants. In addition, the possibility of forming a committee or task force for this area R comprised of Interested persons was briefly considered. It was noted the r meeting on June 6 would be conducted as an informational meeting, with no Council deliberation scheduled. f. Tigard Feed and Seed Store r k A meeting of interested parties will occur on May 31, 1995 at Tigard City ; Hall at 5:30 p.m. g. Council discussed the possibility of receiving transportation impact fee funds ,TIF) from the City of Durham. Durham may be willing to contribute some E funds toward the traffic signal at 79th and Durham. The City of Durham has I ferry projects they can identify to utilize their TIF funds, and because the school is adjacent to the City and serves children from their City, K may be possible that these TIF funds can be used to help put in the traffic signal. 7. EXECUTIVE SESSION: Cancelled a 8. ADJOURNMENT: 10:14 p.m. z w Attest: Catherine Wheatley, City Recorde MCity of Tigard Date: ~-7 CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MAY 30, 1995 - PACE 11 a i. i a f, 1 i ;i i t i COMMUNITY NEWSPAPERS9 INC. Legal t P.O. BOX 370 PHONE (503) 664-0360 Notice TT 8198 . BEAVERTON, OREGON 97075 E O E I V I C Legal Notice Advertising MAY 2 6 19c3 o ❑ Tearshoet Notice City of Tiagrd CITY OF TIGARD 13125 SW Hall Blvd. ® ❑ Duplicate Affidavit ®Tigard,Oregon 97223 1 ® ® i_ I k. AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION "ZOO, STATE OF OREGON, )as. COUNTY OF WASHINGTON, - i, Kathy Snyd -r being first duly sworn, depose and say that I am the Advertising Director, or his principal clerk, of them; card-Tj,a] alin 'rimes a newspaper of general circulation as defined in ORS 193.010 ! and 193.020; published at Tigard in the aforesaid county and state; that the i PohliC Tiearing-Zone On 91;-11001 R^h1~inw_4 1 111 a printed copy of which is hereto annexed, was published in the entire issue of said newspaper for ONF. successive and consecutive in the following issues: t f May 18,1995 i i Subscribed and swo b before me thisl Rth~dday of n4_aw_, 19 C%^~G OFFICIAL SEAL • y~ JACQUELINE ARELI.ANrJ NOTARY PUBLIC OREGON Notary Public for Oregon ' COMMISSION NO. 023140 MY COMMISSION EXPIRES JUNE 9, 1997 Arty Commission Expire p AFFIDAVIT 3 r I i i f 9 l Y. j ~ i f } k 1 1 A ~i ~a~ w-tl1 cdrESi~.red by ad 7 , rrt,9 atTigard ;ivicCc=. svaa fa, Ill. a. a E ou:D ar Tigard, Oregon 97223. Eotl►-oSuNlc r,-al and written tes- ti,nory is inv cad, 'Tte public 1a€~..a ring on this matter will be conducted iu 1 V=O l-I ; with t. rules of Chapter 18.32. of d~ "Ti aril Municipal Code ! d any TVAC. ,d' , cedures'edoptedbs tlip, Tigard ity Council, or rules I 1 of Oraeedaare'st €orth in C.hspt€r, l zatl:tre to raise an is in pion or, hy~.leper precludes an appeal, and failum to s tfy the criterion €rom the Community Development Cade or C©iaip e ave Plan at whieh a comment is directed precludes an mpeal basid on that criteriaiu. Further information ii available at City tall and may, be obtained Front the Com- munity Develo n Dh-cior or City Record6r ,:f the kune locution, or by " calling (503) 6.171. _ . q IJELM iF`~ u`" s-'G: i('ci t-l,Q~ PR ~ . : ~ ~ to a nc 3 the ' i prO ICc ra unity velopmwit Code Sections 1t3.~n 030-1 :2 4 t1(13)(4), ".26.030(E)(5), 1&26.'030(c)(3),-., i 13.1530.080(A) and 18.80.12L13)0) to allow; fee simple Ownhaatnes in the - plan ied developnicnt district, APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: goals s-Ij 2, 9, 10 and 12, Comprehensive Plan.Policies 6, `6. :;A.3ity Developm, enl Code Chapter 18,030. - x : .:may 1Z#,1~irJ5. i I t k ~ t i ' i l G- 3 3 f COMMUNITY A 9 INC. Legal P.O. BOX 370 PHONE (603) 684-0360 Notice TT 819 3 BEAVERTON. OREGON 97076 _ t. Legal Notice Advertising 'City of Tigard ® ❑ Tearsheet Notice 13125 SW Hall Blvd. ®Tigard,Oregon 97223 ® ❑ Duplicate Affidavit i 7 k n 6 AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION STATE OF OREGON, Dss - ` „ COUNTY OF WASHINGTON, r fr Kathy 8nveipr. { being first duly sworn, depose and say that I am the Aavertising t?r Dire.-tor, or his principal clerk, of theTi garrl-Tiin 1 at i n Times k f ar newspaper of general circulation as defined in ORS 193.010 1 and 193.020; published at Ti qar in the aforesaid coun4 and state; that the H.-wrings= 95-0001/RON 95-0002 Andrews a printed copy of which is hereto annexed, was pubiisher}' Me- entire issue of said newspaper for--ADIIF successive and F consecutive in the following issues: i May 18 1995 t: ECEiVEI: i R MY 2 2 i9M i K ,1 ~Jl_ ::I3 QF TIGAi2L# Subscribed and swor to before me this 1 R t h day o ' 1 OFFICIAL SEAL JNOTA RYLPUBL C-OREGON f Notary Public for Oregon COMMISSION NO. 023140 MY COMMISSION EXPIRES JUNE 9. 1997 i idly Commission Expires: AFFIDAVIT _ I A 1 - + I I j ~ If 1 F 3 , i -red b the T'iga," dd Cita x s j &+t i71TJ W Civic ~v yWt i aLS c m c~ rd, l'ig f. won 57223 Buds pubho oral Wal con- wrirt~n ix"My is L=vlt 'ne public grin; ors tt'a"tt r drill be S 32 of tl$e Tigard ducted 4t accordance with the rulvs.of Ci-laptera M3,2" sty d~osts:cafeFailure to Munic1 0 Cam, and r=iles p Froced of the raise an 'Jude in son or by tter precludes an appeal, and failure to specify tho:eritcrion from the Community Develapment.Code`o'r Coro- i ppa sive Planat which a Comment is directed precludes z~ay l b . r on that criterion; Further information maybe obtained from the Planning IDivislorr at 13125 S.W. Hall Blvd; Tigard. Oregon 97223, or by calling, 639-4272. . PUPLIC 1FlFA.£tll~3~'i 10 . $ HAIeiG 9ANDREWS 94MQ§WN1 A,= u t to amend the --ornprehensive Plan Map from C--' (Commercial Professional) and Low-Density Residential to Mediurti-Nigh- I:Density Rcsidcntisl 'and to change the zoning froth C-P acid R-4:5 to P-?S: LOCAATION: South of'S.W. Pfafde Street at S.W. 83rd Avenuee (WCTM IS 13 C, twat lots 200,, 3000 400 and 2210). APPLICABLE APPROVAT, CIA: Comprehensive Plan Policies L.1.2,-2, 6, and 12;• and Com- rrao3~.:yDewesog~snent~ode Ctu+gters 18.22, IS.32 and:lS.56 Zt}Y~T~: r~aar- rea5d, t aro parcels {x;44` acres? a ~-2' and two parcels (2 07 acres) are i' ~ 'Tl r, C-P a;;rre al0dws grc~ulss of bt€sErtesscs and offal rn ce~itcrs to . F t, i c i"rt:tses fear emp8i➢yeent a~ad for titesinss agid grasfessitanal 1 , izs, n.5 tli.strict rhos singly-family residential xerrts, gsutslic i e al ~ ciliti~a, -esidential tretttrnent homes, farming, family day care, ^ssd't o*ne c,(, vpu+'~~~ auu on$ otlacr usce: 1- 4- 4 _ tom, f-x , i c. r . k _ 'I'f ~ p93 - Publrsir iviay Ig,1~. , i l 1 I is i ~ h COMMUNITY NEWSPAPERS, INC. Legal P.O. BOX 370 PHONE (503) 664-0360 Notice BEAVERTON, OREGON 97075 TT8205 Legal Notice Advertising RECEIVED o ® Tearsheet Notice MAY 3 0 199 ; e 13 25 SW Hall Blvdo e ® Duplicate Affidavit CITY OF TIGARD Tigard, Oregon 97223-8199 ii e ® f i. 1 f ` a i. AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION STATE OF OREGON, COUNTY OF WASHINGTON, ass. Kathy Snvy Pr j being first duly sworn, depose and say that i am the Advertising Director, or his principal clerk, of the -Tigard Times a newspaper of general circulpgonarsddefined in ORS 193.010 and 193.020; published at ga . in the aforit Said ceuon ani~pd t e;ectha# iath ~y l7ncf Budget Meeting a printed copy of which is hereto an xed, was published in the ' entire issue of said newspaper forne successive and consecutive in the following ?ssues: I May 25, 1995 i i ~ Subscribed and sworn t efore me this 5th day of May1991 O FlCIAt ~.o.~. i NOT'.r lEt.;^ Or ~)tl Notary P 69c for Oregon CCINA S!01! N0 0 i MY COMP,-" E ,PMES MA( i €tSy Commission Expires: AFFIDAVIT i T, i i i r r s..iz:~ 7'~tta'-r~: ai a r t I t: highlights are ltnblislifd f y6i do ~,..z x e;:l. 1 s, tCtm3 May bt t aifiod from the City Recorder, 131', s r`atF a It 4 Boulevard, Ti ;cd 0~-ef.,jn 9 , Or by calling 639.4171, crry CO $SPECIAL IitI4llSS iii ~ WAY10 IM ! MAD CM HALL- TOWN HALT-', F 12..5.1_ ~TAII_i~~D~iI('rr'~Fa1Ct~312ts(3 Study Meeting (Red'Rock reelc Confeent a Room formerly known as l;w^3 SHall. Cnnferenee lloota 6.30 p.m.) _ Joint Meeting with Planttaog Commission to'Discuss Results of i'. 'Cbi uigldTintisporlation Study and to Give Staff Direction e LISA Effluent dater aoi Cook Park Irrigation Bess 10feeting ('I'Qwm Hall) (7:30 p.m:) Public t Iearings. ~j COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT (CPS;:)- i 95a-0001,tZONE.CHANGE (ZON) 95-81€3412 ANDREW.5 MANAGEMENT A retest to amend thi Compreh nsive I']an l+viu tiorii C -P (ComniereiA Professional )'®:d LQ~~-,'density Y~esidetttirzl to Medi;sigh Donsity Residential, and to c: Q die witinj l ' f ra C-P ?rail R-4.5 t#3 R-25. I ZZfpry`NE"Ot.'D 6itisza~dC a l,ma;iDMEN (ZA0A)) 95-0001 s P lc ,x~fa. to olirie d Tip--d Corn-munity. Ievelepinvot Coale Se gin - Y Kec sa ze ta,vtrhottWe' in`t4te plasiiied develoerte t district Executive Session: The Tigard City Council sritry go into Exec€3- tive Session under the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) (d), (e), & (itt) to lisctass labor relations, real property trans actioris, current s and pending litigation issues. races ll~eeting E 1 j f - ;1 I i i ! i Y~ s E 1 CITY OF TI RD, OREGON AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING E In the Matter of the Proposed STATE OF OREGON County of Washington ) ss. City of Tigard ) i -2 € begin first duly sworn, on oath, depose an spy: _ That I posted in the following public and conspicuous places, a copy of Ordinance Number (s) which were adopted at the Council Meeting dated copy(s) of said ordinance(s) being h o attached and by reference made a part hereof, on the day of 1. Tigard City Half, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon 2. Tigard library, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon 3. Tigard Water Department, 8777 SW Burnham, Tigard, Oregon J Subscribed and sworn to before me this day of i OFFICIAL SEAL Notary Put for Oregon M JO ANN HAYES NOTARY PUBLIC-OREGON COMMISSION No. 04214e MISSION EXPIRES WAY 05; 1999 My Commission Expires: 1' 1fi OOPA R I 1oagsn\1o\-if P--t F C ash 1 CITY OF TIG D, OREGON - i ORDINANCE NO. 95-' ORDINANCE ADOPTING FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS TO APPROVE A TIGARD C014PR SXVE P AXEMXENT AND ZONE C GE REQUESTED BY ANDREWS HAVAGMUM (CPA 95-0001/ZON 95-0002). y WHEREAS, the applicant has requested a comprehensive plan map amendment and zone change from Low Density Residential/R4.5 to Medium-High Density Residential/R-25 on two parcels (1S1 36CC, lots 300 and 400) and from C-P (Commercial Professional) /C-P to Medium-High Density Residential/R- 25 on_two parcels (1S1 36CC, lots 200 and 2200); and l WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing for the j proposed amendment and zone change at its meeting of April 17, 1995, and 1 recommends approval of CPA 95-0001/ZON 95-0002. THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: The proposed amendment is consistent with all relevant criteria based upon the facts, findings and conclusions - 3 noted in the attached final order (Exhibit A); ,a k SECTION 2: The City Council concurs with the Planning commission and staff recommendations and approves the request to designate the parcels illustrated on the attached map ie (Exhibit A). SECTION 3: This ordinance shall be effective 30 days after its L passage by the Council, signature by the Mayor, and posting by the city Recorder. f PASSED: By U nCyN*1y )oU.5 vote of all Council members present after being read by number and title only, this 3c^ day of , 1995. Cat erine Wheatley, ;Citk~ Recorder APPROVED: Ey Tigard City Council this day , 1995. f { ~ I i 3a s icoli, Mayor Approved as to form: City Attorn 1 Date ORDINANCE No. 95- ~D Page 1 E EXHIBIT A i CITY OF TIGARD CITY COUNCIL I FINAL ORDER ; . ' A FINAL ORDER INCLUDING FINDINGS AIM CONCLUSIONS WITH REGARD TO AN ' 1 APPLICATION FOR A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN APB MENT AND ZONE CHANGE REQUESTED BY ANDREWS XANAGM(ENT. The Tigard City Council reviewed the application below at a public hearing on May 30, 1995. The City Council approves the request. The Council has based its decision on the facts, findings and conclusions noted below. A. FACTS 1. General Information; CASE: Comprehensive Plan Amendment CPA 95-0001 Zone Change ZON 95-0002 REQUEST: Amend the Comprehensive Plan map from C-P (Commercial Professional) and Low Density Residential to Medium-High Density Residential and change the zoning from C-P and R-4.5 to - R-25. k APPLICANT: Andrews Management 4000 SW Kruse Way Place Building 1, Suite 270 Lake Oswego, OR 97035 OWNERS: Arthur & Margaret Verharen Paul & Anna Herberholz ' 12435 SW 60th 8400 SW Pfaffle Street Portland, OR 97219 Tigard, OR 97223 McGuire, Robert/William/ ODOT ! James and Thomas Region 1/Property Mgmt Dowell, Sarah 5320 SW Macadam 8470 SW Pfaffle Street Portland, OR 97201 Tigard, OR 97223 REPRESENTATIVE: Spencer Vail, Planning Consultant 4505 NE 24th Avenue Portland, OR 97211 i LOCATION: South of SW Pfaffle Street at SW 83rd Avenue (WCTM 1S1 36CC, lots 200, 300, 400 and 2200) 2. Vicinity The four affected parcels, containing 5.51 acres, are located t 1 d," i j -i i along SW Pfaffle Street, north of Pacific Highway and east of ` SW Hall Boulevard (see map, Exhibit B). The properties to the 1 north across SW Pfaffle Street are designated as Low and Medium Density Residential with a zoning of R-4.5, R-7 and R- 12; to the east are properties zoned C-P and include the General Motors Training Center and some vacant parcels; to the ~ south is Highway 217; and to the west are three small parcels t zoned C-P which include a cellular telephone monopole and a single family house. 3. Background Information i Parcels A and B were annexed to the city and zoned R-4.5 in f 1987 as part of the south Metzger annexation. Parcel C was k annexed to the city in 1969 by the present owners. Parcel D, owned by ODOT, is within the original area of incorporation of the city. Parcels C and D are zoned C-P. No development j applications have been reviewed for any of the four parcels. .i The Planning Commission held a hearing on this proposal on F April 17, 1995, and unanimously recommends approval. 4. Site Information and Proposal Descr.iotion E ! The triangular site of 5.51 acres is comprised of four parcels. Parcels A and B front on SW Pfaffle Street and have i single family houses on them. Parcel C fronts on SW Pfaffle Street and is vacant. Parcel D is vacant and has no roadway access. All of the parcels are relatively flat but are j situated approximately 20 feet above Highway 217 along their southern boundary. The applicant requests a comprehensive plan map amendment from Low Density Residential to Medium-High Density Residential and G - from C-P (Commercial Professional) to Medium-High Density i Residential; and a zone change from R-4.5 to R-25 and from C-P to R-25 on the four properties as follows (see map): i ® Low Density .Residential/R-4.5 to Medium-High Density j Residential/R-25: - Parcel A: WCTM 1Si 36CC, lot 400 (0.82 acres) - Parcel B: WCTM IS1 36CC, lot 300 (1.25 acres) I ® C-P (Commercial Professional) /C-P to Medium-High Density Residential/R-25: - Parcel C: WCTM 1S1 36CC, lot 200 (2„55 acres) - Parcel D: WCTM 1S1 36CC, lot 2200 (0.89 acres) j F A written document, transportation analysis and preliminary site plan have been submitted by the applicant. The written document and analysis are included as part of this staff report. The site plan was submitted as an example of what i 2 i r could be done on the site. Because the proposed action is a 3 1 land use change and not a development application, the site { plan is not part of this report, though it will be entered into the record as being part of the application. 5. ency Comments The Engineering and Building divisions, Police Department and the Unified Sewerage Agency have reviewed the proposal and f have no objections. No other comments were received at the time of this report. { B. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS { The relevant criteria in this case are Comprehensive Plan policies 2.1.1, 6.1.1, 8.1.1, 8.2.2, and 12.1.3; Community Development Code f chapter: 18.22, 18.32 and 18.56; and Oregon Administrative Rule 660-12-060. i 1. Policy 2.1.1 states that the city shall maintain an ongoing ' citizen involvement program and shall assure that citizens will be provided an opportunity to be involved in all phases R of the planning process. The policy is satisfied because the surrounding property owners were given notice of public hearings related to the proposal and given the opportunity to E comment on the proposal. The notices of hearings were also posted at Tigard City Hall and advertised in a local newpaper. - In addition, the applicant provided notice of and conducted a meeting on January 13, 1995, for interested property owners within a 250-foot radius of the affected properties. 2. Policy 6.1.1. states that the city shall provide an opportunity [ for a diversity of housing densities and residential types at various prices and rent levels. The designation of the affected properties to Medium-High Density Residential and R- 25 will allow for the potential development of 137 units of housing. This change would contribute to a diversity of housing opportunities for the city. If approved, the proposal would also increase the housing opportunity index from 10.38 to 10,44 units per acre, thus helping to implement the Metropolitan Housing Rule by increasing the residential density in the city, - I 3. Policy 5.1.1 states that the city shall plan for a safe and efficient street and roadway system that meets current needs i and anticipated future g.-rowth and development. The transportation impact analysis conducted by Kittelson and Associates, Inc. concludes that all the intersections studied along SW Pfaffle Street will continue to operate at an acceptable level of service during all time periods with full build out under the proposed zoning. Although forced-flow conditions created by traffic backed up from the SW E 3 E t. f - Dartmouth/ Highway 99W intersection currently occur during the j peak hour periods at the SW 78th Avenue/SW Pfaffle Street intersection, the proposed zoning change would have minimal impacts on this already-existing condition. The study found 4 that the proposed zoning would :.result in 480 fewer traps on the transportation system than if the site was fully developed under the current zoning. 4. Policy 8.2.2, states, in part, that the city shall encourage the expansion and use of public transit by locating land ~ intensive uses in close proximity to transitways. Tri-met offers bus service on Highway 99W and SW Fall Boulevard. The policy is satisfied, therefore, because the proposed redesignation would locate an intensive residential use within 3 one quarter mile of a transit corridor. 5. Policy 12.1.3 lists the locational criteria for designating land as medium-high and high density residential on the plan ,•j map. The locational criteria can be construed in a flexible manner in the interest of accommodating proposals which are found to be in the public interest and capable of integration into,the community. The burden of proving conformance with the criteria varies with the degree of change and impact on the community. The applicable locational criteria with findings are as follows: t a. Areas which are not committed to low density development. Although Parcels A and B are currently zoned R-4.5 and have single family houses on them, the area is not committed to low density development. The parcels were annexed to the city as part of the south Metzger area in 1987. They were the only annexed parcels located south ` of SW Pfaffle Street and were assigned an R-4.5 zoning along with all the properties north of the street. This i was done despite the fact that the two-parcel area had C--P zoning on each side and Highway 217 along the southern border. Parcels C and D have always been zoned j for commercial uses. ;y b. Areas which can be buffered from low density residential areas in order to maximize the privacy of established low density residential areas. The proposed area can be F. adequately buffered from the low density residential area on the north side of SW Pfaffle Street through the j density transition, buffering and screening requirements of the Community Development Code. These requirements would be met during subdivision review when an application is submitted to the city. C. Areas which, have direct access from a major collector or a arterial street. The proposed area is not located on a. 1 major collector or arterial street. SW Pfaff le Street is 4 r I i, i classified as a minor collcctor by the city. The 1 j property is located, however, within 250 feet of SW Hall - Boulevard, which is an arterial street. The Kittelson _ analysis indicates that the amount of traffic that would be generated by the proposed plan amendment and zone change area, even if developed to the maximum allowable density, would be less than under the current zoning designations. Less traffic will mean less impact to the existing residential development ncrth of SW Pfaffle Street. In addition, the proposed change to residential j land use on the four parcels would be more in keeping with the residential character along this portion of SW Pfaffle Street than would commercial office land use. For these reasons, strict adherence to this criterion is not warranted in this case. i; d. Areas which-are not subiect to development limitations. There are no known development limitations on the. proposed site. Detailed review of the site j characteristics would be undertaken at the time of development application. e. Areas where the existing facilities have the capacity for additional development. The existing facilities and services have adequate capacity to accommodate additional development. The sanitary sewer, storm and water lines located along SW Pfaffle Street are capable of handling development allowed under the proposed changes. According to the traffic report, SW Pfaffle Street will operate at acceptable levels of service. Existing police and fire services are available and adequate for the site area. f. Areas within one-quarter mile of public transit. Public transit is available on Pacific Highway and SW Hall j: Boulevard, which are within one-quarter mile of the site. g. Areas within one-quarter mile from neichborhood and 4 general commercial shopping centers or business and office centers. Within one-quarter mile of the site is the Tigard Plaza on SW Hall and the Pacific Highway k corridor with access to shopping and business/office centers. k h. Areas adjacent to either private or public permanent- open s Race. There is no private or public permanent open space areas adjacent to the site. Despite this fact, the proposed plan amendment and zone change is in the public interest and is capable of harmonious integration into the community: The site would provide the capability of developing higher density, diverse housing along a 1 5 i _ k 't i 1 L transportation corridor within an established urban area. Furthermore, the flexibility of this criterion is noted where other R-25 zoned areas exist in the city without adjacent open space. For these reasons, strict adherence to this criterion is not warranted in this case. 6. Section 18.32 of the Community Development Code-sets forth the i procedural requirements for review of quasi-judicial plan E amendments. The application has been processed in accordance with code sections 18.32.020, 18.32.050 and 18.32.060; hearings have been conducted by the planning commission and I city council according to 18.32.090(D) and (E); and the requirements for notification of the hearing have been met according to 18.32.130 and 18.32.140. 7. Section 18.22 of the Community Development Code sets forth standards and procedures for quasi-judicial amendments to the plan and zoning district map as follows: A. A recommendation or a decision to approve, approve with .i conditions or to deny an application for a quasi-judicial amendment shall be based on all of the following E; standards: i 1. The applicable comprehensive plan policies_ and man I i designation and: the change will not adversely affect the E health. safety and welfare of the community. The applicable plan policies related to the proposal are t reviewed above under section B (Findings and Conclusions). f j 2. The statewide Dlannin4 atoal.s adopted under Oregon Revised statutes Chapter 197 until acknowl.edcrement of the comprehensive plan and ordinances. The Tigard Comprehensive Plan has been acknowledged, therefore specific review of each statewide planning goal is not applicable. Notice of filing this proposed amendment has _j been provided to the Department of Land Conservation and Development for comment at least 45 days prior to the final decision date. 3. The applicable standards of any provision of this code or other applicable implementing ordinance. Code section 18.56 (Multiple-Family Residential) contains the standards for the R-25 zone. The proposed site could meet the standards listed under "dimensional requirements" and "additional requirements" for a development. Specific future site development improvements will be reviewed through the subdivision and/or site development review procedures to ensure E - consistency with this section°s standards. i y 6 f a E i r I i E: -a ; a f 4. Evi once o c n e in the neighborhood a cnm-- ' ty © a mistake o inconsistiencv in the co e e s ive a or zo-nin-ci man _as it relates to the pros erty which is the subject of the development application. This criterion is met because there is evidence that a mistake was made r } in the designations of the comprehensive plan and zoning _ j maps regarding the affected properties. Parcels A and H were annexed to the city in 1987 as part of the south Metzger area annexation. They were designated as Low Density Residential and zoned R-4>5 along with the 1 properties north of SW Pfaffle Street and east of SW 83rd Avenue to comply with the Urban Planning Area Agreement # (UPAA) with the county. At the time of annexation, the f~ parcels were zoned Washington County R-5. However, it could be argued that a mistake was made at the time of designation since they were the only annexed parcels f located south of SW Pfaffle Street, and the only ones zoned for residential land use. Furthermore, at the time i of annexation the parcels were, and still are, bordered ! - on the north by medium density residential, on the east and west by C-P zoned property and on the south by Highway 217. This area is not, therefore, committed to low density residential. The. L'PAA did allow for an exception to the zoning requirement if the city and county agreed at the time of annexation that the county j designation was outdated. Given their location within a commercial and higher density area, the zoning on the two parcels was outdated at the time of annexation. Parcels C and D are zoned C-P. Parcel C was annexed to the city in 1969 and has remained vacant. Parcel D, currently owned by ODOT, has been part of the city since its incorporation and has remained vacant as well. Access to Parcel C is via SW Pfaffle Street only. This parcel has very limited visibility for a commercial land use due to its location and elevation above Highway 217. j Parcel D has no direct access to a street. It is a triangular.-shaped parcel that is land-locked by Parcel C to the north, the GM Training Center to the east and the Highway 217 north bound on-ramp to the south. The fact that no commercial development has been proposed on these parcels since the C-P zone was established may very well reflect their location and orientation. Due to the preceding evidence, the planning staff concurs with the applicant and concludes that mistakes and/or ! inconsistencies were made in the comprehensive plan and 1 zoning maps regarding the affected four parcels. 8. Chapter 12, Section 060 of the Transportation Planning Rule requires that amendments to comprehensive plans which - significantly affect a transportation facility shall assure 7 1 i that allowed land uses are consistent with the identified function, capacity and level of service of the facility. An F amendment significantly affects a facility if it changes the functional classification of an existing or planned facility,_ changes standards implementing a classification system, allows r land uses which would result in levels of service which are inconsistent with the classification, or reduces the level of service of the facility below the minimum acceptable level. 4 This criterion is met for the following reasons. The r amendment and zone change would not change the functional classification of SW Pfaffle Street or SW Hall Boulevard; the j proposed residential land use is not inconsistent with the E. functional classification of the street system in the area; and the traffic level of service generated by the proposal e would not reduce the street system below the minimum level. 4 " 'i The traffic consultant report found that the SW Hall/SW i Pfaffle intersection will operate at an acceptable level of ` service during both the weekday AM and PRY peak hours, and that ~ potential development under the proposed change would result - in 480 fewer trips than development under the current zoning. f, C. DECISION i The City Council approves the requested comprehensive plan amendment and zone change to designate the following r properties as Medium-High Density Residential on the j comprehensive plan map and R-25 on the zoning map: I WCTM 1S1 36CC, lots 200, 300, 400 and 2200 f i- j The Council finds that the change will promote the general welfare of the city and will not be significantly detrimental and injurious'to surrounding land uses. j t f i 8 f j j t 1 r ` EganpirT B --T L i SPRtJ( R i ~ f d r r 1= e L e - 1 I VICINITY I~""CHANGEEROMOLOWHDENSITYPTO MAP ® MEDIUM-HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AND ZONE CHANGE FROM R-4.3 TO R-23 PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CHANGE FROM C-P TO MOTH MEDIUM-HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AND - Seals 1'.400' ZONE CHANGE FROM C-P TO R-23 FEET A REFER TO STAFF REPORT - 0 400 800 TIGARD CITY LIMITS W~Cd80AT~Ti6COVV~1'J0tlm0ViAYCP0.tlWG Lu/8A. ~ p r CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON 3 ORDINANCE NO. 95- l0 E AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND RROVISIONS OF THE COMWJNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTIONS 18. 26, 18.56,. 18.80 AND 18.164 TO PERMIT SINGLE FAMILY ATTACHED COMMON WALL TOWN HOMES ON FEE SIMPLE OWNERSHIP LOTS i WHEREAS, The City of Tigard finds it necessary to revise the Community } Development Code periodically to improve the operation and f implementation of the Code; and WHEREAS, The City of Tigard finds that the proposed amendments provide flexibility to allow an alternative type of housing and home ownership; r;.1 and F. WHEREAS, The City of Tigard finds that the proposed amendments assist in meeting the requirements of the Metropolitan Housing Rule and the needs relating to the 2040 plan; and WHEREAS, The City of Tigard Planning Commission reviewed the proposed amendments at a public hearing on April 17, 1995 and voted to recommend " s approval of the amendments to the City Council; and WHEREAS, The City Council held a public hearing on May 30, 1995 to consider the amendment. THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: The Community Development Code shall be amended as shown in _j Exhibit "A" according to the findings submitted by the applicant dated February 17, 1995. This ordinance shall be effective 30 days after its passage by the Council, signature by the Mayor, and posting by the City Recorder. PASSED: By (,tnCtin~mv~s vote of all Council members present after being read by number and title only, this day k of yYt- 1995. Ca erine Wheatley, Ci Recorder j APPROVED: By Tigard City Council thi 36) kh- day of 1995. j Jim Nicoli, Z/e- yApproved as to form: ' ORDINANCE No. 95- Page 1 Page r Y 3 i City Attorne t 6/=o /g5' Date F: F i i f I i l v f F j ~W r L i F I t', I i r f F 4 i - _ ORDINANCE No. 95 r Page 2 t j _ I t "EXHIBIT A" E < 1 G. cL ~ >iW ~ Si m m >Y 9m ~ ~ ✓m Sv ~ 0Y1 >W 0 Y Oi ~ ff0i ~ a68 WY ffi m1 Sm Si0 » e~ 9 ~ 0Y ® iii ~ ~ 8011 Y i01 » >W m ® 39 Language to he added Is un erlined1 9 `1 nguag+e to be deleted Is l b CKetedl f i I 1. TCDC 18.26.030 Building type - (B)(4), Definition of Single-Family Attached Dwelling: 1 f "Single-Family Attached Q. Two n dwelling units attached side by side or, o ontleuus' separate lots [ l with some structural parts in comm'6 at a common property line." ' 4 E= 2. TCDC 18.26.030 Building type - (13)(5), Definition of Multiple-Family Dwelling: 1 "Multiple-Family Dwelling. A structure containing at least three dwelling units and any vertical or horizontal arrangement, located on a single lot or development site> but E el_ezclrn :sin f. € if .a cir d iil iri = r~ tv~c~ r rraore n u u' R l 3. TCDC 18.26.030 Building type - (6)(4) and (5): f Move illustration under definition of "single-family attached dwelling" to definition of "multiple-family dwelling" and move illustration under "multiple-family dwelling" tc definition of "single-family attached dwelling." ' 4. TCDC 18.26.030(0)(3), Definition of "Townhouse": 5. TCDC 18.26.030, Compatibility Matrix: Change "single-family attached" to: t "No-aver 2~ r nEiess rn tsi nne devefo rent di f " EXISTING USE I S.F. DETACHED S.S. DETACHED HOHILE HONE PK DUPLEX S. r. ATTACHED MULTI-FAMILY (Zero Lot Lim) S.F. Detached YES YES ea>&reteoxaL YES YES -2 UNITS NO txa•over Z. fst t+tizYxa4 j ~rmttp S. F. Detached (Zero Lot Liras YES YES CCix)eTH WAL YES YES NO Mobile Home Par% e~eTeOM CMITeOxAL YES YES YES YES puplex YES YES YES YES YES YES i S.F. Attached YES YES YES YES YES YES I '~l txn•over U - ` Hulti-family j YES YES YES YES YES YES 6. TC®C 18.80.120(3)(1), Parking Requirement in the PD District: F, . i t~0rcent`a rerlefr"' a for ~E€e-rr~~#1L -ba € t = # n€t hf a h 9AA >€ri~ ssr~ (e~ Irl icy .:rrs....n ` sff x' Eri.. i . , ~~yy,3n E 7. TCDC 18.80.080(A)(4)(c) Structure Setback Provisions: Front yard and rear yard setback requirements in the base zone setback shall not apply to structures on the interior of the project a except that: 1 (i) A minimum front yard setback of 20 feet is required for any garage structure which opens facing a street. fr tr~sn'~elt~ ~ n ar albs ta1~ 8 fae ~ r ulre~ F"or an ara +s o err`r~ f`ov 3n ~ ~e~~sfngiaexxrEt~ ~~r€~ a .~rEVate~ stmt: as l~n~ as t~~, r~~are.... ~ 8. T CDC 18.164.060($) Lot Frontage: Each lot shall abut upon a public or private street, other than an alley, for a width of at least 25 feet unless the lot is created through a minor land partition in which case subsection 18.162.050(0) applies, a~tu( tip )off €s for ae attac#~er~ s:gn it e s C e(l ~z ~a > n 1 t> cft s the )06 rata * S i t I re' t le 4t 15 f zef TCDC 10.26.030 Building Type- (8)(4): Add illustration of new single-gamily attached housing type. k t ~w r 1 unit 1 unit , i unit unit 7 i 10. TCDC 18.56.050(A)(1)(b): For each attached single-family unit, [ Gffi M square feet; i h:VaginWI Nz9501 examem May 2, 1995 r _ i J i i i E s P i AGENDA ITEM NO. 2 - VISITOR'S AGENDA DATE: i t (Umited to 2 minutes or lass, please) ~ k Please sign on the appropriate sheet for listed agenda items. The Council vvishes to hear from you on other issues not on the agenda, but mks that you first try to resolve your concerns through staff. Please contact the City Administrator prior to the start of the meeting. Thank you. { STAFF NAME, ADDRESS & PHONE TOPIC . CONTACTED Y/ [ i cl&~ 2:2 2, LA WL 0-4-A 114 01 4A j3-,za Y; eelaKe- i7a r' 1 tl I i `i I ~ " z { r i f, i -1 1 n ffi6 .3 - r AGENDA ITEM. NO. bP si ORS AGENDA - PAGE 2 DATE: v 90. IMS (Limited to 2 minutes or less, please) { Please sign on the appropriate sheet for listed agenda items. The Council wishes to hear from you can other issues not on the agenda, but asks that you first try to resolve your concerns through staff. Please contact the City Administrator prior to the start of the meeting. Thank you. STAFF NAME, ADDRESS & PHONE TONIC CONTACTED i- _i 1 ee. j a 1 1 i J i :J JJ 7 1 ~ i Y 1 ~ f _ ogin o\V SM i i r i ~ r - i. I Depending on the number of person wishing to testify, the Chair of the Council may limit the amount -1 )of time each person has to speak. We ask you to limit your oral comments to 3 - 5 minutes. The Chair may further limit time if necessary. Written comments are arrays appreciated by the Council to f supplement oral testimony. i j AGENDA M NO. 4 DATE* May 30, 1995 E I tPUBUC HEARING (QUASI-JUDICIAL) - COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT (CPA) 95- a 1/ZONE CHANGE (ZO ) 9 ANDREWS MANAGEMENT A request to amend the Comprehensive Plan Map from C-P (Commercial Professional) and Low- Density Residential to Medium-High Density Residential, and to change the zoning from C-P and R-4.5 to R-25. LOCATION: South of SW Pfaffle Street at SW 83rd Avenue (WCTM 1 S1 %cc, r tax lots 200, 300, 400 and 2200). APPLICABLE APPROVAL CRITERIA: Comprehensive Plan Policies 1.1.2, 2, 6, 8 and 12; and Community Development Code Chapters 18.22, 18.32 and 18.56. ZONE: Currently, two parcels (3.44 acres) are C-P and two parcels (2.07 acres) are R- 4.5. The C-P zone allows groups of businesses and offices in centers to provide opportunities for employment and for business and professional services. The R-4.5 district allows single- i family residential units, public support facilities, residential treatment homes, farming, family dray care, and home occupations among other uses. A I I F f l t - k PLEASE SIGN IN TO STIFF ON THE ATTACHED SHEETS a 1 t 4 i I I k i r i E . AGENDA I HO. f i PL- - aim BRINAT f Proponent - (Speaking in Favor) Opponen* - (Speaking Against) k N®me, re a PBtano No. N sa, Addrssea and PPaono No. P4~fne, Ad rm and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Pdsrrte, 4dnm and Phone No. Namo, Addraos and Phone No. i e, Address iiRlWone Maine, No. rect and i j F - i Name, Address an Phone No. Name, AddrHSa and Phone N9. t ~ i j , Address a 113. nd Phone No. i i i Namo, Add- Pesa end Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. 1 ~I f; r; ! Wme, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Mono No. { i Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and PPtona 'Pvo t r j i i 1 3 i ' I II = I i I 1 ~ y E I Y" RASE PRIM Proponent - (Speaking In Favor) Opponent - (Speaking Against) i -14WINOMdress and one e, rasa -and-Ph one f ` FM-ne, rwis phone R-5. E? fvame, mas an one N rre, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and phone No. 'L t d . o. AdcTrm an one o. Name, Address an Pffo k~{ k Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Addraend Phone No. t; Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. e- f Name, Address and Phone No. Nerve, Address and Phone No. i f; Name, Address end Phon® No. Nsma, Address end Phono No. i i Ntvno, Address and Phone No, Name, Address and Phone No. i I: E j r h: og n o testify 1 • f I I a - t { Tigard Triangle - Please Sign In -j Name, Address & Phone No. 7,775' S,vY ~1e=crr~rzcv A'A S r~ ,~J 7 Z FP2 ~'T 7 2-z~ /este r tN l da65 acv 7dUcQ ~e 1 o- f e 13e-ac, ll -s 3 O Slv 721,,-/ tl ve. 7. a v;1 v'2-0 --3""2-7 4 h'y^-a kk-, a p~~T" fa3 NI > -73) __gc3 57, If i ~ 1 j I i _ dll i AGENDA ITEM #~5~~ r1 For Agenda of 5~ 014-s CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: TRIANGLE TRANSPORTATION STUDY i PREPARED BY: C. Landsman DEPT HEAD OK CITY ADMIN OK ISSUE BEFORE THE GOUNCIL_ Joint meeting with planning commission to discuss results of triangle transportation study and to give staff direction. °-1 STAFF RECOMMENDATION INFORMATION SUMMARY Several months ago, council directed staff to begin the work necessary to amend the comprehensive plan by changing area in the triangle presently designated low density and public facilities to general commercial. The first step was to conduct a transportation study to see if the street network could support these changes. 8 This attached report indicates that without making any changes to the transportation network, the proposed land use changes will lead to level of service °F° at almost all interdsections in the triangle area. The study consultant, Randy McCourt of DKS Associates, will discuss the report and answer r questions at this meeting. Staff hopes council and planning commission will give staff direction on the proposed comprehensive plan land use map amendments. To save paper, this report does not include the technical appendix showing traffic counts and level of service calculations. If you would like to see these, call Carol Landsman. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED FISCAL NOTES i ,a i l { I,k G.. - _ fit Sim: I F= ii : . was al Nil - f i j • : n:;.Y; t"'.::.... ~ ice.:':. ' i v..::.'".:. - ()B - } lot te[kE[ , .i; r 1 t i DKS AssoclateS 92? S.W WaShimiton Street, SU110 ti"-- k _ ~rvri:.Intj i 9.2J.i . S<4 07one !503) 243-3500 { 1503) 2-113-7934 f May 15, 1995 f Carol Landsman City of Tigard 13125 SW Kali Boulevard Tigard, OR 97223 F Subject: Tigard 'T'riangle Update Study: 'T'raffic Analysis P95034xo i Dear Carol: DKS Associates is pleased to submit this traffic analysis as an update study to the Tigard Triangle Specific Plan, produced in October, 1993. We have incorporated your comments in this final version. -i ! ' We appreciate the assitance you and the City of Tigard staff have provided during the course of this project. The following actions should be taken by the City to move this study forward: r a Decisions need to be made regarding the extent of improvements to be made on ORE 99W. 7-laning ORE 99W will require discussion and possibly further technical support. The City will need to decide whether or not it wants ORE 99W to be widened to 7 lanes. f 0 ODOT and the City should work together to determine what ORE 99W should look like. ODOT and the City will need to coordinate and decide on the future of ORE 99W. Is the land use rezoning in the Tigard Triangle acceptable to ODOT? If so, under what i requirements or conditions? 0 Improvements in the Tigard Triangle need to be clarified, including layouts and costs. { i o Coordination is required for all I-5/ORE 217 interchange improvements to make sure that study addresses the needs of the Tigard Triangle. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact Julie Sutherland or me. Sincerely, P D sociat s, t A o ra on sa~ 13.23 R sf r cCourt, P.E. a Princi i 1 DKS Associates Fable of Contents j Chapter page 1 1 Introduction . Previous Studies 1 4 2 Existing Conditions . Existing Traffic Operations 4 Planned Improvements Land use I Trip Generation 8 3 Future Conditions 10 - f Methodology IO 4 Existing Pius Approved Projects Scenario I 1 i Future 2010 Buildout Scenario 13 Background Traffic in the Tigard Triangle 16 Scale of Needed .Improvements 16 Appendix i 1 Level of Service Descriptions F Land Use Tables E Traffic Counts Lever of Service Calculations I 7 r ~ t ngard Triangle Update Study May Ma 15. 1495 Traffic Analysis 2 r95034x0 t i i , DKS Associates i Chapter r The Tigard Triangle is an approximately 340 acre area bounded by three major state highway facilities k a (I-5, ORE 217 and ORE 99W) in the northeast section of Tigard. The study area is shown in Figure 1. This area has been developing rapidly over the last few years, with major retail stores in the Triangle attracting traffic from a large area. a PREVIOUS STUDIES A number of studies have been conducted over the past several years, each providing various levels of information and detail related to traffic operations in the study area. These studies are summarized ~ below: 0 Tri-County Center Transportation Impact Study, Tigard, Oregon, Kittelson & Associates, E j July, 1994. e Tigard Triangle Specific Area Plan, for City of Tigard, by DKS Associates, October, 1993. 