Loading...
01/28/2008 - Packet • 0 City of Tigard Hearin g s Off — Agenda MEETING DATE: January28, 2008, 7:00 p.m. MEETING LOCATION: City of Tigard- Town Hall, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 STAFF REPORTS: Available to the public 7 days prior to the hearing date Assistive Listening Devices are available for persons with impaired hearing and should be scheduled for Hearings Officer meetings by noon on the Friday prior to the meeting. Please call 503-639-4171,ext.2438 (voice) or 503-684-2772 (TDD- Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf). Upon request,the City will also endeavor to arrange for qualified sign language interpreters for persons with speech or hearing impairments;and qualified bilingual interpreters. Since these services must be scheduled with outside service providers,it is important to allow as much lead time as possible. To request such services,please notify the City of Tigard of your need(s) by 5:00 p.m.no less than one(1)week prior to the meeting date at the same phone numbers listed above so that we can make the appropriate arrangements. 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. PUBLIC HEARING 2.1 DURHAM ELEMENTARY SCHOOL ACCESS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT(CUP) 2007-00004 PROPOSAL: A request for Conditional Use Permit approval to relocate the access drive to the Durham Elementary School currently located along SW Shaffer Lane, to a new access to align with SW 79th Avenue. The new alignment involves an intersection with SW Durham Road that would cross the adjacent property to the east. The applicant also requests 20 additional parking spaces. LOCATION: The roject is located at 8048 SW Shaffer Lane immediately south of SW Durham Road at SW 79th Avenue, including Tax Lots 2S113B0; 00300, 00401, 00500, and an adjoining property at 7800 SW Durham Road,Tax Lot 2S113BA,00200. ZONES: R-12 (ID): Medium-Density Residential District. The R-12 zoning district is designed to accommodate a full range of housing types at a minimum lot size of 3,050 square feet. A wide range of civic and institutional uses are also permitted conditionally. Historic District Overlay is designed to facilitate the protection, enhancement and perpetuation of such improvements and of such districts which represent or reflect elements of the City's cultural, social, economic, political and architectural history; AND I-P: Industrial Park District. The I-P zoning district provides appropriate locations for combining light manufacturing, office and small-scale commercial uses, e.g., restaurants, _personal services and fitness centers, in a campus-like setting. Only those light industrial uses with no oft-site impacts, e.g., noise, lare, odor, vibration, are permitted in the I-P zone. In addition to mandatory site development review design and development standards in the I-P zone have been adopted to insure that developments will be well- integrated, attractively landscaped, and pedestrian-friendly. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.330, 18.390, 18.510, 18.530, 18.705, 18.725, 18.745, 18.765, 18.780, 18.790, 18.795 and 18.810. 3. OTHER BUSINESS 4. ADJOURNMENT HEARINGS OFFICER AGENDA-JANUARY 28, 2008 City of Tigard I 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard,OR 97223 I 503-639-4171 I www.tigard-or.gov I Page 1 of 1 1 Depending on the number of people wishing to testify, the Tigard Hearing's Officer may limit the amount of time each person has to speak. We ask you to limit your oral comments to 3 - 5 minutes. The Hearing's Officer may further limit time if necessary. Written comments are always appreciated by the Hearing's Officer to supplement oral testimony. AGENDA ITEM NO.: 2.1 DATE: JANUARY 28, 2008 PAGE 1 OF 1 FILE NAME: DURHAM ELEMENTARY SCHOOL ACCESS CASE NO.: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP) 2007-00004 IF YOU WISH TO TESTIFY ON THE ITEM INDICATED ABOVE, PLEASE PRINT YOUR NAME, ADDRESS & INCLUDE YOUR ZIP CODE PROPONENT OF APPLICATION OPPONENT OF APPLICATION - (Speaking In Favor or Neutral)- - (Speaking Against)- Name,Address,Zip Code and Phone No. Na e, ddress,Zip Coe d P one o. t, , ��Psfe�� �Fssoua4 ,k Iv /� L' 72 e& ion n SE Gin^w,oL e, P, /ife 33 s p /& X 4106 �6 3G �OS/ Name,Address,Zip Code and Phone No. 77. I Name,Address, iZ p Code and Phone No. uSeat-t-4 I 1 vu0 Sw t tb St. I TtGAeb -012- c1127-4- Name,Address,Zip Code and Phone No. I Name,Address,Zip Code and Phone No. 777 777 7gc,9 s w 4Lou2 Si Name,Address,Zip Code and Phone No. I Name,Address,Zip Code and Phone No. . 1 7. Name,Address,Zip Code and Phone No. 1 Name,Address,Zip Code and Phone No.Name,Address,Zip Code and Phone No. Name,Address,Zip Code and Phone No. J NOTICE TO MORTGAC E,' ii NHOLDER,VENDOR OR SELLER:• THE TIGARD DEVELOPMENT CODE REQUIRES THAT IF YOU RECEIVE THIS NOTICE, IT SHALL BE PROMPTLY FORWARDED TO THE PURCHASER . .. PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT THE TIGARD HEARINGS OFFICER, AT A MEETING ON MONDAY JANUARY 28, 2008 AT 7:00 PM,IN THE TOWN HALL OF THE TIGARD CIVIC CENTER AT 13125 SW HALL BOULEVARD,TIGARD,OREGON 97223 WILL CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING APPLICATION: FILE NO.: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP) 2007-00004 FILE TITLE: DURHAM ELEMENTARY SCHOOL ACCESS OWNER/ Tigard-Tualatin School District 23J APPLICANT'S WRG,Inc. APPLICANT: Attn:Rob Saxton REP: Ann:Erin Engman 6960 SW Sandburg Street 5415 SW Westgate Drive, Suite 100 Tigard,OR 97223 Portland,OR 97221 PROPOSAL: The applicant requests Conditional Use Approval to relocate the access drive to the Durham Elementary School,currently located along SW Shaffer Lane,to a new access to align with SW 79th Avenue. The new alignment involves an intersection with SW Durham Road that would cross the adjacent property to the east. The applicant also requests 20 additional parking spaces. LOCATION: The project is located at 8048 SW Shaffer Lane immediately south of SW Durham Road at SW 79th Avenue, including Tax Lots 2S113B0; 00300; 2S113BA, 00401 and 00500; and an adjoining property at 7800 SW Durham Road,Tax Lot 2S113BA,00200. ZONES: R-12 HD : Medium-Density Residential District. The R-12 zoning istrict is designed to accommodate R modate a full range o} housing types at a minimum lot size of 3 050 square feet. A wide range of civic and institutional uses are also permitted conditionally. Hlstonc District Overlay is designed to facilitate the protection, enhancement and perpetuation of such improvements and of such districts which represent or reflect elements of the City's cultural, social,economic,political and architectural history; I-P: Industrial Park District. The I-P zoning district provides appropriate locations for combining light manufacturing, office and small-scale commercial uses, e. ., restaurants personal services and fitness centers in a campus-like setting. Only those -light industrial uses with no off-site impacts, e. ., noise, glare,odor, vibration are permitted in the I-P zone. In addition to mandatory site development review, design and development standards in the I-P zone have been adopted to insure that developments will be well-integrated, attractively landscaped, and pedestnan-friendly. APPLICABLE RE VIE W CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.330, 18.390, 18.510, 18.530, 18.705, 18.725, 18.745, 18.765, 18.780, 18.790, 18.795 and 18.810. THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS MAI"lER WILL BE CONDUC FED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RULES OF CHAPTER 18.390 OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE AND RULES OF PROCEDURES ADOPTED BY THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL AND AVAILABLE AT CITY HALL. - 40 • ASSISTIVE LISTENING DEVICES ARE AVAILABLE FOR PERSONS WITH IMPAIRED HEARING. THE CITY WILL ALSO ENDEAVOR TO ARRANGE FOR QUALIFIED SIGN LANGUAGE INTERPRETERS AND QUALIFIED BILINGUAL INTERPRETERS UPON REQUEST. PLEASE CALL (503) 639-4171, EXT. 2438 (VOICE) OR (503) 684-2772 (TDD- TELECOMMUNICATIONS DEVICES FOR THE DEAF)NO LESS THAN ONE WEEK PRIOR TO THE HEARING TO MAKE ARRANGEMENTS. ANYONE WISHING TO PRESENT WRIT 1"EN TESTIMONY ON THIS PROPOSED ACIION MAY DO SO IN WRITING PRIOR TO OR AT THE PUBLIC HEARING. ORAL TESTIMONY MAY BE PRESENTED AT THE PUBLIC HEARING. AT THE PUBLIC HEARING, THE HEARINGS OFFICER WILL RECEIVE A STAFF REPORT PRESENTATION FROM THE CITY PLANNER,OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING,AND INVITE BOTH ORAL AND WRI"1-IEN TESTIMONY. THE HEARINGS OFFICER MAY CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING TO ANOTHER MEETING TO OBTAIN ADDITIONAL INFORMATION OR CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND TAKE ACTION ON THE APPLICATION. IF A PERSON SUBMITS EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT TO THE APPLICATION LESS THAN SEVEN (7) DAYS PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING,ANY PARTY IS ENTITLED TO REQUEST A CONTINUANCE OF THE HEARING. IF THERE IS NO CONTINUANCE GRANTED AT THE HEARING,ANY PARTICIPANT IN THE HEARING MAY REQUEST THAT THE RECORD REMAIN OPEN FOR AT LEAST SEVEN (7) DAYS AF IER THE HEARING. A REQUEST THAT THE RECORD REMAIN OPEN CAN BE MADE ONLY AT THE FIRST EVIDENTIARY HEARING(ORS 197.763(6). INCLUDED IN THIS NOTICE IS A LIST OF APPROVAL CRITERIA APPLICABLE TO THE REQUEST FROM THE TIGARD COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE AND THE TIGARD COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. APPROVAL OR DISAPPROVAL OF THE REQUEST BY THE HEARINGS OFFICER WILL BE BASED UPON THESE CRITERIA AND THESE CRITERIA ONLY. AT THE HEARING IT IS IMPORTANT THAT COMMENTS RELATING TO THE REQUEST PERTAIN SPECIFICALLY TO THE APPLICABLE CRITERIA LISTED. FAILURE TO RAISE AN ISSUE IN PERSON OR BY LE I'IER AT SOME POINT PRIOR TO THE CLOSE OF THE HEARING ON THE REQUEST ACCOMPANIED BY STATEMENTS OR EVIDENCE SUFFICIENT TO ALLOW THE HEARINGS AUTHORITY AN OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND TO THE ISSUE PRECLUDES AN APPEAL TO THE LAND USE BOARD OF APPEALS BASED ON THAT ISSUE. ALL DOCUMENTS AND APPLICABLE CRITERIA IN THE ABOVE-NOTED FILE ARE AVAILABLE FOR INSPECIION AT NO COST OR COPIES CAN BE OBTAINED FOR TWENTY-FIVE CENTS (25C) PER PAGE, OR THE CURRENT RATE CHARGED FOR COPIES AT THE TIME OF THE REQUEST. AT LEAST SEVEN (7) DAYS PRIOR TO THE HEARING,A COPY OF THE STAFF REPORT WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR INSPECIION AT NO COST,OR A COPY CAN BE OBTAINED FOR TWENTY-FIVE CENTS (25C) PER PAGE, OR THE CURRENT RATE CHARGED FOR COPIES AT THE TIME OF THE REQUEST. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION PLEASE CONTACT THE STAFF PLANNER GARY PAGENSTECHER AT 503.639.4171, TIGARD CITY HALL, 13125 SW HALL BOULEVARD, TIGARD, OREGON 97223, OR BY E-MAIL TO garyp( tigard-or.gov. me 111111111111 �- ��� REE T �� �_ � VICIIVrI'I-biAP ii4 E Ea _= =_ 1111 ITI 4�,��'�CA—= _r crd11 �■ CUP2007-00004 ii 11 � naz<�11 RA M�' � � � ELE\fENT_�Rl aj// ICI' 11 1111111111// Si IIOOL 1 11 IUIUP11 ■ _�C:CESS ���, ..� �, 111111 11 e�� Igzuk ar WINF VAIIIIIRLI/111111111111111 ri' . iii i E l�llE W11111 hZ 1 11' `: LEGEND: j j j 1 . SUBJECT 4 4''' '1 - -.° I- j �w It jj 1_ >- • 1• pl.t '' II - /AI\\%UIu11I. 7:::"4"1.1:75.."" . • , COMMUNITY NEWSPAPEItS 6605 SE Lake Road, Portland, OR 97222• PO Box 22109• Portland, OR 97269 Phone: 503-684-0360 Fax: 503-620-3433 Email: Iegals @commnewspapers.com AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION State of Oregon, County of Washington, SS I, Charlotte Allsop, being the first duly sworn, depose and say that I am the Accounting Manager of The Times(serving Tigard, Tualatin & Sherwood), a newspaper of general circulation, published at Beaverton, in the aforesaid county and state, as defined by ORS 193.010 and 193.020, that City of Tigard CUP 2007-00004 TT11075 a copy of which is hereto attached, was published in the entire issue of said newspaper for 1 weeks in the following issues January 10, 2008 C,,koiLoc Charlotte Allsop (Accounting Man ger) January 10, 2008 TAR UBLIC FOR OREGON My commission expires it 10V 1(9._i 0-0) ,) OFFICIAL SEAL JJ) Acct#10093001 SUZETTE I CURRAN 1 NOTARY PUBLIC-OREGON Patty Lunsford/AP ®'�:%� 1 ) COMMISSION NO.422662 City of Tigard ( MY COMMISSION EXPIRES NOVEMBER 28,2011 ?) 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 Size:2 x 13.5 Amount Due$221.27 'Remit to address above A IP io, COMMUNITY I • CITY OF TIGARD NEWS PET$ OREGON J t11 j��7 TIGARD 6605 SE Lake Road, Portland, OR 97222• PO Box 22109• Portland, OR 97269 PUBLIC HEARING ITEM Phone:503-684-0360 Fax: 503-620-3433 The following will be considered by the Tigard Hearings Offi- Email: legals @commnewspapers.com cer on Monday January 28,2008 at 7:00 PM at the Tigard Civic Center-Town Hall, 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard, Oregon. Both public oral and written testimony is invited. AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION The public hearing on this matter will be conducted in accordance State of Oregon, County of Washington, SS • with the Tigard Municipal Code and the rules of procedure adopted by the Council and available at City Hall or the rules of procedure I, Charlotte Allsop, being the first duly sworn, set forth in Chapter 18.390. Testimony may be submitted in writ- ing and say that I am the Accounting ing prior to or at the public hearing or verbally at the public hear- depose only. Failure to raise an issue in person or by letter at some Manager of The Times(serving Tigard, point prior to the close of the hearing accompanied by statements Tualatin & Sherwood), a newspaper of or evidence sufficient to afford the decision-maker an opportunity general circulation, published at Beaverton, in to respond to the issue precludes appeal to the Land Use Board of the aforesaid county and state, as defined by Appeal based on that issue. Failure to specify the criterion from the ORS 193.010 and 193.020, that Community Development Code or Comprehensive Plan at which a comment is directed precludes an appeal based on that criterion. Cit of Tigard A copy of the application and all documents and evidence submit- City 9 ted by or on behalf of the applicant and the applicable criteria are CUP 2007-00004 available for inspection at no cost. A copy of the staff report will TT11075 be made available for inspection at no cost at least seven (7)days prior to the hearing, and copies for all items can also be provided a copy of which is hereto attached, was at a reasonable cost. published in the entire issue of said Further information may be obtained from the Planning Division for (staff contact: Gary Pagenstecher)at 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard, newspaper Oregon 97223,by calling 503-639-4171,or by e-mail to HYPER-, 1 LINK"mailto:garyp @tigard-or.gov"garyp @tigard-or.gov. . weeks in the following issues January 10, 2008 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT(CUP)2007-00004 -DURHAM ELEMENTARY SCHOOL ACCESS- PROPOSAL: THE APPLICANT REQUESTS CONDITIONAL USE APPROVAL TO RELOCATE THE ACCESS DRIVE TO THE DURHAM ELEMENTARY SCHOOL, CURRENTLY LO- CATED ALONG SW SHAFFER LANE,TO A NEW ACCESS TO ALIGN WITH SW 79TH AVENUE. THE NEW ALIGNMENT C/kalLO INVOLVES AN INTERSECTION WITH SW DURHAM ROAD THAT WOULD CROSS THE ADJACENT PROPERTY TO THE EAST. THE APPLICANT ALSO REQUESTS 20 ADDITIONAL Charlotte Allsop (Accounting Man ger) PARKING SPACES. LOCATION: THE PROJECT IS LOCATED January 10, 2008 AT 8048 SW SHAFFER LANE IMMEDIATELY SOUTH OF SW DURHAM ROAD AT SW 79TH AVENUE, INCLUDING TAX LOTS 2S113B0; 00300, 00401, 00500, AND AN ADJOINING C13...)..)S3I-V\ 00200. ZONES:: R l 2 DURHAM ROAD,TAX LOT 2S 1 DEN- 00200. ZONES: R-12 (HD): MEDIUM-DENSITY RESIDEN- TIAL DISTRICT. THE R-12 ZONING DISTRICT IS DESIGNED TAR UBLIC FOR OREGON TO ACCOMMODATE A FULL RANGE OF HOUSING TYPES My commission expires G1/',a�t 0) I AT A MINIMUM LOT SIZE OF 3,050 SQUARE FEET. A WIDE RANGE OF CIVIC AND INSTITUTIONAL USES ARE ALSO PERMITTED CONDITIONALLY. HISTORIC DISTRICT �-����`����-�^ OVERLAY IS DESIGNED TO FACILITATE THE PROTEC- 9 i•'.•<. OFFICIAL TION,ENHANCEMENT AND PERPETUATION OF SUCH IM- Acct#10093001 () -1- ' � , SUZETTE I PROVEMENTS AND OF SUCH DISTRICTS WHICH REPRE- Patty Lunsford/AP ( 4714 NOTARY PUBLI Y f SENT OR REFLECT ELEMENTS OF THE CITY'S CULTURAL, COMMISSION City of Tigard SOCIAL, ECONOMIC, POLITICAL AND ARCHITECTURAL 13125 SW Hall Blvd. MY COMMISSION EXPIRES N01 �-�-�-`-`-`-�.-�.-�.----�.. HISTORY;AND I-P: INDUSTRIAL PARK DISTRICT. THE 1-P Tigard, OR 97223 ZONING DISTRICT PROVIDES APPROPRIATE LOCATIONS FOR COMBINING LIGHT MANUFACTURING, OFFICE AND Size:2 x 13.5 SMALL-SCALE COMMERCIAL USES,E.G., RESTAURANTS, PERSONAL SERVICES AND FITNESS CENTERS, IN A CAM- Amount Due$221.27 PUS-LIKE SETTING. ONLY THOSE LIGHT INDUSTRIAL *Remit to address above USES WITH NO OFF-SITE IMPACTS, E.G., NOISE, GLARE, ODOR, VIBRATION, ARE PERMITTED IN THE I-P ZONE. IN ADDITION TO MANDATORY SITE DEVELOPMENT RE- VIEW, DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS IN THE I-P ZONE HAVE BEEN ADOPTED TO INSURE THAT DEVEL- OPMENTS WILL BE WELL-INTEGRATED, ATTRACTIVELY LANDSCAPED, AND PEDESTRIAN-FRIENDLY. APPLICA- BLE REVIEW CRITERIA: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE CHAPTERS 18.330, 18.390, 18.510, 18.530, 18.705, 18.725, 18.745, 18.765, 18.780, 18.790, 18.795 AND 18.810. PUBLISH 1/10/2008 TT11075 X44 i h.. 1 _=.. I`:.t: ,.. .. 11 . .._._...._. VICINITY MAP J f .�=, 6 I..• CI'I'.(NI'.00(NI4 L.t...-:..�. II r.,-,_.� 1r EUi\[I:NTAR}•mutt.. "'... r s I L. SI:I I(,ul. �j '- ��1� -- ACCESS I r _l ., L`,:4, ' L[W':Nr• — l ,l �` J = • : I `�,\.„,,,<>"1- ; :"1- {` i/yip a 1 it y' • • BEFORE THE LAND USE HEARINGS OFFICER FOR THE CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON Regarding an application by Tigard-Tualatin School District 23J)F I N A L ORDER for a major modification of a conditional use permit to relocate ) the access drive serving the existing Durham Elementary ) CUP2007-00004 School at 8048 SW Shaffer Lane in the City of Tigard, Oregon ) (Durham Elementary) A. SUMMARY 1. Rob Saxton filed the application on behalf of Tigard-Tualatin School District 23J(the "applicant"). The applicant requests approval of a major modification of a conditional use permit to relocate the access drive serving the existing Durham Elementary School at 8048 SW Shaffer Lane; also known as tax lots 2S113B0,00300; 2S113BA,00401;2S113BA,00500;and 2S113BA,00200 (the"site").Access to the Durham Elementary School is currently provided from Shaffer Lane west of the site. The applicant proposes to close the existing Shaffer Lane access and construct a new access road extending east of the school and intersection Durham Road at the existing signalized intersection with SW 79th Avenue. The applicant also proposes to provide an additional 20 parking spaces to serve the school and the adjacent Durham Center north of the school. The proposed access is to be constructed across Tax Lot 200 with a drive serving the school property involving Tax Lots 401, 500 and 300.Additional basic facts about the site and surrounding land and applicable approval standards are provided in the Staff Report to the Hearings Officer dated January 22, 2008 (the " Staff Report"), incorporated herein by reference. 2. Tigard Hearings Officer Joe Turner(the "hearings officer") conducted a duly noticed public hearing to receive testimony and evidence in the matter. At the public hearing City staff recommended conditional approval of the application. Representatives of the applicant testified in support of the application. The owner of Tax Lot 200 testified in opposition to the proposed access. Other than service providers, no one testified orally or in writing. Disputed issue in this case include: a. Whether changes to the existing traffic patterns will have a significant impact on the Metzger property, tax lot 200; b. Whether the hearings officer can require that the applicant utilize other alternative access locations; c. Whether the proposed access will encourage trespass onto the Metzger property and expose the Metzgers to increased liability; and d. Whether the alleged impacts to the value of the Metzgers' property are relevant to the applicable approval criteria. • • 3. The hearings officer concludes that the applicant sustained the burden of proof for a conditional use permit based on the findings and conclusions included and incorporated herein and subject to conditions at the end of this final order. B. HEARING AND RECORD 1. The hearings officer held a duly noticed public hearing on January 28, 2008 to receive and consider public testimony in this matter. The record includes a witness list, materials in the casefile as of the close of the record, including materials submitted after the hearing, and an audio record of the hearing. At the beginning of the hearing, the hearings officer made the declaration required by ORS 197.763. The hearings officer disclaimed any ex parte contacts, bias or conflicts of interest. The following is a summary by the hearings officer of selected relevant testimony offered at the hearing. 2. City planner Gary Pagenstecher summarized the Staff Report. He requested the hearings officer modify condition 23 as set out in his Memorandum dated January 28, 2008. 3. Attorney Kelly Hoesseni, engineer Tony Roos, transportation engineer Chris Maciejewski and planner Erin Engman testified for the applicant. a. Ms. Hoesseni summarized the history of the existing school access and the alternative access locations the applicant considered. The applicant concluded that the proposed access is the safest option, because it provides access at an existing signalized intersection and allows the applicant to close two existing driveways onto Durham Road. She accepted the proposed conditions of approval as modified at the hearing without objections. b. Mr. Roos testified that the applicant will provide a dedicated eastbound right turn lane on Durham Road at the 79th Street intersection, which will mitigate the impacts of increased school traffic on Durham Road. The applicant designed the 79th Street/Durham Road intersection with sufficient turning radius to allow school buses and fire trucks to utilize the new access without entering the oncoming traffic lane. The proposed 36-foot wide access road will allow for on-street parking and two-way traffic flow. The applicant will provide a sidewalk between Durham Road and the school to accommodate pedestrian traffic. The applicant will install a fence on the south side of the access road to prevent children from straying into the road from the play fields. c. Mr. Maciejewski testified that the design of the proposed access intersection is intended to enhance traffic flow on Durham Road. The eastbound right turn lane at the Durham Road/79`h Street intersection will offset the increased traffic generated by the school. He noted that the school bus drop off area is separated from the parent drop off area. The applicant will install traffic calming measures on the access road, including a"speed table" at the school site to accommodate pedestrians crossing the access road. The revised parking lot design allows the school and the Durham Center to share access and parking areas. CUP2007-00004 Hearings Officer Final Order (Durham Elementary Access) Page 2 • i. He testified that the applicant is concerned about vehicles queues at the Durham Road signal blocking access to the Metzgers' property. However such impacts are relatively short lived and minor. The Metzgers' property generates an average of ten vehicle trips during the school peak hour. The applicant could install signs urging drivers not to block the intersection in order to maintain access to the Metzgers' property. A four-way stop at the intersection of the proposed school access and the driveway to the Metzgers' property would create traffic backups that would impact the Durham Road/97th Avenue intersection. d. Ms. Engman summarized the developments compliance with the applicable approval criteria. 4. David Metzger testified on behalf of Metzger Ventures, the owner of tax lot 200, where the applicant proposed to access Durham Road. He argued that the proposed access will impact the value of his property. He expressed concerns that his company will be held liable for accidents or injuries that occur at the proposed Durham Road intersection. He argued that buses and cars waiting for the traffic signal on Durham Road will block access to his property. Some drivers seeking a faster route may travel around the buildings on his site to exit via the entrance only driveway on the eastern portion of his property. He argued that other alternative means of providing access to the site are available and should be utilized in order to avoid impacts to his property. 5. The hearing the hearings officer closed the public record at the end of the hearing and took the matter under advisement. C. DISCUSSION 1. The Staff Report identifies the applicable approval criteria for the application and applies them to the record in the case. The hearings officer agrees that the standards identified in the Staff Report are applicable and finds that they are correctly applied to the facts of the case in the Staff Report. Substantial evidence in the record shows that the proposed use does or can comply with the applicable approval criteria for a major modification of a CUP, and adoption of recommended conditions of approval as amended will ensure final plans are submitted and implemented as approved consistent with those criteria and standards and will prevent, reduce or mitigate potential adverse impacts of the development consistent with the requirements of the TMC. The hearings officer adopts the findings and conclusions in the Staff Report, as modified, as his own. 2. There is no dispute that the proposed access road will cause some impacts to the Metzger property, tax lot 200, changing the existing traffic flow and increasing congestion at the existing signalized access to Durham Road. Under current conditions the Durham Road access functions as a private driveway serving only the Metzger property. The proposed access drive will increase the volume of traffic using the access and create conflicting turning movements—traffic entering or leaving the school will conflict with traffic entering or leaving the Metzger property. However the hearings CUP2007-00004 Hearings Officer Final Order (Durham Elementary Access) Page 3 • • officer finds that such impacts are not significant given the relatively short duration of the peak traffic period for the school and the low volumes of traffic accessing the school and the Metzger property during these peak periods. a. Based on Mr. Maciejewski's testimony, the Metzger property currently generates an average of 10 vehicle trips during the schools peak hours. Based on the January 17, 2008 Memorandum from Joyce Woods, the principal of Durham Elementary, to Kelly Hossaini, the majority of school traffic occurs during a thirty minute peak period between 7:50 and 8:20 in the mornings and a second 45 minute peak period between 2:00 and 2:45 in the afternoons. An average of 11 to 12 buses and 15 to 30 passenger cars arrive and depart the school during these peak periods. The school generated traffic must exit via the 79th Street/Durham Road intersection, creating a potential conflict with the existing traffic generated by the Metzger property. This additional traffic may be perceptible, but it will not exceed the capacity of the intersection or cause or exacerbate a traffic hazard based on the applicant's traffic engineer analysis. Mr. Metztger's unsubstantiated concerns about potential conflicts are not sufficient to overcome the expert testimony of the applicant's traffic engineers. b. The hearings officer finds that the applicant should be required to install "Do Not Block Intersection" signs at the intersections of the access road with the driveways serving the Metzger property to ensure that drivers are aware of the driveways and potentially conflicting traffic movements. A condition of approval is warranted to that effect. c. Mr. Metzger expressed concerns that drivers will ignore such signs. In addition, he argued that some drivers may travel through his property and attempt to access Durham Road via the existing entrance only driveway on the east portion of his property. The hearings officer finds that reasonable prudent drivers will observe applicable traffic control signs and access limitations in the area. Unfortunately not all drivers are prudent. However there is no evidence that the development proposed in this application will contribute a disproportionate share of imprudent drivers. 3. The hearings officer has no authority to require the applicant to utilize an alternative accessway as suggested by Mr. Metzger. The hearings officer's jurisdiction is limited to review of the access proposed by the applicant. If the proposed access complies with the applicable approval criteria it must be approved, regardless of whether other alternatives are available that would have less impact on the Metzgers' property. In addition, as outlined in the applicant's alternatives analysis, the other access points noted by Mr. Metzger would not comply with applicable approval criteria because they would increase existing congestion problems on Durham Road. 4. Mr. Metzger expressed concerns that the access easement across his property will expose him to increased liability for accidents that may occur on his property. However such liability concerns are not relevant to to the applicable approval criteria for this development. In addition, there is no substantial evidence that the proposed access will significantly increase the Metzgers' potential liability. The potential liability for the CUP2007-00004 Hearings Officer Final Order (Durham Elementary Access) Page 4 • • accessway is no different than for similar shared driveways and access ways in the area. There is no substantial evidence that similar existing driveways elsewhere in the City have created an unusual hazard or exposed adjacent or underlying property owners to excessive liability. 5. Mr. Metzger argued that the proposed access will facilitate students trespassing onto his property. The proposed development will create a pedestrian pathway across the northern corner of the Metzger property, which may increase the potential for trespass and other nuisance or illegal activities. However the hearings officer finds that there is no substantial evidence in the record that significant trespass problems will arise. The proposed sidewalk, which is located on the north and west sides of the access drive, away from the majority of the Metzger property, will not substantially enhance access to the Metzger property compared to existing conditions. Similar access is currently available from the existing sidewalk along the Metzger property's Durham Road frontage. There is no evidence that this existing access has generated significant trespass concerns. The Metzgers have adequate legal recourse to address any trespass problems that may arise. 6. The potential impact of the accessway on the value of the Metzgers' property is irrelevant, because it does not relate to any of the applicable approval criteria. The School District must compensate the Metzgers' for the value of the easement over their property. In addition, the School District may be required to compensate the Metzgers to any reduction in the value of their remaining property caused by the easement. However such compensation issues are beyond the scope of the hearings officer's jurisdiction in this proceeding. Compensation issues are within the jurisdiction of the Circuit Courts. D. CONCLUSIONS Based on the findings and discussion provided or incorporated in this final order, the hearings officer concludes that the applicant sustained the burden of proof that the proposed conditional use permit does or will comply with the applicable criteria of the Community Development Code, provided development that occurs after this decision complies with applicable local, state, and federal laws and with conditions of approval warranted to ensure such compliance occurs in fact. E. DECISION In recognition of the findings and conclusions contained herein, and incorporating the Staff Report and public testimony and exhibits received in this matter, the hearings officer hereby approves CUP2007-00004 (Durham Elementary Access), subject to the following conditions of approval: CUP2007-00004 Hearings Officer Final Order (Durham Elementary Access) Page 5 • • CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF THE SITE AND/OR BUILDING PERMITS: The applicant shall prepare a cover letter and submit it, along with any supporting documents and/or plans that address the following requirements to the CURRENT PLANNING DIVISION, ATTN: Gary Pagenstecher 503-639-4171, EXT 2434. The cover letter shall clearly identify where in the submittal the required information is found: 1. Prior to commencing any site work, the applicant shall submit a revised site plan showing the required 10-buffer(Table 18.745.1) from the revised right-of-way line along SW Durham Road, an arterial, and demonstrating compliance with the applicable landscaping and screening provisions for parking lots in TDC 18.745.050.E.1. 2. Prior to commencing any site work, the applicant shall submit a revised site plan that shows the clear vision areas formed by the right-of-way or property line as required in TDC 18.795.040. 3. Prior to commencing any site work, the applicant shall submit a revised site plan showing pedestrian crossings of traffic aisles leading to the proposed new parking and at the intersection with the existing parking lot. Pedestrian crossings are permitted for distances no greater than 36 feet and must include appropriate landscaping, pavement markings, or contrasting pavement materials. 4. Prior to commencing any site work, the applicant shall submit a revised site plan that shows parking spaces, interior drives and access aisles clearly marked. 5. Prior to commencing any site work, the applicant shall submit a revised landscape plan showing street trees on Tax Lots 300 and 500 in addition to Tax Lot 401. 6. Prior to commencing any site work, the applicant shall submit a revised tree protection plan showing locations of trees 32-53. In addition, the plan shall show all trees that are in close proximity to construction activities protected by chain link fencing; other trees may be protected with orange construction fencing. The tree protection plan shall also include a signature of approval from the project arborist. 7. Prior to commencing any site work, the applicant shall submit construction drawings to both Planning and Engineering that include: A. The approved Tree Removal and Protection Plan; B. A construction sequence including installation and removal of tree protection devices, clearing, grading, and paving; C. A note prohibiting equipment, vehicles, machinery, grading, dumping, storage, burial of debris, or any other construction-related activities in any tree protection zone; and D. A note stating that only those trees identified on the approved Tree Removal plan are authorized for removal by this report. Notwithstanding any other provision of this title, any party found to be in violation of this chapter [18.790] pursuant to Chapter 1.16 of the Tigard Municipal Code shall be subject to a civil penalty of up to $500 and shall be required to remedy any damage caused by the violation. Such remediation shall include, but not be limited to, the following 1) Replacement of unlawfully removed or damaged trees in accordance with Section 18.790.060 (D) of the Tigard Development Code; and 2) Payment of an additional civil penalty representing the estimated value of any unlawfully removed or CUP2007-00004 Hearings Officer Final Order (Durham Elementary Access) Page 6 • damaged tree, as determined using the most current International Society of Arboriculture's Guide for Plant Appraisal. E. If work is required within an established tree protection zone, the project arborist shall prepare a proposal detailing the construction techniques to be employed and the likely impacts to the trees. The proposal shall be reviewed and approved by the City Arborist before proposed work can proceed within a tree protection zone. The City Arborist may require changes prior to approval. The project arborist shall be on site while work is occurring within the tree protection zone and submit a summary report certifying that the work occurred per the proposal and will not significantly impact the health and/or stability of the trees. 8. Prior to commencing any site work, the applicant shall establish tree protection fencing as directed by the project arborist and conditioned by this decision to protect the trees to be retained. The applicant shall call for an inspection and allow access by the City Arborist for the purpose of monitoring the tree protection to verify that the tree protection measures are performing adequately. Failure to follow the plan, or maintain tree protection fencing in the designated locations shall be grounds for immediate suspension of work on the site until remediation measures and/or civil citations can be processed. 9. As an ongoing obligation during the development of the proposed property, the applicant shall ensure that the Project Arborist submits written reports to the City Arborist, at least once every two weeks, from initial tree protection zone (TPZ) fencing installation through construction. The reports shall include the condition and location of the tree protection fencing and whether any changes occurred. If the amount of TPZ was reduced then the Project Arborist shall justify why the fencing was moved, and shall certify that the construction activities to the trees did not adversely impact the overall, long-term health and stability of the tree(s). Failure to follow the plan, or maintain tree protection fencing in the designated locations shall be grounds for immediate suspension of work on the site until remediation measures and/or civil citations can be processed. 10. Prior to commencing any site work, the applicant shall submit a revised site plan that shows "Do Not Block Intersection" signs at the intersection of the site access drive and the driveways to the Metzger property, tax lot 200. The applicant shall prepare a cover letter and submit it, along with any supporting documents and/or plans that address the following requirements to the ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT, ATTN: Kim McMillan 503-639-4171, EXT 2642. The cover letter shall clearly identify where in the submittal the required information is found: 11. Prior to issuance of a site permit, a Public Facility Improvement(PFI)permit is required for this project to cover half-street improvements and any other work in the public right-of-way. Six (6) sets of detailed public improvement plans shall be submitted for review to the Engineering Department. NOTE: these plans are in addition to any drawings required by the Building Division and should only include sheets relevant to public improvements. Public Facility Improvement (PFI) permit plans shall conform to City of Tigard Public Improvement Design Standards, which are available at City Hall and the City's web page (www.tigard- or.gov). CUP2007-00004 Hearings Officer Final Order (Durham Elementary Access) Page 7 • • 12. The PFI permit plan submittal shall include the exact legal name, address and telephone number of the individual or corporate entity who will be designated as the "Permittee", and who will provide the financial assurance for the public improvements. For example, specify if the entity is a corporation, limited partnership, LLC, etc. Also specify the state within which the entity is incorporated and provide the name of the corporate contact person. Failure to provide accurate information to the Engineering Department will delay processing of project documents. 13. The applicant shall provide a construction vehicle access and parking plan for approval by the City Engineer. The purpose of this plan is for parking and traffic control during the public improvement construction phase. 14. Any necessary off-site utility easements shall be the responsibility of the applicant to obtain and shall be submitted to and accepted by the City prior to issuance of a site permit. 15. Additional right-of-way shall be dedicated to the Public along the frontage of Tax Lots 401 and 500 to increase the right-of-way to 50 feet from the centerline. The description shall be tied to the existing right-of-way centerline. The dedication document shall be on City forms. Instructions are available from the Engineering Department. 16. Additional right-of-way shall be dedicated to the Public along the frontage of Tax Lot 300 to increase the right-of-way to 50 feet from the centerline or to increase the right-of-way to 38 feet from centerline and provide a 12 foot preserve right- of-way. The description shall be tied to the existing right-of-way centerline. The dedication document shall be on City forms. Instructions are available from the Engineering Department. 17. Additional right-of-way shall be dedicated to the Public along the frontage of Tax Lot 200 (as indicated in Exhibit B, Page 1 of 1 in the Order Confirming Immediate Possession) to increase the right-of-way to 50 feet from the centerline. The description shall be tied to the existing right-of-way centerline. The dedication document shall be on City forms. Instructions are available from the Engineering Department. 18. The applicant's plans shall be revised to remove all private parking spaces from the public right-of-way or preserve right-of-way. 19. The applicant shall submit construction plans to the Engineering Department as a part of the Public Facility Improvement permit, indicating that they will construct the following frontage improvements along SW Durham Road as a part of this project: A. eastbound right-turn lane and 8-foot concrete curbside sidewalk; B. street trees along Tax Lots 300, 401 and 500, in the planter strip spaced per TDC requirements; C. streetlight layout by applicant's engineer, to be approved by City Engineer; and D. driveway apron removal. 20. A profile of Durham Road shall be required, extending 300 feet either side of the subject site showing the existing grade and proposed future grade. 21. Tax Lots 300, 401 and 500 shall not be permitted to access directly onto Durham Road. CUP2007-00004 Hearings Officer Final Order (Durham Elementary Access) Page 8 • • 22. The applicant's plans shall indicate the restoration of bicycle striping upon completion of the right-turn lane construction. 23. Any extension of public water lines shall be shown on the proposed Public Facility Improvement (PFI)permit construction drawings and shall be reviewed and approved by the City's Water Department, as a part of the Engineering Department plan review. NOTE: An estimated 12% of the water system costs must be on deposit with the Water Department prior to approval of the PFI permit plans from the Engineering Department and construction of public water lines. 24. The applicant shall maintain the minimum 36-inch waterline cover as the widened street section is constructed. If the street widening requires the waterline to be moved, the applicant shall replace the 12-inch cast iron main in Durham Road with a 12-inch ductile iron line and update the water valves located within the widened street section. 25. Final design plans and calculations for the proposed private water quality facility shall be submitted to the Engineering Department(Kim McMillan) as a part of the Public Facility Improvement(PFI) permit plans. Included with the plans shall be a proposed landscape plan and maintenance plan. 26. During issuance of the Site permit, the applicant shall pay the fee in-lieu of constructing an on-site water quantity (detention) facility. The fee is based on the total area of new impervious surfaces in the proposed development. 27. An erosion control plan shall be provided as part of the Public Facility Improvement (PFI) permit drawings. The plan shall conform to the "Erosion Prevention and Sediment Control Design and Planning Manual, February 2003 edition." 28. The applicant shall obtain a 1200-C General Permit issued by the City of Tigard pursuant to ORS 468.740 and the Federal Clean Water Act. THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO A FINAL BUILDING INSPECTION: The applicant shall prepare a cover letter and submit it, along with any supporting documents and/or plans that address the following requirements to the CURRENT PLANNING DIVISION, ATTN: Gary Pagenstecher 503-639-4171,EXT 2434. The cover letter shall clearly identify where in the submittal the required information is found: 29. Prior to final inspection, the applicant shall record deed restrictions to the effect that any existing tree greater than 6" diameter may be removed only if the tree dies or is hazardous according to a certified arborist. The deed restriction may be removed or will be considered invalid if a tree preserved in accordance with this decision should either die or be removed as a hazardous tree. 30. Prior to final inspection, the applicant shall submit a final report by the Project Arborist certifying the health of protected trees. Tree protection measures may be removed and final inspection authorized upon review and approval by the City Arborist. 31. Prior to placement of any signs on site, the applicant shall apply for a sign permit and supply staff with the appropriate plans to verify compliance with TDC Chapter 18.780. CUP2007-00004 Hearings Officer Final Order (Durham Elementary Access) Page 9 • • The applicant shall prepare a cover letter and submit it, along with any supporting documents and/or plans that address the following requirements to the ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT, ATTN: Kim McMillan 503-639-4171, EXT 2642. The cover letter shall clearly identify where in the submittal the required information is found: 32. Prior to a final building inspection, the applicant shall complete the required public improvements, obtain conditional acceptance from the City, and provide a one-year maintenance assurance for said improvements. 33. Prior to a final building inspection, the applicant shall provide the City with as- built drawings of the public improvements as follows: 1) 3 mil mylar, 2) a diskette of the as-builts in"DWG" format, if available; otherwise "DXF" will be acceptable, and 3) the as-built drawings shall be tied to the City's GPS network. The applicant's engineer shall provide the City with an electronic file with points for each structure (manholes, catch basins, water valves, hydrants and other water system features) in the development, and their respective X and Y State Plane Coordinates, referenced to NAD 83 (91). 34. The applicant shall execute a Restrictive Covenant whereby they agree to complete or participate in the future improvements of SW Durham Road adjacent to the subject property, when any of the following events occur: A. when the improvements are part of a larger project to be financed or paid for by the formation of a Local Improvement District, B. when the improvements are part of a larger project to be financed or paid for in whole or in part by the City or other public agency, C. when the improvements are part of a larger project to be constructed by a third party and involves the sharing of design and/or construction expenses by the third party owner(s) of property in addition to the subject property, or D. when construction of the improvements is deemed to be appropriate by the City Engineer in conjunction with construction of improvements by others adjacent to the subject site. 35. A joint use and maintenance agreement shall be executed and recorded on City standard forms for all common driveways. The agreement shall be referenced on and become part of all applicable parcel Deeds. The agreement shall be approved by the Engineering Department prior to recording. 36. The applicant shall either place the existing overhead utility lines along SW Durham Road underground as a part of this project, or they shall pay the fee in- lieu of undergrounding. The fee shall be calculated by the frontage of the site that is parallel to the utility lines and will be $35.00 per lineal foot. If the fee option is chosen, the amount will be $19,530.00 and it shall be paid prior to a final building inspection. 37. To ensure compliance with Clean Water Services design and construction standards, the applicant shall employ the design engineer responsible for the design and specifications of the private water quality facility to perform construction and visual observation of the water quality facility for compliance with the design and specifications. These inspections shall be made at significant stages, and at completion of the construction. Prior to final building inspection, the design engineer shall provide the City of Tigard Engineering with written confirmation that the water quality facility is in compliance with the design and specifications. CUP2007-00004 Hearings Officer Final Order (Durham Elementary Access) Page 10 • • FAILURE TO SATISFY THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL WITHIN 18 MONTHS OF THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE HEARINGS OFFICER'S DECISION SHALL RENDER THE HEARINGS OFFICER'S DECISION VOID. DATED this 8`'' day of February 2008. arle/e.• D:7:7-;;(04.---e■-• Joe Turner, Esq., AICP City of Tigard Land Use Hearings Officer CUP2007-00004 Hearings Officer Final Order (Durham Elementary Access) Page 11 .............. ............... • l • . .......:.. ::.:.::.::.. . ..-........f.'... x ........... • . • • • . x 1!1111g x:::: R: x:.:. %i iz ,•1i.„.11:-;.11:11: i...±, ''....1.;•11[1:1•1•.•• • • ..: ..... ...xx.:x: ........••••• • ••'x u : ' •..16111. • . x u:ax. All: x.::: ;:;8:11'!1!• ••••''. : z./:_;...:r', i c, .>. >..> a'• ..• "iii.;. y .. w.,t • • 'iii:::: . .... ... ix:i.. • •c 1••••••••••• ..:... • ? 10•1••• vx • 4: .. 'x 1•1.• a..... ':: ..:: •' ..:"i:'r. 111;1::;: '::E;.; " ••• • :"1111 .. 0 .: ... ..:'ti- .........: tii:. :x;:x:i: .. •...• • • ii xiii:ii':; i'iiii Liifi:iii':i:i" ••::xY.'.....::xx..: • • it::: :; x..x ji. ii':ix ::i 1111........ iil:i:E:::'yixx • • • VV 1. • --tr#t{J:x� .......xxxt:nxt:x::xx::xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx::xxxxxxxxxx::x. xxxxxxxxx .::.x:xxx xxxxxxxxxxxxwxxwsux:xxxxxs. xxxtr"pp*:y trtrtr sptr xrp#*#k:ra:xxxxx tr..:pxx'.:xxxxxxrarararaxxu:xx. xxxxxxxxxxrarara:xx:x:xxxxxx..:..:..:v ..:..:..:..:wx x.. .x xx'.:'.:xx wwwv..:xx'.:. _'.:. wwwv..:..:..:..:v ..:..:..:..:xx d a 4.....;... I 'tit t.i it: , ..t. (..i. aJ. .°L z.' _`i. k...>.. $. ¢..: x J s`�.ii '?. _ � >. .. � .1za r • January 17, 2008 To: Kelly Hossaini From: Joyce Woods, Principal, Durham Elementary RE: Arrival and Departure Routines at Durham Elementary Arrival • The vast majority of Durham students ride a bus to school. We have 11- 12 buses that transport students to school each morning. The buses arrive between 7:50 and 8:10. We rarely have more than 3 buses in the parking lot at any given time. • There are approximately 40 cars that bring students to school on a typical morning, though the number fluctuates between 30 and 60 depending on weather and special events. Cars generally arrive between 8:00 and 8:20. We rarely have more than 5 or 6 in the parking lot at any given time. • Fewer than a dozen students walk or ride bicycles to school, with about half of them accompanied by a parent. Departure • Most Durham students ride a bus home at the end of the day. We have 11-12 buses that transport students home each afternoon. The buses arrive between 2:00 and 2:20. Class ends at 2:25 and teachers walk their students out of the school. We have three staff members on bus duty each day, and they are strategically placed to provide supervision as students get on the appropriate buses. Buses all leave after we verify all students are on board and they generally pull out of the parking lot by 2:35. • There are approximately 20 cars that pick students up at the end of the day, though the number fluctuates between 15 and 30 depending on weather and special events. Parents are asked to arrive for pick up between 2:35 and 2:45 in order to avoid traffic jams with the buses. Students must wait in our designated "parent pick up" area that is supervised by a staff member. Once the buses leave, parent cars pull up to the pick up area. Most students are picked up by 2:45, though parents occasionally arrive as late as 3:00. PDXDOCS:1626615.1 • Unless a 3'gudent is one that we know walks ores to and from school, no student is allowed to leave the designated departure areas without getting on a bus or getting into a parent's car at the designated area. • Fewer than a dozen students walk or ride bicycles home, with about half of them accompanied by a parent. PDXDOCS:1626615.1 • • • MEMORANDUM T I GARD TO: Joe Turner, Hearings Officer FROM: Gary Pagenstecher, Associate Planner RE: Revised Conditions of Approval for Durham Elementary School Access, CUP2007-00004 DATE: January 28, 2008 Staff recommends the Hearings Officer replace condition of approval #23 in the Staff Report for CUP2007-00004 with the following condition of approval. Staff proposes this revised condition to make explicit the nexus between the potential water line work and the required street widening and to limit the potential water line work to that area that is impacted by the required street widening. 23. The applicant shall maintain the minimum 36-inch waterline cover as the widened street section is constructed. If the street widening requires the waterline to be moved, the applicant shall replace the 12-inch cast iron main in Durham Road with a 12-inch ductile iron line and update the water valves located within the widened street section. • • "TAB B" Applicant's Materials &All Correspondence Filed with Hearings Officer Prior to the Public Hearing. 03 • • Agenda Item: 2.1 Hearing Date: January 28,2008 Time: 7:00 PM STAFF REPORT TO THE a HEARINGS OFFICER FOR THE CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON T IGARD 120 DAYS = 3/20/2008 SECTION I. APPLICATION SUMMARY FILE NAME: DURHAM ELEMENTARY SCHOOL ACCESS CASE NO: Conditional Use Permit(CUP) CUP2007-00004 APPLICANT/ Tigard-Tualatin School District 23J APPLICANT'S WRG Design,Inc. OWNER: Attn: Rob Saxton REP.: 5415 SW Westgate Drive, 6960 SW Sandburg Street Suite 100 Tigard, OR 97223 Portland, OR 97221 PROPOSAL: The applicant requests approval of a major modification of a Conditional Use to relocate the current access drive to the Durham Elementary School from Shaffer Lane to a new access from the east to align with SW 79th Avenue at Durham Road and to provide an additional 20 parking spaces. The proposed access is to be constructed across Tax Lot 200 with a drive serving the school property involving Tax Lots 401, 500 and 300. LOCATION: The project is located at 8048 SW Shaffer Lane, immediately south of SW Durham Road between SW Carol Ann Court and SW 79th Avenue, on Tax Map and Lots 2S113B0,00300;2S113BA,00401;2S113BA, 00500;and 2S113BA, 0020(. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND ZONING DESIGNATION: R-12(HD): Medium-Density Residential District. The R-12 zoning district is designed to accommodate a full range of housing types at a minimum lot size of 3,050 square feet. A wide range of civic and institutional uses are also permitted conditionally. The purpose of the Historic District overlay is to facilitate the protection, enhancement and perpetuation of such improvements and of such districts which represent or reflect elements of the City's cultural, social, economic, political and architectural history. I-P: Industrial Park District. The I-P zoning district provides appropriate locations for combining light manufacturing, office and small-scale commercial uses, e.g., restaurants, personal services and fitness centers, in a campus-like setting. Only those light industrial uses with no off-site impacts, e.g., noise, glare, odors, vibration, are permitted in the I-P zone. In addition to mandatory site development review, design and development standards in the I-P zone have been adopted to insure that developments will be well-integrated, attractively landscaped, and pedestrian-friendly. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.330 18.390, 18.510, 18.530, 18.705, 18.725, 18.740, 18.745, 18.765, 18.78(-, 18.790, 18.'795, and 18.810. SECTION II. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Hearings Officer find that the proposed Conditional Use Permit will not adversely affect the health, safety, and welfare of the City and meets the Approval Standards for a Conditional Use. Therefore, Staff recommends APPROVAL, subject to the following recommended Conditions of Approval: DURHAM ELEMENTARY PAGE 1 OF 28 1/28/08 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER • • CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF THE SITE AND/OR BUILDING PERMITS: The applicant shall prepare a cover letter and submit it, along with any supporting documents and/or plans that address the following requirements to the CURRENT PLANNING DIVISION, ATTN: Gary Pagenstecher 503-639-4171, EXT 2434. The cover letter shall clearly identify where in the submittal the required information is found: 1. Prior to commencing any site work, the applicant shall submit a revised site plan showing the required 10-buffer (Table 18.745.1) from the revised right-of-way line along SW Durham Road, an arterial, and demonstrating compliance with the applicable landscaping and screening provisions for parking lots in TDC 18.745.050.E.1. 2. Prior to commencing any site work, the applicant shall submit a revised site plan that shows the clear vision areas formed by the right-of-way or property line as required in TDC 18.795.040. 3. Prior to commencing any site work, the applicant shall submit a revised site plan showing pedestrian crossings of traffic aisles leading to the proposed new parking and at the intersection with the existing parking lot. Pedestrian crossings are permitted for distances no greater than 36 feet and must include appropriate landscaping, pavement markings, or contrasting pavement materials. 4. Prior to commencing any site work, the applicant shall submit a revised site plan that shows parking spaces,interior drives and access aisles clearly marked. 5. Prior to commencing any site work, the applicant shall submit a revised landscape plan showing street trees on Tax Lots 300 and 500 in addition to Tax Lot 401. 6. Prior to commencing any site work, the applicant shall submit a revised tree protection plan showing locations of trees 32-53. In addition, the plan shall show all trees that are in close proximity to construction activities protected by chain link fencing; other trees may be protected with orange construction fencing. The tree protection plan shall also include a signature of approval from the project arborist. 7. Prior to commencing any site work, the applicant shall submit construction drawings to both Planning and Engineering that include: A. The approved Tree Removal and Protection Plan; B. A construction sequence including installation and removal of tree protection devices, clearing,grading, and paving; C. A note prohibiting equipment, vehicles, machinery, grading, dumping, storage, burial of debris, or any other construction-related activities in any tree protection zone;and D. A note stating that only those trees identified on the approved Tree Removal plan are authorized for removal by this report. Notwithstanding any other provision of this title, any party found to be in violation of this chapter [18.790] pursuant to Chapter 1.16 of the Tigard Municipal Code shall be subject to a civil penalty of up to $500 and shall be required to remedy any damage caused by the violation. Such remediation shall include, but not be limited to, the following: 1) Replacement of unlawfully removed or damaged trees in accordance with Section 18.790.060 (D) of the Tigard Development Code; and 2) Payment of an additional civil penalty representing the estimated value of any unlawfully removed or damaged tree, as determined using the most current International Society of Arboriculture's Guide for Plant Appraisal. E. If work is required within an established tree protection zone, the project arborist shall prepare a proposal detailing the construction techniques to be employed and the likely impacts to the trees. The proposal shall be reviewed and approved by the City Arborist before proposed work can proceed within a tree protection zone. The City Arborist may require changes prior to approval. The project arborist shall be on site while work is occurring within the tree protection zone and submit a summary report certifying that the work occurred per the proposal and will not significantly impact the health and/or stability DURHAM ELEMENTARY PAGE 2 OF 28 1/28/08 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER • of the trees. 8. Prior to commencing any site work, the applicant shall establish tree protection fencing as directed by the project abonst and conditioned by this decision to protect the trees to be retained. The applicant shall call for an inspection and allow access by the City Arborist for the purpose of monitoring the tree protection to verify that the tree protection measures are performing adequately. Failure to follow the plan, or maintain tree protection fencing in the designated locations shall be grounds for immediate suspension of work on the site until remediation measures and/or civil citations can be processed. 9. As an ongoing obligation during the development of the proposed property, the applicant shall ensure that the Project Arborist submits written reports to the City Arbonst, at least once every two weeks, from initial tree protection zone (1PZ) fencing installation through construction. The reports shall include the condition and location of the tree protection fencing and whether any changes occurred. If the amount of TPZ was reduced then the Project Arbonst shall justify why the fencing was moved, and shall certify that the construction activities to the trees did not adversely impact the overall, long-term health and stability of the tree(s). Failure to follow the plan, or maintain tree protection fencing in the designated locations shall be grounds for immediate suspension of work on the site until remediation measures and/or civil citations can be processed. The applicant shall prepare a cover letter and submit it, along with any supporting documents and/or plans that address the following requirements to the ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT, ATTN: Kim McMillan 503-639-4171, EXT 2642. The cover letter shall clearly identify where in the submittal the required information is found: 10. Prior to issuance of a site permit, a Public Facility Improvement (PFI) permit is required for this project to cover half-street improvements and any other work in the public right-of-way. Six (6) sets of detailed public improvement plans shall be submitted for review to the Engineering Department. NO FE: these plans are in addition to any drawings required by the Building Division and should only include sheets relevant to public improvements. Public Facility Improvement (PFI) permit plans shall conform to City of Tigard Public Improvement Design Standards, which are available at City Hall and the City's web page (www.tigard-or.gov). 11. The PFI permit plan submittal shall include the exact legal name, address and telephone number of the individual or corporate entity who will be designated as the "Permittee", and who will provide the financial assurance for the public improvements. For example, specify if the entity is a corporation, limited partnership, LLC, etc. Also specify the state within which the entity is incorporated and provide the name of the corporate contact person. Failure to provide accurate information to the Engineering Department will delay processing of project documents. 12. The applicant shall provide a construction vehicle access and parking plan for approval by the City Engineer. The purpose of this plan is for parking and traffic control during the public improvement construction phase. 13. Any necessary off-site utility easements shall be the responsibility of the applicant to obtain and shall be submitted to and accepted by the City prior to issuance of a site permit. 14. Additional right-of-way shall be dedicated to the Public along the frontage of Tax Lots 401 and 500 to increase the right-of-way to 50 feet from the centerline. The description shall be tied to the existing right-of-way centerline. The dedication document shall be on City forms. Instructions are available from the Engineering Department. 15. Additional right-of-way shall be dedicated to the Public along the frontage of Tax Lot 300 to increase the right-of-way to 50 feet from the centerline or to increase the right-of-way to 38 feet from centerline and provide a 12 foot preserve right-of-way. The description shall be tied to the existing right-of-way centerline. The dedication document shall be on City forms. Instructions are available from the Engineering Department. DURHAM ELEMENTARY PAGE 3 OF 28 1/28/08 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER • • 16. Additional right-of-way shall be dedicated to the Public along the frontage of Tax Lot 200 (as indicated in Exhibit B, Page 1 of 1 in the Order Confirming Immediate Possession) to increase the right-of-way to 50 feet from the centerline. The description shall be tied to the existing right-of-way centerline. The dedication document shall be on City forms. Instructions are available from the Engineering Department. 17. The applicant's plans shall be revised to remove all private parking spaces from the public right-of- way or preserve right-of-way. 18. The applicant shall submit construction plans to the Engineering Department as a part of the Public Facility Improvement permit,indicating that they will construct the following frontage improvements along SW Durham Road as a part of this project: A. eastbound right-turn lane and 8-foot concrete curbside sidewalk; B. street trees along Tax Lots 300, 401 and 500, in the planter strip spaced per TDC requirements; C. streetlight layout by applicant's engineer,to be approved by City Engineer;and D. driveway apron removal. 19. A profile of Durham Road shall be required, extending 300 feet either side of the subject site showing the existing grade and proposed future grade. 20. Tax Lots 300,401 and 500 shall not be permitted to access directly onto Durham Road. 21. The applicant's plans shall indicate the restoration of bicycle striping upon completion of the right-turn lane construction. 22. Any extension of public water lines shall be shown on the proposed Public Facility Improvement (PFI) permit construction drawings and shall be reviewed and approved by the City's Water Department, as a part of the Engineering Department plan review. NOTE: An estimated 12% of the water system costs must be on deposit with the Water Department prior to approval of the PFI permit plans from the Engineering Department and construction of public water lines. 23. The applicant shall replace the 12 inch cast iron main in Durham Road with a 12 inch ductile iron line along the entire project frontage (Tax Lots 300,401 & 500). The City of Tigard will share in the cost of this line replacement. 24. Final design plans and calculations for the proposed private water quality facility shall be submitted to the Engineering Department (Kim McMillan) as a part of the Public Facility Improvement (PFI) permit plans. Included with the plans shall be a proposed landscape plan and maintenance plan. 25. During issuance of the Site permit, the applicant shall pay the fee in-lieu of constructing an on-site water quantity (detention) facility. The fee is based on the total area of new impervious surfaces in the proposed development. 26. An erosion control plan shall be provided as part of the Public Facility Improvement (PFI) permit drawings. The plan shall conform to the "Erosion Prevention and Sediment Control Design and Planning Mannai,February 2003 edition." 27. The a?plicant shall obtain a 1200-C General Permit issued by the City of Tigard pursuant to ORS 468.70 and the Federal Clean Water Act. THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO A FINAL BUILDING INSPECTION: The applicant shall prepare a cover letter and submit it, along with any supporting documents and/or plans that address the following requirements to the CURRENTLANNING DIVISION, ATTN: Gary Pagenstecher 503-639-4171, EXT 2434. The cover letter shall clearly identify where in the submittal the required information is found: DURHAM ELEMENTARY PAGE 4 OF 28 1/28/08 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER • • 28. Prior to final inspection, the applicant shall record deed restrictions to the effect that any existing tree greater than 6" diameter may be removed only if the tree dies or is hazardous according to a certified arborist. The deed restriction may be removed or will be considered invalid if a tree preserved in accordance with this decision should either die or be removed as a hazardous tree. 29. Prior to final inspection, the applicant shall submit a final report by the Project Arborist certifying the health of protected trees. Tree protection measures may be removed and final inspection authorized upon review and approval by the City Arborist. 30. Prior to placement of any signs on site, the applicant shall apply for a sign permit and supply staff with the appropriate plans to verify compliance with TDC Chapter 18.780. The applicant shall prepare a cover letter and submit it, along with any supporting documents and/or plans that address the following requirements to the ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT, ATTN: Kim McMillan 503-639-4171, EXT 2642. The cover letter shall clearly identify where in the submittal the required information is found: 31. Prior to a final building inspection, the applicant shall complete the required public improvements, obtain conditional acceptance from the City, and provide a one-year maintenance assurance for said improvements. 