0 Tigard Costco Wholesale Outlet Traffic Impact Study, Costco, by Kittelson & Associates, September, 1993. W Cub Foods Commercial Center Traffic Impact Study, Supervalu Inc., by Kittelson & Associates, February, 1993. ® Dartmouth Street Concept Plan, for City of Tigard, by DKS Associates, January, 1994. a Barbur Corridor Light Rail Transit Study, City of Portland, by Parsons Brinckerhoff, November, 1991. F 0 Tigard Triangle Traffic Study, City of Tigard, by ATEP, October, 1986. 0 Tgard Triangle Traffic Circulation Analysis, Oregon Department of Transportation, Region 1, 1988. The I-5/ORE 217 interchange is being studied concurrently with this project. This project focuses specifically on the Tigard Triangle area, however, both projects will take into account regional growth i in the area. 4 In 1993, the Tigard Triangle Specfc Area Plan was developed to increase housing opportunities, achieve infill and redevelopment and encourage transportation efficient land use in the Triangle. Several land use alternatives were developed to fulfill the goals of the plan and a recommended plan was developed. This plan was brought before the Tigard City Council and, partially dula to strong Tigard Triangle Update Study May 15, 1995 Traffic Analysis t P9g~„~ i i e i DKS Associates opposition from Triangle residents, the plan was rejected. The predominant reason for the resident's opposition is that much of the land within the Triangle is currently zoned for commercial uses. It was felt that if their land was "downzoned" to residential (multi-family), their land would be devalued, I i The purpose of this Tigard Triangle Update Analysis, is to update traffic counts and to determine the impacts to the transportation network in the Tigard Triangle if the land in the Triangle is developed j ! or redeveloped to commercial/retail use. This study evaluates traffic conditions in the Tigard Triangle h under Existing, Existing Plus Approved Projects and Future Year 2010 conditions. The future year scenario assumes buildout of the Triangle and incorporates regional growth into the analysis. Street k widths and signalization needs are evaluated. ~ F i ' i i a i t , k f 1 lif h y]i } - " i i 1 1 t l G i 1 } } i I l ~ f f Tigard Triangle Update Study May 15, 1995 ! Traffic Analysis 2 P9XY34 U i ~ G c~` s N ~ C!y I 79TH Av y y 78TH AV ~ C 1- 72ND 2 AV m n p~ O Z 0 71STAV ° Z A 70TH AV 29TH AV D 68TH " 4 AV w ~ 69TH AV D 7TH AV x + Z 66 i ~ i71 3RD AV 64TH AV Z 62ND ^ AV 3RDAV tAb ~y° o I >a 1 1 -i i 1 l OKS Associates r Conditions Existing ,j - ° This section discusses existing traffic conditions in the project study area, including roadway geometries, traffic volumes and operating conditions of roadways and key intersections in the vicinity f of the study area. EXISTING TRAFFIC OPERATIONS r. 1 Intersection operating conditions were evaluated in the PM peak period at the following 15 intersections:" `i a ORE 217 southbound ramps/ORE 99W ® ORE 217 northbound ramps/ORE 99W i a Dartmouth Street/78th Avenue/ORE 99W l ® 72nd Avenue/ORE 99W 72nd Avenue/Dartmouth Street a 72nd AvenuefHampton Street i a 72nd Avenue!ORE 217 northbound ramps 46 72nd Avenue/Hunziker Street a 72nd Avenue/ORE 217 southbound ramps/Varns Street j a 68th Parkway/ORE 99W e 68th Parkway/Atlanta Street/Haines Street a 68th Parkway/Dartmouth Street/I-5 southbound ramps t 0 68th Parkway/Hampton Street j a 64th Avenue/ORE 99W/I-5 southbound ramps ! e I-5 northbound ramps/Haines Street Counts were performed during the evening (4:00 - 6:00 PM) peak period. Previous studies have indicated that the evening peak period is the time of day when the greatest level of traffic is on study area roadways. Existing traffic volumes are shown in Figure 2. While analysis of traffic flows is useful in attempting to reach an understanding of the general nature of traffic in an area, traffic volume alone indicates neither the ability of the street network to carry additional traffic nor the quality of service provided by the street facilities. For this, the concept of level of service has been developed to correlate traffic performance at intersections. Intersections are T+gard Triangle Update Study May 15, 1995 Traffic Analysis 4 P9503 "o i L. f DKSAssodates f ~ a p o 1'~ Nor ^N'o i.. 60 a=~~ ~60 w Qero<h r~3 4) 1 g 1096 t 16 4- 1~ 66 1695 4J °o 8737 BARBUR 96 F 82.E " 855 f 99 1 4- 15 --t T +1 1+ 1581 CV O N 1604 h 4, h 708 90 t 45"~ v. io ^ 74 m'o ^ 828 (M BARBUR 184 (S) -'4, /~S 1 b N5 91 > j sb,Ab~ ao 4 4--293 30 rmw ` 404 f~ - i6b 1~ b5A e3~°,i 99W 268 ~ e' j 3q ,A3`ba~ ~ ~5p9 5' 6 ATLANT sT NA[N ~7 3("1 5i z >c a os sT 57 A0 a'o 24`S \ E 3 [ O• FN N ST L---o ELvjqu 5T sT ^ N h 80 l30 1 41- 6 4)it+ 64 4) L, :1 -1 217 e kuN 161 21d N N^ 4 6--+ 04 F1 Y- I k vT h h vs w ; O N 72 of c vA¢ws T n " 97 i94 ~ ! 118 ; f 353 0 11 n o w~ E i N m 76 m 8 ~vo 17 N^ d97 M^ t-39 393 175 384 19 co ' r. w In cn m o. 3 co cn, 0. vh N } Figure 2 (.EGENO EXISTING PM PEAK HOUR C -study Intersection TRAFFIC VOLUMES F i F. t1QKS Associates i the controlling bottlenecks of flow, and the ability of a roadway system to carry traffic efficiently is I nearly always diminished in their vicinity. I Level of Service (LOS) is a measure of intersection operating performance and vehicle delay. It is similar to a "report card" rating with a range from A (best) to F (poorest). Levels of service A, B and C indicate satisfactory conditions where traffic can move relatively freely. Level of service D describes conditions where delay is more noticeable. Level of service E indicates conditions where traffic volumes are at or close to capacity, resulting in significant delays and average travel speeds which are one-third the uncorgested speeds or lower. Level of service F characterizes conditions where traffic demand exceeds available capacity, with very slow speeds (stop and go), long delays i (over a minute) and queuing at signalized intersections. Level of service D during the peak hours is { the generally accepted standard for planning of transportation facilities. More information is provided E in the appendix, including tables summarizing conditions at each LOS for both signalized and i unsignalized intersections. r I Intersection Operation F Table 1 summarizes existing intersection operation at each of the study intersections. Note that several, of the intersections, which are currently unsignalized, were analyzed as signalized intersections since it is likely that many of them will become signalized in the future and to provide a better means of comparison between scenarios. Signal ization would only occur after a detailed engineering study was conducted and Signalization was determined to be warranted. 217 southbound mmps/ORE 99W 20.2 0.78 C [Dartmouth section Delay V/C LAS _ 217 northbound ramps/ORE 99W 7.5 0.72 11 Street/78th Avenue/ORE 99W 23.8 0.84 C 72nd Avenue/ORE 99W 19.4 0.84 C i ✓ 72nd Avenue/Dartmouth Street 7.5 0.37 B k 72nd AvenuelHampton Street 15.0 0.45 B 72nd Avenue/ORE 217 northbound ramps 12.8 0.63 B ; ~ i 72nd Avenue/Hunziker Street 16.9 0.78 C 72nd Avenue/ORE 217 southbound ramps/Varns Street 36.6 0.99 D 68th Parkway/ORE 99W 18.2 0.78 C I j 68th Parkway/Atlanta Street/Haines Street 9.8 0.56 B { 1 l Tigard Triangle Update Seedy May 15, 1995 ,k Traffie Analysis 6 P95034x0 i 1 1 4 DKS Associates ✓ 68th Parkway/Oartmcuth Street/1-5 southbound ramps 8.4 0.33 B f'' 5 - f ✓ 68th Parkway/Hampton Street 8.2 038 f? i. 64th Avenue/ORE 99W/1-5 southbound ramps 31.3 0.94 C j ✓ 1-5 northbound rtunps/Haincs Street 9.3 0.51 B ; ✓ Currently unsignalized, analyzed as signalized r All of the study area intersections operate at level of service D or better. However, two are shown at acceptable levels of service, but have high 0.90) volume-to-capacity (V/C) ratios. A V/C ratio over 0.90 is generally considered to be poor operating conditions. Those intersections with V/C ratio's greater than 0.90 are 72nd Avenue/ORE 217 southbound ramps/Varns Street and 64th Avenue/ORE 99W/I-5 southbound ramps. i PLANNED IMPROVEMENTS There is a current ODOT project to improve the operation of the intersection of Dartmouth Street/78th Avenue/ORE 99W. Increased northbound left turning traffic due to Cub Foods and Costco stores " recently constructed on Dartmouth Street warrants an additional northbound left turn lane and a corresponding signal improvement. The signal will be changed from its current phasing to split phasing for Dartmouth Street and 78th Avenue. This improvement will help reduce queues on the northbound approach of this intersection, but may have a negative affect for the southbound 78th Avenue traffic. LAND USE + In addition to existing intersection operating conditions, existing land use is important to use as a f j comparison to future land use scenarios. Existing land use is summarized by traffic analysis zone j (TAZ) in the Appendix. Figure 3 shows the TAZ's used for this project. Table XX summarizes F existing land use in the Tigard Triangle. f 3 Table 2 Existing Land Use , Land Use Quantity Retail 492 KSF _ j Office 581 KSF Residential 140 DU Special Generators Various i Tigard Triangle Update Study May 15. 1995 Traffic Analysis 7 M034.0 i i i i DKS Associates ,a ' The special generators include such uses as Phil Lewis School; the movie theater, the bowling alley, etc. f I TRIP GENERATION f PM peak hour trip generation for existing Triangle uses was estimated using the ITE Trip Generation Manual. Existing PM peak hour trip generation for the entire Triangle is shown in the 't'able 3 below. Table 3 PM Peak Hour Trip Generation Plll Peak Hour Vehicle Scenario Trip Generation Existing 4,700 -si f r { i i ~ I 1 ~ 6 i l j V j 1 k Tigard Triangle Update Study May 15, 1995 Traffic Analysis S P990UW i DKSAssociates Nor ro SCUP l s s o i 99W oL { 4 - T, 5 ' PPAFFLE ST 2 ` [i H ATLANTA 57~ HA1NE5< ST f BAYLOR ST f~ cUNTON ST Z LMHURST @ ST; - P H RMO 217 B / Mp IKUN N c ' ! d y~~~~FR 15 GONZAG rP i n - ~ Q - ~ r ELMELA ST YARNS ST ~ f t O o z ~Jf { J f t Figure 3 t TRAFFIC ANALYSIS ZONES a DKS Associates F Chapter Future Cond"Itions METHODOLOGY r The approach that was taken for this project uses Metro's travel demand forecasting model to determine regional traffic growth in the future and takes a project-related approach for growth within the Triangle for both short-term and long-term scenarios. Existing (1995) traffic counts were obtained for study area intersections. These were the basis for determining existing intersection operations in the Tigard Triangle today. For future year scenarios, trip generation for specific projects was manually added to the street network based on distribution patterns shown in Metro's model for the Tigard Triangle. To determine background growth in the i Triangle (traffic not specifically Tigard Triangle project related), Metro's model was run without any growth in Tigard Triangle land use for year 2010. The incremental difference between 1990 and 2010 f was added to the 1995 existing traffic counts to determine background volumes for the future year 2010 scenarios. Three growth scenarios were evaluated: 0 Existing ® Existing Plus Approved Projects 0 Future Year 2010 Buildout Scenarios (Development of vacant and redevelopable lands) These scenarios were aimed at getting a handle on what traffic will be like in the Triangle in a few ' years (Existing Plus Approved Projects) and a "worst-case" scenario, if all vacant and redevelopable i land in the Triangle is built as various combinations of retail and office. Redevelopable land was defined as that land that is currently underutilized according to its zoning. No office or retail facilities were considered redevelopable, however, Phil Lewis School and all current residential-use lands were considered redevelopable in all scenarios except the Comp Plan. A retail Floor-Area Ratio (FAR) of 0.22 was assumed. This means that for every acre of vacant or redevelopable land, a building would be built with a footprint that is 0.22 acres. The FAR for office was assumed to be 0.25. These j F' Trgard rriangfe Update Study May 15, 1995 Traffic Analysis 10 P9_5034 W f i it Y.- f . DKS Associates _ r FAR's were determined based on FAR's observed in Tigard and information provided in the Shopping Center Handbook.' c Table 4 provides a comparison of trip generating characteristics for one acre of each of the various C proposed land uses in Tigard Triangle, f K: Table 4 Trip Generation for One Acre of Land by Land Use i E Land Use ~ Development Quantity' PM Peak Hour Trip Rate PM Peak flour Trips Retail 9.58 KSF 6.561KSF 63- office 10.89 KSF 1.97/KSF 21 I I I ~ . Multi-Family 25 DU 0.63/DU 16 Single Family 3.5 DU 1.01/DU 4 {f KSF = Thousand Square Feet, Assumes a retail FAR = 0.22 and an office FAR = 0.25. " Assuming pass-by trip reduction of 40%, the approximate net new trip generation would be 38 trips. f MOSTING, PLUS APPROVED PROJECTS SCENARIO ! This scenario includes all projects within the Triangle that are approved or considered by City staff to be very likely to become approved in the near future. The approved projects are shown in Table I 5 and the increase in land use over existing is shown in•Table 6. Table 5 Approved Projects t PM Peale hour Project Location Size' Use Trips Office Max Dartmouth Street, Cub Foods 23.5 KSF Retail 154 Pad Home Electronics Dartmouth Street, Across Street 50 KSF Retail 329 Store from Costco Retail Pad Pad to Home Electronics Store 10 KSF Retail 66 Tri-County Center South side of Dartmouth Street, 360.6 KSF Retail 2366 ! West of 72nd Avenue G ' Shopping Center Development Handbook, Second Edition, Community Builders HandSook Series, Urban Land Institute, Washington D.C,_ 1985. ~q Tigard Triangle Update Study May 15, 1995 Traffic Analysis I 1 P950340 r DKS Associates ~1, F' Park & Ride Lot North of Movie Theater on 200 spaces Paris & Ride 186 West side of 72nd Avenue Hampton Ridge East side of 72nd Avenue, near 108 Units Multi-Family 68 Apartments" Hermosa Way E Total 31M F ' - - F * KSF = ThousAnd Square Feet Built, but not occupied at time of counts F F Table 6 Triangle Land Use with Approved Projects ' E Land Use Existing Quantity Exist + Approved Retail 492,000 SF 936,000 SF F. Office 581,000 SF Residential 140 DU 248 DU s PM peak hour vehicle trip generation for the future land uses was based upon standard ITE Trip Generation data. The data for retail uses were adjusted to reflect pass-by trip considerations. For this sketch planning assessment of traffic conditions, a 40 percent reduction was assessed to driveway trip generation to estimate future new traffic to the roadway network. PM peak hour vehicle trip v generation is summarized in the Table 7 below. _ Table 7- PM Peak Hour Vehicle Trip Generation PM Peak Hour Vehicle Trip i Scenario Generation i Existing 4,700 Existing + Approved 6,700 P Table S summarizes intersection operating conditions at the 15 study area intersections under the Existing Plus Approved Projects scenario with the existing street network. Potential problem locations include 72nd Avenue near the ORE 217 interchange, ORE 99W at the I-5 interchange and at Dartmouth Street. Improvements at these locations would be needed to avoid congestion. y 1 I Tigard Triangle Update Study May 15, 1995 Traffic Analysis 12 P9--W4.0 f r 1 E ~r Associates t Table g Existing Plus Approved Projects Intersection Delay D/C" LOS ORE 217 southbound ramps/ORE 99W 21.4 0.83 C } ORE 217 northbound ramps/ORE 99W 7,7 0.79 B * Dartmouth Street/78th Avenue/ORE 99W 34.7 0.96 D 72nd Avenue/ORE 99W 23.3 0.8a C i ✓ 72nd Awnue/Dartmouth Street 9.8 0.62 B f 72nd Avenue/Hampton Street 14.7 0.64 B 72nd Avenue/ORE 217 northbound ramps 16.8 0.75 C [ * 72nd Avenue/Hunziker Street 30.5 0.99 D j f * 72nd Avenue/ORE 217 southbound ramps/Vams Street 69.7 1.13 F 68th Parkway/ORE 99W 21.7 0.88 C j` ✓ 68th Parkway/Atlanta Street/Haines Street 11.5 0.70 B ✓ 68th Parkway/Dartmouth Stmet/1-5 southbound ramps 9.5 0.60 B j a ✓ 68th Parkway/Hampton Street 8.2 0.29 B * 64th Avenue/ORE 99W/I-5 southbound ramps 34.9 0.95 D ✓ I-5 northbound ramns/Haines Street 9.7 0.59 B ? I D/C = Demand-to-Capacity ratio (used in place of V/C, since V/C > 1.00 is not possible) _j Currently unsignalized, analyzed as signalized , i i FUTURE 2010 BUILDOUT SCENARIOS l { Four future year 2010 scenarios were evaluated which were aimed at two general development patterns. The first pattern relates development to Tigard's Comprehensive Flan and the second pattern r reflects potential high intensity development on under-developed land. These scenarios were F developed under the assumption that all vacant and redevelopable lands within the Triangle were built ' as some combination of retail and office land uses. Redevelopable lands were defined as those properties whose use is "below" commercial zoning. For example, for this analysis, a property with a built office use was not considered redevel_opable, however, all existing residential properties were considered potentially redevelopable (whether or not it has commercial zoning). The difference between scenarios reflects the type of buildout land use assumed for the vacant or redevelopable lands. _ i ' Tigard Triangle Update Study May 15, 1995 Traffic Analysis 13 P950Ux0 i. j DKS Associates ,j The first scenaro evaluated buildout as zoned in the Comprehensive Plan (Comp Plan Scenario). The I existing residential zoning and current uses on Phil Lewis School stayed as they are today. A i modified version of the Comp Plan was developed where Phil Lewis School and all low density r. residential (R-3.5) were assumed to be built out as Retail. All other vacant and redevelopable lands were assumed to build out according to their existing zoning. l Two higher intensity retail development scenarios were tested, one where all vacant and redevelopable ! land was assumed to develop as retail (Retail Buildout), and the other where half of the vacant and redevelopable property was developed into retail and the rest was developed as office (Retail 4. Office Buildout). Both of these scenarios were developed for general planning purposes to outline the extent and nature of the transportation improvements required for Triangle buildout. A summary of the land use quantities for the various scenarios is shown in Table 9. These scenarios also account for regional growth that would impact Tigard Triangle intersections. This P' regional growth is accounted for using data provided from Metro's regional travel demand forecasting model reflecting 2010 conditions. Traffic volumes for the Retail Buildout scenario are shown in ; { Figure 4. PM peak hour vehicle trip generation for Triangle buildout was estimated consistent with the method used for the Existing + Approved scenario. PM peak hour vehicle trip generation is summarized in the Table 10 below. Retail trip generation was adjusted downward by 40 percent to generally reflect pass by trip conditions of retail. This was done for general planning purposes to gain a sense of the E order of magnitude of possible improvements. Table 9 Land Use Quantities for Buildout Scenarios 1995 Background Volumes 2010 Background Volumes Land Use Existing Exist + Modified Ret+Off Retail Quantity Approved Comp Plan Comp Plan Buildout Buildout i Retail 492.0 KSF 936.0 KSF I _01.3 KSF 1,585.5 KSF 1,594.5 KSF 2,252.9 KSF { Office 581.0 KSF 581.0 KSF 1,360.9 KSF 1,357.9 KSF 1,329.3 KSF 581.0 KSF Residential 140 DU 248 DU 178 DU 110 DU 108 DU 108 DU I i Table I1 summarizes intersection operating conditions under the Modified Comp Plan Buildout and Retail Buildout scenarios. The intersection performance is based upon future traffic, assuming existing; I roadway geometries as a starting point. This was done to determine the extent of street improvements which may be needed to support Triangle buildout. In general, buildout of Tigard Triangle under the assumed lard use conditions would result in an overall failure of the unimproved existing roadway system. i. Tigard Triangle Update Study May 15, 1995 Tmftic Analysis 14 P95034W ~ i I a DKS Associates Table 10 PM Peak Hour Vehicle Trig Generation PM Peak Hour Vehicle Trip Generation Pass- Scenario Driveway Count Adjusted for Pass-By - j Existing 4,700 4,700 i. 1 Existing + Approved 8,000 6,700 Comp Plan Buildout 11,200 9,400 Iviodif Comp Plan Buildout 13,600 11,000 s Retail + Office Buildout 13,60 10,100 ' Retaii luildoue 16,5 11,800 i Table 11 `s intersection Operation with Triangle Buildout 2010 PM Peak Hour i Modified k Intersection Existing Comp Plan Ret4i1 Buildout ORE 217 SB ramps/ORE 99W 20.2 0.78 C 42.7 > 1.00 E 53.3 > 1.00 E ORE 217 NB ramps/ORE 99W 7.5 0.72 B 15.9 0.97 C 19.3 > 1.00 C Dartmouth Stmet/78th-Avenue/ORE 99W 23.8 0.84 C NIA > 1.00 F N/A > 1.00 F r { 72nd Avenue/ORE 99W 19.4 0.84 C N/A > 1.00 F NIA > 1.00 F 72nd Avenue/Dartmouth Street 7.5 0.37 B NIA > 1.00 F N/A > 1.00 F 72nd Avenue/Hampton Street 15.0 0.45 B N/A > 1.00 F N/A > 1.00 F 1 72nd Avenue/ORE 217 NB ramps 12.8 0.63 B N/A > 1.00 F NIA > 1.00 F t j 72nd Avenue/Hunziker Street 16.9 0.78 C NIA > 1.00 F N/A > 1.00 F 72nd Avenue/ORE 217 SB tamps/Vartts Street 36.6 0.99 D NIA > 1.00 F NIA > 1.00 F 68th Parkway/ORE 99W I8:2 0.78 C N/A > 1.00 F N/A > 1.00 F ✓ 68th Parkway/Atlanta Strect/Haines Street 9.8 0.56 B NIA > 1.00 F NIA > 1.00 F j 68th Parkway/Dartmouth Street/1-5 SB ramps 8.4 0.33 B NIA > 1.00 F N/A > 1.00 F E 68th Parkway/Hampton Street 8.2 0.28 B 9.8 0.53 B 10.1 0.58 B 64th Avenue/ORE 99W/1-5 SB ramps 21.3 0.94 C 87.7 > 1.00 F 91.2 > 1,00 F 1-5 NB ramps/Haines Street 9.3 U.51 B 35.2 > 1.00 D 50.9 > 1.00 E Currently unsignalized, analyzed as signalized t i Tigard Triangle Update Study May 15, 1995 r l Traffic Analysis l5 P95W4XD 1 ~ i S". f. { DKSAssoclates BACKGROUND TRAFFIC IN THE TIGARD TRIANGLE ~ The percentage of background traffic growth versus the percentage of traffic generated by Tigard Triangle uses was analyzed for comparison purposes. There is a perception that much of the traffic increase in the area is related to background traffic growth, rather than specific Tigard traffic generators. The following Table 12 summarizes the percent of traffic from each source at four key Tigard Triangle locations. Land uses in the Tigard Triangle have a significant affect on traffic growth for streets serving the triangle. r 'rabic 11 ` Ft Tigard Triangle Traffic versus Background Growth X74 i~ Share of Growth Attributed Share of Growth to Attributed to i ucatlon 2010 Background Tigard Triangle Uses (Percentage) (Percentage) ORE 99W eau of 72nd Avenue 30% 70% 72nd Avenue south of ORE 99W 17% 33% 63th Parkway south of Dartmouth Street 14% 86% 72nd Avenue south of Dartmouth street 10% 90% SCALE OF NEEDED IMPROVEMENTS This section summarizes the types of street improvements needed to serve buifdoutof Tigard Triangle land uses. Because of the severe deficiencies identified in Table 11, a substantial amount of roadway changes would be needed. Figure 5 provides a summary of possible improvements. These l improvements are required with any of the buildout scenarios. This means that over time, these improvements would be necessary with the land use development of the Triangle and the only difference between scenarios would be potential turning lanes. The greatest difference between these improvements and those noted in the Tigard Triangle Specific Area Plan are the five caning of 72nd Avenue from ORE 99W to south of ORE 217 and the five laning of Dartmouth Street from 72nd Avenue to 68th Parkway. The following sections outline the potential improvements. s Pacific Highway (ORE 99i): The increases in traffic caused by the Triangle buildout requires additional east-west capacity. A seven lane cross-section (with additional turn lanes at specific intersections) would be needed to provide operating level of service D or E operating conditions and demand-to-capacity ratios between 0.85 to 0.95. Additional intersection turning lanes would not, by F themselves, mitigate the future conditions. A connection from Dartmouth Street to Hunziker Street over ORE 217 were also tested (creating a fifth portal). While this connection would attract nearly 6,000 vehicles per day, it would not mitigate intersection operation on ORE 99W without widening for additional through lanes. While the additional connection to Hunziker does attract 6,000 vehicles Tigard Triangle Updare S:udy May 15, 1995 Traffic Analysis 16 P95034„0 i i DKSAssodates a^p hor N a 70 000 °Q 120 +10 TO SCALE O i^ 1950 "C4 - 1930 _ @~ ► - 1150 3 y 200 230 BARBUd3 150 t--- 100 40 Iso 900 17o FTre ' 0 a o 0 800 a 1520 o 0 0 (200d r w o 170 N M 900 (N) BARBU& r 220 (S) g0 913 yd. ~q90 2Z,0~ _ 300 0O Z 40 v t 490 ~'y Q ,~wDO 10 0000 99W 270a N A `cleP y \ 1 ( 360 50 260 a < N `n eW 2 o 41 620 G ATLANT 5T HAIN 4) 50 e vLO@ ST 170 OOp 10 ~ Bona N N ST ST p + iOn Nvf~V Sa.6O ELAHURST < ST 0 y 250Iv N Of 650 730 eu +J I t+ S 360 300 t. 217 F rlw 0 130 6320-0 670 00a = 520 N,aN i 220 C-4 kn ° 5 TON ~ x ` r el VARNS T c7 `C N - 100 -10 D00 p 320 90'~, O i 04 owo L2I0 4nn + co 640 oN ' 4-30 +,50 yy Lo. 440 1 2200 1 ~780 40 411 e 10~ OQN o°o NQ i LEGEND Figure 4 O Study Intersection RETAIL BUIL®OUT WITH 2010 BACKGROUND PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES 1 r DKS Associates I i per day, it does not reduce the need for other mitigation treasures, which by themselves would produce level of service D conditions (without the expense of the new overcrossing), 72nd Avenue: A five lane cross-section would be required between Pacific Highway (ORE 99W) to i { south of ORE 217. Additional turning lanes would be required at some intersections. 6 72nd Avenue/ORE 217 Interchange: In addition to widening 72nd Avenue, the interchange configuration would need to be modified. Due to the close spacing of intersections on 72nd between t Hampton/ORE 217 northbound and Hunziker/ORE 217/Varns, intersections will need to be ' reconfigured and circulation improved. This would include: 1) a Hunziker to Hampton overcrossing of ORE 217; 2) rebuilding of southbound ORE 217 ramps into diamond configuration at 72nd, _ a including braiding of ramps for 1-5 movements; 3) relocation of northbound ORE 217 ramps ' (potentially to the new Hunziker/Hampton overcrossing) to eliminate short spacing to Hampton. Further study of interchange configuration alternatives and mitigation should be addressed as part of the ODOT I-5/ORE 217 Interchange study, currently in progress. Dartmouth Street: Extend the five lane cross-section from 72nd Avenue to 68th Parkway/I-5 southbound ramps. The intersection of Dartmouth/68th/I-5 ramps would need to be widened to f - accommodate future traffic. The southbound on-ramp should incorporate a multi-lane configuration l ? with ramp meters an queue storage. Weaving issues for on-ramp traffic (such as need for braiding) will need to be addressed in the I-51ORE 217 Interchange Study. _ Atlanta Street Extension: Atlanta Street would need to be extended from 69th Avenue to 72nd i Avenue as a three lane cross-section. This is part of a mitigation plan to relieve impacts to Dartmouth Street between 68th and 72nd. F 'T'raffic Signals: New traffic signals would be required at Dartmouth/72nd, Dartmouth/68th, Haines)AtlantaJ68th and potentially Atlanta/72nd. Traffic signal coordination strategies (systems) } would be necessary for the network of signals on ORE 99W, 72nd Avenue and Dartmouth Street. F r - 9 F s } i 4 I - I~. 1 Tigard Triangle Update Srw y May 15, 1995 Traffic Analysis is PvSOaa j DKSAssodates J„ a 99W CA oL Dartmouthf78th Intersection Widening Lanes j k PFAFFLE ST r 1 V _c.. " ATLANT T HAINES T s .Lanes: f. = r BAYLOR .t n io Q P S. f c`~C+ INTON Zv ro ~RTLSp~ St ~ nee ? a EUaHURSt ST f HERMOSO 217 - 3naK FP-' KLIN =N.~ Auxilliary Lanes/ Auxilliary Lanes Braiding fy~ / I'GONZhG:A = 10 3} HAMPTON \ T G x x n PAMELA ST 1 r' ' VARNS ST \ KRGSF O i- ODOT 1--51ORE 217 Rebuild Interchange Interchange Stud with Hunziker=Hampton a (Developing Y Overcrossing Recommendation) LEGEND Figure 6 - Potential New POTENTIAL TRANSPORTATION Traffic Signals STRATEGIES i F - F DKSAssodabes E. 1 e: _i ~ s f 1 Y Associa tes f } j f. i j i. f - l I 1 i { DKS Associates { a T F°IC LEVELS UE SERVICE Analysis of traffic volumes is useful in understanding the general nature of traffic in an area, but by I itself indicates neither the ability of the street network to carry additional traffic nor the quality of service afforded by the street facilities. For this, the concept of level of service has been developed to subjectively describe traffic performance. Level of service can be measured at intersections and along key roadway segments. f Level of service categories are similar to report card ratings for traffic performance. Intersections are R typically the controlling bottlenecks of traffic flow and the ability of a roadway system to carry traffic efficiently is generally diminished in their vicinities. Levels of Service A, B and C indicate conditions where traffic moves without significant delays over periods of peak travel demand. Level of service i D and F are progressively worse peak hour operating conditions and F conditions represent where demand exceeds the capacity of an intersection. Most urban communities set level of service D as the minimum acceptable level of service for peak hour operation and plan for level of service C or better for all other times of the day. The Highway Capacity Manual provides level of service calculation methodology for both intersections and arterials.2 The following three sections provide interpretations a of the analysis approaches. i l ~ - [ f i1 t I i 4 A 1 1 1 1 l I I . I J 1 I j i h ` 19,95 Highway Capaciry Manual, Special Report 209, Transportation Research Board, Washington D.C., 1985, Chapters 9, 10, 11. I i i - - - F 1 ; DKS Associates ~w SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS For signalized intersections, level of service is evaluated based upon average vehicle delay experienced by vehicles entering an intersection. As delay increases, the level of service decreases, Calculations ' for signalized and unsignalized intersections are different due to the variation in traffic control. The j 1985 Highway Capacity Manual' provides the basis for these calculations. r Level of Service Definitions Signalized Intersectiorts Vehicle Volume to Level of Delay Capacity Service (secs.) Ratiu Description A <5.00 0.00-0.59 Free Flow/Inaigniftcaut Delays: No approach phase is fully utilized by traffic and no vehicle waits longer than one red indication. B 5.1-15.0 0.60.0.69 Stable Operation/Miatimal Delays: An occasional approach phase is fully utilized. Many drivers begin to feel somewhat restricted within platoons of vehicles. t ° C 15.I-25.0 0.70-0.79 Stable Operation/Acceptable Delays: Major approach phases fully utilized. Most drivers feel somewhat restricted. D 25.1-:0.0 0.80-0.89 Approaching LrtutabtelToferabte Delays: Driverx may have to wait through more than one red signal indication. Queues may develop but ! dissipate rapidly, without excessive delays.- - i E 40.1-60.0 4.90-0.99 Unctsble Operation/Significant Delays: Volumes at or near capacity. Vehicles may wait though several signal cycles. Long queues form upstream from intersection. 11 F 760.0 NPA Forced Flow/Excessive Delays: Represents jammed conditions. Intersection operates below capacity with low volumes. Queues may block t upstream intersections. i Source: Highway Capacity Manual, Transportation Research Board, Special Report No.209, Washington D.C., 1985; and Circular 212, Transportation Research Board, 1980. t 1 i t 3 1985 Highway capacity AAlanual, Special Report 209, Transportation Research Board. Washington D.C., 1985, Chapter 9. i DKS Associates UNSIONALIZED INTERSECTIONS (Two-Way Stop Controlled) €c Unsignalized intersection level of service is reported for the major street and minor street (generally, left turn movements). The method assesses available and critical gaps in the traffic stream which make it possible for side street traffic to enter the main street flow. The 1985 Highway Capacity f Manual' describes the detailed methodology. It is not unusual for an intersection to experience level of service E or F conditions for the minor street left turn movement. It should be understood that, often, a poor level of service is experienced by only a few vehicles and the intersection as a whole operates acceptably. i Unsignalized intersection levels of service are described in the following table. E I Level of Service Definitions t Unsignalized Intersections i Reserve Capacity ` Level of Service Expected Delay (Vehicles/Hour) A Little of no delay >400 B Short traffic delay 300-399 I C Average traffic delays 200-299 D Long traffic delays 100-199 k E Very long traffic delays 0-99 F Extreme delays potentially affecting < 0 other traffic movements in the intersection t ~ i Source: Highway Capadry Manual, Special Report 204, Transportation Research Board Washington, D.C., 1985. 1 } j 1 r ' 1 i L l a 1985 Highway Capacity Manual, Special Report209, Transportation Research Board. Washington D.C., 1985, Chapter to. a i Associates ALL-WAY STOP CONTROLLED INTERSECTIONS Unsignalized intersections and all-way stop controlled intersections are each subject to a separate t capacity analysis methodology. ,ill-way stop controlled intersection operations are reported by leg of the intersection. This method was developed by Dr. Michael Kyte of the University of Idaho.' ~ This method calculates a delay value for each approach to the intersection. The following table f describes the amount of delay associated with. each level of service. G- _-1 E Relay (Seconds) Level of Service LL- ~ P 5 5 A 6- 10 B' 11 - 20 C 21 - 30 D 31 - 45 E f > 45 F i ~ f i r i !ll I ~ k i i l t _I J 3 Transportation Research Circular #373, Transportation Research Board. 3 ~ i i ;I F - j . Associates i. f i j t i r-,; I ; I i i j i . l DKS Associates I- Nor ro aewLE E Z P Jy 99w ;f L a 4 f PFAFFLE ST p , A o ATLANTA, HAINES ST RAYLOR ST 1 j g 6 1 ® CLINTON ST Z Q F O i ~ Z [MHURST ST ' . i { H RM ~p ~ 217 9 FP..JKLIN t BEVE Nr-~ ~~MFR ST ` I GONZAGA 5 ' ! w e ~ o P { PAMELA ST 13 -1 ; VARNS ST -I ly RtJ O 14 GII o N I ~ ( f J TRAFFIC ANALYSIS ZONES i Land Use by Zone E I E i. Residential Retail Gas Sta Convnercial Special Tone SF MF General Rest Fagot Food Office Service Generators (DUs) (BUS) (SF) (SF) (Coon! (SF) (SF) (In (Out) (Units) Existing 1995 a 1 0 0 135.96 2,400 0 1,000 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 25,723 4,500 3 5,984 25,000 17 32 14 t. 3 2 0 12,000 20,200 0 0 64,700 0 0 0 1 'I 4 8 0 10,500 7,200 1 0 0 40 30 117 5 0 0 0 0 0 87,000 0 0 0 0 6 47 0 1,500 0 0 26,000 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 107,523 0 0 0 0 216 200 2,700 8 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 35 0 0 0 0 84,898 1,660 0 0 0 10 6 2 0 0 0 17,200 2,200 2 2 5,700 11 6 0 900 0 0 57,800 70,100 9 7 22,280 i 12 0 0 0 0 0 69,000 0 0 0 0, 13 0 0 0 0 0 122,195 0 0 0 0 14 0 0 0 0 0 110,000 0 0 0 0 j' 15 29 0 0 0 0 0 0 57 44 404 I TOTAL 138- 2 >:284,142 .34,300 '4 . 581,077 163,660, 341 315 I ,I - I j DKS Associates 5/8/95 k Land Use by Zone Residential Retail Gas Sta Commercial Special ~ Zone SF MF General Res? Fas! Food Office Service Gener.Mors (OUS) (OUS) (SF) (SF) (Count) (SF) (SF) (in) (Out) (Units) 1 Existing Plus Approved Projects 1 0 0 135,996 2,400 0 1,000 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 25,723 4,500 3 5,984 25,000 17 32 14 j 58 128 200 3 2 0 12,000 20,200 0 0 64,700 0 0 0 1 4 8 0 10,500 7,200 1 0 0 40 30 117 1 5 0 0 0 0 0 87,000 0 0 0 0 6 47 0 1,500 0 0 26,000 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 191,013 0 0 0 0 216 200 2,700 1 8 4 0 360,620 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 'r 9 35 108 0 0 0 84,898 1,660 0 0 0 10 6 2 0 0 0 17,200 2,200 2 2 5,704 11 6 0 900 0 0 57,800 70,100 9 7 22,280 I 12 0 0 0 0 0 69,000 0 0 0 0 13 0 0 0 0 0 122,195 0 0 0 0 14 0 0 0 0 0 110,000 0 0 0 0 15 29 0 0 0 0 0 0 57 44 404 Total 138 110 738,252 346300 4 581,077 163,660 399 443 i i I 1 I i I j i i I 7 j DKS Associates 518195 _ _ 1 _ Land Use by Zone i i i ~ j Residential Retail Gas Sla Commercial Special J Zone SF MF General Rest Fast Food Office Service Generators ` i (DUs) (DUs) (SF) (SF) (Count) (SF) (SF) (In) (Out) (Units) Comp Plan Buildout 1 0 0 178,162 2,400 0 1,000 0 0 0 0 I + 2 0 0 62,618 4,500 3 5,984 25,009 17 32 14 ! 58 128 200 3 0 0 61,833 20,200 0 0 64,700 0 0 0 4 0 0 10,500 7,22 1 0 0 40 30 117 5 0 0 0 0 0 153,211 0 0 0 0 I 6 29 0 34,576 0 0 238,992 0 0 0 0 E 7 0 0 223,979 0 0 0 0 216 200 2,700 8 0 0 360,620 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 j 9 10 108 39,674 0 0 340,377 1,660 0 0 0 10 0 2 0 0 0 61,196 2,200 2 2 5,700 11 0 0 900 0 0 113,339 70,190 9 7 22,280 12 0 0 0 0 0 140,438 0 0 0 0 13 0 0 0 0 0 196,356 0 0 0 0 i 14 0 0 0 0 0 110,000 0 0 0 0 1 15 29 0 30,475 0 0 0 0 57 44 404 I Total 68 110 1,003,338 34,300. 4 1,369,894 163,660 399 443 1 i j J ,DKS Associates 5/16/95 . r Land Use by Zone Residential Retail Gas Sta Conernerctat Special Zone SF MF General Rest Fast Food Office Service Generators (Dus) (DUs) (SF) (SF) (Count (SF) (SF) (in) (Out) (Units) Modified Comp Playa Buildout 1 0 0 178,162 2,400 0 1,000 0 0 0 0 f 2 0 0 62,618 4,500 3 5,984 25,000 17 32 14 58 128 200 3 0 0 61,833 20,200 0 0 64,700 0 0 0 4 0 0 10,500 7,200 1 0 0 40 30 117 5 0 0 0 0 0' 153,211 0 0 0 0 1 6 0 0 142,678 0 0 238,662 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 223,979 0 0 0 0 216 200 2,700 E 7 0 0 360,620 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I { 9 0 108 82,281 0 0 337,698 1,660 0 0 0 10 0 2 0 0 0 61,196 2,200 2 2 5,700 11 0 0 900 0 0 113,339 70,100 9 7 22,280 12 0 0 0 0 0 140,438 0 0 0 0 13 0 0 0 0 0 196,356 0 0 0 0 14 0 0 0 0 0 110,000 0 0 0 0 15 0 0 263,921 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 0 1,10 1,387;493 : ; 34,300 4. - ;.1357,885 163,6"00 342 399 i I 3 1 I 1 i t I i i j DKS Associates 5!16195 Lana Use by Zone ~ ' Residential Retail Gas Sta Conunercfal Special Zone SF MF General Rest Fast Food Office Servke Generators (DUs) (DUs) (SF) (SF) (count) (SF) (SF) (In) (out) (Units) Half Retail Half Office i 1 0 0 157,079 2,400 0 24,958 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 44,171 4,500 3 26,947 25,000 17 32 14 58 128 200 i 3 0 0 36,916 20,200 0 28,314 64,700 0 0 0 I! 4 0 0 10,500 7,200 1 0 0 40 30 117 [ 5 0 0 29,133 0 0 120,106 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 165,708 0 0 212,600 0 0 0 0 1 7 0 0 207,448 0 0 18,731 0 216 200 2,700 f 8 0 0 360,620 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I 9 0 108 152,373 0 0 258,049 1,660 0 0 0 10 0 2 11,308 0 0 30,050 2,200 2 2 5,700 11 0 0 25,337 0 0 85,570 70,100 9 7 22260 12 0 0 31,433 0 0 104,719 0 0 0 0 I 13 0 0 32,631 0 0 159,275 0 0 0 0 Y { 14 0 0 0 0 0 110,000 0 0 0 0 1 15 0 0 131,961 0 0 149,955 0 57 44 0 F I Total 0 110 1;396,666 34,300: 4 .1,329,274 163,660 3S9 443 l I r i j 1 f: P k-. i I i ~ f j DKS Associates 518/95 i Land Use by Zone 'I Residential Retail Gas Sta Ccllunercial Special Zone SF MF General Rest Fast Food Office Service Generators j (OUs) (DUs SF (SF) (Count (SF) (SF) (In (Out) (Units) I i i Maximum Retail Buildout 1 0 0 176,162 2,400 0 1,000 0 0 0 0~ 2 0 0 62,619 4,500 3 5,984 25,000 17 32 14 { 58 128 200 f - 3 0 0 61,833 20,200 0 0 64,700 0 0 0 i 4 0 0 10,500 7,200 1 0 0 40 30 117 5 0 0 58,256 0 0 87,000 0 0 0 0 { 6 0 0 329,916 0 0 26,000 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 223,979 0 0 0 0 216 200 2,700 8 0 0 360,620 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 108 304,746 0 0 84,898 1,660 0 0 0 10 0 2 22,616 0 0 17,200 2,200 2 2 5,700 11 0 0 49,774 0 0 57,800 70,100 9 7 22,260 1 12 0 0 62,856 0 0 69,000 0 0 0 0 f 13 0 0 65,262 0 0 122,195 0 0 0 0 14 0 0 0 0 0 110,000 0 0 0 0 15 0 0 263,921 0 0 0 0 57 44 0 Total 0 110 .2;055;080... 94;300 4 581,077 163,660 399 443 L I i I DDS Associates 5/8/95 - - _ rid d » 05123/1445 09:53 filename: TTCPBO.QUT __Pa9e 15 05123/1995 09:53 Filename: TTCP00.OUT Pave 16 j TTCPBO.IN Tue May 23, 1995 09:53:35 Page 15-1 TTCPSO.IN Tue May 23, 1995 09:53:3S Page 16-1 Tigard Triangle Update Analysis Tigard Triangle Update Arztysis PM Peak Hour PM Peak Flour Existing Geometry/Camp Plan Buitdout/Fut Vats Existing Geometry/Camp Plan Bultdeut/rut Vots Level Of Service Computation Report Level Of Service Computation Report 1985 NCH Operations Method 1985 HCM Operat,~ons Method Future Volume A€ternative Future Volume Alternative F-l @i##$*@##$@@###AAA#@#$##$$@****}##*}##*bk###*9@##*bB*##*##@#*#*****$*@*@A#*****A *tA*###}**R#b*#@**#*}*##*######f*}##}*##**#####}*##t.q#W##}t#*W****#***#}*w#*b*#o ff u Intersection 016 1-5 NO ramps/Haines Street Intersection 092 72nd Avenue/Hunxiker Street ~ **►#*##*@#****###**@*####*##*#*#*#***###*#*###***#*}b#1*i**#*d***#*#@*#*#******# }*A*#*#***#*#A#fq##**##d#t#bk*##}##***q#d*#q*###*4****#b#*/:#*##**##OqQ***##*##** ` Cycle (sec): 80 Critical Vot./Cap. (X)s 0.894 Cycle (sec): too Critical Val./Cap. (K): 1.288 F Loss Time (sec): ' 8 Average Delay (sec/veh): 20.1 Loss Time (see): 12 Average Delay (sec/veh): 122.5 Optimal*$~#$*###4#*#tA##*@#*Cycle: 88 level Of Service: C Optimal Cyyc~te: 190 Level Of Servsse: r V #@###*#*}b*#}#**d*#*###***q###***#tr}##*@*****b*fi **##*b##*** #####}##***R**}#q##**#•***#A*##*}##}*#4bb}#**q##*A*****}*0###*##***}*#*iggq*##** r Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Approach: North Do" South Bound East Bound West Bound r + :9oversent: L- T- R L- T- R L- T- R L- T- R Movement: L- T- R L- T- R L- T- R l- T- R ` ? _ Control: Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted Control: Protected Protected Split Phase split-Phase 1 r Rights: Include Include Include Include Rights: Include Include Ovl Include Min. Green: 15 15 15 0 0 0 0 15 15 15 15 0 Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 Lanes: 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 itoluaae Module: Volume Module: _ 0 Base Vol: 451 0 213 0 0 0 0 488 268 35 293 0 ease Vol: 195 847 0 0 387 379 202 0 356 0 0 0 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 LOD 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 R Initial gse: 451 0 213 0 0 0 0 488 268 35 293 0 Initial Dse: 195 847 0 0 387 379 202 0 356 0 0 0 n Added Vol: 143 0 0 0 0 0 0 117 334 0 90 0 Added Vol: 0 108 0 0 445 204 91 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 594 0 213 0 0 0 0 605 602 35 383 0 initial Fut: 195 955 0 0 832 583 293 0 356 0 0 0 n, User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 User Ad: 1.00 i.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj:_ 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 594 0 213 0 0 0 0 605 602 35 383 0 PHF Volume: 195 955 0 0 832 583 293 0 356 0 0 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduct Vat: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vat: 594 0 213 0 0 0 0 605 602 35 383 0 Reduced Vat: 195 455 0 0 832 583 293 0 356 0 0 0 PCE 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 PCE 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 MLF 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 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Me 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vat.: 594 0 213 0 0 0 0 605 602 35 383 0 Final Vat.: 195 955 0 0 832 563 293 0 356 0 0 0 i Saturation Flow Module: Saturation flow Modute• Sat/Lane: 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1000 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 Sat/Lane: 1800 1800 1800 1800 1803 1600 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1600 Cam3 Adjustment: 0.90 1.00 0.85 9.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.65 0.53 0.53 1.00 Adjustment: 0.95 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.93 0.93 0.94 1.00 0.84 1.00 1.00 1.00 01 lanes: 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0100 1.00 1.00 0.08 0.92 0.00 Lanes: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.59 0.41 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 k Flnel sat.: 1620 0 1530 0 0 0 0 1800 1530 80 874 0 Final Sat.: I1701 1791 0 1800 985 690 1664 0 1507 0 0 0 Capacity Ann~ysi3 Module: Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.37 0.00 0,14 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.34 0.39 0.44 0.44 0.00 Vol/Sat: 0.11 0.53 0.00 0.00 0.84 0.84 0.17 0.00 0.24 0.00 0.00 0.00 - n Crit Moves: #bAe Crit Moves: #*#@ #qt# Green/Cycle: 0.41 0.00 0.41 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.49 0.49 0.49 0.49 0.00 Green/Cycle: 0.09 0.74 0.00 0.00 0.66 0.66 0.14 0.00 0.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 Volume/Cap: 0.69 0.00 0.34 0.00 0.00 0.00 O.DO 0.69 0.80 0.69 0.89 0.00 Volume/Cap: 1.29 0.72 0.00 0.00 1.29 1.29 1.29 0,00 1.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 ! - - - . - - - - - Level of Service Module: (I II'- II __I level of Service Module: _ II' .II- - II- - D4tay/Veh: 27.1 0.0 12.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 13.5 17.4 27.7 27.7 0.0 Delay/Veh: 252 6.6 0.0 0.0 203 203.0 236 0.0 84.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 Delay 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 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.OD 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.CO 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 ProgddjFctr: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 ProgAdjFctr. 1.00 0.85 0.85 1.00 0.65 0.85 1.00 0.85 0.85 1.OD 0.65 0.65 AdjDet/Veh: 27.1 0.0 12.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 13.5 17.4 27.7 27.7 0.0 AdjDel/Veh: 252 5.6 0.0 0.0 173 172.6 236 0.0 71.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 ; Queue: 15 0 3 0 0 0 0 11 12 11 11 0 Queue! 17 15 0 0 156 156 25 0 17 0 0 0 @4$@*#@$*#$**#*@##@#q#@@A#*##*##k*@##*#*##t*#$#*#*#@#@#**@$*}**#@###t*####*#*#@# ***##4@#######*#q#G*R##}#***##q*#**###R##*f#A*@q#####t#*t***!b####@##*##*#}A#### 1T Traffix System Version 6.7 (c) 1994 DA Licensed to OKS Associates, Po Traffix system Version 6.7 (c) 1994 DA Licensed to OKS Associates, Pe m i ° I 4 0 00/231995 09:53 Filename- TTCP©O.OUT Page 13 0512311925 09:53 Fiten : TTCPBO.OUT Page 14 1 °o TTCPBO.IR Tue May 23, 1995 09:53:34 Page 13-1 TTCPBO.IN Tue May 23, 1993 09.53:35 Page 14-1 161 ^ f _ Tigard Triangle Update Analysis Tigard Triangle Update Analysis PM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Existier Geometry/Comp Plan Buildout/Fut Vats Existing Geomtry/Caap Plan suitdout/Fut vats Level Of Service Computation Report Level Of Service Computation Report 'r 1965 MCP Operations Method 1985 OCR Operations Method Future Volume Alternative Future Volume Alternative ! F.1 Sp##$4'#$p$#p$#####p##$p$#R$$$##R#Rpb#t#tr$#$##$$p#fd$R#4#t¢$4$#$$**$$$#$#$$$$$$## $$¢$$Ype$$$4*Yt4p44$$Y$b$¢¢$#$$R$$#ppR$ffiA$$¢$###$b$$AR#ffi¢k$$#¢#¢pp#p##$¢¢Yffi$¢pRb intersection N12 66th Parkway/Wampton Street Intersection 914 64th Avenue/1-5¢$$$pYYppffi*b#R4ffi¢$$Y#Y46Y$$0 off-rawip/Pacific Wighbia Q' ##R$##$#$$¢$$##$$##$$$$$*$$$ $##$#*$#$**#$#$$$¢$$*ppp##$$$$$$¢$*$$$¢#*$¢¢$$*}*$$ $all#$6$#ffi#p4#dn$#$$$ffi$$$p$$#$$#$ YYffiR$ffi#pffip4YY$YY¢tY¢ Circle (see): 60 Critical Vot.!Cap. (X): 0.505 Cycle (Sec): 120 Critical Vol./Cap. (K): 1.156 Loss Tian (sec): 8 Average Delay (sec/veh). 9.5 Loss Time (sec): 19 Average Delay (sec/veh): 83.5 Optimal Cycle: 38 Level Of Service: B Optimal Cycle: 180 level Of Service: F U #$p$###$$#p#$#$#$#$#p$$$p##p###$###$#*##$#$$#¢###$$#*$#$###p#$#A$$p$pp$$¢$$p#$$$ #$$Y¢$$Y$$$¢$$#$$$►p$#$p#$$¢$$$$Y$#$$$4¢ffi¢$ffip@4#¢$#4ffi$$$$$$$4$ffi¢¢ffiffi$$44$Rffi4$ffi4YY r Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Approach: Worth Bound South Bound East Bosxid West Bound r Movement: L- T- R L T- R L- T- R L- T- R Movement: L- T- R L- T- R L- T- R L- T- R I T -11 - - 1f - i1 - A ( 11•~ 11 ......lf- Control: Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted Control: Split Phase Split Phase Protected Protected F N Rights include Include include Include Rights: include Include Itmlude Include Agin. Green: 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 45 15 15 Min, Green. 0 15 0 12 12 12 6 15 15 6 15 15 H Lanes 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 lanes: 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 2 0 2 1 0 1 1 0 11 1 11 I fl- - - - - volume 11 ---------•----11 - ----------I Mode!te: Volume Module: Base Vol: 72 104 1 12 20 102 177 18 11 1 97 72 Base Vol: 0 1159 0 30 119 79 151 602 1124 165 901 148 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Use: 72 104 1 12 20 182 177 18 11 1 97 72 initial Use: 0 1159 0 30 119 79 151 802 4124 165 901 148 Added Vol: 68 18 0 1 7 68 106 0 14 0 11 22 Added Vol: 0 132 0 0 0 4 7 195 0 0 90 0 initial Fut: 140 122 1 13 27 250 283 18 25 1 108 94 initial Fut: 0 1291 0 30 119 83 158 997 1124 165 991 140 q User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 9.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PBF 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 PBF Ad': 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 { PNF Volume: 140 122 1 13 27 250 283 18 25 1 108 94 PWF Volume: 0 1291 0 30 119 83 158 997 1124 165 991 148 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 140 122 1 13 27 250 283 18 25 1 108 94 Reduced Vol: 0 1291 0 30 tt9 63 158 997 1124 165 99t 146 PCE 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 PCE 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 I MLF Ad!: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.05 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.05 1.00 1.00 1.05 1.00 Final Vot.: 140 122 1 13 27 250 283 18 25 1 108 94 Final vol.: 0 1355 0 30 119 83 158 1047 it24 165 1041 148 i ' - Saturation F-tow Module: - - ( Saturation Flow Module d1 - II - - . 1 i Sat/Lane: 1800 1600 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1600 1800 1800 1800 Sat/Lane: 1800 1600 1800 1800 1800 moo 1800 two 1800 1800 1800 1800 i M Adjustment: 0.68 0.68 0.68 0.78 0.78 0.78 0.71 0.91 0.91 0.88 0.93 0.93 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 0.99 0.85 0.95 1.00 0.75 0.95 0.98 0.98 ' Lanes: 0.53 0.46 0.01 0.04 0.09 0.87 1.00 0.42 0.58 1.00 0.53 0.47 Lams: 0.00 2.00 0.00 0.20 0.80 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.75 0.25 f, Final Sat.: 647 564 5 63 131- 1210 1278 686 952 1584 895 779 Final Sat.: 0 3600 0 359 1423 1510 1710 3600 2700 1710 3089 439 ! N II----- If-- i1--------------- i 11----------- 11...__...._ 11---------- ! Capacity AiJysis Module: Capacity Analysis Module: Voi/Sat: 0.22 0.22 6.22 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.22 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.12 0.12 Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.38 0.00 O.OB 0.08 0.05 0.09 0.29 0.42 0.10 0.34 0.34 Cr(t Moves: # Crit Moves: Yffi#$ $$$Y Y$$¢ Gram/Cycle: 0.43 0.43 0.43 0.43 0.43 0.43 0.44 0.44 0.44 0.44 0.44 0.44 Green/Cycle: 0.00 0.31 0.00 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.09 0.35 0.35 0.08 0.34 0.34 volume/Cap: 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.48 0.46 0.48 0.51 0.06 0.06 0.00 0.28 0.28 VolmmiCap: 0.00 1.20 0.00 0.84 0.84 0.54 1.00 0.64 1.20 1.20 1.00 1.00 level Of Service nodule. level Of Service Module: Del By/Veh: 10.2 10.2 10.2 9.9 9.9 9.9 9.9 7.4 7.4 7.2 8.2 8.2 Oeley/Veb: 0.0 143 0.0 59.1 59.1 42.0 97.8 31.1 143.7 197 51.4 51-4 Delay 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 0e1ey Adj: 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.04 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 i ProgAdjFctr: 1.00 1.00 .1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Pro9AdjFctr: 1.00 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 1.00 0.85 0.65 1.00 0.85 0.85 a AdjOel/veh: 10.2 10.2 10.2 9.9 9.9 9.9 9.9 7.4 7.4 7.2 6.2 8.2 AdjDe1 /Veh: 0.0 122 0.0 50.2 50.2 35.7 97.8 26.4 122.1 197 43.7 43.7 Queue. 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 0 0 0 2 2 Queue: 0 94 0 6 6 3 8 34 79 13 49 49 ##4RR##$ffia#$#p#$¢$#$###¢#a###$$$$$##$$##$####¢p$4$¢¢$$##p4$¢$#$$#$#$ffiaR$$$$$$$$$ p$¢$$$$p$$$$$$i$$$$YY$$Y$$¢Y$t$Y$$$$$+YdYY$$$$$4$$$&$Y$$¢Y$4$¢$$fe'a$A$YY$$$$YR#$YY ! Traffix System Version 6.7 (c) 1994 DA Licensed to OKS Associates, Po Traffix System Version 6.7 (c) 1994 DA Licensed to DKS Associates, Po (j!h 1 N I tq ~ p ii` s . 05./2311495 09;53 Filename TTCPBO.OUT' Page 11 05/23/1995 09:53 Filename: tTCPG0.0U7 Page 12 I 0' TTCPSO.IN •Tue May 23.•19995 09:53:34 Page 11`1, TTCP00.IN Tue May 23, 1995 09:53:34 Page 12-1 t f i Tigard Triangle Update Analysis Tigard Triangle Update Analysts PM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Existing Geometry/Comp Plan euildout/Fut Vats Existing Geometry/CoM Plan Buildout/Fut Vats f - LevelofService Coaterneen Report Level f Future Volume Computation Report - 1985 HCH Gy RpQ#ptr##ARtr}trA#RJ#R##Jp#ppRptrpi##R}RtrQtrR#Q}####tri###QR##}Q#JQRRQQR######Q #Jp~':}# }p##tr#pp##p}Rptrptr}#tr}}}t}##trpRRp}#*pp*}}Rtr}}pp#AR##}pQ#}pppQQp}#bp#pRpp#p4}#pQ#4 intersection 010 68th Parkway/Raines Street/Atlanta Street Intersection 911 68th Parkway/Oartmouth Street/1-5 SO ramps }}trpRpQ94#}##Q}########trip## Q}9}Q#Q}#4Q}Q#ptrt#}}##trJ##p##Ap}Rp}}}}}#}#ptrp}R#### }#}pQ*}p}##RQ#}d#p##RQ#}}##}QtrRptr##Rp}pp###R#}#tr4ppR*ptr#p#}trp}}pQ#}#RQQp}Jp}Qkd4 Cycle (sec): 00 Critical Vot./Cap. (X): 2.700 Cycle (sec): 8o Critical Vot./Cap. (r4.406 F Lass Tiax• (sec): 8 Average Delay (sec/veh): OVERFLOW Loss Time (sec): 8 Average Delay (sec/veh): OVERFLOW j Optimal Cycle 180 level Of Service: F optimal cycle: 180 level Of Service: F ~.1 #QQt#tr*trpQAp#RRJ}###p##}pQw}pQ#}QpQ}#pAQQ}AR}b#}#tr#AJR#}O##}###}p#}tr#iJ}#pQR#}p# }p#trptr#A#2R}*#*#Qp#p}p#ip}}trR#}R###R}tr}pt#}Qpptp}p}pQp#}pRRQp#QQ#}#dRQRQ}trR#trQQp r Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Approach: North Bound South amm East Bound West Bound t Movement: L- T- R L- T- R L T- R L- T- R Movement: L T R L- T- R L- T- R L- T- R I ...............II-----•^.-- ....II - -------.ll--------------- ( 1--------------- !!--•-----.------ll--------------- Control: Permitted Permitted P@rmitted Permitted Control: Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted I "i Rights: Inciude Include Include include Rights: Include Include Include Include Mn. Green: 15 15 15 15 15 15 6 15 15 6 15 15 Min. Green: 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 :IH lanes: 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 7 0 0 1 1 0 0 t 0 Lanes: 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 I-----•---------II------------•--!I•-----•--.._..-II--------------- 1 ....._...._.I ...............II..............-il----•--------•-Bi--.--------_•--! Volume Module: Valume Module: i Base Vol: 4 150 515 127 180 7 7 57 5 318 54 319 Base Vol: 21 258 167 153 88 194 278 337 6 123 282 110 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Growth Adj: 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 hr Initial Uses 4 150 515 127 180 7 7 57 5 318 54 31B Initial 8se: 21 258 167 153 88 194 278 337 6 123 262 110 n Added Vat: 13 205 325 41 145 3 32 84 0 169 51 13 Added Vol: 0 299 88 177 82 182 178 178 2 49 203 36 Initial Fut: 17 355 NO 160 425 10 39 141 5 487 105 331 initial rut: 21 557 255 330 170 376 456 515 8 172 485 146 j Cl User Ad): 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 s PHF Ad: 1.001:00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Ad': 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 PHF Vott>me; 17 355 840 168 425 10 39 141 S 487 105 331 PHF Volume; 21 557 255 330 170 376 456 515 8 172 485' 146 Reduct Vat: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 17 355 840 168 425 10 39 141 5 487 105 331 Reduced Vol: 21 557 255 330 170 376 4S6 515 8 172 485 146 PCE 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 PCE 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 MLf 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 MLF At 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 Final Vot.: 17 355 840 168 425 10 39 141 5. 487 105 331 Final Vol.: 21 557 255 330 170 376 456 515 8 172 405 146 11.--- - -11--------------- ! l it 11-... I!__.._.._.. g Saturation F(ow.Module: Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1600 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1600 Set/lane: 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 E ~a Adjustment: 0.53 0.53 0.85 0.17 0.17 0.85 0.65 0.65 0.85 0.48 0.89 0.89 Adjustment: 0.22 1.00 0.85 0.15 0.90 0.90 0.09 1.00 0.65 0.70 0.70 0.65 Lanes: 0.050.95 1.00 0.28 0.72 1.00 0.22 0.7a 1.00 1.00 0.24 0.76 Lanes: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.31 0.69 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.26 0.74 1.00 Final Sat.: 44 910 1530 87 219 1530 254 916 1530 864 386 1216 Final Sat.: 396 1600 1530 270 S04 1116 16Z 1600 1530 330 930 1530 Capacity Ana ysis-Module: Capacity Ana ysis Module: 1 Val/Sat: 0.39 0.39 0.55 1.94 1.94 0.01 0.15 0.15 0.00 0.56 0.27 0.27 Vol/Sat: 0.05 0.31 0.17 1.22 0.34 0.34 2.81 0.29 0.01 0.52 0.52 0.10 ~n Crit Moves: Crit Moves: *#pR ##}R Ca Green/Cycle: 0.70 0.70 0.10 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.2D 0.20 Green/Cycle: 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.63 0.63 0.63 0.63 0.63 0.63 Vold/Cap: 0.56 0.56 0.79 2.78 Z.78 0.01 0.76 0.76 0.02 2.78 1.34 1.34 Votume/Cap: 0.19 1.14 0.61 4.44 1.24 1.24 4.49 0.46 0.01 0.83 0.83 0.15 I-__... II---------- II--•-- II----- ll---------------! Level Of Service Module: Level Of Service Module: f o Delay/Veh: 5.4 5.4 9.0 xxxx xxxx 2.6 31.7 31.7 19.4 4895 266 266.5 Delay/Veh: 17.1 106 21.2 xxxx 171 171.1 xxxx 6.1 4.2 14.1 14.1 4.7 * Delay 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 Delay Adj. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1-OG 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 ProgAdjFctr: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 ProgAdjFctr: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 I.OD 1.00 o AdjDel/Veh: 5.4 5.4 9.0 xxxx xxxx 2.8 31.7 3t.7 19.4 4695 265 266.5 Adloel/Veh: 17.1 106 21.2 xxxx 111 171.1 xxxx 6.1 4.2 14.1 14.1 4.7 f Queue: 4 4 14 xxxx xxxx 0 5 5 0 327 39 39 Queue: 0 28 5 xxxx 37 37 xxxx 6 0 13 13 1 ~ ###tr##A#QJ##QRppQRQ#p#tr}tr#J#QQp#Q##p}##Q##f QQ#Q}#R###Q#Qtr#}}}A##RQ##QQp}41p##p}A #Wf##}d}#R}Ap}trQQ#Rp}}#pRp#Q#p}Q##t}}*p#}#}A#Q}}b#!}RR}QR}}RRJp}#trp}#QQR}piQ#AQ# a ~ Traffix System Version 6.7 (c) 1944 DA Licensed to DXS Associates, Po iraffix System. Version 6.7 (c) 1994 OA Licensed to DKS Assacizles, Po i a n 0/2311995 09:53 Filename: TTCPBO.OUT Page 9 05/23/1995 09.53 Filename: TTCPBOOUY Pose 10 an a TTCPOO.IM Tue May 23, 1995 09:53:34 Page 9-1 TTCPBO.IK Tue May 23, 1995 09:53:34 Page 10-1 f Tigard Triangle Update Analysis Tigard Triangle Update Analysis PH Peak Hour PH Peak Hour Existing Geometry/Comp Plan Buitdout/Fut Vats Existing Geametry/CoV Plan Buitdout/Fut Vats A C4 Level Of Service Computation Report Level Of Service Computation Report 1985 NCM Operations Method 1985 NCH Operations Method { Future Volume Alternative Future Volume Alternative #*#*p#*}**#A**A**##t*p#**p#p*n*A*A*p*}p*AApsAA#t*f*##**A***#Ap##*&**}A**AA***{r*p pp$A**p**ppApppApprtApi#pfA#AppAAAA4Ap#rtAAa#rtA¢pfpepp}ApA4#**¢A#pi}A#}pA6#pprtAApp ~ Intersection #8 72nd Avenue/ORE 217 SO intersection #9 68th Parkway/Pacific Nighaear #$AAAA$}AppApA#$*##bA*ApA###d*$*#$*$App##$*pAppp*ppt*#App##$p*prt*rtAA#A##*A$##$*# pA}pAAAAAAArtA####*#¢Ap&*prt#*44##A#$Ap##!#AA #AAAA$ppAAApAAppAA 4ptf lpppp#Ap*Apppt Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap. (14): 1.426 cycle (sec): 140 Critical Vat./Cap. (x): 1.191 Loss Tian (sec): 12 Average Delay.(sec/veh): 225.7 Loss Time (sec): 12 Average Delay (sec/veh): 92.5 a+ Optimal Cycle: 180 Level Of Service: F Optimal cyecle: 180 Level Of Service: F i ppi#p*App**p*#rtp*pA*Apf#*f}pppAp*ppp*p*A*p*#}*}Ap*p#**A#p#*ppp*p*$p#A#pp#**p#*pp *prtprtp#AA #AppAp#!$pp*iptA#ppp*pppp*pApp#pp*#ppfppppppAA$p6tppppppptppppprtpppppp ~ T Approach. North Bound South sound East Bound West Dowd Approach: Worth Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound 4 Movement. L- T- R L- T- R t- T- _R L- T- R Movement: L- T- R L- T- R L- T- R L- T- R t 1---------------II-_.------------11 ------------LI--------------- ! ------------I-•-------------II---•-----------il---------------Ii----------.----I - Control. Protected Protected Permitted Permitted Control: Permitted Permitted Protected Protected y Rights: Include include include Include Rights: Include Inctude Include Include W min. Green: 6 45 15 6 15 15 6 15 15 6 15 15 pin. Green: 6 15 15 6 15 15 6 15 15 6 15 15 E+ Lanes: 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 11 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 Lanes: 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 ...---•---•-i--------------- 11---------------pl---------------II---•-----------I I---............!l..._...---..._.ll...............!l---------•.-.--I Volume Module: Volume Module: 0 Base Vol: 15 939 239 345 427 6 39 19 8 438 25 85 Base Vat: 137 276 153 162 238 25 34 1757 74 68 1770 117 (n Growth Adj. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 vi Initial ase: 15 989 239 345 427 6 39 19 8 438 25 85 initial Bse: 137 278 153 162 238 25 34 1757 74 68 1770 117 6 Added Vol: 0 91 0 357 87 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 Added Vol: 89 16 202 0 16 2 3 245 26 68 158 0 Initial Fut: 15 1080 239 702 514 6 39 19 8 438 25 102 Initial Fut: 226 294 355 162 254 27 37 2002 100 136 1928 117 q User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 0.80 1.00 1.00 1.00 User Adj. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 15 1080 239 702 514 6 39 19 6 438 25 102 PHF Volume: 226 294 355 162 254 27 37 2002 100 136 1928 I1T Reduct Vat: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduce Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 15 1080 239 702 514 6 39 19 6 438 25 102 Reduced Vat: 226 294 355 162 254 27 37 2002 100 136 1928 117 PCE 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 PCE Ad': 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF 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 MLF Adj- 1.CO 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.05 1.00 1.00 1.05 1.00 Final Vat.: 15 1080 239 702 514 6 39 19 6 438 25 102 Final Vol.: 226 294 355 162 254 27 37 2102 SOD 136 2024 117 I 11 Saturation flow Module: Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: loco 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 Sat/Lane: 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 Adjustment: 0.94 1.06 0.84 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.88 0.88 0.83 Adjustment: 0.58 0.92 0.92 0.27 0.99 0.99 0.95 0.99 0.99 0.95 0.99 .0.99 ' Lanes: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 0.01 0.61 0.30 0.09 0.95 0.05 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 0.45 0.55 1.00 0.90 0.10 1.00 1.91 0.09 1.00 1.89 0.11 Final Sat.: 1693 1907 1515 1767 1735 20 205 100 32 1502 86 1499 Final Sat.; 1044 750 906 466 1611 171 1710 3402 162 1710 3369 195 1 N -.I Capacity Ana cis Module: 1--------------- 11°-°•----•---...lL I I C ecity Ana ysis Module: !I'----^------• iI-..__...--. I c Voi/Sat: 0.01 0.57 0.16 0.40 0.30 0.30 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.29 0.29 0.07 Vol/Sat: 0.22 0.39 0.39 0.33 0.16 0.16 0.02 0.62 M2 0.08 0.60 0.60 i { N Crit Moves: ***rt p*#* *A** Crit Moves: •AA$ ###a #AArt Ca Green/cycle:0.06 0.40 0.40 0.28 0.62 0.62 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 Green/Cycle: 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.04 0.52 0.52 0.07 0.54 0.54 i Volimse/cap: 0.15 1.43 0.40 1.43 0.48 0.48 0.93 0.93 0.93 1.43 1.43 0.33 Votume/Cap: 0.66 1.19 1.19 1.01 0.48 0.48 0.50 1.19 1.19 1.19 1.11 1.11 - f1 L I - I - !I !I ! evel Of Service Module: Level of S_ervIice Module: i m Delay/Veh: 33.9 344 16.6 351 8.3 8.3 89.6 89.6 89.6 361 361 26.1 Delay/Veh: 33.7 152 152.1 94.9 28.9 28.9 54.3 132 132.5 206 81.2 81.2 Delay 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 Delay 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 ProgAdjfctr: 1.00 0.85 0.85 1.00 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 ProgAdjFctr. 1.00 0.85 0.85 1.00 0.85 0.85 1.00 0.85 0.85 1.00 0.85 0.85 f o AdjDel/Veh: 33.9 292 14.1 351 7.0 7.0 76.2 76.2 76.2 307 307 22.1 AdjOel/Veh: 33.7 129 129.3 94.9 24.6 24.6 54.3 113 112.6 208 69.0 69.0 i Queue: 0 127 5 80 8 8 3 3 3 53 53 2 Queue: 8 50 50 10 9 9 2 175 175 12 133 133 j WprtApA#pp$#rtp#pA*rtAp#rtppArtp*Afp*p#fArtAA*p##*rtpAi##prtp#*Artrtt*rt#pA##¢rtpiAApA*#AA## rt#tprt#prtptAAARArtrtppfrtpArt$pAA#i##Artp#tArtrtprttrtp#4krtAtAA##ApApkAAA$rtpb$ppA$frtA$4 Ap { Traffix System Version 6.7 (c) 1994 DA Licensed to DKS Associates, Po Traffix System Version 6.7 (c) 1994 DA Licensed to DKS Associates, Po j _ I N C 1 05/2311995 09:53 Filename- TTCPBO CI)T Page 7 05/23/1995 09:53 Filename: TTCP0O.OUT Page 8 i` TTCPBO.IN iue May 23, 1 09:53:33 Pa Tigard Tri a 7.1 I TTCPBO.IN Tue flu 23, 909.53.3Page 8-1 . ---g--... -is le Peak Haar Update Anal PM Peak Hour . Analysis Tigard Triangle Update Analysis ~ Existing Geometry/Comp Plan euildout/Fut vats Existing Geometry/Comp Plan Bultdout/FUt Vots i Level Of Service Cagpatation Report Level Of Service C tation Report 1985 NCH Operations Method 1985 HCM Operations Method Future Volume Alternative Future Volume Alternative l.. ¢*$#$!ds$*R#¢*d#f*¢¢#pp**¢pp@##t**!¢#!$p13A*@¢¢dR#¢*4A*¢#!¢4R#¢A#¢R##¢*R#¢#RA*A¢¢ ¢*¢**R¢pR4RR$¢*#@#¢Aba¢¢¢p¢at¢p¢¢@#pi¢R#A¢p¢p¢#R¢¢ppR!¢a#R*#A#$p#¢¢#4¢¢¢#¢$¢#Raa Intersection #6 72nd Avenue/Hampton Strout Intersection 47 72nd Avenue/ORE 217 NO i @$pa¢#!$A¢$*$$*R*a$$$#*$RA#$#!¢aA##$a!@RYrp#d!$$a#~¢###**¢**!#!R¢$###*#$*RR¢#Rd¢A #@##fA!¢¢A!!$$*$!a*¢a¢A*¢b¢R¢*#¢lfYA¢pR!¢¢¢$¢$*p!a¢¢#a¢¢R¢¢!#R#A6!¢a*p¢#*##¢!R¢#p ! Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./tap, (X): 1.046 Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Val./Cap. (DI): 1.053 Loss Time (sec): 12 Average Delay (sec/veh): 58.2 Loss Time (sec): 12 Average Delay (sec/veh): 38.8 • Optimal cycle: 180 level Of Service: E Optimal Cycle; 180 Level of Service: 0 A#AAR#*#Ra@@d*p$d*@R$#$R@$8A@¢$¢#¢#a**$dRp$a#Rd¢$p$R¢aR*$$*#a*##R¢$#**##!¢¢A¢ARtr #ARt!$*###!##R!#¢*R¢!#R¢¢#¢R#A¢t¢!¢M¢RAa¢!¢*#¢!¢#R$¢p¢¢*¢¢¢t¢#AR*##$#!¢f t Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Approach: North Bound South Bo:a:d East Bound West Bound t Movement: L- T_ R L T- R L- T- R L- T- R Movement: L- T- R L- T- R L- T- R L- T. R t Control: { Protected Protected Split Phase - Split Phase p Control: ` - Protected -Protected Split Phase Split Phase Nights: Include include Include Include Rights: include include Include include i Min. Green: 0 15 15 6 15 15 0 0 0 6 15 15 Min. Green: 0 15 15 6 15 0 0 0 0 15 0 15 H Lanes: 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 Lanes: 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 {{---------------p{----•----------p{-------•------ { ------------p---------------pp---------------pp------__----.--fp•--------------p Volume Module: Volume Module: Base Vol: 0 413 213 7 308 0 0 0 0 449 0 39 Base Vol: 0 569 597 196 54Z 0 0 0 0 199 0 97 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Crowth Ad]: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.OD 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 ~r initial Bse: 0 413 213 7 308 0 0 0 0 449 0 39 Initial Bse: 0 569 597 196 542 0 0 0 0 199 0 97 Added Vol: 0 448 47 0 456 0 0 0 0 300 0 6 Added Vol: 0 201 0 75 649 0 0 0 0 0 0 308 Initial Fut: 0 861 260 7 764 0 0 0 0 749 0 45 Initial Fut: 0 770 597 271 1191 0 0 0 0 199 0 405 a User Adj. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 t.00 1.00 1100 1.00 1.00 1.00 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.70 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 i PHF Ad): 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1,00 PHF Ad': 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.0a 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 0 861 260 7 764 0 0 0 0 749 0 45 PHF Volume: 0 770 597 271 1191 0 0 0 0 199 0 405 i Reduce Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduce Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 0 861 260 7 764 0 0 0 0 749 0 45 Reduced Vol: 0 770 597 Z71 1191 0 0 0 0 199 0 405 PCE 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 PCE 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 MLF 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 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 t.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 0 861 260 7 764 0 0 0 0 749 0 45 Final Vol.: 0 770 597 271 1191 0 0 0 0 199 0 405 ' f4 -{i ...............{p..__...--------i ....._.{1- it---• --pp- { L Module: Saturation F (ow Modulo: Saturation F Set/Lane: 1800 1800 1000 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 Sat/Lane: 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 tBOD ' Adju3tment: 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.85 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.85 Lanes: 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Lanes: 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 0 1800 1530 1710 1800 0 0 0 0 1710 0 1530 Final Sat.: 0 1600 1530 1710 1800 0 0 0 0 1710 0 1530 s ; C ^ city Ana ysis Module: Capacity Ana~ysis Module; Vol/83t: 0.00 0.48 0.17 0.00 0.42 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.44 0.00 0.03 Vol/Sat: 0.00 0,43 0.39 0.16 0.66 D.OD 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.12 0.00 0.26 o Crit Moves: a@aA $¢a@ A¢A$ a$Aa Crit Moves: °*~@ $$t¢ a$$A aaaa Green/Cycle: 0.00 0.43 0.43 0.06 0.49 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.39 0.00 0.39 Green/Cycle: 0.00 0.46 0.46 0.17 0.63 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.25 0.00 0.25 Volume/Cap: 0.00 1.12 0.40 0.07 0.87 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.12 0.00 0.08 Votume/Cep: 0.00 0.93 0.85 0.93 1.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.46 0.00 1.05 p--------------- {i---•-----.....-II_--------------pp---------------p pi--------------- pp--------------- pp---------------p l evel of Service Module: Level Of Service Module: 1 r, Delay/Veh: 0.090.6 15.2 33.7 24.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 93.8 0.0 143 Delay/Veh: 0.0 32.0 25.1 56.6 51.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 24.7 0.0 80.4 Delay 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 Delay 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 ProgAdjFctr: 1.00 0.85 0.85 1.00 0.85 0.85 1.00 0.85 0.85 1.00 0.65 0.05 ProgAdjFctr: 1.00 0.65 0.85 1.00 0.85 D.85 1.00 0.85 0.85 1.00 0.85 0.65 o AdjOet/Veh: 0.0 77.2 12.9 33.7 20.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 93.8 0.0 12.3 AdjDel/Veh: 0.0 27.2 21.4 56.6 43.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 24.7 0.0 68.4 1 Queue: 0 45 5 0 21 0 0 0 39 0 1 Queue: 0 24 16 10 51 0 0 0 0 5 0 19 $$*#@$@@#$Ap$9$9A@R$$C$AA$¢**#A@*#BAA*4a#pRAp#@A@A4@#A$AApap#$$@p$#!$#@$R¢¢A¢RR# @#K*@#¢@$$Rp¢$i$#p*$a$1*¢¢t¢a¢pR#¢RR¢#¢fp#¢##p#R@*#*¢¢@¢¢$#¢$¢¢@#¢¢R¢*¢*ap¢*p$$ irafffx System Version 6.7 (c) 1994 OA Licensed to ORS Associates, Po Traffix System Version 6.7 (c) 1994 DA Licensed to DKS Associates, Po .n a 1 f 0512311995 09:53 Filename: TTCPB0.0UT Page 5 05/23/1995 09:53 Fitename: TTCPBO OUT Page 6 1 M o TTCPBO.IN Tue May 23, 1995 09:53:33 Page 5-1 TrCP50.111 -Tue May 23, 1995 09:53:33 Page 6-1 Tigard Triangle Update Analysis Tigard Triangle Update Analysis PH Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Existing Geometry/Comp Plan Buildout/Fut Vols Existing Geometry/Cwq Plan Ouildout/Fut Vols Level Of Service Ccaputation Report Level Of Service Computation Report 'c 1985 NCH Operations Method 19B5 HCH 0Rpp~e.rations Method N future Volute Alternative Future Volume Alternative j Fy b$#t#$#tr$$#$p##b$t$$#t$tr#tp##b$tb4bORb###bbpt#bpp#$###$tr#tbpp#####@#btr$*#pp##$YA p#$tp$#b#$$##d##bbpba#pY#p###btrbpb##b##aRYbb#trpp#ppnpbb#b#QbR*#bb#btp$$ttbbtr##ptr Intersection 94 72nd Avenue/Pacific Highway intersection #5 72nd Avenue/Dartmouth Street f i ~ pa##!a#pptr#tb##$#p$$#$d#p$p##AkbR##pa#bba# Yb#bpi#######t#p##Y#$tr#b#b$Ytrp##p$b*$ $$#p#b$trt$$ftr$#btr#pp@##pb4pbibb#$tttbttYttb$$##bb4#Yb#ptbbbtpb$tr@$#b#Y#R#$b#t@tb Cycle (sec): 140 Critical Vol./Cap, (H): 1.376 Cycle (sec): 80 Critical Vol./-Cap. 1.326 loss Time (see): 12 Average Delay (sec/veh): 170.1 Loss Time (sec): 8 Average Delay (sec/veh): 71.4 Optimal Cycle; ISO Leve( Of Service: F optimal Cycle: 180 Level Of Service: F ~ bppap##Yb #b#tbtA#b#t$##p##Mtr#pptlb*#$ip*p!Y##p#by##t#tA###ptbb##bbY##f#######$# bi###pbbtr #trp#b#####pbtr#pptbi#pbb$$bb##$##bRa$fabpffi@b##tY#pbbpi#Rpb bbb#atr@tr$tr@:$ T Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound Nest Bound Approach: North Bound South gourd East Sound West Bound I T Movement: L- T- R L T R L- T- R L- T- R Movement: L- T- R L- T- R L- T- R L- T- R T Control: I Permitted " Permitted - Protected .j~ Protected Control: ' Permitted - Permitted Permitted _1R. Permitted j I y Rights. Ovl Ovl Include Include Rights: Include Include Include Include Hin. Green: 15 15 15 15 15 15 6 15 15 6 15 15 Min. Green: 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 Lanes: 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 2 0 1 1 0 Lanes: 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 U - 0 - - Volume Module. Volume Module: 0 Base Vol: 90 80 174 163 55 111 99 1655 155 97 1780 60 Bose Vol: 161 241 55 193 135 35 42 414 89 65 543 27 I Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 c Initial Bse: 90 00 174 163 S5 111 99 1655 155 97 1780 60 Initial 8se: 181 241 55 193 135 35 42 414 89 65 543 27 Added Vat: 278 0 221 0 0 0 0 70 173 94 153 0 Added Vol: 23 195 64 48 210 14 85 204 120 147 183 28 initial Fut: 368 80 395 163 55 111 99 1725 328 191 1933 60 Initial Fut: 204 436 119 241 345 49 127 618 209 212 726 55 q User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1'.00 1.00 1.00 l PHF AM 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1-00 1.00 1.00 PHF Ad': 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.60 PHF Volume: 368 80 395 163 55 111 99 1725 328 191 1933 60 PHF Volume: 204 436 119 241 345 49 127 618 209 212 726 55 Reduced vVol: 368 80 395 163 55 110 99 1725 328 190 1933 60, Reduced Vol. 204 436 119 241 345 49 127 618 209 212 726 55 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 7.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 ).OD 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.05 1.00 1.00 1.05 1.00 MLF 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 Final Vol.: 368 80 395 163 55 111 99 1811 328 191 2029 60 Final vol.: 204 436 119 241 345 49 127 618 209 212 726 55 ----•-----..---------------I~------------------------------5 - ------------------------------I Saturation Flaw Module: Saturation Flow Module: d Sat/Lane: 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1000 1800 1800 1800 1800 Sat/Lane: 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1600 18DO M Adjustment: 0.33 1.00 0.85 0.40 0,40 0.85 0.95 1.00 0.85 0.92 1.00 1.00 Adjustment: 0.52 0.97 0.97 0.38 0.98 0.98 0.14 0.96 0.96 0.14 0.99 0.99 lanes: 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.75 0.25 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 1.94 0.06 Lanes: 1.00 0.79 0.21 1.00 0.88 0.12 1.00 0.75 0.25 1.00 0.93 0,07 M Final Sat.: 594 1800 1530 538 162 1530 1710 3600 1530 3312 3497 103 Final Sat.: 936 1372 374 604 1545 219 252 1Z91 437 252 1657 125 j w Ca acity Ana yais Modu ~I Ca acity Ana Ysis Module: Ii Vat/Sat: 0.62 0.04le0: .26 0.300.30 0.07 0.06 0.50 0.21 0.06 0.58 0.58 Vot/Sat: 0.22 0.3Z 0.32 0.35 0.22 0.22 0.50 0.48 0.48 0.84 0.44 0.44 ® Crit Moves: ##bp as#p Crlt ham. @p## ##$a Green/Cycle: 0.450.45 0.50 0.45 0.45 0.49 0.04 0.42 0.42 0.05 0.42 0.42 Green/Cycle: 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.63 0.63 0.63 0.63 0.63 0.63 Volume/Cap: 1.38 0.10 0.52 0.67 0.67 0.15 1.35 1.21 0.51 1.21 1.38 1.36 Volume/Cep: 0.82 1.20 1.20 1.33 0.84 0.84 0.79 0.75 0.75 1.33 0.69 0.69 { I Ip--------------- I1---------------(I--------------- ~ ---------------~E-----------•---p I Level of Service Module: Level of Service Module: Delay/Veh: 321 16.8 18.6 26.8 26.8 14.8 367 149 23.7 206 296 295.7 Delay/Veh: 34.0 143 142.7 26830.1 30.1 23.9 9.9 9.9 274 8.5 8.5 j M Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 f ProgAdjFctr: 1.00 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 1.00 0.85 0.85 1.000.05 0.85 ProgAdjFctr: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 o AdjDel/Veh: 321 14.3 15.8 22.8 22.8 12.5 367 126 20.1 206 251 251.4 AdjDel/Veh: 34.0 143 142.7 268 30.1 30.1 23.9 9.9 9.9 274 8.5 8.5 Queue: 48 2 11 7 7 2 12 143 10 16 251 251 Queue: 5 33 33 22 10 10 3 14 14 25 12 12 Y#4Ab#~?pppYppbbbpp#2YppR##p###ppp###a####Ya#aRA#*##pb#paapp*p###a#d##p#pia##pYp p#abA:#p#appp##pppp#9atappap#bp##tap##paakp##pap#bpYappa##at##trpaRYpp#pppapdYpbY r N Traffix System Version 6.7 (c) 1994 OA Licensed to DKS Associates, Po Traffix System Version 6.7 Cc) 1994 OA Licensed to OKS Associates, Po ,n I- N I 05/2311995 09:53 Filename: TTCPH0.0UT Pace 3 0512311995 09:53 Filename: TTCP80.0UT Page 4 TTCPOO.IH' Tue May 23, 1995 09:53:33 Page 3-1 TTCPBO.IN Tue May 23, 1995 09:53:33 Page 4 1 I Tigard Triangle Update Analysis Tigard Triangle Update Analysis I PM Peak Hour PH Peak Hour f Existing Geometry/Comp Plan Buildout/Fut Vots Existing Geometry/Cwp Plan Buildout/Fut Vats - l Level Of Service Computation Report Level Of Service G toticn Report 1985 HCM Operations Method 1985 HCM Operations %ethod future Volume Alternative Future Votuoe Alternative f L1 pm*p#*p##@pppp###Appp#tr$p*R*p*Rapp#ppRp#*a+##9laa#**A#****p#*#R#pp*R******#*!**# ****#*pbt A+RpfR+R#@A+Rtr@**pR*ptrpR#m*App#Ap*a*#4i*#**RpmtrRm**#*p p*k#pm#*@*#*R+@p! Intersection 02 ORE 217 NO reams/Pacific Highway Intersection 93 Dartmouth Street/Pacific Highway - -ii p####Atr@f##p+pA*#R*atr#&pppRp*#papp&pp#***#+a*p#$trpp*#@#*#**$#*#Ra#**&#$##$R#*#+p R**pp*aR*#R@+*+#ap*tr*a*p#pp+Rpma*+R++++*+t++R*ptrapA#pmp+p#*@*a*+4ptrp#*@#**#@R+Rt ~ - Cycle (see): 140 Critical Vol./Cap. (X): 0.919 Cycle (see): 140 Critical dot./Cop. (X): 1.272 F. Less Tire (see): 8 Average Delay (sec/veh): 12.5 Loss Time (sec): 16 Average Delay (sec/veh): 145.7 Optimot Cyf-lc: 129 Level Of Service: 0 Optimal Cycle: 180 Level of Service: F #4#pppmpp *#ap#Ap#app##pp+ltr*#+***ap*ppA+fppRa*tmaR*@*p±**p*+p$a*#+RR*4a*It**#* p*##*p*#@ #*$i+#pppR#R++*pR**trp#A#+m@+trp#4p###**p**##p#aAa**@*p***a****#mp##*atp T Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Approach: North Bound South Barad East Bound West Bound r Movement: L- T- A L- I- R L T- R L- T- R Movement: L- T- R L- T- R L- T- R L- T- R i - i II II- II I I li if---------------II---------------I Control: Split Phase Split Phase Permitted Permitted Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected i, Rights: Include include include Include Rights: Ovt include Ovl Include :n Mn. Green: 15 0 15 0 0 0 0 15 15 0 15 15 Min. Green: 6 15 15 6 15 15 6 15 15 6 15 15 H Lanes: 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 2 0 1 Lanes: 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 -r; Volume Module: Volume Module: I Base Val: 209 0 203 0 0 0 0 2008 439 0 1717 696 Base Vol: 429 131 89 219 114 47 70 1534 415 60 1700 15 6 n Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Ose: 209 0 203 0 0 0 0 2008 439 0 1717 696 initial Bse: 429 131 89 219 114 47 70 1534 415 60 1700 15 Added Vol: 19 0 27 0 0 0 0 448 0 0 185 387 Added Vol: 218 16 49 3 15 0 0 191 283 70 354 7 :n Initial rut: 228 0 229 0 0 0 0 2456 439 0 1902 1083 Initial rut: 647 147 138 222 129 47 70 1725 698 130 2054 22 j q User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1..00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 f: PHF Ad]]: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Ad': 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 228 0 229 0 0 0 0 2456 439 0 1902 1083 PHF Volume: 647 147 138 222 129 47 70 1725 698 130 2054 22 i Redact Val: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 228 0 229 0 0 0 0 2456 439 0 1902 1083 Reduced Vol: 647 147 138 222 129 47 70 1725 698 130 2054 22 j,. PCE Ad]: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PCE 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 MLF Ad j: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.05 1.00 1.00 1.05 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.05 1.00 1.00 1.05 1.00 i Final Vol.: 228 0 -230 0 - 0 - 0 0 2579 439 0 1997 1083 Final Vol.: 647 147 136 222 129 47 70 1812 698 130 2157 22 fl_..._ 11---------------II..__•-------•• I - II---------------II---------------II-------- - I Saturation F(ow Module: Saturation Ftow Module: Set/Lane: 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1000 1800 1800 1800 1000 Sat/Lane: 1800 1800 1800 1800 1000 1800 1800 1800 1800 1600 1800 1800 Adjustment: 0.95 1.00 0.65 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.65 Adjustment: 0.95 1.00 0.85 0.95 0.96 0.96 0.95 1.00 0.85 0.951.00 1.00 [ M Lanes: 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 1.00 0.00 2.00 1.00 lanes: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.73 0.27 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.98 0.02 Final Sat.: 1710 0 1530 0 0 0 0 3600 1530 0 3600 1530 Final Sat.: 1710 1000 1530 1710 1267 461 1710 3600 1530 1710 3564 36 1 -'r _ Capacity Ana~ysis Module: Capacity Ane~ysis Module n Vo(/Sat: 0.13 0.00 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.72 0.29 0.00 0.55 0.71 Vol/Sat: 0.38 0.08 0.09 0.13 0.10 0.10 0.04 0.50 0.46 0.08 0.61 0.61 n Crit Moves: pO*p °•*p *4*a Crit Moves: +aR# #a** pa+R Green/Cycle: 0.16 0.00 0.16 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.78 0.78 0.00 0.78 0.76 Green/Cycle: 0.28 0.11 0.17 0.28 0.11 0.11 0.04 0.43 0.71 0.07 0.45 0.45 4 ottmte/Cap: 0.82 0.00 0.92 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0-.92 0.37 0.00 0.71 0.91 Volume/Cap: 1.34 0.76 0.52 0.46 0.95 0.95 0.96 1.17__O - .64 '1 1.17 1.34 1.34 V - Level II - If ii I I I! II l I Level Of Service Module: Level Of Service Module: a Detay/Veh: 54.4 0.0 69.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 13.2 3.7 0.0 6.4 16.3 Detay/Veh: 271 57.1 41.6 31.9 85.0 85.0 116 122 6.9 195 255 254.6 Delay Ad]: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.OD 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 j ProgAdjFetr: 1.00 0.85 0.85 1.00 0.85 0.85 1.00 0.85 0.85 1.00 0.85 0.85 ProgAdjFctr: 1.00 0.05 0.65 1.00 0.85 0.85 1.00 0.85 0.65 1.00 0.85 0.05 AdjDel/Veh: 54.4 0.0 59.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.2 3.2 0.0 5.5 13.8 AdjDel/Veh: 271 48.5 35.4 31.9 72.2 72.2 116 104 7.6 195 216 216.5 Queue: 10 0 11 0 0 0 0 82 5 0 39 35 Queue: 69 6 5 7 9 9 4 130 15 11 244 244 #p#app#mmp##a#p##mpppRp##pap*pptr*$ptr#**+#*#f 4pR***QA$p##*p*a*R**####*#*+a@trRRtr#* •*#Rpp**##*p#t#p pf ~**App*#*##R#*###*#Rb*RR4♦*f**a*@*@**p+p►p***p#*p*##**#*#R#afp ~'~n Traffic System Version 6.7 (c) 1994 DA Licensed to DKS Associates, Po Traffix System Version 6.7 (c) 1994 DA Licensed to DKS Associates, Po_ j CI i o E i o i 05123,1995 09:53 Filename: TTCPBO.OuT Page 1 0123/1995 09:53 Fitenan*: TTCPBO OUT Pane 2 w ! c TTCPOO.tN Tue May 23, 1995 09:53:33 Page 1-1 TTCPBO.tN Tue May 23, 19950953:33 Page 2 1 ! & • • _.9__._........._.._._...... Tigand Triangle Update Analysis Tigard Triangle Update Analysis PH Peak Hour P Peak.hour Existing GeometrY/Catp Plan Buildout/Fut Vats Existing GeotactrY/Canp Plan Oulldsut/Fut Vats Impact Analysis Report Level Of Service epComputation Report level of Service 1985 CH pVolu a Alternnativvee ##tt44*ABAAR*#A@At4tr@At34$#Af4p$IDki@tbiAtq*tA#t#RApf@pgBAtRgkpR44@ARID4Rp$pRRAA@p Intersection Base Future Change De(/ V/ Be(/ V/ in Intersection 01 ORE 217 SO ramps/Pacific Highway ' p LOS Veh C LOS Veh C BAt A4trAtidptitrA4tAAAA@*Btpit*tt**fA9 b#*i@Riibti$*p#pgB44Aq@BB#4p44p g44t pB44p4k@ot N 1 ORE 217 SO ramps/Pacific Highw C 21.0 0.859 D 33.5 1.014 +12.491 DIV Cycle (sec): 140 Critical Vol./Cap. (x1: 1,014 Lass Time (sec): 12 Average Delay (sec/veh): 33.5 d 2 ORE 217 433 ramps/Pacific Nighty 8 8.5 0.762 B 12.5 0.919 + 4.000 0/V Optimi Cycle: 160 Level Of Service: 0 i- (j 4544##BBqppBi#iiMtr944*$p44#$$$$qtq*B$pkpp4Agtlr$p$pp$BBB$tCAp$i.8p$$p4$$$$$pgq$#$i# i.. r N 3 Dartmouth Street/Pacific Highw 0 38.6 0.999 F 145.7 1.272 +107.063 DIV Approach: North Bound South Hound East Bound ldest Bound E r Movement: L- T- R L- T- R L- T- R L- T- I r d 4 72nd Avenue/Pacific Highway C 20.0 0.874 F 170.1 1.376 +150.108 DIV --p Control: S lit Phase Split Phase Protected Protected N 5 72nd Avenue/Dartmouth Street 0 12.0 0.580 f 71.4 1.326 +59.411 DIV (lights: Include Include Include Include W Min. Green: 0 0 0 15 0 15 0 15 15 6 21 0 E, N 6 72rx9 Avenue/HaWton Street C 15.6 0.564 E 58.2 1.046 +42.681 DIV Lanes: 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 0 ...----------•-A i6---------- e ! w # 7 72nd Ave:um/GRE 217 NB 8 14.3 0.706 D 38.8 1.053 +24.560 DIV Volume Howie: Base Vol: 0 0 0 842 0 380 0 1567 281 59 1840 0 0 0 -8 72nd Avenue/ORE 2)7 S8 F 75.1 1.146 F 225.7 1.426 +150.681 DIV Gro:>2h 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 h initial ase: 0 0 0 842 0 380 0 156: 281 58 1040 0 N 9 68th Parkway/Pacific Highway D 26.7 0.909 F 92.5 8.191 +65.862 DIV Added Vol: 0 0 0 291 0 0 0 157 7 0 204 D V) Initial Fut: 0 0 0 1133 0 360 0 1724 288 58 2044 0 N 10 68th Parkway/Mains Street/Atl a 13.9 0.605 F OVRFL 2.780 +203720.201 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 I PHF 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 d 11 68th Parkway/Dartmouth Street/ 8 13.3 0.746 F OVRFL 4.486 +225185.961 PHF Voume: 0 0 0 1133 0 380 0 1724 288 58 2044 0 6 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N 12 68th Parkway/Hampton Street B 8.4 0.327 B 9.5 0.505 + 1.108 0/Y Reduced Vol: 0 0 0 1133 0 380 0 1724 288 58 2044 0 PCE 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 i d 14 64th Avenue/1-5 SO off-rare/Pa E 40.2 1.110 F 83.5 1.156 +43.253 0/V MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.05 1.00 1.00 1.05 1.00 1.00 1.05 1.00 j Final Vol.: 0 0 0 1133 0 380 0 1610 288 50 2146 0 O 16 1-5 NO rams/Haines Street B 13.1 0.658 C 20.1 0.1194 + 7.025 D/V Saturation F ow Module: N 92 72nd Avenue/Hunziker Street C 17.1 0.794 F 122.5 1.288 +105.368 O/V sat/Lane: 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 )8DO 15DD 1800 1800 1800 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.95 1.00 1.00 r a, Lanes: 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 2.00 1.00 1.0 2.00 0.00 i M Final Sat.: 0 0 0 3420 0 1530 0 3600 1530 1710 3600 0 M Post-it" Fax Note 7671 oalispaof Capacity Ana ysis Module: o Val/Sat: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.25 0.00 0.50 0.19 0.03 0.60 0.00 .g Fro Crit Move: BtR4 @k84 pikp @k!t I' V y \ Green/Cycle: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.54 0.54 0.04 0.59 0.00 C L Votur-a/Cap: 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.01 0.00 0.76 0.03 0.92 0.35 0.79 1.01 0.00 ,i ,n P Phone Detay/Vehgervi0.0M .0 0.0 60.2 0.0 36.7 0.0 27.9 13.7 78-2 40.7 0.0 Fax0 Faxp Delay 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 3 ProgAdiFctr: 1.00 0.65 0.85 0.65 0.85 0.85 1.00 0.85 0.65 1.00 0.85 0.05 o AdjOel/Vah: 0.0 0.0 0.0 51.2 0.0 31.2 0.0 23.7 11.6 78.2 34.6 0.0 Dueue: l1 0 0 54 0 14 0 69 6 3 99 0 triAAARtr4A4AAttrAkARARptpt4iABtA*AB4kAAR*iditrifkf*i@B*4tbpkpAAtrfRkRBi4trBRptrOggtk@* 1 N as Traffix System! Version 6.7 (c) 1994 DA Licensed to DKS Associates, Pa Traffix System Version 6.7 (e) 1994 DA Licensed to OK3 Associates, PO I N i ~ i O r T, 1 a r> i 54U No.