32. Prior to a final building inspection, the applicant shall provide the City with as-built drawings of the public improvements as follows: 1) 3 mil mylar, 2) a diskette of the as-builts in"DWG" format, if available; otherwise "DXF" will be acceptable, and 3) the as-built drawings shall be tied to the City's GPS network. The applicants engineer shall provide the City with an electronic file with points for each structure (manholes, catch basins, water valves, hydrants and other water system features) in the development, and their respective X and Y State Plane Coordinates,referenced to NAD 83 (91). 33. The applicant shall execute a Restrictive Covenant whereby they agree to complete or participate in the future improvements of SW Durham Road adjacent to the subject property, when any of the following events occur: A. when the improvements are part of a larger project to be financed or paid for by the formation of a Local Improvement District, B. when the improvements are part of a larger project to be financed or paid for in whole or in part by the City or other public agency, C. when the improvements are part of a larger project to be constructed by a third party and involves the sharing of design and/or construction expenses by the third party owner(s) of property in addition to the subject property,or D. when construction of the improvements is deemed to be appropriate by the City Engineer in conjunction with construction of improvements by others adjacent to the subject site. 34. A joint use and maintenance agreement shall be executed and recorded on City standard forms for all common driveways. The agreement shall be referenced on and become part of all applicable parcel Deeds. The agreement shall be approved by the Engineering Department poor to recording. 35. The applicant shall either place the existing overhead utility lines along SW Durham Road underground as a part of this project, or they shall pay the fee in-lieu of undergrounding. The fee shall be calculated by the frontage of the site that is parallel to the utility lines and will be $35.00 per lineal foot. If the fee option is chosen, the amount will be$19,530.00 and it shall be paid pnor to a final building inspection. DURHAM ELEMENTARY PAGE 5 OF 28 1/28/08 PUBLIC FIEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER • • 36. To ensure compliance with Clean Water Services design and construction standards, the applicant shall employ the design engineer responsible for the design and specifications of the private water quality facility to perform construction and visual observation of the water quality facility for compliance with the design and specifications. These inspections shall be made at significant stages, and at completion of the construction. Prior to final building inspection, the design engineer shall provide the City of Tigard Engineering with written confirmation that the water quality facility is in compliance with the design and specifications. FAILURE TO SATISFY THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL WITHIN 18 MONTHS OF THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE HEARINGS OFFICER'S DECISION SHALL RENDER THE 'HEARINGS OFFICER'S DECISION VOID. SECTION III. BACKGROUND INFORMATION Site History: The subject site is home to the Durham Elementary School and the historic Durham Center. Staff found the following land use decisions made by the City: CUP91-00001 allowed the placement and use of a portable classroom structure; CUP95-00006 allowed addition of 39,135 square feet to an existing school of 23,830 square feet; SLR2001-00001 allowed the use of a 1/3-acre parcel between Fanno Creek and Durham School as an outdoor nature investigation and observation site; MMD95-00001 allowed the portable classroom relocation; MMD2000-00011 allowed an educational structure; MMD2007-00019 allowed the construction of a replacement playground. A portion of the adjacent Tax Lot 200 is included in the project to accommodate alignment of the proposed access drive with the 79th Avenue and SW Durham Road intersection. SDR2000-00016 approved construction of a 10,320 square foot addition to an existing 21,000 square foot building for office and industrial uses on Tax Lot 200. Pursuant to the Oregon Circuit Court Immediate Possession Order (Case No. C074583CV), the applicant obtained an access easement across Tax Lot 200 for the propped access drive. Vicinity Information: The subject site is bounded by Clean Water Services facilities on the south and west, R-12 residential development to the north across SW Durham Road, and commercial/industrial uses on property zoned industrial park adjacent to ODOT railroad right-of-way and Fanno Creek on the east and south.Access to the site is limited to SW Durham Road. Site Information and Proposal Description: The subject site is zoned R-12 and I-P, has a Comprehensive Plan Designation of Public Institution, and is located south of Durham Road between SW Hall and SW 79th Avenue. The site contains the Durham Elementary School built in 1989 and the historic Durham Center. Since 1989, the access to the school was provided by SW Shaffer Lane under an easement agreement across CWS property for a period of 20 years without an opportunity for renewal. The District requests a major modification to an existing Conditional Use Approval to relocate the current Durham Elementary School access drive along SW Shaffer Lane to a new access from the east to align with SW 79th Avenue at Durham Road and to provide an additional 20 parking spaces. SECTION IV. DECISION MAKING PROCEDURES, PERMITS AND USE Use Classification: Section 18.130.020 Lists the Use Categories. The proposed access and parking uses are accessory uses to an existing public elementary school use, a civic use pursuant to Section 18.130.020.B.10. DURHAM ELEMENTARY PAGE 6 OF 28 1/28/08 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER • • Summary Land Use Permits: Chapter 18.310 Defines the decision-making type to which the land-use application is assigned. The proposed access and parking requires a Conditional Use permit which is a Type III-HO process with a hearing and decision by the Tigard Hearings Officer, pursuant to school use listed in the Use Table (Table 18.510.1) for property zoned Residential. The applicant has applied for a major modification of an existing conditional use,consistent with this standard. SECTION V. SUMMARY OF APPLICABLE CRITERIA A summary of the applicable criteria in this case in the chapter order in which they are addressed in this report are as follows: A. 18.330 Specific Conditional Use Criteria General Approval Criteria) Additional Conditions of Approval) Additional Development Standards) B. pplicable Development Code Standards 18.510 'esidential Zoning Districts) 18.530 ndustrial Zoning Districts) 18.705 Access,Egress&Circulation) 18.725 nvironmental Performance Standards) 18.740 'storic Overlay) 18.745 andscaping and Screening) 18.765 Off-Street Parking and Loading Requirements) 18.780 Signs) 18.790 ree Removal) 18.795 isual Clearance) C. Street and Utility Improvement Standards (18.810) D. Impact Study (18.390) SECTION VI. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA AND FINDINGS A. SPECIFIC CONDITIONAL USE APPROVAL CRITERIA Section 18.330.010.A states that the purpose of this chapter is to provide standards and procedures under which a conditional use may be permitted, enlarged or altered if the site is appropriate and if other appropriate conditions of approval can be met. There are certain uses which due to the nature of the impacts on surrounding land uses and public facilities require a case-by-case review and analysis. Pursuant to TDC Table 18.510.1, a "school" requires a Conditional Use permit in the R-12 zone. The existing Durham Elementary School is located in the R-12 zone and, therefore, requires a conditional use permit. Section 18.330.020 states that the applicant may request approval of a modification to an approved plan. The Director shall determine that a major modification has resulted if there is a change in the type and location of access ways and parking area where off-site traffic would be affected. The request for approval for a modification to an existing conditional use shall be processed as a Type III-HO procedure, as regulated by Chapter 18.390.050, using approval criteria contained in Section 18.330.030A and subject to other requirements in Chapter 1.8.330. The applicant has proposed a modification of the access to an existing conditional use that would affect off- site traffic an SW 79th Avenue. The request is processed as a Type III-HO procedure and is subject to the General Approval Criteria for a Conditional Use Section 18.330.030.A, Additional Conditions of Approval for Conditional Use Section 18.330.030.B, and Additional Development Standards for Conditional Use Types Section 18.330.050,below. DURHAM ELEMENTARY PAGE 7 OF 28 1/28/08 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER • • General Approval Criteria For A Conditional Use: Section 18.330.030.A The site size and dimensions provide adequate area for the needs of the proposed use; The proposed access from SW Durham at 79th Avenue required condemnation of a portion of the adjacent property (Immediate Possession Order Case No. C074583CV), which resulted in an area adequate for the access needs of the site, consistent with this standard. The characteristics of the site are suitable for the proposed use considering size, shape, location, topography, and natural features; The subject site is currently developed as a school. The proposed access would cross a level playing field to access the existing parking from the east.The site is suitable for the proposed development. All required public facilities have adequate capacity to serve the proposal; and The site is fully developed and served by public facilities. All public facilities including streets, storm and sanitary sewers, and water have adequate capacity to serve the site as discussed in detail elsewhere in this report. The applicable requirements of the zoning district are met except as modified by this chapter. STANDARD I-P R-12 CONDITIONAL PROPOSED MF/SF USE(SCHOOLS) R-12/I-P Minimum Lot Size None 3,050 sq.ft. n/a n/a Minimum Lot Width 50 ft. None n/a n/a Minimum Setbacks Front yard 35 20/15 ft 30 ft n/a Side facing street on corner&through lots 20 20/10 ft 20 ft n/a Side yard 0/50 10/5 ft 20 ft n/a Rear yard 0/50 20/15 ft 30 ft n/a Maximum Height 45 ft. 35 ft.• SAME AS R-12 n/a Maximum Site Coverage[2] 75% 80% SAME AS R-12 38%/no change Minimum Landscape Requirement 25% 20% SAME AS R-12 62%/no change The proposed project site is located within the R-12 and I-P zoning districts. Within the school property zoned R-12, no lots are proposed and no multi-family or single-family structures are present or proposed. Therefore, the base development standards for lot size and configuration and structures do no apply to the proposed access and parking uses. Site coverage standards of the R-12 zone do apply to conditional uses. As shown above and found in the applicant's Preliminary Drainage Report, the post-development impervious area will be 38%,consistent with the maximum site coverage standard. Within the I-P zone, as described in the applicant's narrative, the proposed access replaces parking spaces and reconfigures the landscaped areas with a no net loss of landscaping. The proposed project meets the applicable requirements of the respective zoning districts. The applicable requirements of 18.330.050 Additional Development Standards for Conditional Use Types: Schools: There shall be no minimum lot size requirements for schools other than what is required for the applicable zoning district; There is no minimum lot size in the I-P zone. The minimum lot size in the R-12 zone is 3,050 square feet. The subject site is comprised of two parcels of 5.6 and 2.8 acres in the R-12 zone, consistent with this standard. Setbacks: (1)The front yard setback shall be a minimum of 30 feet; (2) On corner lots and through lots, the setback shall be a minimum of 20 feet on any side facing a street,plus meet visual clearance areas, Chapter 18.795; (3)The side yard setback shall be a minimum of 20 feet; and DURHAM ELEMENTARY PAGE 8 OF 28 1/28/08 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER • • (4)The rear yard setback shall be a minimum of 30 feet. The proposed access and parking are not subject to the setback standards. The supplementary requirements set forth in other chapters of this Code including but not limited to Chapter 18.780, Signs, and Chapter 18.360, Site Development Review,if applicable,are met or can be conditioned to be satisfied. The applicable review criteria in this case include the following chapters of the Community Development Code: 18.330, Conditional Use; 18.390 Decision Making Procedures; 18.510, Residential Zoning District; 18.530, Industrial Zoning District; 18.705, Access, Egress and Circulation; 18.725, Environmental Performance Standards; 18.740, Historic Overlay; 18.745, Landscaping and Screening; 18.765, Off-Street Parking; 18.780, Signs; 18.790,Tree Removal; 18.795, Visual Clearance Areas; and 18.810, Street and Utility Improvement Standards. The development standards and requirements of these chapters are addressed further in this report. The proposal contains no elements related to the provisions of the following chapters: 18.350, Planned Development; 18.360, Site Development Review; 18.370 Variances and Adjustments; 18.380, Zoning Map/Text Amendments; 18.410, Lot Line Adjustments; 18.420, Land Partitions; 18.430, Subdivisions; 18.520, Commercial Zoning Districts; 18.620, Tigard Triangle Design Standards; 18.630 Washington Square Regional Center; 18.640 Durham Quarry Design Standards; 18.710, Accessory Residential Units; 18.715, Density Computations; 18.720, Design Compatibility Standards; 18.730, Exceptions to Development Standards; 18.742, Home Occupations; 18.750, Manufactured/Mobile Home Regulations; 18.755 Mixed Solid Waste and Recyclable Storage; 18.760, Nonconforming Situations; 18.775, Sensitive Lands; 18.785, Temporary Uses; and 18.798, Wireless Communications Facuties. These chapters are, therefore, found to be inapplicable as approval standards. The use will comply with the applicable policies of the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan is implemented by the Community Development Code. Compliance with Comprehensive Plan policies are, therefore, assured by satisfaction of the applicable development standards of the development code as addressed within this report. FINDING: Based on the analysis above, the General Approval Criteria for a Conditional Use are satisfied. Additional Conditions Of Approval For Conditional Use: Section 18.330.030.B. This section states that the Hearings Authority may impose conditions on the approval of a conditional use, which are found necessary to ensure the use is compatible with other uses in the vicinity, and that the impact of the proposed use on the surrounding uses and public facilities is minimized. These conditions may include,but are not limited to the following: Limiting the hours, days,place and/or manner of operation; The proposed access will not involve additional traffic or impacts beyond the existing condition, except that the impacts will shift location from SW Shaffer Lane on the west to the 79th Avenue intersection on the east. Therefore, no limitations beyond what may already be in place or that are particular to the realignment in terms of manner of operation would be warranted. The interface between the office complex and the new access has been addressed in the applicant's narrative including proper signage to keep conflicts between joint access users to a minimum. Requiring design features which minimize environmental impacts such as noise, vibration, air pollution, glare, odor and/or dust; The proposed access and parking would not introduce additional environmental impacts not already associated with the existing access, except through the construction period. The construction impacts will be mitigated through typical engineering conditions of approval addressed previously in this staff report. Requiring additional setback areas, lot area, and/or lot depth or width; DURHAM ELEMENTARY PAGE 9 OF 28 1/28/08 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER • • Pursuant to the Oregon Circuit Court Immediate Possession Order (Case No. C074583CV), the applicant obtained a right-of-way dedication and access and construction easements across the adjacent parcel (2S113BA00200) to the east required for the proposed access from the SW 79th intersection. However, the access does not require additional setback or lot areas or lot depth or width adjustments. Limiting the building height, size or lot coverage, and/or location on the site; No buildings are proposed with this development. Due to the size of the property, the existing and proposed impervious surfaces contributing to lot coverage do not exceed the standard, as shown in the applicable development standards for the R-12 and I-P zones as shown in the table above. Designating the size, number, location and/or design of vehicle access points; The proposed access replaces the existing single access and is consistent with the access standards as reviewed below in the Access and Egress Standards section of this report. Requiring street right-of-way to be dedicated and street(s) to be improved; The applicant has proposed to dedicate and improve SW Durham Road as necessary. The specifics of the improvements are discussed in more detail in the Street and Utility section of this report. Requiring landscaping, screening, drainage and/or surfacing of parking and loading areas; With respect to the proposed access and parking, these issues are addressed later in the Landscaping and Screening and Streets and Utilities section of this report. As conditioned, the proposal will meet the standards of the TDC. Limiting the number, size, location, height and/or lighting of signs; The applicant states that the existing sign for the commercial office site must be relocated in order to construct the access way at the signalized intersection, but can be located within the same area. Compliance with the sign requirements for the underlying zone will be considered once a sign application is submitted and reviewed, as conditioned in the Sign section of this report. Limiting or setting standards for the location and/or intensity of outdoor lighting; The applicant states that any required lighting will be consistent with the requirements of the Tigard Development Code. Requiring berms, screening or landscaping and the establishment of standards for their installation and maintenance; The applicant proposes screening or landscaping consistent with the standards in the Tigard Development Code,which is discussed below in the Landscaping and Screening section of this report. Requiring and designating the size, height, location and/or materials for fences; The applicant states there is existing fencing on the south, east and west boundaries of the property and proposes additional fencing south of the proposed access driveway to tie into the existing fence. Fences are addressed in the Landscaping and screening section of this report. Requiring the protection and preservation of existing trees, soils, vegetation, watercourses, habitat areas and/or drainage areas; The applicant states that seven trees will be removed in addition to landscaping in the path of the proposed access and parking areas. The Arborist Report identifies protection measures for remaining trees. No watercourses, habitat areas and/or drainage areas will be affected by the proposed project. Requiring the dedication of sufficient open land area for a greenway adjoining and within the floodplain when land form alterations and development are allowed within the 100-year floodplain; and DURHAM ELEMENTARY PAGE 10 OF 28 1/28/08 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER • • The subject development site (elevation 155) is located approximately 500 feet northwest of the Fanno Creek flood plain at its nearest point (elevation 127).Therefore, this standard does not apply. Requiring the construction of a pedestrian/bicycle pathway within the floodplain in accordance with the adopted pedestrian/bicycle pathway plan. The school property does include approximately 5,000 square feet of floodplain in the extreme southeast corner of Tax Lot 500. The City's Transportation System Plan (TSP) shows an alignment of a RTP Regional Corridor Off-Street Multi-Use Path in the vicinity of Tax Lot 500. The Final Report of the Fanno Creek Greenway Trail (11/30/05), prepared as an academic exercise by Portland State's Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, shows the proposed trail on the east side of Fanno Creek on the adjacent Tax Lot 400. Areial maps show that the creek itself is on the property line with a steep embankment on the subject lot. Although the study is not binding, it is likely that the trail would not be sited on Tax Lot 500. Since the alignment has not been finally determined, no construction can be required under this land use permit. Additional Development Standards For Conditional Use Types: Section 18.330.050. Section 18.330.050 contains additional development standards for conditional use types. The existing "school" use (and its appurtenant uses, access and parking) is a conditional use in the R-12 zone. The applicable standards are addressed above in the General Approval Criteria for a Conditional Use: Section 18.330.030.A.5 FINDING: The Hearings Officer may impose conditions on the approval of a conditional use, which are found necessary to ensure the use is compatible with other uses in the vicinity, and that the impact of the proposed use on the surrounding uses and public facilities is minimized. Staff recommends the Hearings Officer approve the proposed access and parking with respect to the items addressed above under Specific Conditional Use Approval Criteria. B. APPLICABLE DEVELOPMENT CODE STANDARDS SITE DEVELOPMENT REIVEW (18.360) Pursuant to TDC 18.360.020, Site Development review standards shall not apply to any proposed development which has a valid conditional use approved through the conditional use permit application process. The existing Durham Elementary school use was permitted under CUP95-00006. Therefore , the Site Development review standards do not apply. RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS (18.510) A list of permitted, limited, conditional and prohibited uses in residential zones is presented in Table 18.510.1. S The majority of the proposed access and all of the proposed parking are located in the R-12 zone. A school use includes the appurtenant uses associated with it including the proposed access road and parking. Schools are a conditionally permitted use in the R-12 zone. 18.510.050 Development Standards A. Compliance required. All development must comply with all of the applicable development standards contained in the underlying zoning district. The development standards of the underlying R-12 zone have been met as addressed previously in this report. INDUSTRIAL ZONING DISTRICTS (18.530) A list of permitted, limited, conditional and prohibited uses in industrial zones is presented in Table 18.530.1. The proposed access includes an intersection with SW Durham Road aligned with SW 79th Avenue,which is located on a portion of the adjacent parcel (IL 200) zoned I-P. Public support facilities are permitted outright in the I-P zone. DURHAM FI.FNIENTARY PAGE 11 OF 28 1/28/08 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER • • 18.530.040 Development Standards Compliance required. All development must comply with all of the applicable development standards contamed in the underlying zoning district. The development standards of the underlying I-P zone have been met as addressed previously in this report. ACCESS,EGRESS AND CIRCULATION (18.705) No building or other permit shall be issued until scaled plans are presented and approved as provided by this chapter that show how access, egress and circulation requirements are to be fulfilled.The applicant shall submit a site plan. The applicant submitted a plan set and narrative that addresses the access and egress standards, consistent with this standard. Owners of two or more uses, structures, or parcels of land may agree to utilize jointly the same access and egress when the combined access and egress of both uses, structures, or parcels of land satisfies the combined requirements as designated in this title,provided: 1) Satisfactory legal evidence shall be presented in the form of deeds, easements, leases or contracts to establish the joint use; and 2) Copies of the deeds, easements, leases or contracts are placed on permanent file with the City. The proposed access crosses the adjacent parcel (Tax Lot 200) over an easement that will serve both the school and the office/industrial uses. The applicant states that "the joint access agreement has not been finalized at the time this narrative was submitted. The appropriate legal evidence will be presented in the form of deeds, easement, leases or contracts to establish the join use when they are available." Pursuant to the Oregon Circuit Court Immediate Possession Order (Case No. C074583CV), the applicant obtained an access easement across Tax Lot 200 for the propped access drive. In addition, to ensure this standard is met, a condition of approval has been imposed requiring the applicant to provide a joint use and maintenance agreement, to be executed and recorded on City standard forms for all common driveways. The agreement shall be referenced on and become part of all applicable parcel Deeds. The agreement shall be approved by the Engineering Department prior to recording.Therefore, this standard has been met. All vehicular access and egress as required in Sections 18.705.030H and 18.705.030I shall connect directly with a public or private street approved by the City for public use and shall be maintained at the required standards on a continuous basis. The site has frontage on SW Durham Road, a public street. The proposed access connects directly with this street at the intersection of SW 79th Avenue, consistent with this standard. Required Walkway Location On-site pedestrian walkways shall comply with the following standards: Walkways shall extend from the ground floor entrances or from the ground floor landing of stairs, ramps, or elevators of all commercial, institutional, and industrial uses, to the streets which provide the required access and egress. Walkways shall provide convenient connections between buildings in multi-building commercial, institutional, and industrial complexes. Unless impractical, walkways shall be constructed between new and existing developments and neighboring developments; The applicant's narrative and plan set show the required walkways linking the proposed accessway and parking area with the sidewalk on SW Durham Road and the internal sidewalk system among the various buildings that comprise the Durham Elementary School and the Durham Center, consistent with this standard. Wherever required walkways cross vehicle access driveways or parking lots, such crossings shall be designed and located for pedestrian safety. Required walkways shall be physically separated from motor vehicle traffic and parking by either a minimum 6-inch vertical separation (curbed) or a minimum 3-foot horizontal separation, except that pedestrian crossings of traffic aisles are permitted for distances no greater than 36 feet if appropriate landscaping, pavement markings, or contrasting pavement materials are used. Walkways shall be a minimum of four feet in width, exclusive of vehicle overhangs and obstructions such as mailboxes, benches, bicycle racks, and sign posts, and shall be in compliance with ADA standards; DURHAM ELEMENTARY PAGE 12 OF 28 1/28/08 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER • • The applicant's site plan (Sheet D2.0) indicates the proposed sidewalks are concrete and meet the minimum required width with 7 feet on SW Durham and 6-1/2 feet along the proposed accessway. The site plan does not show any walkways crossing the vehicular access or parking areas, as required. However, the narrative states that where walkways cross parking areas and rive aisle, they are clearly marked with permanent paint or contrasting pavement materials. Therefore, the applicant shall submit a revised site plan showing pedestrian crossings of traffic aisles leading to the proposed new parking and at the intersection with the existing parking lot, which are permitted for distances no greater than 36 feet if appropriate landscaping,pavement markings, or contrasting pavement materials are used. Required walkways shall be paved with hard surfaced materials such as concrete, asphalt, stone, brick, etc. Walkways may be required to be lighted and/or signed as needed for safety purposes. Soft-surfaced public use pathways may be provided only if such pathways are provided in addition to required pathways. The applicant's narrative states that all sidewalks will be constructed with asphalt or concrete materials and that the walkway serving the playground will be surfaced with engineered fiber mulch, consistent with this standard. The applicant does not address any proposed lighting for the proposed walkways. The City of Tigard Police Department commented that they have no objections with the proposed design for public safety, consistent with this standard. Access Management (Section 18.705.030.H): Section 18.705.030.H.1 states that an access report shall be submitted with all new development proposals which verifies design of driveways and streets are safe by meeting adequate stacking needs, sight distance and deceleration standards as set by ODOT, Washington County, the City and AASHTO. DKS Associates prepared a Background Information memo Regarding Proposed Durham Elementary Access, dated September 5, 2007 for this proposed project. Three access locations along Durham Road were studied and the applicant has proceeded with the proposed access at Durham Road and 79th Avenue. This is a signalized intersection that aligns with parking lot access on the south side of Durham Road. This parking lot access is the proposed location of a shared access for the existing office park and the elementary school. The analysis by DKS also found that,with the constructing of an eastbound right-turn lane at the existing Durham Road/79th Avenue intersection, the eastbound queuing problem that was identified in the AM peak hour could be mitigated. The applicant's construction plans have incorporated the design of the eastbound right-turn lane. The existing driveway access points on Durham Road in front of Tax Lots 401 and 500 shall be closed,as shown on the applicant's plan sheet D2.0. DKS Associates prepared a Site Access Alternatives Evaluation, dated May 31, which addressed sight distance at the proposed access location of Durham Road/79th Avenue. For Durham Road, the required intersection sight distance based on AASHTO guidelines is 390 feet. The engineer states that intersection sight distance was measured in the field and found to be approximately 550 feet to the east and 400 feet to the west, thereby meeting this criterion. Section 18.705.030.H.2 states that driveways shall not be permitted to be placed in the influence area of collector or arterial street intersections. Influence area of intersections is that area where queues of traffic commonly form on approach to an intersection. The minimum driveway setback from a collector or arterial street intersection shall be150 feet, measured from the right-of- way line of the intersecting street to the throat of the proposed driveway. The setback may be greater depending upon the influence area, as determined from City Engineer review of a traffic impact report submitted by the applicant's traffic engineer. In a case where a project has less than 150 feet of street frontage, the applicant must explore any option for shared access with the adjacent parcel. If shared access is not possible or practical, the driveway shall be placed as far from the intersection as possible. The proposed driveway is located at the signalized intersection of Durham Road/79th Avenue, thereby meeting this criterion. There are two existing driveways that will be removed with this development. No access will be allowed onto Durham Road from Tax Lots 300, 401 or 500. DURHAM ELEMENTARY PAGE 13 OF 28 1/28/08 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER • • Section 18.705.030.H.3 and 4 states that the minimum spacing of driveways and streets along a collector shall be 200 feet. The minimum spacing of driveways and streets along an arterial shall be 600 feet. The minimum spacing of local streets along a local street shall be 125 feet. The proposed driveway is located at an existing driveway at the signalized intersection of Durham Road/79th Avenue, thereby meeting this criterion. There are two existing driveways that will be removed with this development. No access will be allowed onto Durham Road from Tax Lots 300, 401 or 500. Section 18.705.030.J includes minimum access requirements for commercial uses. Table 18.705.3 shows the minimum number of driveways required, minimum access width, and minimum pavement width for commercial uses depending on the number of required parking spaces. The proposed school site does not include commercial or industrial uses. The industrial/office site is an industrial use a has two driveway access points that are a minimum 30 feet wide, pursuant to Table 18.705.3 • FINDING: As the above analysis shows, the proposed development does not meet all of the Access and Egress standards. However, with the following condition of approval, the standards can be met. CONDITION: The applicant shall submit a revised site plan showing pedestrian crossings of traffic aisles leading to the proposed new parking and at the intersection with the existing parking lot. Pedestrian crossings are permitted for distances no greater than 36 feet and must include appropriate landscaping, pavement markings, or contrasting pavement materials. ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE STANDARDS—CHAPTER 18.725: Requires that federal and state environmental laws, rules and regulations be applied to development within the City of Tigard. Section 18.725.030 Performance Standards regulates: Noise,visible emissions,vibration and odors. Noise. For the purposes of noise regulation, the provisions of Sections 7.41.130 through 7.40.210 of the Tigard Municipal Code shall apply. Visible Emissions. Within the Commercial zoning districts and the Industrial Park (I-P) zoning district, there shall be no use, operation or activity which results in a stack or other point- source emission, other than an emission from space heating, or the emission of pure uncombined water (steam) which is visible from a property line. Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) rules for visible emissions (340-21-015 and340--28-070) apply. Vibration. No vibration other than that caused by highway vehicles, trains and aircraft is permitted in any given zoning district,which is discernible without instruments at the property line of the use concerned. Odors. The emissions of odorous gases or other matter in such quantities as to be readily detectable at any point beyond the property line of the use creating the odors is prohibited. DEQ rules for odors (340-028-090) apply. Glare and heat. No direct or sky reflected glare, whether from floodlights or from high temperature processes such as combustion or welding, which is visible at the lot line shall be permitted, and; 1) there shall be no emission or transmission of heat or heated air which is discernible at the lot line of the source; and 2) these regulations shall not apply to signs or floodlights in parking areas or construction equipment at the time of construction or excavation work otherwise permitted by this title. Insects and rodents. All materials including wastes shall be stored and all grounds shall be maintained in a manner which will not attract or aid the propagation of insects or rodents or create a health hazard. DURHAM ELEMENTARY PAGE 14 OF 28 1/28/08 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER s FINDING: There is no evidence in the record that would suggest that any problems associated with noise, emissions, vibrations, odors, glare and heat, or insects and rodents would result from this specific development. Based on the information provided by the applicant, the use of the property will conform to the above requirements. If for some reason the above standards were in question, and it was subsequently found that the use was out of compliance with any of the above standards, the property owner would be subject to code enforcement, court review, possible fines, and revocation of the Conditional Use Permit. HISTORIC OVERLAY Chapter 18.740 18.740.020 Applicability of Provisions Designated areas. The historic overlay district shall apply to the following sites and areas: Historic sites and areas; Cultural sites and areas; and Landmarks A portion of the subject site is designated R-12 with a Historic Overlay (HD) zone. Designated activities. The provisions of this chapter apply to the demolition of structures within an historic overlay zone area, as governed by Section 18.740.030; and the exterior alteration or new construction within the historic overlay zone area, as governed by Section 18.740.030. FINDING: The activities proposed within the R-12 (HD) zoned portion of the site include the access road and new parking area improvements. The applicant states and the Site Plan (Sheet D2.0) shows that the historic school building will not be altered or impacted by the proposed development. Therefore, the historic overlay criteria are not applicable. LANDSCAPING AND SCREENING—CHAPTER 18.745: Street trees: Section 18.745.040 states that all development projects fronting on a public street, private street or a private driveway more than 100 feet in length shall be required to plant street trees in accordance with Section 18.745.040.0 Section 18.745.040.0 requires that street trees be spaced between 20 and 40 feet apart depending on the size classification of the tree at maturity (small, medium or large). The project has frontage on SW Durham Road along Tax Lots 2S113B000300, 2S113BA00401, 2S113BA00500, and the access portion of 2S113BA00200. The applicant also proposes a driveway approximately 560 feet long. The applicant has indicated in the narrative and on the site plan (Sheet L1.0) that they intend to plant street trees along the Durham Road frontage of tax lot 401 and both sides of the driveway in accordance with Section 18.745.040.C. However, the subject site's whole Durham Road frontage is subject to this standard. Therefore, as a condition of approval, the applicant shall submit a revised Street Tree plan showing street trees along SW Durham Road on Tax Lots 300 and 500, in addition to Tax Lot 401. The applicant has specified Red Oaks for street trees, which are included on the City's Street Tree List. The plan shows trees spaced at approximately 35 feet, which, for large trees, is consistent with Section 18.745.040.C. Land Use Buffering and Screening: Buffering and Screening is required between different types of land uses. Pursuant to the Buffer Matrix in Table 18.745.1, the proposed access does not require buffering the proposed 19-space parking lot does not require buffering from an existing use on roperty zone I-P;but the proposed use does require a 10-foot buffer from SW Durham Road, an arterial. The applicant states the buffer currently exists. However, pursuant to Section 18.810.030.A.2, as reviewed below in the Streets and Utilities section of this report, dedication of right-of-way is required along the subject site's entire SW Durham Road frontage.As a condition of approval,the applicant shall submit a revised site plan showing the required 10-foot buffer from the revised right-of-way line along the site's whole frontage along SW Durham Road. DURHAM El FMENTARY PAGE 15 OF 28 1/28/08 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER • '. A buffer consists of an area within a required setback adjacent to a property line and having a depth equal to the amount specified in the buffering and screening matrix and containing a length equal to the length of the property line of the abutting use or uses; A buffer area may only be occupied by utilities, screening, sidewalks and bikeways, and landscaping. No buildings, accessways or parking areas shall be allowed in a buffer area except where an accessway has been approved by the City; The applicant's Site Plan (Sheet D2.0) shows the existing access to the Durham Center on Tax Lot 300 closed to SW Durham Road. Six parking spaces are shown in the vicinity of the access area and partially within the Durham right-of-way. However, no parking areas are allowed within the right-of-way or the required 10-foot buffer. Therefore, the applicant shall submit a revised site plan showing the revised right- of-way line, 10-foot buffer, and any proposed parking outside of the buffer. Screening of parking and loading areas is required. The specifications for this screening are as follows: Landscaped parking areas shall include special design features, which effectively screen the parking lot areas from view. These design features may include the use of landscaped berms, decorative walls and raised planters; Pursuant to section 18.745.020, provisions of this chapter shall apply to all development including the construction of new structures, remodeling of existing structures where the landscaping is nonconforming (Section 18.760.040.C), and to a change of use which results in the need for increased on-site parking or loading requirements or which changes the access requirements. The applicant's Street Tree Landscape Plan (Sheet L1.0) does not show any parking lot landscaping that would provide a screen of the proposed new spaces. In addition, screening of the existing Durham Center parking lot is not addressed. As a condition of approval, the applicant shall submit a revised landscape plan demonstrating compliance with the applicable provisions of TDC 18.745.050.E.1 for both the proposed school and existing Durham Center parking lots. Trees shall be planted in landscaped islands in all parking areas, and shall be equally distributed and on the basis of one tree for each seven parking spaces in order to provide a canopy effect; and the minimum dimension of the landscape islands shall be three feet and the landscaping shall be protected from vehicular damage by some form of wheel guard or curb. The applicant's plan includes 3 islands for the proposed 19 new spaces,which are a minimum of 7 feet by 16 feet in size, consistent with this standard. However, the existing Durham Center parking lot contains no trees. Therefore, as a condition of approval, the applicant shall submit a revised landscape plan showing the Durham Center parking lot is consistent with the landscaping standards for trees. FINDING: The proposal does not meet all of the requirements of the landscaping and screening chapter. With the following conditions of approval these standards can be met. CONDITIONS: • The applicant shall submit a revised Street Tree plan showing street trees on Tax Lots 300 and 500 in addition to Tax Lot 401. • The applicant shall submit a revised site plan showing the required 10-foot buffer (Buffer Matrix in Table 18.745.1) from the revised right-of-way line along SW Durham Road, an arterial, and demonstrating compliance with the applicable landscaping and screening provisions for parking lots in TDC 18.745.050.E.1. OFF-STREET PARKING AND LOADING (18.765) Vehicle parking plan requirements. No building or other permit shall be issued until scaled plans are presented and approved as provided by this chapter that show how access, egress and circulation requirements are to be fulfilled. The applicant shall submit a site plan. The applicant has submitted a narrative and plan set showing how access, egress, and circulation requirements are fulfilled, consistent with this standard. DURHAM ELEMENTARY PAGE 16 OF 28 1/28/08 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER • • Location of vehicle parking: . Off-street parking spaces for single-family and duplex dwellings and single-family attached dwellings shall be located on the same lot with the dwellings. Off-street parking lots for uses not listed above shall be located not further than 200 feet from the building or use that they are required to serve, measured in a straight line from the building with the following exceptions: a) commercial and industrial uses which require more than 40 parking spaces may provide for the spaces in excess of the required first 40 spaces up to a distance of 300 feet from the primary site; The 40 parking spaces which remain on the primary site must be available for users in the following order of priority: 1) Disabled-accessible spaces; 2) Short-term spaces; 3) Long-term preferential carpool and vanpool spaces;4) Long-term spaces. The proposed 19-space supplemental parking lot is located on the same lot and within 200 feet of the existing Durham Elementary School and Durham Center, consistent with this standard. Joint Parking: Owners of two or more uses, structures or parcels of land may agree to utilize jointly the same parking and loading spaces when the peak hours of operation do not overlay, subject to the following: 1) The size of the joint parking facility shall be at least as large as the number of vehicle parking spaces required by the larger(est) use per Section 18.765.070; 2) Satisfactory legal evidence shall be presented to the Director in the form of deeds, leases or contracts to estabhsh the joint use; 3) If a joint use arrangement is subsequently terminated, or if the uses change, the requirements of this title thereafter apply to each separately. Joint parking is not proposed with this application; therefore this standard is not applicable. Parking in Mixed-Use Projects: In mixed-use projects, the required minimum vehicle parking shall be determined using the following formula. 1) Primary use, i.e., that with the largest proportion of total floor area within the development, at 100% of the minimum vehicle parking required for that use in Section 18.765.060; 2) Secondary use, i.e., that with the second largest percentage of total floor area within the development, at 90% of the vehicle parking required for that use in Section 18.765.060; 3) Subsequent use or uses, at 80% of the vehicle parking required for that use(s) in Section 18.765.060; 4) The maximum parking allowance shall be 150% of the total minimum parking as calculated above. This proposal is considered a mixed-use project as it contains two existing civic uses including the elementary school and community recreation space. The school is the primary use at 100%, with the Community Center as the secondary use at 90%. Visitor Parking in Multi-Family Residential Developments: Multi-dwelling units with more than 10 required parking spaces shall provide an additional 15% of vehicle parking spaces above the minimum required for the use of guests of residents of the complex. These spaces shall be centrally located or distributed throughout the development. Required bicycle parking facilities shall also be centrally located within or evenly distributed throughout the development. This project does not involve a residential use. Therefore, this standard does not apply. Preferential Long-Term Carpool/Vanpool Parking: Parking lots providing in excess of 20 long-term parking spaces shall provide preferential long- term carpool and vanpool parking for employees, students and other regular visitors to the site. At least 5% of total long-term parking spaces shall be reserved for carpool/vanpool use. Preferential parking for carpools/vanpools shall be closer to the main entrances of the building than any other employee or student parking except parking spaces designated for use by the disabled. Preferential carpool/vanpool spaces shall be full-sized per requirements in Section 18.765.040N and shall be clearly designated for use only by carpools and vanpools between 7:00 AM and 5:30 PM Monday through Friday. According to the applicant's narrative,no long-term parking spaces are proposed. Therefore, this standard does not apply. DURHAM ELEMENTARY PAGE 17 OF 28 1/28/08 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER • Disabled-Accessible Parking: All parking areas shall be provided with the required number of parking spaces for disabled persons as specified by the State of Oregon Uniform Building Code and federal standards. Such parking spaces shall be sized, signed and marked as required by these regulations. According to the applicant's narrative, the existing parking includes 5 ADA spaces. According to ORS 447.233,incorporated through reference to the Uniform Building Code (UBC), the state requires one ADA space for each additional 25 parking spaces. The proposed 19-space parking lot will not require additional ADA parking spaces. DEQ indirect source construction permit: All parking lots containing 250 spaces or parking structures containing two or more levels shall require review by the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) to: 1. Acquire an Indirect Source Construction Permit; or 2. Investigate the feasibility of installing oil and grease separators According to the applicant's narrative, the proposed parking lot contains 19 spaces, which will bring the total on site to 132 spaces. Therefore, standard is not applicable. With regard to access to public streets from off-street parking: Access drives from the street to off-street parking or loading areas shall be designed and constructed to facilitate the flow of traffic and provide maximum safety for pedestrian and vehicular traffic on the site; The number and size of access drives shall be in accordance with the requirements of Chapter, 18.705,Access, Egress and Circulation; As discussed earlier in this report, this criterion is satisfied. Access drives shall have a minimum vision clearance in accordance with Chapter 18.795, Visual Clearance; Vision clearance is discussed later in this report. This criterion is satisfied. Access drives shall be improved with an asphalt or concrete surface; The applicant has proposed to pave the access and all parking areas. This standard is satisfied. Excluding single-family and duplex residences, except as provided by Subsection 18.810.030P, groups of two or more parking spaces shall be served by a service drive so that no backing movements or other maneuvering within a street or other public right-of-way will be required. The parking spaces are serviced by one and two-way private access drives. The proposed design allows room for vehicles to turn around and enter the street so that no backing movement will be required, consistent with this standard. Pedestrian Access: Pedestrian access through parking lots shall be provided in accordance with Section 18.705.030.F. Where a parking area or other vehicle area has a drop-off grade separation, the property owner shall install a wall, railing, or other barrier which will prevent a slow-moving vehicle or driverless vehicle from escaping such area and which will prevent pedestrians from walking over drop-off edges. There are no drop-off grade separated areas within the parking area. Parking lot landscaping: Parking lots shall be landscaped in accordance with the requirement of Chapter 18.745 This standard is addressed above in the Landscaping and Screening section of this report. DURHAM ELEMENTARY PAGE 18 OF 28 1/28/08 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER • Parking Lot Striping: Except for single-family and duplex residences, any area intended to be used to meet the off- street parking requirements as contained in this Chapter shall have all parking spaces clearly marked; and all interior drives and access aisles shall be clearly marked and signed to show direction of flow and maintain vehicular and pedestrian safety. The applicant's narrative states all areas are marked and signed to show direction of flow and maintain vehicular and pedestrian safety. However, the Site Plan (Sheet D2.0) does not show these markings and the Street Tree Plan (Sheet L1.) only shows directional arrows in the Durham Center parking lot. Therefore, as a condition of approval, the applicant shall submit a revised site plan that shows parking spaces,interior drives and access aisles clearly marked. Wheel Stops: Parking spaces along the boundaries of a parking lot or adjacent to interior landscaped areas or sidewalks shall be provided with a wheel stop at least four inches high located three feet back from the front of the parking stall. The front three feet of the parking stall may be concrete, asphalt or low lying landscape material that does not exceed the height of the wheel stop. This area cannot be calculated to meet landscaping or sidewalk requirements. The applicants site plan (Sheet D2.0) does not show any wheel stops in the proposed parking areas nor along the boundary of the Durham Center parking lot spaces. According to the applicant's narrative, proposed parking spaces contain an area 3-feet deep to be landscaped beyond the curb. The plan set shows the space depth is 18.5 feet to the curb. Therefore, this standard has been met. Space and Aisle Dimensions: Section 18.765.040.N states that: "except as modified for angled parking in Figures 18.765.1 and 18.765.2 the minimum dimensions for parking spaces are: 8.5 feet x 18.5 feet for a standard space and 7.5 feet x 16.5 feet for a compact space"; aisles accommodating two direction traffic, or allowing access from both ends, shall be 24 feet in width. No more than 50% of the required spaces may be compact spaces. The applicant's plans dimension the proposed parking spaces to show that 19 spaces will conform to standard sized spaces. The applicant's site plan shows a 28-foot wide isle. The Durham Center parking lot will need to be revised as conditioned earlier in this report due to conflicts with right-of-way. Therefore, as conditioned, this standard is met. Bicycle Parking Location and Access: Section 18.765.050 states bicycle parking areas shall be provided at locations within 50 feet of primary entrances to structures; bicycle parking areas shall not be located within parking aisles, landscape areas or pedestrian ways; outdoor bicycle parking shall be visible from on-site buildings and/or the street. When the bicycle parking area is not visible from the street, directional signs shall be used to located the parking area; and bicycle parking may be located inside a building on a floor which has an outdoor entrance open for use and floor location which does not require the bicyclist to use stairs to gain access to the space. Exceptions may be made to the latter requirement for parking on upper stories within a multi-story residential building. The proposal does not change the number of classrooms on which the number of bicycle spaces is determined. Therefore, this standard is not applicable. Bicycle Parking Design Requirements: Section 18.765.05O.C. The following design requirements apply to the installation of bicycle racks: The racks required for required bicycle parking spaces shall ensure that bicycles may be securely locked to them without undue inconvenience. Provision of bicycle lockers for long-term (employee) parking is encouraged but not required; bicycle racks must be securely anchored to the ground, wall or other structure; bicycle parking spaces shall be at least 2'/2 feet by six feet long, and, when covered, with a vertical clearance of seven feet. An access aisle of at least five feet wide shall be provided and maintained beside or between each row of bicycle parking; each required bicycle parking space must be accessible without moving another bicycle; required bicycle parking spaces may not be rented or leased except where required motor vehicle parking is rented or leased. At-cost or deposit fees for bicycle parking are exempt from this requirement; and areas set aside for required bicycle parking must be clearly reserved for bicycle parking only. DURHAM ELEMENTARY PAGE 19 OF 28 1/28/08 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER • Outdoor bicycle parking facilities shall be surfaced with a hard surfaced material, i.e., pavers, asphalt, concrete or similar material. This surface must be designed to remain well drained. The proposal does not change the number of classrooms on which the number of bicycle spaces is determined.Therefore, this standard is not applicable. Minimum Bicycle Parking Requirements: The total number of required bicycle parking spaces for each use is specified in Table 18.765.2 in Section 18.765.070.H. In no case shall there be less than two bicycle parking spaces. The proposal does not change the number of classrooms on which the number of bicycle spaces is determined. Therefore, this standard is not applicable. Minimum Off-Street Parking: Section 18.765.070.H states that the minimum and maximum parking shall be as required in Table 18.765.2. A total of 102 parking spaces currently exist on Tax Lot 200 (industrial/office site). Twelve spaces are proposed for removal,which leaves a balance of 90 parking spaces. A total of 41 parking spaces minimum are required per the approved SDR2000-00016. Therefore, the proposed parking reduction is consistent with this standard. A total of 112 parking spaces already exist on Tax Lot 300 (school/center site). The applicant proposes an additional 20 spaces for a total of 132 spaces. Pursuant to Table 18.765.2, a minimum of 86 spaces are required and a maximum of 151 (Zone B) are allowed. Therefore, the parking proposed is consistent with this standard. Off-street loading requirements: Off-street loading spaces: Commercial, industrial and institutional buildings or structures to be built or altered which receive and distribute material or merchandise by truck shall provide and maintain off-street loading and maneuvering space as follows: • A minimum of one loading space is required for buildings with 10,000 gross square feet or more; • A minimum of two loading spaces for buildings with 40,000 gross square feet or more. The proposed development includes a relocated accessway and parking lot, but no additional or altered buildings. Therefore, the off-street loading standards do not apply. FINDING: The off-street parking and loading standards have not all been met. However, with the following conditions of approval this standard can be met. CONDITION: The applicant shall submit a revised site plan that shows parking spaces, interior drives and access aisles clearly marked. SIGNS (18.780): Requires that a permit be issued for any sign that is erected, re-erected, constructed, structurally altered, or relocated within the City Limits. FINDING: At this time, the applicant does not propose to relocate the commercial sign necessitated by the new access. The sign will need to be moved approximately 15 feet to the east. The applicant states they will apply for a sign permit as required.Therefore, with the following condition of approval, the Signs standards will be met. CONDITION: Prior to placement of any signs on site, the applicant shall apply for a sign permit and supply staff with the appropriate plans to verify compliance with TDC Chapter 18.780. DURHAM FI.F.,MENTARY PAGE 20 OF 28 1/28/08 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER • TREE REMOVAL—CHAPTER 18.790: Section 18.790.030 requires that a tree plan for the planting, removal and protection of trees prepared by a certified arborist be provided for a conditional use application. The tree plan shall include identification of all existing trees, Identification of a program to save existing trees or mitigate tree removal over 12 inches in caliper, identification of which trees are proposed to be removed, and a protection program defining standards and methods that will be used by the applicant to protect trees during and after construction. As required, the applicant submitted a tree plan conducted by Bob Mazaney, a certified arborist. However, the report does not contain the four required components, and is therefore in need of revision: Trees 32-53 have not been shown on the tree protection plan because they will not be impacted by the project. However, it is important to plot the locations of all trees on the tree protection plan because it will be used for tracking deed restricted trees in the future. Please have the applicant plot the locations of trees 32-53 on their tree protection plan. The applicant plans on removing 11 of 47 non-hazardous trees over 12" in diameter. This represents a 77%retention rate. Therefore, a mitigation cash assurance is not required. The applicant has identified of all trees which are proposed to be removed; The tree protection plan (sheet L2.0) indicates that protection fencing will be orange construction fencing. However, the arbonst report specifies 6' chain link unless orange construction fencing is approved by the local jurisdiction. All trees that are in close proximity to construction activities should be chain link. Other trees may be protected with orange construction fencing. The tree protection plan should detail which trees will be protected with chain link and which will be protected with orange construction fencing. The tree protection plan should also include a signature of approval from the project arborist. All trees to be preserved that will be in close proximity to construction activities shall be protected with five or six (5' - 6') foot high chain link fences. Fences are to be mounted on two inch diameter galvanized iron posts, driven into the ground to a depth of at least 2-feet at no more than 10-foot spacing. The applicant shall position fencing as directed by the project arborist to protect the trees to be retained. The applicant shall allow access by the City Arborist for the purpose of monitoring and inspection of the tree protection to verify that the tree protection measures are performing adequately. Failure to follow the plan, or maintain tree protection fencing in the designated locations shall be grounds for immediate suspension of work on the site until remediation measures and/or civil citations can be processed. Any tree that is located on property adjacent to the construction project that will have more than 15% of its root system disturbed by construction activities shall also be shown on the plans, and adequately protected. Pursuant to 18.790.040, any tree preserved or retained in accordance with this section may thereafter be removed only for the reasons set out in a tree plan, in accordance with Section 18.790.030, or as a condition of approval for a conditional use, and shall not be subject to removal under any other section of this chapter. The property owner shall record a deed restriction as a condition of approval of any development permit affected by this section to the effect that such tree may be removed only if the tree dies or is hazardous according to a certified arborist. The deed restriction may be removed or will be considered invalid if a tree preserved in accordance with this section should either die or be removed as a hazardous tree. The form of this deed restriction shall be subject to approval by the Director. A condition of approval will ensure that this standard is met. FINDING: Not all of the standards of the Tree Removal Chapter have been met. However, with the following conditions of approval, the standards can be met. DURHAM ELEMENTARY PAGE 21 OF 28 1/28/08 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER • • CONDITIONS: • Prior to commencing any site work, the applicant shall submit a revised Tree Protection plan showing locations of trees 32-53. In addition, the plan shall show all trees that are in close proximity to construction activities be protected by chain link fencing: Other trees may be protected with orange construction fencing. The tree protection plan should also include a signature of approval from the project arborist. • Prior to commencing any site work, the applicant shall submit construction drawings to both Planning and Engineering that include: A. The approved Tree Removal and Protection Plan; B. A construction sequence including installation and removal of tree protection devices, clearing,grading, and paving; C. A note prohibiting equipment, vehicles, machinery, grading, dumping, storage, burial of debris, or any other construction-related activities in any tree protection zone;and D. A note stating that only those trees identified on the approved Tree Removal plan are authorized for removal by this report. Notwithstanding any other provision of this title, any party found to be in violation of this chapter [18.790] pursuant to Chapter 1.16 of the Tigard Municipal Code shall be subject to a civil penalty of up to $500 and shall be required to remedy any damage caused by the violation. Such remediation shall include, but not be limited to, the following: 1) Replacement of unlawfully removed or damaged trees in accordance with Section 18.790.060 (D) of the Tigard Development Code; and 2) Payment of an additional civil penalty representing the estimated value of any unlawfully removed or damaged tree, as determined using the most current International Society of Arboriculture's Guide for Plant Appraisal. E. If work is required within an established tree protection zone, the project arborist shall prepare a proposal detailing the construction techniques to be employed and the likely impacts to the trees. The proposal shall be reviewed and approved by the City Arborist before proposed work can proceed within a tree protection zone. The City Arbonst may require changes prior to approval. The project arborist shall be on site while work is occurring within the tree protection zone and submit a summary report certifying that the work occurred per the proposal and will not significantly impact the health and/or stability of the trees. • Prior to commencing any site work, the applicant shall establish tree protection fencing as directed by the project arborist and conditioned by this decision to protect the trees to be retained. The applicant shall call for an inspection and allow access by the City Arborist for the purpose of monitoring the tree protection to verify that the tree protection measures are performing adequately. Failure to follow the plan, or maintain tree protection fencing in the designated locations shall be grounds for immediate suspension of work on the site until remediation measures and/or civil citations can be processed. • As an ongoing obligation during the development of the proposed property, the applicant shall ensure that the Project Arbonst submits wntten reports to the City Arborist, at least once every two weeks, from initial tree protection zone (TPZ) fencing installation through building construction. The reports shall include the condition and location of the tree protection fencing and whether any changes occurred. If the amount of TPZ was reduced then the Project Arbonst shall justify why the fencing was moved, and shall certify that the construction activities to the trees did not adversely impact the overall, long-term health and stability of the tree(s). Failure to follow the plan, or maintain tree protection fencing in the designated locations shall be grounds for immediate suspension of work on the site until remediation measures and/or civil citations can be processed. DURHAM ELEMENTARY PAGE 22 OF 28 1/28/08 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER • • • Prior to final inspection, the applicant shall record deed restrictions to the effect that any existing tree greater than 6" diameter may be removed only if the tree dies or is hazardous according to a certified arborist. The deed restriction may be removed or will be considered invalid if a tree preserved in accordance with this decision should either die or be removed as a hazardous tree. • Prior to final inspection, the applicant shall submit a final report by the Project Arborist certifying the health of protected trees. Tree protection measures may be removed and final inspection authorized upon review and approval by the City Arborist. VISUAL CLEARANCE AREAS—CHAPTER 18.795: Section 18.795.020.A. states that the provisions of this chapter shall apply to all development including the construction of new structures, the remodeling of existing structures and to a change of use which increases the on-site parking or loading requirements or which changes the access requirements. Section 18.795.030.B. states that a clear vision area shall contain no vehicle, hedge, planting, fence, wall structure or temporary or permanent obstruction (except for an occasional utility pole or tree), exceeding three feet in height, measured from the top of the curb, or where no curb exists, from the street center line grade, except that trees exceeding this height may be located in this area,provided all branches below eight feet are removed. FINDING: The applicant has indicated in the narrative that a clear vision area will be maintained at the intersection of the proposed accessway at 79th Avenue and SW Durham Road. However, the site plan does not show the clear vision areas formed by the right-of- way or property line (after required dedication) as required under TDC 18.795.040. Therefore, this standard is not met,but may be met with the following condition. CONDITION: The applicant shall submit a revised site plan that shows the clear vision areas formed by the right-of-way or property line as required in TDC 18.795.040. STREET AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS STANDARDS CHAPTER- 18.810: Chapter 18.810 provides construction standards for the implementation of public and private facilities and utilities such as streets, sewers, and drainage. The applicable standards are addressed below: Streets: Improvements: Section 18.810.030.A.1 states that streets within a development and streets adjacent shall be improved in accordance with the TDC standards. Section 18.810.030.A.2 