- MEMORANDUM meeting o CITY CE TIGARD, OREGON T®: Bill Monahan cRC14: John Acker 1 DATE: May 16, 1995 i SUBJECT: USA effluent eater for Cook Park Irrigation The City has an opportunity to participate in a cooperative project F to build an effluent water distribution system for irrigation. Participants would enter into intergovernmental agreements for design and construction of the system. Availability and cost of effluent water from USA would also be assured by agreement. Staff recommends that the City participate in this project and would "like direction to bring final intergovernmental agreements to the City Council for approval. The proposed system would allow treated effluent water from the Unified Sewerage Agency's Durham Wastewater Treatment Plant to be 1 transported to Cook Park as well as to the Tualatin Country Club { and Tualatin Park to be used for irrigation. The USA will r administer the project which would be a cooperative venture between the City of Tigard, the USA, the City of Tualatin and the Tualatin Country Club. i Recycling of wastewater effluent for irrigation use is not a new idea and has many benefits. The effluent is treated wastewater that has been processed at the Durham Plant. The water is not potable but is perfectly safe for irrigation purposes. The Tigard School District uses recycled wastewater for irrigation on their soccer and football fields. Presently effluent which is not used by the School District is discharged directly into the Tualatin River. If used for irrigation, most of this water will still rind its way into the river as naturally filtered ground water. The City uses 10--15 million gallons of water in Cook Park per year, most of it for irrigation. Presently potable water is being used at a cost of $1.32 per 100 cubic ft. Effluent water from USA would cost about $ .19 per 100 cubic ft. which pays for pumping and f additional chlorine. In the 1994 summer season the City spent over $10,000 at Cook Park, mostly for irrigation. As the cost for domestic water increases, which it surely will, this yearly irrigation cost will increase as well. Also, as supplies of domestic water decrease, particularly in the peak summer season (which is also peak irrigation season), conservation of potable water becomes more important. i r f - cognized result of this project could be reas an example of how conservation and recycling can benefit everyone as well as be cost - effective. Conservation of municipal water is becoming more important since the amount of water used has a bearing on the cost of developing future water supplies. Also, the project itself could be a good :example of governmental cooperation and a mutually beneficial public/private partnership. USA has developed a cost estimate for design and construction of a joint project that would serve Cook Park, Durham Park, Tualatin Park and the Tualatin Country Club. The project costs for each would be proportionate to the benefit received. The total estimated total cost for Tigard's portion of the project is $ 38,800. This project has been considered before. Funding for this project was requested as a capital project for the parks section in the FY 94-95 budget process (1500-702.00). The requested funding was f moved back from the 94-95 budget into possible 95-96 funding. USA and the other participants are ready to proceed with this project.. k i_ i r i i C X h 1 fj 1 I H 11AYERLY z o AC z CONSTRUCTION JOHN THOMAS W USA j V) DURHAM j 7Y10 /S00 1300 1302 w f AC H. 17 Y 1 t5.25 AC z!, 13 AC 13.1 AC !.97 AC 'I CITY CHARLES JOHN USA r 00 ~ARD LAMB THOMAS CITY8 AC USA OF i UPPER TUALATIN O DURHAM j INTERCEPTOR E I 0 USA LOWER TUALATIN 2 INTERCEPTOR %N f00 6 INCH f 35.91 AC 31,15 AG 7700 CTI Y JOHN 20.85 AC TIGARD THOMAS CTTY r ~t Or COOK PARK DUHR" t I~ a- 200 TUALATLN CouNTRY t CLUB 9lso 1 Olm Act CKOK, 1 10 INCH IN - 0 4 3 1900 .3r A OF 4 TUALA < J~ E d ® SECTION SCALE ' 1' = 500' • Sx TUALATIH RD i i = RECYCLED WASTEWATER unified rim SOUTH OF DURHAM FACILITY - t~ CY agenc EXHIBIT B Unified Sewerage Agency Recycled Waste:vater Project j Cost Summary Option-1 -No expansion ~ Smatter Pt eline 12 Inch 9r ProJoct. Engtneartng, Permits Pi . iino'Construction - River Crasstn Total Costs Ace~eo E9a®msn Sur+t ri Section 1 Sectlon2 Section 3 ~Lection 4 Section b Misc. valves- E rtesd Construction er En Ytt Tualatln'CeiunB . Club' 0:2°Io' $46332 $9128 0` "1ti8 0 6 000 14 040 __P,520 $7&600 $188 806 City Of 11' and 24 Vv. `$15,840- $3120 15 000 ' $0 0 0 _ $4,800 0 $0 $38,760 C of Tualatin 5'8%." $3,828 $754 $0 $2.812 $5.000. $0 __$1,160 $480 $6 490 $20,434 U.S.A. . 0.0% 0 $o $o $0 $o $0 $0 $o $o $o + i Total Cost of Element 100,0% 166,000 13 000 15 000 37 000 5 000 6 d60 $20 000 6 O40 80 000 $248 GGO I i -Option 2 - S stem Ex anston - Lar or Pipe. Ine u slza from 12 to 18 inch F Project Engineering, Permits, Pipe no Construction River Crossln ' Total Costs Auras a Eaismert Surva n Section 1 Section2 Section 3 Section 4 Section 5 Misc. valves En !need Construction per Entity Tualatin Count Club 60.8% $40154 $13,841 $0 $49,764 $0 $6,000 $12168 $4,614 $61472 $188 003 City of TI and 20.8% $13.748 739 $15,000 $0 $0 0 $4166 $0 $0 $37,653 C of Tualatin .5:0% $3,300 $1 138 $0 $4,092 __$5,000 .$0 $1,000 $378 $5 056 $19,964 I t1.S.A ° 13.39'm $8,798 $3.033 $0 $10,904 $0 $0 S2.666 $1,008 $13,472 $39.880 { i • F Total Cost of Element 100.095 g66,000 $22 750 15 000 64750 5 000 6 000 $20,000 6 000 $80.000 $285,500 j i , - i *USA contribution is bas6d"on'th0 added cost for increasing pipe siz®frorit .12 to 18 inch. ,I j t i i 11/07/94 1 CATCC2.WK4 ~ a 6 6i 0 u i + Q a+ ij y E 1 , 'Its 1 a 1 m d ~ "e i a u ~ i S c t1 F i i tip/ ~ ~ w, a r b ~ N~Ff l r i I R i i F r i i i i 7-7 1 i i j i " E 1 { { { , .77 I -j 1j i f -7r 17 1 i L4 4 {jfjf f r f _ { r r f i 1 4~aCU pt ~ w{ 1 T.6.. 500 T.L. 200 IVA `11.S4~daat~ 9 ~ •r QGo d: ! I N 8 ` 1 ~ ~ t r " C . { E i i r- AGENDA ITEM For Agenda of 1Mav 30. 1995 -I CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON c COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY { ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Janitorial contract award _ { PREPARED BY: DEPT HEAD OK eKW n CITY ADMIN OY._ - ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL 1 Should the City award the bid to the lowest qualified bidder to provide janitorial services for City office facilities. The lowest bidder is Pony Express in the amount of $2,649 per month. -STAFF RECOMMENDATION Accept the bid of Pony Express in the amount of $2,649.00 per month and 'j authorize the city administrator to enter into a contract with Pony Express for janitorial services. INFORMATION SUMMARY Since the janitorial service contract had not been open for competitive bid in several years, the City solicited bids for this service. The contract will be a one year contract that is renewable for up to three years. If the contractor's performance is not satisfactory, the contract can be canceled by the City. ~ The selected company will provide general janitorial services for the Civic Center, the Niche, the Water Building, the Maintenance Building, and the l Senior Center. Special floor maintenance will be on an as-requested basis. i The City received nine bids to provide the requested janitorial services. j ! References for Pony Express were checked with good, positive comments received. F OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Select a different bidder. i FISCAL NOTES Funds for janitorial services are in the Property Management budget unit. i i i j f 1 a. i JANITORIAL BIDS These are the monthly costs for janitorial services for the Civic Center, Niche, Water Building, Maintenance Services, and the Senior Center. The contract will be for one year and can be renewed for up to three years. 3 Company Monthly Cost Pony Express 2,649.00 Oregon Pacific Corp. 3,647.00 Servicemaster 4,371.00 t` JBM Services 4,504.72 l Pacific Cleaning Svc. 4,557.28: Environmental Control 4,561.00 Advanced Janitorial 6,056.00 r A.C.E. Janitorial Svc. 6,454.45 Cascade Pacific 9,145.00 i I F. i ; r I J 3 4 1 AGENDA ITEM For Agenda of May 30, 1995 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON fi COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY l ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Authorization to accept the quote for installing 1.000 lineal feetof 12-inch Ductile Iron eater main on SW Beef Bend Road. P E PREPARED BY: r DEPT HEAD OK CITY ADMIN OF LAW"' i ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Shall the Local Contract Review Board authorize the Maintenance Services Director to accept the quote of $23,870 from Kerr Contractors, Incorporated to install 1,000 feet of 12-inch Ductile Iron water main on SW Beef Bend Road. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The staff recommends that the Local Contract Review Board approve the I Maintenance Services Department to contract with Kerr Contractors, Incorporated, in the sum of $23,870 to install 1,000 feet of 12-inch Ductile t- Iron water main on SW Beef Bend Road. --INFORMATION SUMMARY The Washington County Department of Land Use and Transportation has awarded t a contract for a street improvement project on SW Beef Bend Road from SW King { Arthur to Highway 99W to Kerr Contractors, Incorporated. r Because of this street improvement project, we have to lower and relocate our i i existing 12--inch water main. i Since Kerr Contractors, Incorporated is the low bidder for Washington County, j and will already be on site performing other grading work, it would be in the City's best interests to also contract with Kerr Contractors, Incorporated. By doing so will allow the City to be cost effective, efficient and complete the project in a timely manner. i OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED r Advertise for installation of 12-inch water main which will cause a delay in j Washington County's project time line. FISCAL NOTES - i The funding source for this project is the Pipeline Replacements Fund for fiscal year 1994-95. i i t i AGENDA ITEM r ` ti For Agenda of May 30. 1995 I i CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zone Chancre } CPA 95-0001LZ0N 95-0002 PREPARED BY: Ray Valone DEPT HEAD OK A4411-- CITY ADMIN OR . 4 ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL ` Should the City Council approve a comprehensive plan map amendment and zone change on four parcels of land, including two parcels from Low Density Residential/R-4.5 to Medium-High Density Residential/R-25 and two parcels from C-P/C-P to Medium-High Density Residential/R-25, STAFF RECOMMENDATION i Staff recommends that the City Council approve Comprehensive Plan i Amendment/Zone Change CPA 95-0001/ZON 95-0002. __________INFORMATION SUMMARY The proposed plan amendment and zone change concerns four parcels of land located south of SW Pfaff le Street near the SW 83rd Avenue intersection. The applicant, Andrews Management, has requested this action in order to { facilitate development of multi-family housing. The Planning Commission recommended approval of CPA 95-0001/ZON 95-0002 at its hearing of April 17, 1995. The proposed ordinance, final order and vicinity map for CPA 94-0006 are attached. The applicant's submittals j consist of a written narrative and transportation impact analysis. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Deny the comprehensive plan amendment and zone change. FISCAL NOTES No direct fiscal impact to the city. i` i i i } R -OiWn,- - r } ft em No. L4 j 'Seting of J U -16K April 7, 1995 DEPARTMENT OF E TRANSPOR'T'ATION ~ City of Tigard Planning Department ' 13125 SW Hall Boulevard Re0on i i Tigard, OR 97223 Attention: Ray Valone FILE CODE: PLA-9-TIG Subject: Andrews Management, CPA 95-0001fZON 95-0002 . - i This letter is to provide follow-up to previous comments, submitted on 4-5-95. F We are providing comments on the traffic study for this comprehensive plan amendment. In general, we do not oppose this plan amendment and rezone. i , ' Our comments are: k i Although the proposed apartments are expected to generate fewer trips than a 37,000 square foot medical office building, they will generate more trips than are generated now; therefore, the development will contribute to the I degradation of conditions in the vicinity of 99W. The report refers to "improverhent of the SW Dartmouth Street/Highway 99W intersection" alleviating traffic conditions in the area. It is questionable whether improvements will ever be made to this intersection that would bring it up to an acceptable level of service. There are no roadway improvements planned in the near future that would significantly improve conditions. There are a number of development- in the area which, once constructed, will make conditions significantly worse. Given these conditions, the city _ should consider land uses and/or densities that will decrease peak hour impacts to the transportation system, rather than increase peak hour use. ® An access directly acfoss from 93rd Avenue should be considered. i According to Figure 5 in the report, the proposed site plan appears to landlock Lot 2200. The site design must allow for access for Lot 2200 through the development to Pfaffte. Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments. If you have questions, please call me at 731-8232. j s arse Nichol j Development Review Planner cc: Marty Jensvold, Sam Hunaidi 1 123 Ni+S/ FL9atders Pond, OR 97204-4937 (593) 731-820 pt~4D FAX (593) 731- 72 - i ' a CoMpR3Q' NSIVE PLAN A14END HT AND ZONE CfIANGE APPILICAR9 o Andrews Management 4000 SW Kruse Way Place Building #1 Suite 270 f Lake Oswego, Oregon 97035 ~ i encer H. Vail, Planning Consultant SpREPR~sS1F~N'i'AT~ c 4505 NE 24th Ave Portland, Oregon 97211 DREDBOI DERS L Arthur and Margaret Verharen (TL 200) f Paul Herberholz et al (TL 300) Tom McGuire et. at (TL 400) Oregon Dept. of Transportation (TL 2200) t ~ r' SIT LOCATIi~► ° South side of SW Pfaffle, at SW 83rd See Exhibit 1 i- t LEGAL DE13CRIPTION• Tax Lots 200, 300, 400 and 2200; 1S1 36 CC SITE SIZE: 5.51 acres j Xpg$F$ML C-P, Commercial Professional and R-4.5 single family residential. See Exhibit 2. NUMBER., 1S1 36 CC i O~OSALs The applicant seeks a Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zone Change from the current C-P Commercial-Professional and R-4.5, single 4 family residential to R-25, Multi-family j Residential for the properties listed above. i { i { i i 3 j Andrews Management Plan Amendment and Zone Change SW Pfaffle site j IDESCRIPTIOM OF THE MQEQSAL: The applicant, Andrews Management, proposes to develop Tax Lot 200 and the southerly portion of Tax Lot 300 with a 76 unit apartment { complex to be called the "Carriage House Apartments". There will be 36 two bedroom units and 40 one bedroom units in 6 two story building. The Code required 132 parking spaces are provided. Access is to SW Pfaffle via a driveway along the westerly portion of the site. r There are no specific plans to build 1 additional apartment units on the remainder of the zone change property. These other properties were included within the zone change area because the conclusions derived from the information presented below will show that the R-25 zone is the most reasonable zone for this area. Retention of any R-4.5 zoned land on the south side of SW Pfaffle is not supported by these conclusions. j See the site plan submitted as well as Exhibit a, reduction of the site plan, for a depiction of the above described layout as well as Exhibit 2 which shows the current zoning. SITE DI;S:(-IRIPTION: Tax Lot 200, a 2.55 acre parcel, is undeveloped. Tax lot 300 contains a single family home on the northerly portion of the I site. The southerly one-half on the lot is included in the proposed apartment complex. A 1581 by 158° lot will be provided for the house. i Tax Lot 2200, the ODOT parcel, is vacant. No private development can occur on this site until it is declared surplus property by ODOT and standard sales procedures are completed. t Tax lot 400 contains a single family home. There are no current redevelopment proposals for this site. 2 i 1 i t I Andrews Management j Plan Amendment and Zone Change i SW Pfaffle site SURROUNDING AIEA To the west of the subject site and in zone ¢ .t c--P, is a single family home and a cellular telephone monopole. These are located on Tax ` Lots 1000,1100 and 1200. j To the south of the zone change area is i Highway 217. { y To the north of the site, and across SW Pfaffle in the R-7 zone are single family homes. At the intersection of Pfaffle and Hall Blvd in a newer apartment complex called the Gatehouse Apartments. To the east and adjacent to the subject site C is the General Motors Training Facility. ---i TRAFFIC ST¢JI25t: The applicant retained the services of Kittelson and Associates to conduct a Traffic Impact Analysis for the rezoning proposal. This report is enclosed as Exhibit 4. The report examines the traffic impact of not only the applicant°s proposed 76 unit apartment project but also the impact giver. full build out of the zone change area. In summary, the report makes the following findings and recommendations: The proposed apartment complex (137 units) will generate 885 daily trips, of which 70 trips will be during the typical weekday a.m. peak hour and 85 trips during the p.m. peak hour. All intersections within the study area currently operate at acceptable levels of service, with the exception of the weekday p.m. hour forced flow conditions that occur at the SW 78th Avenue/SW Pfaffle Street intersection. * The proposed apartment zoning for the site will result in 480 fewer trips on 3 i r, j r - . Andrews Management A Plan Amendment and Zone Change j SW Pfaffle site the transportation system that if the i site were developed under the current r i commercial-professional and single family i residential zoning. E There is a sight distance problem at the } SW Hall Blvd/SW Pfaffle Street ¢ a intersection: however, accident data from this location does nor reflect an j unusually high incidence of accidents, and the development of this site is not expected to worsen the already existing j condition. The study area intersection and the i proposed site driveway will operate at E acceptable levels of service under the 1996 full buildout conditions, with the exception of the SW 78th/SW Pfaffle. This intersection will operate at forced flow conditions; however, the proposed development will have minimal impacts on the operation and safety of the SW g 78th/SW Pfaffle intersection. - i The proposed apartment development, with { its sidewalk network connecting the building, should not have any internal circulation problems. ZONING CODE BEO~UIBE. S' CURRUNT ZONING: 9 rO CIAL-PROFESSIONAL The C-P zoning district allows a variety of business and office type uses as specified in Chapter 18.64. i R-4.5 S]: E FAKIIN RESID IAL The R-4.5 zone is a low density single family residential zone. Single family homes are allowed on 7500 sq.ft. lots and duplexes are allowed on 10,000 sq.ft. lots. Chapter 18.50 - I sets forth the specifics for development in the zone. i i 4 i - I 'r 'j i i Andrews Management y% Plan Amendment and Zone Change SW Pfaffle site PROP0.54ED ZONING: R--25 MULTIFP ILL RESIDM- IAL t j The R-25 zone is a Medium High Density € multiple-family residential zone providing for k a density of 25 units per acre. The provisions contained in Chapter 18.64 govern development in the zone. k PLAN AXENDVERNT REQUEST I i Chapter 18.22 deals Comprehensive Plan 1 Amendments. The subject request is considered to be a Quasi-Judicial request. Section 18.22.040 lists the standards upon which an a approval of Plan Amendment requests must be based. ' Following is a listing of these standards and the applicant's response thereto: (1) "The applicable comprehensive plan policies and map designation and: the change will not adversely affect the health, safety and welfare of the community": i Comment: Following are the Comprehensive Plan Polices deemed applicable to this request and the applicant's responses thereto: Plan Policy 1.1.2 requires that in order to approve a quasi-judicial amendment to the plan, the city music find that the change is consistent with applicable plan policies, that a change in physical circumstances has occurred since the original designation or there is evidence of a change in the neighborhood or community which affects the subject i property. Alternatively, the city must find that a mistake was made in the original designation CO The portion of the subject site now zoned C-P has no direct access to SW i Pacific Hwy. It does not have good visibility from the highway. Trips to any commercial business activity would be i. 5 r ` -i i. Ray Valone Y2 `a Andrews Mgmt site ti page 3 required to use SW. Pfaffle to get to the j site. This would draw commercial traffic f through a predominately residential area. That portion of the subject site now zone R4.5, low density residential, no longer f 1 meets the locational criteria set forth in the Plan document. It abuts Pacific Highway on the south and the commercially zoned lot on the southwest corner of SW Hall and Pfaffle. + New apartment development has occurred on l the corner of SW Hall and Pfaffle. This is not indicative of an area "committed to low density development". Based on the above, a mistake can be said to have been made in the original Plan designation for these properties. There are terrain differences and access problems which separate these lots from the other commercial zones and business activities fronting on SW Pacific j highway. i Surrounding features such as Hall Blvd. 1 and Pacific Highway as well being adjacent to commercial zones takes the R4.5 lots out of an area committed to low ! density development. i Plan Policy 2.1.1 states that the City shall maintain an on-going citizen involvement program and that citizens will have an opportunity to be involved in all phases of the planning process. C ent:_ The applicant held a meeting for the area residents and property owners as t well as other interested parties on January 13, 1995. The mailing list, notification letter, sign up sheet and j minutes of the meeting as well as the required affidavits, have been submitted to the City with this application and are - part of the record. s _ 6 14 Ray Valone f Andrews Mgmt site page 3 This policy has been followed thus far and will be in the future. i Also, comments made at the meeting with respect to increased traffic, pedestrian safety were adressed in the Kittelson Report and the City requirement that sidewalks be installed along the SW Pfaffle frontage. Plan Policy 6.1.1 states that the City shall provide an opportunity for a diversity of housing densities and residential types at various price and t rent levels. f Comment: The designation of the subject properties to the R-25 zone will allow for the immediate construction of 76 apartment units and create the potential 4 j for an additional 61 units. This density will add to the city's housing stock and contribute to the various residential i types and rent levels envisioned by this 3 Policy. Such a rezoning will not adversely affect the City's overall residential density. t Plan Policy 8.1.1 states that the City shall plan for a safe and efficient ` street system that meets current needs 1 and anticipated future growth and development. Comment: SW Pfaffle is designated as a minor collector. According the Kittelson Traffic study submitted with this request, the proposed plan amendment can 'j be made without adversely affecting the level of service or safety. r 'i The installation of sidewalks and full service driveway with adequate view corridors will part of the proposed 76 unit development proposed by the applicant. 7 R k ' t i r _ Ray Valone Andrews Mgmt site page 3 Policy 12.1 lists the location criteria for the various residential zones. In the "INTRODUCTION" portion of the Policy statement, contained on page II-77 of the p. Plan document, it is stated that the locational criteria are intended to be construed in a flexible manner. Proposals ' that are found to be in the public interest and capable of harmonious 4- integration into the community satisfy the intent of the Policy statement. The applicable zones and criteria for this request are:. f 12.1.1 Lora density residential rt exists within the subject area on C TL's 300 and 400. There is a single family dwelling on each lot with lot a areas in excess of the minimum. F The lots from on a minor collector, E. have all urban services available and have historically be used for low density development. The locational criteria are met. 12.1.3 Medium-High Density Residential is the proposed land use designation. The subject proposal satisfies the following location criteria: (1) The subject area contains a vacant parcel and two single family homes on large lots. This area along the south side of SW Pfaffle is not committed to low density development i_ (2) new multi-family development can provide adequate buffering to minimize the impact on the low density i residential developments on the _ north side of SW Pfaffle. 8 _ r Ray Valone Andrews Mgmt site page 3 (3) This zone change area does not have a direct access to a major collector or arterial. SW Pfaffle is classified as a minor collector by the City. The property in question, however, is within 250' of SW Hall Blvd., an Arterial street according to the city's G, Transportation Map. { a The Kittelson Traffic Analysis `i indicates that the amount of traffic to be generated by the 1 proposed Plan Amendment and Zone Change area, even if developed to the maximum allowable density, will be less traffic than if developed with ! uses permitted under current zoning. Less traffic will mean less impact on the existing residential development along SW Pfaffle. The additional residential development that r.. would result from the applicant's proposal be more in keeping with the residential character along this portion of SW Pfaffle than would in intrusion of commercial I activities. Strict adherence to this Policy is not warranted in this instance. i - (4) There are no known development limitations on this site. i (5) urban services in the area are capable of serving the proposed development. 1 r 9 i Ray Valone Andrews Mgmt site ~ i page 3 Additional right-of-way will be dedicated and sidewalks "s installed as part of the _i proposed development. (6) There is Public Transit available on SW Pacific k Highway. The site is within 1/4 mile of the commercial areas along SW Pacific Highway. } (8) There are no open space adjacent to the site. There is, c however, an excellent trans- i portation system that will allow residents of the proposed development easy access to the f j City's park system and other i recreation activities. 1 The flexibility of this i criteria is noted where other { R-25 zoned areas exist in the City without adjacent open space. Strict compliance with this Policy does not appear warranted. i 1 Policy 12.2 lists the locational and other criteria for the various commercial zones. The applicable s zone and its criteria are: j i 12.2.3 Commercial Professional This zone is intended for a diverse range of office and support uses and to promote j convenience throughout the city. i 12.2.3.x.(].-3)scale --The trade area, site size and gross leasable area vary. There are r no minimums or maximums cited in this Policy. 10 i `i i Ray Valone 1 7 Andrews Mgmt site page 3 'i 12.2.3.H--Locational Criteria F. 7 i (1) Spacing and Location Comment: The site is surrounded by residential 5 on two sides, the north and west. j j (2) Access i Comment: The existing C- , P zone exists on property with no frontage or k direct access to SW Pacific Highway. i No commercial development has been proposed in the j. site since the C-P zone was established. Customers of any business to locate on the site would have a difficult and circuitous route to get to the business. Traffic would, by necessity, be directed into a residential area. The Kittelson Report t states that there will be less traffic for the proposed apartment uses i than with development at the existing zoning ' designations of C-P and R-4.5. (3) Site Characteristics Comment: Visibility of the site is not sufficient as far as traffic counts, frontage ' and accessibility. These issues were _ 11 r { F- I C' 1 Ray Malone Andrews Mgmt site page 3 t' discussed above. Topography is such that the subject site is above the level of Pacific highway and hidden from view of the passing motorist. E (4) Impact Assessment Coenta The area to the north is developed with single family homes and a' recently constructed y. apartment complex. The Kittelson Report E indicates a lesser traffic impact from the proposed multiple-family r designation than froms -1 existing zoning. T h e intrusion on non- residential uses allowed by the C-P zone could adversely impact this area. (2) "The statewide planning goals adopted under R Oregon Revised Statutes Chapter 197, until acknowledgment of the comprehensive plan and ordinances;" Cos enta The City°s plan has been officially acknowledged by the State. E i This criteria is satisfied. (3) "The applicable standards of'any provision of this code or other applicable impending 1 ordinance; and" 9 Comment: The site will be subject to the standards contained in Code Section 18.56, the R-25 zone.• The use being proposed is a Permitted Use in the zone. 12 i 6 i i Ray Valone i Andrews Mgmt site page 3 i Additionally, the property in question meets 1 or exceeds all the dimensional standards of the zone. No Variances are being requested. The proposed site plan has been developed in r i accordance with Code requirements. s d The residence situated on the northerly portion will remain of a parcel meeting or t exceeding Code minimums for a single family home in the R-25 zone. All new development in the zone change area F will be subject to the Site Development Review process. { This criteria is satisfied. (4) "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." Comment: A review of the location criteria and other Comprehensive Plan Policies cited above beginning at page 5 indicate that a mistake could have been made when the current zoning was originally adopted for the subject site. Development has not occurred according to the current zones and other development s This criteria is satisfied. f TRANS Pt2RT T LOH P ING RUTUE Oregon Revised Statutes OAR 660-12-060, Division 12, Transportation Planning Rule applies to this type of application. The 111 following standards for amendments to comprehensive Plans are deeded to be applicable to this request. (1) Amendments to (a) Comprehensive Plans, functional plans and land use regulations which significantly affect a i 13 r i ~ Ray Valone k Andrews Mgmt site ; page 3 l 1 transportation facility shall assure f a that the allowed uses are consistent with the identified function, capacity and level of service of the transportation facility (b) Amending the TSP (Transportation System Plan) to provide transportation facilities adequate to support the proposed land uses consistent with the requirements of this division and -J 1 (c) Paltering land use requirements to reduce demand for automobile travel i j and meet travel needs through other modes. - p go ent: SW Pfaffle is designated as a minor arterial by the City. The requested land use actions do not propose to change the functional classification of the street. This criteria is satisfied. a i (2) A land use regulation amendmment significantly affects the transportation facility is it: (a) changes the functional classification of an existing or planned, transportation facility. 1 (b) changes a standard implementing a transportation system; (c) allows types of levels of travel or access which are inconsistent with the transportation facility or (d) would be below the minimum acceptable level identified in the TSP. r d =ent: The Kittelson report concludes i that the proposed plan amendment and zone 14 i Ray Malone Andrews Mgmt site _ page 3 j change, even at maximum potential a development of 176 apartment units, will k not significantly affect the level of service on SW Pfaffle. In fact, the report concludes that the proposed R-25 development will have less of an impact than if the area were developed under`. existing zoning. This criteria is satisfied. P C®E3CbIIS7oPdS> All applicable Code criteria for the requested Plan Amendment and Zone Change have been satisfied as specified in the above information. The request should be approved as submitted. An analysis of the Kittleson Report indicates minimal impact of the transportation system, the t, _ properties can be developed as proposed within the existing development standards of the Code and s without significant adverse impact on surrounding properties. Specific details of new development can be addressed in the required Site Development Review. process. i shv/me 2/13/95 j as revised 3/14/95 { i a j , a i 1 15 1 • f s :I - _ s va !.area - I 3200 1.L~ 13 ® 4. t 14 y - T w..c $ ° 1800 f (i! 2200 T T00 _ 3100 Cj~ a - 34 m 14 sus p Y9.EE 890 Soo e R 35 1900 2100 - i HS $ is ps ~ ; x6400 6 15 ffa .2 1 ' ! a e 1 ~e 2000 9 2 3G 37 1900 IAL PT. •a ° 16 9L4W l5• 4iS E%•.991 ° Y9•a R XM•~e•SC N. 911M 4. 1-• ia-36,SXS . ge-asaaa R ° L - I 44 •y J°Y9 1 C. R. 17$ JP S.W. M ---S°- n R - 9 ' A~ ®W M L i3c.f9 ` f' Iia0 .1000. aC za 100 Soo . 200 100 4 s~ r ez~G us A,. ~ssar h r ~a~ _ x 20; 1~ wa ~ ~ ~ff✓ 1 v j .-L~ u 5 ob t:- ~1 ~ M3 .23 °O ' ~rE-:.~'.® •f..: ~.E4~ t ea>7'~ su•r.•c an.n 1" 4' 2200 - i i FOR ASSESSFNT PURPOSES OP~1f - two - i ,g. DO NOT RELY oN FOR ANY 071HER USE 1 j EXHIBIT 1 f 14- ` RN j E 9 E I k i `t ~ t i 00 C PFAFFL.E l 12 E-27 r i 36 , GARQEta=. • ~r'• ~ ~ A ~ Si ~ ii~fr• - s HE i i 1 L PL-AN I ~ r PP^F--F--L , ~~~~FIX moan C>U 11423 ° vosa mq -A'IMIT? f 03S S.2 F' - 40 13'IAIi9 • 616 W F' 1 Err-R!!✓Y1119FTN _ e 6 bTA .79 bN6,4 ASM orm 671 gm PPRI zK,-Na (bp~~ 4S! 9~ 16 10/OX7Cid 84fTdu£9 bL ~ S7 9:d x dID COrF.RED 61aLLi laL 7n3 v t'I 9:d x b~ _ ~ s* eroXaaraserca„wp~elc.~l eF140 a~J ua=tunxG 1 kw+PCtn yl<u° qILI ty 1 CM4 all <1 OAR pR@A SUMMp P ~..r ldl Cd.'ERASE 1 3 1 F'AisK1N9 L^D OyPeEP alA'Ai 1:a FtJiXL .n - OOir, t 1 ANEB CR LRICa:Lp li.'r_$4,~ti. ArfO'`` 61M AArA ac a <1 Hf6 0 (Y t 6 otc 1 1_ a 1 I ..0~ ~ Bid b - - - - ! 4- c ° I Lit 311U Fi I 61P.[66L 771ta0 1 ybWP~If1 fl6LNf•tl GNRA I, W f W I I I 1 F, Transportation Impact Analysis . j t i 1 1 ~ Carriage riouse 1.. 11 i v A&-%artments f-, ~ F • e EJ r. e i o Tigard, Oregon I [ i OCIATES9 F_, KEE ? - Transportation Planning/Traffic Engineering January a - - 1 '"4 ; Transportation Impact Analysis F ; Ott - >3 F~ i 9 t._J i ' Carriagme I a i i Tigard, Oregon t t Prepared for: Andrews Management Ltd. 8755 Citizens Dr., Suite 205 Wilsonville, Oregon 97070 (503) 682-0758 Prepared by: f Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 610 S.W. Alder, Suite 700 j Portland, Oregon 97205 1 (503) 228-5230 1 I Project No.: 1432.00 - ; January 1999 t L~ i 1 r i i i i January 9995 Carriage !-louse Apartments Table of Contents Table of Contents Section I Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 j 1 I Section 2 Introduction J 3 Section 3 l ' ? Existing Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 1 Section 4 Traffic Impact Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 € Section 5 E F' Conclusions and Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 A Section 6 References 25 € j Appendix A Tax Lot Map of the Site Area ,l Appendix Q S Traffic Counts and Data a Appendix 0 Level-of-Service Methods and Criteria F, `l Appendix D Weekday A.M. and P.M. LOS Worksheets Appenr4lx E i Influence Area Malta j c~ Lr j i -7 ~ I 1 I it K/nelson & Associates, Inc. I 1 64 l i January 1995 Carriage House Apartments List of Figures t E' Lisp Figures Figure I Site Vicinity 5 Figure 2 t Existing Lane Configuration and Traffic Control Devices . . . . . . . . . . 9 t Figure 3 ~ t± _ 1995 Existing Traffic Volumes Weekday AM and PM Peak Flours . . . . . . . 11 i Figure 4 ' 1996 Background Traffic Volumes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 t Figure 5 Proposed Site Plan 17 Figure 5 LJ Estimated Trip Generation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 i Figure 7 r` 1 Site-Generated Traffic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Figure 3 1996 Total Trafic Volumes 21 i Lisp of Tables Table I Zoning Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Table 2 Existing Transportation Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 1 Tabu 3 } 1995 Existing Level of Service . . 10 j { Tabu 4 ~ r 1996 Background Level of Service Without Development . . . . . . . . 16 j Tabu 5 Trip Generation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Table G t I 1996 Total Traffic Levels of Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 I 1 Kitteison .Associat:99, Inc. 1 i 'i L _ 3 l j iii - ~ • * E . g r Sectionl Executive Summary c- i ;F January 1995 Carriage House Apartments Executive Summary 1 i Executive Summary i 1# Andrews Management Ltd. is proposing to develop a 76-unit apartment complex on the south - ? side of SW Pfaffle Street, adjacent to the General Motors Training Center, in Tigard, Oregon. 7 A full-access driveway is proposed to serve the site on SW Pfaffle Street. The number of, units' could expand from 76 to 137 units if Andrews Management or some other developer chooses to make use of the increased density resulting from the requested zone changes from comtner- j cial-professional (C-P) and residential (R-4.5) to apartments (I2-25). The maximum develop- ment of 137 units was assumed for this report. j The results of the traffic impact analysis described in this report indicate that the proposed Carriage Douse Apartments can be developed while acceptable levels of service and safety are f maintained at the site driveway and on the surrounding transportation system. The analysis t resulted in the following findings and recommendations: The • proposed apartment complex (137 units) will generate approximately 885 daily trips, of which 70 trips will be during the typical weekday a.m. peak hour and 85 trips j during the p.m. peak hour. All the intersections within the study area currently operate at acceptable levels of service, with the exception of the weekday p.m. peak hour forced flow conditions that occur at t1e SW 78th Avenue/SW Pfaffle Street intersection. • The proposed apartment zoning for the site will result in 480 fewer trips on the f l transportation system than if the site were developed under the current commercial-pro- fessional and single-family residential zoning. i • There is a sight distance problem at the SW Hall Boulevard/SW Pfaffle Street intersec- tion; however, accident data from this location does not reflect an unusually high incidence of accidents, and the development of this site is not expected to worsen the already existing condition. • The study area intersection and proposed site driveway will operate at acceptable levels of service under 1996 full-buildout conditions, with the exception of SW 78th Ave- nue/SW Pfaffle Street. This intersection will operate at forced flow conditions; how- ever, the proposed development will have minimal impacts on the operation and safety of the SW 78th Avenue/SW Pfaffle Street intersection. • The proposed apartment development, with its sidewalk network connecting the build- ings, should not have any internal circulation problems. { i i + i r lfitteison Assordaf®s, Inc. 2 i L f ] tt p f , t, I i I , Section 2 ,r Introduction I - E Y January 1995 € Carriag® House Apartments Introduction Introduction 1 r E i PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed site plan calls for the construction of a 76-unit apartment complex. This report was written assuming full-buildout of a 137-unit apartment complex, which will require F associated zone changes on adjacent parcels. The current site plan is designed to have a full-access driveway located on SW Pfaffle Street approximately 100 feet west of SW 83rd f Avenue. Initial site construction of the 76-unit apartment complex is expected to begin in [ Spring 1995 with the completion and opening of the apartments in Fall 1995. SCOPE OF THE REPORT F The purpose of this analysis is to determine the traffic-related impacts of a 137-unit apartment F; complex, which reflects full buildout of the site. The development is to be located adjacent to the General Motors Training Center, which has its main entrance on Highway 99W and a rear j entrance on SW Pfaffle Street. Figure 1 is the site vicinity map for the proposed development. Specific issues discussed in this report include: ry Existing and future traffic conditions in the site vicinity under the proposed access scheme during the weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hours. ® Traffic operations for background 1996 traffic conditions without the development of the proposed apartments. Trip characteristic estimates for a 137-unit apartment complex. i f ' Operational issues at the intersections of SW Hall Boulevard/SW Pfaffle Street and SW 78th Avenue/SW Pfaffle Street. Comparative analysis of trip generation for the site under bodLi tl3e existing zoning (C-P/commercial-professional and R-4.5/residential) and proposed zoning (R-25/apart- ments) conditions. i PROPOSED LAND USE CHANGE The land required for construction of the 76-unit apartment complex, as well as the land that will be required to expand to a 137-unit apartment complex, will need to be changed from the r. existing zoning to multi-family residential (R-25) zoning. To build the proposed 76-unit j apartment complex, the Andrews Management needs approval of two tax lot zoning changes: Andrews Management has the option to purchase a 2.55-acre lot (Tax lot 200) that is zoned commercial-professional(C-P), and seeks permission to use the southerly 0.68 acre of the -1 adjacent 1.25-acre tax lot (Tax lot 300) to the west, which is currently zoned residential (R-4.5). Eventually, if it is possible, Andrews Management plans to expand to a 137-unit apartment 1 complex that will zncompass an additional 0.89 acre (tax lot 2200) that is currently zoned C-P to the south, 0.82 acre (tax lot 400) that is zoned R-4.5 on the other side of the 1.25-acre tax lot to the west, and the remaining 0.57 acres from the neighboring 1.25-acre lot (tax lot 300). i Table 1 presents a breakdown of the three zoning scenarios: the existing zoning, proposed a Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 4 i I ` P~ Fl NORTH (NOT TO SCALE) 1 ( ' 'I i ij c 3 j SAN SPRUCE ST i 1 1.^1 ~ tlD m h P t . 