states that any new street or additional street width planned as a portion of an existing street shall be dedicated and improved in accordance with the TDC. Minimum Rights-of-Way and Street Widths: Section 18.810.030.E requires a 3-lane Arterial street to have a 76 right-of-way width and 48-foot paved section. Other improvements required may include on-street parking, sidewalks and bikeways, underground utilities, street lighting, storm drainage, and street trees. This site lies adjacent to SW Durham Road, which is classified as an Arterial on the City of Tigard Transportation Plan Map. At present, there is approximately 35-45 feet of ROW from centerline, according to the most recent tax assessors map. SW Durham Road requires that the applicant provide for the future S- lane Arterial section. The applicant should dedicate the ROW to 50 feet from centerline for the full length of Tax Lots 401, 500 and a portion of Tax Lot 200 (as indicated in Exhibit B, Page 1 of 1 in the Order Confirming Immediate Possession) to increase the right-of-way to 50 feet from the centerline. The description shall be tied to the existing right-of-way centerline. The dedication document shall be on City forms. Instructions are available from the Engineering Department.. The applicant shall dedicate ROW to 50 feet from centerline along Tax Lot 300 or dedicate a minimum of 38 feet of ROW and provide a 12 foot preserve ROW. No on-site improvements,i.e. parking lot, can occur within the public ROW or the preserve ROW. The applicant's plan shall be revised to remove the northern-most parking spaces on Tax Lot 300. DURHAM ELEMENTARY PAGE 23 OF 28 1/28/08 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER • • SW Durham Road is currently improved to the 3-lane standard. In order to mitigate the impact from this development, the applicant should remove the existing driveways at Tax Lots 300 and 500 and replace it with curb,gutter and sidewalk. The applicant shall install street trees along the frontage of Tax Lots 300,401 and 500. The applicant shall also construct an eastbound right-turn lane as shown on the plans submitted with this application. The applicant shall also enter into a future street improvement agreement for half-street improvements along their Durham Road frontage (Tax Lots 300, 401 and 500) for the 5-lane Arterial section. The applicant's plans indicate street trees to be planted along the length of the right-turn lane. The street standards require street trees along the entire frontage; therefore the applicant's plans shall be revised to provide street trees along the frontage of Tax Lots 300,401 and 500. Street Alignment and Connections: Section 18.810.030.H.1 states that full street connections with spacing of no more than 530 feet between connections is required except where prevented by barriers such as topography, railroads, freeways, pre-existing developments, lease provisions, easements, covenants or other restrictions existing prior to May 1,1995 which preclude street connections. A full street connection may also be exempted due to a regulated water feature if regulations would not permit construction. Section 18.810.030.H.2 states that all local, neighborhood routes and collector streets which abut a development site shall be extended within the site to provide through circulation when not precluded by environmental or topographical constraints, existing development patterns or strict adherence to other standards in this code. A street connection or extension is precluded when it is not possible to redesign, or reconfigure the street pattern to provide required extensions. Land is considered topographically constrained if the slope is greater than 15% for a distance of 250 feet or more. In the case of environmental or topographical constraints, the mere presence of a constraint is not sufficient to show that a street connection is not possible. The applicant must show why the constraint precludes some reasonable street connection. Due to the existing development of the surrounding properties,primarily the CWS Treatment Plant, and the location of Fanno Creek,there are no opportunities to provide street connection south of Durham Road. Grades and Curves: Section 18.810.030.N states that grades shall not exceed ten percent on arterials, 12% on collector streets, or 12% on any other street (except that local or residential access streets may have segments with grades up to 15% for distances of no greater than 250 feet). Centerline radii of curves shall be as determined by the City Engineer. While the applicant states that the grades on Durham Road are not changed they shall provide a curb profile for the proposed improvements and include the existing curb grades extending 300 feet beyond the improvements m each direction. Block Designs - Section 18.810.040.A states that the length, width and shape of blocks shall be designed with due regard to providing adequate building sites for the use contemplated, consideration of needs for convenient access, circulation, control and safety of street traffic and recognition of limitations and opportunities of topography. Block Sizes: Section 18.810.040.B.1 states that the perimeter of blocks formed by streets shall not exceed 2,000 feet measured along the right-of-way line except • Where street location is precluded by natural topography, wetlands or other bodies of water or,pre-existing development or, • For blocks adjacent to arterial streets,limited access highways,major collectors or railroads. • For non-residential blocks in which internal public circulation provides equivalent access. The applicant has not proposed any new streets.Therefore, this standard does not apply. Section 18.810.040.B.2 also states that bicycle and pedestrian connections on public easements or right-of-ways shall be provided when full street connection is not possible. Spacing between connections shall be no more than 330 feet, except where precluded by environmental or topographical constraints, existing development patterns, or strict adherence to other standards in the code. DURHAM El FMENTARY PAGE 24 OF 28 1/28/08 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER • • As described above, full street connections are not possible. Sidewalks: Section 18.810.070.A requires that sidewalks be constructed to meet City design standards and be located on both sides of arterial, collector and local residential streets. The applicant has proposed to construct a 6.5 foot curb-tight sidewalk. The City's TSP requires an 8-10 foot sidewalk on Arterials. The applicant has proposed the sidewalk be curb-tight based on 18.810.070.0 Planter strip requirements, which allows this exception when curbside sidewalks already exist on predominant portions of the street, as they do along Durham Road. Therefore, the applicant shall revise their plans to provide an 8 foot, curbside sidewalk along the eastbound right-turn lane. Sanitary Sewers: Sewers Required: Section 18.810.090.A requires that sanitary sewer be installed to serve each new development and to connect developments to existing mains in accordance with the provisions set forth in Design and Construction Standards for Sanitary and Surface Water Management (as adopted by Clean Water Services in 1996 and including any future revisions or amendments) and the adopted policies of the comprehensive plan. No sanitary sewer connection is proposed or required with the proposed new access and parking spaces. Storm Drainage: General Provisions: Section 18.810.100.A states requires developers to make adequate provisions for storm water and flood water runoff. Accommodation of Upstream Drainage: Section 18.810.100.0 states that a culvert or other drainage facility shall be large enough to accommodate potential runoff from its entire upstream drainage area, whether inside or outside the development. The City Engineer shall approve the necessary size of the facility, based on the provisions of Design and Construction Standards for Sanitary and Surface Water Management (as adopted by Clean Water Services in 2000 and including any future revisions or amendments). There are no upstream drainage areas that impact this development. Effect on Downstream Drainage: Section 18.810.100.D states that where it is anticipated by the City Engineer that the additional runoff resulting from the development will overload an existing drainage facility, the Director and Engineer shall withhold approval of the development until provisions have been made for improvement of the potential condition or until provisions have been made for storage of additional runoff caused by the development in accordance with the Design and Construction Standards for Sanitary and Surface Water Management (as adopted by Clean Water Services in 2000 and including any future revisions or amendments). In 1997, Clean Water Services (CWS) completed a basin study of Fanno Creek and adopted the Fanno Creek Watershed Management Plan. Section V of that plan includes a recommendation that local governments institute a stormwater detention/effective impervious area reduction program resulting in no net increase in storm peak flows up to the 25-year event. The City will require that all new developments resulting in an increase of impervious surfaces provide onsite detention facilities, unless the development is located adjacent to Fanno Creek. For those developments adjacent to Fanno Creek, the storm water runoff will be permitted to discharge without detention. This development is located adjacent to Fanno Creek, therefore detention is not required. Bikeways and Pedestrian Pathways: Bikeway Extension: Section 18.810.110.A states that bike lanes shall be required along all Arterial and Collector routes and where identified on the City's adopted bicycle plan in the Transportation System Plan (TSP). Developments adjoining proposed bikeways identified on the City's adopted pedestrian/bikeway plan shall include provisions for the future extension of such bikeways through the dedication of easements or nght-of-way, provided such dedication is directly related to and roughly proportional to the impact of the development. DURHAM ELEMENTARY PAGE 25 OF 28 1/28/08 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER • • There is an existing bicycle lane along Durham Road. The developer shall maintain or re-establish the bike lane as needed after construction of the right-turn lane. Utilities: Section 18.810.120 states that all utility lines, but not limited to those required for electric, communication, lighting and cable television services and related facilities shall be placed underground, except for surface mounted transformers, surface mounted connection boxes and meter cabinets which may be placed above ground, temporary utility service facilities during construction, high capacity electric lines operating at 50,000 volts or above, and: ♦ The developer shall make all necessary arrangements with the serving utility to provide the underground services; • The City reserves the right to approve location of all surface mounted facilities; • All underground utilities, including sanitary sewers and storm drains installed in streets by the developer, shall be constructed prior to the surfacing of the streets; and ♦ Stubs for service connections shall be long enough to avoid disturbing the street improvements when service connections are made. Exception to Under-Grounding Requirement: Section 18.810.120.0 states that a developer shall pay a fee in-lieu of under-grounding costs when the development is proposed to take place on a street where existing utilities which are not underground will serve the development and the approval authority determines that the cost and technical difficulty of under-grounding the utilities outweighs the benefit of under-grounding in conjunction with the development. The determination shall be on a case-by-case basis. The most common, but not the only, such situation is a short frontage development for which under- grounding would result in the placement of additional poles, rather than the removal of above- ground utilities facilities. An applicant for a development which is served by utilities which are not underground and which are located across a public right-of-way from the applicant's property shall pay a fee in-lieu of under-grounding. There are existing overhead utility lines along the frontage of SW Durham Road on the north side of the street. If the fee in-lieu is proposed, it is equal to $35.00 per lineal foot of street frontage that contains the overhead lines. The frontage along this site is 558 lineal feet;therefore the fee would be $19,530. ADDITIONAL CITY AND/OR AGENCY CONCERNS WITH STREET AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENT STANDARDS: Public Water System: The City of Tigard provides service in this area. The Public Works Department provided comments regarding their system and the proposed work by the developer. The contractor shall pothole the water main if there is a conflict with proposed utility work, i.e. storm sewer relocations. The public water lines require a 36 inch cover. This minimum line cover must be provided as the widened street section is constructed. The contractor shall update the water valves located within the project limits. The City of Tigard requires the applicant to design the replacement of the 12 inch cast iron line along their entire Durham Road frontage (Tax Lots 300, 401 and 500) with a 12 inch ductile iron line. The City of Tigard will share in the construction cost of this line replacement. Storm Water Quality: The City has agreed to enforce Surface Water Management (SWM) regulations established by Clean Water Services (CWS) Design and Construction Standards (adopted by Resolution and Order No. 00-7) which require the construction of on-site water quality facilities. The facilities shall be designed to remove 65 percent of the phosphorus contained in 100 percent of the storm water runoff generated from newly created impervious surfaces. In addition, a maintenance plan shall be submitted indicating the frequency and method to be used in keeping the facility maintained through the year. Prior to construction, the applicant shall submit plans and calculations for a water quality facility that will meet the intent of the CWS Design Standards. In addition, the applicant shall submit a maintenance plan for the facility that must be reviewed and approved by the City pnor to construction. DURHAM ELEMENTARY PAGE 26 OF 28 1/28/08 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER To ensure compliance with Clean Water Services design and construction standards, the applicant shall employ the design engineer responsible for the design and specifications of the private water quality facility to perform construction and visual observation of the water quality facility for compliance with the design and specifications. These inspections shall be made at significant stages throughout the project and at completion of the construction. Prior to final building inspection, the design engineer shall rovide the City of Tigard (Inspection Supervisor) with written confirmation that the water quality facility is in compliance with the design and specifications. Grading and Erosion Control: CWS Design and Construction Standards also regulate erosion control to reduce the amount of sediment and other pollutants reaching the public storm and surface water system resulting from development, construction, grading, excavating, clearing, and any other activity which accelerates erosion. Per CWS regulations, the applicant is required to submit an erosion control plan for City review and approval prior to issuance of City permits. The Federal Clean Water Act requires that a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) erosion control permit be issued for any development that will disturb one or more acre of land. Since this site is over an acre, the developer will be required to obtain an NPDES permit from the City prior to construction. This permit will be issued along with the site and/or building permit. D. IMPACT STUDY: Section 18.390.040.B.2.e states that the applicant shall provide an impact study to quantify the effect of development on public facilities and services. For each public facility system and type of impact, the study shall propose improvements necessary to meet City standards, and to minimize the impact of the development on the public at large, public facilities systems, and affected private property users. In situations where the Community Development Code requires the dedication of real property interests, the applicant shall either specifically concur with a requirement for public right-of-way dedication, or provide evidence that supports that the real property dedication is not roughly proportional to the projected impacts of the development. The applicant has submitted an impact study addressing the required elements above. The report substantiates that all services are currently serving the site or are capable of serving the site. Pursuant to Section 18.810.030.A.2, the proposed development requires dedication of night-of-way and improvements along the site's SW Durham Road frontage, mcluding'Tax Lots 300, 500, 401, and 200. The applicant has concurred with the required dedication as indicated in the narrative and shown,in part,in Exhibit B,Page 1 of 1 in the Order Confirming Immediate Possession. SECTION VII. OTHER STAFF COMMENTS The City of Tigard Police Department commented that they reviewed the proposal and have no objections to it. The City of Tigard Arborist comments identify concerns regarding tree protection, street trees, and buffering and screening of the existing parking lot. These concerns have been included in the findings of the above decision and the comments are available in their entirety in the land use file. The City of Tigard Engineering Department has reviewed the proposed development project and provided comments. The department's comments have been incorporated into this report. The City of Tigard Public Works Department has reviewed and commented on the subject application. The department is concerned that the existing cast iron water pipes and valves be replaced with ductile iron piping to update the system. The comments have been included in the findings of the staff decision. DURHAM EI EMENTARY PAGE 27 OF 28 1/28/08 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER • SECTION VIII. AGENCY COMMENTS Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue commented that they have no objection to the project. Clean Water Services has reviewed the proposal and provided a general comment letter, dated December 14, 2007, addressing sanitary sewer, storm drainage and water quality, sensitive areas, and erosion control issues. These issues are addressed within the body of the application and reviewed in this decision under the applicable standards of the Street and Utility Improvement section. Washington County Department of Land Use and Transportation commented that they have reviewed the proposal and have no objection to it. bi.re)...67 . �� January 22, 2008 PREPARED Y: ary Pagenstecher DATE Associate Planner DURHAM ELEMENTARY PAGE 28 OF 28 1/28/08 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER CITY of TI r • o ht 41.-� Xj/Ww11111 //III / LANGTREE ST (� GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM jq F-NTLI ) I� ( VICINITY MAP ,o �- 01•�1.; — -�,..t I CUP2007-00004 I N E TURF LN Q _ _,a_ rr I I N -� y : AY l'AT LN Q..-11111 ---) ELEMENTARY--?MIR I Amu SCHOOL MI_ : � > lip l 1 'J� '� V aRIND T = ACCESS 0.204110 t.-Q pir'r4;1� - L A CT DURHAM RD "'t'�� =W LEGEND: '''I -_ ve SUBJECT j ;j 4� j SI']"E PJ� ,f�sar_Er 4 f SAO/, ,�D,�� n�.•'��O Li '4,o irc .../ k: 1 •L' ck.-- S-c,1 2 __�&h11aTMl `,� sXr • `.. m n�_ t_1 l BL F BEND:= ,7 RVNH!1M.�YI RO ,I;./ Q�� Tigard Area Map Q N 0 100 200 300 400 500 Feet 1"=385 fee V Y Information on this map is for general location only and should be verified with the Development Services Division. 13125 SW Hall Blvd Tigard,OR 97223 ,_""IIIIM- (503)839.4171 hIIpI/Avww,c i.tigBrd,or.u s Community Development Plot date: Nov 30,2007;C:\magic\MAGIC03.APR u•41h ' I. • •• ��,• m {`�3311 Q6 •E%ISTIND �:% % % li t��% 6 �' 7 .POW UNE '. 4- 'B�L .. liii • Y M WRIUk J]0;, .:... .. sICN(06DNCE ]!.0 %j!Iqp 71.00 ;'ti i . • ei.aosm '.:,. u DURHAM'RD • —se —�=ye �•.+�+a— r. a . • —� q `�"�•, b r:-'�' !_ 4�S° :odd o T3e:0 slI�C1 �T�O° °__- r_ :'. .ti atri I/Dvr- —. -- - — —• REWJRm "mwu �/ V. 1 �..� EW �' • .ito• "....' .. Pou° ,dam.. • �ExtsnNg :'1:' ';' t' Rao' '�'� .� • �PRIoPOSEO 5 (, '§ig ruaa" swcur•q ]55 0 n w \ /.` /. • R3.0 sIRCUr yi niw+mc '4.c• '•II .` F ` 0 •� 1. a N£.CURD ' � /V\ fU ,I � W1T/ . U•� ....•. . — 5D 5 .� f" • ' 5 , 1 Rt5 . . • >— 0 CONCPEtt PAM.10.5 1!(7 1R]R,1y�3tl [s. �' ��� SOip�° �+ CpNNfCi 10 =.••' Z Z•• .� �LF� •��}�Y� • Rl.tl . :. P15.0' D }/X E%5NG FENCE .. I: : •• 'D3,9. of,4 $4/ U• RJ.O' M1a0'. �0: M� R.I.O' i _ .•7• \ • Pao' 2s.0; •l • t` .e.0' (1x.0''. PIJtNING.(tD) /I E�,• \ RIO' -_ M11S 4• 4 PROttCRON i "0' J F RR.tl . 10,0' to 1'1 . '° lam'':' • iii 1� 25.x' W • L,'_— �"'T,„'!,1C�R{{R,�R 5+A0'P',, i 'PLAYG11WN0 CONSRR1CttO, L��•� • O••LQ.D Li WWR�im R730' . 4 4;? .60' ` UNDFR PENN?t `!", , .• .I � #1 ,/. .:..rt +�, •o' ...Tat ..• _ ]( a. Ao. LR,1e1 p0 r. icv:=n1Y u17E w E PcoTMCRE E 3= 4• T t .O• #' °: rw PANP ;iD' I .44,1 • 6: O r' i UI �. V !�• 111 WWGUt r�, 7o.D•I. ,♦��«. F' Y• �# wwcur 1w —♦'-—--B"— '�,. `► '��oRr2wev ♦ '. N 0 H F.• •L� PROPOSCD O. '��/�j �♦ t. , I NTOM1�NT V I'�•./ •JER triRO. . ' 1 C� CRT OE. • 300' t' -� x•Wtt i%y'I r-1---1• • C .1'4( fl SOCCER nELD I• • L_ I . • . , Om �.�..�• \ \ vats ,•.I �S OR O fin. KR .1.. I SITE PLAN• • I 020 io • DURHAM ELEMENTARY SCHOOL ACCESS Tigard, Oregon A Land Use Application for: • Conditional Use/Major Modification Review Submitted: Resubmitted November 21, 2007 Applicant: Tigard-Tualatin School District 23J 6960 SW Sandburg Road Tigard, OR 97223 Prepared by: WRG Design 5415 SW Westgate Drive, Suite 100 Portland,OR 97221 503/419-2500 • • I W R" G i I D E S I G N I N C. November 21 2001 Gary Pagenstecher Planning Division City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard, OR 97223 RE: Durham Elementary: CUP2007-0004 au Incompleteness Items DEVELOPMENT SERVICES Dear Gary, Per the incompleteness letter sent on November 14, 2007 we are sending revised submittal packages that include an amended arborist report. Below is a list of the unresolved items discussed in the IAA aforementioned letter and a description of how we have addressed those issues. LAND PLANNING Incompleteness Items: 1. Tree Removal. Your narrative states that a tree plan is provided in the development plan set in Exhibit A. Exhibit A includes Existing Conditions (Sheet D1.0). This sheet shows F`( existing trees within the development area and identifies which trees are proposed for Ar removal. However, the Tree Removal Plan requires that a certified arborist prepare a report that includes a tree inventory of all trees greater than 6 inches in diameter at breast height CIVIL (dbh), identifying species, size, and condition. Each tree in the table should correlate by ENGINEERING number with the survey of trees shown on the Existing Conditions sheet. The arborist report must also provide protection methods and specifications for the remaining trees during construction. The tree protection fencing indicated on the Tree Protection Plan is symbolic, but should reflect instead the diameter required by the size and drip line of each ittree. Please provide an arborist report and revised narrative that address these elements. The existing conditions plan (Sheet D1.0) has been updated so that the survey of trees is labeled by LANDSCAPE the correlating number provided in the Arborist Report, attached as Exhibit J. The Arborist Report has ARCHITECTURE been updated as required to provide the diameter and drip line for the tree protection method of each tree to remain. t ) 2. Visual Clearance Triangle. Your narrative states that the visual clearance area is shown on Vie;;'' Exhibit A (Sheet D2.0), yet no area is so delineated. Please show the visual clearance triangle on your revised plans. LAND Sheets D2.0 and L1.0 have been updated to include visual clearance triangles. SURVEY Gary, thank you for your thorough review of our application. Please accept this additional information and materials for review of Durham Elementary (CUP2007-00004). If you need further clarification, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, WRG Design, Inc. 5415 SW Westgate Dr. Erin Engman, Suite 100 ' Planner Portland.OR 97221 PH 503/419-2500 I cc: Tony Roos,WRG Design FX 503/419-2600 www.wrgd.com • • Rob Saxton, Tigard-Tualatin School District 23J Kelly Hossaini, Miller Nash LLP Diane Kelly, Milstead and Associates Enclosures: Revised Submittal Packages File TSD6701.DD3 W G D E S I G N I N C. • • 3 4 IN TI IE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON FOR THE COUNTY OF WASHINGTON 6 TIGARD-TUALATIN SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 23J, Case No. C074583CV 7 Plaintiff, i ORDER CONFIRMING IMMEDIATE fi POSSESSION v. q METZGER VENTURES, LLC, an Oregon 10 limited liability company, 1 I Defendant. • 12 13 Pursuant to ORS 35.352 and based upon the Affidavit of Jeffrey T. Sagalewicz in 4 Support of Order Confirming Immediate Possession; 15 AND IT APPEARING that plaintiff served a Notice of Immediate Possession on 16 defendant; 17 AND IT APPEARING that defendant did not object within 10 days from being 18 served with the Notice of Immediate Possession; 19 AND IT APPEARING that plaintiff made the deposit required by ORS 35.265; 20 f/// 1 2 ill '_3 IN 74 ;/// 25 /1// 26 .'i// Page 1 - Order Confirming Immediate Possession MILLER NASH IAA' PDXDO(.S:;5 89544 1 ATTORNEYS AT I.,w TELEPHONE.(5.31!7 ASSA SSUH 1 S.BANCORP TOWER I::S'A S ITTH AVENUE.PORTLAND.ORE(:G'. 177A+.IA ) • • 1 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff is entitled to immediate possession of 2 the property described on Exhibits I, 2, and 3 to the Affidavit of Jeffrey T. Sagalewicz in 3 Support of Order Confirming Immediate Possession as of November ,2007. 4 I)A'l'EL): CIO r"'1,7 be t-- , 2007. �) /s/MARCO A.HERNANDEZ 7 Circuit Court Judge h Presented by: Jeffrey T. Sagalewicz, OSB No. 054660 ` .jeff.sagalewicz @millernash.com Telephone: (503) 224-5858 10 MILLER NASH LLP • Attorney for Plaintiff 11 12 13 14 IS 16 17. 18 19 20 21 24 • 26 Page 2 - Plaintiffs Notice of Immediate Possession MILLER NASH ur PDXDOCS'1589544.1 ATTORNEYS AT LAW TELEPHONE (SU!)17s.,at,fl UOO U 5.BANCORP TOWER I !FM AVENUE.PORTLAND.ORE(',, 17104-5I,V I 1 hereby certify that 1 served the foregoing Order Confirming Immediate 2 Possession on: Scott D. Caplan Jordan/Caplan 4 Attorneys at Law 921 S.W. Washington Street, Suite 755 Portland, Oregon 97205 Phone: (503)224-0417 6 Fax: (503) 294-7941 Email: scott @jordancaplan.com 7 by the following indicated method or methods: R 9 by faxing full, true,and correct copies thereof to the attorney at the fax number shown above, which is the last-known fax number for the attorney's office, on the 10 date set forth below. The receiving fax machine was operating at the time of service, and the printed confirmation of receipt of the fax transmission, as generated by the transmitting machine, is attached. 1 © by mailing full, true, and correct copies thereof in sealed, first-class postage- prepaid envelopes, addressed to the attorneys as shown above, the last-known 13 office addresses of the attorneys,and deposited with the United States Postal Service at Portland, Oregon, on the date set forth below. 14 by transmitting full,true, and correct copies thereof to the attorney through the 15 court's Cm/ECF system on the date set forth below. 16 by transmitting full, true, and correct copies thereof by electronic means to the attorney at the attorney's last-known e-mail address listed above on the date set I forth below. Unless otherwise agreed to by the parties, the transmission was made in Word or WordPerfect format. 1 b by causing full, true,and correct copies thereof to be hand-delivered to the 19 attorneys at the attorneys' last-known office addresses listed above on the date set forth below. 20 DATED this C day of,A 2007 I 1; Je / ag ewtcz 2 Or n State Bar No. 054660 _-t Of Attorneys for Plaintiff Tigard- Tualatin School District No. 23J 26 Page 1 - Certificate of Service MILLER NASH LL11 PDXDOC.S:1 589544,7 ATTORNEYS AT LAW TELEPHONE ISO)22+-)171 'ISO U.5.BANCORP TOWER 1.1 5 v' FIFTH AVENUE.PORTLAND.ORETl1• 112n1-3699 3 4 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON 5 FOR THE COUNTY OF WASHINGTON 6 ;'1GARD-TLIALATIN SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 23J, Case No. 7 • Plaintiff, COMPLAINT 8 (Condemnation of Real Property) v. 9 CLAIM NOT SUBJECT TO MANDATORY METZGER VENTURES, LLC, an Oregon ARBITRATION I 0 limited liability company, DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 11 Defendant. 12 1.3 Plaintiff, Tigard-Tualatin School District No. 23J (the "District"),alleges as 14 follows: 15 1. 6 The District is a public school district duly incorporated pursuant to the laws of ]7 the State of Oregon to provide public education to the students who reside within the geographic 1 8 area served by the District. The District has the power to exercise the right of eminent domain. 19 2. 20 Before commencement of this action,the District declared a public need by ,1 formal board resolution to construct and maintain an access road from S.W. Durham Road to 22 Durham Elementary School (the "Project"). 23 3. ?4 A right-of-way dedication over the real property described in attached Exhibit l is 25 necessary for the District's construction and operation of the Project. 26 Page 1 - Complaint MILLER NASH Li: PDXDOCS:1581176 1 A11OkNEYS AT LAW TELEPHONE ISU:I 554-3$51 U S nANC'UP.P TOWED .1•S'.*' FIFTH AVENUE.PORTLAND.OP.Lr.::•: •,12".l 3(.•'•) O' 1 4. 2 A non-exclusive easement over the property described in attached Exhibit 2 is 3 necessary for the construction and maintenance of the Project. 4 5. 5 A temporary construction easement over the property described in attached 6 Exhibit 3 is necessary for construction of the Project. The District requires the construction 7 easement for 18 months from the date the District gains immediate possession over the property 8 described in Exhibit 3. 9 6. 0 Collectively,the property described in Exhibits 1, 2, and 3 are referred to 11 collectively as the "Property." 12 7. 13 Defendant Metzger Ventures, LLC, is record title holder to the Property. 14 8. 15 The true value of the Property is $219,201, which the District submits to the Court 16 with this complaint. 17 9. 18 Before the commencement of this action. the District attempted to acquire by 19 negotiation the interests in the Property described in paragraphs 3, 4, and 5 above, but was 20 unable to reach an agreement with respect to the compensation to be paid, and therefore, 21 prosecutes this action. 22 PRAYER FOR RELIEF 23 WHEREFORE; the District respectfully makes a demand for jury trial, and prays 24 that an assessment be made by a jury empanelled in this action to determine the compensation to 25 he paid by reason of the appropriation of the Property and that upon payment into Court of the 26 Page 2 - Complaint MILLER NASH LL PDXDOCS 158117E 1 ATTORNEYS AT LA N' TELEPHONE.uUl)22+.yHa- i+UU U 5 IIANCORP TO%I. :11 5% FIrru AVENUE.PORTLAYU OPP•.)N 1720)-16'14 • .' I compensation assessed by the jury, a judgment be entered vesting the District with title to the 2 Property. 3 DATED this( day of October, 2007. 4 MILLER NASH LLP 5 6 Pe4ri. +'chter 'P.' . is Afton/ , OSB No. 711465 E-m.' , peter. chter@mil -rnash.com 7 Jos M. Sasaki, P.C., OSB No. 964182 E-mail: josh.sasaki @millernash.com 8 • Jeffrey T. Sagalewicz, OSB No. 054660 E-mail: jeff.sagalewicz @millernash.com 9 Telephone: (503) 224-5858 1 tl Fax: (503) 224-0155 1 Attorney for Plaintiff Tigard-Tualatin School District No. 23J 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 3 24 25 26 Page 3 - Complaint MILLER NASA L:.: PDXDOCS:1581176 1 ATTORNEYS AT LAW TELEPHONE(5R7,224.51,k +oi)U S BANCORP'FOWL,. •S PIRTII AVENUE PORTLAND ORE..1:: 97NN.16Yv • Exhibit "A" LEGAL DESCRIPTION DURHAM ELEMENTARY-TSD6701 RIGHT-OF WAY DEDICATION October 17.2007 • Page 1 OF 2 A portion of that tract of land described as Deed Document No. 2000-045176,Washington County Deed Records, located in the northwest one-quarter of Section 13, Township 2 South, Range 1 West, Willamette Meridian, City of Tigard,Washington County, Oregon, being more particularly described as • • follows: BEGINNING at the northeast corner of Parcel I per Minor Partition recorded as Survey Number 23,049, Washington County Survey Records, said point being South 88`42'31"East, 1584.67 feet and South 01° 17'29"East,45.00 feet from the common corner of Sections 11 12, 13 and 14;Thence along the East • • line of said Parcel I South 01° 17'29"West, 12.98 feet;Thence along a line parallel with the southerly right-of-way line of SW Durham Road(being 52.00 feet from the centerline thereof,when measured perpendicular thereto)South 87°31'58"East, 121.01 feet;Thence North 01° 15'53" East, 17.00 feet to the southerly right-of-way line of SW Durham Road(being 35.00 feet from the centerline thereof,when 4 measured perpendicular thereto); Thence along said right-of-way line North 87° 31'58"West, 121.00 feet to an angle point in said right-of-way line;Thence South 01° 17'29"West,4.02 feet to said POINT OF BEGINNING. • • Contains 2,057 square feet,more or less. The attached EXHIBIT"B"entitled"RIGHT-OF-WAY DEDICATION"is made a part hereof. • REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR L • to•R.o7 OREtioN JULY IIMININDIA RB ett NncrD mane I2.3( 07 €aian• M:lDatatTSD67011LegaI DesuiotIons16701-SUP,-LEGAL-ROW DED.duc PAGE 1 OF Z • •, + 2I I in N. Z 1 Q 11 1212--_58855'42'3 )584.67 SECTION LINE _ -4 1U 3 !�I — — y ! ')W DlJRH RMA OAD� -I RELOCATED CENTERLINE • 7-n__ r • a' PER DEED DOCUMENT in S01-1 7.29"W NO. 95-046769 E 4.02' 1 N8 7'.31.58'W 121.00' / / W POINT OF BEGINNING / / " v"ti o THE NORTHEAST -° CORNER OF PARCEL I S01'17'29"W S67 31'58"E 121.01' 5 PER MINOR PARTITION 12.98 SURVEY NUMBER Z 23:049 zz - Q) w wO U Q r) CC a N "'_ED DOCUMENT a o N N . 2000-04 51 76 Z Abb... L EGEND: VII RW DURHAM ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY DEDICATION 2.057 SQUARE FEET (MORE OR LESS) SCALE: 1"= 30' SEE ATTACHED LEGAL DESCRIPTION 30 157.5 0 30 w R EXHIBIT 'B' PROJECT NO. TSD6701 DESIGN I N C DATE: 10/17/2007 RIGHT-OF-WAY DEDICATION — BY: TLB 5415 SW Westgate Dr, Ste 100/Portland,OR NW V4 S 13,1 2 S.R 1 W.WILLAMETTE MERIDIAN SCALE T=30' 97221/Tel 503.4192500 CITY OF TIGARD.WASHINGTON COUNTY,OREGON PAGE NO. 2 OF 2 ---- L miBiT 1 PAGE Z OF 2_ • Exhibit "A" LEGAL DESCRIPTION DURHAM ELEMENTARY-TSD6701 ACCESS EASEMENT October 18, 2007 Page 1 OF 2 A portion of that tract of land described as Deed Document No. 2000-045176,Washington County Deed Records, located in the northwest one-quarter of Section 13,Township 2 South, Range 1 West, Willamette Meridian, City of Tigard,Washington County, Oregon. being more particularly described as follows: COMMENCING at the northeast corner of Parcel I per Minor Partition recorded as Survey Number 23,049,Washington County Survey Records,said point being South 88°42'31"East, 1584.67 feet and South 01° 17'29"East,45.00 feet from the common corner of Sections 11, 12, 13 and 14;Thence along the East line of said Parcel I South 01° 17'29"West, 12.98 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING;Thence along a line parallel with the southerly right-of-way line of SW Durham Road(being 52.00 feet from the '• centerline thereof,when measured perpendicular thereto)South 87°31'58"East,94.55 feet to a point of non-tangential curvature;Thence along a 319.75 foot radius curve to the right(The center of which bears North 65°55'57"West,319.75 feet)through a central angle of 06°55'22"an arc distance of 38.63 feet (the chord of which bears South 27°31'44"West,38.61 feet)to a point of non-tangential curvature; Thence along a 139.00 foot radius curve to the right(The center of which bears North 64°40'55"West, 139.00 feet)through a central angle of 40°51'21"an arc distance of 99.12 feet(the chord of which bears South 45°44'45"West,97.03 feet); Thence South 66°10'26"West, 10.50 feet to the East line of said Parcel I;Thence along said East line North 01° 17'29" East, 110.29 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. 1 Contains 6,686 square feet,more or less. The attached EXHIBIT"B"entitled"ACCESS EASEMENT"is made a part hereof PROFESSIONAL 1 meaignieo LAND:SURVEYOR � OREGON' JULY 13,2004 SAMANTHA R.BANCO 91.'. RENEWAL DATE: 1Z,-31.07 M:1Data\TSD67011Legat Descriptions\670t-SUR-LEGAL-ACCESS EASEMENT.c-c EXHIBIT 0AGE I OF 2-"' • e .1 'N.-N. . 1- Lei NIZ Lu S88'42'3121)584.67' -- SECTION LINE 14 1U3 �'I _ — — 3 I SW DURHAM ROAD — No {r. ° RELOCATED CENTERLINE in • a PER DEED DOCUMENT in ° I N(; 95-046769 "' I POINT OF BEGINNING PROPOSED 1 POINT OF t COMMENCEMENT RIGHT-OF-WAY THE NORTHEAST SO S87'31'S8"E 94.55' DEDICATION 1'17'29"W CORNER OF PARCEL 1 ! PER MINOR PARTITION 12'98' SURVEY NUMBER 3 I 23.049 / . L=38.63' / R=3"19.7555'22 D=6 " " LC=527'31'44"W. N 38.61' 0 Z o / ~ N - O U Q O r / / ,d N P Q� Z aON /' z_ —L=99.12' R=139.00' D=40'51'21" LC=S45'44'45"W, 97.03' t• DEED DOCUMENT 56610'26"W NO. 2000-045176 • 1%,. 10.50' LEGEND: AM 6 686 SQUARE FEET (MORE OR LESS) SCALE: 1"= 30' 30 15 7.5 0 30 SEE ATTACHED LEGAL DESCRIPTION 1 ✓ ,1111111M_ EXHIBIT ir PROJECT NO. TSD6701 DESIGN I N C . ACCESS EASEMENT DATE 10f18/2007 5415 SW weetgate Dr, BY: TLB Ste 100/Portland.OR NW V4 6 13,T 2 S,R 1 W,WILLAMETTE MERIDIAN SCALE T=30 97221/Tel 5034192500 CRY OF T1C ARD.WASI•INGTON COUNTY,OREGON PAGE NO. 2 Of 2 EXHIBIT — 'AGF 2_ OF • Exhibit "A" • LEGAL DESCRIPTION DURHAM ELEMENTARY-TSD6701 • TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENTS October 18, 2007 • • Page 1 OF 5 • • PARCEL I—TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT A portion of that tract of land described as Deed Document No. 2000-045176,Washington County Deed Records, located in the northwest one-quarter of Section 13,Township 2 South,Range 1 West, Willamette Meridian, City of Tigard,Washington County, Oregon. being more particularly described as follows: COMMENCING at the northeast corner of Parcel I per Minor Partition recorded as Survey Number 23,049,Washington County Survey Records, said point being South 88°42'31"East, 1584.67 feet and South 01° 17'29"East,45.00 feet from the common corner of Sections 11, 12, 13 and 14;Thence along the East line of said Parcel I South 01° 17'29"West, 12.98 feet;Thence along a line parallel with the southerly right-of-way line of SW Durham Road(being 52.00 feet from the centerline thereof,when measured perpendicular thereto)South 87°31'58"East,94.55 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING; Thence continuing South 87°31'58"East, 15.84 feet;Thence leaving said parallel line South 09°06'08" West,20.55 feet to a point of non-tangential curvature;Thence along a 72.14 foot radius curve to the left (The center of which bears South 04°19'47"East, 72.14 feet)through a central angle of 14°00'56"an arc distance of 17.65 feet(the chord of which bears South 78°39'46"West, 17.60 feet)to a point of compound curvature; Thence along a 25.00 foot radius curve to the left(The center of which bears South 18°20'42"East, 25.00 feet)through a central angle of 45°04'49"an arc distance of 19.67 feet(the chord of which bears South 49°06'53"West, 19.17 feet)to a point of cusp;Thence along a 139.00 foot radius curve to the left(The center of which bears North 63°25'31"West, 139.00 feet)through a central angle of 01° 15'24"an arc distance of 3.05 feet(the chord of which bears North 25°56'47"East, 3.05 feet)to a point of non-tangential curvature;Thence along a 319.75 foot radius curve to the left(The center of which bears North 59°00'35"West,319.75 feet)through a central angle of 06°55'22"an arc distance of 38.63 feet(the chord of which bears North 27°31'44" East, 38.61 feet)to the POINT OF BEGINNING. Contains 467 square feet, more or less. The attached EXHIBIT"B"entitled"TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT"is made a part hereof. PARCEL II—TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT • A portion of that tract of land described as Deed Document No.2000-045176,Washington County Deed Records,located in the northwest one-quarter of Section 13,Township 2 South, Range 1 West, Willamette Meridian, City of Tigard,Washington County, Oregon. being more particularly described as follows: COMMENCING at the northeast corner of Parcel I per Minor Partition recorded as Survey Number 23,049,Washington County Survey Records,said point being South 88°42'31"East, 1584.67 feet and South 01° 17'29" East.45.00 feet from the common corner of Sections 11, 12, 13 and 14;Thence along M.\Data\TSD6701\Legal Descriptions\6701-SUR-LEGAL-TEMP CONST EASEMENTS_doc 3 EXHIBI1 3 :---AGE � OF 5 • • LEGAL DESCRIPTION DURHAM ELEMENTARY-TSD6701 TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENTS October 18,2007 Page 2 OF 5 • • the East line of said Parcel I South 01° 17'29"West, 12.98 feet, Thence along a line parallel with the southerly right-of-way line of SW Durham Road(being 52.00 feet from the centerline thereof,when measured perpendicular thereto)South 87°31'58" East, 110.39 feet;Thence leaving said parallel line South 09°06'08"West,20.55 feet;Thence South 09°06'08"West,0.51 feet;Thence South 09°43'19" West,9.17 feet;Thence South 01° 33'00"West,51.42 feet;Thence North 88°39'25"West,50.89 feet; Thence South 01°28'07"West, 18.60 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING;Thence South 01°28'07" West,2.00 feet;Thence North 88°48' 12"West,38.92 feet; Thence South 01° 17'59"West, 10.44 feet; • Thence North 90°00'00"West, 16.05 feet to said East line of Parcel I; Thence along said East line North 01° 17'29"East,4.75 feet;Thence leaving said East line North 66° 10'26"East, 10.50 feet to a point of curvature;Thence along a 139.00 foot radius curve to the left(The center of which bears North 23°49' 34"West, 139.00 feet)through a central angle of 15°21'46"an arc distance of 37.27 feet(the chord of which bears North 58°29'33"East, 37.16 feet)to a point of cusp;Thence along a 5.00 foot radius curve i to the left(The center of which bears South 39° 11'20"East, 5.00 feet)through a central angle of 49°36' 1 52"an arc distance of 4.33 feet(the chord of which bears South 26°00' 14"West,4.20 feet);Thence l South 01° 11'48"West, 7.69 feet to a point of curvature;Thence along a 5.00 foot radius curve to the left (The center of which bears South 88°48' 12"East, 5.00 feet)through a central angle of 90°00'00"an arc distance of 7.85 feet(the chord of which bears South 43°48'12"East, 7.07 feet);Thence South 88°48' 12"East, 10.96 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. Contains 374 square feet, more or less. The attached EXHIBIT"B"entitled"TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT"is made a part hereof. PARCEL III-TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT FOR PERMANENT LANDSCAPE INSTALLATION A portion of that tract of land described as Deed Document No. 2000-045176,Washington County Deed Records, located in the northwest one-quarter of Section 13,Township 2 South, Range 1 West, • Willamette Meridian,City of Tigard,Washington County, Oregon being more particularly described as follows: COMMENCING at the northeast corner of Parcel I per Minor Partition recorded as Survey Number 23,049,Washington County Survey Records,said point being South 88°42'31" East, 1584.67 feet and South 01° 17'29"East,45.00 feet from the common corner of Sections 11, 12, 13 and 14;Thence along the East line of said Parcel I South 01° 17'29"West, 12.98 feet; Thence along a line parallel with the southerly right-of-way fine of SW Durham Road(being 52.00 feet from the centerline thereof,when measured perpendicular thereto)South 87°31'58"East, 110.39 feet; Thence leaving said parallel line South 09°06'08"West, 20.55 feet to a point of non-tangential curvature, being the POINT OF BEGINNING; Thence along a 72.14 foot radius curve to the left(The center of which bears South 04°19' 47"East,72.14 feet)through a central angle of 14°00'56"an arc distance of 17.65 feet(the chord of which bears South 78°39'46"West, 17.60 feet)to a point of compound curvature; Thence along a 25.00 foot radius curve to the left(The center of which bears South 18°20'42"East, 25.00 feet)through a M:1Data1TSD67011Legal Desoiptions16701-SUR-LEGAL-TEMP CONST EASEMENTS.doc { EXHIBIT 3 PAGE 2" u, 5 • LEGAL DESCRIPTION DURHAM ELEMENTARY-TSD6701 TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENTS October 18, 2007 Page 3 OF 5 central angle of 45°04'49"an arc distance of 19.67 feet(the chord of which bears South 49°06'53" West, 19.17 feet)to a point of reverse curvature;Thence along a 139.00 foot radius curve to the right (The center of which bears North 63°25'31"West, 139.00 feet)through a central angle of 24° 14' 11"an i arc distance of 58.80 feet(the chord of which bears South 38°41'34"West,58.36 feet)to a point of reverse curvature;Thence along a 5.00 foot radius curve to the left(The center of which bears South 39° 11'20"East,5.00 feet)through a central angle of 49°36'52"an arc distance of 4.33 feet(the chord of which bears South 26°00' 14"West,4.20 feet);Thence South 01° 11'48"West,7.69 feet to a point of curvature;Thence along a 5.00 foot radius curve to the left(The center of which bears South 88°48' 12" East, 5.00 feet)through a central angle of 90°00'00"an arc distance of 7.85 feet(the chord of which bears South 43°48' 12"East,7.07 feet);Thence South 88°48' 12"East, 10.96 feet:Thence North 01°28' 07"East, 18.60 feet; Thence South 88°39'25"East, 50.89 feet; Thence North 01°33'00"East,51.42 feet;Thence North 09°43' 19"East,9.17 feet;Thence North 09°06'08"East,0.51 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. Contains 2,592 square feet, more or less. The attached EXHIBIT"C"entitled"TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT FOR PERMANENT LANDSCAPE INSTALLATION°is made a part hereof. REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL LAND.SURVEYOR • to-u5 OREGON JULY 13.2001 SAMAISThA R.e1A1100 6130&,$ j RENEW4t.DOT& 12 31.07 1 M:1Data\TSD6701\Legal Descriptions\6701-SUR-LEGAL-TEMP CONST EASEMENTS.doc EXHIDII 3 AGE 3 OF 5 ` - O • _l u o- In N- w ( < 1111 1.2-S8888•42 3 E 1564.67 SECTION LINE 14 1L1 3 � - - - 1 _ I - 't SW DURHAM ROAD - N - -Oi i -, °1 - RELOCATED CENTERLINE in • a PER DEED DOCUMENT In ! N I NO. 95-046769 I I I I POINT OF PROPOSED RIGHT-OF-WAY DEDICATION I COMMENCEMENT S87'31'58"E THE NORTHEAST 587'31'58"E 94.55' 15.84' CORNER OF' PARCEL I S0117'29"W I PER MINOR PARTITION 12.98' POINT OF BEGINNING S09'06'08"W SURVEY NUMBER PARCEL I 20.55' 1 23,049 `�' u AI 1 • 09'06'08"W ` ,L 0.51' C' 09'43'19"W 3 0 9.17' N f / \ W F o O I` woo O Mrcr a N S810.96'- n ao� 10.96'- o Z z .- w SO111'48"W SCALE: 1". 30' m- 7.69' 58839'25"E 50.89' =MN= NM o°> 1 C6 ---N01'2B'07"E 18.60' 3 5 7.5 30 z O G /♦. C7 POINT OF BEGINNING 4,417 ♦__._ PARCEL II 1 N86'4812 W 38.92 501'28'07"W 2.00' NO11 7'29"E . S011 7'59"W DEED DOCUMENT 4.75' 10.44' NO. 2000-045176 "-N90'00.00"W 16.05' CURVE TABLE LEGEND: CURVE LENGTH RADIUS DELTA LONG CHORD CI 17.65' 72.14' 14.00'56" S78'39'46"W, 17.60' �' PARCEL TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT C2 19.67' 25.00' 45'04'49" S49"06'53"W, 19.17' 467 SQUARE FEET (MORE OR LESS) C3 3.05' 139.00' 115'24" N25'56'47"E, 3.05' 6, - 2 PARCEL H C4 38.63' 319.75' 6'55'22" N27'31'44"E, 38.61' TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT C5 37.27' 139.00' 15'21.46" N58'29.33 E, 37.16' 374 SQUARE FEET (MORE OR LESS) C6 4.33' 5.00' 49'36'52" S26'00'14"W, 4.20' SEE ATTACHED LEGAL DESCRIPTION C7 _ 7.85' _ 5.00' 90'00'00" _ 543'48.12"E, 7.07' -• I©, EXHIBIT B" PROJECT NO. 7606701 DESIGN I N C . TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT DATE 10116/2007 6416 SW Westgate Or, BY: Tt8 Ste 1001 Portland OR NW V4 S 19,T 2 S,R 1 W,WILLAMETTE MERIDIAN SCALE I!30' 97221/Tel 5034191500 CITY OF T)GARE%WA&' IGTON COUNTY,OREGON PAGE NO. 4 OF 5 i EXHIBIT 3 CAGE OF_5°____ • 21 w O) f) ELI M Q 11 12 S888•42.'s1 X564.67' SECTION LINE 14 1U 3 `'� — — --- - l----- — ------- — — • I SW DURHAM ROAD — ______ N O RELOCATED CENTERLINE. d • a PER DEED DOCUMENT in • c.nn I NO. '15-046769 " 1 i POINT OF PROPOSED RIGI+i-OF-WAY DEDICATION • COMMENCEMENT THE NORTHEAST 501 17'29"w i S87'31'58"E 110.39' i CORNER OF PARCEL I 12.98' PER MINOR PARTITION POINT OF 50906'08"W ■ SURVEY NUMBER BEGINNING / 20.55' 23,049 PARCEL 10 + + 09'06'08"E + + 0.51' 1 + 4 4 4 4 t 4 + N09'43'19"E • 1+4 -4 44411 9.17' a a + + + • + + N 1 4 1+4+ -4 14 ++ 4. Z Z + + 4 - +4+ in • 0 4 + 4 + • 4 4. — + 4 + + W • � />� + 4 + a •~4+4 O W cc O V • a + +1 0 U¢'n 4 4 + +++'• •4 n Q:a N .4+ + • + 4 4 4 r)•• a • + + 4++ + 44.41 I. • n-OCZi� 4 4 + 4 - 5 Z 4 4 + 4 4 1 4 4 .+4 4- z 1 • 4 + + + 1 • 4 • + + 4 + 1 + + .4 a 4. • 4 4 + 4 + l 4 4 + + • CS 4 4 S8819 25"E 50.89' 50111'48'W ++++44 7.69' '•11 4 4+—N01'28'07"E 18.60' • • 4'4.' + + C7 + + + S88'48'12"E DEU °illii,• • 10.96' NO.ED 2000-0451DOCMENT 76 SCALE: 1"= 30' �.--��� • 30 15 7.5 0 30 CURVE TABLE LEGEND: CURVE LENGTH RADIUS DELTA LONG CHORD PARCEL III TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT Cl 17.65' 72.14' 14'00'56" S78'39'46"W, 17.60' FOR PERMANENT LANDSCAPE INSTALLATION C2 19.67' 25.00' 45'04'49" 549'06'53"W. 19.17' 2,592 SQUARE FEET (MORE OR LESS) _ C6 4.33' 5.00' 49'36'52" S26'00'14"W, 4.20' C7 7.85' 5.00' 90'00'00" 543'48'12"E, 7.07' C8 58.80' 139.00' - 2414'11" S38'41'34"W, 58.36' SEE ATTACHED LEGAL DESCRIPTION EXHIBIT 'C' PROJECT NO. TS08701 D E S I G N I N C TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT FOR DATE 10/18/2007 5416 SW Westgate 0r, PERMANENT LANDSCAPE INSTALLATION BY: nB Ste 100/Portland.OR NW 1/4 6 R T 2 8,11 1 W.WILLAMETTE MERIDIAN SCALE t= 30' 97221 /Tel 6014182500 CITY OF TURD,WASHINGTON COUNTY,OREGON PAGE NO. 5 OF 5 ■ ;Iiin 3 .-__. RAGE 5 _ 0'r 5 • • DURHAM ELEMENTARY SCHOOL A Tigard, Oregon A Land Use Application for: • Conditional Use/Major Modification Review Submitted: 4111 Resubmitted November 21, 2007 Applicant: Tigard-Tualatin School District 23J 6960 SW Sandburg Road Tigard, OR 97223 Prepared by: WRG Design 5415 SW Westgate Drive, Suite 100 • Portland, OR 97221 503/419-2500 • • • TABLE OF CONTENTS PROJECT TEAM 3 INTRODUCTION 4 ADJACENT AFFECTED PROPERTY 5 SUMMARY 6 PROPOSAL 6 SITE DESIGN 6 LANDSCAPING 6 VEHICLE CIRCULATION 6 PEDESTRIAN ACCOMMODATIONS 7 UTILITIES AND INFRASTRUCTURE 7 INDUSTRIAL/OFFICE SITE 7 TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE 9 18.330 CONDITIONAL USE 9 18.330.020 Approval Process 9 18.330.030 Approval Standards and Conditions of Approval 10 18.330.050 Additional Development Standards for Conditional Use Types 13 18.360 SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 13 18.360.090 Approval Criteria 13 18.510 RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS 17 18.510.050 Development Standards 17 18.510.2 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS IN RESIDENTIAL ZONES 18 • 18.530 INDUSTRIAL ZONING DISTRICTS 18 18.530.040 Development Standards 18 18.530.2 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS IN INDUSTRIAL ZONES 19 18.530.050 Additional Development Standards 19 18.705 ACCESS,EGRESS AND CIRCULATION 20 18.705.030 General Provisions 20 18.725 ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE STANDARDS 23 18.725.020 General Provisions 23 18.725.030 Performance Standards 24 18.740 HISTORIC OVERLAY 25 18.740.020 Applicability of Provisions 25 18.745 LANDSCAPING AND SCREENING 25 18.745.030 General Provisions 25 18.745.040 Street Trees 27 18.745.050 Buffering and Screening 28 18.745.060 Re-vegetation 32 18.765 OFF-STREET PARKING AND LOADING REQUIREMENTS 33 18.765.030 General Provisions 33 18.765.040 General Design Standards 34 18.765.050 Bicycle Parking Design Standards 38 18.765.070 Minimum and Maximum Off-Street Parking Requirements 40 18.765.080 Off-Street Loading Requirements 42 18.780 SIGNS 43 18.780.020 Permits Required 43 18.790 TREE REMOVAL 43 18.790.030 Tree Plan Requirement 43 18.790.050 Permit Applicability 44 • 18.790.060 Illegal Tree Removal 45 18.795 VISUAL CLEARANCE AREAS 46 18.795.030 Visual Clearance Requirements 46 Durham Elementary Access 1 WRG Design,Inc. City of Tigard—Major Modification Review November 2007 . S 18.795.040 Computations 47 • 18.810 STREET AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENT STANDARDS 47 18.810.020 General Provisions 47 18.810.030 Streets 48 18.810.040 Blocks 56 18.810.050 Easements 56 18.810.060 Lots 57 18.810.070 Sidewalks 57 18.810.090 Sanitary Sewers 58 18.810.100 Storm Drainage 59 18.810.110 Bikeways and Pedestrian Pathways 60 18.810.120 Utilities 60 18.810.140 Monuments 62 18.810.150 Installation Prerequisite 62 18.810.160 Installation Conformation 62 18.810.170 Plan Check 62 18.810.180 Notice to City 63 18.810.190 City Inspection 63 18.810.200 Engineer's Certification 63 CONCLUSION 63 EXHIBITS A. Development Plans B. Land Use Application Form C. Property Title Information • D. CWS Service Provider Letter E. Preliminary Drainage Report F. Memorandum providing site background information G. Durham Elementary School Site Access Alternatives Evaluation H. Impact Study I. Neighborhood Meeting Documentation J. Arborist Report • Durham Elementary Access 2 WRG Design,Inc. City of Tigard—Major Modification Review November 2007 • • • PROJECT TEAM Owner Tigard-Tualatin School District 23J 6960 SW Sandburg Road Tigard,OR 97223 Applicant Tigard-Tualatin School District 23J 6960 SW Sandburg Road Tigard,OR 97223 Contact: Rob Saxton Planning,Civil Engineering, Landscape Architecture WRG Design,Inc. 5415 SW Westgate Dr, Suite 100 Portland,OR 97221 (503)419-2500(ph) (503)419-2600(fax) Contact: Erin Engman,Planner Contact: Tony Roos,PE Contact: Mike Andrews,RLA Transportation Engineer DKS Associates 1400 SW Fifth Avenue,Suite 500 Portland,OR 97201-5502 (503)243-3500 • Contact: Chris Maciejewski,PE • • Durham Elementary Access 3 WRG Design, Inc. City of Tigard—Major Modification Review November 2007 • • INTRODUCTION • This application is for a conditional use/major modification review for a new primary access to Durham Elementary, which is located at 8048 SW Shaffer Lane within the City of Tigard, Oregon. The table below includes site information for the proposed project. GENERAL INFORMATION LOCATION 8048 SW Shaffer Lane TAX LOT 2S113BA00300, 2S113BA00401, and 2S113BA00500 SIZE 11 Acres CURRENT ZONING Residential-12 w/ Historic District Overlay (R-12(HD)) and Industrial Park(I-P) PROPOSED ZONING Residential-12 w/ Historic District Overlay (R-12(HD)) and Industrial Park(I-P) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Public Institution and Light Industrial DESIGNATION EXISTING USE Elementary School Campus PROPOSED USE Elementary School Campus SURROUNDING USES NORTH Residential Subdivision(Across SW Durham Road) EAST Office/Industrial Buildings • SOUTH Clean Water Services Facility WEST Clean Water Services Facility ADJACENT STREETS SW DURHAM ROAD Arterial SW SHAFFER LANE Private UTILITIES ELECTRIC Portland General Electric WATER City of Tigard GAS Northwest Natural STORM WATER/SANITARY SEWER CWS • Durham Elementary Access 4 WRG Design,Inc. City of Tigard—Major Modification Review November 2007 • • • ADJACENT AFFECTED PROPERTY GENERAL INFORMATION LOCATION 7800 SW Shaffer Lane TAX LOT 2S113BA00200 SIZE 2.5 Acres CURRENT ZONING Industrial Park(I-P) PROPOSED ZONING Industrial Park(I-P) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Light Industrial DESIGNATION EXISTING USE Industrial/Office Building PROPOSED USE Industrial/Office Building • 4111 Durham Elementary Access 5 WRG Design,Inc. City of Tigard—Major Modification Review November 2007 • • SUMMARY • The Applicant requests Major Modification approval of an existing Conditional Use Permit in order to relocate the access drive and add 20 parking spaces at the existing Durham Elementary School on a Residential (R-12) and Industrial Park(I-P) zoned site(the "School Site"). The access way improvements will connect the two existing parking lots on site, and the new proposed parking area with a new access location at the signalized intersection of SW Durham Road and SW 79'h Avenue. The proposed parking addition will be located south of the existing Durham Center building, north of the existing parking lot for the school. To reach the Durham Road/79'h Avenue intersection, the proposed access way must cross the northwest corner of the neighboring property's parking lot, which is located at 7800 SW Durham Road (the "Industrial/Office Site"). The relocation of the access way is required due to the expiration of the SW Shaffer Lane access easement agreement with Clean Water Services. PROPOSAL The Applicant requests Major Modification approval of an existing Conditional Use Permit in order to relocate the access drive and add 20 parking spaces at the School Site, which is on 13.5 acres and zoned R-12 and I-P. The proposal includes the construction of a new vehicular and pedestrian access way that will be located at the signalized intersection of SW Durham Road and SW 79th Avenue. The additional parking will be located south of the Durham Center building, north of the existing parking lot for the school and as part of the re-striping of the existing Durham Center parking lot. In addition, the pedestrian pathways along the vehicular access way will be connected to the existing pedestrian circulation network on site. The proposal does not include any additional signage at this time. The elementary school generated traffic volumes using the SW 79th Avenue signal includes a total volume of 950 vehicles daily, while the AM Peak Volume is 310 vehicles, the Midday Peak Volume(school out) • is 135 vehicles, and the PM Peak Volume is 40 vehicles. A total of 32 bus trips are generated per day, which includes 8 busses that arrive and depart from the site twice per day. SITE DESIGN The configuration of the proposed access way and associated improvements can be seen in Exhibit A. The access way is located in the northeast portion of the School Site, and connects the public right-of-way, at SW Durham Road and SW 79th Avenue with the school parking lot in the western portion of the site. A pedestrian pathway is located along this access way, which connects the site to the public sidewalk system. The proposed parking area will connect to the new Durham Center building parking lot access- way that subsequently connects to the proposed access drive. Fire access is provided via the drive aisles and fire lanes surrounding the building. LANDSCAPING The landscape plan shows the existing and proposed landscaping and is located in Exhibit A. Safety, maintenance, and aesthetics have been integrated into the design of the new proposed access way landscaping improvements. VEHICLE CIRCULATION Vehicle circulation is provided west of the elementary school building and will connect to the proposed access way. The School Site will be accessed via the intersection of SW Durham Road and SW 79th Avenue. The parking lot adjacent to the school building provides 72 parking stalls, and bus circulation for picking up and dropping off students. The new proposed parking lot will include 19 parking stalls, while the Durham Center building parking lot will be re-striped in order to provide 41 parking stalls, within the existing parking area that currently provides 40 stalls. A total of 132 parking stalls will be provided. • Durham Elementary Access 6 WRG Design,Inc. City of Tigard—Major Modification Review November 2007 • • • PEDESTRIAN ACCOMMODATIONS Pedestrian connections are provided along the proposed access way and connect to SW Durham Road north of the existing Durham Center building and at the intersection of SW Durham Road and SW 79th Avenue. The School Site is linked by on-site sidewalks that connect the building, parking areas, and the public sidewalk. UTILITIES AND INFRASTRUCTURE All utilities already exist on the School Site and connect to the existing buildings. The additional impervious areas created by the proposed access way and parking area will be handled by the construction of a storm water system. The system will be sized to treat the storm water for future expansion on this site, as well as the storm water for the Industrial/Office Site, as explained below. Catch basins will collect the storm water run-off from the access way and parking area and convey it to a swale that will retard and treat the water before its ultimate outfall into Fanno Creek utilizing industry standard methods to prevent erosion. The Utility Plan is in Exhibit A and the Storm Water Analysis memo is located in Exhibit E. INDUSTRIAL/OFFICE SITE The Industrial/Office Site adjacent to the school campus to the east will be impacted by the proposed access relocation. In order to construct the access drive as proposed, 12 parking spaces will be lost on the site. This parking loss is further discussed below. The existing storm water facility will be decommissioned and the Industrial /Office Site will be reconnected to the new system proposed as part of this development. The new storm water system will address the storm water needs of the Industrial/Office Site and the new additions of impervious surface added by the proposed access relocation and parking area. In addition, the circulation of the Industrial/Office Site will be reconfigured as needed to • accommodate the proposed access drive and facilitate safe and efficient circulation for that site. The 12 spaces removed from the Industrial/Office Site will leave a total of 90 parking spaces on the site. According to SDR2000-00016, the Industrial/Office Site was approved to have a minimum of 41 parking spaces on site, which includes the 21 spaces required in the original 1998 approval and the 20 additional spaces required as part of the approved Site Development Review mentioned previously. A recent site visit discovered a total of 102 parking spaces currently exist on-site. The reduction of 12 spaces leaves a total of 90 spaces. This number of parking spaces is clearly still in compliance with the Tigard Municipal Code. Furthermore, even if the Industrial/Office Site was to convert to 100%office use(currently the uses are split between office, warehouse and light industrial), a total of 85 spaces would be required. Given that a total of 90 spaces will be provided, even the most conservative scenario yields compliance with current code standards. The landscaping removed from the Industrial/Office Site will consist of two trees and a number of shrubs, ground cover and a raised planter bed. A total of 31 trees exist around the perimeter of the site. A total of 15 trees are currently required per Chapter 18.745 of the Tigard Municipal Code. The loss of 2 trees will not bring the site out of current code compliance. The removal of part of the landscape buffer on the western property line (shrubs, groundcover and raised planter) where the proposed access will be located will also not affect current buffer requirements. The Buffer Matrix in Table 18.745.1 does not prescribe buffer requirements between Institutional uses and Industrial/office uses, therefore the buffer provided leaves the site in compliance with the Landscape and Screening standards. Approximately 3,614 square feet of landscaping area will be removed from the Industrial/Office Site to accommodate the new access construction. As shown on the Street Tree Plan contained in Exhibit A, the Applicant will be replacing that lost landscaping with approximately 3,722 of new landscaping. Therefore, there will be no net loss in landscaping on the Industrial/Office Site as a result of this project. • The loss of the access easement agreement with Clean Water Services necessitates a new access for the school campus. Negotiations are underway to secure the new easement for the proposed access. With respect to the City of Tigard access way standards and other limiting factors, the access drive as proposed Durham Elementary Access 7 WRG Design,Inc. City of Tigard—Major Modification Review November 2007 • • is the most reasonable option available. As described above and in the appropriate sections below, the • changes proposed to the office building site will be able to continue to meet all applicable code standards. Please see Exhibit F for background discussion on the loss of the access easement agreement with Clean Water Services and the alternatives analysis the Applicant underwent to choose the proposed access as a replacement. • • Durham Elementary Access 8 WRG Design,Inc. City of Tigard—Major Modification Review November 2007 • • • TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE 18.330 CONDITIONAL USE 18.330.020 Approval Process B. Major modification of approved or existing conditional use. 2. The Director shall determine that a major modification(s) has resulted if one or more of the changes listed below have been proposed: a. A change in land use; Response: The School Site is currently an elementary school facility and will remain an elementary school facility. The Industrial/Office Site is currently an industrial office use and will remain an industrial office use. The proposal includes the relocation of the vehicular access and the addition of a small parking area that includes 19 parking stalls. In addition, the re-striping of the current Durham Center parking area will yield one additional stall. No change in land use is proposed. b. A 10% increase in dwelling unit density; Response: No dwelling units exist on the School Site. No dwelling units are proposed. This criterion does not apply. c. A change in the type and/or location of access ways and parking areas where off-site traffic would be affected; • Response: The Applicant proposes a change in the location of the access way and additional parking for the School Site due to the expiration of an access easement through the neighboring CWS property. This criterion determines that the proposed improvements falls under the purview of a major modification. The additional on-site parking area will not affect the off-site traffic. The major modification of the conditional use permit is proposed as detailed in this narrative,the plan set, and associated exhibits. d. An increase in the floor area proposed for non-residential use by more than 10% where previously specified; Response: The proposed access relocation will not increase any floor areas on the School Site. e. A reduction of more than 10% of the area reserved for common open space and/or usable open space; Response: The proposed access relocation utilizes 12,944 square feet of the 121,968 square feet of total usable open space (sports field taxlot), yielding a reduction of 10.6%. This criterion determines that the proposed improvements falls under the purview of a major modification. f. A reduction of specified setback requirements by more than 20%; Response: No setback reductions are proposed as part of the access relocation. The shortest setback along SW Durham Road is 75 feet to the Durham Center building. Please refer to the • Development Plan Set in Exhibit A for more information. g. An elimination of project amenities by more than 10% where previously specified provided such as: 4110 (1) Recreational facilities; (2) Screening; or Durham Elementary Access 9 WRG Design,Inc. City of Tigard—Major Modification Review November 2007 • • (3) Landscaping provisions; and • Response:, The access relocation and parking improvements will not reduce project amenities on the School Site. The multipurpose sports field will accommodate activities south of the proposed access location. Additional landscaping will be provided along the access drive, the proposed parking lot, and along the common boundary between the school campus and the office building. h. A 10% increase in the approved density; Response: The proposed access relocation and parking improvements will not create an increase in density. The proposed access way will replace the existing access way currently providing access to SW Shaffer Lane. 3. Upon the Director determining that the proposed modification to the conditional use plan is a major modification, the applicant shall submit a new application in accordance with Section 18.390.050. Response: The Applicant understands this proposal to be a Major Modification. 18.330.030 Approval Standards and Conditions of Approval A. Approval standards. The Hearings Officer shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny an application for a conditional use or to enlarge or alter a conditional use based on findings of fact with respect to each of the following criteria: 1. The site size and dimensions provide adequate area for the needs of the proposed use; Response: The School Site is 13.5 acres, or 588,060 square feet, which provides the area and dimensions for the construction of a new access way. • 2. The impacts of the proposed use of the site can be accommodated considering size, shape,location,topography, and natural features; Response:_ The proposed access relocation and parking area will be easily accommodated on the School Site considering the size, shape, location, topography, and natural features of the subject site. The current area where the access will be located is used as a multiple use elementary school sports field. The sports field will be reduced in size, although will still retain enough area for the southern portion to continue to be used as a regulation soccer field. The expiration of an easement along SW Shaffer Lane has necessitated the access relocation. The proposed access way will replace the current access way, which will no longer be accessible due to the current easement's expiration. The proposed parking area will be located in the area that will remain unutilized after the relocation of the playground equipment, which will occur this year. 3. All required public facilities have adequate capacity to serve the proposal; Response: The public utilities serving the School Site will remain unchanged except for the storm water discharge for the new impervious area created by the proposed access drive and parking area. All utilities have adequate capacity to serve the proposal. The proposed access drive will accompany improvements along SW Durham Road. Please see the Development Plan Set in Exhibit A, for details regarding the grading, drainage, storm water line, and street improvement locations. 4. The applicable requirements of the zoning district are met except as modified by this chapter; Response: All applicable requirements of the zoning district are met. Evidence is provided within • this narrative, the Development Plan Set, and associated Exhibits. Durham Elementary Access 10 WRG Design,Inc. City of Tigard—Major Modification Review November 2007 • • • 5. The applicable requirements of 18.330.050; and Response: See Section 18.330.050 of this narrative for more information. 6. The supplementary requirements set forth in other chapters of this code including but not limited to Chapter 18.780, Signs, and Chapter 18.360, Site Development Review, if applicable, are met. Response: This narrative, attached exhibits and the Development Plan Set provide evidence that the proposal is in compliance with all applicable requirements of this title and all applicable chapters. B. Conditions of approval. The Hearings Officer may impose conditions on the approval of a conditional use, which are found necessary to ensure the use is compatible with other use in the vicinity, and that the impact of the proposed use on the surrounding uses and public facilities is minimized. These conditions may include, but are not limited to the following: 1. Limiting the hours, days,place and/or manner of operation; Response: The access and parking will be primarily utilized during school hours. The new proposed access and parking will function as the existing access and parking currently functions. Upon relocation of the access from its existing location, the new access way will be the only access utilized for ingress and egress to the School Site. Limiting the hours, days, place and/or manner of operation of the access way appears unnecessary due to the original conditional use permitting the school and associated activities. 2. Requiring design features which minimize environmental impacts such as noise, vibration, air pollution,glare, odor and/or dust; • Response: The proposed access and parking is completely within the purview of the existing conditional use permit. No increase or additional environmental impacts such as noise, vibration, air pollution, glare, odor and/or dust will be created during use of the proposed access and parking improvements. During a limited construction period, there may be added environmental impacts such as noise, vibration, air pollution, glare, odor and/or dust, which will be minimized by utilizing industry standard mitigation techniques. 3. Requiring additional setback areas,lot area,and/or lot depth or width; Response: Additional setback areas, lot area, and/or lot depth or width appears unnecessary due to the size and area of the school campus site. In addition, fencing will be installed 4. Limiting the building height,size or lot coverage, and/or location on the site; Response: No changes are proposed to any buildings on the School Site. This criterion is not applicable. 5. Designating the size, number, location and/or design of vehicle access points; Response: The location of the sole proposed access way has been coordinated with City Staff. The possible designation of the size, number, location and/or design of this vehicle access point appears unnecessary. 6. Requiring street right-of-way to be dedicated and street(s)to be improved; Response: The proposed access way and parking improvements will accompany the street improvements detailed in the Development Plan Set in Exhibit A. Specifically, the proposal includes the construction of a right turn lane adjacent to the School Site at the 4111 intersection of SW Durham Road and SW 79th Avenue and the relocation of the existing sidewalk. No additional right-of-way dedication is necessary to construct these street Durham Elementary Access 11 WRG Design,Inc. City of Tigard—Major Modification Review November 2007 I improvements. • 7. Requiring landscaping, screening, drainage and/or surfacing of parking and loading areas; Response: The access way and parking improvement proposal includes landscaping, screening, and drainage improvements. All parking and loading areas are currently surfaced with asphalt or concrete. All proposed parking and access areas will be surfaced with asphalt or concrete. 8. Limiting the number, size, location, height and/or lighting of signs; Response: The existing sign that serves the Industrial/Office Site must be relocated in order to construct the access way at the signalized intersection, but can be relocated within the same area. No new signs are proposed. 9. Limiting or setting standards for the location and/or intensity of outdoor lighting; Response: Lighting will be installed in accordance with Tigard Municipal Code requirements. It does not appear necessary to limit or set a different standard for the location and/or • intensity of the proposed lighting. 10. Requiring berms, screening or landscaping and the establishment of standards for their installation and maintenance; Response: All applicable screening and landscaping will be installed in accordance with Tigard Municipal Code requirements. It does not appear necessary to require additional berms, screening or landscaping and the establishment of standards for their installation and maintenance. • 11. Requiring and designating the size, height,location and/or materials for fences; Response: The School Site is bounded by a fence on its east, south and west sides. The proposed fencing will be located south of the proposed access drive and will tie into the existing fencing. It does not appear necessary to require additional fencing or designate the size, height, location and/or materials for additional fences. 12. Requiring the protection and preservation of existing trees, soils, vegetation, watercourses, habitat areas and/or drainage areas; Response: The proposed access and parking improvements will remove two trees between the School Site and the Industrial/Office Site, as well as, five trees located north of the covered playground structure. All trees that will remain on-site will be protected utilizing fencing and signage during construction. Vegetation will also be removed along the property line between the district and office building property. This vegetation will be transplanted into a temporary nursery bed and will be utilized for the final landscaping of the site. No significant soils, watercourses, habitat areas and/or drainage areas will be impacted. 13. Requiring the dedication of sufficient open land area for a greenway adjoining and within the floodplain when land form alterations and development are allowed within the 100-year floodplain; and Response: The proposed access and parking improvements are not located within any 100-year floodplain. This criterion does not apply. 14. Requiring the construction of a pedestrian/bicycle pathway within the floodplain in • accordance with the adopted pedestrian/bicycle pathway plan. Durham Elementary Access 12 WRG Design,Inc. City of Tigard—Major Modification Review November 2007 • I • Response: The adopted pedestrian/bicycle pathway plan does not indicate any routes through or near the subject site. 18.330.050 Additional Development Standards for Conditional Use Types A. Concurrent variance application(s). A conditional use permit shall not grant variances to the regulations otherwise prescribed by this title. A variance application(s) may be filed in conjunction with the conditional use application and both applications may be heard at the same hearing. B. Additional development standards. The additional dimensional requirements and approval standards for conditional use are as follows: 8. Schools: a. There shall be no minimum lot size requirements for schools other than what is required for the applicable zoning district; Response: The School Site site is zoned Residential-12 w/Historic District Overlay(R-12(HD)) and Industrial Park (I-P). The minimum lot size for the R-12 district is 3,050 square feet or • .07 acres. The subject sites in the R-12 district are 250,855 square feet or 5.8 acres and 121,558 square feet or 2.8 acres. The I-P district does not specify a minimum lot size. This criterion has been met. b. Setbacks: (1) The front yard setback shall be a minimum of 30 feet; Response: As seen in the Development Plan Set in Exhibit A, the front yard setback is 75 feet from • the Durham Center building to the proposed ROW of SW Durham Road. (2) On corner lots and through lots, the setback shall be a minimum of 20 feet on any side facing a street,plus meet visual clearance areas, Chapter 18.795; Response: The School Site is not a corner lot or a through lot. This criterion does not apply. (3) The side yard setback shall be a minimum of 20 feet; and Response: As seen in the Development Plan Set in Exhibit A, the side yard setback is 45 feet from the eastern property line to the nearest play structure, and 15 feet from the western property line to the 1968 Annex building. The 15 foot setback to the existing building is approved as part of the current Conditional Use permit.This criterion has been met. (4) The rear yard setback shall be a minimum of 30 feet. Response: As seen in the Development Plan Set in Exhibit A, the rear yard setback is 30 feet from the southern property line to the elementary school building. 18.360 SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 18.360.090 Approval Criteria A. Approval criteria. The Director shall make a finding with respect to each of the following criteria when approving, approving with conditions, or denying an application: 1. Compliance with all of the applicable requirements of this title including Chapter 18.810, Street and Utility Standards; Response: Compliance with the Tigard Municipal Code is documented within this narrative and the • associated plan sets and exhibits. 2. Relationship to the natural and physical environment: Durham Elementary Access 13 WRG Design,Inc. City of Tigard—Major Modification Review November 2007 • • a. Buildings shall be: • (1) Located to preserve existing trees, topography and natural drainage where possible based upon existing site conditions; (2) Located in areas not subject to ground slumping or sliding; (3) Located to provide adequate distance between adjoining buildings for adequate light, air circulation,and fire-fighting; and (4) Oriented with consideration for sun and wind. Response: The existing buildings on the School Site and the Industrial/Office Site will remain unchanged as part of this proposal. This criterion does not apply. b. Trees shall be preserved to the extent possible. Replacement of trees is subject to the requirements of Chapter 18.790,Tree Removal. Response: All trees will be preserved where practicable. Refer to Chapter 18.790 for more information regarding tree removal. 4. Buffering, screening and compatibility between adjoining uses: a. Buffering shall be provided between different types of land uses, for example, between single-family and multiple-family residential, and residential and commercial uses, and the following factors shall be considered in determining the adequacy of the type and extent of the buffer: (1) The purpose of the buffer, for example to decrease noise levels, absorb air pollution,filter dust,or to provide a visual barrier; • (2) The size of the buffer required to achieve the purpose in terms of width and height; (3) The direction(s)from which buffering is needed; (4) The required density of the buffering; and (5) Whether the viewer is stationary or mobile. Response: No additional buffering is necessary for the proposed access drive and parking. The access drive will be landscaped according to the landscape standards in Section 18.745 and other sections where applicable. b. On site screening from view from adjoining properties of such things as service areas, storage areas, parking lots, and mechanical devices on roof tops, i.e., air cooling and heating systems, shall be provided and the following factors will be considered in determining the adequacy of the type and extent of the screening: (1) What needs to be screened; (2) The direction from which it is needed; (3) How dense the screen needs to be; (4) Whether the viewer is stationary or mobile; and (5) Whether the screening needs to be year around. Response: The proposed access drive does not include such things as service areas, storage areas, parking lots, and mechanical devices on roof tops, i.e., air cooling and heating systems. • This criterion is not applicable to the access drive portion of this proposal. The proposed Durham Elementary Access 14 WRG Design,Inc. City of Tigard—Major Modification Review November 2007 • • • parking area is located more than 100 feet from any adjacent properties and is separated and completely screened by the 1968 Annex building from the closest adjacent property to the west. This criterion is met for the parking portion of this proposal. 8. Where landfill and/or development is allowed within and adjacent to the 100-year floodplain, the City shall require consideration of the dedication of sufficient open land area for greenway adjoining and within the floodplain. This area shall include portions at a suitable elevation for the construction of a pedestrian/bicycle pathway within the floodplain in accordance with the adopted pedestrian/bicycle plan. Response: No landfill and/or development are proposed in any 100-year floodplains. This criterion does not apply. 9. Demarcation of public,semi-public and private spaces for crime prevention: a. The structures and site improvements shall be designed so that public areas such as streets or public gathering places, semi-public areas and private outdoor areas are clearly defined to establish persons having a right to be in the space, to provide for crime prevention and to establish maintenance responsibility; and Response: The grounds of the School Site act as a semi-public area. The building is somewhat more private, although during certain events may act as semi-public. These areas are well demarcated through signage and fencing. The proposed access drive and parking does not alter the current demarcation of public, semi-public and private spaces for crime prevention. This criterion has been met. b. These areas may be defined by, but not limited to: • (1) A deck,patio,low wall, hedge, or draping vine; (2) A trellis or arbor; (3) A change in elevation or grade; (4) A change in the texture of the path material; (5) Sign; or (6) Landscaping. Response: Signage and fencing is used on site to demarcate the public, semi-public and private spaces for crime prevention. This criterion has been met. 10. Crime prevention and safety: a. Windows shall be located so that areas vulnerable to crime can be surveyed by the occupants; Response: The open layout of the School Site allows the majority of the site to be surveyed by occupants of the school building and from the public right-of-way. b. Interior laundry and service areas shall be located in a way that they can be observed by others; Response: No interior laundry and service areas exist. This criterion does not apply. c. Mail boxes shall be located in lighted areas having vehicular or pedestrian traffic; • Response: The on-site mail box is located beside the western edge of the elementary school parking lot, along a pedestrian sidewalk. Adequate lighting is provided by the parking area lights. Durham Elementary Access 15 WRG Design,Inc. City of Tigard—Major Modification Review November 2007 • • d. The exterior lighting levels shall be selected and the angles shall be oriented towards • areas vulnerable to crime; and Response: All areas vulnerable to crime are currently lit at night to deter criminal activities. No change to exterior lighting is proposed except the additional exterior lighting installed along the access drive and parking area as part of the access relocation improvements. e. Light fixtures shall be provided in areas having heavy pedestrian or vehicular traffic and in potentially dangerous areas such as parking lots, stairs, ramps and abrupt grade changes. Fixtures shall be placed at a height so that light patterns overlap at a height of seven feet which is sufficient to illuminate a person. Response: Lighting exists on the School Site. Lighting of existing pedestrian and vehicle areas will not be altered. New lighting of proposed pedestrian and vehicle areas will be provided in accordance with Tigard Municipal Code standards. All areas will be properly lit and maintained for safety. 11. Public transit: a. Provisions within the plan shall be included for providing for transit if the development proposal is adjacent to or within 500 feet of existing or proposed transit route; b. The requirements for transit facilities shall be based on: (1) The location of other transit facilities in the area; and (2) The size and type of the proposal. c. The following facilities may be required after City and Tri-Met review: • (1) Bus stop shelters; (2) Turnouts for buses; and (3) Connecting paths to the shelters. Response: The closest public transit,the 76 bus line, is located adjacent to the subject site along SW Durham Road. A sign denotes the bus stop. 12. Landscaping: a. All landscaping shall be designed in accordance with the requirements set forth in Chapter 18.745; b. In addition to the open space and recreation area requirements of subsections 5 and 6 above, a minimum of 20 percent of the gross area including parking, loading and service areas shall be landscaped; and c. A minimum of 15 percent of the gross site area shall be landscaped. Response: School Site: A total of 59% of the gross site area is landscape area. Gross Site Area=476,545 SF Total Landscape Area=279,921 SF 279,921 /476,545 =59% Industrial/Office Site: Approximately 3,614 square feet of landscaping area will be removed from the Industrial/Office Site to accommodate the new access construction. As shown on the • Street Tree Plan contained in Exhibit A, the Applicant will be replacing that lost Durham Elementary Access 16 WRG Design, Inc. City of Tigard—Major Modification Review November 2007 • • • landscaping with approximately 3,722 of new landscaping. Therefore, there will be no net loss in landscaping on the Industrial/Office Site as a result of this project. 13. Drainage: All drainage plans shall be designed in accordance with the criteria in the adopted 1981 master drainage plan; Response: All drainage plans have been designed in accordance with the criteria in the adopted 1981 master drainage plan. Refer to the Development Plan Set in Exhibit A. 14. Provision for the disabled: All facilities for the disabled shall be designed in accordance with the requirements set forth in ORS Chapter 447; and Response: All facilities for the disabled have been designed in accordance with the requirements set forth in ORS Chapter 447. Refer to the Development Plan Set in Exhibit A. 15. All of the provisions and regulations of the underlying zone shall apply unless modified by other sections or this title, e.g.,Planned Developments, Chapter 18.350; or a variance or adjustment granted under Chapter 18.370. Response: The Applicant understands this criterion. No variances or adjustments are sought for this development at this time. 18.510 RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS 18.510.050 Development Standards A. Compliance required.All development must comply with: 1. All of the applicable development standards contained in the underlying zoning district, • except where the applicant has obtained variances or adjustments in accordance with Chapters 18.370; Response: Compliance with the Tigard Municipal Code is documented within this narrative and the associated plan sets and exhibits. 2. MI other applicable standards and requirements contained in this title. Response: Compliance with the Tigard Municipal Code is documented within this narrative and the associated plan sets and exhibits. B. Development Standards. Development standards in residential zoning districts are contained in Table 18.510.2. • Durham Elementary Access 17 WRG Design,Inc. City of Tigard—Major Modification Review November 2007 • • 18.510.2 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS IN RESIDENTIAL ZONES • R-12 STANDARD MF DU* SF DU** Minimum Lot Size 3,050 sq.ft.per unit 3,050 sq.ft. per unit -Detached unit -Attached unit -Duplexes -Boarding,lodging,rooming house Average Lot Width None None Minimum Setbacks 20 ft 15 ft. -Front yard 20 ft. 10 ft. - Side facing street on corner&through lots 10 ft. 5 ft. [1] Side yard-Rear yard 20 ft. 15 ft. - Side or rear yard abutting more restrictive zoning district 30 ft. 30 ft. -Distance between property line and garage entrance 20 ft. 20 ft. Maximum Height 35 ft. 35 ft. Maximum Lot Coverage[2] 80% 80% Minimum Landscape Requirement 20% 20% • [I]Except this shall not apply to attached units on the lot line on which the units are attached. [2]Lot coverage includes all buildings and impervious surfaces. *Multiple-family dwelling unit **Single-family dwelling unit Response: Multi-family and single-family dwelling units do not exist on site, nor are they proposed. This criterion does not apply. 18.530 INDUSTRIAL ZONING DISTRICTS 18.530.040 Development Standards A. Compliance required.All development must comply with: 1. All of the applicable development standards contained in the underlying zoning district, except where the applicant has obtained variances or adjustments in accordance with Chapters 18.370. Response: Compliance with the Tigard Municipal Code is documented within this narrative and the associated plan sets and exhibits. 2. All other applicable standards and requirements contained in this title. Response: Compliance with the Tigard Municipal Code is documented within this narrative and the associated plan sets and exhibits. B. Development Standards.Development standards in industrial zoning districts are contained in Table 18.530.2 below: i Durham Elementary Access 18 WRG Design,Inc. City of Tigard—Major Modification Review November 2007 • • • 18.530.2 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS IN INDUSTRIAL ZONES STANDARD I-P Minimum Lot Size None Minimum Lot Width 50 ft. Minimum Setbacks -Front yard 35 ft. - Side facing street on corner&through lots [1] 20 ft. - Side yard 0/50 ft. [3] -Rear yard 0/50 ft. [3][4] - Distance between front of garage& property line -- abutting a public or private street . Maximum Height 45 ft. Maximum Site Coverage [2] 75 % [5] Minimum Landscape Requirement 25 % [6] [I]The provisions of Chapter 18.795(Vision Clearance)must be satisfied. [2]Includes all buildings and impervious surfaces. [3]No setback shall be required except 50 feet shall be required where the zone abuts a residential zoning district. • [4]Development in industrial zones abutting the Rolling Hills neighborhood shall comply with Policy 11.5.1. [5]Maximum site coverage may be increased to 80%if the provisions of Section 18.530.050.B are satisfied. [6]Except that a reduction to 20%of the site may be approved through the site development review process. Response: School Site: The dimensions of the School Site within the IP zone are 304 by 324 feet for the flag lot. The minimum front yard setback within the IP zone for the flag lot is over 700 feet from SW Durham Road. The minimum side yard setback is 62 feet for the flag lot. The minimum rear yard setback is 56 feet for the flag lot. The site does not abut a residential zone that is not part of the subject site. The maximum height of the existing buildings on the flag lot is 12 feet. The maximum site coverage is 1 percent. The landscape areas are 99 percent. All the standards in the table above have been met. Industrial/Office Site: No alterations are proposed to the Industrial/Office Site that would affect the site's compliance with minimum lot size, minimum lot width, minimum setbacks or maximum height. The proposed access way will not increase site coverage. Approximately 3,614 square feet of landscaping area will be removed from the Industrial/Office Site to accommodate the new access construction. As shown on the Street Tree Plan contained in Exhibit A, the Applicant will be replacing that lost landscaping with approximately 3,722 of new landscaping. Therefore, there will be no net loss in landscaping on the Industrial/Office Site as a result of this project. 18.530.050 Additional Development Standards A Commercial lodging in the I-P zone... • Response: No commercial lodging uses exist or are proposed.This criterion does not apply. B. Reduction of lot coverage requirements... Durham Elementary Access i9 WRG Design,Inc. City of Tigard—Major Modification Review November 2007 • • Response: No reduction of lot coverage requirements is proposed.This criterion does not apply. • 18.705 ACCESS,EGRESS AND CIRCULATION 18.705.030 General Provisions A. Continuing obligation of property owner. The provisions and maintenance of access and egress stipulated in this title are continuing requirements for the use of any structure or parcel of real property in the City. Response: The Applicant will provide maintenance of access and egress stipulated in this title on a continuing basis. B. Access plan requirements. No building or other permit shall be issued until scaled plans are presented and approved as provided by this chapter that show how access, egress and circulation requirements are to be fulfilled. The applicant shall submit a site plan. The Director shall provide the applicant with detailed information about this submission requirement. Response: A site plan is included in the Development Plan Set in Exhibit A. C. Joint access. Owners of two or more uses, structures, or parcels of land may agree to utilize jointly the same access and egress when the combined access and egress of both uses, structures,or parcels of land satisfies the combined requirements as designated in this title, provided: 1. Satisfactory legal evidence shall be presented in the form of deeds, easements, leases or contracts to establish the joint use; and 2. Copies of the deeds, easements,leases or contracts are placed on permanent file with the City. Response: The joint access agreement has not been finalized at the time this narrative was submitted. The appropriate legal evidence will be presented in the form of deeds, easements, leases or contracts to establish the joint use when they are available. At which time, copies of the deeds, easements, leases or contracts will be placed on permanent file with the City. D. Public street access. All vehicular access and egress as required in Sections 18.705.030H and 18.705.030I shall connect directly with a public or private street approved by the City for public use and shall be maintained at the required standards on a continuous basis. Response: The School Site will gain vehicular access and egress at the intersection of SW Durham Road and SW 79th Avenue. These streets are both public. The Industrial/Office Site currently gains access from this intersection, as well as from an existing curb cut onto Durham Road located in the northeast corner of that site.This criterion has been met. E. Curb cuts. Curb cuts shall be in accordance with Section 18.810.030N. Response: All curb cuts have been made in accordance with Section 18.810.030N. See the development plan set in Exhibit A, for cross sections and profiles. F. Required walkway location. On-site pedestrian walkways shall comply with the following standards: 1. Walkways shall extend from the ground floor entrances or from the ground floor landing of stairs, ramps, or elevators of all commercial, institutional, and industrial uses, to the streets which provide the required access and egress. Walkways shall • provide convenient connections between buildings in multi-building commercial, Durham Elementary Access 20 WRG Design,Inc. City of Tigard—Major Modification Review November 2007 • • • institutional, and industrial complexes. Unless impractical, walkways shall be constructed between new and existing developments and neighboring developments; Response: The School Site building entrances are linked by on-site sidewalks that connect the buildings to the parking areas and the public sidewalk. The site design includes two pedestrian connections to the public sidewalk along SW Durham Road. Please refer to the site plan in Exhibit A for more details. 3. Wherever required walkways cross vehicle access driveways or parking lots, such crossings shall be designed and located for pedestrian safety. Required walkways shall be physically separated from motor vehicle traffic and parking by either a minimum 6- inch vertical separation (curbed) or a minimum 3-foot horizontal separation, except that pedestrian crossings of traffic aisles are permitted for distances no greater than 36 feet if appropriate landscaping, pavement markings, or contrasting pavement materials are used. Walkways shall be a minimum of four feet in width, exclusive of vehicle overhangs and obstructions such as mailboxes, benches, bicycle racks, and sign posts, and shall be in compliance with ADA standards; Response: Required walkways that cross vehicle access driveways or parking lots have been designed and located for pedestrian safety. These walkways are separated vertically, utilizing a 6 inch curb and elevated sidewalk. All walkways are in excess of 4 feet wide exclusive of vehicle overhangs and obstructions such as mailboxes, benches, bicycle racks, and sign posts,and are in compliance with ADA standards.Where walkways cross parking areas and drive aisles, they are clearly marked with permanent paint or contrasting pavement materials. • 4. Required walkways shall be paved with hard surfaced materials such as concrete, asphalt, stone, brick, etc. Walkways may be required to be lighted and/or signed as needed for safety purposes. Soft-surfaced public use pathways may be provided only if such pathways are provided in addition to required pathways. Response: All required walkways are paved with asphalt or concrete. The walkway serving the playground is surfaced with engineered fiber mulch. 3. In no case shall the design of the service drive or drives require or facilitate the backward movement or other maneuvering of a vehicle within a street, other than an alley. Single-family and duplex dwellings are exempt from this requirement. Response: No drives require or facilitate the backward movement or other maneuvering of a vehicle within a street. This criterion is met. H. Access Management 1. An access report shall be submitted with all new development proposals which verifies design of driveways and streets are safe by meeting adequate stacking needs, sight distance and deceleration standards as set by ODOT, Washington County, the City and AASHTO (depending on jurisdiction of facility.) Response: The access report can be found in Exhibit F. This report verifies that the design of driveways and streets are safe by meeting adequate stacking needs, sight distance and deceleration standards as set by ODOT, Washington County, the City of Tigard and AASHTO. 2. Driveways shall not be permitted to be placed in the influence area of collector or • arterial street intersections. Influence area of intersections is that area where queues of traffic commonly form on approach to an intersection. The minimum driveway setback from a collector or arterial street intersection shall be 150 feet, measured from the Durham Elementary Access 21 WRG Design,Inc. City of Tigard—Major Modification Review November 2007 • • right-of-way line of the intersecting street to the throat of the proposed driveway. The • setback may be greater depending upon the influence area, as determined from City Engineer review of a traffic impact report submitted by the applicant's traffic engineer. In a case where a project has less than 150 feet of street frontage, the applicant must explore any option for shared access with the adjacent parcel. If shared access is not possible or practical, the driveway shall be placed as far from the intersection as possible. Response: The driveway is located at the signalized intersection of SW Durham Road and SW 79"' Avenue. This criterion is met. 3. The minimum spacing of driveways and streets along a collector shall be 200 feet. The minimum spacing of driveways and streets along an arterial shall be 600 feet. Response: The driveway is located at the signalized intersection of SW Durham Road and SW 79`x' Avenue. This criterion is met. 4. The minimum spacing of local streets along a local street shall be 125 feet. Response: The driveway is located at the signalized intersection of SW Durham Road and SW 79th Avenue. This criterion is met. J. Minimum access requirements for commercial and industrial use. 1. Vehicle access, egress and circulation for commercial and industrial use shall not be less than 21 as provided in Table 18.705.3; Response: The School Site does not include commercial or industrial uses. The Industrial/Office Site is an industrial use and has two driveway access points that are a minimum 30 feet • wide as prescribed by Table 18.705.3. This criterion has been met. K. One-way vehicular access points. Where a proposed parking facility indicates only one-way traffic flow on the site, it shall be accommodated by a specific driveway serving the facility; the entrance drive shall be situated closest to oncoming traffic and the exit drive shall be situated farthest from oncoming traffic. Response: The Durham Center parking lot consists of one-way circulation and takes two-way access from the access drive. The Industrial/Office Site will have partial one way circulation areas, although the access points will be two-way. No one-way vehicle access points are proposed. L. Director's authority to restrict access.The Director has the authority to restrict access when the need to do so is dictated by one or more of the following conditions: 1. To provide for increased traffic movement on congested streets and to eliminate turning movement problems, the Director may restrict the location of driveways on streets and require the location of driveways be placed on adjacent streets, upon the finding that the proposed access would: a. Cause or increase existing hazardous traffic conditions; or b. Provide inadequate access for emergency vehicles; or c. Cause hazardous conditions to exist which would constitute a clear and present danger to the public health, safety, and general welfare. Response: There will be no increase in traffic produced by the proposed access relocation and additional parking area. No causes or increases to existing hazardous traffic conditions • are anticipated. Adequate access for emergency vehicles exists. The proposed access is Durham Elementary Access 22 WRG Design,Inc. City of Tigard—Major Modification Review November 2007 • • • located at the signalized intersection of SW Durham Road and SW 79`h Avenue. No turning movement problems are anticipated. There is no reason to predict that any hazardous conditions, due to the access relocation proposed, exist that will constitute a clear and present danger to the public health, safety, and general welfare. 2. To eliminate the need to use public streets for movements between commercial or industrial properties, parking areas shall be designed to connect with parking areas on adjacent properties unless not feasible. The Director shall require access easements between properties where necessary to provide for parking area connections; Response: All possible connections to adjacent parking areas have been proposed. No possible connections remain. 3. To facilitate pedestrian and bicycle traffic, access and parking area plans shall provide efficient sidewalk and/or pathway connections, as feasible, between neighboring developments or land uses; Response: The School Site is bordered by a CWS facility to the west and south, SW Durham Road to the north, and office/industrial properties to the east. The site will share vehicular and pedestrian access at the intersection of SW Durham Road and SW 79`h Avenue with the Office/Industrial Site directly to the east. No other feasible connections to neighboring developments exist. 4. A decision by the Director per 18.705.030 K.1.-3. above may be appealed by means of a Type H procedure, as regulated by Section 18.390.040, using criteria contained in Section 18.370.020 C3. • Response: The Applicant understands this criterion. 18.725 ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE STANDARDS 18.725.020 General Provisions A. Compliance with applicable state and federal regulations. In addition to the regulations adopted in this chapter, each use, activity or operation within the City of Tigard shall comply with the applicable state and federal standards pertaining to noise, odor and discharge of matter into the atmosphere, ground, sewer system or stream. Regulations adopted by the State Environmental Quality Commission pertaining to non-point source pollution control and contained in the Oregon Administrative Rules shall by this reference be made a part of this chapter. Response: The Applicant will ensure that each use, activity or operation on site will comply with the applicable state and federal standards pertaining to noise, odor and discharge of matter into the atmosphere, ground, sewer system or stream. The Applicant understands that regulations adopted by the State Environmental Quality Commission pertaining to non-point source pollution control and contained in the Oregon Administrative Rules are by this reference made a part of this chapter. B. Evidence of compliance. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the Director may require submission of evidence demonstrating compliance with state, federal and local environmental regulations and receipt of necessary permits; these include Air Contaminant Discharge Permits (ACDP) or Indirect Source Construction Permits (ISCP). Response: The Applicant understands that prior to issuance of a building permit, the Director may • require submission of evidence demonstrating compliance with state, federal and local environmental regulations and receipt of necessary permits; these include Air Contaminant Discharge Permits (ACDP) or Indirect Source Construction Permits (ISCP). Durham Elementary Access 23 WRG Design,Inc. City of Tigard—Major Modification Review November 2007 • • C. Continuing obligation. Compliance with state, federal and local environmental regulations • is the continuing obligation of the property owner and operator. Response: The Applicant understands that compliance with state, federal and local environmental regulations is the continuing obligation of the property owner and operator. 18.725.030 Performance Standards A. Noise. For the purposes of noise regulation, the provisions of Sections 7.40.130 through 7.40.210 of the Tigard Municipal Code shall apply. Response: The Applicant understands the provisions of Sections 7.40.130 through 7.40.210 of the Tigard Municipal Code. The Applicant will ensure that noises that may be created by the operation of the site will adhere to the provisions stated above. B. Visible emissions. Within the commercial zoning districts and the industrial park (IP) zoning district, there shall be no use, operation or activity which results in a stack or other point- source emission, other than an emission from space heating, or the emission of pure uncombined water (steam) which is visible from a property line. Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) rules for visible emissions (340-21-015 and 340-28-070) apply. Response: The Applicant understands that within the commercial zoning districts and the industrial park (IP) zoning district, there shall be no use, operation or activity which results in a stack or other point-source emission, other than an emission from space heating, or the emission of pure uncombined water (steam) which is visible from a property line. In addition, the Applicant understands that Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) rules for visible emissions(340-21-015 and 340-28-070)apply. • C. Vibration. No vibration other than that caused by highway vehicles, trains and aircraft is permitted in any given zoning district which is discernible without instruments at the property line of the use concerned. Response: The Applicant understands that no vibration other than that caused by highway vehicles, trains and aircraft is permitted in any given zoning district which is discernible without instruments at the property line of the use concerned. D. Odors. The emission of odorous gases or other matter in such quantities as to be readily detectable at any point beyond the property line of the use creating the odors is prohibited. DEQ rules for odors (340-028-090) apply. Response: The Applicant understands that the emission of odorous gases or other matter in such quantities as to be readily detectable at any point beyond the property line of the use creating the odors is prohibited.DEQ rules for odors(340-028-090)apply. E. Glare and heat. No direct or sky-reflected glare, whether from floodlights or from high temperature processes such as combustion or welding,which is visible at the lot line shall be permitted, and; 1. There shall be no emission or transmission of heat or heated air which is discernible at the lot line of the source; and 2. These regulations shall not apply to signs or floodlights in parking areas or construction equipment at the time of construction or excavation work otherwise permitted by this title. Response: The Applicant understands that no direct or sky-reflected glare, whether from floodlights • or from high temperature processes such as combustion or welding, which is visible at Durham Elementary Access 24 WRG Design,Inc. City of Tigard—Major Modification Review November 2007 • the lot line shall be permitted. Also, the Applicant understands that there shall be no emission or transmission of heat or heated air which is discernible at the lot line of the source; and that these regulations shall not apply to signs or floodlights in parking areas or construction equipment at the time of construction or excavation work otherwise permitted by this title. F. Insects and rodents. All materials including wastes shall be stored and all grounds shall be maintained in a manner which will not attract or aid the propagation of insects or rodents or create a health hazard. Response: The Applicant understands that all materials including wastes shall be stored and all grounds shall be maintained in a manner which will not attract or aid the propagation of insects or rodents or create a health hazard. 18.740 HISTORIC OVERLAY 18.740.020 Applicability of Provisions B. Designated activities.The provisions of this chapter apply to: 1. The demolition of structures within an historic overlay zone area, as governed by Section 18.740.030; and 2. The exterior alteration or new construction within the historic overlay zone area, as governed by Section 18.740.030. Response: The School Site is an elementary school campus comprised of a total of four taxlots, which includes the historic overlay on the two school campus lots zoned R-12. The • historic structure on-site is not being altered or impacted by the access relocation or parking improvements. The Historic Overlay criteria are not applicable. 18.745 LANDSCAPING AND SCREENING 18.745.030 General Provisions A. Obligation to maintain. Unless otherwise provided by the lease agreement, the owner, tenant and his agent,if any, shall be jointly and severally responsible for the maintenance of all landscaping and screening which shall be maintained in good condition so as to present a healthy, neat and orderly appearance, shall be replaced or repaired as necessary, and shall be kept free from refuse and debris. Response: The Applicant will provide for the maintenance of all landscaping and screening which will be maintained in good condition so as to present a healthy, neat and orderly appearance, and will be replaced or repaired as necessary, and will be kept free from refuse and debris. B. Pruning required. All plant growth in landscaped areas of developments shall be controlled by pruning,trimming or otherwise so that: 1. It will not interfere with the maintenance or repair of any public utility; 2. It will not restrict pedestrian or vehicular access; and 3. It will not constitute a traffic hazard because of reduced visibility. Response: The Applicant understands that all plant growth in landscaped areas of the development shall be controlled by pruning, trimming or otherwise so that; it will not interfere with • the maintenance or repair of any public utility; it will not restrict pedestrian or vehicular access; and it will not constitute a traffic hazard because of reduced visibility. Durham Elementary Access 25 WRG Design,Inc. City of Tigard—Major Modification Review November 2007 • • C. Installation requirements.The installation of all landscaping shall be as follows: • 1. All landscaping shall be installed according to accepted planting procedures; 2. The plant materials shall be of high grade, and shall meet the size and grading standards of the American Standards for Nurberg Stock (ANSI Z60, 1-1986, and any future revisions); and 3. Landscaping shall be installed in accordance with the provisions of this title. Response: All landscaping will meet the size and grading standards of the American Standards for Nurberg Stock, and will be installed in accordance with the provisions of this title. D. Certificate of Occupancy. Certificates of occupancy shall not be issued unless the landscaping requirements have been met or other arrangements have been made and approved by the City such as the posting of a bond. Response: The Applicant understands this criterion. E. Protection of existing vegetation. Existing vegetation on a site shall be protected as much as possible: 1. The developer shall provide methods for the protection of existing vegetation to remain during the construction process; and 2. The plants to be saved shall be noted on the landscape plans (e.g., areas not to be disturbed can be fenced, as in snow fencing which can be placed around individual trees). Response: All precautions will be undertaken to ensure the health and survival of existing • vegetation to be saved.Fencing will be installed around the areas that will be undisturbed by the access relocation and parking area improvements. Please refer to the Development Plans in Exhibit A. F. Care of landscaping along public rights-of-way. Appropriate methods for the care and maintenance of street trees and landscaping materials shall be provided by the owner of the property abutting the rights-of-way unless otherwise required for emergency conditions and the safety of the general public. Response: The Applicant will and has been utilizing the appropriate methods for the care and maintenance of street trees and landscaping materials abutting the rights-of-way unless otherwise required for emergency conditions and the safety of the general public. G. Conditions of approval of existing vegetation. The review procedures and standards for required landscaping and screening shall be specified in the conditions of approval during development review and in no instance shall be less than that required for conventional development. Response:, This application is for Major Modification of Conditional Use Review. The Applicant understands that standards for required landscaping and screening shall be specified in the conditions of approval during development review and in no instance shall be less than that required for conventional development. H. Height restrictions abutting public rights-of-way. No trees, shrubs or plantings more than 18 inches in height shall be planted in the public right-of-way abutting roadways having no established curb and gutter. Response: All landscape materials abutting the rights-of-way will be contained by a curb and gutter. • This criterion does not apply. Durham Elementary Access 26 WRG Design,Inc. City of Tigard—Major Modification Review November 2007 • • • 18.745.040 Street Trees A. Protection of existing vegetation. All development projects fronting on a public street, private street or a private driveway more than 100 feet in length approved after the adoption of this title shall be required to plant street trees in accordance with the standards in Section 18.745.040.C. Response: The proposed access drive and parking area is landscaped in accordance with the standards of Section 18.745.040.C. Please see the landscape plan in Exhibit A for more information. B. Street tree planting list. Certain trees can severely damage utilities, streets and sidewalks or can cause personal injury. Approval of any planting list shall be subject to review by the Director. Response: The Applicant understands that the approval of any planting list will be subject to review by the Director. C. Size and spacing of street trees. 1. Landscaping in the front and exterior side yards shall include trees with a minimum caliper of two inches at four feet in height as specified in the requirements stated in Section 18.745.040.C.2 below; 2. The specific spacing of street trees by size of tree shall be as follows: a. Small or narrow-stature trees under 25 feet tall and less than 16 feet wide branching at maturity shall be spaced no greater than 20 feet apart; • b. Medium-sized trees 25 feet to 40 feet tall, 16 feet to 35 feet wide branching at maturity shall be spaced no greater than 30 feet apart; c. Large trees over 40 feet tall and more than 35 feet wide branching at maturity shall be spaced no greater than 40 feet apart; d. Except for signalized intersections as provided in Section 18.745.040.11, trees shall not be planted closer than 20 feet from a street intersection, nor closer than two feet from private driveways (measured at the back edge of the sidewalk), fire hydrants or utility poles to maintain visual clearance; e. No new utility pole location shall be established closer than five feet to any existing street tree; f. Tree pits shall be located so as not to include utilities (e.g.,water and gas meters) in the tree well; g. On-premises utilities (e.g., water and gas meters) shall not be installed within existing tree well areas; h. Street trees shall not be planted closer than 20 feet to light standards; i. New light standards shall not be positioned closer than 20 feet to existing street trees except when public safety dictates, then they may be positioned no closer than 10 feet; j. Where there are overhead power lines, the street tree species selected shall be of a type which, at full maturity,will not interfere with the lines; 411 k. Trees shall not be planted within two feet from the face of the curb; and Durham Elementary Access 27 WRG Design,Inc. City of Tigard—Major Modification Review November 2007 • • I. Trees shall not be planted within two feet of any permanent hard surface paving 411 or walkway: (1) Space between the tree and the hard surface may be covered by a nonpermanent hard surface such as grates, bricks on sand, paver blocks and cobblestones; and (2) Sidewalk cuts in concrete for tree planting shall be at least four by four feet to allow for air and water into the root area. Response: Street trees will be added to SW Durham Road in order to meet the requirements of 18.620, Street Tree Landscape Standards, and will be located as detailed in Section 18.745.040.C. Please refer to the Landscape Plan in Exhibit A. D. Pruning requirements. Trees, as they grow, shall be pruned to provide at least eight feet of clearance above sidewalks and 13 feet above local street, 15 feet above collector street, and 18 feet above arterial street roadway surfaces. Response: Trees will be pruned as detailed above. E. Cut and fill around existing trees. Existing trees may be used as street trees if no cutting or filling takes place within the drip-line of the tree unless an adjustment is approved by the Director by means of a Type I procedure, as governed by Section 18.390.030, using approval criteria in Section 18.370.020.C.4.a. Response: No cut or fill around existing trees is proposed.This criterion is met. F. Replacement of street trees. Existing street trees removed by development projects or other construction shall be replaced by the developer with those types of trees approved by the • Director. The replacement trees shall be of a size and species similar to the trees that are being removed unless lesser sized alternatives are approved by the Director. Response: No street trees will be removed.This criterion is not applicable. • G. Granting of adjustments. Adjustments to the street tree requirements may be granted by the Director by means of a Type I procedure, as regulated in Section 18.390.030, using approval criteria in Section 18.370.020.C.4.b. Response: No adjustments to street tree requirements have been requested. This criterion does not apply. H. Location of trees near signalized intersections. The Director may allow trees closer to specified intersections which are signalized, provided the provisions of Chapter 18.795, Visual Clearance, are satisfied. Response: The location of trees near the signalized intersection of SW Durham Road and SW 79th Avenue will be installed in accordance with Section 18.745.040.C. Please refer to the Landscape Plan in Exhibit A. 18.745.050 Buffering and Screening A. General provisions. 1. It is the intent that these requirements shall provide for privacy and protection and reduce or eliminate the adverse impacts of visual or noise pollution at a development site, without unduly interfering with the view from neighboring properties or jeopardizing the safety of pedestrians and vehicles; • 2. Buffering and screening is required to reduce the impacts on adjacent uses which are of a different type in accordance with the matrices in this chapter (Tables 18.745.1 and Durham Elementary Access 28 WRG Design,Inc. City of Tigard—Major Modification Review November 2007 • • • 18.745.2). The owner of each proposed development is responsible for the installation and effective maintenance of buffering and screening. When different uses would be abutting one another except for separation by a right-of-way, buffering, but not screening,shall be required as specified in the matrix; 3. In lieu of these standards, a detailed buffer area landscaping and screening plan may be submitted for the Director's approval as an alternative to the buffer area landscaping and screening standards, provided it affords the same degree of buffering and screening as required by this code. Response: The school use on the School Site is not listed in Table 18.745.1. Buffering and screening will be provided in accordance with an"A"type buffer.The"A"type buffer is the most appropriate since the school use abuts the higher intensity zones of Industrial park on all sides. Please see the buffering and screening requirements section below. B. Buffering and screening requirements. 1. A buffer consists of an area within a required setback adjacent to a property line and having a depth equal to the amount specified in the buffering and screening matrix and containing a length equal to the length of the property line of the abutting use or uses; Response: A ten foot buffer is required and already exists on site.This criterion is met. 2. A buffer area may only be occupied by utilities, screening, sidewalks and bikeways, and landscaping.No buildings, accessways or parking areas shall be allowed in a buffer area except where an accessway has been approved by the City; Response: The ten foot buffer area that exists on the School Site is occupied by utilities, sidewalks, • and landscaping. No buildings, access ways or parking areas are in a buffer area, except the access way that has been approved by the City. 3. A fence, hedge or wall, or any combination of such elements, which are located in any yard is subject to the conditions and requirements of Sections 18.745.050.B.8 and 18.745.050.D; Response: A chain link fence is provided around the School Site. This fence is necessary for the security of the school and the safety of the students. The chain link fence is provided in accordance with Sections 18.745.050.B.8 and 18.745.050.D. Please see the site plan in Exhibit A for the exact location of proposed fencing. 4. The minimum improvements within a buffer area shall consist of combinations for landscaping and screening as specified in Table 18.745.1. In addition, improvements shall meet the following specifications: a. At least one row of trees shall be planted. They shall have a minimum caliper of two inches at four feet in height above grade for deciduous trees and a minimum height of five feet high for evergreen trees at the time of planting. Spacing for trees shall be as follows: (1) Small or narrow-stature trees, under 25 feet tall or less than 16 feet wide at maturity shall be spaced no further than 15 feet apart; (2) Medium-sized trees between 25 feet to 40 feet tall and with 16 feet to 35 feet wide branching at maturity shall be spaced no greater than 30 feet apart; • (3) Large trees, over 40 feet tall and with more than 35 feet wide branching at maturity, shall be spaced no greater than 30 feet apart. Durham Elementary Access 29 WRG Design,Inc. City of Tigard—Major Modification Review November 2007 • • b. In addition, at least 10 five-gallon shrubs or 20 one-gallon shrubs shall be planted • for each 1,000 square feet of required buffer area; c. The remaining area shall be planted in lawn or other living ground cover. Response: The buffer area around the School Site is 10 feet in width, and consists of ground cover as prescribed by the type "A" buffer requirements. Along the right-of-way, street trees are provided. 5. Where screening is required the following standards shall apply in addition to those required for buffering: a. A hedge of narrow or broad leaf evergreen shrubs shall be planted which will form a four-foot continuous screen of the height specified in Table 18.745.2 within two years of planting; or b. An earthen berm planted with evergreen plant materials shall be provided which will form a continuous screen of the height specified in Table 18.745.2 within two years. The unplanted portion of the berm shall be planted in lawn or other living ground cover; or c. A fence or wall of the height specified in Table 18.745.2 shall be constructed to provide a continuous sight obscuring screen. Response: Screening is not required.This criterion does not apply. 6. Buffering and screening provisions shall be superseded by the vision clearance requirements as set forth in Chapter 18.795; Response: The Applicant understands this criterion. • 7. When the use to be screened is downhill from the adjoining zone or use, the prescribed heights of required fences, walls, or landscape screening shall be measured from the actual grade of the adjoining property. In this case, fences and walls may exceed the permitted six foot height at the discretion of the director as a condition of approval. When the grades are so steep so as to make the installation of walls, fences or landscaping to the required height impractical, a detailed landscape/screening plan shall be submitted for approval; Response: Screening is not required.This criterion does not apply. 8. Fences and walls a. Fences and walls shall be constructed of any materials commonly used in the construction of fences and walls such as wood, stone, rock or brick, or otherwise acceptable by the Director; b. Such fence or wall construction shall be in compliance with other City regulations; c. Walls shall be a minimum of six inches thick; and d. Chain link fences with slats shall qualify for screening. However, chain link fences without slats shall require the planting of a continuous evergreen hedge to be considered screening. Response: Screening is not required.This criterion does not apply. 9. Hedges • Durham Elementary Access 30 WRG Design,Inc. City of Tigard—Major Modification Review November 2007 • • • a. An evergreen hedge or other dense evergreen landscaping may satisfy a requirement for a sight-obscuring fence where required subject to the height requirement in Sections 18.745.050.C.2.a and 18.745.050.C.2.b; b. Such hedge or other dense landscaping shall be properly maintained and shall be replaced with another hedge, other dense evergreen landscaping, or a fence when it ceases to serve the purpose of obscuring view; and c. No hedge shall be grown or maintained at a height greater than that permitted by these regulations for a fence or wall in a vision clearance area as set forth in Chapter 18.795. Response: No hedges are proposed.This criterion does not apply. C. Setbacks for fences or walls. 1. No fence or wall shall be constructed which exceeds the standards in Section 18.745.050.C.2 except when the approval authority, as a condition of approval, allows that a fence or wall be constructed to a height greater than otherwise permitted to mitigate against potential adverse effects; 2. Fences or walls: a. May not exceed three feet in height in a required front yard along local streets or eight feet in all other locations and, in all other cases, shall meet vision clearance area requirements in Chapter 18.795; b. Are permitted up to six feet in height in front yards adjacent to any designated • arterial or collector street. For any fence over three feet in height in the required front yard area, permission shall be subject to administrative review of the location of the fence or wall. 3. All fences or walls shall meet vision clearance area requirements in Chapter 18.795; 4. All fences or walls greater than six feet in height shall be subject to building permit approval. Response: A 6 foot high chain link fence is proposed along the south side of the proposed access drive that will meet the vision clearance requirements. D. Height restrictions. 1. The prescribed heights of required fences,walls or landscaping shall be measured from the actual adjoining level of finished grade, except that where parking, loading, storage or similar areas are located above finished grade, the height of fences, walls or landscaping required to screen such areas or space shall be measured from the level of such improvements; 2. An earthen berm and fence or wall combination shall not exceed the six-foot height limitation for screening. Response: No screening is required on the School Site. Buffer areas already exist and are in compliance with applicable codes. E. Screening: special provisions. 1. Screening and landscaping of parking and loading areas: • a. Screening of parking and loading areas is required. The specifications for this screening are as follows: Durham Elementary Access 31 WRG Design,Inc. City of Tigard—Major Modification Review November 2007 • • (1) Landscaped parking areas shall include special design features which effectively • screen the parking lot areas from view. These design features may include the use of landscaped berms,decorative walls and raised planters; (2) Landscape planters may be used to define or screen the appearance of off-street parking areas from the public right-of-way; (3) Materials to be installed should achieve a balance between low lying and vertical shrubbery and trees; (4) Trees shall be planted in landscaped islands in all parking areas, and shall be equally distributed and on the basis of one tree for each seven parking spaces in order to provide a canopy effect; and (5) The minimum dimension of the landscape islands shall be three feet and the landscaping shall be protected from vehicular damage by some form of wheel guard or curb. Response: No screening is required on the School Site. Buffer areas already exist and are in compliance with applicable codes. 2. Screening of service facilities. Except for one-family and two-family dwellings, any refuse container or disposal area and service facilities such as gas meters and air conditioners which would otherwise be visible from a public street, customer or resident parking area, any public facility or any residential area shall be screened from view by placement of a solid wood fence or masonry wall between five and eight feet in height. All refuse materials shall be contained within the screened area; Response: No screening is required on the School Site. Buffer areas already exist and are in • compliance with applicable codes. 4. Screening of refuse containers. Except for one- and two-family dwellings, any refuse container or refuse collection area which would be visible from a public street, parking lot, residential or commercial area, or any public facility such as a school or park shall be screened or enclosed from view by placement of a solid wood fence, masonry wall or evergreen hedge. All refuse shall be contained within the screened area. Response: The refuse containers on the School Site are within a fenced enclosure comprised of chain link and slats and are not visible from a public street, parking lot, residential or commercial area, or any public facility such as a school or park. This criterion is met. F. Buffer Matrix. 1. The Buffer Matrices contained in Tables 18.745.1 and 18.745.2 shall be used in calculating widths of buffering/screening and required improvements to be installed between proposed uses and abutting uses or zoning districts; 2. An application for a variance to the standards required in Tables 18.745.1 and 18.745.2, shall be processed as a Type II procedure, as regulated by Section 18.390.040, using approval criteria in Section 18.370.010. Response: The Buffer Matrix (Tables 18.745.1 and 18.745.2)requires a 10 foot buffer on site. A 10 foot buffer is provided. This criterion is met. 18.745.060 Re-vegetation A. When re-vegetation is required.Where natural vegetation has been removed... • Response: No natural vegetation will be removed. This criterion is not applicable. Durham Elementary Access 32 WRG Design,Inc. City of Tigard—Major Modification Review November 2007 • • • B. Preparation for re-vegetation. Topsoil removed from the surface in preparation for grading and construction... Response: No topsoil will be removed in preparation for re-vegetation since no natural vegetation will be removed. This criterion is not applicable. C. Methods of re-vegetation.... Response: Re-vegetation is not required. This criterion is not applicable. 18.765 OFF-STREET PARKING AND LOADING REQUIREMENTS 18.765.030 General Provisions A. Vehicle parking plan requirements. No building or other permit shall be issued until scaled plans are presented and approved as provided by this chapter that show how access, egress and circulation requirements are to be fulfilled. The applicant shall submit a site plan. The Director shall provide the applicant with detailed information about this submission requirement. Response: The Applicant understands this criterion. B. Location of vehicle parking. The location of off-street parking will be as follows: 2. Off-street parking lots for uses not listed above shall be located not further than 500 feet from the property line that they are required to serve, measured along the most direct, publicly accessible pedestrian route from the property line with the following exceptions: • a. Commercial and industrial uses which require more than 40 parking spaces may provide for the spaces in excess of the required first 40 spaces up to a distance of 500 feet from the primary site; b. The 40 parking spaces which remain on the primary site must be available for users in the following order of priority: 1)Disabled-accessible spaces; 2) Short-term spaces; 3)Long-term preferential carpool and vanpool spaces; 4)Long-term spaces. Response: School Site: The majority of parking already exists on site. An additional parking area comprising of 19 stalls is proposed. In addition, the existing Durham Center parking lot will be re- striped and will gain one additional parking stall. The parking is located upon the same property (the Elementary School and Durham Center) that it will serve. This criterion is met. Industrial/Office Site: The parking already exists on site. The removal of 6 spaces will leave 96 spaces on site, which meets code requirements. The parking is located upon the same property that it will serve. This criterion is met. C. Joint parking. Owners of two or more uses, structures or parcels of land may agree to utilize jointly the same parking and loading spaces when the peak hours of operation do not • overlay, subject to the following: Durham Elementary Access 33 WRG Design,Inc. City of Tigard—Major Modification Review November 2007 • • 1. The size of the joint parking facility shall be at least as large as the number of vehicle • parking spaces required by the larger(est) use per Section 18.765.070; 2. Satisfactory legal evidence shall be presented to the Director in the form of deeds, leases or contracts to establish the joint use; 3. If a joint use arrangement is subsequently terminated, or if the uses change, the requirements of this title thereafter apply to each separately. Response: School Site: The parking lots will serve the adjacent buildings and will be located on the same lot.No joint parking areas are proposed.This criterion does not apply. Industrial/Office Site: The parking lots will serve the adjacent buildings and will be located on the same lot. No joint parking areas are proposed.This criterion does not apply. D. Parking in mixed-use projects... Response: This is not a mixed-use project.This criterion does not apply. E. Visitor parking in multi-family residential... Response: This is not a multi-family residential project. This criterion does not apply. F. Preferential long-term carpool/vanpool parking... Response: No long-term parking is proposed.This criterion does not apply. G. Disabled-accessible parking. All parking areas shall be provided with the required number of parking spaces for disabled persons as specified by the State of Oregon Uniform Building • Code and federal standards. Such parking spaces shall be sized, signed and marked as required by these regulations. Response: School Site: The parking lots that already exist on site include 5 ADA parking spaces. The addition of 20 spaces will not require additional ADA parking spaces.This criterion is met. Industrial/Office Site: Parking for this site already exists on-site, and no ADA spaces will be removed as part of the access way development.This criterion is met. H. DEQ indirect source construction permit. All parking lots containing 250 spaces or parking structures containing two or more levels shall require review by the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality(DEQ)to: 1. Acquire an Indirect Source Construction Permit; 2. Investigate the feasibility of installing oil and grease separators. Response: School Site: The construction of 19 parking stalls and the re-striping of the existing Durham Center lot gaining one parking stall is proposed. A total of 132 parking spaces will be available on the entire campus site.This criterion is not applicable. Industrial/Office Site: A total of 96 parking spaces will be available on this site.This criterion is not applicable. 