217 In W J PFAFF ST SITEt i . I r n DARTMOUTH ST 99w j i ~i i 1 r~ ~ i SITE VICINITY TIGARDPFAFFLE STREET APARTMENTS FIGURE - OREGON JANUARY 1995 ta92 001 - i f . i January 1995 f Carriage House Apartments Introduction , 'rattle 1 3 ~1 Zoning Scenarios Proposed Zoning Proposed Zoning Tax Lot Acreage Existing Zoning 70-unit 137-unit 200 2.55 C-P R-25 R-25 300 1.25 R-4.5 R-25' R-25 400 .82 R-4.5 No changes R-25 1 2200 .89 C-P No changes R-25 C-P Commercial-Professional R-4.5 Residential (Single-Family Detached Housing) j R-25 Apartments (25 Apartments per Acre) " Approximately 0.69 acres out of 1.25 acres will he developed as apartments and the remainder will include the existing residence. j , y 76-unit apartment complex zoning, and full-buildout 137-unit complex zoning. A tax lot reap r of the site area is included as Appendix A. This report uses the 137-unit apartment scenario for the traffic impact analyses. i 11 - t E_ .1 f j f ~ - i i j 1 L~ j i Kittelson & Assocdates, Inc. i k 'I ~ , y t j i.. F t 1`a 1 j Section Existing Conditions i 1 ~ I _ f January 1995 Carriage House Apartments Existing Conditions 13 r 1 Existing Conditions i ! SITE CONDITIONS AND ADJACENT LAND USES i The site that would be required for full-buildout of the 137-unit apartment complex is mostly E'? vacant except for two single-family residences. Four tax lots make up the site: two commer- cial-professional (C-P) lots with a total area of 3.44 acres, and two single-family detached I " 3 housing (R-4.5) lots with a total area of 2.07 acres. The sites are bordered by SW Pfaffle Street to the north, General Motors to the east, residences to the west, and woods to the south, with i Highway 217 beyond the woods. Residential neighborhoods lie to the north of SW Wattle Street. The eastern end of SW Pfaffle Street is zoned commercial to the south; however, the t primary accesses for the businesses along that segment of SW Pfaffle Street are located on F Highway 99W. The proposed site is located primarily in a residential area at the western end of SW Pfaffle Street where it intersects with SW Hall Boulevard. i TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES Primary access to the proposed site is via SW Pfaffle Street, a minor collector running east-west. i In the site vicinity, SW 83rd Avenue, a local street, intersects SW Pfaffle Street approximately 100 feet east of the proposed site driveway. Local streets in the area that run north-south are f two-way stop-controlled at their intersections with SW Pfaffle Street. SW Hall Boulevard is a: nearby north-south arterial. Table 2 is a summary of the transportation facilities in the site vicinity.. Figure 2 shows the existing transportation system, traffic control, and lane configurations. Table 2 123cisting Tran3por tion Facilities Name Classification Cross Speed Side Bicycle On-Street Section (mph) Walks Lanes Parking SW Pfaffle Street Minor Collector 28 feet 35 N side NO NO SW Hall Boulevard Arterial 34 feet 30 NO YES NO l SW 83rd Avenue Local Street 32 feet 25 YES NO YES s SW 82nd Avenue Local Street 22 feet 25 NO NO YES SW 81st Avenue Local Street 32 feet 25 YES NO YES SW 79th Avenue Local Street 32 feet 25 NO NO YES SW 78th Avenue Local Street 22 feet 25 NO NO NO 3 i PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE FACILMES AND ACTIVITY i SW Pfaffle Street currently has sidewalks on the north side of the roadway in the site vicinity. Field observations in the vicinity of the proposed project site revealed a relatively small amount of pedestrian and bicycle activity near the proposed site. It is expected that this development } '4 1 will have a minimal impact on these travel modes. = • Kitteison & Associates, inc. 8 i NORTH t (NOT TO SCALE) F k i _..Q I I4F j ot z t~n co to 00 n can tnn P SW PFAFFLE ST 217 SITE 1 ® 99W . ~ I i f. I t j_ L.F f j i f t: { J f EXISTING LANE CONFIGURATIONS s AND TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES PFAFFLE STREET APARTMENTS FPGURE U77eL111 TIGARD OREGON J.ANUAW t 995 ' January 1995 Carriage House Apartments Existing Conditions pp I j TRANSIT FACILITIES Tri-Met does not provide service along SW Pfaffle Street. Routes 12 and 95X operate along I Highway 99W With stops near the SW Dartmouth Street/Highway 99W intersection. Route 12 "Barvur Boulevard' operates between downtown Portland and Sherwood during the week and on weekends. Route 95X "Tigard 1-5 Express" operates only during the a.m. and p.m. weekday peak hours. r TRAFFIC VOLUMES AND PEAK HOUR OPERATIONS The analysis focused on the weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hours. Weekday a.m. and p.m. peak k; hour manual traffic counts were conducted in January 1995. These manual traffic counts were conducted between 7 and 9 a.m. and 4 and 6 p.m. on a mid-week day. The traffic counts indicated that the a.m. and p.m. peak hours occur from 7:30 to 5:30 a.m. and from 4:30 to 5:30 p.m. The existing weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hour traffic volumes are shown in Figure 3. F Traffic counts and data used in this report are included as Appendix B. ,f t~ Current Levels of Service ' All level-of-service (LOS) analyses described in this report were performed in accordance with the procedures stated in the 1955 Highway Capacity Manual (Reference 1). A description of LOS and the criteria by which they are determined are presented in Appendix C. The appendix i ' also includes a discussion of how LOS is measured and what is generally considered to be an acceptable range. To ensure that this analysis was based on a reasonable worst-case scenario, I the peak 15-minute flow rate during the weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hours was used for all of the intersection LOS analyses. For this reason, the analyses reflect conditions that are only likely to occur for 15 minutes out of each average weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hours. Traffic conditions during all other weekday time periods will likely operate under better conditions j than those described in this report. The average delay, volumelcapacity ratio, and level of service for all-way stop-controlled intersections, and levels of service and reserve capacity for existing two-way stop-controlled intersections are listed in Table 3 for both the weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hours. ' A Treble 3 9993 ExtsUng Level of Service J All Way Stop Controlled Unsignalized Intersection Delay V/C LOS Reserve LOS Capacity WEEKDAY AM PEAK HOUR SW Hall Boulevard/SW Pfaftie Street ; 230 C SW 78th Avenue/SW Pfaffle Street 2.8 0.43 A t i ' WEEKDAY Ptq PEAK HOUR i SW Hall Boulevard/SW Pfaffle Street 85 E SW 78th Avenue/SW Pfaffle Street 4.9 0.54 A i ~ Kittelson F Associates, Inc. 10 i i 1 c (MOT NT0 SSAU) i - 1 h r 135 <5--6v 1OS ~v 20 150.% 20 f t (3 Ln MTV I. m - N 7 F Ytl ~ Pw 217 SW PFAFFLE ST I SIT i j ra 9~ F i Lj 1 A.E. PEAK HOUR 1 00 t `O?N N.P Ln _ - %-175 z5.~ 25 15-.:P. 4..115 } 20 225-,, 0,70 ~t~ ' - E C. i O ® COD L cm X ! W . 217 SCE PFAFFLE ST i i 1 SITE 9w E- P.~4. PEAK HOUR 1995 EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES WEEKDAY AM AND P PEAK HOURS i PFAFFLE STREET APARTMENTS FIGURE 77 1 t TIGARO OREGON JA J NUARY 1995 [ ' 1492FO0 January 1995 Carriage House Apartments Existing Conditions r ' As shown in Table 3, both intersections studied operate at acceptable levels during both a.m. { J and p.m. peak hours. The SW Hall Boulevard/SW Pfaffle Street intersection currently operates a i at LOS "E" during the weekday p.m. peak period. Appendix D contains the weekday a.m. and p.m. LOS worksheets. f Accident History All intersections within the study area operate within acceptable safety levels. The intersection of SW Hall Boulevard/SW Pfaffle Street has limited sight distance resulting from the vertical curve of SW Hall Boulevard as it crosses the Highway 217 overpass. The bridge abut- ment/guardrail along the eastern side of SW Hall Boulevard as it crosses the bridge also creates p a sight distance problem for vehicles turning left from SW Pfaffle Street onto SW Hall Boulevard. An examination of the City of Tigard 1991-1994 reported traffic accident histories of the s- } intersection revealed six accidents, of which five were non-injury. This amounts to 1.5 : accidents per year, which is a tolerable level for intersections of this type.. i t a i I w F 1 , i I ~ Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 12 a i 1 ~ f T { E 3 I 1 ,Ft ~ - B 1 3 ~:l a t 1 t i ~ 1 . ; Section 4 f Traffic Impact Analysis f / i t { January 1995 E Carriage House Apartments Traffic Impact Analysis ~ i Traffic Impact Analysis The effects of traffic generated by the proposed apartment development during the typical ' weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hour periods were analyzed as follows: On the basis of the proposed size of the apartments, the total number of future weekday t: o a.m. and p.m. peak hour trips were estimated for complete build-out of the site. , Background peak hour traffic estimates for 1996 were chosen as the basis for compar- ison. A growth factor of 3 percent per year was used to account for future traffic growth within the study area. ® A comparative analysis was performed to determine the amount of added trips on the ! transportation system resulting from both existing and proposed zoning conditions. y~ b Predicted site-generated traffic was added to the 1996 background volumes to determine s the traffic operation levels at key intersections in the site vicinity and at the site driveway. The access point location was evaluated for potential safety or operational deficiencies. v The internal circulation of the proposed apartment complex was studied. The methodology summarized above and the results of the analysis are presented in detail in j the remainder of this section ' i PLANNED TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS i There are no known transportation improvements within the study area that are expected to influence future traffic patterns. 1996 BACKGROUND TRAFFIC The 1996 background volumes were projected to account for continued growth in the area. After consulting with the City of Tigard, it was concluded that an annual 3 percent global growth rate would appropriately account for additional traffic volumes in the site vicinity. The growth f rate was applied to the existing traffic shown in Figure 3. Figure 4 shows the projected 1996 background volumes for the weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hours for the existing zoning and proposed zoning. Level-cf-Service Ana0 es I Table 4 shows the 1996 background LOS for both the weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hours. Appendix D contains the 1996 Background weekday a.m. and p.m. LOS worksheets. { As shown in Table 4, the unsignalized intersection of SW Hall Boulevard/SW Pfaffle Street will operate at an acceptable level of service during both the weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hours. In isolation the all-way stop-controlled intersection of SW 78th Avenue/SW Pfaffle Street 3 operates at LOS A, but during peak hour periods forced-flow conditions are created by traffic backed up from the SW Dartmouth Street/Highway 99W signalized intersection. The proposed project will add less volume to this intersection than would development of the property as r Kittelson Ela Associates, Inc. 14 , i 1 NYu) n O Q1n In r F (NOTNT0O SCALE) i 140 10.~ 5 Y-4- 5.--- 4- 1 10 20 155 20 it" - M d 00 ~g 1 ~ 1 ' 217 - 5W PFAFFLE ST 1 SITE' i ' r-- f~ 9'aY i ' 1 4 PEAK ~iOUR u1 W) ON NVIn 180 25s~ 25 295 200 15~r ~ 120 1 ~v 20 230 70 } pia t In In C) CD 0 m J Q >xx G9 m ® n Y SW PFAFFLE ST 217 f ® SITE ' - 9w M. PEAK HOUR 1996 BACKGROUND TRAFFIC ZOLUMFS PFAFFLE STREET APARTMENTS FIGURE 11GARD OREGON z JANUARY 1995 ^1492FOOA } .i January 1995 Traffic Impact Analysis Carriage House Apartments 1 W i Ij't'able 4 ~ 19es Background Level of Sarvice Without Development All Play Stop Controlled Unsignalized Intersection Delay WC LOS Reserve LOS Capacity WEEKDAY ANA PEAK HOUn SW Hall Boulevard/SW Pfaff le Street 215 C j SW 78th Avenue/SW Pfaffle Street 2.8 0.44 A WEEKDAY PM PEAK HOUR 1 SW Hall Boulevard/SW Pfaffle Street 50 E j SW 78th Avenue/SW Pfaff le Street 4.9 0.55 A currently zoned. Future improvement of the SW Dartmouth Street/Highway 99W intersection would alleviate this already existing condition. r 1 JJT PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT PLANS Construction of the proposed 76-unit apartment development is planned for spring 1995, with the complex opening in fall 1995. The proposed 76-unit, two-story apartment development is 1 designed to have one fuil-access in/out driveway on SW Pfaffle Street. The site plan for the j 76-unit apartment complex shows 131 spaces available for off-street parking, of which 5 are designated handicapped. There will be 18 garages and 52 covered stalls. Figure 5 is an r. illustration of the current site plan for the proposed development. The Influence Area Map (Appendix E) shows the transportation network and land uses in the site vicinity. TRIP GENERATION r i Estimates of weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hour vehicle trips for t he proposed apartment complex I were developed from empirical observations at other, similar apartment developments. These observations are summarized in a standard reference manual called Trip Generation (Refer- ence 2). Table 5 shows the estimated weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hour trip generation characteristics for the property under both current and proposed zoning conditions. Additionally, Table 5 r_ includes a comparison, of the daily trips and peak hour trips under full development with E,.!. existing zoning: 1,415 total daily trips, 110 total a.m. peak hour trips, and 170 total p.m. peak hour trips. ' As shown in Table 5, the proposed 137-unit apartment complex will generate approximately 885 daily trips, of which 70 trips will be during the weekday a.m. peak hour and 85 trips during the p.m. peak hour. Under the current zoning, development of the site would result in 1,415 total daily trips and would contribute 560 more daily trips to the transportation system than the proposed zoning, which would result in 885 daily trips. This analysis indicates that the change in zoning for the propose[ apartment development will result in fewer trips on the transports- r tion system than if the site were developed with the current zoning. P r Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 16 F i r~ 1 ~ pp,,/y °Pi ^S ~ . 't... ~~I la~~ ~~~I~\ w✓ 1®wore~«+uyae 4 i w 1 slO W Q 1 i I-O k~of gFF'~ zeal X%%X Y u G jc,~ C~L .l q~ ~ ~.000fI~J Q O4F4',~~ @ I ud T- co .~i lu T cool j 3 ~~cc p - I I I 4 3145 I ~ p a a / of I of ~ O ! 'B I C~ m T\ I I I 1 y I' I o--~ , I 1 ;1 ,4 ~ ) I IL I 1'~`r f r'r i + [ 1 n~ f 0 I II `/I i 1 1 I PROPOSED SITE PLAN ~ PFAFFLE STREET APARTMENTS FIGURE TIGARD OREGON JANUARY 1995 1492E OS 1 a I January 1995 Carriage House Apartments Traffic Impact Analysis t i i - i j Takla 5 ` Trip Generation i Land Use Size ITE Daily Peak Hour Trips Code Trip Total Inbound Outbound i ~ r 11IEEKDAV AM PEAK HOUR ' EXISTING ZONING ~ Medical-Dental Office Building 37,462 sf 720 1280 100 75 25 (C-P) Single-Family Detached housing 9 units* 210 85 5 <5 <5 t (R-4.5) t 7t Total 1365 105 80 30 i- t1 PROPOSED ZONING ~ <I Apartment (R-25) 137 units' 220 885 70 10 SO Net Difference 4 -480 -35 -70 30 WEEKCDAiI PM PEAK HOUR F. EXISTING ZONING ' Medical-Dental Office Building 37,462 sf 720 1280 155 45 110 (C-P) Single-Family Detached housing 9 units' 210 85 10 5 <5 (R-4.5) V Total 1365 165 50 115 PROPOSED ZONING .J Apartment (R-25) 137 units' 220 885 85 60 25 Net Difference -480 80 10 -90 E s. * Total acres multiplied by number of units allowed per acre. E ' I TRIP DISTRIBUTION/ASSIGNMENT ANALYSIS The distribution of site-generated trips on to the roadway system within the study impact area was estimated through examination of current traffic conditions. Figure 6 shows the distribu- tion pattern during the weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hours. Figure 7 shows the site-generated traffic assignments for the proposed apartments. r : TOTAL TRAFFIC VOLUMEWOPE TIONAL ANALYSIS The 1995 background traffic volumes for the weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hours shown in Figure 4 were added to the site-generated traffic shown in Figure 7 to arrive at the 1996 total traffic volumes shown in Figure 8. Table 6 lists the 1996 total traffic levels of service with the proposed apartment complex. Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 18 i 1 S k NORTH i4 (PLOT TO SCALE) r f C =9 { a;~ ¢ a d a M N N H co co 00 i-! A. 35% 3 50% 50% 25% i a F Z SW PF.AFFLE ST 17 t SITE/ 99W J `G 15% e4 1 . _a 1 + i i t i _ j t J I I . f'' 1 i ESTIMATED TRIP GENERATION PFAFFLE STREET APARTMENTS FIGURE Fr ' ro TIGARD OREGON 6 JANUARY 1995 - ta9ze00e - F In ' (NOT To SCALE) 5 5 <5 A v Yf ~ m 217 5w PFAFFI.E ST SITE ; A` s s LA.M. PF_AK I°IOUR 15 5 15 5 030-'4e d i _r7 { a d d a l ~ ~ m 217 Sid PFAFFLE 5T 7 i SITE/ 9w i 4 P.?A. PEAK HOUR Y r SITF--GENERATED TRAFFIC ' a PFAFFLE STREET APARTMENTS FIGURE r TIGARO -y OREGON JANUARY 1995 ® 1492F007 1 F t; C) ° NN r i NORTH i ~ E lea 115--o- rsa 10- 0 $ ~.(NOT TO SCALE) 1 30 5- ~-5 185 % 200 t /W } M i a d 1 COY N_ g ve 5'17 PF/ FLE ST 217 SITE r i 9w " A.1M PEAK HOUR 1 `4N M~In 190 25.~ 25 295 200 15--b- 4-- 135 25 30 30 245 70 0 In i b co cc 217 SW WAFFLE ST g SITE 9w Q F 1 P.M. PEAK HOUR r r 1996 TOTAL TRAFFIC VOLUMES [JANUARY AFFLE STREET APARTMENTS FIGURE ARD OREGON 19?15 - - 1492Fa08 i { 1 i January 1995 Carriage House Apartments Traffic Impact Analysis j i t Table 6 JOBS Total Traffic Levels of Service All Way Stop Controlled Unsignalized Intersection Delay V/C LOS Reserve LOS Capacity WEEKDAY ALI PEAK HOUR SW Hall Boulevard/SW Pfaffle Street 200 C Site Driveway/SW Pfaffle Street 715 A SW 78th Avenue/SW Pfaffle Street 3.1 0.46 A y G. . WEEKDAY PPA PEAK HOUR _ SW Hal! Boulevard/SW Pfaffle Street 35 E Site Driveway/SW Pfaffle Street 530 A SW 78th Avenue/SW Pfaffle Street 5.5 0.58 B p i All intersections studied, including the intersection of SW Hall Boulevard/SW Pfaffle Street, will continue to operate at an acceptable LOS during all time periods, as shown in Table 6. The site access driveway will operate at an acceptable level of service during both peak hour periods. Although forced-flow conditions occur during the peals hour periods at SW 78th Avenue/SW Pfaffle Street, the proposed apartment development would have minimal impacts on this already-existing condition. Improvement of the SW Dartmouth Street/Highway 99W intersec- tion would alleviate this condition. Appendix D contains the 1996 total traffic weekday a.m. and p.m. LOS worksheets. II'o3' ERNAL CIRCULAI14Q f An analysis of the proposed site plan indicated that the proposed apartment development should not have any internal circulation problems. A network of sidewalks links the buildings, allowing pedestrians to move within the site without having to compete with automobiles. As part of this analysis, the proposed site-access driveway on SW Pfaffle Street was examined t for potential operational or safety deficiencies. It should be noted that the project team worked with Kittelson & Associates, Inc. to provide the most effective access scheme which would ! promote safe and efficient operation both on and off-site. The proposed site-access driveway is aligned approximately 100 feet west of the SW 83rd Avenue/SW Pfaffle Street intersection. I The proposed site-access driveway was examined for adequate intersection and stopping sight distance, and was found to provide sufficient sight distances. Landscaping along the site frontage should be limited to low-grooving ground cover or non-obstructing trees to continue to ensure adequate sight distance in both directions. r Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 22 ~ j ] r i i i 7 f` ~ t 1 l i ° t i 1 t~ t L a i Section Conclusions and Recommendations - - - i i January 1995 Carriage House Apartments Conclusions and Recommendati-ons Conclusions n Recommendations f ? The traffic impact analysis described in this report indicates that the proposed Carriage House Apartments can be developed while an acceptable level of service and safety are maintained at the site driveway and on the surrounding transportation system. The analysis revealed the F following findings and recommendations: • The proposed apartment complex with one driveway will generate approximately 885 daily trips, of which 70 trips will be during the typical weekday a.m. peak hour and 85 trips during the p.m. peak hour. a All the intersections within the study area currently operate at acceptable levels of F service, with the exception of the peak hour forced flow conditions that occur at the SW 78th Avenue/SW Pfaffle Street intersection as a result of the SW Dartmouth Street/High- way 99W signalized access. I i • The proposed apartment zoning for the site will result in 480 fewer trips on the _ transportation system than if the site were developed under the current commercial-pro- 'L fessional and single-family residential zoning. E There is a sight distance problem at the SW Hall Boulevard/SW Pfaffle Street intersec- tion. However, accident data from this location do not reflect an unusually high incidence of accidents, and the development of this site is not expected to worsen the already existing condition. { The study area intersection and proposed site driveway will operate at acceptable levels of service under 1996 full-buildout conditions, with the exception of SW 78th Ave- f 1 nue/SW Pfaffle Street. This intersection will operate at forced flow conditions; how- ever, the proposed development will have minimal impact on the operation and safety 1 _ of the SW 78th Avenue/SW Pfaffle Street intersection. The proposed apartment development, with its sidewalk network connecting the build- ings, should not experience any internal circulation problems. j j _ r i Kittelsvn & Associates, Inc. 24 i . } e~~s@ B~ppgCcggqppd i{ 1 i _i i j i i , 1 i j 1 .9 117 ` I j t I I lj J 1 e t r k t t f - L_j Appendix I Tax Lot a of the Site Area i ~ Appendix A Tex Lot Map of Site Area ! Sal IA SWIM SECTION 36 T IS R I W II. ~ WASHINGTON COUNTY OREGON 1 SCALE 1°=100' { 72 e I SEE MAP __S_j vas IS 1 1350 + S PFAFFLE T a C.W.$75 STREET i .a ~>e.w [2--N[ 2-9¢-41¢ ,os •g sema~[ anms :v e 400 3r!® [ 200 160 # .8ZAe R~~145 [BSAc. R_y, J Z554c P.S&k. ~eElc~eln la' C- P o J i a J OZ'S A, i e6aA'pro es5iorn o ~w~vhe C-P a j ~_L~ Jr S comftecc:10A f Jesslov l s2- a.GS AC. e ° 8S Propo~,ed 7 a~[QW WlapipObd[I 1 1 as u. f b 06.1:'[ 111.1 d ~ V of\ef A P~ 2200 t / G• esAC. h4orS L a' 23-81 i i t 4 l _ f i c ~ II 1 Appendix B Traffic Counts and Data n a TIC! INVENTORY SHEET j Project Name: carf'lAr., ' Heut > ar`f KITTELSON & ASSOCIATES, INC. I 510 SW Alder, Suite 700 k Project Number: ~ q 2 = % I ' Analyst: Portland, Oregon 97205 Date: (503) 226.5230 Filename: C:\OPW\TIA94RON.WB1 =ax: (503) 273-s~169 1 ' SITE VICINITY MAP INTERSECTIONS: Land Use Streat Network Bus Routes/Staps Lane Configurations Control Type Progression Signal Phasing Storage for PIT and LP lanes 3) 4) - - Ir NOTES: ( t,~ . fit„ !„Y •n ti _ 5) 6) / ^aTREE~S fn 41 ) GI l Street Name I lassification Cross Posted Side Bi On-Street i Ntambe of Lanes Section Sneed walks Lanes I Parkina and Lane Width -22 Z'F 2 iZ Acko INTERSECTION TURN MOVEMENT COUNT SUi`4MARY REPORT PFAFFLE AT SW 78TH STREET Y. N 0 61 T= 2.8 P=.847 DATE OF COUNT: 01/05/96 F 0 20 DAY OF WEEK: Thu 'r ZA R I~ 50 TIME STARTED: 07:00 T TIME QED: 09:00 H ~a-144 s! ~ ~ •0-128 Li 10 $ L5 2= 2.1t x <y x-1.94 Les 2.8~ f P-.651 ~2Z P=.864 TEV=TOTAL EN'T'RY VOLUME j T=TRUCKS BY APPROACH P=PHF BY APPROACH 159 °e 3 30 5 5 <015 Peak Hour E 217 E 07:30-08:30 Traffic Smithy T= 1.5"k P=.730 138 TEV=386 Traffic Survey Service v, EAST BOUND SOUTH BOUND NORTH BOUND 69EST BOUND TFIR PERIOD I J La r0+ ALL r 07:00-07:05 5 1 0 0 3 0 2 1 0 2 9 0 23 F 07:05-07:10 12 0 0 0 3 0 0 2 0 2 6 0 25 07:15-07:20 20 0 0 0 6 0 3 2 1 0 1 6 0 0 0 1 2 0 32 07:20_07:25 7 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 2 10 0 22 E j 07:25-07:30 9 0 1 2 0 0 28 07:30-07:35 14 1 0 3 3 0 1 0 0 5 8 0 3 l- 07:35-07:40 11 0 0 0 3 0 1 1 0 2 5 0 23 f 07:40-07:45 20 0 0 0 8 1 3 0 0 2 2 0 f' 07:45-07:50 17 0 1 1 4 0 1 1 1 1 8 1 36 07.50-07:55 19 0 4 0 3 0 6 0 0 1 8 0 41 07:55-08:00 17 0 1 0 6 0 1 1 0 2 12 1 13L 08:00-08:05 14 0 0 0 4 0 3 1 1 0 8 2 08:05-08:10 10 0 1 0 3 0 2 0 0 0 12 0 28 08:10-08:15 7 0 2 3 2 0 4 0 0 1 11 0 30 08:15-08:20 6 0 0 0 4 0 2 1 0 1 10 0 24 08:20-08:25 5 0 0 1 5 1 5 0 0 0 12 0 29 r- 08:25-08:30 8 0 1 1 5 0 2 0 0 4 8 1 30 08:30-08:35 12 0 3 1 3 0 2 1 0 1 2 0 08:35-08:40 4 0 2 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 2 0 14 08:40-08:45 10 1 0 1 3 0 2 2 0 3 6 0 28 08:45-08:50 6 0 0 0 9 0 0 1 0 3 4 0 23 j 08:50-08:55 10 0 1 0 3 0 1 1 1 1 8- 0 26 E 08:55-09:00 5 0 2 0 4 0 0 1 0 2 4 0 18 i _ 1ST Total Survey 259 3 20 13 93 2 46 16 5 41 172 5 675 PHF 66 .25 .42 56 83 .5 .7 .63 .5 .53 79 .42 .817 Trucks 1.5 0 10 7.7 2.2 0 2.2 0 0 0 3.5 0 2.4 Stopped Buses 0 1 0- 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 Peds 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 3 0 Hourly Totals - 07:00-08:00 162 2 8 6 46 1 22 7 3 23 85 2 367 07:15-08:15 165 1 11 9 45 1 27 4 4 19 95 4 385 07:30-•08:30 148 1 10 9 50 2 31 5 2 19 04 5 386 07:45-08:45 129 1 15 8 44 1 31 8 2 16 99 5 359 08:00-09:00 97 1 12 7 47 1 24 9 2 18 8'7 3 308 G i M ~ E INTERSECTION TURN MOVE M= COUNT SL'MARY SPORT F q - HALL BOULEVARD AND PFAFFLE A T= 3.5% P=.769 N 508 s DATE OF COUNT: 01/04/94 O Liss '15 1424 DAY OF WEEK: Wed TIME STARTED: 07:00 R 0 4.1.4' 94 TIME ENDED: 09:00 H -+,-0 ! 4. 4-°155 T= o°s 0 T= 4.2~ 0 --m 4--0 P=0, P=.717 0 20 T V=TOTAL ENTRY VOLUME j T=%sTRUCKS BY APPROACH P=PHF BY APPROACH Q 0 IXAZctU 15 109 Peak Hour 436 07:30-08:30 Traffic Smithy Td 5.8t P=.85 306 T-rV=969 Traffic Survey Service FAST BOUND SOME BOUND NORTH BOUND WEST BOUND TIME PERIOD A FROM - TO 4j L* .41 L ALL 07:00-07:05 0 0 0 0 20 0 0 11 1 2 0 5 39 07:05-07:10 0 0 0 0 21 6 0 7 2 3 0 7 46 i 07:10-07:15 0 0 0 0 29 4 0 20 2 2 0 5 62 07:15-07:20 0 0 0 0 33 7 0 23 1 2 0 4 70 ` 07:20-07:25 0 U 0 0 25 9 0 18 1 2 0 14 69 0~3 t 07:25-07:30 0 0 0 0 27 8 0 11 4 4 0 6 6 07:30-07:35 0 0 0 0 38 11 0 21 3 3 0 10 T6- - 11 i °i 07:35-07:40 0 0 0 0 35 14 0 26 3 2 d 6 69 3 07:40-07:45 0 0 0 0 28 l 07:45-07:50 0 0 0 0 49 10 0 28 0 3 0 5 95 -j 07:50-07:55 0 0 0 0 49 8 0 33 0 4 0 15 20 114 a 911 07:55-08:00 0 0 0 0 42 7 0 21 3 } 08:00-08:05 0 0 0 0 27 11 0 29 1 1 0 11 8 08:05-08:10 0 0 0 0 24 9 0 19 2 2 0 1Z 6 08:10-08:15 0 0 0 0 30 4 0 33 1 1 0 12 81 08:15-08:20 0 0 0 0 27 6 0 20 1 1 0 12 67 08:20-08:25 0 0 0 0 33 3 0 21 0 1 0 16 74 08:25-08:30 0 0 0 0 32 4 0 18 1 2 d 9 66 08:30-08:35 0 0 0 0 25 8 0 24 1 3 0 6 61. 08:35-08:40 0 0 0 0 27 5 0 14 1 3 0 4 4 08:40-08:45 0 0 0 0 22 5 0 24 5 2 0 5 63 ; 08:45-08:50 0 0 0 0 27 10 0 23 1 1 0 7 69 i 08:50-08:55 0 0 0 0 28 4 0 27 4 3 0 5 71 "j 08:55-09:00 0 0 0 0 23 5 0 20 2 2 0 7 59 k 1 Total Survey 0 0 0 0 721 165 0 513 40 51 0 208 1698 PHF 0 0 0 0 74 73 0 84 .63 61 0 71 .807 a r,l % Trucks 0 0 0 0 3.9 1.8 0 5.5 10 11.8 0 2.4 4.4 Sto d Buses 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Peels- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 3 0 Hourly Totals 07:00-08:00 0 0 0 0 396 91 0 241 20 29 0 103 880 1 0715-08:15 0 0 0 0 407 105 0 284 19 26 0 120 961 0730-08:30 0 0 0 0 414 94 0 291 •15 22 0 133 969 07:45-08:45 0 0 0 0 387 80 0 284 16 25 0 127 919 08:00-09:00 0 0 0 0 325 74 0 272 20 22 0 105 818 e - N TiJRN Y~SO s I' COUNT SUMMARY REPORT INTERSECTIO ~IATd, BOULAVALD AN13 PFAFFLE t i i T= 1.2% P=.844 DATE OF COUNT: 01/04/94 k: 0 686 4so Z10 1680 DAY OF WEEK: Wed , RT 0 4-79 TIME STARTED: 16:00 r..' TIME ENDED: 18:00 t t H 1 -Ij X197 p $ 175 T= .6 T- 0% 0 P=.834 P=O. TEV=TO'T'AL ENTRY VOLUME 0 T=WTRUCKS BY APPROACH r* P=PHF BY APPROACH 0 --i 290 9 1E4f3 505 V.,90 Peak Hour 16:30-17:30 Traffic Smithy 1500 T= .9k P=.907 588 TEV=1471 Traffic Survey Service E' EAST BOUND SOUTH BOUND NORTH BOUND WEST BOUND i FROM P ERIOD $ .f i 4► t ALL - TO d 16:00-16:05 0 0 0 0 22 4 0 31 6 3 0 10 76 16:05-16:10 0 0 0 0 46 15 0 35 3 4 0 6 109 16:10-16:15 0 0 0 0 39 8 0 25 5 3 0 15 95 16:15-16:20 0 0 0 0 46 14 0 41 4 Z 0 9 115 ~r 16:20-16:25 0 0 0 0 39 6 0 44 5 1 0 20 115 0 16:25-16:3.0 0 0 0 0 35 13 0 45 3 3 0 18 117 16:3fl-16:35 0 0 0 0 39 20 0 40 8 2 0 12 1 P i 16-35-16:40 0 0 0 0 32 16 0 43 10 3 0 12 116 j ykl 16:40-16:45 0 0 0 0 40 9 0 38 5 1 0 19 112 f 16:45-16:50 0 0 0 0 32 14 0 51 6 1 0 16 120 16:50-16:55 0 0 0 0 43 15 0 35 10 4 0 15 122 16:55-17:00 0 0 0 0 35 13 0 37 5 2 0 11 10 17:00-17:05 0 0 0 0 47 24 0 51 9 2 0 16 14 17:05-17:10 0 0 0 0 31 23 0 42 7 1 0 10 114 J-' 1.7:10-17:15 0 0 0 0 40 24 1 48 4 2 0 9 128 17:15-17:20 0 0 0 0 59 20 0 40 9 2 0 15 14 r'"? 17:20-17:25 0 0 0 0 43 17 0 39 4 1 0 17 121 17:25-17:30 0 0 0 0 37 13 0 41 5 1 0 23 120 i 17:30-17:35 0 0 0 0 40 20 0 39 7 5 0 5 1 ISL 17:35-17:40 0 0 0 0 32 10 0 36 3 3 0 18 102 17:40-17:45 0 0 0 0 41 14 0 40 5 1 0 8 109 17:45-17:50 0 0 0 0 33 13 0 41 2 1 0 11 101 17:50.-17:55 0 0 0 0 36 14 0 40 3 3 0 7 103 17:55-18:00 0 0 0 0 36 9 0 30 7 0 0 8 90 f i f i Total Survey 0 0 0 0 923 348 1 952 135 50 0 310 2719 PHF 0 0 0 0 84 .73 .25 .9 85 .69 0 .8 .933 % Trucks 0 0 0 0 1.5 .3 0 .8 1.5 0 0 .6 1 Stopped Buses 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~0 Pee(R 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 i Hourly Totals 16:00-17:00 0 0 0 0 448 147 0 465 70 28 0 163 1321 16:15-17:15 0 0 0 0 459 191 1 515 76 23 0 167 1432 16:30-17:30 0 D 0 0 478 208 1 505 82 22 0 175 1471 °I 17:00-38:00 0 0 0 0 4480 207 1 75 201 1 487 65 22 0 147 1398 14 M INTERSSECTION TURN MC1VEPV~ COUNT SUMKWY REPORT PFAFFLE AT SW 78TH STREET - _ 3.35 P=.825 DATE OF COUNT: 01/04/96 k N ~66 40 5 t91 DAY OF WEEK: Wed 39 7- TIM STARTED: 16:00 TR 20 TIME ENDED: 18:00 i i H 4--232 8-208 t2,3 15 23t5 T= .45s 1-7 1 T- 0 a-411th P=.849 P=.825 TEV=TOTAL MnRY VOLE 225 7O T=%-TRUCKS BY APPROACH t P=P11F BY APPROACH 265 rill 52 ~P "tOi~ 45 X30 P162® ;117:20 Traffic Smithy 1336 T= l%; P=.877 172 TEt1=711 Traffic Survey Service A EAST BOUND SOUTH BOUND NORTH BOUND WEST BOUND TIME PERIOD ® L FROM - TO a e 1 ( 4, .43 9 4 ° ALL 16:00-16:05 8 2 2 1 0 Q 1 4 2 8 10 1 39 16:05-16:10 12 0 3 2 3 0 3 6 6 2 10 3 50 16:10-16:15 11 0 2 1 7 0 6 2 a 19 0 552 ' 16:15-16:20 20 0 1 0 2 0 6 3 16:20-15:25 14 0 2 1 2 Z 8 2 2 11 13 2 16:25-16;30 11 2 4 1 4 0 10 5 4 5 8 3 5 16:30-16:35 22 2 4 3 2 1 10 2 1 8 11 2 68 r 16;35-16:40 21 2 5 1 2 0 6 5 3 8 11 2 66 16:40-16:45 10 3 0 2 5 1 13 2 2 11 9 1 59 :t 16:45-16:50 17 2 2 3 4 1 5 3 3 6 12 3 16:50-16:55 17 1 1 1 3 0 1 5 6 4 10 3 52 16:55-17:00 15 1 1 3 2 1 7 4 1 4 10 2 51 { 17:00-17:05 29 0 0 0 4 1 10 4 1 8 9 4 70 ' 17:05-17:10 20 1 2 0 4 0 8 6 3 3 3 0 50 17:10-17-15 24 0 2 1 6 1 12 3 2 3 9 1 64 17:15-17:20 25 3 0 4 1 0 9 4 0 1 77 1 58 17:20-17:25 12 0 6 0 6 0 13 0 1 2 17:25-17:30 19 1 3 2 1 3 2 1 2 7 0 50 17:30-17:35 24 1 2 3 2 0 9 2 1 8 11 1 1 64 i -17:40 16 0 1 4 6 0 4 3 2 2 8 2 17:35 48 '17-17:45 15 0 1 0 6 0 2. 3 2 8 7 2 46 17`45°17:50 16 0 2 1 5 0 11 5 0 3 5 0 48 17:55-18:00 11 0 3 2 5 11 7 a 5 5 11 0 56 " i ~ 272 1312 59 137 226 35 .920 r f To survey 404 23 51 39 83 11 167 77 67 .77 .61 .44 .71 .7 .88 83 .8 .64 . S8 .64 .920 y Trucks ,2 0 2 0 3.6 0 1.2 1.3 0 0 0 0 .6 stopped Buses 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pecus 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 3 0 0 5 0 Hourly Totals ' 16;00-17:00 178 15 27 19 36 5 76 43 39 82 125 22 667 16:15-17x15 220 14 24 16 40 7 96 44 32 78 114 23 708 16:35-17:30 231 16 26 20 40 9 96 39 25 65 118 19 704 i 16:45-17:45 233 10 21 21 45 7 82 38 24 56 113 19 669 it 17:00-18:00 226 8 24 20 47 6 91 34 20 55 101 13 645 k I C r y i Li . j L~l I i 1 - v 1 i Appendix C Level-of-Service Methods and 4 I , Criteria ,c January 1996 Carnagge House Apartments-DRAF r Appendix G r. a F Appendix C 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 LOS from A to F. t Table C-1 ` Level of Service Definitions (Signalized Intersections) Level of c ` Service Average delay per Vehicle to Minor Street q` ! A Ver0 low average stopped delaY, less than five seconds per vehicle. This occurs when ~ 7 progression is extremely favorable, and most vehicles arrive during the green phase. Most i vehicles do not stop at all. Short cycle lengths may also contribute to low delay. B Average stop delay is in the range of 5.1 to 15.0 seconds per vehicle. This generally occurs with t I good progression and/or short cycle lengths. More vehicles stop than for a LOS A, causing higher levels of average delay. j C Average stopped delay is in the range of 15.1 to 25.0 seconds per vehicle. These higher delays may re-suit from fair progression and/or longer cycle lengths. Individual cycle failures may begin to appear at this level. The number of vehicles stopping is significant at this level, although many j still pass through the intersection without stopping. %T D Average stopped delays are in the range of 25.1 to 40.0 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, # i and the proportion of vehicles not stopping declines. Individual cycle failures are noticeable. { E Averaga stopped delays are in the range of 40.1 to 60.0 seconds per vehicle. This is considered I to be the limit of acceptable delay.These high delay values generally' indicate poor progression, long cycle lengths, and high volume/capacity ratios. Individual cycle failures are frequent occurrences. F Average stop delay is in excess of 60 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 1.00 with many individual cycle failures. Poor progression and long J cycle lengths may also contribute to such high delay levels. t f i 1 Most of the material in this appendix is adapted from the Transportation Research Board, Highway Capacity Manual, Special Report 209 (1985). Kittelson & Associates, Inc.. A_1 k January 1995 ' Carriage House Apartments-DAAFr Appendix C 4 i Signalized Intersections f The six- LOS grades are described qualitatively for signalized intersections in Table At. ` Additionally, Table A2 identifies the relationship between level of service and average stopped delay per vehicle. Using this definition, a "D" LOS is generally considered to represent the 1 minimum acceptable design standard. i F y Tanis C-2 i_: Level-o4-servics Criteria for signalized Intersections i { k Level of Service Stopped Delay per Vehicle (Seconds) A < 5.0 - ^j g 5.1 to 15.0 C 15.1 to 25.0 f"I D 25.1 to 40.0 c 40.1 to 60.0 I >60.0 1 i i I ' _ i Kittelson & Associates, Inc. A-2 i 1 ! January 1995 f I Carriage House Apartments-DFtAFr Appendix C f , f i a Unsignalized Intersections ' The calculation of LOS at an unsignalized intersection requires a different approach. The 1985 - l Highway Capacity Manual includes a methodology for calculating the LOS at two-way, ` stop-controlled intersections. For these unsignalized intersections, LOS is defined using the concept.of "reserve capacity" (i.e., that portion of available hourly capacity that is not used). A qualitative description of the various service levels associated with an unsignalized intersec- tion is presented in Table A3. A quantitative definition of LOS for an unsignalized intersection is presented in Table A4. L_; ' 1 { 1 l V t l a Table C-3 i Gioneral Lev ei-of-service Descriptions for Unsignaliaed Intereactiona r. f level of Service Avermgo Delay per Vehicle to Minor Street A . Nearly all drivers find freedom of operation. . Very seldom is there more than one vehicle in the queue. B ® Some drivers begin to consider the delay an inconvenience. Occasionally there is more than one vehicle in the queue. ' C » Many times there is more than one vehicle in the queue. i Most drivers feel restricted, but not objectionably so. 1 D * Often there is more than one vehicle in the queue. i • Drivers feel quite restricted. E • Represents a condition in which the demand is near or equal to the probable maximum number of vehicles that can be accomodated by the movement. There is almost always more than one vehicle in the queue. . Drivers find the delays approaching intolerable levels. i LF . Forced flow. Represents an intersection failure condition that is caused by geometric and/or operational constraints external to the intersection. _i i Kittetson Associates, Inc. A-3 T January 7935 , :1 1 Carriage House Apartments-DRAFT Appendix C ! j Table C-4 -y t.evel-of-Service Crlterla for Unsignalixesd Intersections i Reserve Capacity Expected Delay to Minor Street Traffic 4. (pcph) Level of Service f 7 f 3 1.-_J 5400 A Little or no delay 300-399 f3 Short traffic delays t.., 200-299 C Average traffic delays E 100-199 D Long traffic delays i 0.99 E Very long traffic delays I * F s *When demand volume exceeds the capacity of the lane, extreme delays will be encountered, with queueing that may cause severe congestion and affect other traffic movements in the intersection. This condition f + usually warrants intersection improvement. - d - The reserve capacity concept applies only to an individual traffic movement or to shared lane movements. Once the LOS, capacity, and expected delay of all the individual movements have been calculated, an overall evaluation of the intersection can be made. Normally, the movement L ` having the worst LOS defines the overall evaluation, but this may be tempered by engineering judgment. An "E" LOS is generally considered to represent the minimum acceptable design standard. Experience with the unsignalized analysis procedure indicates this methodology is conservative in that it tends to overestimate the magnitude of any potential problems. This is especially true for minor-street, left-tum movements. For example, the Highway Capacity Manual methodol- ogy does not take into account the effects of vehicle flow platoons that result from upstream signalization. Vehicles traveling in platoons tend to create greater gaps in the traffic flow, which sometimes provide additional capacity for the side closest to the signal. Therefore, the results of any unsignalized intersection analysis should be reviewed with this thought in mind. j Generally, LOS E for the minor-street, left-tum movement is considered to be acceptable for an unsignalized intersection, although it also indicates that the need for signalization should be investigated. E~ - Kfttefson ~ Associates, Inc. A-'f e i e i January )985 yy t_ Carriage House Apartments-DRAFT Appendix C 1 j a All-Way G. top Controlled Intersections 2 There is no accepted procedure for a level-of-service analysis of an all-way, stop-controlled intersection. The procedure used for detet'tnining LOS for a four-way or three-way stop-con- trolled intersection differs from that described for unsignalized intersections. This methodol- ogy, which is being reviewed by the Unsignalized Intersection Committee of the Transportation i Research Board, uses a capacity estimation method based on headways observed at all-way, s stop-controlled intersections in the western United States. The procedure incorporates several ; important variables, including volume distribution, number of lanes on each approach, and the percentage of right and left turns at the intersection. Intersection performance is measured in parameters similar to signalized intersections: delay, volume-to-capacity ratio, and Level of Service using a scale of "A" through "17". Approach delay on ary given leg of the intersection . l E is calculated using the following equation: D = exp (3.8 x C 1 . i WhereD=vehicle delay on a given approach (sec/veh)' SV=subject approach volume (vehicles per hour [vph]) k C=calculated approach capacity (vph) exp=base of natural logarithms t In this equation, the quantity SV/C is simply the volume-to-capacity ratio on the approach under consideration. Table A5 presents the LOS criteria for all-way, stop-controlled intersections. 1 ~ Table C-s Level-of- service Definitions (affil-way, Stags-Controlled Interaoctions) Level of Service Average Delay per Vehicle to Minor Street A <5 Seconds j g 5 to 10 Seconds C 10 to 20 Seconds D 20 to 30 Seconds f E 30 to 45 Seconds 1 c, F > 45 Seconds 1 } 2 Kyte, Michael, Estimating Capacity and Delay at an All-'Nay stop-Controlled intersection. University of Idaho, Depart- ment of Civil Engineering Research Report September 1989. Kittelson & Associates, Inc. A-5 ' F t i° `r c (A ~ { t ~G ~ f 3 Appendix D Weekday A.M. and P.M. LOS Worksheets i 1492EXAM.IN Thu Jan 12, 1995 14:59:51 Page 1-1 1492EXAM.IN Thu Jan 12, 1995 14:59:51 Page 2-1 1 i KIT'TELSON & ASSOCIATES, INC. - PROJECT 1492 KITTELSON & ASSOCIATES, INC. - PROJECT 1492 PFAFFLE STREET APARTMENTS PFAFFLE STREET APARTMENTS - - - _ EXISTING AM_PEAK_HOUR VOLUMES EXISTING AM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES Turning Movement Report Link Volume Report Volume Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Total Volume NB Link SS Link EB Link WS Link Total Type Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Volume Type In Out Total In Out Total In Out Total in Out Total Volume F #1 Hall Blvd%Pfaffle St #1 Hall Blvd/Pfaffle St Base 0 290 15 95 415 0 0 0 0 20 0 135 970 Base 305 435 740 510 425 935 0 0 0 155 110 265 1940 - Added 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Added 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 0 290 15 95 415 0 0 0 0 20 0 135 970 Total 305 435 740 510 425 935 0 0 0 155 110 265 1940 #2 Site Driveway/Pfaffle St #2 Site Driveway/Pfaffle St - Base 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 110 0 0 195 0 255 Base 0 0 0 0 0 0 110 145 255 145 110 255 510 Added 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Added 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ? Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 110 0 0 145 0 255 Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 110 145 255 145 110 255 510 I #3 78th St/Pfaffle St #3 78th St/Pfaffle St Y Base 30 5 5 5 50 10 10 5. 150 20 105 5 400 Base 40 220 250 65 20 85 165 145 310 130 15 145 800 k. Added 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Added 0 0 0 0 0 0 '0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 30 5 5 5 50 10 10 5 150 20 105 5 400 Total 40 220 260 65 20 85 165 145 310 130 15 145 800 k I' j i #6 #6 Base 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Base 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ` Added 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Added 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 i Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I ~ 1 Traffix System version 6.6 (c) 1942 DA Licensed to Kittelson & Assoc: Traff ir. System Version 6.6 (c) 1992 DA Licensed to Kittelson & Assoc: Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page t 1 f d f I 1492EXAM.IN Thu _Jan 12, 1995 14:59:51 Page 3-1 1442EXAM _IN _ Thu Jan 12, 1995 14:59:51 Page 4-1 KITTELSON & ASSOCIATES, INC. PROJECT 1492 KITPELSONPFAFFLECSTREET INC.- PROJECT 1492 1 APARTMENTS P STREET APARTMENTS c EXISTING E TING A14 PEAK HOUR VOLUMES EXISTING AM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES I.. Level Of Service Computation Report Im act Analysis Report Level of Service Intersection 1985 HCM Unsignalized Method Base Volume Alternative Base Future Chan4e .u.e+++e•+++++:+.•s:+..+usu...+.•.sus++•r+++.. u•u••r++.uuuusu u••+.•. j, Del/ V/ Del/ V/ in Intersection ki Hall Blvd/Pfaffle St { LOS Veh C LOS Veh C euu+••••••••.uu.uau u•uu•••••seu••..•••.••u u•••••u.•u ••u....•u u. k 1 Hall Blvd/Pfaffle St C. xxxxx. 0.000. C xxxxx 0.000 0.000 V/C Level of Service: C" •r.u ••s u••••••.•• .e+r...eu+.a++.+u u•u u.u•u u.a•u...+s..._... s.... # 3. 