18.765.040 General Design Standards A. Maintenance of parking areas. All parking lots shall be kept clean and in good repair at all • times. Breaks in paved surfaces shall be repaired promptly and broken or splintered wheel stops shall be replaced so that their function will not be impaired. Durham Elementary Access 34 WRG Design,Inc. City of Tigard—Major Modification Review November 2007 A • • Response: The Applicant will maintain the parking lot in good repair at all times. B. Access drives. With regard to access to public streets from off-street parking: 1. Access drives from the street to off-street parking or loading areas shall be designed and constructed to facilitate the flow of traffic and provide maximum safety for pedestrian and vehicular traffic on the site; 2. The number and size of access drives shall be in accordance with the requirements of Chapter, 3. Access drives shall be clearly and permanently marked and defined through use of rails, fences,walls or other barriers or markers on frontage not occupied by service drives; 4. Access drives shall have a minimum vision clearance in accordance with Chapter 18.795,Visual Clearance; 5. Access drives shall be improved with an asphalt or concrete surface; and 6. Excluding single-family and duplex residences, except as provided by Subsection 18.810.030P, groups of two or more parking spaces shall be served by a service drive so that no backing movements or other maneuvering within a street or other public right- of-way will be required. Response: School Site: The access drive has been located at the signalized intersection of SW Durham Road and SW 79th Avenue in order to facilitate the flow of traffic and provide maximum safety for pedestrian and vehicular traffic on the site and SW Durham Road. This location and size of access meets the requirements of this chapter. The access way is defined by the intersection, signage, and landscaping, while maintaining visual clearance standards. The access way is surfaced with asphalt. The access drive serves the off-street parking in a manner that does not require backing movements or other maneuvering within a street or other public right-of-way. Please refer to the site plan in Exhibit A, and the general design standards in this section for more information. Industrial/Office Site: The industrial/office site requires one access point that is 30 feet wide. The eastern access point to the site will remain unchanged and is 35 feet wide. This criterion has been met. C. Loading/unloading driveways. A driveway designed for continuous forward flow of passenger vehicles for the purpose of loading and unloading passengers shall be located on the site of any school or other meeting place... Response: School Site: As seen on the site plan in Exhibit A, the driveway and parking lot are designed for continuous forward flow of passenger vehicles for the purpose of loading and unloading passengers.This criterion is met. Industrial/Office Site: This site does not include a school. This criterion is not applicable to this part of the proposal. D. On-site vehicle stacking for drive-in use... Response: No drive-in uses exist or are proposed at this time. This criterion does not apply. • E. Curb cuts. Curb cuts shall be in accordance with Section 18.810.030.N. Response: All curb cuts have been made in accordance with Section 18.810.030N. See the Durham Elementary Access 35 WRG Design,Inc. City of Tigard—Major Modification Review November 2007 development plan set in Exhibit A, for cross sections and profiles of the proposed • improvements. F. Pedestrian access. Pedestrian access through parking lots shall be provided in accordance with Section 18.705.030.F. Where a parking area or other vehicle area has a drop-off grade separation, the property owner shall install a wall, railing, or other barrier which will prevent a slow-moving vehicle or driverless vehicle from escaping such area and which will prevent pedestrians from walking over drop-off edges. Response: No drop-off grade separation exists. This criterion does not apply. G. Parking lot landscaping. Parking lots shall be landscaped in accordance with the requirements of Chapter 18.745. Response: School Site: The majority of parking already exists on site. The addition of 19 parking spaces and the re-striping of the existing Durham Center parking lot, which will add one parking space is proposed. The parking lot landscaping will be in accordance with the requirements of Chapter 18.745. No alterations or improvements are proposed to the existing parking lot other than those necessary to connect to the proposed access way. See Section 18.745 above and the landscape plan in Exhibit A, for more information. Industrial/Office Site: The parking lot landscaping will be in accordance with the requirements of Chapter 18.745. No alterations or improvements are proposed to the existing parking lot other than those necessary to connect to the proposed access way. See Section 18.745 above and the landscape plan in Exhibit A, for more information. H. Parking space surfacing. • 1. Except for single-family and duplex residences, and for temporary uses or fleet storage areas as authorized in 18.765.040.H.3 and 4 below, all areas used for the parking or storage or maneuvering of any vehicle, boat or trailer shall be improved with asphalt or concrete surfaces; 2. Off-street parking spaces for single and two-family residences shall be improved with an asphalt or concrete surface; 3. Parking areas to be used primarily for the storage of fleet vehicles or construction equipment may be surfaced in gravel when authorized by the approval authority at the time the site development approval is given. The Director may require that the property owner enter into an agreement to pave the parking area: a) within a specified period of time after establishment of the parking area; or b) if there is a change in the types or weights of vehicles utilizing the parking area; or c) if there is evidence of adverse effects upon adjacent roadways, water courses, or properties. Such an agreement shall be executed as a condition of approval of the plan to establish the gravel parking area. Gravel-surfaced parking areas may only be permitted consistent with the following: a. Gravel parking areas shall not be permitted within 100 feet of any residentially- zoned or residentially-developed area; b. Gravel access and/or parking areas shall not be allowed within 100 feet of any water course; c. Gravel parking areas shall not be allowed within 100 feet of any public right-of- way; and • Durham Elementary Access 36 WRG Design,Inc. City of Tigard—Major Modification Review November 2007 • • • d. A driveway which connects a gravel parking area with any public street shall be paved. 4. Parking areas to be used in conjunction with a temporary use may be surfaced in gravel when authorized by the approval authority at the time the permit is approved. The approval authority shall consider the following in determining whether or not the gravel-surfaced parking is warranted: a. The request for consideration to allow a parking area in conjunction with the temporary use shall be made in writing concurrently with the Temporary Use application per the requirements of Section 18.385.050; b. The applicant shall provide documentation that the type of temporary use requested will not be financially viable if the parking space surface area requirement is imposed; and c. Approval of the gravel-surfaced parking area will not create adverse conditions affecting safe ingress and egress when combined with other uses of the property. Response: All parking areas are currently surfaced with asphalt, or will be surfaced with asphalt. The proposed access way is also surfaced with asphalt.This criterion has been met. Parking lot striping. 1. Except for single-family and duplex residences, any area intended to be used to meet the off-street parking requirements as contained in this chapter shall have all parking spaces clearly marked; and • 2. All interior drives and access aisles shall be clearly marked and signed to show direction of flow and maintain vehicular and pedestrian safety. Response: All interior drives, parking spaces, and access aisles are clearly marked and signed to show direction of flow and maintain vehicular and pedestrian safety. This criterion is met. J. Wheel stops. Parking spaces along the boundaries of a parking lot or adjacent to interior landscaped areas or sidewalks shall be provided with a wheel stop at least four inches high located three feet back from the front of the parking stall. The front three feet of the parking stall may be concrete, asphalt or low lying landscape material that does not exceed the height of the wheel stop. This area cannot be calculated to meet landscaping or sidewalk requirements. Response: All parking areas along the boundaries of a parking lot or adjacent to interior landscaped areas or sidewalks have curbs that act as wheel stops along with an area that is 3-feet deep that consists of low lying landscape material, as seen in the Development Plan Set in Exhibit A. K. Drainage. Off-street parking and loading areas shall be drained in accordance with specifications approved by the City Engineer to ensure that ponds do not occur except for single-family and duplex residences, off-street parking and loading facilities shall be drained to avoid flow of water across public sidewalks. Response: As seen in the grading and drainage plan in Exhibit A, all off-street parking and loading areas are drained in accordance with specifications approved by the City Engineer to ensure that ponds do not occur.This criterion is met. IDL. Lighting. A lights providing to illuminate any public or private parking area or vehicle sales area shall be arranged to direct the light away from any adjacent residential district. Durham Elementary Access 37 WRG Design,Inc. City of Tigard—Major Modification Review November 2007 • Response: Lighting already exists on site and is arranged to direct the light away from any adjacent • residential district. New proposed lighting is also designed to direct the light away from any adjacent residential district. M. Signs. Signs which are placed on parking lots shall be designed and installed in accordance with Chapter 18.780,Signs. Response: All signage will be designed and installed in accordance with Chapter 18.780, Signs. N. Space and aisle dimensions. (Figure 18.765.1) 1. Except as modified for angled parking in Figures 18.765.1 and 18.765.2, the minimum dimensions for parking spaces are: a. 8.5' x 18.5' for a standard space; b. 7.5' x 16.5' for a compact space; and c. As required by applicable State of Oregon and federal standards for designated disabled person parking spaces; d. The width of each parking space includes a stripe which separates each space. 2. Aisles accommodating two direction traffic, or allowing access from both ends, shall be 24 feet in width; 3. Minimum standards for a standard parking stall's length and width, aisle width, and maneuvering space shall be determined as noted in Figure 18.765.2. Response: School Site: All standard spaces are 8.5' x 18.5'. No compact stalls are proposed. All ADA spaces • meet the State of Oregon and Federal standards. All aisles are a minimum 18' wide for angled spaces and 24' wide for 90-degree spaces. The standards from Figure 18.765.1 have been met. Industrial/Office Site: No changes are proposed to this site that would affect this criterion. This criterion is not applicable. 18.765.050 Bicycle Parking Design Standards A. Location and access.With regard to the location and access to bicycle parking: 1. Bicycle parking areas shall be provided at locations within 50 feet of primary entrances to structures; 2. Bicycle parking areas shall not be located within parking aisles, landscape areas or pedestrian ways; 3. Outdoor bicycle parking shall be visible from on-site buildings and/or the street. When the bicycle parking area is not visible from the street, directional signs shall be used to located the parking area; 4. Bicycle parking may be located inside a building on a floor which has an outdoor entrance open for use and floor location which does not require the bicyclist to use stairs to gain access to the space. Exceptions may be made to the latter requirement for parking on upper stories within a multi-story residential building. Response: School Site: Bicycle parking will be relocated from its current location, to the south side of the main • elementary school parking lot adjacent to the elementary school building. This area is Durham Elementary Access 38 WRG Design,Inc. City of Tigard—Major Modification Review November 2007 • • specifically for bicycle parking and is not within parking aisles, landscape areas, or pedestrian ways. This area is visible from on-site buildings. Industrial/Office Site: No changes are proposed to this site that would affect this criterion. This criterion is not applicable. B. Covered parking spaces. 1. When possible, bicycle parking facilities should be provided under cover. 2. Required bicycle parking for uses served by a parking structure must provide for covered bicycle parking unless the structure will be more than 100 feet from the primary entrance to the building, in which case, the uncovered bicycle parking may be provided closer to the building entrance. Response: School Site: Bicycle parking is already provided on site and is not covered. The relocation of these bicycle parking spaces will not include the addition of a cover. Office Building Site: No changes are proposed to this site that would affect this criterion. This criterion is not applicable. C. Design requirements. The following design requirements apply to the installation of bicycle racks: 1. The racks required for required bicycle parking spaces shall ensure that bicycles may be securely locked to them without undue inconvenience.Provision of bicycle lockers for • longterm(employee) parking is encouraged but not required; 2. Bicycle racks must be securely anchored to the ground,wall or other structure; 3. Bicycle parking spaces shall be at least 2% feet by six feet long, and,when covered,with a vertical clearance of seven feet. An access aisle of at least five feet wide shall be provided and maintained beside or between each row of bicycle parking; 4. Each required bicycle parking space must be accessible without moving another bicycle; 5. Required bicycle parking spaces may not be rented or leased except where required motor vehicle parking is rented or leased. At-cost or deposit fees for bicycle parking are exempt from this requirement; 6. Areas set aside for required bicycle parking must be clearly reserved for bicycle parking only. Response: School Site: Bicycle parking is already provided on site and will be relocated as part of this proposal. The bicycle racks provided ensure that bicycles may be securely locked to them without undue inconvenience, are securely anchored to the ground, and are at least 212 feet by six feet long. Each required bicycle parking space is accessible without moving another bicycle. No bicycle parking spaces will be rented or leased. The areas set aside for required bicycle parking are clearly reserved for bicycle parking only. Industrial/Office Site: No changes are proposed to this site that would affect this criterion. This criterion is not • applicable. Durham Elementary Access 39 WRG Design,Inc. City of Tigard—Major Modification Review November 2007 • • D. Paving. Outdoor bicycle parking facilities shall be surfaced with a hard surfaced material, • i.e., pavers, asphalt, concrete or similar material. This surface must be designed to remained well drained. Response: School Site: The bicycle area on-site is surfaced with concrete and is designed to remain well drained at all times. This criterion is met. Industrial/Office Site: No changes are proposed to this site that would affect this criterion. This criterion is not applicable. E. Minimum bicycle parking requirements. The total number of required bicycle parking spaces for each use is specified in Table 18.768.2 in Section 18.765.070.11. In no case shall there be less than two bicycle parking spaces. Single-family residences and duplexes are excluded from the bicycle parking requirements. The Director may reduce the number of required bicycle parking spaces by means of an adjustment to be reviewed through a Type II procedure, as governed by Section 18.390.040, using approval criteria contained in Section 18.370.020.C.5.e. Response: School Site: The current number of bicycle spaces provided and approved for this site will be relocated.No increase or decrease of bicycle parking is proposed. IndustriaUOffice Site: No changes are proposed to this site that would affect this criterion. This criterion is not applicable. 18.765.070 Minimum and Maximum Off-Street Parking Requirements • B. Choice of parking requirements.When a building or use is planned or constructed in such a manner that a choice of parking requirements could be made, the use which requires the greater number of parking spaces shall govern. Response: School Site: 112 parking spaces already exist on the site and an additional 20 are proposed for a total of 132 parking spaces. 86 parking spaces minimum are required. 151 parking spaces maximum are required.This criterion is met. (43 campus wide classrooms)x 2= 86 minimum parking spaces (43 campus wide classrooms) x 3.5 = 151 maximum parking spaces Industrial/Office Site: A total of 102 parking spaces already exist on the site and 6 spaces are proposed for removal, which leaves a total of 96 parking spaces to be ultimately provided. A total of 41 parking spaces minimum are required per the approved SDR2000-00016. There exists no maximum parking requirement for the Light Industrial Zone according to Table 18.765.2.This criterion is met. C. Measurements. The following measurements shall be used in calculating the total minimum number of vehicle parking spaces required in Section 18.765.070.11: 1. Fractions.Fractional space requirements shall be counted as a whole space; 2. Employees.Where employees are specified for the purpose of determining the minimum vehicle parking spaces required, the employees counted are those who work on the premises during the largest shift at the peak season; • Durham Elementary Access 40 WRG Design,Inc. City of Tigard—Major Modification Review November 2007 • • • 3. Students. When students are specified for the purpose of determining the minimum vehicle parking spaces required, the students counted are those who are on the campus during the peak period of the day during a typical school term; 4. Space. Unless otherwise specified, where square feet are specified, the area measured shall be gross floor area under the roof measured from the faces of the structure, excluding only space devoted to covered off-street parking or loading. Response: School Site: The number of classrooms was used to calculate the total minimum number of vehicle parking spaces required in Section 18.765.070.H.113 parking spaces already exist on the site and an additional 19 are proposed for a total of 132 parking spaces. 86 parking spaces minimum are required. 151 parking spaces maximum are required. This criterion is met. (43 campus wide classrooms) x 2= 86 minimum parking spaces (43 campus wide classrooms)x 3.5 = 151 maximum parking spaces Industrial/Office Site: The approved SDR2000-00016 was used to determine minimum parking requirements. A total of 102 parking spaces already exist on the site and 6 spaces are proposed for removal, which leaves a total of 96 parking spaces to be ultimately provided. A total of 41 parking spaces minimum are required per the approved SDR2000-00016. There exists no maximum parking requirement for the Light Industrial Zone according to Table 18.765.2.This criterion is met. D. Exclusions to minimum vehicle parking requirements. The following shall not be counted • towards the computation of the minimum parking spaces as required in Section 18.765.070.H: 1. On-street parking. Parking spaces in the public street or alley shall not be eligible as fulfilling any part of the parking requirement except; Religious Institutions may count on-street parking around the perimeter of the use provided that the following criteria have been satisfied: a. The on-street parking is on a street that is designed and physically improved to accommodate parking within the right-of-way; b. The street where on-street parking is proposed is not located on local residential streets. Response: No exclusions to the minimum vehicle parking requirements are proposed. This criterion does not apply. 2. Fleet parking. Required vehicle parking spaces may not be used for storage of fleet vehicles... Response: School Site: No fleet vehicles will be stored on site.This criterion does not apply. Industrial/Office Site: No changes are proposed to this site that would affect this criterion. This criterion is not applicable. E. Exceptions to maximum parking standards. When calculating the maximum vehicle parking allowed as regulated by Section 18.765.080.11, the following exception shall apply: 411 1. The following types of parking shall not be included: Durham Elementary Access 41 WRG Design,Inc. City of Tigard—Major Modification Review November 2007 • a. Parking contained in a parking structure either incorporated into a building or • freestanding; b. Market-rate paid parking; c. Designated carpool and/or vanpool spaces; d. Designated disabled-accessible parking spaces; e. Fleet parking. 2. If application of the maximum parking standard would result in less than six parking spaces for a development with less than 1,000 gross square feet of floor area, the development shall be allowed up to six parking spaces. If application of the maximum parking standard would result in less than 10 vehicle parking spaces for a development between 1,000 and 2,000 gross square feet, the development will be allowed up to 10 vehicle parking spaces. Response: No exceptions are sought. This criterion does not apply. F. Reductions in minimum required vehicle parking... Response: No reductions are sought. This criterion is not applicable. G. Increases in maximum required vehicle parking. The Director may increase the total maximum number of vehicle spaces allowed in Section 18.765.070.H by means of a parking adjustment to be reviewed by means of a Type II procedure, as governed by Section 18.390.040,using approval criteria contained in section 18.370.020.C.5.d. Response: No increases in maximum required parking have been proposed. This criterion does not • apply. 18.765.080 Off-Street Loading Requirements A. Off-street loading spaces. Commercial, industrial and institutional buildings or structures to be built or altered which receive and distribute material or merchandise by truck shall provide and maintain off-street loading and maneuvering space as follows: 1. A minimum of one loading space is required for buildings with 10,000 gross square feet or more; 2. A minimum of two loading spaces for buildings with 40,000 gross square feet or more. Response: School Site: Loading is handled within the existing elementary school parking lot, where the bus loading occurs during pick-up and drop-off of students. All deliveries are scheduled as to not conflict with school activity and traffic. Industrial/Office Site: No changes are proposed to this site that would affect this criterion. This criterion is not applicable. B. Off-street loading dimensions. 1. Each loading berth shall be approved by the City Engineer as to design and location; 2. Each loading space shall have sufficient area for turning and maneuvering of vehicles on the site. At a minimum, the maneuvering length shall not be less than twice the overall length of the longest vehicle using the facility site; 3. Entrances and exits for the loading areas shall be provided at locations approved by the • City Engineer in accordance with Chapter 18.710; Durham Elementary Access 42 WRG Design,Inc. City of Tigard—Major Modification Review November 2007 • • • 4. Screening for off-street loading facilities is required and shall be the same as screening for parking lots in accordance with Chapter 18.745. Response: School Site: Loading is handled within the existing elementary school parking lot, where the bus loading occurs during pick-up and drop-off of students. The area is sufficiently large to accommodate any delivery trucks since the area can accommodate in excess of 6 busses. All deliveries are scheduled as to not conflict with school activity and traffic. Industrial/Office Site: No changes are proposed to this site that would affect this criterion. This criterion is not applicable. 18.780 SIGNS 18.780.020 Permits Required A. Compliance with regulations. No sign or sign structure shall hereafter be erected, re- erected, constructed, structurally altered or relocated within the City limits except as provided by this title, and a permit for the same sign or sign structure has been issued by the Director. Response: No new signs are proposed with this application. The Applicant is not proposing to re- erect, relocate, or alter signage for the school district at this time. However the signage for the industrial / office site will have to be relocated as part of this project. This sign will remain in the same area but will be offset 15 feet to the east as a result of the access realignment.The Applicant will apply for a permit to relocate this sign as required. • 18.790 TREE REMOVAL 18.790.030 Tree Plan Requirement A. Tree plan required. A tree plan for the planting, removal and protection of trees prepared by a certified arborist shall be provided for any lot, parcel or combination of lots or parcels for which a development application for a subdivision, partition, site development review, planned development or conditional use is filed. Protection is preferred over removal wherever possible. Response: Robert Mazany, Registered Consulting Arborist #133 was engaged by WRG Design to conduct an Arborist Report that has been attached as Exhibit J. The report concluded that 19 trees on site will need to be removed due to construction activities and development impacts. A tree plan map is provided in the development plan set in Exhibit A. B. Plan requirements.The tree plan shall include the following: 1. Identification of the location, size and species of all existing trees including trees designated as significant by the city; 2. Identification of a program to save existing trees or mitigate tree removal over 12 inches in caliper. Mitigation must follow the replacement guidelines of Section 18.790.060D, in accordance with the following standards and shall be exclusive of trees required by other development code provisions for landscaping, streets and parking lots: a. Retention of less than 25% of existing trees over 12 inches in caliper requires a mitigation program in accordance with Section 18.790.060D of no net loss of trees; • b. Retention of from 25% to 50% of existing trees over 12 inches in caliper requires that two-thirds of the trees to be removed be mitigated in accordance with Section 18.790.060D; Durham Elementary Access 43 WRG Design,Inc. City of Tigard—Major Modification Review November 2007 • • c. Retention of from 50% to 75% of existing trees over 12 inches in caliper requires • that 50 percent of the trees to be removed be mitigated in accordance with Section 18.790.060D; d. Retention of 75% or greater of existing trees over 12 inches in caliper requires no mitigation. 3. Identification of all trees which are proposed to be removed; 4. A protection program defining standards and methods that will be used by the applicant to protect trees during and after construction. Response: There are a total of 53 trees located on site that are over 12 inches in caliper. The Arborist Report attached as Exhibit J states that 12 trees over 12 inches in caliper are to be removed for construction activities. It is expected that the Applicant will retain 77.4% of existing trees over 12 inches as prescribed in the Mitigation Table of the Arborist Report; therefore no tree removal mitigation is required. A tree plan map is provided in the development plan set in Exhibit A, which designates tree location and trees to be removed. Lastly a protection program has been included in the Arborist Report. C. Subsequent tree removal. Trees removed within the period of one year prior to a development application listed above will be inventoried as part of the tree plan above and will be replaced according to Section 18.790.060D. Response: No tree removal has taken place within the period of one year prior to this development application. This criterion does not apply. 18.790.050 Permit Applicability A. Removal permit required. Tree removal permits shall be required only for the removal of • any tree which is located on or in a sensitive land area as defined by Chapter 18.775. The permit for removal of a tree shall be processed as a Type I procedure, as governed by Section 18.390.030, using the following approval criteria: 1. Removal of the tree must not have a measurable negative impact on erosion, soil stability,flow of surface waters or water quality as evidenced by an erosion control plan which precludes: a. Deposits of mud, dirt, sediment or similar material exceeding 1/2 cubic foot in volume on public or private streets, adjacent property, or into the storm and surface water system, either by direct deposit, dropping, discharge or as a result of the action of erosion; b. Evidence of concentrated flows of water over bare soils; turbid or sediment-laden flows; or evidence of on-site erosion such as rivulets on bare soil slopes where the flow of water is not filtered or captured on site using the techniques of Chapter 5 of the Washington County Unified Sewerage Agency Environmental Protection and Erosion Control rules. 2. Within stream or wetland corridors, as defined as 50 feet from the boundary of the stream or wetland, tree removal must maintain no less than a 75% canopy cover or no less than the existing canopy cover if the existing canopy cover is less than 75%. Response: No sensitive land areas as defined by Chapter 18.775 will be impacted by tree removal. Therefore,no tree removal permit is required. E. Prohibition of commercial forestry. Commercial forestry as defined by Section 18.790.020 • A.2., excluding D.4. above, is not permitted. Durham Elementary Access 44 WRG Design,Inc. City of Tigard—Major Modification Review November 2007 • • • Response: Commercial forestry as defined by Section 18.790.020 A.2., excluding D.4. is not proposed. 18.790.060 Illegal Tree Removal A. Violations.The following constitute a violation of this chapter: 1. Removal of a tree: a. Without a valid tree removal permit; or b. In noncompliance with any condition of approval of a tree removal permit; or c. In noncompliance with any condition of any City permit or development approval; or d. In noncompliance with any other section of this title. 2. Breach of a condition of any City permit or development approval, which results in damage to a tree or its root system. Response: The Applicant understands this criterion. B. Remedies. If the Director has reason to believe that a violation of this chapter has occurred, then he or she may do any or all of the following: 1. Require the owner of the land on which the tree was located to submit sufficient documentation, which may include a written statement from a qualified arborist or forester,showing that removal of the tree was permitted by this chapter; 2. Pursuant to Section 18.390.050., initiate a hearing on revocation of the tree removal permit and/or any other permit or approval for which this chapter was an approval standard; 3. Issue a stop order pursuant to Section 18.230 of this title; 4. Issue a citation pursuant to Chapter 1.16 of the Municipal Code; 5. Take any other action allowed by law. Response: The Applicant understands this criterion. C. Fines.Notwithstanding any other provision of this title, any party found to be in violation of this chapter pursuant to Section 1.16 of the Municipal Code shall be subject to a civil penalty of up to $500 and shall be required to remedy any damage caused by the violation. Such remediation shall include, but not be limited to,the following: 1. Replacement of unlawfully removed or damaged trees in accordance with Section D below; and 2. Payment of an additional civil penalty representing the estimated value of any unlawfully removed or damaged tree, as determined using the most current International Society of Arboriculture's Guide for Plant Appraisal. Response: The Applicant understands this criterion. D. Guidelines for replacement. Replacement of a tree shall take place according to the following guidelines: 1. A replacement tree shall be a substantially similar species taking into consideration site • characteristics; Durham Elementary Access 45 WRG Design,Inc. City of Tigard—Major Modification Review November 2007 • • 2. If a replacement tree of the species of the tree removed or damaged is not reasonably • available, the Director may allow replacement with a different species of equivalent natural resource value; 3. If a replacement tree of the size cut is not reasonably available on the local market or would not be viable, the Director shall require replacement with more than one tree in accordance with the following formula: The number of replacement trees required shall be determined by dividing the estimated caliper size of the tree removed or damaged by the caliper size of the largest reasonably available replacement trees. If this number of trees cannot be viably located on the subject property, the Director may require one or more replacement trees to be planted on other property within the City, either public property or,with the consent of the owner, private property; 4. The planting of a replacement tree shall take place in a manner reasonably calculated to allow growth to maturity. Response: The Applicant understands this criterion and will mitigate trees as required. E. In lieu-of payment. In lieu of tree replacement under Section D above, a party may,with the consent of the Director, elect to compensate the City for its costs in performing such tree replacement. Response: The Applicant understands this criterion. F. Exclusivity.The remedies set out in this section shall not be exclusive. Response: The Applicant understands this criterion. 18.795 VISUAL CLEARANCE AREAS • 18.795.030 Visual Clearance Requirements A. At corners. Except within the CBD zoning district a visual clearance area shall be maintained on the corners of all property adjacent to the intersection of two streets, a street and a railroad,or a driveway providing access to a public or private street. Response: Visual clearance areas will be maintained adjacent to the site at the intersection of SW Durham Road and SW 79th Avenue where the proposed driveway provides access to the site. Please refer to the site plan in Exhibit A in order to see the visual clearance areas. B. Obstructions prohibited. A clear vision area shall contain no vehicle, hedge, planting, fence, wall structure or temporary or permanent obstruction (except for an occasional utility pole or tree),exceeding three feet in height,measured from the top of the curb, or where no curb exists, from the street center line grade, except that trees exceeding this height may be located in this area, provided all branches below eight feet are removed. Response: A clear vision area will be maintained where it contains no vehicle, hedge, planting, fence, wall structure or temporary or permanent obstruction (except for an occasional utility pole or tree), exceeding three feet in height, measured from the top of the curb, or where no curb exists, from the street center line grade, except that trees exceeding this height may be located in this area,provided all branches below eight feet are removed. C. Additional topographical constraints. Where the crest of a hill or vertical curve conditions contribute to the obstruction of clear vision areas at a street or driveway intersection, hedges, plantings, fences, walls, wall structures and temporary or permanent obstructions shall be further reduced in height or eliminated to comply with the intent of the required • clear vision area. Response: No conditions exist at the driveway intersections that would be considered additional Durham Elementary Access 46 WRG Design,Inc. City of Tigard—Major Modification Review November 2007 • • • topographical constraints.This criteria is met 18.795.040 Computations A. Arterial streets. On all designated arterial streets the visual clearance area shall not be less than 35 feet on each side of the intersection. Response: SW Durham Road is an arterial street. A visual clearance area of 35 feet or more will be maintained adjacent to the site. B. Non-arterial streets. 1. Non-arterial streets 24 feet or more in width. At all intersections of two non-arterial streets, a nonarterial street and a driveway, and a non-arterial street or driveway and railroad where at least one of the streets or driveways is 24 feet or more in width, a visual clearance area shall be a triangle formed by the right-of-way or property lines along such lots and a straight line joining the right-of- way or property line at points which are 30 feet distance from the intersection of the right-of way line and measured along such lines. See Figure 18.795.1: • 2. Non-arterial streets less than 24 feet in width. At all intersections of two non-arterial streets, a non-arterial street and a driveway, and a non-arterial street or driveway and railroad where both streets and/or driveways are less than 24 feet in width, a visual clearance area shall be a triangle whose base extends 30 feet along the street right-of- way line in both directions from the centerline of the accessway at the front setback line of a single family and two family residence, and 30 feet back from the property line on all other types of uses. • Response: The site does not technically front onto any other street except SW Durham Road, since SW Shaffer Lane is not a public right-of-way. This criterion is not applicable. 18.810 STREET AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENT STANDARDS 18.810.020 General Provisions A. When standards apply. Unless otherwise provided, construction, reconstruction or repair of streets, sidewalks, curbs and other public improvements shall occur in accordance with the standards of this title. No development may occur and no land use application may be approved unless the public facilities related to development comply with the public facility requirements established in this section and adequate public facilities are available. Applicants may be required to dedicate land and build required public improvements only when the required exaction is directly related to and roughly proportional to the impact of the development. Response: The proposed access way and parking improvements include the construction of a right turn lane and associated improvements to accommodate this turn lane on SW Durham Road. The dedication of land for these improvements is also proposed. B. Standard specifications.The City Engineer shall establish standard specifications consistent with the application of engineering principles. Response: The Applicant understands this criterion. C. Section 7.40 applies. The provision of Section 7.40 of the Tigard Municipal Code shall apply to this chapter. • Response: The Applicant understands this criterion. D. Adjustments. Adjustments to the provisions in this chapter... Durham Elementary Access 47 WRG Design,Inc. City of Tigard—Major Modification Review November 2007 • • Response: No adjustments are being requested. This criterion does not apply. • E. Except as provided in Section 18.810.0305, as used in this chapter, the term "streets" shall mean "public streets" unless an adjustment under Section 18.810.020.D is allowed. Response: The Applicant understands this criterion. 18.810.030 Streets A. Improvements. 1. No development shall occur unless the development has frontage or approved access to a public street. Response: The site has frontage on SW Durham Road and the proposed access way improvements will provide an approved access. 2. No development shall occur unless streets within the development meet the standards of this chapter. Response: Neither the School Site nor the Industrial/Office Site include streets, only driveways and parking areas. This criterion does not apply. 3. No development shall occur unless the streets adjacent to the development meet the standards of this chapter, provided, however, that a development may be approved if the adjacent street does not meet the standards but half-street improvements meeting the standards of this title are constructed adjacent to the development. Response: The streets adjacent to the School Site and the Industrial/Office Site will meet the standards of this chapter upon the completion of the proposed improvements. • 4 Any new street or additional street width planned as a portion of an existing street shall meet the standards of this chapter; Response: The street improvements along SW Durham Road meet the standards of this chapter. This narrative and associated plan sets and exhibits provide evidence. 5. If the City could and would otherwise require the applicant to provide street improvements, the City Engineer may accept a future improvements guarantee in lieu of street improvements if one or more of the following conditions exist: a. A partial improvement is not feasible due to the inability to achieve proper design standards; b. A partial improvement may create a potential safety hazard to motorists or pedestrians; c. Due to the nature of existing development on adjacent properties it is unlikely that street improvements would be extended in the foreseeable future and the improvement associated with the project under review does not, by itself, provide a significant improvement to street safety or capacity; d. The improvement would be in conflict with an adopted capital improvement plan; e. The improvement is associated with an approved land partition on property zoned residential and the proposed land partition does not create any new streets; or f. Additional planning work is required to define the appropriate design standards for the street and the application is for a project which would contribute only a minor • portion of the anticipated future traffic on the street. Durham Elementary Access 48 WRG Design,Inc. City of Tigard—Major Modification Review November 2007 • • • Response: The Applicant does not request the deference of improvements. This criterion does not apply. 6. The standards of this chapter include the standard specifications adopted by the City Engineer pursuant to Section 18.810.020.B. Response: The Applicant understands this criterion. 7. The approval authority may approve adjustments to the standards of this chapter if compliance with the standards would result in an adverse impact on natural features such as wetlands, steep slopes, or existing mature trees. The approval authority may also approve adjustments to the standards of this chapter if compliance with the standards would have a substantial adverse impact on existing development or would preclude development on the property where the development is proposed. In approving an adjustment to the standards, the approval authority shall balance the benefit of the adjustment with the impact on the public interest represented by the standards. In evaluating the impact on the public interest, the approval authority shall consider the criteria listed in Section 18.810.030 E.1. An adjustment to the standards may not be granted if the adjustment would risk public safety. Response: No adjustments are proposed.This criterion does not apply. B. Creation of rights-of-way for streets and related purposes. Rights-of-way shall be created through the approval of a final subdivision plat or major partition; however, the Council may approve the creation of a street by acceptance of a deed, provided that such street is deemed essential by the Council for the purpose of general traffic circulation: • 1. The Council may approve the creation of a street by deed of dedication without full compliance with the regulations applicable to subdivisions or major partitions if any one or more of the following conditions are found by the Council to be present: a. Establishment of a street is initiated by the Council and is found to be essential for the purpose of general traffic circulation, and partitioning or subdivision of land has an incidental effect rather than being the primary objective in establishing the road or street for public use; or b. The tract in which the road or street is to be dedicated is an isolated ownership of one acre or less and such dedication is recommended by the Commission to the Council based on a finding that the proposal is not an attempt to evade the provisions of this title governing the control of subdivisions or major partitions. Response: The creation of a street by acceptance of a deed is not proposed. This criterion does not apply. 2. With each application for approval of a road or street right-of-way not in full compliance with the regulations applicable to the standards, the proposed dedication shall be made a condition of subdivision and major partition approval: a. The applicant shall submit such additional information and justification as may be necessary to enable the Commission in its review to determine whether or not a recommendation for approval by the Council shall be made; b. The recommendation, if any, shall be based upon a finding that the proposal is not in conflict with the purpose of this title; • c. The Commission in submitting the proposal with a recommendation to the Council may attach conditions which are necessary to preserve the standards of this title; and Durham Elementary Access 49 WRG Design,Inc. City of Tigard—Major Modification Review November 2007 0 • Response: Upon the completion of the proposed street improvements SW Durham Road will be in • full compliance with all applicable regulations and standards.This criterion is met. 3. All deeds of dedication shall be in a form prescribed by the City and shall name "the public," as grantee. Response: The Applicant understands this criterion. C. Creation of access easements. The approval authority may approve an access easement established by deed without full compliance with this title... Response: Access easements are not proposed. The Applicant proposes improvements that are in full compliance with this title. D. Street location, width and grade. Except as noted below,the location,width and grade of all streets shall conform to an approved street plan and shall be considered in their relation to existing and planned streets, to topographic conditions, to public convenience and safety, and in their appropriate relation to the proposed use of the land to be served by such streets: 1. Street grades shall be approved by the City Engineer in accordance with Subsection N below; and Response: Streets are not proposed. A right turn lane and associated intersection improvements at SW Durham Road and SW 79th Avenue are proposed.These improvements will conform to the approved street plan. 2. Where the location of a street is not shown in an approved street plan, the arrangement of streets in a development shall either: • a. Provide for the continuation or appropriate projection of existing streets in the surrounding areas,or b. Conform to a plan adopted by the Commission, if it is impractical to conform to existing street patterns because of particular topographical or other existing conditions of the land. Such a plan shall be based on the type of land use to be served, the volume of traffic, the capacity of adjoining streets and the need for public convenience and safety. Response: No new streets or street relocations are proposed. This criterion does not apply. E. Minimum rights-of-way and street widths. Unless otherwise indicated on an approved street plan, or as needed to continue an existing improved street, street right-of-way and roadway widths shall not be less than the minimum width described below. Where a range is indicated, the width shall be determined by the decision-making authority based upon anticipated average daily traffic (ADT) on the new street segment. (The City Council may adopt by resolution, design standards for street construction and other public improvements. The design standards will provide guidance for determining improvement requirements within the specified ranges.)These are presented in Table 18.810.1. 1. The decision-making body shall make its decision about desired right-of-way width and pavement width of the various street types within the subdivision or development after consideration of the following: a. The type of road as set forth in the Comprehensive Plan Transportation Chapter - Functional Street Classification; b. Anticipated traffic generation; • Durham Elementary Access 50 WRG Design,Inc. City of Tigard—Major Modification Review November 2007 • • c. On-street parking needs; d. Sidewalk and bikeway requirements; e. Requirements for placement of utilities; f. Street lighting; g. Drainage and slope impacts; h. Street tree location; i. Planting and landscape areas; j. Safety and comfort for motorists,bicyclists, and pedestrians; k. Access needs for emergency vehicles. Response: The minimum right-of-way prescribed by Table 18.810.1 for SW Durham Road is 80 feet. A total of 45 feet of right of way is already provided. No additional dedication of right-of-way is necessary. F. Future street plan and extension of streets. Response: No future street plans or extension are proposed.This criterion does not apply. G. Street spacing and access management.Refer to 18.705.030.H. Response: Please refer to section 18.705.030.H above. H. Street alignment and connections. • 1. Full street connections with spacing of no more than 530 feet between connections is required except where prevented by barriers such as topography, railroads, freeways, pre-existing developments, lease provisions, easements, covenants or other restrictions existing prior to May 1, 1995 which preclude street connections. A full street connection may also be exempted due to a regulated water feature if regulations would not permit construction. 2. All local , neighborhood routes and collector streets which abut a development site shall be extended within the site to provide through circulation when not precluded by environmental or topographical constraints, existing development patterns or strict adherence to other standards in this code. A street connection or extension is considered precluded when it is not possible to redesign or reconfigure the street pattern to provide required extensions. Land is considered topographically constrained if the slope is greater than 15% for a distance of 250 feet or more. In the case of environmental or topographical constraints, the mere presence of a constraint is not sufficient to show that a street connection is not possible. The applicant must show why the constraint precludes some reasonable street connection. 3. Proposed street or street extensions shall be located to provide direct access to existing or planned transit stops, commercial services, and other neighborhood facilities, such as schools, shopping areas and parks. 4. All developments should provide an internal network of connecting streets that provide short, direct travel routes and minimize travel distances within the development. Response: The proposed access drive will connect to the signalized intersection of SW Durham • Road and SW 79th Avenue. Please refer to the development plan set in Exhibit A. Durham Elementary Access 51 WRG Design,Inc. City of Tigard—Major Modification Review November 2007 • I. Intersection angles. Streets shall be laid out so as to intersect at an angle as near to a right • angle as practicable, except where topography requires a lesser angle, but in no case shall the angle be less than 75o unless there is special intersection design,and: 1. Streets shall have at least 25 feet of tangent adjacent to the right-of-way intersection unless topography requires a lesser distance; Response: Due to the proximity of the existing commercial building, it is impossible to achieve a 25' tangent section and maintain a 125' centerline radius on the private access drive. Please refer to the development plan set for specific design features. 2. Intersections which are not at right angles shall have a minimum corner radius of 20 feet along the right-of-way lines of the acute angle; and Response: The intersection angle between Durham Road and the Private Access Drive is 90 degrees. This criterion has been met. 3. Right-of-way lines at intersection with arterial streets shall have a corner radius of not less than 20 feet. • Response: No right-of-way dedications are necessary to construct the private access drive, therefore this criterion does not apply. J. Existing rights-of-way. Whenever existing rights-of-way adjacent to or within a tract are of less than standard width, additional rights-of-way shall be provided at the time of subdivision or development. Response: The additional dedication of right-of-way is not necessary. The total right-of-way width of SW Durham Road is 80 feet. 411 K. Partial street improvements. Partial street improvements resulting in a pavement width of less than 20 feet; while generally not acceptable, may be approved where essential to reasonable development when in conformity with the other requirements of these regulations, and when it will be practical to require the improvement of the other half when the adjoining property developed. Response: The type of partial street improvement described above is not proposed. The improvements proposed include the construction of a right turn lane adjacent to the site at the intersection of SW Durham Road and SW 79th Avenue, the relocation of the existing sidewalk, and associated relocation of signs, lights, and signals. This criterion does not apply. L. Cul-de-sacs. A cul-de-sac... Response: A cul-de-sac is not proposed.This criterion does not apply. M. Street names. No street name... Response: All adjacent streets already have names.This criterion does not apply. N. Grades and curves. Response: No grade or curve radii changes are proposed for SW Durham Road. This criterion does not apply. 0. Curbs, curb cuts, ramps, and driveway approaches. Concrete curbs, curb cuts, wheelchair, bicycle ramps and driveway approaches shall be constructed in accordance with standards specified in this chapter and Section 15.04.080; and: • 1. Concrete curbs and driveway approaches are required; except Durham Elementary Access 52 WRG Design,Inc. City of Tigard—Major Modification Review November 2007 • • • 2. Where no sidewalk is planned, an asphalt approach may be constructed with City Engineer approval; and 3. Asphalt and concrete driveway approaches to the property line shall be built to City configuration standards. Response: All concrete curbs, curb cuts, wheelchair, bicycle ramps and driveway approaches will be constructed in accordance with standards specified in this chapter and Section 15.04.080. Please refer to the development plan set in Exhibit A for more details regarding compliance with the above standards. P. Streets adjacent to railroad right-of-way.... Response: No street near the site is adjacent to railroad right-of-way. This criterion does not apply. Q. Access to arterials and collectors. Where a development abuts or is traversed by an existing or proposed arterial or collector street, the development design shall provide adequate protection for residential properties and shall separate residential access ... Response: No residential property or residential access is proposed or affected by this proposal. This criterion does not apply. R. Alleys, public or private... Response: Alleys are not proposed.This criterion does not apply. S. Survey monuments. Upon completion of a street improvement and prior to acceptance by the City, it shall be the responsibility of the developer's registered professional land surveyor to provide certification to the City that all boundary and interior monuments shall II/ be reestablished and protected. Response: The Applicant understands this criterion and will ensure a registered professional land surveyor will provide certification, upon completion of a street improvement and prior to acceptance by the City, to the City that all boundary and interior monuments shall be reestablished and protected. T. Private streets... Response: No private streets are proposed.This criterion is not applicable. U. Railroad crossings... Response: No railroad crossing exists nor is a railroad crossing proposed. This criterion is not applicable. • V. Street signs. The City shall install all street signs, relative to traffic control and street names, as specified by the City Engineer for any development. The cost of signs shall be the responsibility of the developer. Response: The Applicant understands that the City shall install all street signs, relative to traffic control and street names, as specified by the City Engineer for any development, and that the cost of signs shall be the responsibility of the developer. W. Mailboxes.Joint mailbox facilities shall be provided in all residential developments... Response: No residential development already exists or is proposed. This criterion does not apply. X. Traffic signals. The location of traffic signals shall be noted on approved street plans. • Where a proposed street intersection will result in an immediate need for a traffic signal, a signal meeting approved specifications shall be installed. The cost shall be included as a condition of development. Durham Elementary Access 53 WRG Design,Inc. City of Tigard—Major Modification Review November 2007 • • Response: No new traffic signals are proposed. A right turn lane and associated intersection • improvements at SW Durham Road and SW 79th Avenue is proposed. The relocation of the existing traffic signal is proposed. These improvements will meet the approved specifications. Y. Street light standards. Street lights shall be installed in accordance with regulations adopted by the City's direction. Response: No new street lights are proposed. A right turn lane and associated intersection improvements at SW Durham Road and SW 79th Avenue is proposed. The relocation of the existing street lights is proposed. These improvements will be in accordance with regulations adopted by the City's direction. Z. Street name signs. Street name signs shall be installed at all street intersections. Stop signs and other signs may be required. Response: No new street name signs are warranted. All streets and signs already exist adjacent to the site. The access drive will not require a street name sign, since it will be a private driveway. This criterion does not apply. AA. Street cross-sections. The final lift of asphalt concrete pavement shall be placed on all new constructed public roadways prior to final City acceptance of the roadway and within one year of the conditional acceptance of the roadway unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. The final lift shall also be placed no later than when 90% of the structures in the new development are completed or three years from the commencement of initial construction of the development,whichever is less. 1. Sub-base and leveling course shall be of select crushed rock; • 2. Surface material shall be of Class C or B asphaltic concrete; 3. The final lift shall be placed on all new construction roadways prior to City final acceptance of the roadway; however, not before 90% of the structures in the new development are completed unless three years have elapsed since initiation of construction in the development; 4. The final lift shall be Class C asphaltic concrete as defined by A.P.W.A. standard specifications; and 5. No lift shall be less than 1-1/2 inches in thickness. Response: All applicable standards listed above will be adhered to. Please refer to the typical sections in Exhibit A. AB. Traffic calming. When, in the opinion of the City Engineer, the proposed development will create a negative traffic condition on existing neighborhood streets, such as excessive speeding, the developer may be required to provide traffic calming measures. These measures may be required within the development and/or offsite as deemed appropriate. As an alternative, the developer may be required to deposit funds with the City to help pay for traffic calming measures that become necessary once the development is occupied and the City Engineer determines that the additional traffic from the development has triggered the need for traffic calming measures. The City Engineer will determine the amount of funds required, and will collect said funds from the developer prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, or in the case of subdivision, prior to the approval of the final plat.The funds will be held by the City for a period of five (5) years from the date of issuance of certificate of occupancy, or in the case of a subdivision, the date of final plat approval. Any funds not • used by the City within the five-year time period will be refunded to the developer. Durham Elementary Access 54 WRG Design,Inc. City of Tigard—Major Modification Review November 2007 • • • Response: No traffic calming measures are necessary adjacent to the site. All roadways and intersections adjacent to the site will operate at levels of service that are satisfactory. The roadway adjacent to the site (SW Durham Road) is classified as an Arterial. This criterion has been met. AC. Traffic study. 1. A traffic study shall be required for all new or expanded uses or developments under any of the following circumstances: a. when they generate a 10% or greater increase in existing traffic to high collision intersections identified by Washington County. b. Trip generations from development onto the City street at the point of access and the existing ADT fall within the following ranges: Existing ADT ADT to be added by development 0-3,000 vpd 2,000 vpd 3,001-6,000 vpd 1,000vpd • >6,000 vpd 500 vpd or more c. If any of the following issues become evident to the City engineer: (1) High traffic volumes on the adjacent roadway that may affect movement into or out of the site (2) Lack of existing left-turn lanes onto the adjacent roadway at the proposed • access drive(s) (3) Inadequate horizontal or vertical sight distance at access points (4) The proximity of the proposed access to other existing drives or intersections is a potential hazard (5) The proposal requires a conditional use permit or involves a drive-through operation (6) The proposed development may result in excessive traffic volumes on adjacent local streets. Response: No additional vehicle trips will be added due to the proposed improvements. A traffic study is not required. 2. In addition, a traffic study may be required for all new or expanded uses or developments under any of the following circumstances: a. when the site is within 500 feet of an ODOT facility and/or b. trip generation from a development adds 300 or more vehicle trips per day to an ODOT facility and/or c. trip generation from a development adds 50 or more peak hour trips to an ODOT facility. Response: The site is not within 500 feet of an ODOT facility, nor adds 300 or more vehicle trips per day to an ODOT facility, nor adds 50 or more peak hour trips to an ODOT facility. • Additional trips have not been triggered due to the access relocation This criterion does not apply. Durham Elementary Access 55 WRG Design,Inc. City of Tigard—Major Modification Review November 2007 • • 18.810.040 Blocks • A. Block design. The length, width and shape of blocks shall be designed with due regard to providing adequate building sites for the use contemplated, consideration of needs for convenient access, circulation, control and safety of street traffic and recognition of limitations and opportunities of topography. Response: No block is proposed as part of this development. The site is already developed. The relocation of the access will not affect block design in any way. This criterion is not applicable. B. Sizes. 1. The perimeter of blocks formed by streets shall not exceed 2,000 feet measured along the centerline of the streets except: a. Where street location is precluded by natural topography, wetlands or other bodies of water,or pre-existing development; or b. For blocks adjacent to arterial streets, limited access highways, collectors or railroads. c. For non-residential blocks in which internal public circulation provides equivalent access. Response: No block is proposed as part of this development. The site is already developed. The relocation of the access will not affect block design in any way. This criterion is not applicable. 2. Bicycle and pedestrian connections on public easements or right-of-ways shall be 111 provided when full street connection is exempted by B.1 above. Spacing between connections shall be no more than 330 feet, except where precluded by environmental or topographical constraints, existing development patterns, or strict adherence to other standards in the code. Response: The School Site is surrounded by properties which do not have bicycle and pedestrian connections available. Existing development patterns preclude connections. No residential developments are adjacent to the site. Fanno creek is located southeast of the site and prevents any connections in that direction. 18.810.050 Easements A. Easements. Easements for sewers, drainage, water mains, electric lines or other public utilities shall be either dedicated or provided for in the deed restrictions, and where a development traversed by a watercourse, or drainageway, there shall be provided a storm water easement or drainage right-of-way conforming substantially with the lines of the watercourse. Response: Easements for sewers, drainage, water mains, electric lines or other public utilities will be either dedicated or provided for in the deed restrictions. B. Utility easements. A property owner proposing a development shall make arrangements with the City, the applicable district and each utility franchise for the provision and dedication of utility easements necessary to provide full services to the development. The City's standard width for public main line utility easements shall be 15 feet unless otherwise specified by the utility company,applicable district,or City Engineer. Response: The Applicant will make arrangements with the City, the applicable district and each 411 utility franchise for the provision and dedication of utility easements necessary to Durham Elementary Access 56 WRG Design,Inc. City of Tigard—Major Modification Review November 2007 • • • provide full services to the development. The applicant understands that the City's standard width for public main line utility easements is 15 feet unless otherwise specified by the utility company,applicable district, or City Engineer. 18.810.060 Lots A. Size and shape. Lot size, width, shape and orientation shall be appropriate for the location of the development and for the type of use contemplated,and: 1. No lot shall contain part of an existing or proposed public right-of-way within its dimensions; 2. The depth of all lots shall not exceed 2-1/2 times the average width, unless the parcel is less than 1-1/2 times the minimum lot size of the applicable zoning district; 3. Depth and width of properties zoned for commercial and industrial purposes shall be adequate to provide for the off-street parking and service facilities required by the type of use proposed. B. 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 (C) applies, or unless the lot is for an attached single- family dwelling unit, in which case the lot frontage shall be at least 15 feet. Response: The lots in question already exist. No lot size or shape adjustments are proposed at this time. D. Lot side lines.The side lines of lots, as far as practicable,shall be at right angles to the street • upon which the lots front. Response: The lots in question already exist. No lot line adjustments or creation of new lots is proposed at this time. E. Large lots. In dividing tracts into large lots or parcels which at some future time are likely to be redivided, the Commission may require that the lots be of such size and shape, and be so divided into building sites, and contain such site restrictions as will provide for the extension and opening of Street Utility Improvement Standards 18.810-18 Code Update: 10/02 streets at intervals which will permit a subsequent division of any tract into lots or parcels of smaller size. The land division shall be denied if the proposed large development lot does not provide for the future division of the lots and future extension of public facilities. Response: The lots in question already exist. No lot line adjustments or creation of new lots is proposed. 