78th St/Pfaffle St A 2.8 0.431 A 2.8 0.431 + 0.000 V/C Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound Nest Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - A I- II- 1~ Control: Uncontrolled Uncontrolled 11- Stop Sign Stop Sign Arterial Base Future Change Rights: Include Include Include Include Trvl Avg. Trvl Avg,. in Avg. Lanes: 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 L__ Dir LOS Time Speed LOS Time Speed Speed 0 I--------------- II" ---0-1 o -11- " -0 0 " -II--------------_i Il Volume Module: Base Vol: 0 290 15 95 415 9 0 0 0 20 0 135 i Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1 .OG I. Initial Bse: Q 290 15 95 415 0 0 0 0 20 0 135 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0'83 0.83 0.83 0.63 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 PHF Volume: 0 348 18 114 498 0.83 O.C3 0.83 0.83 0 0 0 0 24 0 183 keduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I, Final Vol.: 0 348 18 114 498 0 0 0 0 24 0 162 11 Adjusted Volume Module: Grade: Ot Ot 04 Os t Cycle/Cars: 0.00 0.42 0.00 0.92 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx f" t Truck/Comb: 0.06 0.02 0.06 C.D2 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx ` PCE Adj: xxxx 1.00 1.00 xxxx 1.00 1.00 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 Cycl/Car PCE: 0.50 1.00 0.50 1.00 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx Trck/Cmb PCE: 1.50 2.00 1.50 2.00 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx j Adj Vol.: 0 348 16 120 498 0 0 0 0 26 0 178 I11 ation: 0 Run Speed (N/S): 3G MPY. ac Critical Gap Module: » Popul RT Rad/Ang: 20.0 ft/90.0 deg 20.0 ft/90.0 deg 20.Q ft/40.0 deg 20.0 ft/90.0 deg Critical Gp: 5.0 xxxx, xxxxx 5.0 xxxx xxxxx 6.5 6.05.> 6.0 6.0 6d ------------I---------------11--------------I1 - - --II Capacity Module: Cnflict Vol: 498 xxxx xxxxx 366 xxxx xxxxx 1140 978 498 969 969 357 Potent Cap.: 707 xxxx xxxxx 830 xxxx xxxx 184 279 631 282 282 654 t Used Cap.: 0.0 xxxx xxxxx 14.4 xxxx xxxxx 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.4 O.O 27.2 Impedance: 1.00 xr_xx xxxxx 0.90 xxxx xxxxx xxxx 1.00 1.00 xxxx 1.00 0.80 f. Actual Cap.: 707 xxxx xxxxx 830 xxxx xxxxx 133 252 631 255 255 654 Y i I--------------- I,I--------------- 11--------------- 11_,____________ Level Of Service Module: V' Unused Cap.: 707 xxxx xxxxx 711 xxxx xxxxx 133 252 631 229 255 476 LOS by Move: A • ° C A Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - AT Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx f Unused Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xrxx xxxxx I.. Shared LOS: • . s s . + e . . • • "I Traffix System Version 6.6 (c) 1992 DA Licensed to Kittelson & Associ Traffix System version 6.6 (c) 1992 DA Licensed to Kittelson s Assoct ! I I. 1 Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 2 „ ~I I 1 i 1 j, _ ~ t,.._._. -'...,t - , _ ~ ~ ~_.Il r , ((.w..y • Y ..a... ~ L.. ..a ~ ~ f_,rrJ ~l~J r ._.ri y ~ . i 9 I 1492EXAM.IN Thu Jan 12, 1995 14:59:51 Page 5-1 F. KITTELSON 8 ASSOCIATES, INC. - PROJECT 1492 PFAFFLE STREET APARTMENTS EXISTING AM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES I I.. Level Of Service Computation Report 4-Way Stop Method - tY.,•f•ft•Y•xtfYYfte•,rt+t•11t11fe,ffslffttf•f tffef,ttttfY.tlf afl•.fe+f,atf Yfltf Base Volume Alternative .•.•e••.x.t•„e,.••,• Intersection #3 78th St/Pfaffle St Cycle (sec) : 1 t Critical` Vol./Cap.t (X) : 0.431 Loss Time (sec): 0 Average Delay.(sec/veh): 2.8 Optimal Cycle: 0 Level Of Service: A { .lftttttllft.f if Yt•,tt.fetttttfttx9ix11tttf11ft11f Yfe•xe,f•fetlf ttf tt,e+t •itxtfY - Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound f. Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T- R L - T - R 1 I------'---------II---------------II---------------II-------------- 1 Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign 1 I Rights: Include Include Include Include Lanes: 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 it 0 0 0 0 it 0 0 0 0 it 0 0 I _ ____________I_-_-______----_II__________----II-________-___-_II____.______---_I j Volume Module: I: Base Vol:. 30 5 5 5 50 10 10 5 150 20 105 5 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 ~I Initial Bse: 30 5 5 5 50 10 10 5 150 20 .105 5 I' { User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 - PHF Adj: 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 U.94 0.94 0.94 I'. PHF Volume: 32 5 5 5 53 11 11 160 21 112 5 - Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 32 5 5 5 53 11 11 5 160 21 112 5 I PCE 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 _ MLF 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 Final Vol:.: 32 5 5 5 53 11 11 5 160 21 112 5 I il II II---------------I Saturation Flow Module: 'i Sat/Lane: 324 321 324 160 160 160 644 644 644 920 820 820 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 0.50 0.50 0.07 0.77 0.16 0.06 0.03 0.91 0.15 0.81 0.04 I Final Sat.: 324 162 162 12 123 26 40 18 585 125 666 30 ------------I---------------II---------------11---------------1I---------- ----1 i .I Capacity Analysis Module: I_ Vol/Sat: 0.10 0.03 0.03 0.43 0.43 0.43 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.17 0.17 0.17 Cric Moves: ••f• eft. ...Y :j I II II--------------- II ---------------I' Level Of Service Module: Delay/Veh: 1.5 1.1 1.1 5.1 5.1 5.1 2.8 2.8 2.8 1.9 1.9 1.9 Delay 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 1 AdjDel/Yeh: 1.5 1.1 1.1 5.1 5.1 5.1 2.8 2.0 2.8 1.9 1.9 1.9 , Queue: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx fff,ef,t••1ttf.,t,eR•f•JHf♦!H•,Yf,e HtH teyf Het4.kt W •••ttftf •tYy e•.•H Htdtt 4' I C I I ! Traffix System Version 6.6 (c) 1992 DA Licensed toKittelson & Associ I j' I f Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 3 I I r. I 7 -j f' i 1492EXPM.IN Thu Jan 12, 1995 15:42:12 Page 1-1 1492EXPM.IN Thu Jan 12, 1995 15:42:12 Page 2-1 KITTELSON & ASSOCIATES, INC. - PROJECT 1492 KITTELSON & ASSOCIATES, INC. - PROJECT 1492 PFAFFLE STREET APARTMENTS PFAFFLE STREET APARTMENTS EXISTING PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES EXISTING PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES j Turning Movement Report Link Volume Report Volume Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Total. Volume NB Link SB Link EB Link WE Link Total I: j Type Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Volume Type In Out Total In Out Total In Out Total In Out Total Volume ' 41 Hall Blvd/Pfaffle St #1 Hall Blvd/Pfaffle St Base 0 505 80 210 480 0 0 0 0 20 0 175 1470 Base 585 Soo 1085 690 680 1370 0 0 0 195 290 48S 2940 Added D 0 0 D 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Added 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 0 505 80 210 480 0 0 0 0 20 0 175 1470 Total 585 500 1085 690 680 1370, 0 0 0 195 290 465 2940 #2 Site Driveway/Pfaffle St #2 Site Driveway/Pfaffle St f!~I Base o 0 0 0 0 0 0 290 0 0 195 0 485 Base 0 0 4 0 0 0 290 195 485 195 290 485 970 k.. i Added 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Added 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 290 0 0 195 0 485 Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 290 195 485 195 290 485 970 j..,. #3 78th St/Pfaffle St #3 78th St/Pfaffle St i Base 100 45 30 5 40 20 25 15 225 70 115 25 715 Base 175 335 510 65 95 160 265 235 500 210 50 260 1430 E Added 0 0 0 0 0 0 D 0 0 0 0 0 0 Added 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 j. Total 100 35 30 5 40 20 25 15 225 70 115 25 715 Total 175 335 510 65 95 160 265 235 500 210 50 260 1430 j #6 #6 Base 0 0 0 0 D 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Base 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Added 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Added 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D 0 0 0 0 ' Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 E 3 i i ~f 1 Traffix System Version 6.6 (c) 1992 DA Licensed to Kittelson & Associ Traffix System Version 6.6 (c) 1992 DA Licensed to Kittelson & Assort, e Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Pdg t I is 1492EXPM.IN Thu. Jan 12, 1995 15:42:12 Page 3-1 1492EXPM.IN Thu Jan 12, 1995 15:42:12 Page 4-1 , KITTELSON & ASSOCIATES, INC. - PROJECT 1492 KITTELSON & ASSOCIATES, INC. PROJECT 1492 1 ' PFAFFLE STREET APARTMENTS PFAFFLE STREET APARTMENTS EXISTING P24 PEAK HOUR VOLUMES EXISTING PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES Impact Analysis Report Level Of Service Computation Report Level. Of Service 1985 HCM Unsignalized Method - Base Volume Alternative j Intersection Base Future Change .t.1t..lkttf.Y..1f.•.f..Y.•1t.t•.R.R.......f............• f Del/ V/ Del/ V/ in Intersection #1 Hall Blvd/Pfaffle St F~. LOS Veh C LOS Veh C 1f..e••...ff..nY••R..f.f.Y•......•••f•.f...... f....... f.ft ' # 1 Hall Blvd/Pfaffle St E xxxxx 0.000 E xxxxx 0.000 + 0.000 V/C Level Of Service: E 1 ltkff.R..144tt1t.9Rtfttf9..tttt.tf tftf•9tf.lttY.fffttlk.tf.fYttl.R:tt.9.••.1k1k. i, I1 p 3 78th St/Pfaffle St A 4.9 0.542 A 4.9 0.542 + 0.000V/C Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound Nest Bounds Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R k I- II- It--------------- it-- --I , + Control: Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Sign Stop Sign Arterial Base Future Change Rights: Include Include Include Include i. Trvl Avg. Trvl Avg. in Avg. Lanes: 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 L'..- Dir LOS Time Speed LOS Time Speed Speed I--------------- II II--------------- II--------------I Volume Module: Base Vol: 0 505 80 210 480 0 0 0 0 20 0 175 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 0 505 s0 210 480 0 0 0 0 20 0 175 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1-00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 ~ PHF Adj: 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 PHF Volume: 0 562 69 234 534 0 0 0 0 22 0 195 { - Redact Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 { Final Vol.: 0 562 89 234 534 0 0 0 0 22 0 195 k I--------------- II____-__________II_______________II____________-._I Adjusted Volume Module: Grade: 0} 0'1 0% 0% i 4 Cycle/Cars: 0.00 0,92 0.00 0.92 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx I. I t Truck/Comb: 0.06 0.02 0.06 0.02 xxxx xxXX xxxx xxxx PCE Adj: xxxx 1.00 1.00 xxxx 1.00 1.00 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 Cycl/Car PCE: 0.50 1.00 0.50 1.00 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx i Trck/Cmb PCE: 1.50 2.00 1.50 2.00 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx I. i Adj Vol.: 0 562 89 245 534 0 0 0 0 24 0 214 I--------------- II_______________II___________----II___________-_--I Critical Gap Module: » Population: 0 <a » Run Speed(N/S): 30 MPH « RT Rad/Ang: 20.0 ft/90.0 deg 20.0 ft/90.0 deg 20.0 ft/90.0 deg 20.0 ft/90.0 deg Critical Gp: 5.0 xxxx xxxxx 5.0 xxxx xxxxx 6.5 6.0 5.5 6.0 6.0 6.0 I. I--------------- II--------------- II--------------- il.-_-_____-__...I Capacity Module: Cnflict Vol: 534 xxxx xxxxx 651 xxxx xxxxx 1613 1418 534 1374 1374 606 Potent Cap.: 678 xxxx xxxxx 595 xxxx xxxxx 95 156 599 164 164 471 t Used Cap.: 0.0 xxxx xxxxx 41.2 xxxx xxxxx 0.0 0.0 0.0 15.0 0.0 45.4 Impedance: 1.00 xxxx xxxxx 0.67 xxxx xxxx:: xxxx 1.00 1.00 xxxx. 1.00 0.63 Actual Cap.: 678 xxxx xxxxx 595 xxxx xxxxx 40 104 599 109 109 471 ' I_______________II--------------- II--------------- II--------------- I _i Level Of Service Module: Unused Cap- 678 xxxx xxxxx 350 xxxx xxxxx 40 104 599 85 109 257 LOS by Move: • • B • ° • ° • E • C i. Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR_ - RT Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Unused Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Shared LOS: • • ° ° ' • ' * • ° • ° Traffix System Version 6.6 (c) 1992 DA Licensed to Kittelson & Associ Traffix System Version G.6 (c) 1992 DA Licensed to Kittelson & Associ ;i Kittetson & Associates, Inc. Page 2 i I ~1492EXPM.IN Thu Jan 12. 1995 15:42:12 Page 5-1 & ASSOCIATES, INC. - PROJECT 1492 PFAFFLE STREET APARTMENTS 1 EXISTING PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES Level Of Service Computation Report I j 4-Way Stop Method I Base Volume Alternative ` ata•fAa....1fe•f•i•ff.eY•afffRtYaAett.lf+lf rY4•wf•Yfaffotf.f••Yt•e••f •tAfflf Intersection #3 78th St/Pfaffle St faeffw•tff•se.Yt.•rter•+•.fe•+++fatf aYf.+++eyae•forafY•••etaawY••+a•w•w•+.•e.otf cycle (sec): 1 Critical Vol./Cap. (X): 0.542 Loss Time (sec): 0 Average Delay (sec/veh): 4.9 Optimal Cycle: 0 Level Of Service: A j ••we+fwa•f utlf•a.aeu etrYU+feao+u.•u•+arw.rou A.•a•••aftf.f e.w.a4f+••re Approach: North. Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign Rights: Include Include Include Include Lanes: 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 it 0 0 {--------------I{---------------I{------------------------------i Volume Module: Base Vol: 100 45 30 5 40 20 25 15 225 70 115 25 Growth Adj: 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.60 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initiar Bse: 100 45. 30 5 40 20 25 15 225 70 115 25 User Adj: 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHP Adj: 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 PHPVolume: 109 49 33 5 44 22 27 16 245 76 125 27 Reduct Vol: 0 0 e 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 109 49 33 5 44 22 27 16 245 76 125 27 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1100 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF 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 Final Vol.: 109 49 33 5 44 22 27 16 245 76 125 27 I II II--------------- II---------------I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 372 372 372 223 223 223 531 531. 531 726 726 726 i Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 0.60 0.40 0.07 0.62 0.31 0.09 0.06 0.85 0.33 0.55 0.12 { I Final Sat.: 372 222 150 16 138 69 50 29 452 242 398 86 ____________I______________ t1_______________II--------------- 11___________-___~ . Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.29 0.22 0.22 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.54 0.54 0.54 0.31 0.31 0.31 Crit Moves: 1r.. ...f ...f 11___________-___I~______-_-_____-X1______________;1 Level Of Service Module: Delay/Veh: 3.0 2.3 2.3 3..4 3.4 3.4 7.9 7.9 7.9 3.3 3.3 3.3 Delay 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 AdjDel/Veh: 3.0 2.3 2.3 3.4 3.4 3.4 7.9 7.9 7.9 3.3 3.3 3.3 Queue: xx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx ra saf+f.•••a u+.f.u••eau.u•Y.•ewYwsYUfYtxewu a.Y.f.e•uff.••.ofetf •f••efu. 1 I I TraEf ix System Version 6.6 (c) 1992 DA Licensed to Xi ttelson 6 Associ J ~ Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 3 F i i i. f -7 7 1F 1492B4CAM.CMD Tue Jan 17, 1995 13:56:55 Page 1-1 1492BKAM.CMD Tue Jan 17, 1995 13:56:55 Page 2 1 1 - KITTELSON & ASSOCIATES, INC. - PROJECT 1492 KITTELSON 6. ASSOCIATES, INC. - PROJECT 1492 F f PFAFFLE STREET APARTMENTS PFAFFLE STREET APARTMENTS 1996 BACKGROUND AM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES 1996 BACKGROUND AM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES f. --------------P--- Turning Movement Report Link Volume Report L Volume Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Total Volume NB Link SB Link EB Link WE Link Total Type Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thra Right Left Thru Right Volume Type In Out Total In Out Total In Out Total In Out Total Volume i' i f #1 Hall Blvd/Pfaffle St #1 Hall Blvd/Pfaffle St Base 0 299 is 98 427 a 0 0 0 21 0 139 999 Base 314 448 762 525 438 963 0 0 0 160 113 273 1998 Added 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Added 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 i Total 0 299 15 98 427 0 0 0 0 21 0 139 .999 Total 314 448 762 525 438 963 0 0 0 160 113 273 1998 42 Site Driveway/Pfaffle St #2 Site Driveway/Pfaffle St Base 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 113 0 0 149 0 263 Base 0 0 0 0 0 0 113 149 263 149 113 263 525 Added 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Added 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 f Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 113 0 0 149 0 263 Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 113 149 263 149 113 263 525 - 43 78th St/Pfaffle St. #3 78th St/Pfaffle St Base 31 5 5 5 52 10 10 5 155. 21 108 5 412 Base 41 227 268 67 21 88 170 149 319 134 15 149 824 Added. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0. 0 0 0 0 Added 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 31 5 5 5 52 10 10 5 155 21 108 5 412 Total 41 227 268 67 21 88 170 149 319 134 15 149 824 { #6 #6 Base 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Base 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Added 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Added 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ; Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I ' 1 1 I 4 i );r E f _ f Traffix System Version 6.6 (c) 1992 DA Licensed to Kittelson& Associ Traffix System Version 6.6 (c) 1992 DA Licensed to Kittelson 6 Associ ! Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 1 r f i i S r 9 i, 1492BKAM.CMD Tue-Jan 17, 1995 13:56:55 Page 3-1 1492BKAM. CHU Tue Jan 17, 1995 13:56:$5 Page_4-1___ -_-_______________.__________Q__--____ ( KITTELSON & ASSOCIATES, INC. PROJECT 1492 KITTELSON & ASSOCIATES, INC. - PROJECT' 14.2 PFAFFLE STREET APARTMENTS PFAFFLE STREET APARTMENTS 1996 BACKGROUND AM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES 1996 BACKGROUND AM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES ___________________________________________________y_-_--___-____________-_____- Impact Analysis Report Level Of Service Computation Report Level Of Service 1985 HCM Unsignalized Method Future Volume Alternative Intersection Base Future Change ....p.. Del/ V/ Del/ V/ in Intersection #1 Hall Blvd/Pfaffle St • LOS Veh C LOS Veh C ..*.....a ..................a.......n......s.......•.............e............ i q 1 Hall blvd/Pfaffle St C xxxxx 0.000 C xxlcxx 0.000 . 0,000 VJC • Level Of Service; C B 2. Site Driveway/Pfaffle St A xxxxx 0.000 A xxxxx 0.000 , 0.000 V/C Approach: }North •BoundR South Bound„ • East Bound • West Bound P Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - P L - T - R j # 3 78th St/Pfaffle St A 2.6 0.444 A 2.8 0.444 a 0.000 V/C JJ JJ--------------- JJ------------ C ntrol: Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Sign Stop Sign Rights: Include Include Include Include r, ' Lanes: 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 Arterial Base. Future Change 11 - - - III it----- - Trvl Avg. Trvl Avg. in Avg. Volume Module: Dir LOS Time Speed LOS Time Speed Speed Base Vol: 0 290 15 95 43.S 0 0 0 0 20 0 135 Growth Adj: 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 Initial Bee: 0 299 15 96 427 0 0 0 0 21 0 139 -.1 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 0 299 15 98 427 0 0 0 0 21 0 139 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.63 0.83 , PHF Volume: 0 359 19 117 513 0 0 0 0 25 0 167 E'.,. Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Final Vol.: 0 359 19 117 513 0 0 0 0 25 0 167 Adjusted Volume Module: j. Grade: 0* of Ot 04 t Cycle/Cars: 0.00 0.92 0.00 0.92 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx t Truck/Comb: 0.06 0.02 0.06 0.02 r•txx xxxx xxxx xxxx L. PCE Adj: xxxx 1.00 1.00 xxxx 1.00 1.00 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 Cycl/Car PCE: 0.50 1.00 0.50 1.00 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx Trck/Cmb PCE: 1.50 2.00 1.50 2,00 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 7 Adj Vol.: 0 359 19 123 513 0 0 0 0 27 0 184 Critical Gap Module: » Population: 0 < > Run Speed(N/S): 30 MPH < RT P.ad/Ang: 20.0 ft/90.0 deg 20.0 ft/90.0 deg 20.0 ft/90.0 deg 20.0 ft/90.0 deg Critical Gp: 5.0 xxxx xxxxx 5.0 xxxx xxxxx 6.5 6.0 5.5 6.0 6.0 6.0 I---------------I.---------------IJ--------------- IJ- < Capacity Module: Cnflict Vol: 513 xxxx xxxxx 377 xxxx xxxxx 1175 1006 513 998 998 368 Patent Cap.: 694 xxxx xxxxx 821 xxxx xxxxx 175 268 618 271 271 646 t Used Cap.: 0.0 xxxx xxxxx 15.0 xxxx xxxxx 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.1 0.0 28 4 Impedance: 1.00 xxxx xxxxx 0.90 xxxx xxxxx xxr.x 1.00 1.00 xxxx 1.00 0.79 ' i Actual Cap.: f.94 xxxx xxxxx C21 xxxx xxxxx 125 241 618 244 244 646 i--------------- `i--------------- ii--------------- i i-.-_..-.. l Level Of Service Module: Unused Cap.: 694 xxxx xxxxx 697 xxxx xxxxx 125 241 618 216 244 462 I. LOS by Move: • • • A • • • • r A f.; i Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT LTR NT Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Unused Cap: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Shared LOS. : • + • • • I' 1 ` a Traffix System Version 6.6 (c) 1992 DA Licensed to Kittelson & Associ Traffix System Version 6.6 (c) 1992 DA Licensed to Kittelson 6 P.6.- i - r { F Kittelson & Associates, Inc. page 2 f i 1492BKAM.CMD Tue Jan 17, 1995 13:56:55 Page 5-1 1492BKAM.CMD Tue Jan 17, 1995 13:56:55 Page 6-1 I - - - KITTELSON & ASSOCIATES, INC. - PROJECT 1492 KITTELSON & ASSOCIATES, INC. - PROJECT 1492. I PFAFFLE STREET APARTMENTS PFAFFLE STREET APARTMENTS I j 1996 BACKGROUND AM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES 1996 BACKGROUND AM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES i! Level Of Service Computation Report Level Of Service Computation Report i1- 1985 HCM Unsignalized Method 4-Way Stop Method Future Volume Alternative Future Volume Alternative fR41t4♦af •.•tRtf.ffftff.tf41t10f1.. Y......... Y•t•...4Ya•4e.1•Yf4t•4ftt Ytrfftt9e t •f.•Y.ffftr.t+t.iftf............ 4Yff..4t..........f• - Intersection #2 Site Driveway/Pfaffle St Intersection f#3f78thtrSt/Pfaffle St ••444•t.fa.e44a44t 4tt•a•f•44aR~tRf..Yteefr•t4•..•.••e•fffeRttf ••fe•f •4.•tt•f~rea tf R.ta4•a.•a.•fa4re4•f4•aft•••..f•.fflf.fYfstf•4.t.f•aR•..444f 4•Rff.fa4lf efs.. f.. Level Of Service: A Cycle (sec): 1 Critical Vol./Cap. (X): 0,444 l Ytt.......fiat.RY•!1•Hfff•.Raff••1ORR•tttt.t•4H 4•t•ftR•Y a4H ttf4YRY•f~ HRt •Y. Loss Time (sec): 0 Average Delay (sec/veh): 2.8 Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Optimal Cycle: 0 Level Of Service: A Movement: L- T- R L- T- R L- T- R L. - T- 'R f..••f•..4.... fYU.tf ...............Y.•et........ . f..... ........f...... ____________I--___________-- 11 II - Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound LI I M Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R j Rightu:. Include. Include Include Include I 11---- - - I)--------------- 11------------ --i j Lanes: 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign 11--------------- 11------------___.~.I_____-__-------i Rights: Include Include Include Include i'. Volume Module: Lanes: 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 Base Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 110 0 D 145 0 I ---------I1------------- - 11---------------I1-------------- j Growth Adj: 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 Volume Module: Initial Bse: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 113 0 0 149 0 Base Vol: 30 5 5 5 50 10 10 5 150 20 105 5 f Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Growth Adj: 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 _ Initial Fut: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 113 0 0 149 0 Initial Bse: 31 5 5 5 52 10 10 5 155 21 106 5 I User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PHF Adj: '0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Initial Fut: 31 5 5 5 52 10 10 5 155 21 108 5 -.i PHF Volume: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 121 0 0 159 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1 00 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PHF Adj: 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0 94 Final Vol.: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 121 0 0 159 0 PHF Volume: 33 5 5 5 55 it 11 5 165 22 115 Adjusted Volume Module: Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade: all 04 at 02 Reduced Vol_- 33 5 5 5 55 11 11 5 165 22 115 _ t Cycle/Cars: xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1 U') t Truck/Comb: xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.n0 PCE Adj:. 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.00 1.00 1.10 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 33 5 5 5 55 11 li 5 165 22 115 Cycl/Car'PCE: xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx i ii---- ---------i~-------- - -----i{----- - ' Trck/Cmb PCE: xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx Saturation Flow Module: - 1. Adj Vol.: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 121 0 0 159 0 Sat/Lane: 324 324 324 160 160 160 644 644 644 820 620 820 Critical Gap Module: » Population: 0 « » Run Speed(£/W): 30 MPH « Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1 00 j,. P.T Rad/Ang: 20.0ft/90.0 deg 20.0 ft/90.0 deg 20.0 ft/90.0 deg 20.0 ft/90.0 deg Lanes: 1.00 0.50 0.50 0.07 0.78 0.15 0.06 0.03 0.91 0.15 0.81 0.04 Critical Gp: 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.5 6.0 5..5 5.0 xxxx xxxxx. 5.0 xxxx xxxxx Final Sat.: 324 162 162 11 124 25 39 18 587 127 664 29 11 __________i Capacity Module: Capacity Analysis Module: Cnflict Vol: 280 280 121 280 280 159 159 xxxx xxxxx 121 xxxx xxxxx Vol/Sat: 0.10 0.03 0.03 0.44 0.44 0.44 0.28 0.28 0.28 0 17 0.17 0.11 j- Potent Cap..: 723 723 875 649 723 931 996 xxxx xxxxx 1000.. xxxx xxxxx Crit Moves: f.. .f.. I t Used Cap.: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 xxxx xxxxx 0.0 xxxx xxxxx i i~-- - --H ' Impedance: xxxx1.00 1.00 xxxx 1.00 1.00 1.00 xxxx xxxxx 1.00 xxxx xxxxx Level Of Service Module: I Actual Cap.: 723 723 875 649 723 931 996 xxxx xxxxx 1000 xxxx xxxxx Delay/Veh: 1.5 1.1 1.1 5.4 5.4 5.4 2.9 2.9 2.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 - Delay Ad': 1.00 1.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1 00 Level Of Service Module: AdjDel/Veh: 1.5 1.1 1.1 5.4 5.4 5.4 2.9 2.9 2.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 i. Unused Cap.: 723 723 875 549 723 931 996 xxxx xxxxx 1000 xxxx xxxxx Queue: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx %xxx xxxxx f LOS by Move: . • • Y • r f . . f . t .ff.........t........•......f , 'i Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR RT LT - LTR - RT LT LTR RT 1 Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 1 Unused Cap.: xxxx 0 xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 11 Shared LOST R t . • . f . E,. Traffix System Version 6.6 (c) 1992 DA Licensed to Ki[telson & Associ Traffix System Version 6.6 (c) 1992 DA Licensed co Ka ttelson r< AS::,+CI ~ 1 I l Ki'ttelson & Associates, Inc. Page 3 + 1.a ~ II 1 } is , f 1492BKPM:CM➢ Tue _ _Jan 17, 1995 13:58:13 Page 1-1 1492BKPM.CMD Tue Jan 17, 1995 13:58:13 Page 2^1 - KITTELSON & ASSOCIATES, INC. - PROJECT 1492 KITTELSON & ASSOCIATES, INC. - PROJECT 14 . ' PFAFFLE STREET APARTMENTS E STREET APARTMENTS _ 1996 -BAACKGROCKGROUND PM PEAR HOUR VOLU24ES i 1996 BACKGROUND PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES j Link Volume Report Turning Movement Report Volume Northbound. Southbound Eastbound. Westbound Total Volume NB Link SB Link EH Link NB Link Tint of Type Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Volume Type in Out Total In Out Total In Out Total In Out Total voLm:e #1 Hall Blvd/Pfaffle St #1 Hall Blvd/Pfaffle St Base 0 520 62 .216 494 0 0 0 0 21 0 180 1514 Base 603 515 1118 711 700 1411 0 0 0 201 295 500 3028 • Total 0 520 82 216 494 0 0 0 0 21 0 180 1514 Total 603 515 1118 7101 700 14101 0 0 0 2001 299 500 3028 #2 Site Driveway/Pfaffle St #2 Site Driveway/Pfaffle St Base 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 299 0 0 201 0 500 Base 0 0 0 0 0 0 299 201 500 201 299 500 994 Added 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Added 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 299 0 0 201 0 500 Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 299 201 500 201 299 500 499 ) #3 78th-St/Pfaffle St #3 78th St/Pfaf tle St Base 103 46 31 5 41 21 26 15 232 72 118 26 736 Base 180 345 525 67 98 165 273 242 515 216 52 268 1473 Added 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Added D 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 103 46 31 5 41 21 26 15 232 72 118 26 736 Total 180 345 $25 67 98 165 273 242 515 216 52 266 1473 #6 #6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Base 0 0 0 0 0 Ease 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Added 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Added 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 0 0 0 0 tl 0 0 0 iII 1 , E a 1 I Traffix System Version 6.6 (c) 1992 DA Licensea to Kittelson & ASS-- Traffix System Version 6.6 (c) 1992 DA Licensed to Kittelson i Assoc.; i Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 1 i i i ; 1492BKPM.CMD Tue San 17, 1995 13:56:13 Page 3-1 1492BKPM.CMD Tue Jan 17,. 1995 13:58:14 Page 4-1 ' - - KITTELSON & ASSOCIATES, INC.. - PROJECT 1492 KITTELSON & ASSOCIATES, INC. - PROJECT 1492 PFAFPLE STREET APARTMENTS -PFAFFLE STREET APARTMENTS 1996 BACKGROUND PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES 1996 BACKGROUND FM PEAK l--- -----ES i " Impact Analysis Report Level Of Service Computation Report { Level Of Service 19,35 HCM Unsignalized Method Future Volume Alternative h' . Intersection Base Future Change ............+r......++...:....+....u.+.+..++.:................ s, Del/ V/ Del/ V/ in Intersection #1 Hall Blvd/Pfaffle St LOS Veh C LOS Veh C .a.++s+..+.++.+.e++e... r...+++en...++.....a+.. a a+..+.er++a.e+u..:.« # I Hall Blvd/Pfaffle St E xxxxx 0.000 E xxxxx 0.000 + 0.000 V/C Level Of Of S Service ce: E . l « . # 2 Site Driveway)Pfaffle SC A xxxxx 0.000 A xxxxx 0.000 + 0.000 V/C Approach + North Bound, South Bound° East•Bound West«Bound Movement: L T R L T R L T R L T R 0 3 78th St/Pfaffle St A 4.9 0,546 A 4.9 0.546 + 0.000 V/C {---I{--------------- Control: Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Sign Stop Sign Rights: Include Include Include Include ------------------------------------------------------------------------------9-e lanes: 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 I{ Arterial Base Future Chan i Trvl Avg. Trvl Avg. in Avg. Volume Module: , Dir LOS Time Speed LOS Time Speed Speed Base Vol: 0 505 80 210 480 0 0 0 0 '.20 0 175 Growth Adj: 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 Initial Bse: 0 520 82 216 494 0 0 0 0 21. 0 le0 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 i 'i Initial Fut: 0 520 82 216 494 0 0 0 0 21 0 180 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.03 0.63 0.83 0.83 0.83 PHF Volume: 0 624 99 260 594 0 0 0 0 25 0 216 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 n 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Final Vol.: 0 624 99 260 594 0 0 0 0 25 0 216 Adjusted Volume Module: Grade: Oi 04 oil 0: t Cycle/Cars: 0.00 0.92 0.00 0.92 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 1 l Truck/Comb: 0.06 0.02 0.06 0.02 )Zrxx xxxx xxxx xxxx PCE Adj: xxxx 1.00 1.00 xxxx 1.00 1.00 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 Cycl/Car PCE: 0.50 1.00 0.50 1.00 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx Trck/Cmb PCE: 1.50 2.00 1.50 2.00 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx Adj Vol.: 0 624 99 273 594 0 0 0 0 27 v 238 Critical Gap Module: » Population: 0 « » Run Speed(N/S): 30 MPH RT Rad/Ang: 20.0 ft/90.0 deg 20.0 ft/90.0 deg 20.0 ft/90.0 deg 20.0 ft/90.0 deg k Critical Gp: 5.0 xxxx xxxxx 5.0 xxxx xxxxx 6.5 6.0 5.5 6.0 6.0 6.0 {_______________i~--------------- : Capacity Module: i, Cn£lict Vol: 594 xxxx xxxxx 723 xxxx xxxxx 1793 1577 594 1527 1527 674 i, Potent Cap.: 635 xxxx xxxxx 546 xxxx xxxxx 82 125 555 135 135 4:7 3 Used Cap.: 0.0 xxxx xxxxx 49.9 xxxx xxxxx 0.0 0.0 0.0 20.2 0.0 55.3 ! - Impedance: 1.00 xxxx xxxxx 0.58 xxxx xxxxx xxxx. 1.00 1.00 xxxx 1.00 0.53 Actual Cap.: 635 xxxx xxxxx 546 xxxx xxxxx 25 72 555 78 78 431 :i_______________~~_________-__________-______. 1 Level Of Service Module: Unused Cap.: 635 xxxx xxxxx 273 xxxx xxxxx 25 72 555 51 78 193 LOS by Move: C E D Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT.. Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Unused Cap.: xxxx xxx;c xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx >cxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Shared LOS: • ° ° • ° ` ' ` ' Traffix System Version 6.6 (c) 1992 DA Licensed to Kittelson k Associ Traffix System Version 6.6 (c) 1992 DA Licensed to Kittelson & Assoc J Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 1.: : I, E i 1492BKPM.CMD Tue Jan 17, 1995 13;58:14 page 5-1 1492BKPM.CMD Tue Jan 17, 1995 13:56:14 Page 6-1 - 5 KITPELSON & ASSOCIATES, INC. - PROJECT 1492 KITPELSON & ASSOCIATES. INC. PROJECT 1492 PFAFFLE STREET APARTMENTS PPAFFLE STREET APARTMENTS 1996 BACKGROUND PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES 1996 BACKGROUND PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES Level Of Service Computation Report - Level Of Service Computation Report 1985 HCM Unsignalized Method 4-Way Stop Method Future Volume Alternative Future Volume Alternative ...•tat......... •t•..+....••ar.11a.l...f♦•a•...++r+af Y••+. +'t Rt.+tr...••rrit.. .....rr.ttr..t.r1...IIa.+t.ateiareat..+IIIIba.r.+..t Intersection #2 SiteDriveway/Pfaffle St Intersection #3 78th St/Pfaffle St :arr.tat••..•e••t•.....•..at.r••.c.+tr•.:ate..sF..:.r...+.as..rca•rwa.r•x.....•a t. r..:...tt•............e rcast.+...... ..............*...r.................. Level Of Service: A Cycle (sec): i Critical Vol./Cap. SX): 0.546 +a..+...•..,..•c...+++a•.+o,......,...ea....... ••+.+•....•...•t.a•.+•.,a..e•.•... Loss Time (sec): 0 Average Delay {sec(veh): 4.9 Approach: North Bound. South Bound East Bound West Bound Optimal Cycle: 0 Level Of Service: A Movement: L- T- R L- T- R L- T- R L- T- A .+a.+r.••r•.a...IIC.u:rs..u t.•....s.....•.....a 11 II - I I --------------LI Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Control: Stop sign Stop Sign Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Movement: L - T - R L - T - R - T - R L - T - k L I Rights: Include Include Include include - l 14 ~ ~I 1f E Lanes: 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1. 0 0 Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign I -`-------_----11------------------------------`--------------~ Rights: Include Include Include Include Volume Module: Lanes: 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 1) 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0 Base Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 290 0 0 195 0 I ----11--------------- il--------------- II--------------- I Growth Adj: 1.03 1:03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 Volume Module: Initial 8se: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 299 0 0 201 0 Base Vol: 100 45 30 5 40 20 25 15 225 70 115 25 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Growth Adj: 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 Initial but: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 299 0 0 201 0 initial Bse: 103 46 31 5 43 21 26 15 232 72 118 26 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00. 1.00 1.00 1100 1.00 1.00 1.00 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 U 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PHF Adj: 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Initial Put: 103 46 31 41 21 26 15 232 72 118 26 PHF Volume: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 318 0 0 214 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 i.00 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PHF Adj: 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Final Vol.: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 318 0 0 214 0 PHF Volume: 110 49 33 5 44 22 27 16 247 77 126 27 Adjusted Volume Module; Reduct Vol: 0 0 U 0 0 0 0 G 0 0 0 0 Grade: 0# 0# 0# of Reduced Vol: 110 49 33 5 44 22 27 16 247 77 126 27 2 Cycle/Cars: xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 i.00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 Truck/Comb: xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1100 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PCE Adj.: 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.00 1.00 1.10 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 110 49 33 5 44 22 27 16 247 77 126 27 Cycl/Car'PCEc xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx ------------I---------------11---------------H - -----)I-------------- ) Trck/Cmb PCE:. xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx Saturation Flow Module: - Adj Vol- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 318 0 0 214 0 Sat/Lane: 372 372 372 223 223 223 531 531 531 -126 726 726 Critical Gap Module: » Population: 0 - » Run Speed(E/W): 30 MPH - Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 2.00 i.o0 1.00 1.00 i.Go 1.00 1.00 1.00 RT Rad/Any: 20.0 ft/90.0 deg 20.0 ft/90.0 deg 20.0 ft/90.0 deg 20.0 ft/90.0 deg Lanes: 1.00 0.60 0.40 0.07 0.62 0.31 0.09 0.06 0.85 0.33 0.55 G i2 Critical Gp: 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.5 6.0 5.5 5.0 xxxx xxxxx 5.0 xxxx xxxxx Final Sat.: 372 222 150 16 138 69 49 29 452 243 396 e5 11 Capacity Module: Capacity Analysis Module: a Cnflict Vol: 532 532 318 532 532 214 214 xxxx xxxxx 318 xxxx xxxxx Vol/Sat: 0.30 0.22 0.22 0.32 0.32 6.32 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.32 0 32 u. Potent Cap.: 524 .524 689 468 524 .876 969 xxxx. xxxxx 874 xxxx xxxxx Crit Moves: ++r+ • ea 1 # Used Cap..:. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 D.0 xxxx xxxxx 0.0 xxxx xxxxx (--------------ii'------------- ii----------- impedance: xxxx 1.00 1.00 xxxx 1.00 1.00 1.00 xxxx xxxxx 1.00 xxxx xxxxx Level Of Service Module: Actual Cap.: 524 .524 689 468 524 876 969 xxxx xxxxx 874 xxxx xxxxx Delay/'Jeh: 3.1 2.3 2.3 3.4 3.4 3.4 8.0 8.D 8.D 3 3 3-; ' i--------------- 11 _ _ --I Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1100 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.U*.• I.uO ! Level Of Service Module: AdjDel/Veh: 3.1 2.3 2.3 3.4 3.4 3.4 6.0 8.0 8,0 3.3 Unused Cap.: 524 524 689 468 524 876 969 xxxx xxxxx 874 xxxx xxxxx Queue: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx. xxY.xl[ xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xx- zxx;x LOS by Move: . • . . . . . + + . . • ................t....................................•...........+............. Movement: LT - LTR.- RT LT LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx. xxxx xxxx xxxxx Unused Cap.: xxxx 0 xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx. Shared LOS: + • • + • • + j Traffix System Version 6.6 (c) 1992 DA. Licensed to Kittelson Associ Traffix System Version 6.6 (c) 1992 DA Licensed to Kittelson 8 Ass.,:/ Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 3 1 j i i ' 1492WSAM.CMD Thu Jan 12,. 1995 15:34:38. Page 1-1 1492WSAM.CMD Thu Jan 12, 1995 15:34:38 Page 2-1 j r. KITTELSON S ASSOCIATES, INC. PROJECT .1492 KITTELSON 6 ASSOCIATES, INC. PROJECT 1492 PFAFFLE STREET APARTMENTS PFAFFLE STREET APARTMENTS 1996 AM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES WITH SITE 1996 AM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES WITH SITE 4 Trip Generation Report Trip Distribution Report Forecast for Percent Of Trips i Zone Rate Rate Trips Trips Total t Of To Gates - q Subzone Amount Unite in Out In Out Trips Total 1 2 3 4 Zone 1 25.0 25.0 35.0 15.0.. 1 Pfaffle Apar 70.00 New trips 0.17 0.83 12 58 70 300.0 Zone 1 Subtotal 12 58 70 100.0 1 I TOTAL 12 58 7D 100.0 I ( I f J I I Traffix System Version 6.6 (c) 1992 DA Licensed to Kittelson & Associ Traffix System Version 6.6 (c) 1992 DA Licensed to Kittelson L Assuci I Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Pdge 1 i i 't 3 1492WSAM..CMD Thu Jan 12,. 1995 15:34:38 Page 3-1 1492WSAM. CMD Thu Jan 12,_1995 15-34:39 Page 4-1 KITTELSON & ASSOCIATES, INC. - PROJECT 1492 KITTFLSON & ASSOCIATES, INC. PROJECT 1492 PFAPFLE STREET APARTMENTS PFAFFLE STREET APARTMENTS i' 1996 AM PEAK HOUR. VOLUMES WITH SITE 1996 AM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES WITH SITE - i. Turning Movement Report Link Volume Report Volume Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Total Volume WE Link SE Link EB Link WB Link Total Type Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Volume Type in Out Total In Out Total in Out Total In Out Total Volume • 61 Hall Blvd/Pfaffle St #1 Hall Blvd/Pfaffle St Base 0 299 15 98 427 0 0 0 0 21 0 139 999 Base 314 448 762 $25 438 963 0 0 0 160 113 273 1998 Added 0 0 2 .4 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 20 35 Added 2 9 11 4 20 25 0 0 0 29 6 35 70 Total 0 299 17 102 427 0 0 0 -0 29 0 159 1034 Total 316 457 773 530 458 988 0 0 0 189 119 308 2068 #2 Site Driveway/Pfaffle St #2 Site Driveway/Pfaffle St j Base 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 113 0 0 149 0 263 Base 0 0 0 0 0 0 113 149 263 149 113 263 515 I Added 29 0 29 0 0 0 0 0 6 6 0 0 70 Added 58 12 70 0 0 0 6 29 35 6 29 35 140 Total 29 0 29 0 0 0 0 113 6 6 149 0 333 Total 58 12 70 0 0 0 119 178 298 155 142 298 665 3 #3 78th St/Pfaffle St #3 78th St/Pfaffle St 1 Base 31 5 5 5 52 10 10 5 .155 21 108 5 412 Base 41 227 268 67 21 88 170 149 319 134 15 149 824: y Added 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 29 0 3 0 35 Added 3 29 32 0 0 0 29 6 35 3 0 3 70 Total 34 5 5 5 52 10 10 5 104 21 111 5 447 Total 44 256 300 67 21 88 199 155 354 137 15 152 694 #6 #6 l( Base 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Base 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Added 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 0 0 0 0 0 15 Added 0 0 0 0 15 15 15 0 15 0 0 0 29 Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 0 0 0 0 0 15 Total 0 0 0 0 15 15 15 0 15 0 0 0 29 i 1? i ' 7 Ik e I E` I I ~ I I I I' i 1 I` Traffix System Version 6.6 (c) 1992 DA Licensed to Kittelson & Associ Traffix System Version 6.6 (c) 1992 DA Licensed to Kittelson 6 Associ 1 1 i Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 2 C: ( 1492WSAM.CMD Thu Jan 12, 1995 15:34:39 page 5-1 1492WSAM.CMD Thu Jan 7.2, 1995 15:34:39 _Page F-- c----__-__---______________ KITTELSON & ASSOCIATES, INC. - PROJECT 1492 KITTELSON & ASSOCIATES, INC. PROJECT 1492 PFAFFLE STREET APARTMENTS PFAFFLE STREET APARTMENTS 1996 AM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES WITH SITE 1996 AM. PEAK HOUR VOLUMES WITH SITE Impact Analysis Report Level Of Service Computation Report Level Of Service 1985 HCM Unsignalized Method Future Volume Alternative j Intersection Base Future Change Del/ V/ Del/ V( in Intersection #i Hall Hlvd(Yfaff le St,, LOS Veh C LOS Veh C +•.+•r<.............. .....•u....e..4 ....r..+.. .•.•......•<....<+< # 1 Hail Blvd/Pfaffle St C xxxxx 0.000 C xxxxx 0.000 + 0,000 V/C Level Of Service: C i •e.+..•.. ••+....r••....: u.u .•u+.•••rrr.•••r............... i # 2 Site Driveway/Pfaffle St A xxxxx O.n00 A xxxxx 0.000 + 0.000 V/C Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L T R L T R, L T R L T R # 3 78th St/Pfaffle St A 2.8 0.444 A 3.1 0.464 + 0.020 V/C I II'-------------- II I i---------_-_.. Control: Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Sign Stop Sign Rights: Include Include Include Include Lanes: 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 Arkeridl ----II---------------11---------------Ii--------- - I Base Future Change - I ! _ Trvl Avg. Trvl Avg. in Avg. Volume Module: - Dir LOS Time Speed LOS Time Speed Speed Base Vol: 0 290 15 95 415 0 0 0 0 20 0 135 Growth Adj: 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 - Initial Bse: 0 299 15 98 427 0 0 0 0 21 0 139 t Added Vol: 0 0 2 4 O 0 0 tl 0 9 0 20 Initial Put: 0 299 17 102 427 0 0 0 0 29 0 159 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 f PHF Adj: 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 PHF Volume: 0 359 21 123 513 0 0 0 0 35 0 191 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Final Vol.: 0 359 21 123 513 0 0 0 0 35 0 191 Adjucted Volume Module: Grade: Ot Ot Ot 06 V Cycle/Cars: 0.00 0.92 0.00 0.92 xxxx xxxx xxxx XXxx t Truck/Comb: 0.06 0.02 0.06 0.02 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx, 1 PCE Adj: xxxx 1.00 1.00 xxxx 1.00 1.00 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 Cycl/Car PCE: 0.50 1.00 0.50 1.00 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx Trck/Cmb PCE: 1.50 2.00 1.50 2.00 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 'r, j Adj Vol.: 0 359 21 129 513 0 0 0 0 39 0 210 1 I Critical Gap Nodule: » Population: 0 << > > Run Speed(N/S): 30 MPH c < RT Rad/Ang: 20.0 ft/90.0 deg 20.0 ft/90.0 deg 20.0 ft/90.0 deg 20.0 ft/90.0 deg Critical Gp: 5.0 xxxx xxxxx 5.0 xxxx xxxxx 6.5 6.0 5.5 6.0 6.0 6.0 I_______________II--------------- 11--------------- 1i-___-_________-I j Capacity Module: - Cnflict Vol: 513 xxxx xxxxx 379 xxxx xxxxx 1206 1015 513 1005 1005 369 Potent Cap.: 694 xxxx xxxxx 819 xxxx xxxxx 168 266 618 269 269 645 'i t Used Cap.: 0.0 xxxx xxxxx 15.7 xxxx xxxxx 0.0 0.0 0.0 14.4 0.0 32.6 Impedance: 1.00 xxxx xxxxx 0.90 xxxx xxxxx xxxx 1.00 1.00 xxxx 1.00 0.75 1 Actual Cap.: 694 xxxx xxxxx 819 xxxx xxxxx 114 239 618 242 242 645 r. I I--------------- il--------------- 11_-_____________lI-_------_.-____I Level Of Service Module: j"Unused Cap.: 694 xxxx xxxxx 690 xxxx xrzxx 114 239 618 203 242 434 LOS by Move: _ • A • ` ` ` C ° A i Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT IT - LTR - RT Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx: xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Unused Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx. xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx i Shared LOS: • ' • * ` ' ' : ' ` Traffix System Version 6.6 (c) 1992 DA Licensed to Kittelson & Associ Traffix System Version 6.6 (c) 1992 DA Licensed to Kittelson L Associ I, Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page i I' l 1- 7 7 7 L F. r i 1492WSAM.CMD Thu Jan. 12, 1995 15:34:39 Page 7-1 1492WSAM.CMD Thu San 12, 1995 15:39:39 Page 8 1 1 f. KITTELSON & ASSOCIATES, INC. - PROJECT 1492 KITTELSON & ASSOCIATES, INC. - PROJECT 1492 1 1 PFAFFLE STREET APARTMENTS PFAFFLE STREET APARTMENTS f' 1996 AM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES WITH. SITE 1996 AM PSAK HOUR VOLUMES WITH SITE Level Of Service Computation Report Level Of Service Computation Report j 1985 HCM Unsigna)ized Method 4-Way Stop Method - Future Volume Alternative Future Volume Alternative i. ..f.... f..f!•...lr..tf.♦...-....f.t.af..f......•.f.f rf of m..•11f tf •....tr..r... t ....1.... tf.lt....tf irf•..t....f1f....t•ff............ tff+f.........•.t....•.•.. I.. 1 Intersection #2 Site Driveway/Pfaffle St Intersection #3 78th St/Pfaffle St + ~tf•r.if•.•t.f..f.tttlft•if...... ta•1f!•af..rf+fr>aftl •f..a4atd91ta•.. a a fit.rf•a flow aaa......... if tttritfittf.lf•ettaafattt.tt.......to tf a.ttttlaat.....••.. Level Of Service: A Cycle (sec): 1 Critical Vol./Cap. (X): 0.464 i . I. 'j tff f.f+tfa+.ef.f.u++.fs..ft..ff+.lffff.+ru:...f•+rar:f rf.f••.wfffi.+f rfa!! Loss Time (sec): 0 Average Delay (sec/veh): 3.1 Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Optimal Cycle: 0 Level Of Service: A r 1 Movement: L- T- R L- T- R L- T- R L- T R .1f ...f.f.... ....r..1st.t..tra.•rf..fl•f......1.... a.... f a•.....f•t I II 11 Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound ' j If 1 Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R I Rights; Include Include Include Include I-------------11---------------11---------------II---------------I Lanes: 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop sign I Rights: Include Include Include Include volume Module: Lanes: 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 it 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 i.. Base vd1: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 110 0. a 145 0 I--------------- II II--------------- II---------------I 1,.. Growth Adj: 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 Volume Module: i' Initial Bse: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 113 0 0 149 0 Ease Vol: 30 5 5 5 50 10 10 5 150 20 105 5 Added Val: 29 0 29 0 0 0 0 0 6 6 0 0 Growth Adj: 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 ` Initial Put: 29 0 29 0 0 0 0 113 6 6 149 0 Initial Bse: 31 5 5 5 52 10 10 5 155 21 108 5 I' User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 Added Vol: 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 29 0 3 0 i` PHF Adj: 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94. 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Initial Fut: 34 5 5 5 52 10 10 5 184 21 111 5 PHF Volume: 31 0 31 0 0 0 0 121 6 6 159 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Reduce Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PHF Adj: 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Final Vol.: 31 0 31 0 0 0 0 121 6 6 159 0 PHF Volume: 36 5 5 5 55 11 11 5 195 22 118 5 j Adjusted Volume Module: Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade: 0% 0% 0% 0% Reduced Vol: 36 5 5 5 55 11 11 5 195 22 116 5 - k Cycle/Cars: xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx PCE 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 fir.. V Truck/Comb: xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx MLF 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 j PCE Adj: 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.00 1.00 1.10 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 36 5 5 5 55 11 11 5 195 22 116 5 Cycl/Car PCE• xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx II II r I(I i Trck/CmbPCE: xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx x:;xx Saturation Flow Module: Adj Vol- 34 0 34 0 0 0 0 121 6 7 159 0 Sat/Lane: 326 326 326 153 153 153 659 659 659 823 823 623 _ Critical Gap Module: » Population: 0 - - Run Speed(E/W): 30 MPH - Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 i. RT Rad/Ang: 20.0 ft/90.0 deg 20.0 ft/90.0 deg 20.0 ft/90.0 deg 20.0 ft/90,0 deg Lanes: 1.00 0.50 0.50 0.07 0-78 0.15 0.05 0.02 0.93 0.15 0.82 0.03 i Critical Gp: 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.5 6.0 5.5 5.0 xxxx xxxxx 5.0 xxxx xxxxx Final Sat.: 326 163 163 11 119 24 34 16 605 125 670 28 I______________ i I 1 11 I II I I II I II Capacity Module: Capacity Analysis Module: Cnflict Vol: 289 289 124 323 292 159 159 xxxx xxxxx 127 xxxx xxxrx Vol/Sat: 0.11 0.03 0.03 0.46 0.46 0.46 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.18 0 18 0.18 j Potent Cap.: 715 715 871 614 712 931 996 xxxx xxxxx 1000 xxxx xxxxx Crit Moves: t Used Cap.: 4.8 0.0 3.9 C.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 xxxx xxxxx 0.7 xxxx xxxrx 1 - I, I-------- II + Impedance: xxxx 1.00 0.98 xxxx 1.00 1.00 1.00 xxxx xxxxx 1.00 xxxx xxxxx Level Of Service Module: t- Actual Cap.: 715 715 871 600 712 931 996 xxxx xxxxx 1000 xxxx xxxxx Delay/Veh: 1.5 1.1 1-1 5.8 5.8 5.8 3-4 3.4 3.4 2.0 2.0 I -------------11---------------II---------------II---------------I Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.oo 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.30 Level Of Service Module: AdjDel/Ve.h: 1.5 1.1 1.1 5.8 5.8 5.6 3..4 3-4 3.4 2.0 2.0 2.0 Unused Cap.: 681 715 837 600 712 931 996 xxxx xxxxx 993 xxxx xxxxx Queue: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxrx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx LOS by Move: . e . . . A . . .....f.t•............t ..............t•wt............•.......f Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT l•T - LTR - RT 1... Shared Cap.: xxxx 785 xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx ` I Unused. Cap.: xxxx 717 xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx.. xxxx xxxx xxxxx I. -I ) Shared. LOS: ' A • * • ' ' • ° " ° Traffix System Version 6.6 (c) 1992 DA Licensed to Kittelson & Associ Traffix System Version 6.6 (c) 1992 DA Licensed to Kittelson & Associ - I ( Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 4 I ~ h ( ~ f. i I 71 i f 14924SPM.IN Thu Jan 12, 1995 15:52:56 Page 1-1 1492WSPM.IN Thu Jan 12, 1995 15:52:56 Page 2-1 ___-______-_____________________c_______________-_______-____-..-__-_________-_-_ f; KITTELSON & ASSOCIATES, INC. - PROJECT 1492 KITTELSON & ASSOCIATES, INC. PROJECT 1492 I.- PPAFFLESTREET APARTMENTS PFAFFLE STREET APARTMENTS 1996 PM PEAK HOUR VOLUI4ES WITH SITE 1996 PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES WITH SITE i Trip Generation Report Trip Distribution Report Forecast for Percent Of Trips I. Zone Rate Rate Trips. "Trips Total % Of To Gates # Subtone Amount units In Out In OuZ Trips Total 1 2 3 4 j Zone 1 25.0 25.0 35.0 15.0 ~c 1 Pfaffle Apar 85.00 New trips 0.68 0.32 58 27 85 '_00.0 Zone 1 Subtotal 58 27 85 100.0 , it r TOTAL 58 27 85 100.0 I f I i I i f 1 J I 4 i j j i ! Traffix System Version 6.6 (c) 1992 DA Licensed to Kit*_elson & Associ Traffix System Version 6.6 (c) 1992 DA Licensed to Ki.tteisoci d As- -I i Kittelson & Associates, inc. Page t i I 1492WSPM.IN Thu Jan 12, 1995 15:52:56 Page 3-1 1492WSPM.IN Thu Jan 12, 1995 15:52:56 Page 41 - - - KITTELSON & ASSOCIATES, INC. - PROJECT 1492 KITTELSON & ASSOCIATES, INC. - PROJECT 1492 F. PFAFFLE STREET APARTMENTS PPAFFLE STREET APARTMENTS 1996 _ PM _ PEAK _ HOUR . VOLUMES _ WITH _ SITE 1996 PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES WITH SITE Turning movement Report Link Volume Report i' Volume Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Total Volume NB Link SB Link EH Link WE Link Total Type Loft Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Volume Type In Out Total In Out Total In Out Total In Out Total Volume,., #1 Hall Blvd/@faffle St #1 Hall Blvd/Pfaffle St Base 0 520 82 216 494 0 0 0 0 21 0 180 1514 Base 603 515 1118 711 700 1411 0 0 0 201 299 500 3026 i.. Added 0 0 9 20 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 9 43 Added 9 4 13 20 9 30 0 0 0 14 29 43 95 Total 0 520 91 237 494 0 0. 0 0 25 0 190 1557 Total 611 519 1130 731 710 1441 0 0 0 214 328 542 3113 #2 Site Driveway/Pfaffle St #2 Site Driveway/Pfaffle St Base 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 299 0 0 201 0 500 Base 0 0 0 0 0 0 299 201 500 201 299 Soo 999 Added 14 0 14 0 0 0 0 0 29 29 0 0 85 Added 27 se 85 0 0 0 29 14 43 29 14 43 170 Total 14 0 14 0 0 0 0 299 29 29 201 0 585 Total 27 56 as 0 0 0 328 214 542 230 312 542 1169 #3 78th St/Pfaffle St - 43 78th St/Pfaffle St ` Base 103 46 31 5 41 21 26 15 232 72 119 26 736 Base 180 345 525 67 98 165 273 242 515 216 52 268 1.473 Added 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 0 15 0 43 Added 15 14 28 0 0 0 14 29 43 15 0 15 85 Total 118 46 31 5 41 21 26 15 245 72 133 26 779 Total 195 359 553 67 98 165 286 271 558 231 52 282 1556 #6 #6 Base 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Base 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Added 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 7 Added 0 0 0 0 7 7 7 0 7 0 0 0 14 Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 7 Total 0 0 0 0 7 7 0 7 0 0 0 14 i I , G I ' F I c Traffix System Version 6.6 (c) 1992 DA Licensed to Kittelson & Associ Traffix System Version 6.6 (c) 1992 DA Licensed to Ki [telson & Associ i. I ~ L Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 2 i E I 4 F I ' I, i ' 1492WSPM.IN Thu.Jan 12, 1995 15:52:56 Page 5-1 1492WSPM.IN Thu Jan 12, 1995 15:522.56 Page 6-1 f It KITTELSON & ASSOCIATES, INC.. - PROJECT 1492 KITTELSON & ASSOCIATES, INC. - PROJECT 1492 PFAFFLE STREET APARTMENTS PFAFFLE STREET APARTMENTS r --1996 PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES WITH SITE 1996 PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES WITH SITE - Impact Analysis Report Level Of Service Computation Report Level Of Service 1985 HCM Unsignalized Method '1 :a : +a a:r• Future Volume Alternative i Intersection Base Future Change +reu u u + s e u.+.e+..+.+.+. u+aau+s.+.r.+ur: Del/ V/ Del/ V/ in Intersection #1 Hall Blvd/Pfaffle St LOS Veh C LOS Veh C a•e*+++a+sa+seau++arae++era+++++e,++•e+•++•+u++++eaes•+•re•+++e++a•aru •t:•.++ i'' 1. Hall Blvd/Pfaffle St 8 xxxxx 0.000 E xxxxx 0.000 + 0.000 V/C Level Of Service: E { E, •seer+++ae++:•aaeasa+r•a•a+r+r+er+eea+ra•+aa+++.++++++++• a..... +......a+a•+•... 1 # 2 Site Driveway/Pfaffle St A xxxxx 0.000 A xxxxx 0.000 + 0.000 v/C Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - P. 1 # 3 78th St/Pfaffle St A 4.9 0.546 B 5.5 0.582 + 0.036 V/C I--------------- II II I1------------- Control; Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Sign Stop Sign ! Rights: Include Include Include Include Lanes: 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0. 1 Arterial Base Future Change I--------------- II II II ---------------i Trvl Avg. Trvl Avg. in Avg. Volume Module: f Dir LOS Time Speed LOS Time Speed Speed Base Vol: 0 505 80 210 480 0 0 0 0 20 0 175 Growth Adj: 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1,03 1.03 Initial Bse: 0 520 82 216 494 0 0 0 0 21 0 180 { Added Vol: 0 0 9 20 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 9 J Initial Fut: 0 520 91 237 494 0 0 0 0 25 0 190 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.03 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 PHF Volume: 0 624 109 284 594 0 0 0 0 30 0 228 1 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Final Vol.: 0 624 109 284 594 0 0 0 0 30 0 228 Adjusted Volume Module:. Grade: ok of Ot 0t. t Cycle/Cars: 0.00 0.92 0.00 0.92 xxxxxxxx xxxx xxxx t Truck/Comb: 0.06 0.02 0.06 0.02 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx PCE Adj: xxxx 1.00 1.00 xxxx 1.00 1.00 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 'I Cycl/Car PCE: 0.50 1.00 0.50 1.00 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx { Trck/Cmb PCE: 1.50 2.00 1.50 2.00 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 1'.. Adj Vol.: 0 624 109 298 594 0 0 0 0 33 0 251 l.. Critical Gap Module: » Population: 0 « » Run Speed(N/S): 30 MPH « RT Rad/Any: 20.0 ft/90.0 deg 20.0 ft/90.0 deg 20.0 ft/90.0 deg 20.0 ft/90.0 deg.; Critical Gp: 5.0 xxxx xxxxx 5.0 xxxx rxxxx 6.5 6.0 5.5 6.0 6.0 6.0 1--------------- 11--------------- 11--------------- 11--------------- Capacity Module: Cnflict Vol: 594 xxxx xxxxx 734 xxxx xxxxx 1839 1611 594 1557 1557 679 ] - Potent Cap.: 635 xxxx xxxxx 540 xxxx xxxxx 82 118 555 129 129 426 t Used Cap.: 0.0 xxxx xxxxx 55.3 xxxx xxxxx 0.0 0.0 0.0 25.3 0.0 58.6 Impedance: 1.00 xxxx xxxxx 0.53 xxxx xxxxx xxxx 1-00 1.00 xxrx 1.00 0.49 Actual Cap.: 635 xxxx xxxxx 540 xxxx xxxxx 21 62 555 68 68 428 1_______________11_ I, I, Level Of Service Module: Unused Cap.: 635 xxxx xxxxx 241 xxxx xxxxx 21 62 555 36 tia 177 LOS by Move: • • • C • • • • C U r Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LTk - wi i Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Unused Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxr, xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxrx xxxx xxxx xxx.a Shared LOS: • ' ' ' ' i Traffix System Version 6.6 (c) 1992 DA Licensed to Kittelson & Associ Traffix System Version 6.6 (c) 1992 DA Licensed to KittelSen L Aa x,, ~ - i f i Page 3 Kittelson & Associates, Inc. i. i ( I 1492WSPM.IN Thu Jan 12, 1995 155255 Page 7-1 1492WSPM.IN Thu Jan 12, 1995 155256 Page 8-1 - ' - . KITTELSON k ASSOCIATES, INC. - PROJECT 1492 KITTELSON & ASSOCIATES, INC. - PROJECT 1492 PFAFFLE STREET APARTMENTS PFAFFLE STREET APARTMENTS 1996 PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES WITH SITE - 1996 PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES WITH SITE Level Of Service Computation Report Level Of Service Computation Report 1985 HCM Unsignalized Method 4-Way Stop Method Future Volume Alternative Future Volume Alternative aea aaa ••axa.»s»+•*.rx•+•.••*s.*a•axxa•x•••aa+•+••s . *x • sx•.saa•e••s••••a•. ea +•aaxa••••a••s.s.s.s•sss Iatersection•2*Site Driveway/Pfaff le S[ _ Intersection •g3x78thxSt/PfafflexSt t.»•Y...Y.dltltr}1ttf .t•OfY Y•dRfbltrltr..... ffx -.Y•*t.Y.t+.Yf ~dd.t~lf *xx.t•xftf•.*.... f...*f trfx..f..f*tYf•.•*.e*ftr•.f... f*a*.x.......... Level Of Service: A Cycle (sec): 1 Critical Vol./Cap. (X); 0.592 .dd*+a *•a»..***+a•a•Yx*.d.xx.:.a..+......... x+... f.........•* Loss Time (sec): 0 Average Delay (sec/veh): 5.5 Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound west E'ound optimal Cycle: 0 Level Of Service: B Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T R tr1Rf.i...... l.4fRt.fYlf tfff•ff.fttrf..Y Yf Y4ttxt..t.tr..xf d9f.»ltd a•.... 1ftt...... 1_______________II__-____--_-____l1--------------- 11-_.___--_______I Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R i Rights: Include Include Include Include ------------I---------------11---------------11---------------II---------------1 Lanes: 0 0 it 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign i --------'___I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------F Rights: Include Include Include Include Volume Module: Lanes: 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 .i Base Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 290 0 0 195 0 I 11-------------- II---------------- 11______-__-_--__I - Growth Adj: 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 Volume Module: Initial Bse: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 299 0 0 201 0 Base Vol: 100 45 30 5 40 20 25 15 225 70 115 25 Added Vol-. 14 0 14 0 0 0. 0 0 29 29 0 0 Growth Adj: 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 Initial Fut; 14 0 14 0 0 0 0 299 29 29 201 0 Initial Bse: 103 46 31 5 41 21 26 15 232 72 118 26 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Added Vol: 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 0 15 0 PHF Adj; 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Initial Put: 118 46 31 5 41 21 26 15 245 72 133 26 PHF Volume: 14 0 14 0 0 0 0 318 31 31 .214 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 ? Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PHF Adj: 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 I Final Vol.: 14 0 14 0 0 0 0 318 31 31 214 0 PHF Volume: 125 49 33 5 44 22 27 16 261 77 142 27 Adjusted Volume Module: Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade: Ot 0t Ot 0% Reduced Vol: 125 49 33 5 44 22 27 16 261 77 142 27 i Cycle/Cars: xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx PCE 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 ^ Truck/Comb: xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1100 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 )I PCE Adj: 1.10.1.10 1,10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.00 1.00 1.10 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 125 49 33 5 44 22 27 16 261 77 142 27 ! Cycl/Car PCE: xx. xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx I --------------II--------- - ----II---------------II- - - -----1 Trck/Cmb PCE: xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx Saturation Flow Module: Adj Vol.: 16 0 16 0 0 0 0 318 31 34 214 0 Sat/Lane: 375 375 375 212 212 212 522 522 522 716 716 716 Critical Gap Module: » Population: 0 « Run Speed(E/W): 30 MPH « Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 RT Rad/Ang:. 20.0 ft/90.0 deg 20.0 ft/90.0 deg 20.0 ft/90.0 deg 20.0 ft/90.0 deg Lanes: 1.00 0.60 0.40 0.07 0.62 0.31 0.09 0.05 0.86 0.31 0.88 0.31 , Critical Gp: 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.5 6.0 5.5 5.0 xxxx xxxxx 5.0 xxxx xxxx* Final Sat.: 375 224 151 15 131 66 46 27 448 224 413 79 1--------------- 11--------------- 11-______________II_________-___-_I I_______________II--------------- lI__________-____II-__-..____.._ Capacity Module: Capacity Analysis Module: Cnflict Vol: 578 578 334 608 594 214 214 xxxx xxxxx 349 xxxx xxxxx Vol/Sat: 0.33 0.22 0.22 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.58 0.58 0.58 0.34 0.34 0.34 Potent Cap- 490 490 675 419 479 876 969 xxxx xxxxx 646 xxxx xxxxx Crit Moves: s... i t Used Cap.: 3.2. 0.0 2.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 xxxx. xxxxx 4.0 xxxx xxxxx I_______________1I--------------- 11--------------- I i'------_____-__I { Impedance: xxxx 1.00 0.99 xxxx 1.00 1.00 1.00 xxxx xxxxx 0.98 xxxx xxxxx Level Of Service Module: Actual Cap.: 478 478 675 403 468 876 969 xxxx xxxxx 846 xxxx xxxxx Delay/Veh: 3.5 2.3 2.3 3.6 3.6 3.6 9.1 9.1 9.1 3.7 3.7 3.7 { 11---------------II---------------11- -----------I Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 t.00 1.00 1.00 Level Of Service Module: AdjDel/Veh: 3.5 2.3 2.3 3.6 3.6 3.6 9.1 9.1 9.1 3.7 3.7 3.7 t Unused Cap.: 463 478 659. 403 468 876 969 xxxx xxxxx 812 xxxx xxxxx Queue: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx t LOS by Move: . . . * . . f + . A . . *•+.a..•etrt...........•..+..........+ Movement: LT - LTR - IT LT- LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT Shared Cap xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Unused Cap:: xxxx S28 xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx i Shared LOS: • • • x x . x + • . * 1. Traffix System Version 5.6 (c). 1992 DA Licensed to Kittelson & Associ Traffix System Version 6.6 (c) 1992 DA Licensed to Kittelson k Assoc i f j . Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 4 `r s j I I f, ; k i t i- y i 1 I - ~ I .t ` { 4:• 1. r Appendix E - - j j - i - i Influences Area a p C 1 e. ` t . l i THE YOLLOW7' G s t 4 - 7 DOdUMENI-3 f _ i i 1 I i.) 1 --3 I i i .-.1 4 ~ 4 7Tx ~ _ 41 t 4L " rl? R Y S, r. I ISM f :•6 Tea"F~ t 7 t +::9. ~ p~+,k> Al;l " a i ~ d P ~ - e'er -t c rt' 1ti Ow Kk AIN, AV 0 1 j / +t f G' - "a 41 h 'r .s ry } !.l Ery SOON Y' I i;61iR• } r h 1f. ~ 9 t ~ } Sze~t 1~ . 1 ~}ft~'i} 1 I } ' ~r .~i~ r ~i ~.f ~y ~ i. ~ , ~ ~s~ , ,g„ ~ ~ ~ t J~ -yo ia4~~k~ f ~ fa tr t ,~/FS j tZ~ r' ~7J... .1 ~ .t~ r [ t s" Q11" i 1 •t F ''tFr SFr t16 !!if' }t tl R1 1... 'fit sea P i t tha+~.}t P 1t } tii ' t{~i'~~ iril _ it x+z'~„~ -f< - • ~TiyEz' ' ' 06 t4 f Wat ~ r - } AGENDA ITEM i For Agenda of 1`~ ~~a 1 l~ CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON :j COUNCIL AGENDA ITE14 SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Public Hearing Consideration of Development Cade en ment to Allow Single Family Attached Townhouses fZOA 95-00011 l PREPARED BY: Dick B. DEPT HEAD OK CITY ADMIN OK f i. ISSUE BEFORE THE cOuNCIE, Should the City Council Amend the Community Development Code to allow single a family attached, common wall town horses on fee simple ownership lots? r-- a STAFF RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council approve the proposed amendments by i adopting the attached ordinance. r INFORMATION SUMMARY The Bowen Company represented by Michael Robinson has proposed amendments to the Community Development Code that would allow attached single family townhouses on "fee" ownership lots. Presently, the code allows only two single family attached units and precludes townhouse development. Staff believes this is a major weakness in the City's development code. Addition ` of townhouses on "fee" simple lots adds flexibility to the code and addresses a need in the housing market. It will also assist the city in meeting f housing density requirements imposed by the Metropolitan Housing Rule and the needs relating to the 2040 plan, This will bridge a gap between apartment dwellings and standard lot by lot single family units. ,j The proposed amendments do not come without protection for existing development. Development of more than two attached units would require a proposed development to be processed as a Planned Development, This requires a special hearing and notification of neighbors of the proposed development i project. The Planning commission voted to recommend approval of the amendments after its public hearing on April 17. One person testified about his concern regarding opportunity for townhouses to be built in the R-4.5 k Zone. Attached single family units are allowed as a conditional use in the R-4.5 Zone and outright in R-7 Zone (5 units max.), the R-12 Zone, the R-25 , Zone and the R-40 Zone. As proposed, townhouse development must follow the 1 density of the underlying zone. In the case of the R-4.5 Zone this would ! mean the same one dwelling unit per 7,500 square feet as the traditional single family unit development. Townhouses might be able to be built in the R-4.5 zone, but with the density requirements the units would have to be clustered with considerably more common open space than with traditional single family development. Attached is an ordinance, Exhibit A indicating amended code provisions, the Planning Commission staff report and the applicant's submittal. f 3 € OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED None FISCAL NOTES Not Applicable =z i- •1 Y E i S i i g. I i i i i i 1 ~'I1 dam-- t fro r MEMORANDUM `J CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON ~ i TO: Planning Commission FROM: William D'Andrea, Assistant Planner F.: DATE: April 4, 1995 SUBJECT: Zone Ordinance Amendment ZOA 95-0001 h ' SUMMARY ` The Bowen Development Company, represented by Michael C. Robinson, has proposed to amend the following Tigard Community Development { Code (°`TCDC") Sections in order to permit attached, common wall, town homes on "fee" ownership lots and to have this type of attached housing treated as single family dwellings: r 1. TCDC 18.26.030(B)(4), amend definition of single-family attached dwelling; 2. TCDC 18.26. 030 (B) (5), amend definition of multiple-family i. dwelling; 3. TCDC 18.26.030(C)(3), delete definition of townhouse; 4. TCDC 18.26.030, amend compatibility matrix to allow more than two attached single-family dwellings in a planned development district next to single-family detached dwellings; 5. TCDC 18.80. 080 (A) (4) (c) (i) , reduce the front yard setback for garage openings adjacent to a private street; and 6. TCDC 18.80.120 (3) (j) , permit up to fifty (50) percent of required off-street parking spaces in a planned development district to be provided in common parking lots as long as at least one off-street parking space is provided on each single-family lot. PROPOSED AMENDMENTS The following are the proposed text amendments as taken from the applicant's statement related to allowing townhouses on "fee" f ownership lots. The new language proposed is "highlighted" and the deleted language is "lined out". The applicants reason for the change is stated below each proposed amendment. i r° (F 1. TCDC 18.26.030(8)(4), Definition of Single-Family Attached Dwelling. ge-Family Attached 'v': Two pax 3t F dwelling units "Sinl attached side by side on Q 0.Ot 0 } separate lots e- ! . ~l=p~-et with some"structr~ral"parts zn common at a common ' property line**„ IEE 3 Reason for Change: r' `j a. Makes clear that single-family attached dwellings include I ' common-wall structures on two or more contiguous lots. Effect of amendment is to permit townhoues on fee-ownership lots. 1 2. TCDC 18.26.030(B)(5), Definition of Multiple-Family Dwelling: ++Aultiple-Family Dwelling. A structure containing at least three dwelling units and any vertical or horizontal t arrangement, located on a single lot or developments te, ...:r. ackz h typess two cap r . sss'3 x famply:at h -i ,j Reason for Change: c: a. Makes clear that townhoues on fee-ownership lots are excluded from the definition of multiple-family ;j dwelling. 3. TCDC 18.26.030(8)(4) and (5): i More illustration under definition of "single-family f attached dwelling" to definition of "multiple-family dwelling" and move illustration under "multiple-family dwelling" to definition of "single-family attached dwelling.,, i Reason for Change: { a. Illustrations are reversed. r 4. TCDC 18.26.030(0)(3), Definition of "Townhouse": ~3 £s settle gee a-than -Liao-al aleaehed with Reason for Change: a. Not necessary to have "townhouse" in the TCDC because 9 the type of dwelling unit is allowed under the definition of "single-family attached dwelling unit." This amendment was suggested by the staff. F 1 5. TCDC 18.26.030, Compatibility Matrix. Change "single-family I attached" to: -i "No-over { i i _ f EYSTTDIO USE 3. IyWrAcmw S.T. sffisatxrW h'9Z&$ :ilaliz PR f)frt•L J.r. AYrP.CWM ML`LSZ-Pa)4BLY Y. Ue" Est ufle) , YES-2 UNITS NO S.F. Detached YES YES maatrtfasu YES tea-~c= z. fo S. F. Detached t20-3 tat LOW YES YES t )Efs,m YES YES NO Mobile Hama Park CMITICUL CMITIMA YES YES YES YES Duplex YES YES YES YES YES YES { S.F. Attached YES YES YES YES YES YES 3 faA-®aur d) S' a YES YE3 YES YES YES Yf s { Multi-family Reason for Change: a. Makes clear that single-family attached dwellings, including townhomes on contiguous lots in planned development districts, are compatible with single- family detached homes because of the characteristics of the planned development district. ! 6. TCDC 18.80.080(A) (4) (c) (i), Garage Opening Setback Requirement in the PD District: i A. minimum frontyard setback of -::-G. 9. feet is required for any garage pp. Rgl facing a privaia street as Ictzzg a..s„recred sff street parking spaces xx rya sr... _ Reason for Change: G d a. Each dwelling will have at least one marking space and, `j possible, two garage parking spaces. A 20-foot setback behind the garage opening is unnecessary. An 8-foot setback is the minimum required to permit a car to back out of a garage. An 8-foot setback discourages driveway parking. b. ?Manned developments should be encourzged to handle off- street parking more efficiently. C. Reduces amount of impervious surfaces. d. Other requirements still exist for minimum right-of-way width and obstruction-free roads within planned development. F f 7. TCDC 18.80.120 (3) (j) , Parking Requirement in the PD District: p fit .eat Ua~kSRkC SY}c°Ef;'•~=s dYT2^ ~,il~`b+. c{fLFT~.a~~.. Z~~3'.E'Yg~u LF14'~ DGT7Fr3~I~:CTeE~' ~32'Si ~ OTE~ Qom'-`ftESt£; ~fFLY'yT31"Y i f r ~fFsli@1dilnt>rJEryl>f~$?TTe^` 2c~ C31St~ c'...z c~C~"I 3. tf~~.(.~i,,- foam .n. J f 0 i.t.`®k1t a~ YfS Elbe 47. ~ 4" S f+Z Ear Reason for Change: k a. Encourages affordability of housing by allowing "clustered" parking spaces and reduces development k. costs. F ANALYSIS The City would benefit from the proposed text amendments in that: 1) a F new definition of single-family attached would allow for greater flexibility and diversity of housing types, while not increasing density beyond that allowed by the underlying zoning district; 2) create the potential for reduced costs in development which may result in more affordable housing development; 3) allows greater homeownership; 4) staff E,< is proposing the 15 foot frontage requirement (the same allowed under the 'Minor Land partition process) since many townhouse designs have less than i the standard 25 foot frontage required under the subdivision process; and j 5) the proposed 1,480 minimum lot size requirement in the R-25 zone (Residential, 25 units per acre) would allow the same density as would a multi-family development in the R-25 zone. This would help maintain Tigard's compliance with the Metropolitan Housing Rule by encouraging single-family homeownership at multi-family densities in a planned development that is single-family in character. t' k RECOPAMEIGDATION' Staff recommends that the Planning Commission forward to the City Council a recommendation for approval of the proposed revisions related to changing the definitions of single family attached residential and allowing fee simple townhoues in Planned Development Districts. ' Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Zone Ordinance 4 - Amendment (ZC7A 95-0001) as submitted by the applicant including the applicant's findings, except as modified by the additions noted below: 6. TCDC 18.80 . OHO (A) (4) (c) , Front yard and rear yard setback ` requirements in the base zone setback shall not apply to t' structures on the interior of the project except that: c :a (i) A minimum front yard setback of 20 feet is required for any garage structure which opens facing a street. r (ii) A minimum frontyard setback of -24 8 feet is required -or any garage a t n r_ . h ".Ise s fcrr is aLcac5 e ang3 e £am~? t ciuae l facing a tt:k tra. 'b street' a„ o as 7-ac raal ~ d st -eet IIark7l ~ Cep d* (7V: Q Ct: 8. TCDC 13.164.060(B) Each lot shall abut upon a public or private street, other than an alley, for a width of at least 25 feet unless the lot is created through a minor land artzt~on in which case subsection 18 162 050 (C) applses o u~~s Lh~ lt~t xs for .attatkred s~l~ f~c~'t~~.y t~v~a,~.~~gg Fnti~t. 9. TCDC 18.26.030(B)(4), add illustration of new single family attached housing type. ( w A a w® a s . w ® w m w - l unit 1 e unit , unit' ~ unit l e e ~ 0 r j 1 10. TCAC 18.56.050 (A) (1) (b) For each attached single-family unit, G-7464 square feet ; 1 =i i j 7 i. i 1 i i r ,,l - _ _ ; r ~ s 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I I. SUMMARY OF APPLICATION 1 11. PROPOSAL 2 A. Need for the Amendments 2 B. Proposed Text Amendments 3 C. Procedure for Legislative Amendments to the TCDC 6 III. APPLICABLE CRITERIA 7 I A. Statewide Planning Goals 7 +j3 B. Applicable Tigard Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies 12 E C. TCDC 18.30.120, ' The Standards for the Decision'." 16 r D. OAR Chapter 660, Division 12, The Transportation Planning Rule 18 i IV. CONCLUSION .20 LIST OF E BITS 21 } 3 t j ,I S ~ FDR9-HSS7Rfl14~9 PSG~i I - I _ i f r. I. SUMMARY OF APPLICATION APPLICANT- Jim ]Ekberg, ~ Bowen Development Company t 3850 US Bancorp Tower ` 111 SW Fifth Avenue j Portland, OR 97204 _ Telephone: 274-8400 Fax: 274-4685 j APPLICANT'S Michael C. Robinson ' f R ENTAT VE: Stoel Rives Boley Jones & Grey 900 SW Fifth Avenue, Suite 2300 Portland, OR 97204-1268 j Telephone: 294-9194 Fax: 220-2480 APP1,I S PLANNING Bob Moreland CONSXMTANT: Julie Morales MCM Architects a 1022 SW Salmon, Suite 360 Portland, OR 97205 F a Telephone: 222-5757 r Fax: 241-1514 f PROPOSAL: To amend the following Tigard Community Development Code ("TCDC") Sections in order 4 to permit attached, cornmon wail town homes on ''fee" ownership lots to be treated as single-family dwellings: j k 1. TCDC 18.26.030(8)(4), amend definition of single-family attached dwelling; 2. TCDC 18.26.030(B)(5), amend definition of multiple-family dwelling; 3. TCDC 18.26.030(C)(3), delete definition of townhouse; - 4. TCDC 18.26.030, amend compatibility g matrix to allow more than two attached single-family dwellings in a planned development district next to single- family detached dwellings; P 1 PDM-16M7 1 V M9 1 j j; j t 5. TCDC 18.80.080(A)(c)(i), reduce the front yard set-back for garage openings adjacent to a pi°ivate street, and - 6. TCDC 18.80.120(3)(j), permit up to 50 a percent of required off-street parking spaces in a planned development district be provided in common parking i lots as long as at least one off-street j parking space is provided on each single-family lot, ~ r IL PROPOSAL ~ A. Need for the Amendments j ` This package of legislative amendments to the TCDC text will permit 3 construction of attached single-family dwellings (townhomes) on "fee" ownership lots to be treated as single-family dwellings in base and planned development districts. The TCDC currently treats more than two contiguous lots containing - attached single-family dwellings as multiple-family dwellings. See TCDC 18.26.030(B)(4) and (B)(5). Attached single-family dwellings are treated as single- family homes only if in a "condominium" form of ownership. Id. i f A fee ownership lot is distinguished from a condominium in that the homeowmer owns the land beneath the dwelling in common with other homeowners. The difference in lot ownership type will not cause attached single- 1 r family dwellings to look any different from other attached single-family dwellings r: nor result in increased density. The amendments will offer an additional housing ; type not currently allowed by the TCDC. The benefit of adopting this amendment package is that it addresses a j need in the housing market and fills a gap in the current TCDC. The amendments will also assist the City of Tigard in providing for attractive, well-planned, attached 2 PDXI-169 1 9M OM single-family dwelling developments where multiple-family developments would l otherwise be required. In addition, by permitting attached single-family dwellings ' on fee-owned lots, the City of Tigard will have another device enabling it to meet 1 ! the density requirement imposed by the Metropolitan Housing Rule. See i OAR 660-07-035(2). f The proposed text amendments to the TCDC are shown below. New T language is "redlined" and deleted language is "lined out". The amendments were - reviewed by the City's Senior Planner prior to submittal. A short explanation for the reason for each amendment is provided below the amended language. i t p B. ProPoSed Tent Amendments 1. TC1:DC 18.26.030(3)(4), Definition of Single-Family Attached ~Dwelling: "Sint-l~ a Famfiv AtfaClaed w l rt . Two s dwellingunits attached side by side on a arate lots oridevekypnientsites-with some se structural parts in common at a common property ' i line ` Reason for Change: a. Makes clear that single-fa.-nily attached dwellings include { common-wall structures on two or more contiguous lots. Effect of amendment is ; to permit townhomes on fee-ownership lots. 2. TCI3C 18.26.030(B)(5), Definition of Multiple-Family Dwelling: "Multiple-Family Dwelling. A structure containing at least three dwelling units and any vertical 1 or horizontal arrangement, located on a sm le lot or develo anent site«>~"" 'x ~ m~ rrnc~asms~ s axx 3 F 4 I ' i Reason for Change: a. Makes clear that townhomes on fee-ownership lots are excluded from the definition of multiple-family dwelling. 3. TCDC 18.26.030(B)(4) and (5): Dove illustration under definition of "single-family-attached dwelling" to definition of "multiple-family dwelling" and trove illustration under i "multiple-family dwelling" to definition of "single-family attached dwelling." E Reason for Change: F a. Illustrations are reversed. ` 4. TCDC 16.26.030(C)(3), Definition of "Townhouse": 1 ~ Reason for Change: a. Not necessary to have "townhouse„ in the TCDC because the type of dwelling unit is allowed under the definition of "single-family attached F dwelling unit." This amendment was suggested by the staff. ; 5. TCDC 18.26.030, Compatibility Matrix. Change "single-family 1 j attached" to: "No-over 2"."J . PRO. Reason for Change: s a. Makes clear that single'-family attached dwellings, including i townhomes on contiguous lots in planned development districts, are compatible with single-family detached homes because of the characteristics of the planned L development district. IIDX146WMI 999M 0006 4 h j t i 6. TCDC 18.83. A)(c)(i), Garage Opening Setback Requirement j in the PD District: { "A minimum froniyard setback of 20 feet is gq e d for any. garage n f - Reasons for Change: a. Each dwelling will have at least one parking space and, i possibly, two spaces. A 20-foot setback behind the opening garage parking garage is unnecessary. An 8-foot setback is the minimum required to permit a car to back k out of a garage. see Exhibit 1. An 8-foot setback discourages driveway parking. J b. Planned developments should be encouraged to handle cuff- i i 71 street parking more efficiently. C. Deduces amount of impervious surfaces. j d. Other requirements still exist for minimum right-of-way width t and obstruction-free roads within planned development. 7. TCDC 1&80.120(3)0), Parking Requirement in the PD District: rr fs Reasons for Change: f a. Encourages affordability of housing by allowing "clustered" parking spaces and reduces development costs. ' b. Improves ability to increase densities within planned developments. ! .~f FDXI-164=19 Mi OCR _ 1 i .J F i r t: C. Promotes "dual usage" of off-street parking spaces. Provides s` for visitor parking spaces where visitors might otherwise block sidewalks by ' t parking on driveways and parking within streets. i C. Procedure for Legislative Amendments to the TCDC i t Legislative amendments to the TCDC text may be initiated by any person. TCDC 18.30.020(A)(5). A preapplicati.on conference is required by TCDC 1.8.30.020(B). The applicant's representative met with city staff in a preapplication i meeting on December 8, 1994. The applicant's planning consultant previously met s f with city staff to discuss the need for the amendments. j t The TCDC provides for a limited "window" in which to submit legislative amendments. An application must be submitted no more than 75 days F j and no less than 45 days before the first Planning Commission Meeting in April. r E TCDC 18.30.030(.A). The first Planning Commission Meeting is April 3, 1995. This r application was submitted on ]February 17, 1995, 45 days before the first Planning i Commission meeting in April. The submitted application must be complete, including an application with an application form, the required fee and 18 copies of a narrative addressing the standards contained in TCDC 18.30.120. TCDC 18.30.030(E)(1)-(4). The director is not permitted to accept an incomplete application. TCDC 18.30.030(6). The j director has previously determined that this application was a complete submittal. No meeting with a CIT or neighborhood group is required prior to j submittal but the applici:nt intends to meet with interested neighborhood groups at their request prior to the April 3, 1995 Planning Commission Meeting. PDX7-tOMI "M mm 6 j i LIa. APPLICABLE CRITERIA F' t ' The applicable criteria for the TCDC amendments include the z Statewide Planning Goals ("Goals'), applicable policies in the Tigard Comprehensive Plan ("'I CP") [(see TCDC 13.10:010(A)], TCDC 13.30.120 and OAR 660-12055(3) and 660-12-060 (The Transportation Planning Rule). A. Statewide Planning Goals 1 1. Goal 1, Citizen Involvement: r "To develop a citizen involvement program that ensures the opportunity for citizens to be involved in all phases of the planning process " E _ Response: This Goal is satisfied through provisions in the acknowledged TCP and TCDC which provide for citizen participation. 2. Goal 2, Land Use P ' g: 'To establish a land use planning process and policy framework as a basis for all decisions and actions j related to use of land and to assure an adequate factual h r base for decisions and actions." Response: This Goal is met because the acknowledged TCP and TCDC contain provisions implementing the planning process. The City will J coordinate this application with affected governmental agencies (ODOT, Metro, Washington County, Tri-Met, the Tualatin Valley Parks and Recreation District and the Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue District) by providing notice and an opportunity to comment to the agencies. I sr F 7 ' ~xiasvr~a.a oxn 3. Goal 3, Agricultural hands: j _ 'Topreserve and maintain agricultural lands!' j Response: This Goal is not applicable because the proposed st amendments will not affect the preservation, of agricultural land. 1 4. Goal 4, Forest Lands: j 'To conserve fort land by maintaining the forest land base and to protect the state's forest economy by maldng possible economically efficient forest practices that assure the continuous growing and harvesting of " forest tree species as the leading use on forest land a k_ consistent with sound management of soil, air, water, and fish and wildlife resources and to provide for recreational opportunities and agriculture." Response: This Goal is not applicable because the proposed amendments will not affect the conservation of forest lands or the protection of the state's forest economy. 5• Goal S, 0 pen Spaces, Scenic and FEstoric Areas and Natural Resources: "To conserve open space and protect natural and scenic resources." - Response: This Goal is not applicable because the proposed amendments will not affect the conservation of open space or the protection of natural resources. 