18.810.070 Sidewalks A. Sidewalks. All industrial streets and private streets shall have sidewalks meeting City standards along at least one side of the street. All other streets shall have sidewalks meeting City standards along both sides of the street. A development may be approved if an adjoining street has sidewalks on the side adjoining the development, even if no sidewalk exists on the other side of the street Response: A seven foot wide sidewalk is proposed along the right turn lane along SW Durham Road. • B. Requirement of developers Durham Elementary Access 57 WRG Design,Inc. City of Tigard—Major Modification Review November 2007 • • 1. As part of any development proposal, or change in use resulting in an additional 1,000 • vehicle trips or more per day, an applicant shall be required to identify direct, safe (1.25 x the straight line distance) pedestrian routes within 1/2 mile of their site to all transit facilities and Neighborhood Activity Centers (schools, parks, libraries, etc.).In addition, the developer may be required to participate in the removal of any gaps in the pedestrian system off-site if justified by the development. 2. If there is an existing sidewalk, on the same side of the street as the development,within 300 feet of a development site in either direction, the sidewalk shall be extended from the site to meet the existing sidewalk, subject to rough proportionality (even if the sidewalk does not serve a neighborhood activity center). Response: No new vehicle trips are being generated by this proposal. The access relocation will not trigger additional trips to the site. This criterion does not apply. C. Planter strip requirements. A planter strip separation of at least five feet between the curb and the sidewalk shall be required in the design of streets, except where the following conditions exist: there is inadequate right-of-way; the curbside sidewalks already exist on predominant portions of the street; it would conflict with the utilities, there are significant natural features (large trees, water features, etc) that would be destroyed if the sidewalk were located as required, or where there are existing structures in close proximity to the street (15 feet or less)Additional consideration for exempting the planter strip requirement may be given on a case by case basis if a property abuts more than one street frontage. Response: Curbside sidewalks already exist on predominant portions of SW Durham Road therefore the proposed curbside sidewalks match this cross section. F. Application for permit and inspection. If the construction of a sidewalk is not included in a • performance bond of an approved subdivision or the performance bond has lapsed, then every person,firm or corporation desiring to construct sidewalks... Response: The construction of sidewalks is proposed as part of this application. This criterion does not apply. G. Council initiation of construction. In the event one or more of the following situations are found by the Council to exist,the Council may adopt a resolution to initiate construction of a sidewalk... Response: The construction of sidewalks is proposed as part of this application. This criterion does not apply. 18.810.090 Sanitary Sewers A. Sewers required. Sanitary sewers shall be installed to serve each new development and to connect developments to existing mains in accordance with the provisions set forth in Design and Construction Standards for Sanitary and Surface Water Management (as adopted by the Unified Sewerage Agency in 1996 and including any future revisions or amendments) and the adopted policies of the comprehensive plan. Response: Sanitary sewers have already been connected to the site and the buildings on site. All alterations and sanitary sewer construction, if necessary, will be in accordance with the provisions set forth in Design and Construction Standards for Sanitary and Surface Water Management (as adopted by the Unified Sewerage Agency in 1996 and including any future revisions or amendments) and the adopted policies of the comprehensive plan. B. Sewer plan approval. The City Engineer shall approve all sanitary sewer plans and • proposed systems prior to issuance of development permits involving sewer service. Durham Elementary Access 58 WRG Design,Inc. City of Tigard—Major Modification Review November 2007 • • • Response: The Applicant will have any sanitary sewer plans approved by the City Engineer prior to issuance of development permits involving sewer service. C. Over-sizing. Proposed sewer systems shall include consideration of additional development within the area as projected by the Comprehensive Plan. Response: No sewer trunk lines will be part of this proposal. This criterion does not apply. D. Permits denied. Development permits may be restricted by the Commission or Hearings Officer where a deficiency exists in the existing sewer system or portion thereof which cannot be rectified within the development and which if not rectified will result in a threat to public health or safety, surcharging of existing mains, or violations of state or federal standards pertaining to operation of the sewage treatment system. Response: The Applicant understands this criterion. Sanitary sewer service is already available on site and was approved in previous development permits. 18.810.100 Storm Drainage A. General provisions. The Director and City Engineer shall issue a development permit only where adequate provisions for storm water and flood water runoff have been made, and: 1. The storm water drainage system shall be separate and independent of any sanitary sewerage system; 2. Where possible, inlets shall be provided so surface water is not carried across any intersection or allowed to flood any street; and 3. Surface water drainage patterns shall be shown on every development proposal plan. • Response: As seen in Exhibit A,the storm water drainage system is separate and independent of any sanitary sewerage system, and does not convey surface water across any intersection or allowed to flood any street. B. Easements. Where a development is traversed by a watercourse, drainageway, channel or stream, there shall be provided a storm water easement or drainage right-of-way conforming substantially with the lines of such watercourse and such further width as will be adequate for conveyance and maintenance. Response: Fanno Creek is located southeast of the site. The site is not traversed by a watercourse, drainage way, channel or stream.This criterion does not apply. C. Accommodation of upstream drainage. A culvert or other drainage facility shall be large enough to accommodate potential runoff from its entire upstream drainage area, whether inside or outside the development, and: 1. The City Engineer shall approve the necessary size of the facility, based on the provisions of Design and Construction Standards for Sanitary and Surface Water Management (as adopted by the Unified Sewerage Agency in 1996 and including any future revisions or amendments). Response: All accommodations for upstream drainage have already been designed and constructed. The proposed access way will not adversely affect any upstream drainage. D. Effect on downstream drainage. Where it is anticipated by the City Engineer that the additional runoff resulting from the development will overload an existing drainage facility, the Director and Engineer shall withhold approval of the development until provisions have • been made for improvement of the potential condition or until provisions have been made for storage of additional runoff caused by the development in accordance with the Design Durham Elementary Access 59 WRG Design,Inc. City of Tigard—Major Modification Review November 2007 • • and Construction Standards for Sanitary and Surface Water Management (as adopted by • the Unified Sewerage Agency in 1996 and including any future revisions or amendments). Response: The downstream drainage capacity will not be affected. The run-off from the proposed access way will be treated before outfall into Fanno Creek in the southeastern portion of the site. Please refer to the Storm Water Analysis Memo in Exhibit E. 18.810.110 Bikeways and Pedestrian Pathways A. Bikeway extension. 1. As a standard, bike lanes shall be required along all Arterial and Collector routes and where identified on the City's adopted bicycle plan in the Transportation System Plan (TSP). 2. Developments adjoining proposed bikeways identified on the City's adopted pedestrian/bikeway plan shall include provisions for the future extension of such bikeways through the dedication of easements or rights-of-way, provided such dedication is directly related to and roughly proportional to the impact of the development. 3. Any new street improvement project shall include bicycle lanes as required in this document and on the adopted bicycle plan. Response: As seen in the development plan set in Exhibit A, bike lanes are provided along SW Durham Road. B. Cost of construction. Development permits issued for planned unit developments, conditional use permits, subdivisions and other developments which will principally benefit from such bikeways shall be conditioned to include the cost or construction of bikeway • improvements in an amount roughly proportional to the impact of the development. Response: The Applicant understands this criteria. 18.810.120 Utilities A. Underground utilities. All utility lines including, but not limited to those required for electric, communication, lighting and cable television services and related facilities shall be placed underground, except for surface mounted transformers, surface mounted connection boxes and meter cabinets which may be placed above ground, temporary utility service facilities during construction, high capacity electric lines operating at 50,000 volts or above, and: 1. The developer shall make all necessary arrangements with the serving utility to provide the underground services; 2. The City reserves the right to approve location of all surface mounted facilities; 3. All underground utilities,including sanitary sewers and storm drains installed in streets by the developer,shall be constructed prior to the surfacing of the streets; and 4. Stubs for service connections shall be long enough to avoid disturbing the street improvements when service connections are made. Response: All utilities already exist on site. No additional utility connections are proposed to the site. The Applicant will provide a fee in lieu of undergrounding existing overhead utilities. This criterion is met. • Durham Elementary Access 60 WRG Design,Inc. City of Tigard—Major Modification Review November 2007 • • B. Information on development plans. The applicant for a development shall show on the development plan or in the explanatory information, easements for all underground utility facilities, and: 1. Plans showing the location of all underground facilities as described herein shall be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval; and 2. Care shall be taken in all cases to ensure that above ground equipment does not obstruct vision clearance areas for vehicular traffic. Response: As seen in the Development Plan Set, all easements are shown. All utilities already exist on site. No additional utility connections are proposed to the site. The Applicant will provide a fee in lieu of undergrounding existing overhead utilities.This criterion is met. C. Exception to under-grounding requirement... Response: No exceptions are being requested.This criterion is not applicable. D. Fee in-lieu of undergrounding. 1. The City Engineer shall establish utility service areas in the City. All development which occurs within a utility service area shall pay a fee in-lieu of undergrounding for utilities if the development does not provide underground utilities, unless exempted by this code. 2. The City Engineer shall establish the fee by utility service area which shall be determined based upon the estimated cost to underground utilities within each service area. The total estimated cost for undergrounding in a service area shall be allocated on a front-foot basis to each party within the service area. The fee due from any developer • shall be calculated based on a front-foot basis. 3. A developer shall receive a credit against the fee for costs incurred in the undergrounding of existing overhead utilities. The City Engineer shall determine the amount of the credit, after review of cost information submitted by the applicant with the request for credit. 4. The funds collected in each service area shall be used for undergrounding utilities within the City at large. The City Engineer shall prepare and maintain a list of proposed undergrounding projects which may be funded with the fees collected by the City. The list shall indicate the estimated timing and cost of each project. The list shall be submitted to the City Council for their review and approval annually. Response: The Applicant will provide the City with the City Engineer established fee for all undergrounding required on site. 18.810.130 Cash or Bond Required A. Guarantee. All improvements installed by the developer shall be guaranteed as to workmanship and material for a period of one year following acceptance by the City Council. Response: The Applicant understands this criterion. B. Cash deposit or bond. Such guarantee shall be secured by cash deposit or bond in the amount of the value of the improvements as set by the City Engineer. Response: The Applicant understands this criterion. • C. Compliance requirements. The cash or bond shall comply with the terms and conditions of Section 18.430.090. Durham Elementary Access 61 WRG Design,Inc. City of Tigard—Major Modification Review November 2007 • • Response: The Applicant understands this criterion. • 18.810.140 Monuments A. Replacement required. Any monuments that are disturbed before all improvements are completed by the subdivider shall be replaced prior to final acceptance of the improvements. Response: Any monuments that are disturbed before all improvements are completed will be replaced prior to final acceptance of the improvements. 18.810.150 Installation Prerequisite A. Approval required. No public improvements, including sanitary sewers, storm sewers, streets, sidewalks, curbs, lighting or other requirements shall be undertaken except after the plans have been approved by the City,permit fee paid, and permit issued. Response: The Applicant understands that no public improvements, including sanitary sewers, storm sewers, streets, sidewalks, curbs, lighting or other requirements shall be undertaken except after the plans have been approved by the City, permit fee paid, and permit issued. B. Permit fee. The permit fee is required to defray the cost and expenses incurred by the City for construction and other services in connection with the improvement. The permit fee shall be set by Council resolution. Response: The Applicant understands that the permit fee is required to defray the cost and expenses incurred by the City for construction and other services in connection with the improvement and that,the permit fee will be set by Council resolution. 18.810.160 Installation Conformation • A. Conformance required. In addition to other requirements, improvements installed by the developer either as a requirement of these regulations or at his own option, shall conform to the requirements of this chapter and to improvement standards and specifications followed by the City. Response: The Applicant understands that in addition to other requirements, improvements installed by the developer either as a requirement of these regulations or at his own option, shall conform to the requirements of this chapter and to improvement standards and specifications followed by the City. B. Adopted installation standards. The Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction, Oregon Chapter A.P.W.A., and Design and Construction Standards for Sanitary and Surface Water Management (as adopted by the Unified Sewerage Agency in 1996 and including any future revisions or amendments) shall be a part of the City's adopted installation standard(s); other standards may also be required upon recommendation of the City Engineer. Response: The Applicant understands this criterion. 18.810.170 Plan Check A. Submittal requirements. Work shall not begin until construction plans and construction estimates have been submitted and checked for adequacy and approved by the City Engineer in writing. The developer can obtain detailed information about submittal requirements from the City Engineer. Response: The Applicant understands this criterion. Work will not begin until construction plans Durham Elementary Access 62 WRG Design,Inc. City of Tigard—Major Modification Review November 2007 • • • and construction estimates have been submitted and checked for adequacy and approved by the City Engineer in writing. B. Compliance. All such plans shall be prepared in accordance with requirements of the City. Response: All plans will be prepared in accordance with requirements of the City. 18.810.180 Notice to City A. Commencement. Work shall not begin until the City has been notified in advance. B. Resumption. If work is discontinued for any reason, it shall not be resumed until the City is notified. Response: The Applicant will notify the City in advance when the work is about to begin. If work is discontinued for any reason, it will not resume until the City is notified. 18.810.190 City Inspection A. Inspection of improvements. Improvements shall be constructed under the inspection and to the satisfaction of the City.The City may require changes in typical sections and details if unusual conditions arising during construction warrant such changes in the public interest. Response: The Applicant understands this criterion. 18.810.200 Engineer's Certification A. Written certification required. The developer's engineer shall provide written certification of a form provided by the City that all improvements, workmanship and materials are in accord with current and standard engineering and construction practices, and are of high • grade, prior to City acceptance of the subdivision's improvements or any portion thereof for operation and maintenance. Response: The Applicant understands this criterion. CONCLUSION The Applicant is requesting Major Modification Conditional Use Review approval for a new access point and parking area for an existing elementary school. The above narrative and the attached exhibits set forth evidence meeting all applicable criteria and standards set forth in the City of Tigard Development Code. The applicant respectfully requests Major Modification Conditional Use Review approval for the proposed improvements and believes the new access will allow the school to remain an important asset to the community. • Durham Elementary Access 63 \VRG Design,Inc. City of Tigard—Major Modification Review November 2007 • • • • • • - . . t. • . . . . . . .. ccess Impro semens - 0 . g • .. . . • - * # ! I .DURHAM . 1 . . . . . . . .. • • W 0 3i • . • . Tiard, Oregon • . .. . . . . • . . . OLH, . a 1Ross RD. W • 1 �w TAT�i , y ASHFORD PROJECT - :1°v'll a DOc.-.. Y HAMLET. . '�.".. st i ui VICINITY - �"� •AVONST. P 16D BT, i _ I _ — i .— — Q •. • • DURHAM TO :. no ( - \ < SEWAGE • S. .- \\ '�� / • '.� • TIGARD • #f1 , \Ila�� • DURF T 1 f . AFT&' .% :x • z p ..• 0 • • • VICINITY .MAP of - / �. . • NOT TO SCALE moo'. DATUM: ��- - S ELEVATION DATUM: NGVD 1929 -, �B _ yyr' Q BENCHMARK: 2 BRASS DISK -� Y•� LIJ J Z • LOCATION: CL MON BOX DURHAM &8511:1*AVE. - - 8�'�t® . ELEVATION: 179.155 FEET - 0,0400111 D. • CITY OF TIGARD BM#88 R Z L T Q WASHINGTON COUNTY.BM/178 A .i. J I �4 0 � ' < H 1,1(5 UTILITY STATEMENT: 4,_ ; cc = p o THE UNDERGROUND NO UTIESSHOWN HAVE BEEN LOCATED FROM FIELD SURVEY INFORMATION AND EXISTING DRAWINGS. THE . LOCATION MAP ,� - > <SURVEYOR MAKES NO GUARANTEES THAT THE UNDERGROUND M URES SHOWN COMPRISE AU. SUCH UTILITIES IN THE AREA, • OTHER IN SERVICE OR ABANDONED. THE SURVEYOR FURTHER DOES NOT WARRANT THAT THE UNDERGROUND UTILITIES SHOWN O ARE IN THE EXACT LOCATION INDICATED ALTHOUGH HE DOES CERTIFY THAT THEY ARE LOCATED AS ACCURATELY AS SCALE 1T$ ' •• POSSIBLE FROM INFORMATION AVAILABLE. THE SURVEYOR HAS NOT PHYSICALLY LOCATED THE UNDERGROUND UTILITIES SHEET -Ih i y O Q _• UNDERGROUND ACCURACY STATEMENT: . . 'DO COVER UCCO CVE/`R SHEET- : . D4.0 GRADING PLAN DUE TO THE HAZARDOUS NATURE AND APPUCABLE OSHA REQUIREMENTS REGARDING CONFINED SPACES, IT IS WRG POUCY TO • NOT SEND OUR FIELD STAFF INTO UTIUTY MANHOLES TO RETRIEVE DEPTH AND SIZE INFORMATION. THEREFORE, ANY 01.0 EXISTING,CONDITIONS/DEMO PLAN. 05.0 FRANCHISE UNITILY PLAN' • ELEVATION INFORMATION SHOWN HEREON IS SUBJECT TO AN UNCERTAINTY IN ACCURACY OF PLUS OR MINUS 0.2' OR D20. SITE PLAN L10 STREET TREE LANDSCAPE PLAN- GREATER (DEPENDING ON DEPTH, SIZE FLOW, AND CONSTRUCTION OF MANHOLE), PIPE SIZES ARE ALSO SUBJECT TO AN UNCERTAINTY OF SIX INCHES OR MORE (DEPENDING ON DEPTH, SIZE, FLOW, AND CONSTRUCTION OF MANHOLE): IF A HIGHER D2.1 ACCESS PLAN AND PROFILE 120 TREE PROTECTION PLAN OREGON UTILITY A, ACCURACY IS NEEDED, THEN ADDITIONAL TIME, EQUIPMENT, AND PERSONNEL?ALL BE REQUIRED TO GO INTO THE MANHOLE NOTIFICATION CENTER // AND RETRIEVE THIS INFORMATION. D22 . OUTFACE PLAN AND PROFILE 1800.332.2344 //� BASIS OF BEARINGS: D3.0 TYPICAL SECTIONS ..4111111" .° D3.1 TYPICAL SECTIONS et THE BEARING OF SOUTH 88'42'31• EAST ALONG THE CENTERUNE OF SW DURHAM ROAD(COUNTY ROAD g23) AS SHOWN ON ' I8PDLE 16 - RECORD OF SURVEY 28,888 AND 28,194 WAS TAKEN AS THE BASIS OF BEARINGS FOR THIS SURVEY. • . • - _ PROJECT NO: 780870100• DATE 1V20/07 PROJECT TEAM DESIGNED BY . RER • • • DRAWN BY: " RER APPLICANT OWNER LAND USE PLA1+ JCONTACT CM. ENGINEER SURVEYOR LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT GHEG1®Br: A�1 "• NDlstead&Assodatas,Inc.. Tigard Tualatin School District 23,1 • WRG Design, WRG 10121 S.E.Su Design,Inc WRG Design,Inc WRG Design,Inc " - myside Road,Ste.335 6960 SW SandGag Road 54,5 SW Westgate Drive,S<dte,00 5415 SW Westgate Drive,Suite 100 5415 SW Westgate Drive,Suite 100 5415 SVII W . Cladranlas,OR 97015. • • Tigard,Oregon 97223 ' . - ' PUPoand.Oregon 97221 (503)6542338 (503)4$1000 - (503)419-2500 . PoraarW'Oregon 9722, Portland,Oregon 97221 Westgate Nye,Suite,00• (503)6542898 fax (503) 047 (503)4,9 2800 fax (Sat)4,x2500 (503)4,92500 ( azsoo 97221 COVER • (503) -289 Paley - (503)43 Rob 7 ax (503)41 -26 (503)4,9-2600 fax • (503).4,9-2600 fax" - ' Engmarl Contact Tony Roos PE Contact Samantha Blanco,PLS • Contact Brian Land.LA SHEET • • . DD. . • - - • 0 .. eV . DEMOLI11ON NOTE& z g - • El REMOVE CURB, LANDSCAPING AND IRF6GATION _ ill' %.:t .• HEADS. IRRIGATION SPRINKLER HEADS. • • ig 1•. I , : • 0 IRRIGATION VALVES AND ANY OTHER IRRIGATION — SEE SHEET D1.1 FOR I 1 : 1 1%. il • ACCESSORIES LOCATED IN AREAS TO BE DEMING STORM AND DEMOUSIED AND TO BE SALVAGED FOR FUTURE SANITAFer NOTES I Pio •• / USE(FOR OWNER). LANDSCAPING CONTRACTOR • SHALL INCORPORATE THESE ITEMS INTO NEW rx Z s DESIGN AS INDICATED ON LANDSCAPE PLANS. IF 6° : • • 116;11 • I 11 + ' 0 • g COST OF SALVAGING ED:1511HG IRRIGATION ITEMS . am..,..iim...j.■,... P.------......41) •F ss 1 ,„„4LIO.P"-411"11111° a 0 0 I --Y C\ Is HIGHER THAN INSTALLING NEW IRRIGATION•- - —X ---x _______.x _. COIAPONENTS, LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR VALI. -0111 11 I ' • w- - I..„ • 4(4,. . • CD IV Q -• COMPLETE IRRIGATION SCOPE OF WORK AT THE ___. ___ _______________ 616 ii) -1--,-,- -SD- - -- - ia 6-.., .# En LOWEST COST TO OWNER / 5F1/i11/ - • SW DURHAM'RD ar .446_ . 4 e *---., r„.,!....7y 4....., -------_______ CATCH BASIN ,_ lEl SAWCUT 2'OFF EDGE OF ASPHALT a g g TO BE REMOVED / • ----"OH;r CATCHBASIN 4ALsoma- aciarr-tAnir ke a_MIN111,-----,•.• nigalkdailanagaglint-KOr- 1".4'----11411illial.'...- 44 -4‘ --- _7 ______ - _ _ ... pump wmiAND:+mAN:EDHou W is 1 DUSTING C/L-A 20+00 4111111 71 Iffia - --4-- - Mil - "Illaii#11/11, DEMOLITION GENERAL NOTES 0 a '-•214.: v 43), 1 .,• :I/J:444114-"1;:,71,V'e''''''.%B• SIG 1/ , 2 POLE 0 8:1 , ' ,.,w4reiwtaaiammsffwsgemdpmmwiiwusv'Vt'=---..- ..;-':71.-s-;-=--- _ _____,_ _ .,..._____, 23+_4 oo 1. CONTRACTOR SHALL REMOVE ALL TREES(MARKED), SHRUBS, IIMMI■11■11■1 1244.00 ' POLE TO BE,..-• RELOCATED 1.'r . CD All11116111111L11111r4atiritEAMNIM 24'3' ' ' _—__0.. + 1,,, 00 R3 •• TED 25+00 RUBBISH,AND MAN-MADE STRUCTURES INCUIDING, BUT NOT I El --f;[-,-E-wAL. . . 22-B cr SAwcur .1-- , ensim■orAisammik.. 9.1100.‘4-2411".,. UAspMITEDHALITc0,PCAONVEDCRESTEURFSLAAcET.GRWALLSAvELED, VAARULTS,EAs,F0sHOTIEDNSGSO,OR oTHER 45.0'GUTTER , ,_., :„ 01,v•r.....,/1„.-... magw,..4.**,. .di MACHINERY. ETC. WITHIN THE CLEARING UMITS. THE liewS USTED 1----4---- - - 7---- AIREVALSTEITtrelLIISHIEGPOIMPAIFIStg,71E)NCIF"IgIIIINCG°2, CRETE' -,:r.. .' %1;0 c■ II2,0 t•a-evd:0 :0 -:.--7-r:El519Y-r'WWII"'-:).'-' ...,...„.0:1461 ......„. . _ _ ..——z.--.-_-_ ■•••••- — .......■... JO • 0 . . !e A,,,---4: .! ABOVE SHALL BE DISPOSED OF OFF-SITE. IT SHALL BE THE 5.0• • 4_, "IIIPTIPitm- Alleall11111111•11i. \I/ „‘ ,fiV - cl *i'?AlS• iii,CItki-",";••':::-•::'-'-•AL0:',1■3:71_1i .-•`4144;TA 'I! R._ _ ,, • ..ra....,... , ,-101541—....,"656uFag`16*Wki r7-"' TO CONFIRM THE NUMBER OF --,'- ',••;•?.•-•I.-40663..WI 4P',I.•jk../.--,,,, .-e-,..--re :,•-i -- x ......}______,x siRc°NuTRAcmJaRrs.sroREseBE°NREmSigivEuctiY. , , ••--r-:''..-„,-,-tr,w,g1/4,.,,i,.,.„i-r.,Dto,,,.,/,..1.-ii IF:Ai / 6.4' POLE TO BE- - 4.1....I X- All"Ar- ni.,-s,,,z -F-Z-- -t-Aull"a'alor"-r■rr --7:- 2. ALI BURIED STRUCTURES 0.E. TANKS, LEACH LINES. DRAIN TILE, --"" 0., :f••,=-Jr.:-•,=A3...•=0,V.L;t0t-,..'.".,0•gA0,-,,,•",..)=,•,/,/,.• - RELOCATED .Y. -, . ---. . AND PIPES) NOT DESIGNATED TO REMAIN ON THE STE, SHALL.BE , -a =4 •'''4,-'3'..-P-i."'n"-•-'''.-7.*-4"1,'.:;.-ter.. .,, .14 • POLE TO BE -41111,M if_...:.44.-011,7)0,1. A.,,,,,,,,,. ..„1„..,,,•••••,...,,,,,.. „../h1:("4-:••••••_ REMOVED AND THE RESULTING OCCAVATIONS SFIALL BE PROPERLY ■IIIIIIIIIIIIMMINIIIIMII RELOCA"6 SIGNS TO BE BACKFILLED AND COMPACTED PRIOR TO ANY GRADING OR FILLING -.- N■ 't•--;•-•,'_.,..-••:•-•••-' .::,,,', 'I:"A.'E.•••••I illif • / 37171 G 'WV{ t \ .,„-.. 7,....W,4...!,n..;t:....,',1,:',12,-,,, .,,,,,..,.. ....' ,P',.:,:-.1'.:"-j..,`,4,- RELOCATED OPERATIONS. THIS INCLUDES STUMPS AND ROOTBALLS OF TREES I E:,-"ti, 1 ='.:.-.-,,-,., -; ;•;,' •••,4'.044.1,10'.,,r-e,,,,: •'-•=14 '41110 0 N4, /FENCE TO . ' o•,...,,,-,-fa.4.I'LL-.---&:•-„1,14•-•••••=p,•:•-t,,S',0•41.4-,1:6•1"--.0„..,:•:•:-.,'''I rt.•,'.:I-,1.,,,,S TO BE REMOVED FROM THE SITE. 1.-r;:i=;...;i2,-7:f itV,, =0:50 Ø4.i ExTiNc ROW BE REMOVED \ CATCH BASIN TB BE ';:ki //•-s-,771'‘':.-VA.f.•4:-II -IP••••I%-:•-../Arrg-,P1•44..0,t, .ii.„`, -IY,tg0,3;•; "..) •v„-'1,41'4-/.?.:"4=';',,'JI-P-F51,f,"Pj'i."1 :•,,,:-:•'ir.Q6-7.,-,..70T';,.,;,::;...1.-r.,-.4744.4.,.-.A0. .4si 7 REMOVED AND REPLACE „be.'. 0:,^L,1%;erlif>tA' ,..-=`'.e.,ir 4';',1,,,":4,''i:^41731. "Cil5"'+Pr:I.'Al'''''' ='4:.- tf-'0' 3. ALL UNSUITABLE MATERIAL SOIL &VEGETATION) REMOVED DURING W co , .f.w.g.:043,-,..,:-...k.4.,,-4,-1,:rat•ox:•,:g4.1,1,4,,rifv..,,,....q.i.....A.,,.,...„,p1,•x4..,,,,it„, !No i WM-I MANHOLE -I" /A,7:1•,•":-•••••",•'..,;•;.:44p47.7-4,•Wit.1;,•1-"-I-)./.--,'*Istii.r.!„?..,`p":„,-„,-.5:',-,=7::...4•crV THE CLEARING AND GRUBBRiG OPERATIONS SHALL BE REMOVED BY 4";•,/.,•.:AT.':',"••••p.Z•-•,"..I.:-.,.7.6. 1-42•6,•••••,...,•,••'••••,,' ,,•i).:.4-11%.-t"'V.1",..r'-'.,':%M.'2?"'f..iitl "..,.4. • ft'Yf..-,--_/--t1,,P...., .,.....-eigerfar0,1,7,:;'-'3,, -. THE CONTRACTOR AND DISPOSED OF OFF-SITE IN A SUITABLE (/) " / z____ LOCATION APPROVED BY THE ENGINEER AND THE CITY OF Ir. '-‘‘',"`""I'll'2,••',I, '4,1:1::':..4.I/:.:i•/:::-,...--•,,.:"..,•••--or -Az: SOCC ER/ Z EXI NG SW 1 .1.,?...k.e....... ‘,11.111/ ,,?:. t„ • r fr ,,,..Ae.r.f.P.A.:41 ....,Vi.••illt(j'.'l'...■'' .4 I/ GOAL POST Ty T BE RDADVED s----1 If..."•/;I:I.:..r. ',"••••• ••••••'•„..-• -.-: f ,--,43,erdt,, :,,,, - Wei 4;r4Y'tirai,ti it7o•Iv,f,-.;4^.4.Olf,,,,,t,r1 ,.#,4.41 GOAL POST TO '''. '''' ,-,- ,.--r:':-•-;,-.6.4I,ii'l, •.114.---r-,,*1.--..---r,"- • ' LLJ P . c.,,,,,,,,,,244q-..„1,,,,,,---4-0.---:,'"1, IMIT: Pliaii.r.-~4,tit,..F...--.--,f.---4,i.,-,-,'--,-,viT ..i.e.„„.... , BE REMOVED, BE REMOVED ,/ ,,,s.,94...in...,y,.,„..;,• . ,,,z-,,,4•X-ry;Z-477. •17,; :0 ;;.:I.r".:19 4. ENPCIRGIMANNEERD;OWNER SHALL PROVIDE THE CONTRACTOR VATH A RAISE DSCARE : -,-",..:,h"ne.tr, .-. ..7:..! 4=‘.... ,..,"ata. .'4.,-4VV. LOCATION TO PLACE AND COMPACT EXCESS SUITABLE MATERIAL nri DURHAM CENTER =q,:, ,, ,,-,....scpor14...„,*.":1S,-;,1g:7„1,/r1.:N.71'i ,Sip i / 7. :ISLAND TO BE I, -...4-:•-•--,zi-•:.V.,-I •J.;:.E.1'.:4•:•-,57.11.-Ii,”•;,,ig•E'..°1, ,.... .,-.t.,,i-,,,i{,o,,.. ,t.,..•,,,....d h 4irilr,....T....r..I .r..s...,,r,y,.....A.,,,,N..••.ttt..24,,.,,,,,-_,...,..S2 ;t..„5.,:,...,-.1„,,..::,.%,;‘,..i.,;..,„F.yr-,-,_,I=f,,•.7,-,11 THE LOCATION SHALL BE STRIPPED AND REMOVED OF ALL ORGANIC 0 5 00 , .:-)47m5-7,-mffsii1 ,:;v01-0,:k_,-,4 leo i / REMOVED MATERIAL PRIOR TO PLACEMENT OF EXCESS SUITABLE MATERIAL to 0 cc ci ',I\V,r.t.:3..047, , - ,, f t-...I.:A r,it,-,-v :".Vi,,,,,t •Ky-1- ,, - -, Rum 4: ,,e;,,,,..-.-},,r,:„.r.i...4.ye:i, 1..f.t..::;,17,:i.,?:11-0;.;,t."..":"...wv,T,:t4.:1,..i.4.1,;:::::, .:31.1/412'...::;‘,,,::.;1;1%-_:"..i,...11,..;;;;;,; , 5. TREES NOT DESIGNATED TO BE REMOVED SHALL BE PROTECTED AT fl4I •;.e.',X4r."-!;.,,F10.:"""r,,M4-411,••!,..t...va-A;:xl-ev- ,,,9 : "AA i , 1, r-:3...A."V; '72,%."P"'t11, ,It= 1,..F1- -.'41(:-1::-..4*'-';•fV:i'' ALL TIMES. iot.I.,, ,:n' '2'.-Ke--"'7,;,-*Ze ,:tcr.if-,..,•.,10411,,,,,, i 1st;i / / A t-^" .•••etti..V.•e.+T-.4-.3..4.4174...'...."4,e':41.1' '&--.;'e 1 .0 < l'— t0 %!"."Pl..."'4:`•=•'-0,-/1,:474",„3,:2-"".`41:7-1;a."1"4.41"P;',TLvtEFJP-,''.-' : .-. z3Aaciar #: 2S113BA00401 / ISLANDS ',111r-i,":•-"-y1-.••:;.;Ibi',,,E,,,,f1."Zilit.":"I-jV,-• .,..- i•,-'4.1, 41rif-,11_,';-):,..,,,14 , ,s,,,,,,,...7.:4,...,-..--• a•,:::„..A...2.,...,,,,i, N0TEs U) 4:`,.■-.1 „,........,:,!..,,,..•••••.1i1,::".-„es ,;:„....,j,.../....„•••••-,,-;-,t 4 ..,A,',I li411 '. ..,:. ..i. ;larkl Lemm.mumm ...' - '. ..• ' MENni >'' 5 .,..,...,..,.ip,r..1... 1.,,:.6.,.:,?...f,,tr'tdiet,...t, .'.... Z- 4;4.-...,-..-.• 5,,,,„ I ...,.........,..„,..:,.,,,,,,,,,-,.,,..,,,..,..,,,,eregV,;y_fX,,, p ird , RAISED LANDSCAPE '...... df P''''''''''''' 1 "'"" ' THE UNDERGROUND UTIUTIES SHOWN HAVE BEEN LOCATED FROM FIELD SURVEY MI •.1i,"--. .4.1,-.s',---;.:1 'r '',;tg et-ette,..t.ei,, ..,1.,-,t4,47,...-:-.4,,,,.*-0,,,-;2?-..7..1'47,"?..1#;.1-7107,''.%I /Or■I i '-:••.;',nr•;•',41-4,..V..,,s,i.;-*,-gcfer1F}Y4'i;-. .;; 5-1, gal Z / ISLVD-TO,BE •• .in . '4,..,....tA,..,-; INFORMATION AND FIELD UNE LOCATES THE SURVEYOR MAKES NO GUARANTEE THAT Z ec ...ili4w.F1.4,- --,,,,.„..„•,..-,,..,-„,••,;. •.,•&,,,• -;. 4 -4.,.-k-fafri,.------c,r4.:. ',4,-,4 ,, REMOVIEEL ', .•,II",_1-4-1•61.:•_-...;•-.1„..-17; PROTECT CURB THE UNDERGROUND UTUTIES SHOWN COMPRISE ALL SUCH UTIUTIES IN THE AREA, 4,.,,t. ,z4:--5.4 -1:,-110=-7•'-„, F•:,,-:,-fat-,....fr--fr.., 5.• , EMERGENCY 7S / , s"- 111 i 1,'''31V.iF','..V“/-,''r AND WALL 17,A,Wi,;:, .Y4.,,;:iir.:;14;11;cillter.r5,-.7144,20,r,,,%:„IzAg.,;.,-t-',;,•r:t?.,`:-k,ii./oil .I .-' it,44,,rf. '...' -'''.-111,1,,.....§..,;,;," v TAX LOT #: 2S113BA00200 EITHER IN SERVICE OR ABANDONED. THE SURVEYOR FURTHER DOES NOT WARRANT 00•,_„?..„4,,„,,,:„..r rotAre:-,Q.,,••.'.-11,:,,,,,,qc...•,,,,::-3,,,,r.,,,-P,',,,3 / 1 ,1 ;.,.-. ,:11,,,,„,:c. , THAT THE UNDERGROUND UTIUTIES SHOWN ARE IN THE EXACT LOCATION INDICATED o - ... ,.....,4".,,Pi. ,42-,..• -1,...,.44 ,,A:a-, P7, --41:-....--,i:r*„....v.44„1,, I ,-w, F.54:1,1 ,--- , , ,,,, „11.11::..f.,•-•-e.,;..,-,-;,,,,• tkolatf.:, *0:r..-1.4,4a6t.t6SVIE".,.Rdll,•'.••••,•••••14:--0--'4V,V0-61:6Ct, ' ' ,,e4111 I , . •=4.,_./...0174 -.00-7,....:,...•,;=•=•.40'..4 ,,,,.. . ALTHOUGH HE DOES CERTIFY THAT THEY ARE LOCATED AS ACCURATELY AS POSSIBLE . r-,,..;,74:/;-44=1,4,5,131;:fiAssr. / / / f.4, ''...' / • FROM INFORMATION AVAILABLE THE SURVEYOR HAS NOT PHYSICALLY LOCATED THE ;:„/S:'"Itr,...,'":*:+7',110,6-Z.--4. / / /I We)/1 7-- r, 1::-.{,-6:,-.,,,,,=.!i-.;:4-I: UNDERGROUND UTIUTIES. (0 Z I ' •4,•,:i.i:4.0:-'Vr&T.;.-4M4 / / I 6,q Z LLJ 0 • 110 ii,•,, ,,,,,,,,,,,.„• . I ...,„?...,.A.,/:..,. .-4,,,,0.,:z f,/ / .1jrat ' ii ,'N -,1fr.... -'''.!.• ,- -.4t-,k,f,.1.'rtil : EXSITING ' 1,,,,,,,:re,,,,,,,v,,C111 -, I ko,,..11 TAX LOT #: S113BA00500 / EXISTING UNDERGROUND UTILITIES SHOWN FOR BOLLARDS T4 /1--1, e / tive- 1 , REFERENCE ONLY. CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY BE REMOVED----' \ I I ; / regi ! c\----- ..!: ::: - :'...t.::.:3• "2::51.: BUILDING LOCATION AND ELEVATION PRIOR TO COMMENCING o 2 u) , , , % I , ..0,70 ! / WORK NOTIFY ENGINEER IF CONFLICT EXISTS. 1-- Lu Z TAX LOT #: 2S113B000300 1 I ' 1 .1I4P;t ' C : LEGEND /I _1 F-- , , ! I / Wil". / , „ . V 01'.. (V)- ---i, - TREE REMOVAL PLAY GROUND 1 Ael I i ( 6,-o, i / , EXISTI/G FENCE 4- i e-7..-r-• A4--;,.1-1.-: ., ..., •%■ , -al•-•- s : iro• , TO BE ..;•:-,II:.••• .......,,,,,, , Z LU EQUIPMENT 1 4N = i Z / /PROTECTED 164:1-54C,e.:. :8'1".':.rir Liff; at; - TREE PROTECTION 0 , < EXISTING BENCH TO 1 SPRINKLER / / -4;•,..•, •/•••••6I.;,,,,--'.- •g, , .5-m;,z,''' ' -----220----- - EXISTING V CONTOUR r.P., BE RELOCATED HEAD ,.- .4,-,,,.„?•-•:1`,,,-.4.'"Wq•I 0 2 D I , OS(/1151v / 7 . . . .... •. .• i I I Ade, ,, r EXISTING BENCH TO EASTING FIRE" I ' I l''''''..". / ,.._ ., • • ./•- • •, -...-1.,-.....-:., :r.-C• "-J• ----221-------- - EXISTING 1' CONTOUR w itt , BE RELOCATED HYDRANT TO I I I I 6 :.a,:t• , , Ek RELOCATED I 'Cr ;ft.op ...•••-......... RAISECKUNDSCAPE 0 i A,r,- - • ' . _ ., 1 wow / EXISTING .0 !..E.:%',17,;',1•5 4'"..-'',,,-• Sige,, Ire t- , )„, \r‘lv462. A'4- 11,*4 '-' I 1 -..e.cc. i PLAYGROUND -155...... 15k...AND I a ° vr, - "-IA: _.,,_ 21,r,,t._ I 7 i i ,),„/ 1.-)tv . .. 5i, ,;..,,n,-.-4- . ----- ., 4- \■,,.,'=K.:=7.: Z--1141:1-0 STORM DRAINAGE TABLE: SANITARY SEWER TABLE: 41,. --....;<vp., ------■•• . , ,,-. ,,...4 i. fr. CC Ci ,.. 4...v..-40., .:.:-Al ;-,0::4--,.c.- --- . I • , i,'PA 14..1 4i \ \ ? ' vii.:&i,,4. W ArT,z, SANITARY itQl.L35-4,ellgitit-i. 1---qt: ,747,1 )( 0,151 /s : • , L ,,,o.....-,N-,4,-,3-„. ,zal.r(-,. 0 STORM MANHOLE _„...- % . 4 34.,r YAT-:-•,-.• ',1/4:t4t=.1:4 0 STORM CURB INLET a) SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE (ID 5 SEWER MANHOLE U) 6" < CC ' ;' •. F.I44.&.: Ii•--40,2144-01a•gglir"4•A•;'...;ii:;•:/;:l it E03 RIM=160.35' RIM-162.00' '-■ '. •NI/Aink.1-447,./Fa-Wari• 01_,,,Rik'rg2./6•FI : 7 ■9.,,e, r- - -.--....1.41,:.:-•.-,---,E.,-.4,w, \1 ....,Ak:9„2,,.,,„..:-..„,,,I., ....„... • 12' CONC(N)=157.51' 8' PVC N =152.99' L...1 Fj- .v 1 _• _ SUMP...152.51 12" CONC(E)-157.33' 10" PVC (E)..152.95' 8"PVC(N) PBBPBSED .- ''•'•V--'‘'"a•fl''I.':',"'IV,•--,,r'' ': .:"F•is*P.srflAIJI, I • ..0....9. .1"'W` . *4' ---- ---- -elk / \'t.. I. --.,"°''.11.:Ifeili';,.!1K71:!,..,"?..4:15,-11:7-7!"!..•;•!,!!!!..'...I : 0 SWTOURLDM NM:HDOLEIP SAWCUT '', -11,N2k4r;,-4:4-1IrPurit".';''-_,...•.;;V:11,7,1 0, I Imli. I 1 --- 12' CONC(W)=157.43' CENTERUNE CHANNEL=155.99' , al SANITARY SEVER MANHOLE ... ••-:i.",'•1•:,0-, •,r- .3;,...lt, ,,.''fa•-.1 --E91--------------- .. Nv.i.,-..r.44.,..•..."•-",•• T. it ''2.c.„-Vel- ^ • qp•-.14 1 A 11,4 ,,, .., : '• „,. y'''''../- . ..„ :„.„....,t........., . - RIM=159.98 12"CONC 57.63' El 11%.,,,,...-.4./.43-,e,..4* ;.,--4,. -. -3,,,-., • • ,,,,,,, ; ‘ ,irr„,„ 1 t .1/...„ # , 1, ill' e • • / 0 ..,/ RAISED LAND •- .. i 4•Ar i,"- i-?1+,',5"- i•rl''''314 12' PVC(Vsf) 156.03' RIM•6159.77' (ED SANITARY MANHOLE IM■NNIO ,';F:FAr•*ift4I:,"IgfeA"VP40,-.4t• \ 104,-/4 %, W. / _ IS .,li , „„, p• 10' PVC(NVI)=151.40' RIM••158.74' . .,...•-•.k,r,V-0.V,---..i.c.04:4...,±Nc...‘,........:it', 43; , _ la si , -- / 0 - t', ,....-4,--1,'!,0.1,._,,ii-- ...--,...,- ,I. 1 1 • •t% -1-e -r- sirt2TmclicoNim6occ.A3icm.N)::5874Ni, 10. PVC (E)=.151.57' 8"PVC(W) S , , 41/1■••402 Ai e I ',■ /ft .,......?-w rir,v.,s414,,,,,If -- !II!/ .17...%„,..,:tli_ ----,..,j55,.q.,;;;;rvax 0 sl2TORP:Ccu(S:11N5LET5.93. GI Er PVC (E) ' il'i'''''' ''. 1.74:•';:',•••••?,....Cp.•7••- ''•,:. ---- il.k. I (3) SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE '. 'F.•I'X'.4•1:112,;;T".1,-,p--.z .4.P_..45.,titi trl 1 ,;FA , _ to z :,.../..c„..., iii). 11•40.1' 12" PVC(N)=155.91' RIM=158.41' 8- PVC (N). ..: 41•31,7W".1PV, WriUr.,I.T41.11-I,042•4V : r,_..„6. ; SUMPFULL OF DEBRIS CENTERUNE CliANNEL.150.87' •. .',.;,..";0,,,,,t.t;'•V;;.:1,13,44.41-Vt.1 I, 1 I EI 10A01 I _-- / k..7 STORM CURB INLET Er PVC 21' \Irr,,,V.,„4./.-6;..-4.'..16-te.'-'4•••-•,*••••••■•4,-,•,-- I 1 I Ill'Orq 1 Z -I- - 0 STORM CURB INLET RIM=160.83' 8' PVC (5).150.16' a, SANITARY MANHOLE ..„ , ,,,,,,-;..-;,...-.• .41 1 ; I ; zo.., / •„ / 1-' '''' 10' PVC(SW)••150.36' --.I •• :.•••••,,,..LtiK•t1.&,• •,,t-.---',Ic•• •-•-,E,04 '• ' WV' , .,...tawf.„.. 14/ . 12" CONC(N)=156.93' RIM■157.50' 91...... ' ' ) 1.-, • / i ; ; t ,' -,... : - __ _____________ FtIM=155.98 .._____ . F-g•- r.,1-v_.1.--1'..Je•46•••=cr.,,,••••,&i.'•-r/Iter- '',,a1-•:)( ( 1 ige-te i ------ ------------ - -154"-- 1 1 'CI 12- CONC 6.0-156.138' .,• • ' % , SI ---------- 15' CONC(W)•=152.16' • ED SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE if' 1 , 1. I _■44,44 , _._._----------------r.iv-153------ )1 1 r CONC(0=158.75' 8"PVC(W) ____ .. 1: 15" CONC(0=152.14' RIM-6158.41' ..,' . • I •lo-ario , P 1 \ I I'...:TA• 1 i f / ,s,, 7-- I a- PVC(S)6•150.78' CENTERLINE CHANNEL 151.35 Ni i 6 I"Vol 1 . , i I '-- , 8"PVC(N)=150.68' : • I 0 STRIMORIM5aCA74TCH, BASIN I ..-6.• •,' , ' ss, //7-- A EXISTING DURHAM ID I •-• 3 , , ! : te, II ‘ ! i Je / -k. . j ; : 'Kr PVC (S)=156.56' =60■61 ELEMENTARY Ae , .,.,....r I .r 11 "--- • J . F1 I I rep,4 I 0 . • I 12 CONC(N).-155.44' I zr.-40 N4. / , ET I : , . • -Ii' I I 1 W.° -1 - • il 1 1 II I il I 1 ' 7 15" CONC(V0•155.39. WHO. .T6=11 z'' ••■,..r. 4,,,,.., % et EXLSTING WATER 1 • 1 1 ' i , I '-' - I III Ef•IPA Nr• otAurr SWALE I ./ • / ' I 15* CONC(E).155.27• DA re . 0 ......, ) ,,,, REMOVE TREES AND/ I 0iyi = • 1( . OF_SIGNED BY: RER • FILL IN DEPRESSION 1 I 1 II 7'4 i ' • . •.., . t•>.;■..-- l'ii4 .'; I r - i I - I I (1 / -11 SCALE- 1....70. DRAM BY: . RER. CHECIOBD BY: •AMR -■0•- ! x 1 UTILITY OREGON ■INImmEmoml r 1 • bl .- I .1 1 NOTIFICATION CENTER .. I .TO • . v,•:::■. I I 1 - 1 !: [1 I ''' : ' I-800432.2344 EXISTING I - -',.7.,1.j T - - • • i x • ek • le otli - • - 1 ...., i 1 e . CONDITIONS . ... - •I .......,;:•- 1 i I Ili i ki A I .8 OIE 1 . i"N / • ... I 1 I, I .7 . . DZO. • . . . . • _.,_, a1.3 { - ROW LINE _x- X--X -----��. X _ • _ _. __ ,:, _• - -- �, a �1 Z Aro.- i : a MINIMUM 350' PROPOSED _ SIGHT DISTANCE STRIPING 35.0. E)OSN-7G 2 i- STA 24+50 ROW LINE vi. ..:. STR 1+00 : i I 1'. •20+00 21+00 4.'r• = 24+00 25+00 0 • ' -- ------. I - - -- -I . . BE CLOSED 8 24.0' 820.0' W DURHAM RD 5"- 45.0'..' 38.0' 22-v ® sAwctiT •:! -.o ss _ o 4 . -• y.. :. .:: 17-.;'' .-;•.. �� ��►. R2 7.0' . � �I a .�r . ¢ r • ¢ I-- --�4�13°r l�a 71'7:T•.::°Q E 0 PO c -• __±- ,:r: 2.08 : ����� (�y i t ! i- :L• - ��i� � �+( ►;•V© h. . - I TO BE �'�N�J,�o���..._.e.� . - /1 .-1 rirl14 r(ri mil t4 .� S .� - �i. RELOCATED SIGNAL + 7 :0 vi 4i.,� NEW NEW oCO. 1 ' ��� SlGNA1 - R35.0 r. pOSTINCj X: • •. PROPOSED ;s21;51743.1. i' i. ROW ' ij R3:0' �/•1 `•,'' 'i SAWCUT �•• ROW 35' SIGHT:sNAN �• i i r•\- - 83.8- SAWCUT' ' R - TRIANGLE , , I I 0:0� ; . h�1 R25.0. _ 87 I1 / R15.O 1 �y R739.0' �'.� • 11 .76' ���, �. R5.0'. O --I-WI { 4�/ R5.0' NEW CURS 0 0 • 0 . 1..,..-A,4 1 V fr V=.:.-I ���' ItI 16.0' St' R5.0 - - i SAWCUT / 1:,�.. 3?. ►.• I R15.0' BO �' SAWCUT 4214'---1 I / - r /�I R30.0' W i.0 40 EXISTING r�17.3 32.0' I 11 I I O CONCRETE'PATH • .. p'Z6 'F- 1 - I 10.5' R45.0' r r i Wei i �6i Ig CONNECT TO p.„-41 �J1° Z J.. O MEN- Il��� 11 5X 6 • R5.0 49 ��: R45.tY / E)OSTING FENCE i� . w U ' � �i� ":rtes' Y- I I1 i 18. ' R3.0' R3.0' �t6�V � + ; /1 / �1 RIO' R3.0' R3.0' R5.0' ' 18.0. ° R45.0 ' ' I Z • i i .s.0' R3.0' . PARKING (19) 28A' 'r I11' L++ i�""/ ' 6' CHIW t . • 1 R3.0' R4.5' ��• E PROTECTION 0 R3.0' �� 9A � ^ .a 40.0' .�a FENCE I { L 1 7 AN r' D r"26,6. R5.0 �': .7 28 0 t i . ■ g . .1'�. ,+ 510' e„ i� , `• �T�T; 6f00'g�r%1� PLAYGROUND CONSTRUCTED ►i 6 - I!'�QIWIIyY01� R73.0' �1 'O" 4,-..0-.� 40.0' UNDER PERMIT ' ` ](,, ' 40.r � 6.0' MMD2007-00019 I Ng. {q7,-) L 1 ��" MAZE GATE j \\\ L W x ` '.',. ' g1��62 .5.0' �r- �°„- . 2 0 \ .may u CONCRETE "jJ 5 M1 cc A„.. 845.0' . i/dD `P�6 C. �T:A osp: MAZE GATE PATH il,� Q O x 8{ r ADA RAMP �� �Jr�' ►l I '•`� 1 1 LJ.CC - /5 o• MAZE GATE / .%1! �► 1•. r 1 1 GP W < C SAWCUT �ii.. •t 1 \ ,rte, v _ Lr►' i 20.0' . . r I - -e- - �_- - .i•,{ DRIVEWAY. 141 s n C GATE �1�,1 j 1 II PROPOSm 1// /I FIRE II, / + • a ATER Q.,-•• HYDRANT .J -•CITY OF.TtGARD 'a'` . to. i I, �. MMD2007-00019 I 20.0 �; X GATE r 1 ���.. . I -•a.' COSTING x [! SOCCER FIELD x SW, I.JO NNa rr . DATE I x II • A . !. 1 SCALE.J Y30' CFtEC14� " 30 5.• 1 75 .. . .. .. SITE PLAN • • • X : D20• • � O •?�_;.. // III. 5DMH- ---,CATCH�\ HOLE \ // - =!� // Imo,.....4' SDCB-¢1A \ Y • O� G X % / PROPOSED STORM /.Ii Iti �- CONSTRUCTION NOTES Z . ''i / ` ':%/ i l /`-I,\ ��. �%II. -a;c?: �.I/4L��t; /�g I% CATCH IN 0 $• 1-•i k SDMH-81 .9.4.,,- e0t% SDCB-C2A I/``' O HOLE O • ' �` ^ STA 5+6289, 30.6' RT 116111161■ '' •7\.� �IIOW •,�-• (). „,..1:0 CONSTRUCT CG-48 MH i ?� �t:�ij SDAD-848 a1. \ �qy `O, _ 4.0 LF - 'Z'� �M -B '.,j /' �� \ A00 O4 $DMH B4 - • D SO (CG48 M �I �t ' :. 22 0 LF - j. \ \ STA 3+28 91. 18.0 LT 8+00 ��� �� ./ - SDCB-83 © ���I 0 15' PVC SD S\SS CONSTRUCT CC-48 MH - • •• ' ri `�� \ RIM: 160.71 �� _© 'I SOCB-134A jç'''s �i \ IE OUT: 12" PVC(N)=153.98 • •■ �� . •� 27.6 LF - i' i O`l„\'/ y © SDCB B3A © • _ �V _ RIM: 159.34 • '�.� 7+00 �ti�� _ / 12' PVC SD\ • - _ SDCB-82A ��;� w xCP / O` IE OUT: 12' PVC.(N)=153J2 2 43.3 LF 12" PVC SD '... .".:1 _ I. .` . 8+00 A. 38.y. ..'... : ••.. `` \ oCp �` O7 SDCB B4A ;Ali, Is, • 38.0 LF- " .. y_ %t I .1-- •• 0 / - RIM: 154.87 (Y� ,./ 5+00 PVC 4+00 12" PVC SD 3+00, o 80:7 LF - v �� IE IN: 151.29 �� .• I 'Y ! 12. PVC SD �% , -I - f- - - I - } CE MAIN • IE OUT: 12" PVC(S)=151.09 N • �� 8. ! :.- '/ ` I 097A LF - $ 'OR O 9. \\\ © SDAD Bae w \ ' AR \ __. �I�� T • ` ' �" RIM: 155.30 ' `eal�I� � -1 X x - x X - X X- X I• IE OUT: 12" PVC S 151.57 I` �� ®e ianii/ yy 77�� • \ U ' \ O 'r���ie-'°'�� .�� X'/ �7iI O9 .SDCB C1A. 0, / SDCB �S - SDMH-B4 $I it`' 2 RIM: 159.76 ��/ IE OUT: 12' CONC (N)=157.07' •� �I�. (CG48 MH) co �0 oCp (.) 'VI-r / \ _ .. 10 SDCB C2A: ,,/^► A �; 1 . RIM: 158.20 ` V!e� � ,� / SEE SHEET D2.2 TOR EXISTING I I':"� �. IE OUT: 12' CONC(N)=155.66' r Q • .• (II..1 STORM OUTFACE,.CONSTRUCTED i • !? �/ UNDER PERMIT d j 11 2T. / %� / . RM18 .Jn•^ IE IN1CC /N=15693'• TD PIPE .. /'\` ` . . IE IN: 12"CONC (5=156.95'•• O \\\ O• /��%. , \ I IE OUT: 12" CONC (E)=156.75' u --- - I / © RIM: 58.• ^ i�0 II : /// RIM: 156.74 LL U ! �/ \ \ 0 - ',T�^ _.. 40�/ IE IN: 12" CONC 1,.:1,=1 55.44' /'/^� �t�:� ,., /.. 4ii IE IN: 12" CONC.(((SSS))=155.39' V/ �% / l�. \ \ 1 i,, j v //// .:.O -- IE OU12-12 CONC (E)75 55.27 Z PM STA 6+06.08 r • PVI ELEV= 161.53 Z •170 e n = _3 170 ^ Q 0 K = 2143 I 75.0000' VC PVI 'TA = 4+88.49 L.�= 2 EII w , • PM LEV= 156.82 ' o r^' ; cc D. 3.00 v Q O' • n = 33• LOW POINT ELEV= 154.72 N CO VJ • • $ W cc LL C • CI POIt T.STA = 2+66.97 m I N• 1 .0000' VC i�I • A = 2+39.20 o m V �. PV 6LEV n 15133 +g N U `D 6 PV1 ..• • - il i AD. = 4.50•t . - d Q D h = 22.22 i tic* 081 l- Q r .P_m I I co a- 100000 VC � .p._ ll I a N • y O 08 180 V = f7 p h m in S . 160 5DMH-B2 ( i 48 MH) � 63 a m a i STA. 6+09.03 \ E > + H . . RIM - 160.49 m m N v . PROPOSED ACCESS m m ' - - IE IN = 153.94 02"NW) - FINISHED GRADE ' • • IE IN = 153.9 Or S) II II ,3•5°1'... • IE OUT= 153.74(12 NE) �Lt� "' EMS ° I EMS LOOS 1J9.9 LF -II - v.•..._ 155 0 20�PVC SDMH-Bl 48"MH 1.,n • 1 S'A 7+871 ) 1 43.3 LF- 12C �. 4 - I 4 1-‘---SD -84 (• : MH . ' �a\. PRQECT NO: TS0870100 - RI 3+54.8 - . " �. a zo a 7•RSA = 183. PVC ,I. S=1.001 3 RIM = 154.87' DATE IE OUT= 1 .34(12"SE) SDMH-= (CG-48 MH .2 LF_ IE = 150.7 (4"-E) . . . . D 8Y: FER STA. 5+6L89 120'PVC 'SD S=l•00S IE 150.7) (12" N) DRAWN BY: - RER • 410 I • RDA = 158.40 IE __.150.7 (12' W) �i1LE 1'=TO' •• IE IN = 153.31 (1Y N IE OrUT= 150.. (15" S) CHECKED BY MGi 8+00 7+00 IE IN ■= 153 31 lY 6+00 • • - - IE OUT= 153.11 (1Y S) 5+00 4+00 3+00 - 2+00. 1+00 /t 0 30 .• • • . . DURHAM ACCESS DRIVE PROFILE ACCESS • • -, : SCALE: - 1"=30' HOR2 P' & P•• 1"=3' VERT . : D21 • • 0 .. . z - ,. .. . • . . _ - • is e - . .. . • ... . . . . ... . . • . • . . • . . . . . . ._ - 180" 160. • EXISTING STORM 111 CONSTRUCTION NOTES z 0 6 . PROPOSE)DURHAM PLAYGROUNDnQ STA 39+0309 0.0 RT - o • ACCESS TOAD SURFACE GRADE .n __ 'm • �'��� + a — PROPOSED STORM. a ' 1 — _ CONSTRUCTION NOTES W V2 Is I I \ 1'5 tle O2 SBAD B48• -_� Gl STA 37+33.53 , 233.LT EXISTING v/ 5 > O CONSTRUCT AREA DRAIN 6' PERFORATED .S d r w DRAM PIPE a � . N 3 . Sa. STA 37+59.30, 7.6T RT 150 .. . „ -, iS0 CONSTRUCT CATCH BASIN• O R 134.0 LF - 15,0 3034 PVC r=... — O • . O .'' SDMH-B4 (CG48 ,1H) S= --. _ SDMH 84 _ .• SWALE • . SOAD-1348 'OUTFACE• STA.3"e+94,47 O1 0.5� " '- — — — _. —5� .STA 37+94.47, 0.0'LT STA. 37+33.53 m ACCESS STA. 3+28.91 . EXISTING SDMH A-1 (48' MH) • CONSTRUCT CG-48 MH • RIM = 155.57 ° RIM = 54.87_ STA. 39+03.09 SEE SHEET D2.1 'I+a RIM = 15337 CUTFALL A-2 • EXISTING ��! • IE OUT= 151.57 (12' SW) IE IN = 150.73 (12' N) IE OUT= 149.79 (15'E) 40+12:0 (LASS '��1 IE IN 150,73(12' E) 500 RIPRAP �• ,PP,' SEE PLAYGROUVD PLANS IE OUT= 149.20 r10• E) �:e:• . IE IN = 150,73(12' N� • 278LF- 12.0• Z ., i�ri:, W M • 0 36,0 LF- 120" // PVC S=1.CWi F PVC SD 5=1.00% EX STING cn. N O3 I�WiW OUTFALL RIPRAP { L • SJCB-84A— •o Gi - - Ll.l STA. 37+59.30 �--, " RIM 154.87 0 IE IN = 151,29 (12' SE) IE OW =151.09 02' SE) v • 37+00 38+00 39+00 40+00 41+00 42+00 43+00 OUTFACE PROFILE `� .. Q � o • . .Jii i r- All , QO® � L„q�_ �U 1 I CC Iss • I A o • a Z O C I �Y ° •49 I 'TO ' EL.,. 2 .• I Q 9 ::%F. (1) W Z 4RAISED LANDSCAPE Cj '� C�;l �^�' t pt 14.1.-, i- .. .'" *vs st, ts^r------;--7.7-:..-.1.. == 0 I f' O +00 41+00 Q I • © © 15 P�SO I = 37+00 , �• i0g.6 I Q J� i ' �� 'i \ SDMH-B4 /4( — X X -- X ---X -— X —lx X -—X — X —X — X -- X --I �I Q 1 SEE SHEET D21 \ I I I I. I - �/ x V (CG48 MH) I T 3 I SDAD-B48 \ FOR ACCESS STORM q{ 27,6 LF - �,. \ f , ! 1 \. 1 O — • • • I 12' PVC SD. SDCB-84A \ \ \ � _ EXISTING WATER OUALRY SWALE CONSTRUCTED UNDER PERMIT V,W MMD2007-00019 I 38.OLF - 1 r IF • •12" PVC SD '� . a .• I `b \ I I • 1 I N EXISTING 8'I I 01 PERFORATED PIPE ri4. •: \ l • Ii � NN \ s.� / - 1 I I', . -.. ":4\ \ 17 . + • • .. l - ',� \. /I� PROJECT N0. li x. . I ; n \ 'A C �, \• I' \,� DATE ,er'lE 7 . i 1 h: O'. �� DESIGNED BY: RER • IN •- - - 1 \�O" �\ >���:0�. - - DRAWN BY: RER A I .• I I ~:-1 ®per-; \ =ALE. :JO a. . . �`\ ` � I 115 ,. . . .I ;� \. - OUTFACE .. • <-. 't � ��4' 0ay.��.•.-4TJ?` ■T° }X'-�T.'-4T:,'$°4-�T4-\?'��`�;i,1r‘.Y'���J } 1Ae\‘ _%• ,.� - -— - - . . • • PRE-APP HE)D BY _= CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING DIVISION Vii : LAND USE PERMIT APPLICATION <<, City of Tigard Permit Center 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard, OR. 97223 y? TIGARD Phone: 503.639.4171 Fax: 503.598.1960 File hi I Other Case# I Date By I I Receipt# I I Feel I Date Complete TYPE OF PERMIT YOU ARE APPLYING FOR 0 AdjustmentNariance I or II) ❑Minor Land Partition(II) ❑Zone Change(Ill) (]Comprehensive Plan Amendment(IV) 0 Planned Development(IIl) ❑Zone Change Annexation(1V) ®Conditional Use(III) ❑Sensitive Lands Review(1,II or I11) []Zone Ordinance Amendment(IV) []Historic Overlay(II or III) ❑Site Development Review(II) ❑Home Occupation(II) []Subdivision(II or III) LOCATION WHERE PROPOSED ACTIVITY WILL OCCUR(Address if available) 8048 SW Shaffer Lane(Taxlots 2S113B000300,2S113BA00401,2S113BA00500,and 2S113BA00200) TOTAL SI FF SIZE ZONING CLASSIFICATION 13.61 acres R 12 HD,IP !CANT, d-Tualatin School District 23J ILINIs AUUKCJJ/CI rY/J IAICJLIY 6960 SW Sandberg Road Tigard,Oregon 97223 PHONE NO. PAX N4 503-431-4007 NA. PRIMARY CONTACT PERSON PHONE NO. Rob Saxton 503-431-4007 CKUYBKI Y C ec Is o more en one Tigard-Tualatin School District 233 MAILING ADD S/ Y TAE zzlP 60andburg Road Tigard,Oregon 97223 PHONE NO. '`170CITO. 503-431-4007 NA When the owner and the applicant are different people,the applicant must be the purchaser of record or a lessee in possession with written authorization from the owner or an agent of the owner.The owners must sign this application in the space provided On the back of this form or submit a written authorization with this application. 'IdlVCOJ JUmeX IYleue Des it e app'�icant proposes to�`e�ocate the current access drive to the Durham Elementary School due to the expiration of the existing access easement agreement.The current access is off of SW Shaffer Lane.The new access will align with SW 79th Avenue,at SW Durham Road, and continue across the field to the existing parking lot. 4111LICATIONS WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED WITHOUT ALL OF THE REQUIRED SUBMITTAL ELEMENTS AS DESCRIBED IN THE"BASIC SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS"INFORMATION SHEET. - is\curpin\masters\land use applications\land use permit app.doc • THE APPLICANT SHALL CERTIFY THAT: • a • If the application is granted,the applicant shall exercise the rights granted in accordance with the terms and subject to all the conditions and limitations of the approval. • All the above statements and the statements in the plot plan, attachments, and exhibits transmitted herewith, are true; and the applicants so acknowledge that any permit issued, based on this application, map be revoked if it is found that any such statements are false. • The applicant has read the entire contents of the application, including the policies and criteria, and understands the requirements for approving or denying the application(s). SIGNATURES OF EACH OWNER OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY ARE REQUIRED. ,( ,0,9 /€?<A/ Lhtc; 'WAdi'tt�iG t7t ov -7//7/Zao Owner' Signal a II Date Owner's Signature Date • Owner's Signature Date Owner's Signature Date Owner's Signature Date Applicant/Agent/Representative's Signature Date Applicant/Agent/Representative's Signature Date • • • IN Fidelity National Title Company ee The Closing Company Prepared For: Prepared By: Information Services Department 1001 SW Fifth Avenue Suite 400 - Portland,Oregon 97204 Phone:(503)227-LIST(5478)Fax: (503)274-5472 E-mail: csrequest @fnf.com OWNERSHIP INFORMATION ,_ Owner : Metzger Ventures Lie Ref Parcel Number : 2S1 l3BA 00200 CoOwner T: 02S R: 01W S: 13 Q: 250 Site Address : 7800 SW Durham Rd Tigard 97224 Parcel Number : R0514054 Mail Address : PO Box 400 Sherwood Or 97140 Map Number . Telephone : Owner: Tenant: County : Washington(OR) -, L SALES AND LOAN INFORMATION :. Transferred : 06/08/2000 Loan Amount: $1,325,000 Document# : 45176 Multi-parcel Lender : Safeco Life Sale Price Loan Type : Blanket Deed Type : Bargain&Sale Interest Rate : Fixed Owned : 100 Vesting Type . PROPERTY DESCRIPTION ASSESSMENT AND TAX INFORMATION 0Page&Grid : 685 Fl Mkt Land $855,860 us : Tract: 308.04 Block: 2 Mkt Structure : $1,956,590 ivision/Plat Other . Neighborhood Cd : YI5 Mkt Total : $2,812,450 Land Use : 2312 Misc,Non-mfg,Improvement,Ind Zone %Improved : 70 Legal : ACRES 2.55 06-07 Taxes : $30,303.03 Exempt Amount : Exempt Type . Class Code Levy Code : 02374 Millage Rate : 15.7510 M50 Assd Value : $1,923,880 PROPERTY CHARACTERISTICS Bedrooms Lot Acres :2.55 Year Built Bathrooms Lot SqFt : 111,078 EfJYearBlt . • Heat Method Bsm Fin SqFt Floor Cover . Pool Bsm Unfin SqFt : Foundation . Appliances Bsm Low SqFt Roof Shape . • Dishwasher Bldg SqFt Roof Mall . Hood Fan 1st Fir SqFt InteriorMat . Deck Upper Fir SqFt : Paving Matl . Garage Type Porch SqFt Const Type . Garage SF Attic SqFt : Ext Finish . Deck SqFt . III This title information has been furnished,without charge,in conformance with the guidelines approved by the State of Oregon Insurance Commissioner. The Insurance Division cautions intermediaries that this service is designed to benefit the ultimate insureds. Indiscriminate use only benefiting intermediaries will not be permitted. Said services may be discontinued. No liability is assumed for any errors in this report • • 0 mu) Fideli ty National Title Company of Oregon Map # 2S113BA 00200 The drawing below is copied from the public records and is provided solely for the purpose of assisting in locating the premises. Fidelity National Title assumes no liability for variations,if any,in dimensions, area or location of the premises or the location of improvements ascertained by actual survey. +\ \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\`d1R\\\\\\\\\\\\4 \ti \\\ /` ''` 'J. ,/` / ` '` ' ` / ` ii+ III „ �� 95.48289 `III .x `x >' x < 86'49¢ II` `'i' ` Jai` `� i'' .``. .�' �`. IK Y py ` ,u C . e■ 'V d w ^O AZ >••Vic' 200 �$ 2.55 AC /�Zo S.SF h 0 til co an _ sea-s0- 21N r=�. �—��1`— 964.60 r) H (CS 27.8111 400 11.32 AC • 149.30 23 59311 7 4, . / ._..._ ___ / � .....,_ m / ---.42 III 0 Fidelity n 11111 ty Natio al Title Company of Oregon N • �O W E Map # 2S113BA 00200 s The drawing bebw is copied from the public records and's provided solely for the purpose of assisting in bcating the premises. Fidelity National Title assurres no liabddy for variations,if any,in dimensions, area or location of the premises or the location of improvements ascertained by actual survey. a�ItJ 14',::,5‹,\.<,.'11.1...) y.,,..,,:. . • . 2S 1 13BA 2S 1 13E 'y\ ielX-YV L.'X. :!X .�' ....A-...„-, `X`'•: .-,.,..>-. •—..(CA-334--�. F ..„ .<o • ' ',•:.;,:;i:1C• c r ='ti•`''�r ; .Y..': :��1' Y�"x 'y'•J'%:Y'`•�'••%•'•= ` .'4}-- h1�, - .T:,,r.;,•s;i;;x�Y,x: :<*iFT'; ;•:~•Y:• Sr'}. .%�ii� •'•:••'�:•: �11�:,�y�. ,::;,�''.."-X:-;,•:',' �, 'fi:h -■/,X;•,Y.Y."?:' y „.• ;F.•},�ti};;:el,e.g'i•;(Y. i.;".%':-,:y,° ' Y :'C' : ',C, *.<. •} Y.1:<i`�'a:.ti'. T'%\'Y"r •v.%:i:r.• .,l.Y' k ,: t ix:i'i, •l- ,,?.....;,..)..s4: . :f. Y,:i : :•r:ii,..':,;;•:,.'\,) i,,.k!.:!.l.i•.J'•i :6!^7i�6Cnk•* 1;�•., ?::;.:,-;...:::,:y: 1 YD. 1 'Mhe �\� 'h: ,'\`:r:•:�r`.,:.,:: yj. Y,/— 0 '' ; .,tip ;iy;k;.:,kl: rKi;Y•.,%\t:; ``,,, ,.• WASHINGTON COUNTY OR• �`� ','C.•:•.%%, ti p^ / _f \r �~>iy�r: .';• ,' Net le PAVI{{SECTION 13 Tee 11111 Y '`�''�~�y', �}••�• i,, • ,fix. , ,; . /r. 9 �,�• .V:40, ',45 W$tY010:;.1:0:4 23-74 O- f<<::�:J.:.:t:t.,.:.:J, :�:\:'�.•.4.A/,,.j •••• / / �` , •, ` r /'a'c'vr < :�' :X ;: / A . �_1b .% .J/ 7. X.• °ti, /�:�Er,�F.Jissd :.J.?:.'......r ( :.. ✓ f y • , `' iii':, ....-.a.MaFn.a•, X' . �' • ;<K•:^:<,ky,.�:�J`,:;�t 1 x�• 1 6•t•`,".,:'\'74\.:\•,;'`•:r• ,... ,J.�<i ..14 "-./.....,....X../.:.'4,../....' 'A \ % I .;4,A W •'Ai'• �4P•: �r9 mos�...... f, ' • :' r %:e.>cf'' \ t .Jf• f / ,' l r,:1,%. ;C \ : ,:k ! \,\ ' a.mlama.,e,feli e 1: t., ., `1:X. r ..` mwaava•a„a,m. i ''\ ' y yi.:, i7K%' 1:J.. , .J`�'v \ ;.� 6y• ; k,,• k` x.. f 1},4` :t•,• :ti• •,. �• Arltasserwe• (X.'y.•?i�:•� ,n '1J'.'•:�/,/. fr �`:4.}�x;;�:'.`jig;:i•`%• ••v,x •{ ,1 .Ale i I• i../.!..?:::::',<X>:::,4;,Tf" v �• X:.:,i. -:,'`-:.X,A`,, :S,...,G;',.',%O is { '• FtASSE3 :Mew 21.206 ; .\^,,/•,. :• 1,X:' ,:\,_,�.1.:,_.,�%Y`,K(.., :. �. ,�/ �..�'►•`!•,;•C•C/. ' R7�/p�A�,5y8�£{Sp r(�j PU .••A ..J;JC;'• '.;� :'..)%i'.�,:.}.;:::.�, .X'r:',n!'r.,�Y'a. .`.,ti, m(t•• i'{lif ', ,^•.WAI7M� •-.X/,.:<.:../4 }': .,;...,,X,...,.4,,,...),.‹,::1,X._ %..., ;. x...::Y:•.•‹.is f. ..�. X• r.+wrwarwr ... ::i ..\•• './.' ?; . v"� ;(Y''tiJ•✓•v,;.x A'�:<:',:t�' __—�+____•__ }• /.. :. X:+ i,,'. =71/.rw.r•"......"=.........+e-a :/c..:, ;/, - _t _ , � •'\: % a.+r '''..*.<▪ 't.tip. VC. '. .,/...;...,X,...:,./.. : , X.'�.o�.-'•ty'., �J.v:•k,•,i:�1�, -�• ' ;4 u ,•� . • i�. N ..X''•'`• {�ravreer .,�, •;"''• :(.Y%:. .% %f ,. - .l J,X••11'X.•, % t...; /. .i../.,Y,, r.V,�•.•''r,1•;• !X,',...:-::`4�::,�.:::: : � ✓.t..:K:...!.�}:1:'•,:�,,G,:•t;::,.�'::•.• /'d:•: _ :'•;1:• _:.?........ .v .<' T: a: '.�: .X...fir'` .X t ,•C+ <`i C,ii: °•.,. .�. '-/....,. J. ,`•%.{.j•:?:::'" ' ',1i•..x..;x:i•.::''X.i•.:�.,'.;;`... J.: :.�i -<.J(:4:% y`'tom.=?J Fi:?:i.l• ' , \ „lA+.' . X,, i:. '1 ji ./.:._.,.,.:'•.K:%f,:^:.X %.</.C`Y\%< ;::,y:X'y!,`,iti�. ,..:.z\ .:• ^•/'S . :•a 11r+.:44• .i .. .-....�: TIGA t..k:•._ ..::iK\}.i..:T:•:'t:<':•::i i..K�:•,.r,'Y,':i:::y. :i T�k':i:•::•::!`.::i`':i��):is\•:•:":<�:S:i'S..• •:<�FrrMy"Y':G" :�!i •!' erar.0• ' 2S 1 133A 2S 1 1 • • • m1NOINI.IAVPI..•.CO.PSNt Oass» , r« _ 411) 410 $TAI!OF MOON } U David G. MstfgIr_6 DknT►r!P_9a,M}Cggltminty offfaNtltgbn PO 5x 275 .§..4x rgoti OR 97140 I,Any fiti''• ,:tit.... of Ammo- waa araMah Naar mg AtlwO mint •�� ' ,T,` -...."40,' Matessr Ventures, LLC Clark iq.� .= PO Box 275 and '•t"'"*.4"-''''111!"5''- r• 1, raid• din Sherwood OR 97140 txxrety r'"ti '`-A'`•e ' "'" Omelet Naar OM Adraad 01eCa RUMS t .i AIW woe I,Bw Mina edh FODavid Msts�sr '}, e/ Q 4 ," . .• a/ tad. PO Box 275 y9' Ex. Sherwood OR 97140 ',•r03*1, ' {a uwa ar",Sss. alma N`N,Aer'gZYK Doc : 20000/5176 `~ W Dav Metzger Rect: 200004 27.00 Mateger Ventures. LLC ‘` PO Box 275 Sherwood OR 97140 06/08/2000 10:27:47am 'AMAIN AND SALE DEED-STATUTORY FORM David C. Metzger and Dianne S. Metzger ,Grantor, W conveys to Metzger Ventures, LLc . an OreggR-llgtlt.@d_1iAbill tY_.O.QD9A.DY , Gran am. the following real property situated in__WA01Lingt.Q0 County.Oregon,to-wit: !#_11.:C See Exhibit A attached hereto and by reference incorporated herein. 0 V H WI ill lc OF SPACE INSUFFICIENT,CONTINUE DESCRIPTION ON REVERSE) The true consideration for this conveyance is S._0.00** (Here,comply with the requirements of ORS 93.030.) ** Rost_achez_goo?d__and__valuahle_nonaidsratien. DATED `1.,.."'t- Co.. ,.-2999. .. THIS CISTRUMENT WILL NOT ALLOW USE OF THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN + -4" �-- T��" THIS INSTRUMENT IN VIOLATION OF APPLICABLE LAND USE LAWS AND REG , r • G / ger �r LATIONS.BEFORE SIGNING OR ACCEPTING THIS INSTRUMENT,THE PERSON ` !� ACQUIRING FEE TITLE TO THE PROPERTY SHOULD CHECK WITH THE APPRO- PRIME CITY OR COUNTY PUNNING DEPARTMENT TO VERIFY APPROVED USES Dianne S. Metzger • • AND TO DETERMINE ANY LIMITS ON LAWSUITS AGAINST FARMING OR FOREST PRACTICES AS DEFINED IN ORS 30.930. STATE OF OREGON,County of. rAN_ 'hOMA.k'" )as. This instrument was acknowledged before me on____. t.1 ' T tA...e. Ce ._20510__, by__David_G.._Metzger_.and_Aianna_S._Metzgaz ir!,, OFFICIAL SEAL. / �I' (QQC g ...Now/1_ ry., -. LORAL!R.SINNEN `�J �;,.' NOTARY PUBLIC-OREGON Notary Public for Oregon COMMISSION NO.307990 01-commission expires 0!:_30-sv0D' MY COMMISSION EXPIRES JAN.30,2002 • /TIGOR TITLE INSURANCE EXHIBIT'A' • . LEGAL DESCRIPTION 4� A tract of land in Section 13,Township 2 South,Range 1 West of the Willamette Meridian,in the City of Tigard,County of Washington and State of Oregon,more particularly described u follows: Beginning at an iron in the center of County Road No.23,said beginning point being 1871.4 feet South 89°58' East and 89.14 feet South 58°48' East from the corner of Sections 1 I, 12, 13 and 14. Township 2 South,Range 1 West of the Willamette Meridian, being also the Northwest corner of a tract heretofore deeded by John Oche and Magdelane Oche to Harry and Elizabeth Hembech by Deed recorded in Book 118 page 158,Deed Records of Washington County;running thence South along the West line of said Hembech Tract 4.30 chains;thence South 84°50' West along the South line of the Mike F.Oche Tract as described in Deed recorded in Book 150 page 454.said Deed Records,5.50 !' chains; thence North 5.50 chains to center of said County Road;thence Easterly following center of said road, 5.50 chains,more or less,,to the place of beginning. SAVE AND EXCEPT the East 10 feet as described in Deed to Robert F. Swain,et ux, recorded in Book 150 page 453,said Deed Records,and the West 120 feet as described in Deed to Ralph D. .?:. Durkee, et ux,recorded in Book 422 page 100,said Deed Records. ALSO EXCEPTING THEREFROM that portion thereof described in Dedication Deed recorded July 5, 1995,Recorders Fee No.95446429. • • �----,N\ • • A'li Fidelity National Title Company t - --; The Closing Company • Prepared For: Prepared By:Cassidy Joy Information Services Department 1001 SW Fifth Avenue Suite 400 - Portland,Oregon 97204 Phone:(503)227-LIST(5478) Fax:(503)274-5472 E-mail: csrequesttfnf.com l OWNERSHIP INFORMATION Owner :Tigard-tualatin School Ref Parcel Number :2S113B0 00300 CoOwner : District/123J 7:02S It 01W S: 13 Q:250 Site Address :8048 SW Schaeffer Ln Tigard 97224 Parcel Number :R0514107 Mail Address :6960 SW Sandburg St Tigard Or 97223 Map Number . Telephone : Owner Tenant: County :Washington(OR) SALES AND LOAN INFORMATION Transferred : 10/06/2003 Loan Amount , Document# :Cf4754 Lender . • Sale Price Loan Type . Deed Type Interest Rate . %Owned Vesting Type . PROPERTY DESCRIPTION ASSESSMENT AND TAX INFORMATION Map Page& Grid :685 Fl Mkt Land :$1,881,300 Census : Tract:308.04 Block:2 Mkt Structure :$6,000,000 Subdivision/Plat Other . Neighborhood Cd :4TL9 Mkt Total :$7,881,300 Land Use :9202 Ins,Public School District %Improved :76 Legal :ACRES 5.63,NON-ASSESSABLE 06-07 Taxes . Exempt Amount : • • Exempt Type Class Code Levy Code :02374 Millage Rate : 15.7510 M50 Assd Value : _ PROPERTY CHARACTERISTICS Bedrooms Lot Acres :5.63 Year Built • Bathrooms Lot SqFt :245,242 EfYearBlt . • Heat Method Bsm Fin SqFt Floor Cover . Pool Bsm Unfin SqFt : Foundation . Appliances Bsm Low SqFt : Roof Shape . Dishwasher Bldg SqFt Roof Mad . Hood Fan 1st Fir SqFt InteriorMat . Deck Upper Fir SqFt : Paving Mall . Garage Type Porch SqFt Const Type . Garage SF Attic SgFt Ext Finish . • Deck SqFt . -, This title information has been furnished,without charge,in conformance with the guidelines approved by the State of Oregon Insurance Commissioner. The Insurance Division cautions intermediaries that this service is designed to benefit the ultimate insureds. Indiscriminate use only benefiting intermediaries will not be permitted. Said services may be discontinued. No liability is assumed for any errors in this report. • • • 0 it Fidelity National Title Company of Oregon N ne Ma # 2S113B0 00300 w E P s The drawing below is copied from the public records and is provided solely for the purpose of assisting in locating the premises. Fidelity National Tide assumes no liability for variations,if any,in dimensions, area or location of the premises or the location of improvements ascertained by actual survey. " j... 29112!)9:. ':c' .'asr3 °;'•'•'' ,). ,).,• •,, • f7 r. (� W00 ; -— �a--far u --a. `�\1‘\\\‘‘A".�L\111.\� \_�� it', '' :1''•.,' ' '' �,' V + :: • 071 •',/•rfs-a±3147. III I �+— f'--t far m• es, , a , _ 77:71 -•--._ `3� ,,• Isfi 29 AC 1.12 AC _4 • 'I, . :.e. - ' JI- '',' ,,' -H-';'Y ' T- j is ' r ,,' ?a=--, 113_ : �, ;;a 1 ;;;, ,``,�' ��,,' WA 6.69 AC ^ Y fE - � r • . - ---•='.- '`.., %./•,-''',--(-,,:',- s-,f%,....•s-....•'‘,..- ...,;" ';:" s;-:• ';:' s ‘: :.:, ,::, 2,,, 2-', .- •�2if'h7�A• ,''5 'S- . ,'`' - l'/: , ' 2/:,..', „ ' ,,' _f- -— -- 2737 1 /`,'"" \`�:, ,�'' ` FOR J. ` ,,,,,,,,,,,,ti,-10” • "T • • 7 g 7......._ -... ,,ilt Fidelity National Title Company of Oregon 1 P-Priej ) Xi Map if 2S113B0 00300 The drawing below is copied from the public records and is provided solely.for the.purposc of assisting in locating the premises. Fidelity National Title assumes no liability for vana.tions,if any,in area or location of the premises or the location of improvements ascertained by actual survey. 2S 1 13B 2S 1 138 ''' '3 -!!":...:- ::..:4";;,: :'.:1-.11/' .*: •;:::'..=c-,:'::.. 11511Fillibgla..33101:../Wal. 44....•4 il..:....'.;:z, :::.: 4:-....4.., .-,-;"4-rt!,.....„.. m-,7.1.5...-.:',... >t,:f j•Fal :.4;- 41"c ; .e'. ...... ^— ....I: ... ......::... .:, - - -TO' 1 ....,-,T.,-.7...,; .. .,14:::. ....s.... ..,..,. ... . . ...i.. .. ..4,..:4....,... - 1 1 a J h I t 1 ....::.:'.......::,..1:.:.>:...x.":,:.;:.:'....c.-..::.:.::s;dr -....-..-.-i ! r ... .1 ih:-=7:j. .,.:*:.:;Q•scs.:;:::::.:::)-..:-.......''..:.,I'..,''',..... ' : :..).. ..---::':::'' ,......,-: 1/4 ,, ; 1 cmI ._,... I :.:/..3.1.:.-..t. :'.7. '...::::',ff:.-:,7.!...t.::t.:::if.7..:;.:-.:,. ______-- - , _ . . . . .. . . . . . ,. . . . ..: SCSLI r.Witt 4.#.Y..':':'....../."' ':/2-•'2:•-•'"■.;:'''.'"::.-'..... g "' -I4- -1 '' , ,. .--..:.7.- ...:/-,. ,;.,.31:.....,..... :..''-- ''...-:.. 7.1;:4,11 •'..71-4;',..o.,..4 /:-.[;::::':-.:---::':::'::.x:":0::).)'.../. ' II I rl II ,I I i I-'':.":.` ', .'.-:. .. .,:p., ,, , . . ., :.'6"i'."(!i!*"...."..:;:..,:::.*.',:-:........(;... .:.:::.•::'.,.:44.0.,,..,: A H I I .:,;:.:.4"of,... .l':>..'"..:i :',1,..*:',:....:..:::',:..,,:.'''..' .:.:‘:-..:"/.':•:1%,:.:':.....2X."."e.`"..... .,. -..''''' t.:...v:,.:_:44.t.'< ..,;,''..::',7, ....'''.:.,.::-:"....:4.,...".' '':•:',\-.:',..1.:•...,:.../..,:.;:...,::...').:'..-:::..::j.,: , , ..'.. I 1 ::::."::;':-f:':. :'":'.:-:>...,:' " ' '..:': "." ,> ':,.... ":'.:\ ',.:.vid.>: 1 <:-.•:‘;:...:-,...-..\-.'.;-:,:.:.,Y....,,,.' '.,..-,'',, ,.: :'...:*.-:::-:A .....Te.,'..k "ts.. .......,... ..;.:.::;•:-.....1:.':.....::..':-.'':..;:)..'...-:-.-5.:. ..<.-:*7'.....----:-..: 11/111.11.M1011~.111 .'.'::'''...e'.;'''.:'>:-.''.f. ::.:. ..:;':.;';',.:.: L "....:;....,..''. 1:: :,‘..X,:::.e...::::::::.::::::.,:::::::: :::::::.;::. I r I I rl • . .''-.,-.- ,.....,.. ....,. .. 1 :',.."%::',...::::-..`,..:-,:::::.::.:.:;:.:.j,','',..,". .....?,..- '..3......:::....l.,:;......". Tr: --,t,..'+:.,,:i-e-,-... j 23_74 ,..„„.5,51t-. ::.:::::::::..::: :-.,:-....:..::,.-...:-:..:::.;.:>:-...: ,.....,..,..,:.,..:x:::....:: .t:-,:•-..:.',..:.,:-::.,; :: 4,:.`.:::'-n:;;'...-^ : fir -,-°*".#/‘ ................:..y... .".. 441131121/EPAI ../ . , ,:':•••• ...,":':".':>:::':. el&lit ..-liffi , : .•— — -' :-..:. ::::::,,::•::-;:,:,:::-."::.::::.::•:::..-:::: """' '... . -...:-.': ...4.;46-4 21 1 ' 1 • : .'.... --,xtrowz.„—.-,Atia ..., ., , :., -:-.:-..,-:, )..•:;---..:7:',...::":.:'.:.7-:::::',:.-...;. :.(,...:,-:>1"...-.-.:•-:....::.,..'",:.:-...:‘...:'.;.:,:',:',..'„....-/:>:..... . ,r. 23-87 .....t. :-'2.:I.-:.•••;,-:::.':.:< r''..:Y...*; :',,,!: ::,....:-.:._>;.c:.,...: 23..78 .,.. , . . . i ;:-:......-'.:::-.2.....:.;:....?:::67.... ..--:...:-::.:-....:,....,'....... ;.;...41:-. t',...9 wv.:',':::?:,...;:wisain .'n...... ....?..:.''...::::= ''......"':.::-.......s..''::::: :'..:'.:7'''''x'': i . ..,...“... ,:..,:,..,.. .,....selmosix: :. ., , eLoTs20.40TTE,«kat.I4.200:8 DURHAM ,..,.-...,-. ,e,7-,N, : .4:.: . ---- - ....... .. , TIGARD 2S 1 138 2S 1 13B damn' 0 �---'`\� • • Fidelity National Title Company !Nth The Closing Company Prepared For. Prepared By:Cassidy Joy Information Services Department 1001 SW Fifth Avenue Suite 400 - Portland,Oregon 97204 Phone:(503)227-LIST(5478) Fax:(503)274-5472 E-mail: csrequest®fnf.com OWNERSHIP INFORMATION Owner :Tigard-tualatin School RefParcel Number :2S113BA 00401 CoOwner :District#23J 7:02S R:01W S: 13 Q:250 Site Address :7950 SW Durham Rd Tigard 97224 Parcel Number :R1497428 Mail Address :6960 SW Sandburg St Tigard Or 97223 Map Number . Telephone : Owner: Tenant•. County :Washington(OR) SALES AND LOAN INFORMATION Transferred : 10/0612003 Loan Amount . Document# :Cf4754 Lender . Sale Price _ Loan Type .• Deed Type Interest Rate . Owned Vesting Type . 1 N. 1 DESCRIPTION ASSESSMENT AND TAX INFORMATION Page Grid :655 F7 Mkt Land us : Tract:308.04 Block:2 Mkt Structure d &ivision/Plat PROPERTY Other Neighborhood Cd :DMTG Mkt Total .• Land Use : 9202 Ins,Public School District %Improved . Legal :ACRES 2.80,NON-ASSESSABLE 06--07 Taxes . Exempt Amount : . Exempt Type . Class Code Levy Code :02374 Millage Rate : 15.7510 M50 Assd Value : PROPERTY CHARACTERISTICS Bedrooms Lot Acres :2.80 Year Built . Bathrooms Lot SgFI : 121,968 EfffearBlt . Heat Method Bsm Fin SqFt Floor Cover . Pool Bsm Unfin SqFt : Foundation . Appliances Bsm Low SqFt : Roof Shape . Dishwasher Bldg SqFt Roof Matl . Hood Fan 1st Fir SqFt InteriorMat . Deck Upper Fir SqFt : Paving Mall . Garage Type Porch SqFt Const Type . Garage SF Attic SqFt Ext Finish . Deck SqFt . lb -rte This title information has been furnished,without charge,in conformance with the guidelines approved by the State of Oregon Insurance Commissioner. The Insurance Division cautions intermediaries that this service is designed to benefit the ultimate insureds. Indiscriminate use only benefiting intermediaries will not be panted. Said services may be discontinued. No liability is assumed for any errors in this report • i ~\ 7 j \) Fidelity National Title Company of Oregon III CI nn Map # 2S113BA 00401 The drawing below is copied from the public records and is provided solely for the purpose of assisting in locating the premises. Fidelity National Title assumes no liability for variations,if any,in dimensions, arca or location of the premises or the location of improvements ascertained by actual survey. 2S 1 13BA 23 1 13BA .r..' (CR 23l-- -• ;'-._.. : r: _ I ,m W■ • J. •:.,' / r(aaN{rurtcrrwurrtvoaEOON •:�:• f• it. ..;'; :k';>r '=7' -I / " .:' /,',/,:: i..t.✓ai ' ,,,,tr . 1 I �'!\ / r }> _ I �a�b,� /• ',,, may..::40.::.:S.,:x2, ...--- I ...^,--.".. ''.';'/...::.• r C•:•CP:9:4......•:0:-', 23-74 . ' . ,.. - 1: _ f ':; 1 .:-.1-::*-. , ,,,,t ,,....<- ;:::: f,-.:-:--.:--i-T.:-- `1' + ':f %`• •' eiawrwe.roe situ. »..1 1,/ i • /'::. ,'.' ' =Z F"o.»'+. 1 f y'a . I 7:777."- ---77' 1 I/ Aaa.aamonf d ;1' Taxation • t}•r: t•: i� 23 ;; r►oratrc: zi zoa r•: 7' .r __ I. OAtL R1 - - y �THEAUFE I FOItO ..wr nM,►Ho py 2S 1 t3BA 2S OU1 13 M erne ________________ 0 • 0 IjQlfti Fidelity National Title Company of Oregon F,nl N —______-/ Map # 2S113BA 00401 W S E The drawing below is copied from the public records and is provided solely for the purpose of assisting in locating the premises. Fidelity National Tide assumes no liability for variations,if any,in dimensions, area or location of the premises or the location of improvements ascertained by actual survey. 5. 15061111 o �� ' ^ I r_ _-� ,_-___�-r -_-�- ----,!.,„, "."...- . i„, ...,,,,,...... ...,..,„.. ..,. ...„ . •, . . .. -4, -.. . .. ..• ._•.. .. ..• .... ... . . . ..., .. .. .- ..• ,, �r +o atloia. .• ..q . „.... ,..- •.. .•• * 1/ 200 ? • d• 1666 AC 1% • 401 "C1{,1 '1•, . . le 190 AC 1 'w't)' 1b• q/4•1,•1',. c. K.37.1151. f -. h. 311410_ _..... a ,N.N.::: 400 xr -- �_. _. 11-12 AC ......7 ,,_.____ 23-74 5.0 , ..._ ---., 2.5t AC �/ //� �..., t , 1 j !,?