6• Goal 6, Air, Water and Land Resources Quality: `To maintain and improve the quality of the air, i water and land resources of the state." i Response: This Goal is not applicable because the proposed l k amendments will not affect air, water or land resources quality. a 5 roxa-1697M] r 8 i a 7 Goal O, Areas Subject to Natural Disasters and liazards: "To protect life and property from natural disasten and hazards." Response: This Coal is not applicable because the proposed v . amendments Will not have an affect on the protection of life and property from natural disasters. Goal E8, Recreational feeds: "Satisfy the rational needs of the citizens of - the state and visitors, where a pinate, to provide for the siting of necessary recreational facilities, including ire de tination resorts." A f.~ Response: This Coal is not applicable because the proposed i i amendments will not affect the state's recreational needs. j 9. God 9, Economic Development: "To provide adequate oppo °ties throughout the state for a variety of economic activities vital to the health, welfare, and prosperity of Oregon citizens." Response: This Coal is satisfied because the proposed amendments will increase opportunities for economic development in Tigard. The proposed ; F amendments will permit expanded use of attached single-family dwellings, thereby encouraging development of existing, appropriately zoned sites. This activity will benefit the City's economy. i 10. Goal 10, Housing: k "To provide for housing needs of citizens of the state." Res : The proposed amendments further this Goal because they encourage two of its central purposes: the availability of needed housing units and f F ~ easaasMt 991M M 9 i i~ the efficient use of buildable land within the urban growth boundary C UGB"). See E OAR 660-08-000(1). The proposed amendments will also further the city's compliance with minimum residential density requirements. ee OAR , 660-07-035(3). j Attached single-family housing is "needed housing" under the administrative rules implementing Goal 10. OAR 660-00-005(11)(a). As defined by r ' OAR 660-08-005(1), attached single-family housing means "common-wall dwellings i 1 f' or rowhouses where each dwelling unit occupies a separate lot" There are no restrictions on the number of attached dwellings under the regulatory definition. The proposed amendments will make the TCDC's definition of single-family housing consistent with the state's and promote the availability of this type of € i 3 housing. In addition, because the proposed amendments will make it easier to ' , increase densities within planned developments, the proposed amendments will encourage the efficient use of land within the UGB and further compliance with the minimum residential density allocation requirements of OAR 660-07-035(3). (the Metropolitan Housing Rule). 11. Goal- 11, Public Facilities and Services: "To plan and develop a timely, orderly and i . efficient arrangement of public facilities and services to serve as a framework for urban and rural development." Response: This Goal is not applicable because the amendments will not affect the current levels of police and fire services, sanitary facilities, water facilities, storm drainage facilities, or energy and communications services. xaassa 10 f 12. Goal 12, Transportation: '"To provide and encourage a safe, convenient and i economic hransportation systeW' Response: This Goal is satisfied because the proposed amendments a will not cause congestion on nearby streets. The amendments will not increase density in any district where attached dwellings are presently allowed as multiple- family dwellings. f 13. Goal 13, Energy Conservation: i F• "To conserve energy." r Response: The proposed amendments will further this goal because . common-wall housing units have fewer external walls than free-standing housing ~ f units and are, therefore, more energy efficient. ~ 14. Goal 14, Urbanization: 4 "To provide for an orderly and efficient transition from rural to urban land use" i Response: This Goal is inapplicable because the proposed e amendments will not affect urban land use outside of the urban growth boundary. 15. Goal 15, W' ette River Creenway, Goad 16, Estuarine Resources, Goal 17 Coastal Shorelands, Coal. 18, Beaches and Dunes, and Goal 19, Ocean Resources. Response: These foals are inapplicable because none of the listed natural resources are affected by the amendments. CONCLUSION: The proposed amendments to the TCDC conform to the applicable Statewide Planting Goals. FDxl.l(iTJ l 9"" MW 11 ..a i Applicable Tigard Comprehensive Plan Coals and Policies F TCDC 18.10.010(A) requires that any procedure initiated pursuant to f -yi f the.TCDC "shall be consistent with the adopted comprehensive plan of the City of i Tigard as implemented by this title. TCDC 18.30.120(A)(4) makes legislative E amendments such as this subject to "the applicable comprehensive plan policies 4 and reap. Finally, amendments to acknowledged land use regulations, such as 3 the TCDC, require a showing of compliance with the acknowledged comprehensive plan. ORS 197.175(2)(d). This section explains why the proposed f amendments are consistent with the applicable TCP goals and policies. f ~ 1. TCl' Policy 1.1.1(a), "?General Policies°": ; E "This comprehensive plan and all future ~ ' legislative changes are consistent with the statewide planning goals adopted by the land conservation and E ' developmet commission, the regional plan adopted by a i the Metropolitan Service District." 4 y lI nse: The applicant hereby incorporates Part III(A) and (C) of 4 this application in response to this policy. 2. TCP Policy 1.1.1(c), "General Policies°': r 'The Tigard Comprehensive Plan and Community ` i Development Code are kept current with the need of the community v_ Response: The proposed amendments will allow townhomes on fee- owned lots to be excluded from the zoning restrictions applicable to multi-family housing units. As a result, the proposed amendments will make it easier to ' j develop alternative housing types consistent with the housing needs of the community. f ' FDX1-169M1 MW OM 12 1 r 3. TCP Policy 2.1.1, "Citizen lnvolvemene: 4 'The City shall maintain an ongoing citizen I J involvement progyarn and shall assure that citizens will be provided an opportunity to be involved in all phases of the planning process. E Response: Notice of the public hearings before the Planning Commission and City Council will be provided as required by the TCDC. 4. TCP Policy 6.1.1, `Housing : "The City shall provide an opportunity for a ? ry diversity of housing densities and residential types at j various price and rent levels.' j Response: These amendments accomplish this TCP policy in a S. >j number of ways. First, they encourage the use of single-family attached dwellings F - in planned development districts. Because fee ownership townhomes on more t, than two contiguous lots are currently not treated as single-family dwellings, according to city staff, this type of housing is discouraged in the planned r development district. Single-family attached dwellings provide an opportunity for e more affordable owner-occupied homes. These amendments, therefore, increase the variety of residential types, densities and price levels. J is Second, by reducing the garage door setback onto private streets, the development cost of single-family attached homes is reduced and their affordability increased. The application includes drawings demonstrating how a planned ,r development district with an £s-foot setback to the garage door opening on a i private street will nevertheless be able to satisfy off-street parking requirements. See ]Exhibit 1. A one-car garage with an additional off-street space (either on the lot or in a common lot as proposed in the amendments) or a two-car garage will E a ?DXIdG9 MI 99M oars 13 i F_ yy~. S satisfy off-street parking spaces for single family dwellings. She TCI3C 18.106.030(A)(1) , ,2 off-street spaces for each single-family attached dwelling are required). A twenty-foot separation between the garage door opening and a ' Y private street is not necessary where the minimum number of required off-street parking spaces are provided. Finally, a reduced garage door opening set-back to the private street will reduce the amount of driveway where it is unnecessary and will discourage the parking of cars in front of garages. S, TC P Policy 6.1.1, 'Mousing,"' Implementation Strategy (2): ~ °J "The Tigard Cormnunity Development Code shall list a broad range of zoning districts which allow for a =_i variety of housing types, and complies with the adopted etroporitan Housing Rule (50-50 mixture of single q 's family and attached or multiple family at 10 units to the net acre on buildable vacant land). j Response: The City provides increased opportunity to continue to = meet the Metropolitan Housing Rule on existing appropriately zoned sites by 3 providing increased opportunities for developing single-family attached dwellings. 6. TCp Policy 6.1.1, "Hou:uag," Implementation Strategy (3): a, "In addition, the City shall: encourage developers to use the planned development process in all developing areas." Response: because single-family attached dwellings on more than F. i two contiguous lots are treated as multiple-family dwellings under the current interpretation of the TCDC, there is less incentive to use the planned development i 14 F XI-]6M.19M WW j j i t 1 F.. i j district to its fullest potential. These amendments encourage the use of the planned development process as it, was intended, that is, an innovative design process providing development superior to traditional lot-by-lot development. 7. TCP Policy 62-1, 11-fousing": E` 71 't'he city shall develop clear and concise = ~.LLa development regulations and standards to facilitate the streamlining of development proposals, and will eliminate unnecessary provisions which could increase housing costs without corresponding benefit." t Res : These amendments facilitate the streamlining and development proposals by making it easier to develop single-family attached dwellings on fee ownership lots. They also eliminate unnecessary provisions t adding to housing costs without corresponding benefit in three ways. First, the amendments encourage the use of fee ownership attached single-family dwellings. a - ,a As noted above, this makes housing more affordable by reducing its cost. Second, the proposed amendments include reductions and set-backs where appropriate. This reduces the amount of land necessary to develop a single-family attached i dwelling and also reduces unnecessary driveways. Finally, the amendments provide for up to fifty percent of required - off-street parking spaces in a plan development district to be located in common parking areas. This not only provides for increased opportunity for "dual usage" J (visitor parking at times when residents are not utilizing the parking), but also recognizes the City's goal to encourage more homeowners to use transit, bike or wall, rather than having two-cars to meet their transportation needs. The City i retains sufficient discretion through its approval process in TCDC Chapter 18.80.120 15 PDX]-16Y19 199999 M i i i i 1 ~ (the planned development district) to prohibit those common parking areas where " 5 Y inappropriate. I_:1 i & TCP Policy 62.1, 'Housinngy Implementation Strategy (3): "The City shall seek ways to minimize the cost of k. housing by encouraging a variety of home ownership alternatives, such as, but not limited to, townhouses and ~ F condominiums. J Response: The proposed amendments will encourage the j development of attached single-family housing, CONCI. USiC'sl r The proposed amendments meet the applicable TCP goats and i policies. C. TCDC 18.30.120, "The Standards for the Decision" An application for a legislative amendment to the TCDC is required i - _ to demonstrate compliance with the standards in TCDC 13.30.120. TCDC 18.30.030(E)(4). These standards are shown below with responses following. 1. TCDC 16.30.120(A)(1): -Me recommendation by the commission and the derision by the council shall be based on consideration ~ of the following factors: the Statewide Planning Goals and Guidelines adapted under Oregon Revised Statutes Chapter 197;' Response: The application satisfies the applicable Statewide Planning Goals. See Part III(A), above. MXI-IMMI 99M OD06 16 - E a C I TCD3CC 11i.30.170(A)(2): 3 "Any federal or state statutes or guidelines found applicable;" Response: The applicant has determined that there are no additional applicable federal or state statutes or guidelines. 3. TCDC 1&30.120(A)(3): F E K "Applicable plans and guidelines adopted by the Metropolitan Service District; Response: The applicant has determined that there are no applicable plans and guidelines adopted by the Metropolitan Service District ("Metro"). 4. TCDC 1&30.120(A)(4): "The applicable Comprehensive Plan Policies and Maps; R : The applicant has addressed the applicable TCP Goals and t Policies. See Part HI(B), above. 5. TCDC 1&30.120(A)(5): "The applicable provisions of the implementing 3 o ces.i9 E t - Res : The implementing ordinances are contained in the TCDC. 1 The only applicable TCDC provisions are found in TCDC Chapter 18.30. These are r r addressed in Part II(C), above. i 6. TC13C 18.30.120(B)(1): ! "Consideration may also be given to (1) proof of a change in the neighborhood or community or a mistake or inconsistency in the r PDXI.369MI 99939 0904 17 ~t i Comprehensive Plan or Irnnplementing Ordinance which t j is the subject of the application" ! Response: The TCDC contains a mistake by failing to provide for single-family attached dwellings on contiguous fee-ownership lots. This type of ownership is quite common throughout the Portland metropolitan region. It does 3 not increase densities above what is already permitted by the base and planned fi development districts. The amendment encourages the use of the single-family k attached dwelling district with furthers compact development, more efficient energy usage, and increases the ability of the City to meet the density requirements imposed by the Metropolitan Housing Rule on appropriately zoned s sites. This is consistent.with Statewide Planning Coal 10, Guideline (A)(2), which calls for appropriate types and amounts of land to be provided for housing that _ meets the housing needs of households at all income levels. Moreover, Statewide Planning Goal 10, Implementation Measure I (15)(1), provides that comprehensive plans should provide. fora "continuing review ' 1 of housing need projections it should establish a process for accommodating LL ' needed revision." This amendment is part of that ongoing process because it is an identified and needed housing type that is not currently allowed. CONCLUSION: The proposed amendments satisfy TCDC 15.30.120. D. O Chapter 660, Division 12, The Transportation Planning Rule 1. OAR 660-124)60 is ` This state administrative rule applies to amendments to comprehensive plans, functional plans and land use regulations. OAR PDJ(l469MI OX6 15 l G 660-12-060(1). The rule is applicable to this application because it requests an amendment to the City's land use regulations. OAR 66€1-12-060(1) and (2) provide as follows: gf "(I) Amendments to comprehensive plans, C, L functional plans and land use regulations which sigzaif cantly affect a transportation facility shall assure that allowed land asses are consistent with the identified function, capacity and level of service of the facility. s r This shalt be accomplished by either: (a) limiting allowed land rases to be consistent with the plan functions, capacity and level of service of the E nation facility; assaendin, the TSP ' _j Transportation System PIanJ to provide transportation G facilities adegraate to support the proposed land uses consistent with the ~ ants of this division; (c) altering land use designations, densities, or design regrasrements to reduce demarad for au~snobile gavel k and meet travel needs through other modes.' a "(2) - A land use regulation amendment significantly affects the transportation facility if it (a) s j changes the functional classification of an misting or j planned transportation facility; (b) changes a standard implementing a functional classification system; (c) allows types or levels of land uses which would result in levels of travel or access which are inconsistent with the functional classification of a transportation facillity; or (d) would reduce the level of service of the facility below f the .turn acceptable level identified in '1 SP-" , i Response: The proposed amendments will not significantly affect a transportation facility. Therefore, OAR 660-12-060 is inapplicable to these amendments. i 2. OAR gffl:12cgW39 F This part of the Transportation Planning Rule requires the City to have amended its land use and subdivision ordinances to implement OAR C. j 660-12-045(3), (4)(a)-(e) and (5)(d) by May 3, 1994. The City has not met this PDXI-167/'x41 9"W M 19 ;i F rt; deadline except for OAR 660-12-045(3). ORS 197.646(3) and OAR 660-12-055(3) i provide that the sections above are directly applicable to land use decisions when k , the May 8, 1994 deadline has not been met. OAR 660.12-045(4)(a)-(e) and (5)(d) ~ are, therefore, directly applicable to this application. 3 I' j a. QAR 660-17, -(e). f f This part of the Rule applies to transit-supportive measures for new retail, office and institutional developments. This section is inapplicable to these i amendments because they application only to residential subdivisions. b. ®AR 660-12-045(d) . g This part of the Rule requires local governments to adopt land use regulation measures encouraging reduced reliance on the automobile for all major j industrial, institutional, retail and office developments. These amendments are { inapplicable to these types of development. IV. CONCLUSION This application satisfies the applicable criteria for amendments to the a TCl_3C. t; f r t i I 7 i f 1 I i { r rnxi-169M] 99499 20 • i ITT OF ITs E . = EXHIBIT 1 Illustrative drawings showing off-street parking a EXHIBIT 2 City of Tigard Application Form i i 3 r y C 1 i i - i i ~ f 1 } V' j t C, I enxi-xcr;=a sM C6 21 F i I ~ 4 1 1 ~ ~ 3 I F I ~ 1 C, 1 ~ F t ~ t {1 \ \ 1 \ 1 ~ E I ~ \ ` 1 1 1 rv ry F 7j SESE Tt3ACl: 1 Id~~ ~ r v f I ~ E tG-=a i ` - i ~ 1 ! I h91t+i. PRIVATE SET- ACCESS BACK DR VE { r I i EXAMPLES, ® % TAT GAR E FACING STREET is Exhibit 1 04/18/94 14:28 0503 884 7287 CITY OF 'TICARD 100021003 _ i ,-y p~ ,~9qq pp ppqq , I CIY% OF TIGARD 13125 , PO Boa 23397 + Tigard, Oregon. 97223' W (503) 639-4171 FOR STS USE ONLY k. USE NO. g . t' OTMtEL USE NOISa f RECEIPT NO. APPLICATION ACCE BY; t j j DATE: j 1. C icw Application elements submitted: 1'9gp Y ADE 3S/ IOPF not applicable ~(A) Appl..i€stiou form (1) ~ 1 (B) Chmer' a aignatu=lvritten _0 TI AIM TAX LOT NO. not applicable authorization (C) Applicant's statement not applicable SIZE (prL-app check list) PROPRUT O DIs'SD HOLD 2 not applicable (D) Fil:tng feQ 0 ) AD S PHONE Additional i.nformnrion for Compre - CITT ZIP sine Plan Map Amendmenta/Zone Changes i &apLI Bowen Development Company; contact: Jim (L) Maps iudicati. P aZC7 ADDRESS III SW 5th Ave.. Ste. 3850PRONE { e :location (prL-app chock, list) 3 Cgs Portland, OR ZIP 97204 ,..~(P) List of property ars and *Men the owner and the applicant are different addresses within 250 fast (1) people, the applicant meat be the purchaser of record (0) Aspassor's Map (I) ors 3easae in possession with mitten aauthoxizatioatH) Title transfer instrument (1) i` from the owner or an agent: of the o taer with written authorization. The oar(s) eat sisu this t application in the space provided on page two or submit a written autbiorizatiou with this application. DATE DB. NED TO BE COMPLB7.'~e i 2. PROPOSAL SUMMY The owners of record of the subject property FINAL DECISION D a - request a Comprehensive Plan Amendment (if COMP. PLAN/ZMM DBSI OI$s ! applicable) from to "1 and a. Zone Chan a rem to _ N.P.O. Number: - OR The appl.Icaut requests an amendment to the Planning Commission Approval Date: following sections of the Comprehensive Plan or Co sai.ty Development Code See application narrative. City Council Approval Date: 0737P 23P R.ev'de 5/87 Exhibit 2 04/19/9 1:20 WU503 ~8~~__-..._.~.~ L'~ 84 7287 CITY OF TIGALW 0003/003 t 3. list any variance, conditional uses, or other land use actions to be considered as part of this application: 1 4 ~ a,. Applicants: 'T® have a eouplete application you will need to wa it atta oca i. deacribed in the attached information sheet at the time you su t this application. i S. `I` trpLlCUT(S). S TIFY TRAV A. The above re u t does not violate an dead restriceio that may be J attached to or imposed upon the subject propertZ. ~ B. If the application is granted, the applicant will exercise the rights ~ granted in accordance with the terms and subject to all the conditions and limitations of the approval. i' C. All of. the above sta.temancs and the statements In the plat plea, i° attachments, and exhibits transmitted herewith, are true; and the j applicants -so acknowledge that any permit issu , based on this 4 i application, may be revoked If it is found that any such statements are false. 6 D. The applicant has read the entire contents of the application, Including ; j i 37 the policies and criteria, and understand& the requirements for approving f s or denying the application. ' 17th February 95 - j E DATED this day of 19 4 r SMA7C a of each owner (et. husband and wife) of the subject property. ~ MA 6 l t Michael C. Robinson, Attorney for Anpltcant. Bowen Development Com anv f (KSLepm/0737p) t 40 ~V30/q~- AGENDA ITEM For Agenda of 6',C~3 f q5 t CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON e ` COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SU14UVIARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Tualatin River Watershed Council PREPARED BY: Duane Roberts DEPT HEAD OIL Z ° CITY r DMIN OK ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL a Should the City become a member of the newly formed Tualatin River Watershed Council? ? _ STAFF RECOMMENDATION i1 Authorize the Mayor to sign the attached inter-organizational agreement for the Tualatin River E' Watershed Council. The council would provide a central source of information on current research and activities related to the health and management of the watershed. It also would provide a forum for coordinating the research and activities of the large number of agencies and organizations involved in watershed protection. F INFORMATION SUMMARY The city has been invited to become a member of the Tualatin River Watershed Council. The council was established on an interim basis last year in response to House Bill 2215, which ? encourages the voluntary formation of watershed councils throughout the state. The new council j is proposed to include representative ofvarious public and private stakeholder organizations. They include agricultural and industrial groups, homebuilders, environmental organizations, state agencies, and county and city governments. The council's purpose is to provide a forum for information sharing and coordination among the many public and private groups having an interest in the health and management of the watershed. Potential projects to be undertaken by the council include putting together a central database, sponsoring conferences, and taking f positions on water management issues. A copy of the draft agreement and background memo on the council is attached. i OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED I Not to become a member of the council. _ FISCAL NOTES 9 Igo dues structure or suggested monetary contribution to the organization has been proposed. 4 DRlwgtFnh d May 11, 1995 i a k r; , r CITY OF H I LL.SBORO E { MEMORANDUM j DATE: May 4, 1995 ; , ` 1 TD: Washington County City Managers MAY, 0 5 FROM: Tim Erwert, Hillsboro City Manager z RE: Tualatin River Watershed Council f ~ r This is a follow-up on a topic covered at the April 26, 1995 Washington County Managers meeting. For those of you who were at that meeting, I have not included the referenced agreement because you received it at the meeting. If you need another copy, please call my E ' office..'= In 1993 Mouse Bill 2215 passed, encouraging the voluntary formation of "watershed councils" in each watershed statewide, and making available some state assistance. The bill provided that the affected local governments shall together determine their respective roles and the appropriate R; method for appointing members to a local watershed council." A meeting of a small group of interested individuals from throughout the County took place in w 1 December 1993 in ]Hillsboro to see if there was,, any interest in forming a watershed council for the Tualatin River Watershed. That group felt there was an interest. However, the group agreed j unanimously that we do not need another layer of government. Instead, the need was identified for a coordinating, information sharing mechanism, because there is such a diversity of activity by such a large number of governmental agencies and other organizations, and these activities t often have widespread impact. The group also identified what later became "stakeholder groups" which should be involved in such a process, and added representatives from each of these groups to the meetings. All through 1994 and into 1995 the expanded group worked through issues of how a basin council should operate, what it should do, and how it should be formed. In order to have a title, the group decided to refer to itself as the "interim council." This interim council then decided that the proper approach to "building" a watershed council in our case would not have an appointing authority, but would be based on inter-organizational agreement and voluntary participation, fashioned after the example of our Jackson Bottom Steering Committee. _i The interim council then proceeded to draft an agreement and accompanying documents (enclosed for those of you who were not at the April 26 Manager's meeting), and has started contacting stakeholders in all of the groups for participation. A number of organizations have approved the agreement and are ready to participate. Many others are being approached or are in the decision-making process now. f If you have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to call. TE/jv Attachments i 123 West Main Street, Hillsboro, Oregon 97123 • 5031681.6113 • FAX 50a/681.6232 AV EC4 AL OPPOq IUNITY EMPLOYFA PRIMTEOON RECYCLED PAPER t INTER-ORGANIZATIONAL AGREEMENT for the "I'UALATIN RIVER WATERSHED COUNCIL A number of organizations which are active in the Tualatin River Watershed began meeting in f late 1993 to determine the potential interest in the formation of a Tualatin River Watershed Council. The initial group was later expanded to include representatives of each of the F t following groups who shared interest in the well-being of the Tualatin River Watershed. The group called themselves the Tualatin River Watershed Interim Council. They adopted a mission statement and vision statement (Attachment A) for the proposed Watershed Council. The groups represented on the Interim Council include: r C- : 1-Iomebuilders and Development Industry Citizen Participation Organizations Neighborhood Participation Organizations Environmental Organizations Chambers of Commerce ' • Park Districts Recreation Education 1 "Friends of " ...Organizations t" T Research Counties Cities Water Districts Sewer Districts Soil and Water Conservation Districts r j Irrigation Districts Farm Bureau Forestry - Large Forest Owners Forestry - Small Lot Forest Owners Urban Industry Forest Products Industry Agriculture _ Interested Citizens Oregon Water Resources Department Oregon Department of Forestry I Northwest Oregon RC&D Council National Park Service Oregon Department of Agriculture r, Oregon Strategic Management Group j . E R i We, the undersigned, having participated in the development of a proposal to form a Tualatin f, River Watershed Council, (hereafter "Council") concur with and will participate in the implementation of this inter-organizational agreement. This agreement will provide for the establishment of a Tualatin River Watershed Council to support the vision and to accomplish j the mission and goals as stated in the proposed Charter, all of which are in Attachment A. , We hereby establish the Council to carry out the anission, goals and objectives, and to 4 periodically update the goals and objectives of the council. The membership of the council =i ,i shall be comprised of one representative from each group identified in Attachment B. Each E group of organizations is responsible for selecting its own representative for the Council by whatever means it deems appropriate. This representative will be called a Council Member F and is defined as a person representing a Group who sits on the Council as a representative of t that group. The Council may establish subcommittees from within and outside the Council as necessary to accomplish its goals. The Council may prepare an annual work progran). describing specific r cooperative projects to be undertaken each year. The Council will serve as a forum for sharing of pertinent information and coordination of the work between Council Member groups, encouraging cooperation among participants and for giving advice to participants when requested. ~ t We understand the following: 1) The Council cannot apply for or receive grant funds until such time the Council becomes a legal entity. 2) Each Council member participates in Council activities at the discretion of the group they c represent. 3) Each Council member shall be responsible for their own negligent or wrongful acts. j r This agreement shall remain in force until the Council revises the Charter or the intent of the Council. Any party may withdraw its participation upon providing 90 days written notice to t the other Council members. This agreement may be extended or renewed upon further written agreement of the Council members Signed: By: Representing: - Signature Agency/Organization 4 ff' Title:_ Date: k ` t i { i E s: Attachment "A" 1 ATI RIVER WATERSHED VISION 1 A BALANCED ECOSYSTEM THAT SUPPORTS A I IEA LTHY WATERSHED, PROVIDES FOR. AN ECONOMIC k BASE AND VIABLE COMMIUNITIES. j t EXPLANATION f ;i - 1 THE TUALATIN RIVER WATERSHED CONSISTS OF THE RIVER, ITS TRIBUTARIES, ITS GROUND WATER AND THE LAND THAT DRAINS TO THEM. THE COMPONENTS LISTED BELOW MUST WORK IN HARMONY FOR THE VITALITY OF f THE RIVER TO BE REALIZED. THE BASIN IS FAR LARGER THAN THE RIVER, ENCOMPASSING NEARLY ALL LANDS WITHIN WASHINGTON COUNTY, AND f SMALL AREAS OF MULTNOMAH, CLACKAMAS, YAM HILL, TILLAMOOK AND COLUMBIA COUNTIES. WHEN PEOPLE THINK OF THE TUALATIN, THE RIVER MAY COME FIRST TO MIND BUT THE ENTIRE DRAINAGE AREA IS VITAL TO THE r HEALTH OF THE RIVER SYSTEM. Water Quality: A watershed that contributes water of such quality that people can use it for consumption, recreation, work, and the support of terrestrial and aquatic life. A river and its tributaries that contain the highest achievable water quality that surrounding soils, rocks, natural vegetation, wildlife, ground water, and wise use of land resources will allow. f' Natural Resources: A balanced ecosystem that supports its component parts throughout the Tualatin River watershed including a varied habitat that thrives along the banks of the watershed's streams and river. F' s Use of Resources: Wise Stewardship of the resource of the watershed to maximize their j renewal and minimize permanent loss" i i t ' Land Use: Recognize that owners of property within the watershed have land use rights, as well as responsibility to protect the welfare of the ecosystem through the use of their land. Recreation: A watershed that provides various types of recreation and an experience that fosters an appreciation of the watershed's natural resources including its river and streams. f Economics: A watershed that provides water quality and quantity sufficient to support a viable and healthy community in which its citizens are proud to live, work and recreate. s i Education: An informed populace that understands and appreciates the river, its ecosystem, - and needs and works to achieve there. i 3 3 TUALATIN RIVER WATERSHED COUNCIL j C. CHARTER Purpose i The Tualatin River Watershed Council was formed to share information, reduce duplication of activities, and help add-ress v-atershed management issue's in the Tualatin River Watershed and provide a framework for coordination and cooperation among key interests. Mission s To foster better stewardship and understanding of the Tualatin River watershed resources, deal with issues in advance of resource degradation, and ensure sustainable watershed health, ` functions, and uses. F Relationship to Derision-Making Bodies and Communities of Interest f' E The Tualatin River Watershed Council is an advisory body to established decision-making bodies and communities of interest. As such, the council makes recommendations concerning r the protection, restoration, and enhancement of the quality of the Tualatin River Watershed. The agencies, organizations, and interests represented on the council are not obligated to adopt j or carry out the recommendations of the council, but will give due consideration to the j recommendations avid take actions they consider appropriate. These agencies, organizations, and interests will report back to the council on any actions taken in response to council recommendations. The council welcomes and will respond to requests for advice on actions affecting the watershed that are proposed by local, state, and federal agencies; organizations; or interests. Council members will keep their respective agencies, organizations, and interests informed about the work of the council and will bring their concerns to the council. f 1 Goals and Objectives ® Encourage coordinated efforts to increase education programs ® Improve communication. among affected private individuals, interested citizens, i_ business/industry, and representatives of local, state, and federal agencies F ® Establish a framework for coordination, cooperation, and citizen involvement - ® Provide a forum. for resolving problems. and conflicts related to the council's mission when all parties to the problem or conflict agree to refer the matter to the council r F- ' 4 i i F j i ® Provide ongoing program evaluation during implementation -j ® Promote ongoing monitoring of the health of the Tualatin River Watershed V, 2195 f Specs lc T'askr/Responsihilifles ® Establish a public involvement program to ensure an appropriate level of citizen - participation in the council's work o Use available resource information to determine the current condition and uses of the _ watershed ? a Identify the desired condition and uses of the watershed 6 Encourage ongoing monitoring of the conditions of the watershed 1 + Help resolve issues among diverse interests in the watershed 0 Seek funding to support program development and implementation, including funding from agencies represented on the council m Address the needs and concerns of the respective agencies, organizations, and interests represented on the council 6 Adopt and implement a work program, monitor work program progress and budget i O Identify ongoing education programs in the watershed ; -`j '9 t Council Members r The Tualatin River Watershed Council shall at all times include representatives from the following interests: See Attachment (B). A majority of members shall reside in the Tualatin River Watershed. Technical Assistance, laws and regulations may be provided by the 'T'echnical Assistance group and will serve as non-voting members. The members shall serve at the pleasure of their respective agencies and organizations. Council members may designate an alternate who will participate on the council in the their absence. 1 The council will act to replace members who resign or. are unable to continue serving on the council. The council will strive to maintain continuity and the balance of interests by giving preference to representation from the same agencies and organizations at a similar or higher level position. The council will request the agency or organization to nominate a replacement representative. If the agency or organization is curable or unwilling to do so, the council will seek representation from another agency or organization of the same community of interest. Organization and Procedures y The council will use a consensus decision-making process. Roberts Rules of Order shall be followed (See Attached Ground Rules) 5 7 -1 F ` -j The council will select a chair or co-chairs to serve as spokesperson(s), prepare council i agendas, call and manage council meetings, enforce ground rules, said perform other tasks as assigned by the council. The council may select other officers as needed. _a t 7 The council may form subcommittees of its own members and task groups that include individuals not on the council to perform certain functions or focus on specific issues. The E council also will identify technical advisors who can provide technical data and assistance and ,j call on these experts as needed. E Council will seek funding for the ongoing operations. 1 - t Amendments f i A council member may propose amendments to the ground rules at any time. Amendments will become effective at the time proposed if all council members are present and approve. Otherwise, amendments will become effective at the meeting following the proposal upon - , consensus of those present. t i. f k i i 1 1 s 6 'i `I'UALATIN RIVED WATERSHED COUNCIL F PROPOSE? GROUND RUL?F..S Council Members agree to thefollo wing ground rules. k Council Decision-MakingJ r ® The council will use a consensus decision-making process. Periodically during the process, the -chairman will check-in with members to determine the level of consensus for a decision. If the level of consensus is low, the council may decide to delay discussion of the item to a later date. F Robert's Rules of order will be used as a guide for conducting business. F O When one or more members are absent from a meeting, the members present will a determine if they feel comfortable making a decision or deferring it to a later date. t 1 ® Before a decision is adopted by the council, sufficient time (30 days) will be provided for the members to seek advice from organizations they represent, agencies, or other experts. - - ® When a decision is reached by consensus, council members will advocate to their i respective bodies support for the adoption or implementation of the decision. e The watershed council may select a person to serve as facilitator. A facilitator will conduct _ the meeting, help ensure full participation of members, help members stay on track, and reach consensus. E i Participation a i @ The council will hold regular meetings and follow the provisions of the Open Meetings Law. At least ten minutes will be set aside at each meeting for public comment. r i ® A majority of the council members or their alternates must be present to conduct business. ® Council members will keep their respective agencies, organization, or interests informed about the work of the council and bring concerns of their groups to the council. 1 ® Council members may designate a representative of their group to serve as an alternate. Designated alternates will be listed on the membership list of the council. i 0 Each member will brief his/her alternate on all issues and proceedings prior to the j alternate's attendance at council meetings. 2495 i 7 ~ L Members will make every effort to attend all council meetings themselves; and if they are unable to do so then will notify their alternate. t° o Members will notify the council chair if both the member and his/her alternate will be unable to attend a council meeting. E t. e If the member and his/her alternate are unable to attend a meeting, the member may F provide written comments or ask another member or the Chair to represent his/her position on a particular issue. f Members will notify the council if he/she must vacate his/her position. Behavior Members will treat each other with respect, will not monopolize meeting time, and will listen to and try to understand one another views. Members are discouraged from placing blame for past practices. a Members will search for opportunities to develop group solutions and to resolve conflicts. Members will strive to adhere to the ground rules and will be responsible for their enforcement. i Tenns of Off ice s ® The term of the chair(s) will be for one year. Following the year, the council may elect to re-appoint the chair(s) for another term or select a new chair(s). Public Information and Media Contacts ® Public information and media contacts will be coordinated through the Chair of the Council. t i a f ti 8 i Attachment (B) i Tualatin Raver Watershed Council Members F-. Agriculture Community Technical Assistance Soil and Water Conservation District (1) State Government i Tualatin Talley Irrigation District (1) Federal Government Farm Bureau. (1) Research/Technical Nursery industry (1) Organizations ` Others f Businccs Industry Community ~ -j Business/Industries (1) E ' Home Builders/ Development (1) Chambers of Commerce Chamber of Commerce (1) Education Community j: Education Systems (1) Environmental Community Environmental Groups (1) Forrstr-y Community t Products Industry (1) Forest Landowners (1) Citizens Community Citizen Participation Organization (1) Neighborhood Participating Organization (1) Citizen At Large (1) Local Governments Cities (1) i Counties (1) t Urban Community k Water Districts (1) - Sewer Districts (1) r Parks/ Recreation Districts (1) ' 9 g A'. Attachment (C) TUALATIN RIVER WATERSHED COUNCIL r LIST OF POTENTIAL PROJECTS 1) Develop an action plan for the Council. 2) Pursue recognition from Oregon's Strategic Water Management Group 3) Compile and construct an information database on information, data, and activities occurring in the watershed. 4) Sponsor a "Status of the Tualatin River Watershed" conference to initiate interest and information sharing about the watershed and the Council. S) Sponsor/coordinate erosion control classes. 4 6) Sponsor display at County fairs. 7) Acquire more river access for water-based recreation activities. i' 8) Compile list of activities within the watershed that influence the water quantity and quality. i 9) Promote "Stream Friendly" development, project to demonstrate compatibility of land use and water. 10) Advocate positions on various water management issues. r. f i k j G 4 i 10 j i FRGM S&;4ERT6(+ :IH) GR' S GFr i CE TO tic- 1, ~9 P. U-" CITY of BEAVERTON 4758 S.W. Gt1f4h Dr1e. P.O. 1 4e755. BeaVWtan. OR 97075 TEL: (509) 925.2481 V/T00 TAX: lam) 526-3571 9 Tgpl ROB D I- TO: W on County Mayors and City Managers FROM: Rob Drake, Nfayor DATE: b&y 3C, 1995 ~ 1 SU-8JECT: Filling MPAC Alter=e Vacancy i, r L have agreed to assist in coordination of soliciting and receiving norrlinations for the Washington County cities alternate position on Metro Policy Advisory Committee (10 PAC). r Pleas: forward names of candidates to our office by nail or fax no later than Friday, June 9. We will mail the ballots immediately in order to fall the vacancy as soon as posse-ble. Representatives must be elected officials. I Thanks you for your assistance. Let ane know if you have any questions. i r i t