% , „ .. .. ., „ • ... .... U 6�AC \\ j . • • .... �--� • • i m , Fidelity National Title Company } ��/ The Closing Company • Prepared For Prepared By:Cassidy Joy Information Services Department 1001 SW Fifth Avenue Suite 400 - Portland,Oregon 97204 Phone:(503)227-LIST(5478) Fax:(503)274-5472 E-mail: csrequest®fnf.com OWNERSHIP INFORMATION Owner :Tigard-tualatin School Ref Parcel Number :2S 113BA 00500 CoOwner :District#231 7:02S R:01W S: 13 Q:250 Site Address : 'no Site Address' Parcel Number :R0514081 Mail Address :6960 SW Sandburg St Tigard Or 97223 Map Number . Telephone : Owner: Tenant: County :Washington(OR) SALES AND LOAN INFORMATION Transferred : 10/11/2000 Loan Amount . Document# : 82620 Lender • • Sale Price Loan Type Deed Type Interest Rate . Owned : 100 Vesting Type . PROPERTY DESCRIPTION ASSESSMENT AND TAX INFORMATION Map Page& Grid : Mkt Land . Census : Tract: Block: Mkt Structure . Subdivision/Plat Other . • Neighborhood Cd : DMTG Mkt Total . Land Use :9202 Ins,Public School District %Improved . Legal :ACRES 2.51,NON-ASSESSABLE 06-07 Taxes . Exempt Amount : • Exempt Type . Class Code Levy Code :02374 Millage Rate : 15.7510 M50 Assd Value : PROPERTY CHARACTERISTICS Bedrooms Lot Acres :2.51 Year Built .• • Bathrooms Lot SqFt : 109,335 EffYearBlt . Heat Method Bsm Fin SqFt Floor Cover . Pool Bsm Unfin SqFt : Foundation . Appliances Bsm Low SqFt Roof Shape . Dishwasher Bldg SgFt Roof Mat! . Hood Fan 1st Fir SqFt InteriorMat . Deck Upper Fir SqFt : Paving Mall . Garage Type : Porch SqFt Const Type . Garage SF Attic SgFt Ext Finish Deck SqFt . • This title information has been furnished,without charge,in conformance with the guidelines approved by the State of Oregon Insurance Commissioner. The Insurance Division cautions intermediaries that this service is designed to benefit the ultimate insureds. Indiscriminate use only benefiting intermediaries will not be permitted. Said services may be discontinued. No liability is assumed for any errors in this report. r.--- N\\ /7 0 um s 0 0 ) Fidelity National Title Company of Oregon N • .11J AU ,s, ne / Map # 2S113BA 00500 w ---7 E S The drawing below is copied from the public records and is provided solely for the purpose of assisting in I oca1ing the premises Fidelity National Title assumes no liability for variations,if any,M dimensions, area or location of the premises or the location of improvements ascertained by actual survey. 25 1 13BA 2S 1 13BA • - • • - -•..- - 4..•...•,c•,..........,„4.... -*"."1;a6tlaNitilaEt4E14114.21'.:E.::;ti 1 -:.2.4.••k;',...2 :'.:-:::::::::::', .,..:),.....1.:::: ::::'''.::.'..:::"..'::::*.:::'..:.-- .....-.:•.•:. c% ....,::-.-:_.,:,,,...;:-.:::/:::,, .:';',.J.,:.t .'•'.;.:'..,•-............;.:•::.4.:4:',::.:, ...4;::;;;-4:!,41-- --'teil-23/--. ---,;tvw--•-1,..ritt__._._..,___.___ LA...„.....-A••:.1.?,:......::.:::;/)...;;;;>.::'!..":.::::',':::,. -,..• :s.:.:,::..,-.,F--',.:4;.e.'-;;;:...'..,••=5,:-.77-•-•,:::•,',...-...-:. •,,;4.:,-..,::..-? _,::;•,:y...4.4.-:::::•:r. '7,,i-,-7,7-..-.-.,.-i. --._....._____I -....-- "'"- ---."'N., -'•is::::::,::::;','''..',:::,:',.:.'::::':: ;;;:-...:,.:::,::::',:..::,:::,•/..:::,,X.,'4;'.?::•••;::'::::•':.;.::?:.;.;::•:!:,:.‘:.::••..:: ty.•'41:: '4t::;4:2A. ......,-.1..,...........:::,:.' :.:4. 4111 I .._, N.. ..,..E.:\;:::?.?;:::,',:''',.:.:1::'::........'....■,:.'",..!::.,..'.:..:,..':.. .§:::::,.;:,2 i.7.,:r:>.: ;:,:•::,:.::::...,:....:.;...,:.;....,,,:::;::::::.,...::.,‘:::..,::,::.:,:i.....,.,::::,1....,:r:::,;....;::.;::..........:::.:.....,..,..,::...:;:,......::::::.',...7...:::::::::::.1::;:, it:,.4..of:..,..fr.1......04,..::::.,.:,::;.i.::....:,..:,:i...........::.:tt..... I 1 in La et 1 .* ir-- • .:••,. - ...,- '...s. -'..:::...- ...,;,,,, ,,,,-..-,.....:1•:,,,<-,.......i.,-..-..,.....::.:.....::..,:;,....:7:,...........04,,;. ....., ..,.,::.. .:; ,n.liii.4.00„alireiniot *Ns rtvf., ...:.:::: ,::::: .:'...:< ,:'.1,.,....;:::::;4/ ''' WASHINGTON 1:11r141,34r41 -- r-%--- --.. '_:,.,' .-.: :::.. :.::. .-.;.:':.:< : ,.,..:........ ..onki?"..K:v:•:4"-: \ °K., .(::..,:e7, . • •?,e!,:2).;.!:.e.e, f„.4 f.:••‘,...•:,:•:.::.........A.: ..:,•:.k.'I:••::1s.f..-:.':::.1 '''1., 's• N4....,/.'. ...7. 0:i•N:."5:0:;'!:.:;eNir.1;e4 ....„... I tS.•.•••••.. :;(•:....;.•:.:'• D°' V■.;"" ' 23-74 i :1 sou / ' 4 • :. :.:••••Y.. KeVrOP?fr ,... .'...',...::::•::•::\",../:.:[:: t / . . . IMMUI.Matbeftaatal i .. ..,.. ''', ''' .. ..' III:.:1:::.•::::..,...' .::::.:....:. '...:::".:::. :::::' :': ..,<-... ......... ., ...,-- .........;,,... II::..!21-...0.....2, :..:,:-.•....;;;,-..:... : ::::1 ' ':•.-.. :....--, '.,:.,•: ,... \ . ..' ' T , , .,2/ , \ . .. . i , . 1..:. ...: ..-. tio -,:.. :::::, 0 ,.. -,7:7: 47'7: I. '. . :' d'//1";.: N',•-•..:::::::,:::•'>:_4: \ \ =3 \ ,V': t .r ..... •.• •.. • - . \ ----,':- 1. .. . , ..71 ..." .," ... ' ......... I 41 .... i • Wolla .• , ,... , , . , . I i , ,• .. ... .....:.:::.,::,,,...,...;...,...:•.je WON 1 Z • • -•• -•--- • ' f: ....-,'77:777 ,:-- ::,..,7.77.777,77-.,,„_., z. - - "-* -- ' - - -„ . _ . 140., *:::: . ' '::....a.4 .- - .:. :'...: ; -. 23-87 .' _ taxation 1.1 '''' ". PLOT DATE M1121.2004 J r ...:2:,.....:,:.:::',..:.:.:3.-.f-..:':/'•:....-:-.*"..: .:•:::,:::.::::.::::-'1%-::/..Y.X::....-c:-:Y.X',:,..g. -. ic• ..... ''' ' ' -"• '' ' ir-. 1 . C • Rh3,11:filtartf" .-.-/..,,:.iat-:-.::::4:. •..: -..., ............. TIGARD OUIN6 2S 1 13BA 2S 1 13tte BA ellinrti e -� • P111;RI iIII Fidelity National Title Company of Oregon 2 . ee Map # 25113BA 00500 IX The drawing below is copied from the public records and is provided solely for the purpose of assisting in locating the premises. Fidelity National Title assumes no liability for variations,if any,in dimensions, area or location of the premises or the location of improvements ascertained by actual survey. ''') wAN:s..;."'y's:;,-....:::-. 1Cra/811 li ' .:....t.,: , , �. _ / '}}., , � W — V_ �+ss7 11.32 AC ._, al • -m -j ,_ ... .. ... .,. ,600 / �'"r`.` I .417c ....--...r: 23-74 1, zelAC / / �.■ ,1' r / •-■ t t I N. 1 .?-.• , , .. .„-,...›.,-,.. ..,:-.-_,.:,...„ .qz. ..._ ___ _..___ _\_„__ _ . ,...-- ____—.. ,„. ���% 600 \\ ''% ,.� ne •'�,, 4.16 AC •( �{7 r 1 ;1:: \ ,�'° r l lac '-rrra• \ e2, *• a 700 ■ l Z71 Ac :� �: 23-87 ,. • „. ,...t...” - .„„-„„. .,,.....:. ,:.:::::::: :::::::::„:„.,,,,,,..,-„,....-...,.:::: :::::/...:.....-. • , ,,, ,. . ,,... :.: x.....,,,,,,,....,....,.,...... .....„<itiaw,.,.‘,..,—.....-......-,...:,.,..'.,,.'.....,•., ,'.,,,,'A ...--:.7,_•„.:,. -,:-.7-..::;.-:.-. ::-_---;---..-.-.---7-.77±%,-.1-3—c- r..-.-.....--1.-.:.-.- • • RAT!Of O !OON tt es County of WrthlnOten ,-s•* � I. ..* mama- _Pork • ;10,w.rturii% p , Ea- Doc : 2000002620 ltect: 264746 32.00 10/11/2000 12:23:259S • /- .3 • • • After recording men a Until a those is regtlrstsd 411 "' 4 taut fell 00 Send alt Trot Ststrmmb err. TlgsrSTaslMtaSchee/District s2)3 Paw%INN, 13131 SW Pacific KIlmetr Tltsrd•Tsa1eUa School Mirka 023J r ?tiaras,Oregon 97223 13137 SW PsetAt Hlgimay Ttprd.Colston 17223 II IA" BARGAIN AND SALE DUD Portland General Electric Company.an Oregon corporation,(Grantor)grants.bargains,galls sad eoaveys to Tigard-Tualatin School District Number 231(Washington County School District Number 23J (Grantee)the following described real property: See attached Exhibit•A" The true and actual consideration for this conveyance is One Hundred Ten Thousand and No/100ths DOLLARS 01 10,000.00),which is the whole consideration. This instrument will not allow use of the property described in this instrument in violation of applicable tend use laws and regulations. Before signing or accepting this instrument,the person acquiring fee title to the property should check with the appropriate city or county planning department to verify approved urns end to determine any limits on lawsuits against farming or forest practices as defined in ORS 30.930. Grantor conveys the Property and all aspects thereof in its present condition,AS IS,WHERE IS,with all faults,latent and patent,known and unknown. Grantor shall riot be required to perform any work whatsoever to ready the Property for Grantee's occupancy or otherwise. This is a Fulfillment Deed of that contract between the parties recorded in Washington County,Oregon on August 30,1996 as Document Number 96078371 and completes the urns sax forth in that contract. Dated this 7 day of Sinlev&i f ,2000. PORTLAND GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY 411 Ny' ` Title: 1/.P. lati4 r,o d 44 p» State of Oregon .) )ss. County of Washington ) On this 7 day of SEA erLit2000,personally appeared before me J e JE ry,r A 47 iVIC known to me to be the person whose name is subscribed to this instrument,and stated to me that he/she is the V.1°.of P,Jyrf/01,770N of Portland General Electric Company,and he/she acknowledged that he/she executed the foregoing document. Notary Public for Oregon My Commission Expires: e'''/3 `0 Q F:1aMS DEED FOaM.doc _SEAL Foos Apprwe4NWL /23IQ9 CANTNUN L . ERt s4reIlwurlr 11ntl01 RY PtN MISKON NR aMtNO WOOKaAfaNt ICI • • • azimr.A • The foam*deerati Vas 1 ad 11 being poetises hoar comb lads As w JM dwwt Qrwlr►04W-1/4)of Ssati a IIhWs 03) Terasigp 2 Soh*Ratp 1 WW"sear Mari/" Ryshietiar ate P%*Trot, hared be Deal Bala:1 id Age 11,sad 211 at Pose 203, llhaiirrn Cone Dud Rem& et s plat M 11s Saab Imo qf Marino toad N 1Y hawse a lhtasdwith the So w&hies of drab ;*mew Such shot Me b+r*6 Rat of Caw*hoed No.531 e.ehs Neeetisert earner qt=ACT U Awelryles Mena hot.ime the Nazi Ni.of=ACT 0, It feet 1e s polo how Nelth ekes s laepre& so s.t 24 fee Zed of the Bar ie d Camp bet No.sit a tae Sixth b.q/hkeihse Ilse*thaw Wag date At Meta Nee d asi5 red bs aae pint dWeider r' 6CT Th logiesaint et s/oat ter tic hest Nee of CAW,Road No.531 at the SsntRwsd crew of TRACT 1 suer arabat;dkweoe Said ah Me dal thee qf said Hater 32S feet to s polat or a UM'prudes dais Seethe*On d tend eaowysd r Der* 5ehwl Moeda 1V fe. 3t is hood of twosrl Y Adak 312 Pas 470, Wisi6etbr Como Dad sees*than aar aim.eitipOciad Thee of doe Sahel Didid ract MC fret b s poisq demo i W M pined all the dam Rao of mid fib'dial No. 531 333 fie ar s posed;More Walt 305 f fed prrdl.1 trtA the mid mheted anaNwts Meer de poke of l osiinies. 110 • 3 • Jun. 20. 2oa1�1a:09AN�•--" - No. 1745 P. 1 i JUN 13 2007 " i • X: - Aw ., JUN 1 2,,2607 y ...s 5 1 Ow commitment b clear RleNunter Sensitive Area P .,;,-.�-•-"!"�'�I D — CO lc/ , Site Assessment Jurisdiction;s ty of Tigard +Property Information: (exeniplel$234A8014o0) Owner Information: Tamdot IO(s):231138A00401,2S1138A00500, Names Rob Sexton 231138000300 j 5/ /3 0 zoo Company:Tigard-Tualatin School District 231 Adana;6960 SW Sandbars Road Site Address: 8048 SW Shaffer Lane Tigard,OR 97223 phoraFax 503-431-4007 Nearest Croce Street:5WDtfiam Road pima isextou@ttial.k12.or.u2 Development Activity:Chsok all that apply Appsigant Information: Addition to Single Family Residence(rooms,decft,garage) 0 fie,gaga Crime ■ Lot Line Adjustment ❑ Minor Land Partdion ❑ Q RQ Design Inc. • Residential Condominium ❑ Commercial Condominium Admpatty ❑ Ado=5413 3W WontgatG Dave,Suite 100 I Residential Subdivision ❑ Commercial Subdivision ❑ Portland,OR.97221 ` Single Lot Commercial ❑ Multi Lot Commercial ❑ Phone c 303419-2500(P) 503.419-2600(P) Other Instilurienal-New access road see attached site plea • Eclat lQisti.crippea@wigdesiga.cem WIII the proleot involve any off-stte work:YES Q Ijnknovm a Location and desoription of*Matte work: € New right tuna lane=Durham Road Additional comments or information that may be needed to understand your project:See attached site plan III This application Boos nor replade to need peraremng'bnd Maslen Control Permits,ComiOedon Permits,=sliding,erm Site PevaloSment • • • Perm s,OEq 1200-C Permnor older permits as bsuSd by the Department of environmental Qutdity,Deparbnont of state Lando apdrorDepart:Mit of the ArmyCOE.All required It arrnitgand epprolrais must Ire abtauted and camptetgd under Applicable moat,state,and Morel law. •iltalgnina this form,the Omer or Odder%autitodzed eeentor represonlefare,eclair:Wedges and owes Mal employees et CleenWater Serokea Mare aulltolity to enter Me project de el a8 reasonable thnee for Ina purpose or Inepeding p rejool one comdlomma end gathering infer Ialion relined to be project sae.I tenth/ : mat i am rsrrotsrsth the lnroasaton contained tangs dowmet lard to the beat Finn Imontedge and begat,(hie inrummatea is True,Mtge e,end accurate. Print/i tpe Name:.Rob Saxton • . • . Prir hype-Title: endent Signature: , pate; r —mw FOR DISTRICT USE 0 LY 0 Sensitive areas potentially exist on site or within 200'of the site.THE APPLICANT MUST PIRPORM A SITE ASSESSMENT PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OP A SERVICE PROVIDER LETTER.If Sensitive Areas exist on the site or within 200 feat on adjacent properties,a Natural Resources Assessment Report may also be required. ❑ Based on review old*submitted materials and beat available information Sensitive areas do notappear to exist an site or , within 200"of the sea,This Sensitive Me Pre-Screening Site Assessment does NOT elimirmle the need to evaluate and pact water quality sensitive areas if they on subsequently discovered.This document will serve as your Service Provider letter,as required by Reeoltllon and Order 07-20,Section 3.02.1.All required permits and approvals must be obtained and completed under applicable toot,State,and federal law. Based on review of the submitted materiels and best available information the above referenced project MU not significatt1y Impact the existing or potentially sensitive area(e)found near the site.This Sensitive Area Pre•Screening Site Assesmrent does NOT criminate the need to evaluate end protect addifonel water quaITy sensitive areas If they are subsequently discovered.The document will serve as your Service Provider tenet as required by Resolution and Order 07•20,Section • 9.021.NI required permits and*approvals must be obtained and completed under applloeble local;state,and federal taw. •or&Tits Service Provider Letter isnot valid unbar' I CW8 approved site plan(s)are attaotted, • a The proposed actiWdy does not meet the dermfi'ilottof development or the tot was platted atlerSltlr'85 ORS 92.040(2).NO SITE 7ASSESSMENT OR SERVICE DER i EITER13 REQUIRED. RelvUrlmvad 8R �-,,e • . ...• .• Oates_ i?D/ •Fes�ast.fa+d. I • t Jun. 20. 2007 10:09AM No. 1705 P. 2 0 • 1 PQ.l T �yy ��i MCI( AVG S • ,„.G 0.00 et cb ° �\ �a k v. . \ i 11:ir ALIN izi /l/ ��_ Y _ . ' al II tv •r1�r • 11 r; • �z 3� ;+ �.".. 7oit!+,�,'l tit! 4..i ,, y ++:Y�+��! �C� �;t��,�sa.�{r u�{• +fin y*ir!y� �! • �:y•" ► r • �'. �r'��v� �i �. . �_. .�" � �= �`S!:� +`!��; H.n +.Rao•:~+1�:-ti��.t! + �•. � Y ■It • ti 4. I , iii 5a� s�. I II ' • I I I I I' , 1 1111 § I1II, . 111lu-0 1 x ?,2 { v V21 I I1:3 • r r I XI I u I I p t J II x I I I 11 I I I I 1 i , _ _u__ 3 I =1i_u n-i'ai1=n nit=it-ii,�==n7F-i=`'it.=g-n-I +:•,-:v:. I I =1� <`ec,,f,1,o rir�lt,.y. r=Urn„%=-n=1. �;F. :. . _ flIi. _ 010110;►d * • n —=D= r v };. _ a + t ti , 17 I i ■ ..,C-' II—IW Ih1 1 } ,C El .Q% t t t * .'1 ii� t f t + 4 4.• 1 . r r T }f . . , (• I . if_—' v .• ♦ r�•.i — 1 1 + ,..,4% c a • t_ Ii , , .._________ POTENTIAL FUR PLAN �® ';1 1 01 a $ DURHAM ELEMENTARTURE SITE Y ACCESS illiA ASAACceIA CAulA $ TIGARD-TUALATIN SCHOOL DISTRICT #2SJ >tissuresszn FtAMAT= 2 4 1 19 i Tigard.Oregon "°°•.•••• ""°'” , • • • Drainage Report October 12, 2007 Durham Elementary Access Tigard, Oregon Prepared For. Milstead &Associates, Inc. 10121 S.E. Sunnyside Road, Ste. 335 Clackamas, OR 97015 10- 11 - D} • 0,,Ep PROFFs N GI NFF9 CC. `s/oy - 75PE ORE •� ve `� 'off cc p0✓IR 3 ' (EXPIRATION DATE:6/30/07) Prepared By: WRG Design, Inc. 5415 SW Westgate Dr. Portland, Oregon 97221 WRG PROJECT NO. TSD 6701 206671.00 • Durham Elementary Access • Preliminary Drainage Report October 12,2007 Page 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS • VICINITY MAP 4 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 5 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 6 EXISTING CONDITIONS 6 Topography 6 Climate 6 Site Geology 6 Existing Hydrology 6 Curve Number 7 Basin Areas 7 POST DEVELOPED CONDITIONS 8 Hydrology 8 Design Guidelines 8 Design Storm 8 Basin Runoff 9 HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS AND DESIGN CHARACTERISTICS 9 Hydraulics 9 Manning's 'n'Values 9 Proposed Onsite Drainage 9 System Capacities 10 System Performance 10 WATER QUALITY 10 Water Quality Guidelines 10 Water Quality Required Treatment 10 Water Quality Volume(WQV)and Flow(WQF) 10 Water Quality Facility 11 WATER QUANTITY 11 • Water Quantity Requirements and Guidelines 11 Water Conveyance Facility 11 SUMMARY 12 TECHNICAL APPENDIX 12 REFERENCES 12 • Durham Elementary Access • • Preliminary Drainage Report October 12,2007 Page 3 • LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1-Vicinity Map 4 Figure 2—25 Year SCS Type 1A Rainfall Distribution 9 LIST OF TABLES Table 1 —Onsite Soil Characteristics 6 Table 2—Curve Numbers 7 Table 3—Basin Area 7 Table 4—Basin Area 7 Table 5—Design Storms 8 Table 6—Impervious Area 10 Table 7—Swale Parameters 11 • • Durham Elementary Access • Preliminary Drainage Report October 12,2007 Page 4 VICINITY MAP III oLo o Ross RD. RN W, s - i i�NTO11 @ * • o i 0 P F- AMNroR Sr- .. @ 1oI. Ii, WALT fr. 1. • t 0 V -- ` 1 t Oka H� PATT?+`► yer. LP.. r 0 ?URNwll V' /'' • 4 --Nirof,I4c14 TRMATNCNT TIGARD . pwrr - - 46 ° °'I�..,'.' f Project %� 17..� 411 Location Ne 404 avro te Figure 1-Vicinity Map III Durham Elementary Access • • Preliminary Drainage Report October 12,2007 Page 5 • EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The proposed expansion of Durham Elementary Access is located at the corner of SW Durham Road and SW 79th Ave in Tigard, Oregon (See Figure 1). The current site is accessed by SW Shaffer Ln, entering on the west side. The Durham Elementary School site includes a couple of buildings on the west, and an open field on the east. The proposed project will consist of an access road to Durham Elementary entering from the south side of SW Durham Road, a parking lot, a playground and a football field. The proposed project will occur on the undeveloped land at the site, affecting some of the existing Durham Elementary property and an adjacent parking lot to the east side. The purpose of this drainage design report is to provide stormwater treatment and conveyance for the proposed site improvements. The City of Tigard has adopted Clean Water Services Construction Standards and Regulations pertaining to storm and surface water management; therefore, the design will follow the standards and regulations developed by Clean Water Services:Design and Construction Standards issued in June 2007. Upon analysis of these regulations, a water quality and conveyance swale was designed. The swale will treat and retard stormwater runoff before discharging into Fanno Creek. • • Durham Elementary Access • • Preliminary Drainage Report October 12,2007 Page 6 PROJECT DESCRIPTION • The proposed expansion of Durham Elementary Access is located at the corner of SW Durham Road and SW 79th Ave in Tigard, Oregon (See Figure 1). The current site is accessed by SW Shaffer Ln, entering on the west side. The Durham Elementary School site includes a couple of buildings on the west, and an open field on the east. The proposed project will consist of an access road to Durham Elementary entering from the south side of SW Durham Road, a parking lot, a playground and a football field. The proposed project will occur on the undeveloped land at the site, affecting some of the existing Durham Elementary property and an adjacent parking lot to the east side. The purpose of this drainage design report is to provide stormwater treatment and conveyance for the proposed site improvements. The City of Tigard has adopted Clean Water Services Construction Standards and Regulations pertaining to storm and surface water management; therefore, the design will follow the standards and regulations developed by Clean Water Services:Design and Construction Standards issued in June 2007. EXISTING CONDITIONS Topography Durham Elementary The property slopes generally from west to east. Elevations range from 165 at the western property line to 152 toward the south eastern edge of the property. Climate • The site is located in Washington County approximately 50 miles inland from the Pacific Ocean. There is a gradual change in seasons with defined seasonal characteristics. Average daily temperatures range from 44°F to 82°F. Average annual rainfall recorded in this area is 39 inches. Average annual snowfall is approximately 8 inches between December and February. Site Geology Durham Elementary There is one underlying soil type on the on the Durham Elementary Access site as classified by the United States Department of Agriculture Soil Survey of Washington County, Oregon. The soil type is identified below in Table 1 (See Technical Appendix - USGS Soil Maps and Soil Properties). Soil Type Hydrologic Group Hillsboro Loam B Table 1 —Onsite Soil Characteristics The site consists of Hillsboro Loam, which is classified as hydrologic group B. Group B soils have infiltration rates of (0.15-0.30 in/hr) when thoroughly saturated. The textures of group B soils are fine. This soil classification will be the same for the post-developed analysis. Existing Hydrology Durham Elementary • Runoff from the existing site sheet flows toward the southeast corner of the existing soccer field. Durham Elementary Access • • Preliminary Drainage Report October 12,2007 Page 7 • Curve Number The major factors for determining the CN values are hydrologic soil group, cover type, treatment, hydrologic condition and antecedent runoff condition. The curve number represents runoff potential from the soil. Durham Elementary The existing site is an open field, with the majority of the site covered by grasses (See Technical Appendix—Table 2-2a TR55 Urban Hydrology for Small Watershed). Curve numbers will be the same for post developed conditions. Existing CN Pervious(CN) 61 Impervious(CN) 98 Table 2—Curve Numbers Basin Areas Durham Elementary Impervious and pervious surface areas for the pre-developed conditions for Durham Elementary are shown in Table 3. The existing development is approximately 30% impervious (See Technical Appendix—Pre Developed Basin Areas). Basin Area III sq.ft. acres Pre-Developed Impervious Area 84,607 1.94 Pervious Area 195,789 4.49 Total Post-Developed Basin Area 280,396 6.44 Table 3—Pre-Developed Basin Areas Impervious and pervious surface areas for the post-developed conditions for Durham Elementary are shown in Table 4. The proposed development will be approximately 38% impervious. The impervious area includes the proposed access road and parking lot, existing parking lot and building to the west, and a portion of the east parking lot (See Technical Appendix — Post Developed Basin Areas). Basin Area sq.ft. acres Post-Developed Impervious Area 106,778 2.45 Pervious Area 173,618 3.99 Total Post-Developed Basin Area 280,396 6.44 Table 4—Post-Developed Basin Areas • Durham Elementary Access • • Preliminary Drainage Report October 12,2007 Page 8 POST-DEVELOPED CONDITIONS • Hydrology Durham Elementary The flow generated from the proposed development will be conveyed by a series of catch basins and storm conveyance pipes to the swale that will be located on the southwest corner of the property. This swale will discharge storm runoff into Fanno Creek. A complete conveyance design and analysis will be provided in the final drainage report. Design Guidelines The site is located within the jurisdiction of the City of Tigard and Clean Water Services. The analysis and design criteria used for stormwater management described in this section will follow the Clean Water Services: Design and Construction Standards issued in June 2007. Design Storm The rainfall distribution to be used within the Clean Water Services jurisdiction is the design storm of 24-hour duration based on the standard NRCS Type 1A rainfall distribution. A typical SCS Type 1A 24-hour rainfall distribution for a 25-year storm event is shown in Figure 2. Recurrence Total Precipitation Interval (years) Depth (in.) 2 2.5 5 3.1 10 3.5 411 25 3.9 Table 5—Design Storms Table 4 shows total precipitation depths for different storm events which where used as a multiplier for the SCS Type 1A 24-hour rainfall distribution in XP-SWMM. The conveyance system is designed for a 25-year storm event with a peak intensity of 0.96 in/hr as shown in Figure 2. 110 Durham Elementary Access • • Preliminary Drainage Report October 12,2007 Page 9 • -,-__�______ _ Rainfall -25 Year SCS 1A 0.9 - - 0.8 0.7 • • 0.6 0.5 ._.. a 0.4 • 0.3 0.0 0 5 10 15 20 25 Time(hours) Figure 2—25 Year SCS Type 1A Rainfall Distribution Basin Runoff • The peak runoff values for the post-developed parcel during the 2, 5, 10, and 25-year storm events will be given in the final drainage report. HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS AND DESIGN CHARACTERISTICS Hydraulics The hydraulic mode of XP-SWMM solves equations throughout the drainage network and includes modeling of backwater effects, flow reversal, surcharging, looped connections, pressure flow and interconnected ponds. XP-SWMM2000 Version 10.5 was used for our hydrology and hydraulics analysis. XP-SWMM is based on the public domain SWMM program. SWMM is an approved method of analysis by the City of Tigard. Manning's 'n' Values A Manning's 'n' value of 0.013 was selected for all of the storm drain pipes per Clean Water Service guidelines. The Manning's 'n'value is 8 percent higher than the recommended Manning's 'n' value for concrete pipe (n = 0.012) in order to account for entrance, exit, junction, and bend head losses. Proposed Onsite Drainage Catch basins will collect runoff and convey flow to the swale at the southwest corner of the site. Treated water will be released into Fanno Creek. The system will tie into an existing storm pump manhole,which collects some runoff from the existing east parking lot. There is an additional manhole, MH #3, located to the west of the site. This manhole will be used to tie in future parking that may • eventually replace the existing building.The swale was sized for this expansion and additional runoff. Durham Elementary Access • Preliminary Drainage Report October 12,2007 Page 10 System Capacities • The proposed onsite storm conveyance system will have sufficient capacity to handle all storm events up to and including the 25-year storm event. Additional flows from the potential future parking lot were routed through the proposed conveyance network at the projected connection point of MH#3. System Performance Maximum flow in a storm drainage pipe occurs at approximately 0.94do (Depth of flow section (do) — depth of flow normal to the direction of flow). At 0.94do the section factor of uniform flow has a maximum value that results in optimum flow for a section without surcharge conditions. During a 25-year storm event, the proposed conveyance system will operate at or below 0.94do. A complete conveyance design will be provided in the final drainage report. WATER QUALITY Water Quality Guidelines The water quality flow (WQF) was determined from Clean Water Services: Design and Construction Standards issued in June 2007. The water quality facility is designed per CWS standards, using a rainfall of 0.36" over a 4-hour period with a return period of 96-hours as outlined in section 4.05.4d. Section 4.05.5 requires existing impervious area disturbed by redevelopment, if greater than 1,000 sf, to be treated. Treatment of existing impervious areas may also be required if disturbing more that 1,000 sf. Water Quality Required Treatment The proposed access road and parking lot will require replacing more than 1,000 sf of existing impervious area; therefore, the facility added must treat the entire storm flow and 25 percent of • undisturbed impervious area. The impervious area required to be treated will include the proposed access road and parking lot, and impervious buildings and existing parking lot to the north. Approximately 20,728 sf of the east parking lot will drain to our proposed site, and will also need to be treated. The proposed pervious areas will not need to be considered in the water quality swale calculations. Water Quality Volume(WQV)and Flow(WQF) Total of impervious areas required to be treated will be used to calculate water quality volume and flow from the water quality facility. The total impervious surface area is outlined below in Table 6. Impervious Areas square feet acres Proposed Parking Lot&Access Rd. 39,212 0.90 Existing Parking Lot& Building (West) 23,602 0.54 Existing Building/Future Parking (West) 23,235 0.53 Parking Lot(East) 20,728 0.48 Total Impervious Area 106,778 2.45 Table 6—Impervious Area The parking lot is a proposed addition to the site and is included in the WQV and WQF analysis. The total water quality volume and flow were computed according to Clean Water Service Design Standards and are stated below: Water Quality Volume= 0.36 (in)x Area (sf) =0.36(in)x 102,927 (sf) = 3,203 cubic feet 12 (in/ft) 12 (in/ft) 1111 Durham Elementary Access 0 • Preliminary Drainage Report October 12,2007 Page 11 IIIWater Quality Flow=Water Quality Volume(cf)= 3,203(cf) =0.22 cubic feet per second 14,400(sec) 14,400 (sec) Water Quality Facility A water quality swale was chosen as water quality BMP for the proposed development. All of the new impervious areas created by the onsite development will be treated by the water quality swale. The water quality swale was designed in accordance with current CWS standards as follows: • Design Flow: Water Quality Flow • Minimum Hydraulic Residence Time: 9 minutes • Maximum Water Design Depth: 0.5 feet • Minimum Slope: 0.5% • Minimum Length: 100 feet • Manning's"n"value: 0.24 • Maximum Velocity: 2.0 fps (based on 25-yr flow) Using FlowMaster 2005 Software and the CWS standards, a proposed swale is shown in Table 7. Average Depth Velocity Residence Bottom Width Swale Length (ft) Slope (%) Flow(cfs) (ft) (fps) Time(min) (ft) Swale 170 0.5 0.22 0.27 0.16 17.7 4.0 Table 7—Swale Parameters WATER QUANTITY • Water Quantity Requirements and Guidelines The water quantity facility was designed in accordance with Clean Water Services chapter 4.03.4b. The detention requirements per CWS require that the post-developed runoff rates from the site do not exceed the pre-developed runoff rates based on the 2 through 25-year, 24-hour storm events. A conversation with Mike White, from the City of Tigard, led to the conclusion that detention is not required if discharging directly into Fanno Creek. Water from the swale will be discharging directly into Fanno Creek. Water Conveyance Facility Along with the water quality swale, the conveyance system has also been considered. The total impervious area is 106,778 sf. The pervious area, including grass/landscaped area, the football field, and the playground is 173,618 sf. Using FlowMaster 2005 Software and the CWS standards, the conveyance swale is shown below (See Technical Appendix — Conveyance Swale). • Velocity: 0.32 fps • Side Slope: 4H:1V for the first 0.5 feet, then can increase to 3H:1V • Bottom Width: 4 feet • Conveyance Depth: 1.5 feet • Top Width (with max. water design depth at 0.5 ft and freeboard of 1 ft): 14 feet The water quantity analysis is still preliminary and the full report will be provided in the final III drainage report. Durham Elementary Access • • Preliminary Drainage Report October 12,2007 Page 12 SUMMARY 111 The proposed water quality/quantity swale follow the Design and Construction Standards for Sanitary Sewer and Surface Water Management by Clean Water Services, issued in June 2007. The swale will meet the discharge requirements and will treat stormwater runoff before discharging into Fanno Creek. • • Durham Elementary Access • • Preliminary Drainage Report October 12,2007 Page 13 • TECHNICAL APPENDIX Exhibit 1 - Pre Developed Basin Areas Exhibit 2- Post Developed Basin Areas TR-55 Curve Number Reference Sheets USGS Soil Maps USGS Water Features Water Quality Swale Conveyance Swale • REFERENCES 1. Clean Water Services:Design and Construction Standards in June 2007 2. Urban Hydrology for Small Watersheds(TR-55) USDA& NRCS, June 1986 3. USDA Soil Survey for Washington County http://soils.usda.gov/ • ‘•• . .•41 o ,.. 0 - - 0-- - - - - - - • r, _ .: .. . . i z - 1 d , - a iiii.,-." . .--------:gat a — - ________ - _, SW DURHAM ROAD : - i . : - • , • , . . ,..-- . . . • .... ,32f og Z . . ..-- —- . ... 44. , . ..• - • -------:' ,— 0 1_____ ..-- / .,,....-S _--- • . - . ....- ..-• ... -i.' ....- ----- 1 ite...._rf• i ___77----- ,111111"1"—..-15.2111, .e. • EXISTING BUILDING & PARKING LOT - k— . -7\ ... . y , % - ,,o;.- ........ .e.,. ,,,,, .....,,., ...... 2.: ... ., „, ,,,,,,,: .„ . . .., . . ... •- ..: .......•.. .----..F A.....:- ....:- ,- , •- g g G s 4 ! AREA= 25,817 SF : ;, r,;IA: ..' .,...... ......,................./ .. .-. „ - .........' ;,•-' as). .... • . • • \ ..,, .. •,I, -:„- 0:1, ,.. IMPERVIOUS= 100% „„„„„7-7„ .- LIN i .• .•• ---:-.. , .., . .: .. :., ........ : .2:', ..e.s.71 . .... • .- ... 1,„.,,,- x As-, . ,.• 1:111 1 DURHAM DEN TER Ii%.. '‘'''.*'• ' ,r ..: • .• , • ( s )-'•., :.'l'' i Ctii i . . .. ... ... EXISTING BUILDING .. . ../.";........'-' -. •.. /-... '' .• .. K * ' [1---- ... ../,' --'-' ....4;' • •::........:.!... „...- . --,.--,-1 : ,-. ",-->'" ,,,- Mg EXISTING BUI ING ----'---------______...... --_,..1 -----1 ? - W. .• ... . ... , ,,,, , ..-.L.. 4.N : .. . • . AREA= 25,745 SF , 1 .22._ ... ., ,. i • r.iit ! ......---/ .. ASSUMED IMPERVIOUS= 90% 0 ,.-- 1 c.v :. i . GRASS ...... ., I/ i.. .11 i I , 4..ti! ..'" ' , i Om- -.- . ' I s - _...., (1) . ...,0- : AREA=.-195,789,,SF i -------, OM TING - 0.2 if ,..._.. MI ; IMPERVIOUS= D% ,....1. BUILDING '- i. I.: ; ! .-.5.0 i LLI ul cc1,1 . ,. , : :wo ' .' 1--.0 :.. 1 ,, . . • . . . :i, , : .: tot PLAY 3- ..,:',Y.--- -: .• , ... :I t •. CC 0 * , ; - i . ..... .... il:., 1 ..____-----.t.-. < 0 i--- 0 • / . • . i Z CC ,:,.._: . ./.,,, • ''.. 4k._ , lk • '. ..' _., ... 0 \ 11A:.. .,,,$),.\ ,,... :.(...„1 . el: ,,,, -.... .:-...r.- ,. ' A ! (12) 4::1 g 'IA., •..- 11 0 ''' F. •-- ••• ...": 1 'AN / / / i' . , 0 • N \ S .. ( ( i I 1' ...4.,'; s,. I.. 2 0 ..... , '•■: . •sliji I I C--- . i •-•...,.. • • f --vg, I Oz i ccS T-- ,-- , , :At i I' i • : . :, .........._ LLI U..I C.) cs • :... . *1 ... .. ... . .... . --..--... __.., I I: . ,,‘,it1.19 i •-....„.. 1 1:Vil 1.. ..• 1. 1 , /Efiee i / / . . .4A116■.\ ;:* , .- - .-A-,-..-...--:-.--s......- > vs. lir EXISTING DURHAM ELEMENTARY I 7 , . . ' 1 . . .„ . .... . • • V: ;.. ; ' ' I . : . : : . . . EAST PARKING LOT AREA= 25,490 SF IMPERVIOUS= 100% LLJ 0 < 0 Ill cr I < LL ,....., 1-- EXISTING BUILDING • , ,,,i .. , : L—I AREA= 10,391 SF . , , .' , ,..r.;.: i • • 0 qf r - : I • . lt.• : •.: • . SCALE 1"=80 IMPERVIOUS= 100% ...„— i f 0 1! .!MillIMIIMMIM=1 • i 80 40 0 80 . :• • . . ,i; : • - • . : • . .•• • . 111*-%:. . . ...„ . . . . TOTAL EXISTING DRAINAGE BASIN :; ;: - ,, .• ... - AREA= 280,396 SF . •: , . ,—I M P E R V= 30% s.''''''..'"•--...„.„..,,,._...ik...s .. . (c• ---- c\i CD ,- u) F- 0 a,-- :.f d•: /..•i . 9 ::","7///, .::::: ...--,-• z d • / 0 w z I- -) Ili w CL 0 CO (I) • • • DD^ m N x X U) 71 ,---T1 N -I CD C _1 KII x1Z Co m 0 O D N m m .P' -0 OD • co I>) , •,A m � C•)MIIII . , 1 Li. i ,,,;: ... . . ., __co O II �...., , ,,,,, ,) O � . , 1 1 -------'s! ' '' ''''''' ' .._. .., II 1 I . �— • .. 49.. ....._...._, .. • „ • 4, ! � ED � � D -DD m > � i x7DC� mm � c) II II z 70 D T m N O , II � c�n III •.. I , !... : i i •(n i,. C - . -.. H r i', .. ....,60._ -.._-.- ....._.. i '6p • I ti • °s, a ti '” •.a I 1 ',;• o ED -0 C) ��- rl • • ! ! I1 v , \\ 1 I I I CO CO \ 1 a c "f� , r.. u • `L .e P (OSE _ S : : r I �� I . r6 • ' i • •FANNO CREEK i ' J� ; n ; -) . , .. ,s i____________ • �Cl D < II - I =� 11 N � k:. ., O .I O v — Z w I ' j • PROJECT NO. TSD6701 POST DEVELOPED BASIN AREAS `" R G DATE: 10/12/07 DURHAM ELEMENTARY ACCESS D E S I G I N �. BY: CJS 5415 SW Weatpete Dr,Ste 100 Pol lard,OR 97221 TIGARD-TUALATIN SCHOOL DISTRICT #23J TeL 5«+.419.2500 Fax 503.4192600 SHEET NO. 02 TIGARD, OREGON A»a.. gym. • wa.u.,.eo.nsn . ..e.a. • • Chapter 2 Estimating Runoff Technical Release 55 IIIUrban Hydrology for Small Watersheds Table 2-2a Runoff curve numbers for urban areas i/ Curve numbers for Cover description hydrologic soil group Average percent Cover type and hydrologic condition impervious area 2' A B C D Fully developed urban areas (vegetation established) Open space(lawns,parks,golf courses,cemeteries,etc.)3': Poor condition(grass cover<50%) 68 79 86 89 Fair condition(grass cover 50%to 75%) 49 69 79 84 Good condition(grass cover>75%) 39 L6-1.1 74 80 Impervious areas: Paved parking lots,roofs,driveways,etc. (excluding right-of-way) 98 98 98 98 Streets and roads: Paved;curbs and storm sewers(excluding right-of-way) 98 98 98 98 Paved;open ditches(including right-of-way) 83 89 92 93 Gravel(including right-of-way) 76 85 89 91 Dirt(including right-of-way) 72 82 87 89 Western desert urban areas: Natural desert landscaping(pervious areas only)./ 63 77 85 88 • Artificial desert landscaping(impervious weed barrier, desert shrub with 1-to 2-inch sand or gravel mulch and basin borders) 96 96 96 96 Urban districts: Commercial and business 85 89 92 94 95 Industrial 72 81 88 91 93 Residential districts by average lot size: 1/8 acre or less(town houses) 65 77 85 90 92 1/4 acre 38 61 75 83 87 1/3 acre 30 57 72 81 86 1/2 acre 25 54 70 80 85 1 acre 20 51 68 79 84 2 acres 12 46 65 77 82 Developing urban areas Newly graded areas (pervious areas only,no vegetation)5' 77 86 91 94 Idle lands(CN's are determined using cover types similar to those in table 2-2c). I Average runoff condition,and I,=0.2S. 2 The average percent impervious area shown was used to develop the composite CN's.Other assumptions are as follows:impervious areas are directly connected to the drainage system,impervious areas have a CN of 98,and pervious areas are considered equivalent to open space in good hydrologic condition.CN's for other combinations of conditions may be computed using figure 2-3 or 2-4. 3 CN's shown are equivalent to those of pasture.Composite CN's may be computed for other combinations of open space cover type. 4 Composite CN's for natural desert landscaping should be computed using figures 2-3 or 2-4 based on the impervious area percentage (CN=98)and the pervious area CN.The pervious area CN's are assumed equivalent to desert shrub in poor hydrologic condition. 5 Composite CN's to use for the design of temporary measures during grading and construction should be computed using figure 2-3 or 2-4 based on the degree of development(impervious area percentage)and the CN's for the newly graded pervious areas. III (210-VI-TR-55,Second Ed.,June 1986) 2-5 Hydrologic Soil Group—Washington County,Oregon 518790 518820 518850 518880 518910 518940 518970 '1 a 1t° SW DURHAM RDi.,. • _ -.. . .. ,ainilL § N r � oNo ',`1' .s.. m • O N N i > 4 , 216 S >' sI 4• A` s ''' .i • 21 C I,� ":,: , x444.,44 O O F. @ c. N R pp 518 90 518820 518850 518880 518910 518940 518970 N Meters A 0 0 15 30 50 100 60 90 Feet LSDA 200 300 Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 2.0 7/12/2007 r Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 1 of 4 4110 4110 • • Hydrologic Soil Group— ashington County,Oregon MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION Area of Interest(AOI) Local Roads Original soil survey map sheets were prepared at publication scale. Area of Interest(A01) Viewing scale and printing scale,however,may vary from the Other Roads original.Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for proper Soils map measurements. I Soil Map Units Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Ratings Web Soil Survey URL: http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov 0 A Coordinate System: UTM Zone 10N Q A/D This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of B the version date(s)listed below. • B/D Soil Survey Area: Washington County,Oregon Survey Area Data: Version 5,Dec 22,2006 C Date(s)aerial images were photographed: 8/5/2000 El 0/D The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were El D compiled and digitized probably differs from the background Not rated or not available imagery displayed on these maps.As a result,some minor shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident. Political Features Municipalities 0 Cities ® Urban Areas Water Features in Oceans Streams and Canals Transportation .s* Rails Roads • .•v Interstate Highways US Routes i-::.-i State Highways USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 2.0 7/12/2007 Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 2 of 4 • • Hydrologic Soil Group—Washington County,Oregon • Hydrologic Soil Group Hydrologic Soil Group--Summary by Map Unit-Washington County,Oregon Map unit symbol Map unit name Rating Acres In AOI Percent of AOl 21 B Hillsboro loam,3 to 7 B 7.3 93.0% percent slopes 21C Hillsboro loam,7 to 12 B 0.5 7.0% percent slopes (Totals for Area of Interest(AOI) 7.8 I 100.0%] Description Hydrologic soil groups are based on estimates of runoff potential. Soils are assigned to one of four groups according to the rate of water infiltration when the soils are not protected by vegetation,are thoroughly wet,and receive precipitation from long-duration storms. The soils in the United States are assigned to four groups(A, B, C, and D)and three dual classes(A/D, B/D, and C/D).The groups are defined as follows: Group A. Soils having a high infiltration rate(low runoff potential)when thoroughly • wet. These consist mainly of deep,well drained to excessively drained sands or gravelly sands.These soils have a high rate of water transmission. Group B. Soils having a moderate infiltration rate when thoroughly wet.These consist chiefly of moderately deep or deep,moderately well drained or well drained soils that have moderately fine texture to moderately coarse texture. These soils have a moderate rate of water transmission. Group C. Soils having a slow infiltration rate when thoroughly wet.These consist chiefly of soils having a layer that impedes the downward movement of water or soils of moderately fine texture or fine texture.These soils have a slow rate of water transmission. Group D. Soils having a very slow infiltration rate(high runoff potential)when thoroughly wet.These consist chiefly of clays that have a high shrink-swell potential, soils that have a high water table,soils that have a claypan or clay layer at or near the surface, and soils that are shallow over nearly impervious material. These soils have a very slow rate of water transmission. If a soil is assigned to a dual hydrologic group(A/D, B/D, or C/D),the first letter is for drained areas and the second is for undrained areas.Only the soils that in their natural condition are in group D are assigned to dual classes. Rating Options Aggregation Method: Dominant Condition • USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 2.0 7/12/2007 ;Ma Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 3 of 4 • • Water Quality Swale 107-ojecf(lesci-iiiticin • Friction Method Manning Formula Solve For Normal Depth Input Data 1 7.7171 Roughness Coefficient 0.240 Channel Slope 0.00500 ft/ft Left Side Slope 4.00 ft/ft(H:V) Right Side Slope 4.00 ft/ft(H:V) Bottom Width 4.00 ft Discharge 0.22 fts/s ResuI`- ,,,,,• Normal Depth 0.27 ft Flow Area 1.38 ft2 Wetted Perimeter 6.23 ft Top Width 6.17 ft Critical Depth 0.04 ft Critical Slope 2.40799 ft/ft Velocity 0.16 ft/s Velocity Head 0.00 ft Specific Energy 0.27 ft Froude Number 0.06 Flow Type Subcritical 1GV01i1Pifoa617 ' • ; ; -7:6777 ' • '. - !" _• Downstream Depth 0.00 ft Length 0.00 ft Number Of Steps 0 GVF Output Data • Upstream Depth 0.00 ft Profile Description Profile Headloss 0.00 ft Downstream Velocity Infinity ft/s Upstream Velocity Infinity ft/s Normal Depth 0.27 ft Critical Depth 0.04 ft Channel Slope 0.00500 ft/ft Critical Slope 2.40799 ft/ft 4110 Bentley Systems,Inc. Haestad Methods Solution Center FlowMaster [08.01.058.00] 10/11/2007 2:13:59 PM 27 Siemons Company Drive Suite 200 W Watertown,CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666 Page 1 of 1 • • Conveyance Swale •- Pro eet Descn bon. Friction Method Manning Formula Solve For Normal Depth Roughness Coefficient 0.240 Channel Slope 0.00500 tuft Left Side Slope 4.00 ft/ft(H:V) Right Side Slope 4.00 ft/ft(H:V) Bottom Width 4.00 ft Discharge 2.54 fN/s Results --,__-..__..... ....t__.._-__ _�._..._. : - Normal Depth 0.98 ft Flow Area 7.79 ft2 Wetted Perimeter 12.10 ft Top Width 11.86 ft Critical Depth 0.22 ft Critical Slope 1.49637 ft/ft Velocity 0.33 ft/s • Velocity Head 0.00 ft Specific Energy 0.98 ft Froude Number 0.07 Flow Type Subcritical • • _... _.� _:,e F:r„�.-_4�- .6 .:,.",,,, .,.. : -.-:-'-:.!, v!''f_ - •-'f+£=a_ _ p- rlas �ii?"! _i'yf' :,'_`:.." ,�,E-.. jGVF.In utaData _ .,:_- _ ....-..x.._. `:.ar`•-•A.a:u._..,...t t. ._ zm3.-aF..�_i�3"rte:_._.-r.+,i tit.s.::Yi:':m”"iv-5...m�,:...°5:�..v:e,'�_.�...�r...da:'_L��-'..'.iitaXr,,.�r_.e.,,M.x'a.,>,-'4' • --` Downstream Depth 0.00 ft Length 0.00 ft Number Of Steps 0 Upstream Depth 0.00 ft Profile Description Profile Headloss 0.00 ft Downstream Velocity Infinity ft/s Upstream Velocity Infinity ft/s Normal Depth 0.98 ft Critical Depth 0.22 ft Channel Slope 0.00500 ft/ft Critical Slope 1.49637 ft/ft • Bentley Systems,Inc. Haestad Methods Solution Center FlowMaster 108.01.058.00] 10/11/2007 2:22:43 PM 27 Siemons Company Drive Suite 200 W Watertown,CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666 Page 1 of 1 • M's/ I PORTLAND,OREGON • SEATTLE,WASHINGTON MILLER NASH«P VANCOUVER,WASHINGTON CENTRAL OREGON ATTORNEYS AT LAW WWW.MILLERNASH.COM Memorandum To: City of Tigard Staff and Hearings Officer From: Kelly S. Hossaini Subject: Background Information Regarding Proposed Durham Elementary Access; Conditional Use/Major Modification Review Date: September 5, 2007 The purpose of this memo is to provide City staff and the hearings officer with background information as to the need for new access to Durham Elementary School, and the alternatives that the District reviewed for the new access. No alternatives analysis is required by the applicable approval criteria,but the District believes that the information contained in this memo is useful for an overall • understanding of the complex situation facing the District. Durham Elementary School, as it presently exists,was constructed in 1989. Since that time,the primary access for the school has been through an easement over the Clean Water Services ("CWS") property to the west. (See Attachment 1.) This access has consisted of a private roadway extending from SW Shaffer Lane to the elementary school parking lot. Unfortunately,the easement document only provides for an easement duration of 20 years from the date of signing, with no provisions made for any extensions. By its terms,then,the easement expires in May 2009. Prior to exploring alternative access options for Durham Elementary,the District contacted CWS on a number of occasions requesting an extension of the easement duration. CWS has consistently refused to extend the duration of the easement, due to a planned facility expansion. This has left the District with no option but to pursue an alternative access point. The access options for Durham Elementary School are limited. The only public street to which the School Site has direct access is SW Durham Road. To the west is SW Shaffer Lane,but the School Site has no access to SW Shaffer Lane, except through the CWS property. There is no street south of the School Site from which access could be taken. Directly adjacent to the School Site to the south is CWS property with settling basins, Fanno Creek, and railroad tracks. SW Durham Road lies to the north and east,but to the east it is only reachable through Industrial Park-zoned properties, of • which the Industrial/Office Site is one. - 1- PDXDOCS:1567558.1 • • As an additional point of information,the traffic signal at SW Durham • Road/SW 79th Avenue was installed at that intersection in 1997 in order to provide a safe crossing for children attending Durham Elementary. (City file number CIP 96-17.) Documentation to this effect is provided in Attachment 2. The issue arose as part of the City approval process for the expansion of Durham Elementary. Traffic signal warrants were not met for the signal,but the community felt strongly that the signal be installed for the safety of the children. As the attached documentation shows,the District paid for 5o% of the cost of the signal. The District chose the SW Durham Road/SW 79th Avenue access alternative after continued discussions with CWS, City Engineering and Planning Staff, and an alternatives evaluation prepared by DKS Associates ("DKS"). Three options were initially considered: Option 1: Access across CWS'property extending north to SW Durham Road, approximately 700 feet east of the SW Hall Boulevard/SW Durham Road intersection. (See Attachment 3.) Option 2: Access through the School Site and Durham Center north to SW Durham Road, directly across from SW Carol Ann Court. (See Attachment 4.) Option 3: Access through the School Site, east across the soccer field property and the Industrial/Office Site to the existing signalized intersection of SW Durham Road and SW 79th Avenue. (See Attachment 5.) • After early analysis and discussions with City staff, Option 1 was determined to be not viable. SW Durham Road is an arterial roadway,which has a minimum access spacing standard of 600 feet. (Transportation System Plan ("TSP"), page 8-55.) The proposed new access under Option 1 would be within 30o feet of the SW Durham Road/SW Carol Ann Court intersection and so would not meet the minimum access spacing standard. Further, Option 1 would likely require a new traffic signal to allow buses and other vehicles to make a left turn onto SW Durham Road. The location of this traffic signal would have operational impacts, as westbound vehicle queuing on SW Durham Road between the school PM peak hour and the study area PM peak hour extends from SW Hall Boulevard past SW 79th Avenue to SW Upper Boones Ferry Road, and eastbound queuing on SW Durham Road was expected to reach its storage capacity in 2007 during the AM peak hour. It was City staffs opinion that adding a new intersection—signalized or unsignalized—so close to the SW Durham Road/SW Hall Boulevard intersection would unacceptably exacerbate that condition. Under the circumstances, City staff stated that it could not support such an access. Because both Option 2 and Option 3 appeared to be at least initially feasible,the District tasked DKS with an analysis of those two options. Attachment 6 is the resulting alternatives analysis (the "DKS Analysis"). With respect to Option 2,the DKS Analysis found that a new access onto Durham Elementary across from SW Carol Ann Court would not meet access spacing standards. As with Option 1,the analysis determined that a new signal would be required at that intersection to allow buses and • other vehicles to make a left turn onto SW Durham Road. The vehicle queuing analysis - 2 - PDXDOCS:1567558.1 • • conducted on SW Durham Road found that queues are expected to extend between the 41) signal at SW Hall Boulevard and SW 79th Avenue during peak hours. Construction of a traffic signal within the influence area of these signals would not meet City of Tigard Access Management Policy(Tigard Municipal Code 18.705.030-H). To manage this impact, traffic coordination (including construction inter-connect to link the signals) would need to be considered. With respect to Option 3,this option does not require any new access point onto SW Durham Road or a new traffic signal,because it utilizes an existing signalized intersection that is currently aligned with a parking lot access point. The DKS Analysis found that by closing the current SW Durham Road access to the Durham Center,the traffic issues along SW Durham Road could be mitigated. The analysis also found that, with the provision of an eastbound right-turn lane at the existing SW Durham Road/SW 79th Avenue intersection,the eastbound queuing problem in the AM peak hour could be mitigated. Given the existing congestion on SW Durham Road and the forecasted continuance of that congestion,the DKS Analysis recommended that Option 3,the SW Durham Road/SW 79th Avenue option,be pursued as the most feasible access option for the elementary school. Subsequent discussions with City engineering and planning staff confirmed that Option 3 is also staffs preference for the new access, as Option 3 utilizes an existing signalized intersection and does not potentially exacerbate the congestion on SW Durham Road with an additional access point and signal. • • -3 - PDXDOCS:1567558.1 PAGE 02 03/03/2004 08: 45 5036844629_ • • ROADWAY LEASE AGREEMENT TIGARD SCHOOL DISTRICT 23J AND UNIFIED SEWERAGE AGENCY This lease agreement is between the Unified Sewerage Agency 'USA" , lessor , and Tigard School District 23J "District" , lessee. 1 . This lease is entered into pursuant to ORS 271 .300 . The purpose of this agreement .is to lease property to District to enable it to construct and use an alternate access roadway and related improvements across USA's Durham AWTP site, to the District' s Durham School Building. USA has determined that a lease of the roadway site to the District, upon the terms and conditions herein, will not conflict with Agency operations at the Durham site, and that exclusive possession of the roadway site for the term of this lease is not needed for public use by USA. 2 . USA hereby agrees to lease to District, the property on USA's Durham AWTP site identified on attachment "A" • hereto, as "Proposed Roadway" . District may use the leased property for purpose of access to its Durham School, and for. no other purpose. The parties acknowledge that USA has allowed free public access to portions of the Durham AWTP site in the past. USA reserves the right to limit such access in the future, in its discretion, provided however, that access to the Durham School , via the roadway, may continue as otherwise provided in this agreement. 3 . The term of this lease shall be twenty ( 20') years from the date of execution by both parties . It may be renewed thereafter for successive terms of five ( 5 ) years by mutual agreement. Either party may terminate by providing five (5 ) years ' advance written notice. In the event the Durham School site is n longer used as a schools. this lease shall terminate automatically. District' s right to possession under this lease shall commence upon execution of this lease by both parties. Possession of the leased premises shall be non-exclusive. • Attachment 1 Page 1 of 3 • PAGE 03 03/03/2004 08: 45 50368.4462_9 Page 2 .nib . 4 . The District shall obtain all necessary permits and approvals for the roadway from the City of Tigard. The 411 District shall construct the roadway according to the plans approved under City permit, and as reviewed and approved by USA engineering staff. District may construct the roadway and related improvements in phases over a three-year period. Construction of all improvements shall be _completed within four (4) years . Any changes in the plans, as approved, shall be submitted to USA for its review and approval. 5 . District shall pay all costs to design, build, operate and maintain the roadway and related improvements provided in this lease agreement. This shall include all necessary modifications to USA's driveway, landscaping, irrigation and drainage facilities . During construction, access to USA facilities shall be maintained at all times . Construction materials shall not be kept on the USA property, except as they are incorporated into the work. All improvements constructed upon the premises by District shall, upon completion of construction, become the property of USA. District shall keep the roadway and sidewalks well maintained, and clear of ice, snow, debris and rubbish. 6 . District shall pay USA as rent for the leased premises the sum of $1.00 (one dollar) per year, payable in advance 111 on January 1 of each year beginning January 1, 1990 . District shall also pay the storm water surface charge of. the City of Tigard or any successor thereto, at City rates. 7. District shall at all times conform to all applicable laws and regulations of any public authority affecting the premises and its use, and correct at its expense , any failure of compliance caused by District' s fault or by reason of District's use of the premises . District shall refrain from any use which would create a nuisance or damage the premises or adjoining areas . 8. District shall be responsible for all claims , demands, liabilities and suits of whatever kind or character, brought by• any person arising out of the design , con- struction, maintenance and District' s use of the leased premises. District shall maintain sufficient insurance or a program of self insurance to cover public body 411 Attachment 1 Page 2 of 3 PAGE 04 03/03'2004_ 08:45 5 �n��u � 036Lnu�L 844629 D1 FICT 23J and UNIFIED S ' % AGENCY LEASE AGREEM Page 3 I 111 tort liability, and shall cause USA to be a named insured on any policy with respect to this lease. TIGARD SCHOOL DISTRICT 23J UNIFIED SEWERAGE AGENCY DY rimed . 1 AWL B iAtts;41\ Tit 1 e �((,p((� )1.1.'tt?de1t 1 Title Q, Date_4 fl f Date 1j _ Approved as to form: . - /if 07/1,(7 Agency ounsel • • Attachment 1 • LSS Page3of3 • DURHAM/79TH SCHOOL CROSSWALK • Notes from 3/7/95 phone conversation with Dorothy Upton, Region 1 Traffic Operations Manager (who has discussed the issues with Brant Williams, State Traffic Engineer) . pora/,,ty%s /19, e,,z 2 5) • ODOT could support a mid-block crosswalk near the Durham driveway to the school if the school is continues to provide adult crossing guard during primary school crossing times . • They want to move it further west to get it away from the curve in Durham Road. The hill to the west will be lowered some as part of the Durham Road improvements . (Crosswalk location would happen after road improvements are completed next year. ) • The School District should request this location and affirm that adult crossing guard program will be continued. Even better if the City supports the request . • Traffic and pedestrian volumes do not currently meet warrants for a traffic signal . However, Dorothy will recommend that • the street project include the installation of conduits to facilitate future installation of traffic signal or advance warning flashers . She will discuss with the design team. This would make it easier and cheaper to install signal in the future if it becomes warranted. :■ m .f d pot ?V C� vi4 oy 1,A)7 i . 0 1 \14 iivi 40 tt ir Akot, %.) 1 /1 ?‘' 0 -1.0":" ji y • (Pi 01 Oj 'tit •\ 0 ' )11'11 \,?31 1. t)I t\l‘ 'tfr I AI) Ccjli w ,ii, 1 \ : \\I-vs b , • . (, • v i\• T.0,, -/ it,,;, Ev A 10 Attachment 2 ' L' :ell r‘ ; Page 1 of 13 �;' _;,/ r I, p r ; ,+�' jii � \ 'L �, t ' ' 1�j g - P. SOUTH C. I . T. City of Tigard Thursday, 6 April 1995 City Council City of Tigard Tigard, Oregon 97223 Dear Councilmen: The South C.I.T. voted unanimously to request and to be strong advocates for full traffic lamp signalization of the intersection of South West 79th Avenue with Durham Road. Reasons discussed and agreed with were for safety of children crossing from the north side of Durham Road to walk to Durham Elementary School and its playground, reduction of need for bussing students from north side of Durham Road to Durham Elementary School because of large volume of traffic on Durham Road, and safety of automobile traffic from 79th Avenue entering Durham Road. • Respectfully submitted, Sterling M Facilitator, South C.I.T. Copy to: City Engineering • Attachment 2 Page 2 of 13 • • Jack Biethan 15525 SW 109th Ave . Tigard OR 97224-3554 April 14, 1995 684 1362 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS CITY OF TIGARD I wish to express my support for a fully controlled traffic signal at the intersection of southwest seventy ninth avenue and Durham Road to be installed as part of the upcoming reconstruction of Durham Road . Small children are at risk under present conditions at this site and this would be an excellent opportunity to correct an undesirable situation. Without this improvement it is only a matter of time till a serious accident will kill or maim a child here. • It is my understanding that ninety thousand dollars is available that could assist in funding this project . Please give this your serious consideration. I also urge you to consider restriping Hall Boulevard for a few hundred feet to create a left turn refuge lane from Sattler Street onto Hall Boulevard, northbound, for the duration of the Durham Road work . Without this, it will be almost impossible to make this turn during peak hours while Hall is being used as a detour . /3 ( , Jack Biethan • COUNCIL MAIL (4. ;) Au • mow- Attachment 2 Page 3 of 13 • I RECEIVED ,., a r Tigar d-Tualatin i.S: �Y •r School District '?3v �OMYIUN(iY DEVELOPMENT Larry Hibbard Administration Center 13137 S.W. Pacific Highway Tigard. Oregon 97223 Tel. (503) 620-1620 Fax (503) 684-2296 • October 16, 1995 Bill Monahan City of Tigard,Manager 13125 SW Hall Blvd Tigard, OR 97224 Dear Mr. Monahan, Thank you for sharing the current information on the proposed stop light on Durham Road. The light was requested by a group of citizens in the vicinity of Old Durham Center last year. Our board and the City Council discussed the issue at their joint meeting on March 7, 1995. At that time there appeared to be a consensus among Council Members and the Board to share the cost of the light if it was determined that it was needed. As part of the approval process on our expansion of Durham Elementary,a traffic study was done III and it was found that the light is not warranted. However, we are willing to participate with the City in this project if our finances allow. Money for the light will have to come from our Bond funds which are paying for the expansion of Durham Elementary. We do not have additional resources in the General Fund to cover items of this size. Construction in the region has escalated bid costs to the point that we are becoming concerned about our ability to complete all of the items included within or proposal. As a result, I would like to qualify our support for the light on whether we receive bids on our projects that are close to estimates. Too high of a bid on the expansion of Durham would interfere with our ability to fund the projects as well as our ability to participate with the City on the light. Bids are scheduled to be opened on Durham Elementary on October 26. We will have a better idea at that time of our ability to contribute to the light. Thank you again for keeping us abreast of the situation. If you have any further questions please call 684-2211. . Sincerely i; -George Fisher Business Manager Attachment 2 Page 4 of c Russ Joki Our commitment is to educate even-student to be a successful and responsible contributor in our changing world. • Tigard-Tualatin • �- School District 23J Larry Hibbard Administration Center 13137 S.W. Pacific Highway Tigard. Oregon 97223 l _ r, -rr''-' Tel. (503) 620-1620 Fax (503) 684-2296 May 14, 1996 MAY i 5 William A. Monahan, City Administrator t:' City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 RE: Traffic Signal at 79th and Durham • Dear Bill: The School District is committed to working with the City of Tigard in resolving the traffic flow in and around the Durham School expansion along Durham Road. The District has, in the past, indicated some funding would be made available if the bids on current bond projects were favorable. • Although the bidding on our various projects has not been outside the bounds of acceptability, we have not received bids as favorable as we had hoped. With that, we are limited on the funds available for other requirements. The District currently has a proposed bond for approval by the voters in the District. We have identified $50,000 for support of the signalization of the 79th and Durham Road intersection. As per our earlier discussions we will agree to pay up to 50%, but not to exceed $50,000, of the costs of signalization.' If the bond is approved, these funds will be made available for the signalization project. I hope this amount is sufficient in providing the additional funding to facilitate the installation of the traffic light. Sincerely, uss Superintendent Attachment 2 c: G Fisher, Business Manager Page 5 of 13 • R. Hudson, Project Manager . J g Our commitment is to educate every student to be a successful and responsible contributor in our changing world. • • 4 MEMORANDUM • CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON TO: Bill Monahan, City Administrator FROM: Randy Wooley, City Engineer� DATE : July 26, 1995 11 ffCC SUBJECT: Durham Rd. /79th Avenue intersection ODOT' s Decision: Back in the spring we asked ODOT whether they would allow installation of a traffic signal at the Durham/79th intersection if we could find the funding. This week we received the answer. Dorothy Upton, ODOT Region Traffic Operations Manager, indicates that the signal does not meet any of the established "warrants" for installation of a signal . ODOT uses the warrants established nationally and published in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices . The warrants are intended to assure that signals are used only where they can be shown to improve the overall safety and/or 1111 operation of an intersection . I have spoken with the State Traffic Engineer about this issue . He tells me that he cannot approve a signal on any State highway unless he can show that it meets the established warrants . Any exception would require approval of the Oregon Transportation Commission (OTC) . This requirement is independent of the source of funding. What To Do? In my opinion, it is appropriate for ODOT to adhere to the national signal warrants . There is substantial evidence that installation of unwarranted signals can actually increase congestion and safety problems . Therefore, I suggest that we should not object to the ODOT process . Instead, we should attempt to show that the 79th/Durham intersection either meets the warrants or qualifies for an exception. The signal warrants are based largely on traffic volumes . If more vehicles used the intersection, it is more likely that the warrants would be satisfied. Currently, some drivers are avoiding the intersection due to the difficulties of turning onto Durham from 79th during peak traffic times . It is likely that a signal would actually increase the volume of traffic using the intersection . • Several people have suggested that we ask ODOT to use higher Attachment 2 Page 6 of 13 S traffic numbers in evaluating signal warrants, to account for the • traffic that is currently avoiding the intersection. If we could show that a signal would attract enough traffic to meet the warrants, it would help us in any appeal to the OTC. However, we currently have no data to support this argument. To provide the data, I propose to collect data simultaneously on all six exits from the neighborhood, using City equipment . With this data, we could get a better estimate of how much traffic may be diverting from the 79th/Durham intersection. I propose to wait until late September, after schools are open, to make the counts, as that will tend to give us higher traffic volumes . Based on the results of the counts, we could then decide whether we could make a successful appeal to the OTC. Note that it would take a while to have an appeal scheduled and heard by the OTC. Even if an appeal is successful, the signal may not be completed until after the scheduled Durham Road improvements are completed. From a construction standpoint, a delay in signal construction is not a problem, as most of the signal construction occurs outside the pavement area. We can arrange to have electrical conduits installed under the new roadway prior to • paving, so that subsequent signal installation can be done with little disruption to the new road. Unless I hear objections during August, I will direct the additional traffic counts to be made in September as outlined • above . rw/dur-79 c . South CIT • Attachment 2 Page7of13 EXHIBIT "A" • INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT • This Agreement is entered into this day of , 1996, by and between the Tigard/Tualatin School District, (District) a political subdivision of the State of Oregon, and the City of Tigard, (City) a municipal corporation. 1. The District and City each desire to participate in funding the construction of a traffic signal at the corner of SW 79th and'SW Durham Road. The traffic capital improvement was suggested to the District and City by area residents. These residents suggested that a traffic improvement would allow for easier and safer crossing of Durham Road at this location by school children. 2. On June 11, 1996 the Tigard City Council adopted a budget including a capital improvement project for fiscal year 1996-97. The budget authorized $49,289 for the City portion of the cost of installation of a traffic signal on Durham Road at 79th Avenue. 3. By this agreement, the District will pay an amount, not to exceed $50,000, up to fifty percent (50%) of the direct costs for the purchase and installation of a traffic signal on Durham Road at 79th Avenue. On May • 21, 1996 electors in the District approved a bond measure for capital funding. The District may use those funds for the funding of its portion of the costs for the traffic signal. AGREED: 1. City shall administer the Durham/79th Avenue signal project including preparing bid documents, conducting the bid process, selecting the contractor, managing the contract, including payment of bills and invoices, and regularly inspecting the work. 2. Funds shall be available for reimbursement to City by the District after November 30, 1996. District shall remit payment to City within thirty (30) days of receipt of an invoice. 3. City shall contribute additional funds in addition to $49,209 if the cost of the signal exceeds available funds. 4. If the cost of the signal exceeds $100,000, City and District shall each consider their economic circumstances to determine whether additional funds can be made available to cover the cost of the traffic signal. If additional funds are not available, the scope of the project will be reduced • to bring the project under $100,000 in total cost. Attachment 2 Page 8 of 13 • . • 5. The parties to this agreement will work cooperatively to resolve any issues • related to Item 4 in a timely manner so that signal installation and activation is not delayed. City of Tigard Tigard/Tualatin School District • Date Date i:\adm\liz\igaagr.doc • • Attachment 2 Page 9 of 13 • • Traffic Signalization 79th Avenue/Durham Road Intersection • Project Status November 6, 1996 Funding: $50,000 from the City $50,000 from the Tigard-Tualatin School District Progress to date: The consultant on the signal design is nearly completed with the signal system design. The City of Tigard will be potholing to locate a water main, which is apparently under the proposed location for one of the signal poles. After this water main is located, the consultant will finalize the pole placement and mast arm length. We anticipate that the plans and technical specifications will be completed early next week. The other contract documents are now being prepared and will be ready_by the end of this week. Incorporation of the plans and technical specifications will complete the bid package. The project will be advertised for bid on November 14, 1996 with bid opening scheduled for December 10, 1996. Contract award should be in 110 the third week of December. Providing 10 days for contractor submittal of bonds, insurance and signed contract, Notice to Proceed should be at the end of December. The contractor will be given 120 calendar days to complete the project. The signal controller, once ordered, is expected within 6-8 weeks. However, the poles and mast arms take even longer once ordered — from 10-12 weeks, primarily because only a few manufacturers are able to provide these items nationwide. Assuming the worst and the poles and mast arms come at around 12 weeks, the installation of the signal system will be in April 1997. If the equipment and materials come in earlier, the work will be completed earlier. Although the contract completion date for Durham Road was October 31, 1996, there are numerous punch list items that could drag on the work for up to two months delaying turnover of the road to the City. However, we have received assurances from ODOT that the turnover of the road to Tigard can occur within a few days of final completion of the project. The delay in turnover will not impact the bid and contract award procedure since the signal contractor cannot proceed with the project until the equipment and materials are ordered and received. In addition, it would be in the City of Tigard's best interest to ensure that the road is as complete and as defect free as possible prior to turnover. We should not be in a • hurry to accept the road until we are certain that all the discrepancies are corrected. Attachment 2 Page 10 of 13 • • • Tentative Schedule Traffic Signalization of 79th Avenue/Durham Road Intersection Completion of Bid Documents: November 12, 1996. Advertise for Bids: November 14, 1996 Bid Opening: December 10, 1996 Contract Award December 20, 1996 Notice to Proceed (NTP) December 30, 1996 Construction Period 120 Calendar Days from NTP Contract Completion Date April 29, 1997* *Project may be completed earlier depending upon receipt of equipment and materials • I:1ENG\GUSV9STAT11.000 4111 Attachment 2 Page 11 of 13 MEMORANDUM • CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON TO: Bill Monahan FROM: Gus Duenas DATE: November 14, 1996 SUBJECT: Expenditures for 79th Avenue/Durham Road Signalization Project The following is a summary of the project,its projected expenditures, and its current status: Project: Traffic Signalization of 79th Avenue/Durham Road Intersection Source of Funds: 50%City of Tigard($49,289 budgeted under the Gas Tax) 50%Tigard-Tualatin School District Project Status: Design has been completed. Project is now out for bids (advertisement published today in Tigard Times and Daily Journal of Commerce.) Bid opening is scheduled for • December 10, 1996. Contract award is projected by the end of December and installation will be in the March-April 1997 time frame. Estimated Project Cost: $77,000(plus$23,000 already expended)Total cost: $100,000 Justification for proceeding now: We have already spent funds in anticipation of signal installation after the State turns the road over to the City. The City of Tigard has already spent approximately $23,000 for installation of conduits, signal loops, and other underground work, which were incorporated into the Durham Road Construction Project. The project now out to bid will procure and install the rest of the signal system to complete the project, including controller, poles, mast arms, signal heads, signal wires, and all other appurtenances required. In addition, the School District has reaffirmed its commitment to fund up to $50,000 as their share of project cost. I talked to George Fisher, business manager for the District, and he confirmed that the School District is still participating in the project cost. Lower Cost Options: At this point, there are no other lower cost options. We have already saved possibly $10,000 or more by having the underground work within Durham Road incorporated with the ongoing construction project. This ensures that the newly constructed roadway will not be cut or disturbed to accommodate this project. cc: Greg Berry • I:\ENG\GUS\79THFACT.DOC Attachment 2 Page 12 of 13 • • i POLE ENTRANCE CHART Orientation* Pole Number 1 2 3 4 Terminal Cabinet 1 3 5 7 Pedestrian Signal (Clam 7 (Ph 4) 1 (Ph 6) 3 (Ph 8) 5 (Ph 2) Shell Type) 1 (Ph 6) 3 (Ph 8) 5 (Ph 2) 7 (Ph 4) Pedestrian Push Button (Alt. 5 (Ph 4) 7 (Ph 6) 1 (Ph 8) 3 (Ph 2) Type) (In/Out") 3 (Ph 6) 5 (Ph 8) 7 (Ph 2) 1 (Ph 4) Mast Arm 5 7 1 3 Luminaire Arm 5 - - - Street Name Sign Mast Mast Mast Mast Orientation on Pole- 1 = North Side 2 = Northeast Side 3 = East Side 4 = Southeast Side • 5 = South Side 6 = Southwest Side 7 = West Side 8 = Northwest Side Assume Durham Road centerline runs east/west General Notes: 1. This project contains elements, such as the signal loops, underground conduits and pull wires, installed in a previous contract. The contractor shall inspect all existing elements to ensure that they are complete and in accordance with ODOT standards. 2. Any items that are missing or are not in compliance with ODOT standards shall be provided or replaced by the contractor under the contract at no additional cost. Examples include (but are not limited to) the following: • pull lines in conduits • ground rods for signal pole foundations • pea gravel in bottom of junction boxes • metallic bushings, bonding lugs and ground wires for junction boxes 3. The contractor is responsible for ensuring that the existing and new equipment are utilized together to provide a fully functioning signal system upon completion of the project. • Revised 11/25/96 t 214-1. 22 Attachment 2 Page 13 of 13 • .. Clean Water Services Alternative -1 .06anWater. • Services Durham Facility S. (..Iu :.Ei Rl p11111'1 E:Ul as l:lf.f{I'. _ .. ' .. 1 .te n T , �.,.. ,g,,..r .4 :.. 7 ..-r y ,� ; tiA r '''''''- ',4*' 7 '.>,r`' t, .:: ""rt 0,4s : ii.' y. .. ° " 'School Access . . , 3 # '`Alternative 0. Study • • . 4 i ' L„ . r ,. .. is ,^..' .w ` � .rya ;..lc.:� • . .3 S• iK1h—\ ' 41• ,! a .. c,r,,,tid• : • i," ... t t ' r e�.,. n ,,v+� ,,�" . 7 _-_ "r�, ,' ? ., ....tom.' + x ..a.a ''' .. w.`.. , D an Alternative 1: New road along northeast property line of plant site. —a m 3 • o Q.,...' C r� . DESIGN GROUP INC • III • 0 w Clean Water Services • ,- Alternative 2 CleanWater Services Durham Facility Our cununilment in clear. ' .1. i ..' .. II4 K1t k. a. ' School Access - ,. ' '� g� 4 , 41 R, 'AP c_._ ...617}_ 1° e Alternatives ... _. �+..,...,_,..,�.... s :1 Study , _ ., , .,.._r _. A ,' J , � / ..,n,.........s w,"....«++..«rw...ww++w. .,.o.w . ,...72 w ` A .,. .' r' m5. �- \ y am'• �� 111 � M1, . , I r t /' N^ t ; ' fi ”..1...4,1 . �'ils 1 4 > • Alternative 2: Road across from Carol Ann Ct. through school building. M 3 J o � r► D DESIGN GROUP INC 1 -,-30,,:,ry--v-7ffillz'rzmri , , , `14r• Clean Water Services • • 3-z- " - Alternative i Cea:nW i aint.ejii-ni:,,, S,Services Durham Facility ,, , -, .7: Ns •ml,,,,,vt$T,t1C ''7fr.1 ,P) '':.:2„.-41 4._ / .,. 0. ,,,,,, .it _...„,,A '.. ' 'fi 'lir •:.14 ,' . . -7.-1171:1, .7T-N,..., z. . , , , .-‘. ' -' t, -... Study ' [ 11 ., : Vi - .: 't ' 7,.` 1,, ' , ,• ''' r-- ' -. ‘N,,,,N,k.N.., t 4 1 ',,,,, ..•' -- 4 1. i *: 4. , . #4,, ,..-Th.„,„„...,,,,,,,„,,... ..,„. # , . t 4.s.4., , ..... , ' { --• . ' 1 s 4 *, I ..,, , ft. ,-, . ..1,..,,,,,,,,,44.4,,V,,„''''.4"...-„ ,,,,,.. ...'!• 4 4• ~, • , / . ,L<,,..0 -,,,. ';' ''. '''ki . , • \-7„,.4.,% 4.KI'Irt,..ow, "". , 'It/ , ' - 1 ' :lingo • -.1-- -4") ,,1 :, r t .r. w , 4 ..-,:::*: ''',-- ., , , - .- * ,. •,:, , I I J,, 'INO 11 Alternative 3: New Road from SW 79th Ave. Westerly to School 0) D3 n st 0 - CD 0 = —h .-. LDC III DESIGN GROUP It1( • III • • DKS Associates • TRANSPORTATION SOLUTIONS QPR���f•�� � 8 4 63,019 �y MEMORANDUM 0REG0 , • TO: Rob S. Saxton,Tigard-Tualatin School District MACIE� FROM: Christopher S.Maciejewski,P.E. EXP '-'' I ME DATE: May 31,2006 SUBJECT: Durham Elementary School Site Access P No. 06038-000-000 Alternatives Evaluation The purpose of this memorandum is to summarize the site access alternatives evaluation for the Durham Elementary School. The site is located on Durham Road between Hall Boulevard and 79th Avenue,in Tigard,Oregon. Currently,the site accesses 85th Avenue(extension of Hall Boulevard)via Shaffer Lane through the Clean Water Services site. As part of the Clean Water Services Master Plan,Shaffer Lane will be closed between 85th Avenue and the school. Two alternatives to provide a new access to the school were selected through coordination between the project team and the City of Tigard. These alternatives include a connection from the site to the existing Durham/79th traffic signal and a new roadway that would connect to Durham Road directly north of the school site at Carol Ann Court. The following sections present analysis of the site access alternatives,including operations,circulation,and • safety evaluation. Study Area The study area is located on Durham Road between Hall Boulevard and 79"'Avenue. Durham Road is a 3-lane arterial roadway with sidewalks and bike lanes on both sides of the street. The posted speed on Durham Road is 35 miles per hour(mph). However,during school hours the study area is within a school zone and posted at 20 mph. The study area includes three public roadway intersections that were analyzed for operations: • Durham Road/Hall Boulevard • Durham Road/Carol Ann Ct. • Durham Road/79th Avenue Existing Conditions Roadway Access Standards Review The City of Tigard designates SW Durham Road as an arterial roadway',which has an access spacing standard of 600 feet2. Between Hall Boulevard and 79th Avenue(approximately 1,600 feet),there is one public intersection at Carol Ann Court. In addition,there are seven existing private access points to City of Tigard Transportation System Plan,Prepared by DKS Associates,January,2002. 2 City of Tigard Development Code,Section 18.705.030,October,2002. 1400 S.W.513 Avenue Pmt 500 • • Portland,OR 972013502 (503)243-3500 (503)2431934fax Attachment 6 www.dltes.com Page 1 of 11 • • DKS Associates MEMORANDUM May 31,2006 TRANSPORTATION SOLUTIONS Page2of9 III Durham Road within the study area,which does not meet access spacing standards. The study area and the existing private access points are shown in the graphic below. t i_ 4 - t r " - .7. _ t� 1 1.t - ^�wfw..w.... _ yiift' 1r1- • 17" ....,... ---''^ .- -1 , _ --1., i s , i�.. I < full: 1 v t s " - Legend F ' AExisting Private Access Locations — r 75 150 300 450 600 i Existing Access Locations on Durham Road Safety Review of traffic crash data on Durham Road in the study area for the years 2003-2005 found no recorded 411 crashes. Existing Intersection Performance Turn movement counts were performed at each of the study intersections from 7-9 AM,2-4 PM and 4-6 PM. Figure 1 (see attached)includes the vehicle turn movement counts for the study intersections during each of the peak hours(AM,school PM,and PM)3. The existing operations for the study intersections were analyzed using Highway Capacity Manual4 (HCM)methodology. The City of Tigard performance standards for the intersections of public roadways is level-of-service(LOS)E and volume-to-capacity (v/c)ratio below 1.0. The intersections of Durham/Hall and Durham/79`s currently meet performance standards during each of the peak periods. The intersection of Durham/Carol Ann fails for the minor street approach during the AM and PM peak periods. Table 1 lists the peak hour LOS for each study intersection. 3 The vehicle turn movement count data was balanced to conserve the flow of vehicles through the study intersections. To be conservative,counts for adjacent intersections were only increased and never decreased. 4 Highway Capacity Manual,Transportation Research Board,Washington DC,2000. 5 City of Tigard Transportation System Plan,Prepared by DKS Associates,January,2002. Attachment Page 2 of 11 • • DKS Associates MEMORANDUM May 31,2006 • TRANSPORTATION SOLUTIONS Page3of9 Table 1: 2006 Existing Intersection Operations AM Peak Afternoon PM Peak School Peak Unsignalized Intersections Major Street LOS/Minor Street LOS and Delay Durham Road/Carol Ann Court A/F 68.1 B/E 40.7 E/F >100 Signalized Intersections LOS V/C Ratio Delay Durham Road/Hall Boulevard E 0.93 55.7 D 0.94 44.4 D 0.96 45.2 Durham Road/796 Avenue B 0.86 19.4 A 0.66. 5.9 A 0.79 83 Delay—Average vehicle delay(seconds) LOS—Level of Service V/C Ratio—Volume to Capacity Ratio Vehicle Queuing While the isolated intersection operations analysis presented in the previous section provides evaluation of an intersections ability to serve observed traffic volumes,it does not take into account the impacts of vehicle queuing and the interaction with other nearby intersections. Due to the congestion that occurs on Durham Road,vehicle queuing analysis was conducted utilizing a Synchro/SimTraffic micro-simulation model,which was calibrated to field observations. The vehicle queuing was compared to the available 411 storage distance between intersections to determine if queues were impacting operations at other intersections. For this analysis,the 95th percentile queue(queue length that represents 95%of the queues during an hour,with only 5%of queues being longer)was utilized. Table 2 lists the queuing analysis for the existing conditions evaluation on Durham Road. As listed,the westbound queuing on Durham Road during the school PM peak and the PM peak extend from Hall Boulevard past 79th Avenue to Upper Boones Ferry Road. While the other listed queues do not extend into upstream signalized intersections (which would impact operations),each of the queues does periodically block private access points within the study area during peak hours. Table 2: 2006 Existing Durham Road 95th Percentile Queues(ft) Intersection(Approach) AM Peak Afternoon PM Peak Available School Peak Distance Durham/Hall(Westbound) 550 3,300 3,300 1,600 Durham/79'h(Eastbound) 800 500 450 1,600 Note:An average vehicle queue length of 25 feet was assumed • Attachment 6 Page 3 of 11 • • DKS Associates MEMORANDUM May 31, 2006 TRANSPORTATION SOLUTIONS Page4of9 • Planned Study Area Street Improvements The only significant planned street improvement in the study area that is identified in the City's Transportation System Plan(TSP)is the widening of Durham Road to 5 lanes6. This improvement is not included in the City's current Capital Improvement Program and is not likely to occur in the near future'. Therefore,this roadway widening was only assumed for the long-term 2015 scenarios. Site Access Alternative 1— Carol Ann Ct. The site access in this alternative includes a new private roadway connection that would run from the existing school parking lot north to intersect Durham Road at Carol Ann Court. This connection would require demolition of an existing Tigard-Tualatin School District building. Roadway Access Standards Review The proposed new access point to Durham Road would not meet City of Tigard access spacing standards. However,the access location would align with Carol Ann Ct.,which is an existing intersection on Durham Road. In addition,with new driveway in this alternative,the existing Durham Center access to Durham Road(located approximately 150 east of Carol Ann Ct.)could be closed and the Durham Center could share access with the Durham Elementary School. Therefore,this alternative would improve the access management along Durham Road within the study area. Safety Intersection sight distance was measured in the field to determine if the proposed access location would meet City of Tigard standards8. For Durham Road,the required intersection sight distance based on AASHTO guidelines is 390 feet. At the proposed access location,approximately 550 feet of sight. • distance is available to both the east and approximately 400 feet of sight distance is available to the west, which meets City of Tigard standards. Intersection Performance Turn movement volumes were estimated for this scenario based on re-assignment of the existing Durham Elementary School trips that utilize Shaffer Lane to the proposed access location. In addition,approved developments in the study area added as background traffic growth to the study intersections. These approved developments include: • Gage Forest(33 single family homes) • Lady Apple(33 single family homes) • McDonald Woods(16 single family homes) • Brittany Meadows(38 single family homes) • Churchill Woods(15 single family homes) 6 City of Tigard Transportation System Plan,Prepared by DKS Associates,January,2002. 7 Meeting with Gus Duenes,Kim McMillan,and Dick Brewersdorff,City of Tigard,April 25,2006. s City of Tigard Development Code,Section 18.705.030,October,2002. Attachment 6 Page 4 of 11 • • DKS Associates MEMORANDUM May 31,2006 • TRANSPORTATION SOLUTIONS Page 5of9 Figure 1 (see attached)shows the vehicle turn movement counts estimated for this scenario. In addition to the 2007 estimated volumes,year 2015 volumes were estimated at the study area intersections based on data provided in the City's TSP9. It should be noted that to be conservative,volumes associated with the Durham Elementary School were held constant in the future scenarios,although enrollment projections indicate that enrollment will actually decrease by 2.6%by the year 201010. Table 3 lists study area intersection operations for the 2007 forecast scenario. Table 4 lists future year 2015 operations. As listed,the intersection of Durham Road/Hall Boulevard fails to meet City of Tigard standards during the AM and PM peak hours in the year 2007. The intersection continues to fail in the year 2015 during the AM and school PM peak periods. In addition,the intersection of Durham/Carol Ann Court fails as an unsignalized intersection in each of the study periods. Table 3: Alternative 1 -2007 Intersection Operations AM Peak Afternoon PM Peak School Peak Unsignalized Intersections Major Street LOS/Minor Street LOS and Delay Durham Road/Carol Ann Court C/F >100 C/F >100 E/F >100 Signalized Intersections LOS V/C Ratio Delay Durham Road/Hall Boulevard E 1.05 73.5 E 0.98 56.0 E 1.00 59.9 411 Durham Road/79th Avenue C 0.91 30.0 A 0.72 8.2 B 0.83 10.7 Delay-Average vehicle delay(seconds) LOS-Level of Service V/C Ratio-Volume to Capacity Ratio Table 4: Alternative 1 -2015 Intersection Operations(5-Lane Durham) AM Peak Afternoon PM Peak School Peak Unsignalized Intersections Major Street LOS/Minor Street LOS and Delay Durham Road/Carol Ann Court B/F >100 B/F 83.3 E/F >100 Signalized Intersections LOS V/C Ratio Delay Durham Road/Hall Boulevard F 1.08 78.8 D 0.92 47.4 D 0.90 48.9 Durham Road/79th Avenue A 0.58 9.7 A 0.57 5.3 A 0.61 5.9 Delay-Average vehicle delay(seconds) LOS-Level of Service V/C Ratio-Volume to Capacity Ratio The failing operations at the proposed access point onto Durham Road would significantly impact the ability of the intersection to adequately serve the site traffic. School bus traffic would need to be limited 9 City of Tigard Transportation System Plan,Prepared by DKS Associates,January,2002. 10 Based on information provided by Rob Saxton,Tigard-Tualatin School District,May 2006. • Attachment 6 Page 5 of 11 • • • DKS Associates MEMORANDUM May 31, 2006 TRANSPORTATION SOLUTIONS Page6of9 • to right-in/right-out movements for safety,which would require school bus routing to utilize local streets north of Durham Road for circulation,causing significant neighborhood impacts. As an alternative,the intersection of Durham Road/Carol Ann Court was evaluated as a signalized intersection. With signal control,the intersection of Durham Road/Carol Ann Court would operate at a LOS of B or better and a v/c ratio of 0.88 during each of the study periods,which meets City of Tigard performance standards. While signalizing Durham Road/Carol Ann Court would provide adequate intersection operations,a traffic signal is not warranted based on MUTCD traffic volume warrants". However,City staff indicated that a traffic signal may be allowed at this location due to the site circulation needs 12. Vehicle Queuing Vehicle queuing analysis for this alternative assumed the signalization of Durham Road/Carol Ann Court, as described in the previous section. Table 5 lists the queuing analysis for the estimated 2007 conditions on Durham Road. Table 6 lists the estimated 2015 queues. As listed,the westbound queuing on Durham Road continues to exceed storage lengths during the 2007 and 2015 scenarios. The eastbound queuing on Durham Road reaches its storage capacity in 2007 during the AM peak hour. However,with the widening of Durham Road to 5-lanes,the eastbound queuing conditions are improved in the future 2015 scenario. Table 5: Alternative 1 -2007 Durham Road 95th Percentile Queues(ft) Intersection(Approach) AM Peak Afternoon PM Peak Available School Peak Distance Durham/Hall(Westbound) 825 3,300 3,300 1,000 • Durham/Carol Ann(Westbound) 225 2,300 2,300 550 Durham/Carol Ann(Eastbound) 1,000 700 350 1000 Durham/79t(Eastbound) 800 475 550 550 Note: An average vehicle queue length of 25 feet was assumed Table 6: Alternative 1 -2015 Durham Road 95th Percentile Queues(ft) Intersection(Approach) AM Peak Afternoon PM Peak Available School Peak Distance Durham/Hall(Westbound) 650 3,300 3,300 1,000 Durham/Carol Ann(Westbound) 100 2,300 2,300 550 Durham/Carol Ann(Eastbound) 175 250 200 1000 Durham/79th(Eastbound) 150 100 125 550 Note:An average vehicle queue length of 25 feet was assumed "Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices(2003 Edition),Federal Highway Association,November 2004. 12 Meeting with Gus Duenes,Kim McMillan,and Dick Brewersdorff,City of Tigard,April 25,2006. • Attachment 6 Page 6 of 11 • • DKS Associates MEMORANDUM May 31, 2006 • TRANSPORTATION SOLUTIONS Page 7of9 Site Access Alternative 2— 79th Avenue The site access in this alternative includes a new private roadway connection that would run from the existing school parking lot northeast to intersect Durham Road at 79th Avenue. This connection would require coordination with the neighborhood property owner to reconfigure that site's parking lot and access. Roadway Access Standards Review The proposed new access point to Durham Road/79th Avenue would not impact the existing access spacing conditions on Durham Road in the study area. In addition,with new driveway in this alternative, the existing Durham Center access to Durham Road(located approximately 150 east of Carol Ann Ct.) could be closed and the Durham Center could share access with the Durham Elementary School. Therefore,this alternative would improve the access management along Durham Road within the study area. Safety Intersection sight distance was measured in the field to determine if the proposed access location would meet City of Tigard standards". For Durham Road,the required intersection sight distance based on AASHTO guidelines is 390 feet. At the proposed access location,approximately 290 feet of sight distance is available to both the east and approximately 400 feet of sight distance is available to the west. The sight distance to the east is restricted by landscaping along the south side of Durham Road. • However,because Durham/79t is controlled by a traffic signal,westbound traffic does not conflict with northbound traffic. Therefore,the sight distance to the east is not an applicable standard. • Intersection Performance Turn movement volumes were estimated for this scenario based on re-assignment of the existing Durham Elementary School trips that utilize Shaffer Lane to the proposed access location. In addition,approved developments in the study area added as background traffic growth to the study intersections. These approved developments include: • Gage Forest(33 single family homes) • Lady Apple(33 single family homes) • McDonald Woods(16 single family homes) • Brittany Meadows(38 single family homes) • Churchill Woods(15 single family homes) Figure 2(see attached)shows the vehicle turn movement counts estimated for this scenario. In addition to the 2007 estimated volumes,year 2015 volumes were estimated at the study area intersections based on data provided in the City's TSP14. As with Alternative 1,volumes associated with the Durham Elementary School were held constant in the future scenarios,although enrollment projections indicate that enrollment will actually decrease by 2.6%by the year 2010". 13 City of Tigard Development Code,Section 18.705.030,October,2002. 14 City of Tigard Transportation System Plan,Prepared by DKS Associates,January,2002. 15 Based on information provided by Rob Saxton,Tigard-Tualatin School District,May 2006. 11111 Attachment 6 Page 7 of 11 • • DKS Associates MEMORANDUM May 31,2006 TRANSPORTATION SOLUTIONS Page 8of9 • Table 3 lists study area intersection operations for the 2007 forecast scenario. Table 4 lists future year 2015 operations. As listed,the intersection of Durham Road/Hall Boulevard fails to meet City of Tigard standards during the AM and PM peak hours in the year 2007. The intersection continues to fail in the year 2015 during the AM and school PM peak periods. In addition,the intersection of Durham/79th fails during the AM peak period. The capacity deficiency at Durham/79th could be mitigated with the provision of an eastbound right turn lane. Table 7: Alternative 2-2007 Intersection Operations AM Peak Afternoon PM Peak School Peak Unsignalized Intersections Major Street LOS/Minor Street LOS and Delay Durham Road/Carol Ann Court C/F >100 C/F >100 E/F >100 Signalized Intersections LOS V/C Ratio Delay Durham Road/Hall Boulevard E 1.03 66.7 D 0.98 54.5 E 1.00 59.3 Durham Road/79t Avenue E 1.06 59.7 B 0.71 10.4 B 0.84 11.7 Delay—Average vehicle delay(seconds) LOS—Level of Service V/C Ratio—Volume to Capacity Ratio Table 8: Alternative 2-2015 Intersection Operations(5-Lane Durham) 1111 AM Peak Afternoon PM Peak School Peak Unsignalized Intersections Major Street LOS/Minor Street LOS and Delay Durham Road/Carol Ann Court B/F >100 B/F 83.3 E/F >100 Signalized Intersections LOS V/C Ratio Delay Durham Road/Hall Boulevard F 1.08 78.8 D 0.92 47.4. D 0.90 48.9 Durham Road/79th Avenue B 0.69 14.2 A 0.55 6.5 A 0.61 6.5 Delay—Average vehicle delay(seconds) LOS—Level of Service V/C Ratio—Volume to Capacity Ratio Vehicle Queuing Table 9 lists the queuing analysis for the estimated 2007 conditions on Durham Road. Table 10 lists the estimated 2015 queues. As listed,the westbound queuing on Durham Road continues to exceed storage lengths during the 2007 and 2015 scenarios. The eastbound queuing on Durham Road reaches its storage capacity in 2007 during the AM peak hour. However,the provision of an eastbound right-turn lane at Durham/79th would mitigate this condition. Attachment Page 8 of 11 • DKS Associates MEM01 DUM TRANSPORTATION SOLUTIONS Maj11,2 f9 Pa9 of9 Table 9: Alternative 2-2007 Durham Road 95th Percentile Queues(ft) Intersection(Approach) AM Peak Afternoon PM Peak Avail* School Peak Distal Durham/Hall(Westbound) 825 3,300 3,300 1,60 Durham/79th(Eastbound) 1,900 650 525 1,60 Note:An average vehicle queue length of 25 feet was assumed Table 10: Alternative 2-2015 Durham Road 95th Percentile Queues(ft) Intersection(Approach) AM Peak Afternoon PM Peak Avail' School Peak DistaQ�_ Durham/Hall(Westbound) 600 3,300 3,300 1,60 Durham/79`a(Eastbound) 550 175 150 1,60 Note:An average vehicle queue length of 25 feet was assumed Conclusions Based on the alternatives evaluation presented in the previous sections,both of the proposed allia►atives could adequately serve the traffic needs of the Durham Elementary School. In addition,both akmatives provide the opportunity to improve access management along Durham Road by closing the Dutton • Center access onto Durham Road. However,the existing congestion on Durham Road(extendtd Vehicle queuing for westbound traffic)is forecasted to continue in the future,with or without the proposed project. To minimize impacts to this congested environment,Alternative 2(79th Avenue)woulibe the preferred scenario. With either of the proposed alternatives,there are additional improvement measures that shouldbe implemented,which include: • Coordinate with Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue and potentially retain the existing maintenance roadway running south from Durham Road along the east edge of the Durham ElementarY School building as an emergency access. Consider rebuilding the connection to Durham Roadto emergency access standards(curbed access with grass-crete). • Alternative 1 o If Carol Ann Court is signalized,implement traffic signal coordination on Durham Road between Hall Boulevard,Carol Ann Court,and 79th Avenue. • Alternative 2 o Construct an eastbound right turn lane at Durham/79th In addition,the AM peak analysis found that the planned improvement at Durham/Hall in the Cih''s TSP (as part of the Hall extension and Durham widening projects)would not meet performance standards in 2015. With this additional AM peak analysis detail,the City should consider refining the planned improvements at Durham/Hall identified in the TSP to include double southbound left turn lanes. Please contact us with any questions. Cc: Kelly Hossaini,Miller Nash LLP • Attachment 6 Page 9 of 11 • • DKS Associates •NN CT .-Z. -TRANSPORTATION SOLUTIONS ..1■ DURHAM RD .,2. ���. VI t • NO SCALE - �^ s :4t44,=':4 c.i:k:. . ._i'Si`e;r `x cr•'. " II OMNI > 1. MEM I mom 2• N rem 3. 31111 m1 m Oti®r 7H4®7®256 a 0 M Mid 10 PM ®N®�RH5®8®sd37 RTITHI LT LT�MI® 586 881 1090 RTITHI LT tram=0 DURH• :� DUR . :1 MET'1LT,iI1R7 AM ITIM1ZII DURHAM RD W1■7711X11 LTITHIRT 162 ®LT LTITHIRT 2 11 6 TH ®® 618 559 516 TH NM 1115 824 830 RT ®798 2®TH :1111 EMI RT 6 ©©RT EXISTING Ella :ME 2006 OEM 0111 0111111 = :NMI oz :MI 1. 01111111 is mIII . 2. 311 51 3. 31ilitn-lmom Ri�MIMI _ RT 0 ©10 OMNI frail= • B RTITHI TH��878 �TI�ILT THEM 1046 RTI THI LT L 592 918 1063 DURH•I. :1 LT 63 6 6 DURH•I. ;1 LT 62 ®6 DUR : !f 0 wu?1 771011 IdT■17it117T■ 117111?fr1■7*■ 169 248 ®LT LTITHIRT ©E.6 LT LTITHIRT um 39 Es LT LTITHIRT 665 Em®TH MI MI 1106 Enrol TH ono 1162 ME 790 TH it ®©MI RT I. ®40 10 RT 6 ©©RT 2007 WITH OREN ENE MINI PROJECT OMB! a.<OMR :III LIEN = OliNil Qz :BIM =2. EH! Emir RT®367 384 ���� RT 0 ©io ���� _RT 20 ®1098 3. Elio ;.- IIIIMEMINZIII RTI THI LT TH 440 923 RTITHI LT TH 746 1393 ® RTITHILT TH DURH. . : -Li:286 M� DURH I. ;1 LT 62 ®6 DUR • �� :I Lr©�0 ITIMI T 1172■ 1E711177110711 /1T■1TR7■7T1 LTITHIRT gm 209 199 LT LTITHIRT ©E.6 LT LTITHIRT PO nom LT 529 479 �TH �®! 1045 803 �TH :BNI 1068 800 804 TH 011©1 60 MI®RT ®40 10 RT 8 ©MIRT FUTUREE�® WW EINE OMNI 2015 011ie as 011e11 OMNI LEGEND Figure • 01 -Study F AM I-AM Peak Hour Volume Right Tum Movement , ALTERNATIVE 1 Intersection I Mid I-Midday Volume Through Movement I PM I-PM Peak Hour Volume -Left Turn Movement PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES Attachment 6 Page 10 of 11 • • DKS Associates -:1 ANN CT -a TRANSPOSTA1ION SOLUTIONS ..l• DURHAM RD .. . 3. • ®NO SCALE ________________________________ �j e-, Sit - ` OMNI > a. u, ,g, 1... . !NNE > 0. 1. ®N mom 2. a N, 0a 3- 0111111 °' mom 256 m 8i®m RT 846 a 0 5 id 10M :MINI RT®®69 TH 579 896 1037 RTITHILT —©�® 586 881 1090 RTITHILT LT��O BUR :1 LT: DURH• 1, : 117,1III71 LT I THI R7 AM Mid PM DURHAM RD W1117711 11 L7I THI RT 162 EI®LT 2 i 11 6 ®®20 LT 618 559 516 TH 1115 1824 830 ®798 MITI ��©RT ElM11! 6 ©©RT NMI EXISTING CHM MINI 2006 :NON :PIM 3- ORME c') !mum Gal Mr > a. IIIRT 93 270 a v IS M Mid P RIME.94 B®n� ®TH��� 0 5 10 ®� T 11 MI 894 1057 RTITHI LT LT 63 6 6 581 1073 1151 ' RTITHI LT LT mum= R!1I7 117T1 AM Mid PM DURHAM RD I_T'1I'Tr1rze LT I TH I RT 169 [M®LT LTITHIRT 2 `11 6 16 Dom LT 665 ®TH 1195 1 847 799 1109 789 TH ®©©RT � 95 ®9 RT MUM 2007 WITH OMNI ERNI PROJECT ENE! :PEI OEM a a Jf- ME 1. Emil . r�ra 2. N aQ 3- OMNI i „1r.�r 1 ®� AM Mid PM RT 20 ®109 RH 440 am 923 a ° •' 0 5 10 Emil TH 701 Ej 1492 ' RTITHILT LT286 �� 790 1420 1532 DU- • ;° LT�18 rMI META ETA AM 11=11171 DURHAM RD 111771771107.11 LT I THI RT CM 209 199 LT LTITHIRT 2 11 6 TH 19 =go LT 529 479 rrim TH :mmo 1134 832 828 RT 1015 ®795 TH 001i 60 EN®RT 97 ®10 RT FUTURE ME! SEE 2015 EMI! :MI • LEGEND Figure O1•-Study I AM I-AM Peak Hoz Volume -Right Tum Movement ALTERNATIVE 2 Intersection I PM '_MPeak HauVotume -LLeeflaT Movement PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES Attachment 6 Page 11 of 11 DKS Associates • TRANSPORTATION SOLUTIONS it PROF • ell �=ion��0 gft f / - MEMORANDUM O GREG h TO: Rob S. Saxton,Tigard-Tualatin School District ACIE- FROM: Christopher S. Maciejewski,P.E. 143:0L1�lEIkIN1./ • DATE: July 17,2007 SUBJECT: Durham Elementary School Site Access P No. 07160-000-000 Alternatives Evaluation The purpose of this memorandum is to summarize the site access alternatives evaluation for Durham Elementary School. This memorandum revisits our analysis completed in March,2006 and includes clarifications to the recommendations for improvements to the Durham/79th intersection. The project site is located on Durham Road between Hall Boulevard and 79th Avenue, in Tigard,Oregon. Currently,the site accesses 85th Avenue(extension of Hall Boulevard)via Shaffer Lane through the Clean Water Services site. As part of the Clean Water Services Master Plan,Shaffer Lane will be closed between 85th Avenue and the school. Two alternatives to provide a new access to the school were selected through coordination between the project team and the City of Tigard. These alternatives include a connection from the site to the existing Durham/79th traffic signal and a new roadway that would connect to Durham Road directly north of the school site at Carol Ann Court. The following sections present analysis of the • site access alternatives,including operations,circulation,and safety evaluation. Study Area The study area is located on Durham Road between Hall Boulevard and 791 Avenue. Durham Road is a three-lane arterial roadway with sidewalks and bike lanes on both sides of the street. The posted speed on Durham Road is 35 miles per hour(mph). However,during school hours the study area is within a school zone and posted at 20 mph. The study area includes three public roadway intersections that were analyzed for operations: • Durham Road/Hall Boulevard • Durham Road/Carol Ann Ct. • Durham Road/79th Avenue Existing Conditions Roadway Access Standards Review The City of Tigard designates SW Durham Road as an arterial roadway,which has an access spacing standard of 600 feet2. Between Hall Boulevard and 79th Avenue(approximately 1,600 feet),there is one City of Tigard Transportation System Plan,Prepared by DKS Associates,January,2002. 2 City of Tigard Development Code,Section 18.705.030,October,2002. 1400 S.W.Sts Avenue Stale 500 Portland,OR 971-5502 (503)243-3500 (503)243.1934 fax www.dlcsassociatas.com . ....... i . .. ' . ...: ,... . . . ,..4..er'''''''''...-:•'..'•••' :' :A,,.0, .4 .i ..44, . ...i:k14:,...,....:...:4.4,4,4•••••; • • • 4...........•••••44..„.::.•:........ .••••••44: . . • 441... .4. :::,••••14•74::::::::::...;::::::441•111: 11:6:44,::.:4:41:::::::::,:::•14:44:44441.....:.:••••1 44;4 : 114441 4..i , ..,.........:::::::.,..1::::...141::::::•::::::41:::::::::::thoig:114a4i1::::::::::::::::::44.44....::::•::•:•: ..... 1 i: i ::::::::..„1:::11...iii:19:::::::::::::::::::::711::::::::::::::::...1i:::::::::::........::::::::::::::::::::ii:::::•••.:„.....::::: , .......:.:::::.......:::::::::::::::••••:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::44..:•4144:::::::::::::4:::::::::::4:4.:.: • 4 14.10•74i4::•:: •..44. ,1 4 •:i.k•••rl.:i•:i::::::::4.1"4.4•44.4:4.:::4::[:44:44:444:04.44::::::::::.:::::::::::::::::::..4:40:14:444:44:4444:::::41 . ..... ....i..af. 4 •:!•••.:;":11;•!;:ii,;;;"••••.;:••••::::;:::::•••••."..••••!;•:•••11:;•11".::;tilliiiiii::i".111;it;:".••::*•::i;":":1:::::••••:•••';•••:!!!•••••••! • ...... I•••• :" • •••• .1.;••••1:Aratiall•:•14511•Vitail•:::::::•:!1•1:::"1:1$1.1•••:•••:•.•;•• ••••••••••1 . . . ..... ---•••••'• - •4 • f• •;;ii•:;:•11::::1111•1•••:::*1••!1;•••••••••11::::::::::!::!•:•••1!•••••1••;k1:;•1"-*"••••"•-•"''•••••••••••••••. 1 . .....• ; •• •.• •'.„.....,;,.....;::;••• •.: '.1•••11;!'"•:••'.•••••••`.••••,•!:•!.••••••••:....:..... • i • i i ..... ..•:• ......• • i ..• .'.: .A• ••••••ri 1/4 44 0444;4 . I ! r 1 1 •4•44 . 4 . . . • . .."....!C. •4-4' ••• 4.. 444;1444 4; •,A : • ..1,4:' i .........:. . . .........; • •: —1:'4: • ''“*"...:.....4.....,. v*,' , . ,, . •>... d. II: ...: ..... -. rg,. ...tgig......7.• .ffik • .., . .• . : . 1 ct. ..-.''' i • .,.?..:110 .....4 .. mi.....„. .1:!... 4.,•°,'4,rre:Ti 1.4;11' 41 '`..:..... . . • 10. :::.• , 1„.•;•Z'.... • 5,1:tarikl- . I •„:".:: • -10.1:4.•,„„o .... , • — • , ..i........,o _...„--,,r,,,,,:-!.1-..1 • „4„, „% i,i :, . .. • .• ,,,..: ...,..• ,,„ ,„„ .....f:7,.,71 „: .e*to - ......i: .1..1 .4. . . . • .: .. id.: :. .. to"' - li... ..1.......0 .........: . i 4 IP 4 : •••. i • 4 - 1•14.4?.14 414. ...4.4*'-- .444_4'4.4.4'144'- 4.4': ••••44'4. ..........! • . . • : .... r.:1„.....-, „::, .1 , ,..„,„,.......„...1.4.,..,. •- .4.,':.'?: •.....1 E, .: : ...., )::!, ..,,4*.i.... , ,ii .::::` . . 'l * •••••••gi ...•:..: . :: :• •• • ..1 ggi ....!.....1 .A.,,..........„giggi„.„„ „,,,a-•.g....i.g..::::•!"•1•0••••••:. 1 :: . g ...: g ... gg.,•1.....,:•....:•gg6:'..:gig71,4 ............• . ::'.. g. .. ...1.: ••: • Ig•.17 gg:'..1.: g..:.gg:,11.1.1.1.17..g..':::::•]...1.1:::::iii....gg'.41.i.lia:!7•:... ...: g I •:::::::: I .. .. . .. ..: . -.. ..:.... '...:1:::.,!:.....ii,:::::1;:::::::::.:II:i!',......11. . ... .. . . . . •• .. . . . .. .: ....:: '•••H: 188..i.....::::::::::8•••;•;.. :. .•,•:••• • , 4.• ,, -8 Kiitii::::.•••••.. . .... .1 . . . . . . •• : .. 8 8.8.....88+;::::.0•• ..:......:::::::::•••:.•:'.•;;•88 41 . .... . .... •:........::: • • •• 1: i %;••••.....••,."8,• 4..... ........ ' •1. • 1 ..1 • .• • .. ,:i.:.!.r..*. 0.!!...i:i....•'...... ••••• ...!'. 1 .. i 1....1 :. . .4.......'......: • •.... ,.i..........:. ..•..if. .4..........T.T...:.,4,400.... •• ..I , i . i . . .. ..' .. ......— .... . .::.t.r.....!..]:,.. ... ......',......••••......1 1 . Aiiii::::::: ....... • . ... • .....: .::::::T!...9......4111.t • • :4• 1 ; I i:1 . ... .. . •• •• •*1••••,le•!••••.•••••' '•••.;•!;,,,,/,.•••.:•••••!::. "i'••••T4!•••:•••••11•1•?•'• •••••:'•.'...: •••• • .1 . . .. 11.........• • • •!' ''• •4••.'N'il.4 . :•1:77r!1:4.0,:•1*•••.4.i. •••:. 4.'",,•- 1 . . •:•.........:1 '• • : .11 •::::•: •.,.; ..!:•:...!...."....:•*'";17.1141;1•.;<•;•'.F;•i. .•'••::4'....1'.....7•;14.4r•••••H•e:r4t.' „KiiIi.•!..,..!.:7!7•4k •,,....: • ii..,11.i .. • ••••:***(.;:•'• .. ' •. •..• ;"••••• fit"--r••••i.•f :40.•:•••:.•111`..• •••; •• •$•• •'• ••fis4.•••. •-•.' '''`•:• : .. . ::.•:::.... .. ..........!...........':,.....1.. "..:.- ....:. .....l...!...... . :'.............:.... :kif...."1 .':.... :.1: •••• ... „.'•. '. ••... •f ::::: . .............f....iiii*i........,.....: . ,.. '.... 4 4..„..444444.44144011t444 -4 .• . .44.4444 0 • ,•••••....'4'...111.. . ... 14. 1 4:444,401 DKS AssocAs • MEMORANDUM July 17, 2007 TRANSPORTATION SOLUTIONS Page 3 of 10 • Table 1: 2006 Existing Intersection Operations AM Peak Afternoon PM Peak School Peak Unsignalized Intersections Major Street LOS/Minor Street LOS and Delay Durham Road/Carol Ann Court A/F 68.1 B/E 40.7 E/F >100 Signalized Intersections LOS V/C Ratio Delay Durham Road/Hall Boulevard E 0.93 55.7 D 0.94 44.4 D 0.96 45.2 Durham Road/79t Avenue B 0.86 19.4 A 0.66 5.9 A 0.79 8.3 Delay—Average vehicle delay(seconds) LOS—Level of Service WC Ratio—Volume to Capacity Ratio Vehicle Queuing While the isolated intersection operations analysis presented in the previous section provides evaluation of an intersections ability to serve observed traffic volumes,it does not take into account the impacts of vehicle queuing and the interaction with other nearby intersections. Due to the congestion that occurs on Durham Road, vehicle queuing analysis was conducted utilizing a Synchro/SimTraffic micro-simulation model,which was calibrated to field observations. The vehicle queuing was compared to the available • storage distance between intersections to determine if queues were impacting operations at other intersections. For this analysis,the 95th percentile queue(queue length that represents 95%of the queues during an hour,with only 5%of queues being longer)was utilized. Table 2 lists the queuing analysis for the existing conditions evaluation on Durham Road. As listed,the westbound queuing on Durham Road during the school PM peak and the PM peak extends from Hall Boulevard past 79th Avenue to Upper Boones Ferry Road. While the other listed queues do not extend into upstream signalized intersections (which would impact operations),each of the queues does periodically block private access points within the study area during peak hours. Table 2: 2006 Existing Durham Road 95th Percentile Queues(ft) Intersection(Approach) AM Peak Afternoon PM Peak Available School Peak Distance Durham/Hall(Westbound) 550 3,300 3,300 1,600 Durham/79th(Eastbound) 800 500 450 1,600 Note: An average vehicle queue length of 25 feet was assumed 4110 DKS Asso�`ates • MEMORANDUM July 17, 2007 TRANSPORTATION SOLUTIONS Page 4ofl0 • Planned Study Area Street Improvements The only significant planned street improvement in the study area that is identified in the City's Transportation System Plan(TSP)is the widening of Durham Road to 5 lanes6. This improvement is not included in the City's current Capital Improvement Program and is not likely to occur in the near future. Therefore,this roadway widening was only assumed for the long-term 2015 scenarios. Site Access Alternative 1 - Carol Ann Ct. The site access in this alternative includes a new private roadway connection that would run from the existing school parking lot north to intersect Durham Road at Carol Ann Court. This connection would require demolition of an existing Tigard-Tualatin School District building. Roadway Access Standards Review The proposed access point to Durham Road would not meet City of Tigard access spacing standards. However,the access location would align with Carol Ann Ct.,which is an existing intersection on Durham Road. In addition,with the new driveway proposed in this alternative,the existing Durham Center access to Durham Road(located approximately 150 east of Carol Ann Ct.)could be closed,with the Durham Center sharing access with Durham Elementary School. Therefore,this alternative would improve access management along Durham Road within the study area. Safety Intersection sight distance was measured in the field to determine if the proposed access location would meet City of Tigard standards8. For Durham Road,the required intersection sight distance based on AASHTO guidelines is 390 feet. At the proposed access location,approximately 550 feet of sight • distance is available to the east and approximately 400 feet of sight distance is available to the west, which meets City of Tigard standards. Intersection Performance Turn movement volumes were estimated for this scenario based on re-assignment of the existing Durham Elementary School trips that utilize Shaffer Lane to the proposed access location. In addition,approved developments in the study area were added as background traffic growth to the study intersections. These approved developments include: • Gage Forest(33 single family homes) • Lady Apple(33 single family homes) • McDonald Woods(16 single family homes) • Brittany Meadows(38 single family homes) • Churchill Woods(15 single family homes) 6 City of Tigard Transportation System Plan,Prepared by DKS Associates,January,2002. Meeting with Gus Duenes,Kim McMillan,and Dick Brewersdorff,City of Tigard,April 25,2006. 8 City of Tigard Development Code,Section 18.705.030,October,2002. • DKS Associ4s S MEMORANDUM July 17, 2007 TRANSPORTATION SOLUTIONS Page 5 of 10 • Figure 1 (see attached)shows the vehicle turn movement counts estimated for this scenario. In addition to the 2007 estimated volumes,year 2015 volumes were estimated at the study area intersections based on data provided in the City's TSP9. It should be noted that volumes associated with the Durham Elementary School were held constant in the future scenarios to arrive at a conservative estimate,although enrollment projections indicate that enrollment will actually decrease by 2.6%by the year 201010. Table 3 lists study area intersection operations for the 2007 forecast scenario. Table 4 lists future year 2015 operations. As listed,the intersection of Durham Road/Hall Boulevard fails to meet City of Tigard standards during the AM and PM peak hours in the year 2007. The intersection continues to fail in the year 2015 during the AM peak period,despite expansion of Durham Road to a five-lane facility. In addition,the intersection of Durham/Carol Ann Court fails as an unsignalized intersection in each of the study periods. Table 3: Alternative 1-2007 Intersection Operations AM Peak Afternoon PM Peak School Peak Unsignalized Intersections Major Street LOS/Minor Street LOS and Delay Durham Road/Carol Ann Court CIF >100 C/F >100 E/F >100 Signalized Intersections LOS V/C Ratio Delay Durham Road/Hall Boulevard E 1.05 73.5 E 0.98 56.0 E 1.00 59.9 • Durham Road/79t Avenue C 0.91 30.0 A 0.72 8.2 B 0.83 10.7 Delay-Average vehicle delay(seconds) LOS-Level of Service V/C Ratio-Volume to Capacity Ratio Table 4: Alternative 1-2015 Intersection Operations(5-Lane Durham) AM Peak Afternoon PM Peak School Peak Unsignalized Intersections Major Street LOS/Minor Street LOS and Delay Durham Road/Carol Ann Court B/F >100 B/F 83.3 E/F >100 Signalized Intersections LOS V/C Ratio Delay Durham Road/Hall Boulevard F 1.08 78.8 D 0.92 47.4 D 0.90 48.9 Durham Road/79t Avenue A 0.58 9.7 A 0.57 5.3 A 0.61 5.9 Delay-Average vehicle delay(seconds) LOS-Level of Service WC Ratio-Volume to Capacity Ratio 9 City of Tigard Transportation System Plan,Prepared by DKS Associates,January,2002. • 10 Based on information provided by Rob Saxton,Tigard-Tualatin School District,May 2006. DKS Assoc tes MEMORANDUM July 17, 2007 TRANSPORTATION SOLUTIONS Page 6of10 • The failing operations at the proposed access point onto Durham Road would significantly impact the ability of the intersection to adequately serve the site traffic. School bus traffic would need to be limited to right-in/right-out movements for safety,which would require school bus routing to utilize local streets north of Durham Road for circulation,causing significant neighborhood impacts. As an alternative,the intersection of Durham Road/Carol Ann Court was evaluated as a signalized intersection. With signal control,the intersection of Durham Road/Carol Ann Court would operate at a LOS of B or better and a v/c ratio of 0.88 during each of the study periods,which meets City of Tigard performance standards. While signalizing Durham Road/Carol Ann Court would provide adequate intersection operations,a traffic signal is not warranted based on MUTCD traffic volume warrants". However,City staff indicated that a traffic signal may be allowed at this location due to the site circulation needs'2. Vehicle Queuing Vehicle queuing analysis for this alternative assumed the signalization of Durham Road/Carol Ann Court, as described in the previous section. Table 5 lists the queuing analysis for the estimated 2007 conditions on Durham Road. Table 6 lists the estimated 2015 queues. As listed,the westbound queuing on Durham Road continues to exceed storage lengths during the 2007 and 2015 scenarios. The eastbound queuing on Durham Road reaches its storage capacity in 2007 during the AM peak hour. However,with the widening of Durham Road to five lanes,the eastbound queuing conditions are improved in the future 2015 scenario. Table 5: Alternative 1 -2007 Durham Road 95th Percentile Queues(ft) Intersection(Approach) AM Peak Afternoon PM Peak Available • School Peak Distance Durham/Hall(Westbound) 825 3,300 3,300 1,000 Durham/Carol Ann(Westbound) 225 2,300 2,300 550 Durham/Carol Ann(Eastbound) 1,000 700 350 1000 Durham/79th(Eastbound) 800 475 550 550 Note: An average vehicle queue length of 25 feet was assumed Table 6: Alternative 1 -2015 Durham Road 95th Percentile Queues(ft) Intersection(Approach) AM Peak Afternoon PM Peak Available School Peak Distance Durham/Hall(Westbound) 650 3,300 3,300 1,000 Durham/Carol Ann(Westbound) 100 2,300 2,300 550 Durham/Carol Ann(Eastbound) 175 250 200 1000 Durham/79th(Eastbound) 150 100 125 550 Note: An average vehicle queue length of 25 feet was assumed II Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices(2003 Edition),Federal Highway Association,November 2004. 12 Meeting with Gus Duenes,Kim McMillan,and Dick Brewersdorff,City of Tigard,April 25,2006. 4110 DKS Associa s • MEMORANDUM TRANSPORTATION SOLUTIONS July 17, 2007 Page 7 of 10 • Site Access Alternative 2- 79th Avenue The site access in this alternative includes a new private roadway connection that would run from the existing school parking lot northeast to intersect Durham Road at 79th Avenue. This connection would require coordination with the neighborhood property owner to reconfigure that site's parking lot and access. Roadway Access Standards Review The proposed new access point to Durham Road/79th Avenue would not impact the existing access spacing conditions on Durham Road in the study area. In addition,with new driveway in this alternative, the existing Durham Center access to Durham Road(located approximately 150 east of Carol Ann Ct.) could be closed and the Durham Center could share access with the Durham Elementary School. Therefore,this alternative would improve the access management along Durham Road within the study area. Safety Intersection sight distance was measured in the field to determine if the proposed access location would meet City of Tigard standards13. For Durham Road,the required intersection sight distance based on AASHTO guidelines is 390 feet. At the proposed access location,approximately 290 feet of sight distance is available to the east and approximately 400 feet of sight distance is available to the west. The sight distance to the east is restricted by landscaping along the south side of Durham Road. However, because Durham/79th is controlled by a traffic signal,westbound traffic does not conflict with northbound • traffic. Therefore,the sight distance standard is not applicable to the east. Intersection Performance Turn movement volumes were estimated for this scenario based on re-assignment of the existing Durham Elementary School trips that utilize Shaffer Lane to the proposed access location. In addition,approved developments in the study area were added as background traffic growth to the study intersections. These approved developments include: • Gage Forest(33 single family homes) • Lady Apple(33 single family homes) • McDonald Woods(16 single family homes) • Brittany Meadows(38 single family homes) • Churchill Woods(15 single family homes) Figure 2(see attached)shows the vehicle turn movement counts estimated for this scenario. In addition to the 2007 estimated volumes,year 2015 volumes were estimated at the study area intersections based on data provided in the City's TSP14. As with Alternative 1,volumes associated with the Durham Elementary School were held constant in the future scenarios,although enrollment projections indicate that enrollment will actually decrease by 2.6%by the year 201015. "City of Tigard Development Code,Section 18.705.030,October,2002. 14 City of Tigard Transportation System Plan,Prepared by DKS Associates,January,2002. • IS Based on information provided by Rob Saxton,Tigard-Tualatin School District,May 2006. DKS Assoates • MEMORANDUM July 17, 2007 TRANSPORTATION SOLUTIONS Page 8of10 • Table 7 lists study area intersection operations for the 2007 forecast scenario. Table 8 lists future year 2015 operations. As listed,the intersection of Durham Road/Hall Boulevard fails to meet City of Tigard standards during the AM and PM peak hours in the year 2007. The intersection continues to fail in the year 2015 during the AM peak period,despite expansion of Durham Road to a five-lane facility. In addition, the intersection of Durham/79th fails during the AM peak period in 2007. The capacity deficiency at Durham/79th could be mitigated with the provision of an eastbound right turn lane. In 2015, when Durham Road is expanded to a five-lane facility,this intersection meets performance standards in all peak periods,with or without an additional right turn lane. Table 7: Alternative 2-2007 Intersection Operations AM Peak Afternoon PM Peak School Peak Unsignalized Intersections Major Street LOS/Minor Street LOS and Delay Durham Road/Carol Ann Court C/F >100 C/F >100 E/F >100 Signalized Intersections LOS V/C Ratio Delay Durham Road/Hall Boulevard E 1.03 66.7 D 0.98 54.5 E 1.00 59.3 Durham Road/79th Avenue E 1.06 59.7 B 0.71 10.4 B 0.84 11.7 Delay—Average vehicle delay(seconds) LOS—Level of Service • WC Ratio—Volume to Capacity Ratio Table 8: Alternative 2-2015 Intersection Operations(5-Lane Durham) AM Peak Afternoon PM Peak School Peak Unsignalized Intersections Major Street LOS/Minor Street LOS and Delay Durham Road/Carol Ann Court B/F >100 B/F 83.3 E/F >100 Signalized Intersections LOS V/C Ratio Delay Durham Road/Hall Boulevard F 1.08 78.8 D 0.92 47.4 D 0.90 48.9 Durham Road/79th Avenue B 0.69 14.2 A 0.55 6.5 A 0.61 6.5 Delay—Average vehicle delay(seconds) LOS—Level of Service WC Ratio—Volume to Capacity Ratio Vehicle Queuing Table 9 lists the queuing analysis for the estimated 2007 conditions on Durham Road. Table 10 lists the estimated 2015 queues. As listed,the westbound queuing on Durham Road continues to exceed storage lengths during the 2007 and 2015 scenarios. The eastbound queuing on Durham Road reaches its storage capacity in 2007 during the AM peak hour. However,the provision of an eastbound right-turn lane at Durham/79th would mitigate this condition,as would expansion of Durham to a five-lane facility. • DKS Assoc s • MEMORANDUM July 17, 2007 TRANSPORTATION SOLUTIONS Page 9of10 • Table 9: Alternative 2-2007 Durham Road 95th Percentile Queues (ft) Intersection(Approach) AM Peak Afternoon PM Peak Available School Peak Distance Durham/Hall(Westbound) 825 3,300 3,300 1,600 Durham/79th(Eastbound) 1,900 650 525 1,600 Note: An average vehicle queue length of 25 feet was assumed Table 10: Alternative 2-2015 Durham Road 95th Percentile Queues(ft) Intersection(Approach) AM Peak Afternoon PM Peak Available School Peak Distance Durham/Hall(Westbound) 600 3,300 3,300 1,600 Durham/79th(Eastbound) 550 175 150 1,600 Note: An average vehicle queue length of 25 feet was assumed Conclusions Based on the alternatives evaluation presented in the previous sections,both of the proposed alternatives could adequately serve the traffic needs of the Durham Elementary School. In addition,both alternatives provide the opportunity to improve access management along Durham Road by closing the Durham Center access onto Durham Road. However,the existing congestion on Durham Road(extended vehicle • queuing for westbound traffic)is forecasted to continue in the future,with or without the proposed project. To minimize impacts to this congested environment,Alternative 2 (79th Avenue)would be the preferred scenario. With either of the proposed alternatives,there are additional improvement measures that should be implemented,which include: • Coordinate with Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue and potentially retain the existing maintenance roadway running south from Durham Road along the east edge of the Durham Elementary School building as an emergency access. Consider rebuilding the connection to Durham Road to emergency access standards(curbed access with grass-crete). • Alternative 1 o If Carol Ann Court is signalized, implement traffic signal coordination on Durham Road between Hall Boulevard,Carol Ann Court,and 79'h Avenue. • Alternative 2 o Construct an eastbound right turn lane at Durham/79th to meet 2007 capacity needs. Upon widening of Durham Road to a five-lane facility,the right turn lane needed to meet 2007 capacity needs could be converted to a through-lane. In addition,the AM peak analysis found that the planned improvement at Durham/Hall in the City's TSP (as part of the Hall extension and Durham widening projects)would not meet performance standards in 2015(in both alternatives). With this additional AM peak analysis detail,the City should consider refining the planned improvements at Durham/Hall identified in the TSP to include double southbound left turn lanes. 411 DKS Assoctes • MEMORANDUM July 17, 2007 TRANSPORTATION SOLUTIONS Page l0ofl0 S Please contact us with any questions. Cc: Tony Roos,WRG Kelly Hossaini,Miller Nash LLP • • • • • Durham Elementary School Site Access Alternatives Evaluation 0 - APPENDIX 0 • • • TABLE OF CONTENTS Appendix A— Traffic Counts Appendix B — Queuing Analysis Appendix C — Capacity Calculations • • • • Type of peak hour being reported:Intersection Peak Method for determining peak hour.Total Entering Volume INTERSECTION: SW Carol Ann CL-SW Durham Rd. QC JOB#: 10164503 WEATHER: DATE:5/4/2006 10 16 Peak-Hour:4:15 PM—5:15 PM 0.0• * • 15 0 5 ( 10.0 0.0 0.0 1 d • 1. 1095 4. 6 / t 10 • 1100 [ SW Durham Rd. ] 2.3 ♦16.7-t , \ t 0.0 • 2.3 830 • 0.99 •1090 3.3 • \� • 2.3 836 �► 0 1 c 0 • 835 3.3 •0.0 1 ` 0.0 • 3.2 1 S r 1 f P 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 r �' 4 ♦ . 0 0 0.0 0.0 [ SW Carol Ann Ct. ] ',) ' l [ SW Carol Ann Ct. ] I 8 L c c�� �1` ti _J �..� K 1. 1.►M ` L , I„. L t D t,,i. t Q y \ 1 cp. . 4+ �, .t * e 0 NORTH F 1+ +5-- _ 14+ 1_ _J L. 9 v • i CI 0 _ 7 4+ 1-- 7 I— . 7 P • 'SEE LEGEND SHEET 5-MIN COUNT SW Carol Ann Ct. SW Carol Ann Ct. SW Durham Rd. SW Durham Rd. PERIOD (Northbound) (Southbound) (Eastbound) (Westbound) TOTAL HOURLY BEGINNING AT Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U TOTALS 4:00 PM 0 0 0 1 0 2 2 175 0 0 232 0 412 4:15 PM 0 0 0 3 0 2 1 197 0 0 274 5 482 1 4:30 PM 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 199 0 0 291 1 493 4:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 217 0 0 262 3 485 1872 5:00 PM 0 0 0 1 0 2 2 217 0 0 263 1 486 1946 5:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 218 0 0 249 3 474 1938 5:30 PM 0 0 0 1 0 4 0 182 0 0 237 4 • 428 1873 5:45 PM 0 0 0 1 0 3 2 177 0 0 273 4 460 1848 PEAK 15-MIN Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound TOTAL FLOW RATES Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U _Left Thru Right U All Vehicles 0 0 0 4 0 0 4 796 0 0 1164 4 1972 Heavy Trucks 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 8 0 18 Pedestrians 0 0 0 0 0 Bicycles Railroad Stopped Buses 4110 Counter Comments: Report generated on 5/912006 SOURCE Quality Counts,LLC(httpJ/www.qualitycounts.net) • • Type of peak hour being reported:Intersection Peak Method for determining peak hour.Total Entering Volume INTERSECTION: SW Carol Ann Ct.—SW Durham Rd. QC JOB#: 10164502 WEATHER: DATE:5/4/2006 • + * Peak-Hour: 3:00 PM—4:00 PM 14 0 2 ( 10.0 0.0 0.0 I J • V J i V 885 ♦ 11 J t 5 4 886 [ SW Durham Rd. ] 2.7 ♦0.0-, i t 0.0 ♦ 2.7 824 • 0.96 •881 4.6• /� • 2.7 835 ♦ 0 1 r 0 • 826 4.6 ♦0.0 1 0.0 y 4.6 1 • P 1 t e 7 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 o 0 0.0 0.0 [ SW Carol Ann Ct. ] * I I I ` [ SW Carol Ann Ct. I 4 Viral ., t I .,0 tec.,7„..A>t 0 y 6110 « 7 ," 1 s 4 1 t r• 7 NORTH F 1+ I I � I I� _1 a I viv _ a�t. •�t, 7 4... r 7 I— t 0 -1 r 'SEE LEGEND SHEET 5-MIN COUNT SW Carol Ann Ct. SW Carol Ann Ct. SW Durham Rd. SW Durham Rd. PERIOD (Northbound) (Southbound) (Eastbound) _ (Westbound) TOTAL HOURLY BEGINNING AT Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U TOTALS 2:00 PM 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 164 0 0 174 0 341 2:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 184 0 0 198 0 385 2:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 176 0 0 147 0 323 2:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 199 0 0 212 2 414 1463 3:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 210 0 0 200 1 412 1534 3:15 PM 0 0 0 1 0 1 2 194 0 0 221 2 421 1570 3:30 PM 0 0 0 1 0 1 5 212 0 0 229 0 448 16951 3:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 2 3 208 0 0 231 2 448 1727 m PEAK 15-MIN Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound TOTAL FLOW RATES Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U _ All Vehicles 0 0 0 4 0 4 20 848 0 - 0 916 0 1792 Heavy Trucks 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 4 0 8 Pedestrians 12 0 0 0 12 Bicycles Railroad • Stopped Buses Counter Comments: Report generated on 5/9/2006 SOURCE:Quality Counts.LLC(httpi/www.qualitycountst) Type of peak hour being reported:Intersection•Peak • Method for determining peak hour.Total Entering Volume INTERSECTION: SW Carol Ann Ct.-SW Durham Rd. QC JOB#: 10164501 WEATHER: DATE:5/4/2006 25 2 Peak-Hour:7:00 AM—8:00 AM 0.0 0.0 III X14' ° *' I J + 0.0 0.0 0.0 1 ./ 4 f. 600 ♦ 2 J t 0 • 586 [ SW Durham Rd. ] 3.0 •0.0 J ! t 0.0 • 3.1 1115+ 0.97 •586 1.6 y \� ♦ 3.1 1117 • 0 1 r 0 ♦ 1126 ^ 1.6 ♦0.0 . �//// r 0.0 • 1.6 7 , t P / 7 \� , • P °a 0 . i___ I Ali 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 `\� a 0.0 0.0 [ SW Carol Ann Ct. ] 11) i k II, [ SW Carol Ann Ct. ] _l I_ t i - 1.\rI -1 I— a 0 0 • 64) • 7 .1 * e. 7 12 NORTH T 1+ .5- I _I . a I 400 ke ___fr n CO 40 I1I.1* P I— III 'SEE LEGEND SHEET 5-MIN COUNT SW Carol Ann Ct. SW Carol Ann Ct. SW Durham Rd. SW Durham Rd. PERIOD (Northbound) (Southbound) (Eastbound) (Westbound) TOTAL HOURLY BEGINNING AT Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U TOTALS 7:00 AM 0 0 0 2 0 4 1 271 0 0 138 0 416 7:15 AM 0 0 0 5 0 7 0 291 0 0 142 0 445 7:30 AM 0 0 0 3 0 2 0 270 0 0 163 0 438 7:45 AM 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 283 0 0 143 0 429 1728 8:00 AM 0 0 0 3 0 2 2 249 0 0 86 1 343 1655 8:15 AM 0 0 0 3 0 1 3 266 0 0 126 0 399 1609 8:30 AM 0 0 0 2 0 1 2 236 0 0 116 0 357 1528 8:45 AM 0 0 0 3 0 2 1 218 0 0 118 1 343 1442 PEAK 15-MIN Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound FLOW RATES Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U TOTAL All Vehicles 0 0 0 20 0 28 0 1164 0 0 568 0 1780 Heavy Trucks 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 12 0 20 Pedestrians 8 8 0 0 16 Bicycles Railroad Stopped Buses 41/0 Counter Comments: Report generated on 5/9/2006 SOURCE:Quality Counts.LLC(http://www.qualitycounts.net) • • • 1 _I p C u I< {��►'a 0 1 c.•. o 9 2R m O 2 g -.I--I-rmio-— cn $� E + . —,—; + +rx it• 7r AI(.(J..1. Ipp.A10:1Ppp. 3E t m Vttnn4 V'VV44Va,VV.VVV 3� NIONIONONOO .7Y 3C z NO'NO41O'tNl110NOiNO NO!OAilOtW11;0'fINONOINOIy C O Q. G d•+ItJ'M;(A \ N S C N W10)IV co!.N r ++o!"..—WI-N+A.N+A O,+N NiN:N+0i0i+rl {�((��1I g3 I (,y z y I z H3 I I ! yz o� i oowe O �� ��I /_? •{O OJ VIAI< 1NO2CNH N 8m N AO OI.+,NItO N'm V,*O C1� p1 N'NIO'OiNN'N,+ I+ .0z O W ���'1I •/ O1 O W IA'A W N:W +V+N N+INN-i O `� yyy. pI U °oO -m} y NGp�� ;� q i I ; :gg 3e 1 H ; i :gig 3 cam' < ;`� z•OI OIISIL'-O tJ aCI A d W L' A VIN Alpi�'N.m co A 6 3 A W W++W+,W+O+WIO.N NiWIO,+'AI+IA'W • N1AiN A!1 O. 2 -0 4. O� ,■ `J C (�1 ' 1 ' I ; Q 3,2 Q° 1 od . 3 +I+�4f143 btl+ I IO W o 01010+o'N O Fe 43 0 010 O.O o:o10 o olo10 0 01+0 0;010++.01010 N 0 po NNN 3 I 1 , $I N , " ct• m I ' •\ I ! Gl I I NI i VA N O (� WN ON r N 10 r O A d+N+;N0i i A W N,01'V WV'A.N ViV V N. WI V.P,NIW O W NN:0 r O I I 1 I O v I 1 N O N W'V'1 0 o-- IN IC r'43 =5 N W O N'V I V W N+y O W N N+'0 0O O N+N N O N N+,A'+++IO N +IO;O�:C C 1 I I- 2f � i� I 1 '1 ' �g I ■ i =o nNNA o A oY l 4N N OW N W A< W tN ; N I 0 ; 'N,W V 810t:�MI a• •i I 1 4 ' ; rO 2-,I ■ F ' r I l j I ml -OOI+ l + N O I+,0,010!0 0!-• ; N 010,0:0 O+,O 0 0 0 0 0 0 O'OO O'OI oO O O+0 g- I I a' I a j a ppop I p VWINImI!101r V;-•r N i LNtADINV;J tAltitri co o ANON OO NI�WNOoI��W NN V�10•m OINit.t Oi f.11�Oltn rIC pi VlOfiA V O W y + I tO� pIA WAN+IO�,� WT O N ty A p W W,W'A tJ�NN N W A WIA'W1p W>ItJ A '<Iytl 000111 VI OWD �aQ co O�+p N Ep N NINiV tJ,W PAW OO i3O a f0Jt co W+1 V A,A IC, -•+I+0 0 47,N 0,Ot, ,A+A1A,O't 0 p OIc t;... aq[y¢ � 'j I :�� i I I Leo W VIOI'NA PONAl7Y m� + J � NIOiW+N+,NOAg 7 0:010,0 1 C I I T 1'4* tp�j �p I I i A p + N O'W,0 0 0 O,+O'++10 0 +0 010 A I p 7p I Is O HIV 1 A I p .� - I �{ ¢¢¢¢1 4.0+-.iol0 I beiN 6 I I+1 + 010-10'0I0 0 0 W' - 0;0'0:0 0,01+.0 00 00 0 0,0:0 O'OI010 0 0;0'0 WI 0 a a: 5 5. _ m' I V W 111,8 8 ri k1r.1N r P.I O1 AIWIWIN:0I A;N N r 01,02.0,-•-.-+•++OIN,0 A'OI+IN ON 0'13 W+I+10 r IAN tj1 CD 01 p�1 i c 0.1 _. I�1 OI i :O1 I __ N NtE m V O S O1 SIT~g O+I�R LR M �j1 �IN I1=8IA m V-I.0 O tmjl T OI!41•W+N JIO Oo Oo W O IVO V 1 Ens'egzA AIOI+V+INV Ito 1'O q ;,R.-"' +1 N N IpN1(�J11 o+N at+i N O1Iy(O/�1I(/11 N �.1 i INI N 1 m o HV 1.9% V OLIN P A Of A v _� W tAl1 mi0 01143'0 N A,�d 0.4.1,E A't0 NI-A+N co V N N t0 V G1;ViN1N t.Nf cooIW!+A p a p PHF 0.88 p G o++y ; p to W g +WIAIW et O -11 I 03 P O OIO;+IO,N •.o A O 00;00'0.0 O O O'O+O,O o O,N'O o o+010 O m, ; i I . 3 0 Nc� N� �g• II _ Nv't.117.1-1 o+I.N H 0+•rl �/ A I (t1111Ip1{pip V A 0_1 �1 IpVI I •0_1 C tWJ O y Z to N VIV VIV V i0'Vlvl,0'0OVgi t0 VWtm 004,-IAjN+OD NO 47 u:,0 HOD 8.8 9191'8 t+WION fJ g_Z 571y 5 AI .1 W ! I 03 12 z �2 -0 a 0 -to=I�IA$ to;tl oiol0,-4'.N'O o O f. O.o'olo o o'o O O o!W A N O oIN o 0;010 O OIO!O 0� HV 2.2% _ 1 I {{5((ll _ 33 i 1 • Cs. , 1. PHF 0.57 [�! ilo + 0.10.0,01+0 0 Jam'O q + O o.O'O O orO,O O O O O O o 0,0 0+10'0 O O O'o c O a -1 1n to a a m 000,0 l 0 O 00 01000 o,o�i'�a o 00'0'00 00000 0'000'0'0'00o 0 000'0 I �' p m xCi X1 I I ' '' . ' ! I m+I+ItO{0 tD oW� + +I IWIW;N O'+ry�, O O+;O+•010,0+O N+W O 010.N.43:010 O+1010 ml A D mrnrnim N $d Io W -04 .1. 4,000 a -II-.1-1'v'rn lm.m m i N a- C� 8 + 1 ++ + +++� +,+1+++ S O2 A•p{�+pp S @.� SC N .. ..'..1.. . .. U O VVVV,VV V'VVVVVNmmW�•AlNmmm,mm�N^ O co N O N.O 1 v\ -T,4 y T 3 2' S C A I{.1 O'A W+.p' 3 SI 4 N •W p A i �j C Im j 0 ` mz NIOIN�O N O,N O m .Z y `' 2 0:O'VPi O N 0,110 N O N,S tNi: NIO..O,N O N O,PI,O O d 1 T\ pl 51 w ? I i w ? 11 3 a W 0.10.0 r 8 0 r $N 5 0 010.0,0 o,o 010 r (j O o 0 0�0 0.0.010 0 0 0,0 0 0!0,0 0:010 0 0 ol0'O r C q w ~ C I N 1 1 O�O1 1 ■ H O)0 0 `C t!� �H( O NI+I+IO 1 cn Z 8 O G N 1 f Z + 0 O v N 01-.,o'-.,0,0,o' 1 O-I rN Q 0 I . ,N 2 Q m f7 1 ii' Po 1 I I I $I x S d _ v Sn N o 0'0!+0 OIp 0 0 0 p p 010'0 1,¢o O v p� V� m i C1 Si ' S n 1—h /� +, IW1W A Z� °lO A I— W ` 2 i 1 ! �� 3 ; ! ; ; d C 3$ 0 O' N 3 4^ `�:,`;' \Y co n = $ Kn aawa G w oIo00' +'oA;�o C w o01,0'0.0oio0000'000•+00+lo+o010.0Alan 4f a $ `, • N XI a o �I v, ) 3 3.� Pa o d 1 c W W PIW Q C NIN C N OI+OI++I+I-+'O .w N O'O O.+.O O1O,O O+1O o o o+10 o+101-•o o;o o 0, N O 3 • E Z 1v " 0 f 3 m"I"�ri 3 0Im r cI+ W I ' 1 N ` o P , d Ia $1 80 of +I+ +wN+,mrl C N +porn+I+000+,o+:NO_.p.++,00-'0,Sri c O v \ w i S 0 C7 c +i+'+^'1 v°c $Plc—xi m gj*g N 010,0•0+10 0•+-4 3 N 0 0 0'0 0 0,0 0 0 0 010 0.0+'0 0 0100 0+•0,0 1,*0 a -, • , I dg I "=R - • m5 ' i mQ I i i '15 Q S N P N N A W I P A m < G� m o!+I O i W•+;O+O A'-3 m O O O 0 0+0 0 0+++O O+ ! 1 b < 6 W G a n 10.0'010'+O O O O A 4- Slag u + N • C NINIW N g +IN PN N m +O'O O O N+'O O+INI+- NN:+p- ++p N pip CO C OI O CL N NIA'V r O N r v0 P 51 m 0'0I+0,+IO,W'W r: m 0 0 0 0.0 O'O'+O 010 0 0+010 0 0,W,O O+.+,+r' +PiVIP 1.....0 M Sr 1 : IA 0110 C N w1+IN:0 w1A'N'N 1,0 m b O+N+'OIOIN'O o W N o o N•+1++ O W oo.lo2237 o0 Noig2 O 0 00,0000 3c 1 , •dc _{ i A a $ A n m n MD' o 0.00:p'p01O,op010!0o O o Oo'pb1po010,0A 3 a 11 n 1 I ° 1 • 1 ,a 1 of -, . WIm+IBC SIP I W WI+I(•NAA0N� W O+N+OON+OWNOO W+I++N!V+ONI+IN�O!' , CO L C' +NjN,W rI NI+rI IN jI N -.IO,+,O O,+-.+r N 0+010 0'0+0 0 0,0.0 0 0 0'+0,010+0+.010 r A P 1 O N I 10 I I I ' •N . ' : . 1N c bI�DI�N 1I p 0100 m�Op N ANNN W'N A.W1Op 2 ++N+O+,+'O++O+NO+O+I+IWO+N,+,0100 0 N N �.I I_ _� 3g ._ _ }g • _ .t H .' 3.0 ' III • , ' • . I I • 1 1 '3� P A plm A tWV A A 7n 3 n O OIW'+,0.0�D'V A 3 n 0 0 00,0 0 OIW'O'O O'O+O O 0I0 0;01N A W W,NIN A 3 7 1N. co I -..-`1010 a O S P p+s• N N mW,...,',...,'ca p +'N'N+O+'NO++O'N N 0.-0.-L1-• A m W,N +S P N,41, JN ar I I f I '= I 1 3 I 1 " 1 3 y N♦ H 70 2 ♦.o NT'mIV00 0. V� G VI. G O m1m+1+'+I-'NNO 0 + 1 I✓p N C N� 0� m mC` Ip ,OI E m 0:43.4,j0 N Nb' m N c..3*.W O W'm,++m.AW W N NiW N�N1W im A•OP'm Z 2 1 I ' I . I _w 031 + + A O at N O 3 C • • • • Peak Hour Summary • All Traffic Data —a a io10110/' - Clay Carney (503)833-2740 SW Hall Blvd & SW Durham Rd 4:50 PM to 5:50 PM Wednesday, February 22,2006 a Bike = 1 CO 529 513 285 15 229 g y y SW Durham Rd Peds 9 Bikes 1 R 256 1152 E 846 1114 v IC 12 as `'_1/ ►V `� E ' N • 221 a s a 742 516 4 779 Bikes 1 5 y Peds 0 SW Durham Rd R f X 21 36 34 32 91 Bikes j 0 CO Approach PHF HV% Volume EB 0.84 1.9% 742 WB 0.88 1.3% 1,114 NB 0.57 2.2% 91 SB 0.88 1.9% 529 Intersection 0.90 1.7% 2,476 Count Period:4:00 PM to 6:00 PM II/ • • Total Vehicle Summary e. In Out r4 co 450 524 CD 0 >u.. 222 20 208 - •" All Traffic Data ') a- PHF 0.95 18 0 a■ml lee 1 o 101 10,.._,./ ._ _ _ .....„ .. _ _, ■11 t.245 Clay Carney Out 1,015 pit,, 1,028 In (503)833-2740 559■111. g 0' E t: ,41 766 In 800 818 Out 18 HV 4.6% SW Hall Blvd & SW Durham Rd PHF 0.88 41 t r* 27 45 51 .4 6 Wednesday, February 22, 2006 Out In >u_ x x 44 123 o. 2:00 PM to 4:00 PM Peak Hour Summary 3:00 PM to 4:00 PM 5-Minute Interval Summary 2:00 PM to 4:00 PM Interval Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Pedestrians Start SW Hall Blvd SW Hall Blvd SW Durham Rd SW Durham Rd Interval Crosswalk Time L T R Bikes L T R Bikes L T R Bikes L T R Bikes Total North South East West 14:00 3 2 3 0 18 1 10 0 18 37 1 0 3 42 13 0 151 0 0 0 0 14:05 1 0 3 0 11 1 6 0 9 29 0 0 2 35 13 0 110 0 0 0 0 14:10 1 1 0 0 16 3 9 0 5 36 2 0 1 58 8 0 140 0 0 0 0 14:15 0 1 . 2 0 17 4 6 0 7 40 3 1 2 41 15 0 138 0 0 0 0 14:20 3 5 3 0 19 4 14 0 9 37 5 2 40 15 0 156 1 0 0 0 14:25 2 . 3 7 . 0 15 11 9 1 6 39 3 4 39 14 0 152 0 0 1 0 1 14:30 _ 1 3 ' 0 1 1 9 7 0 4 30 0 7 0 39 13 0 118 1 1 0 0 1435 1 - 4 . 3 0 9 0 13 0_ 10 34 2 3 47 14 0 . . _ _ ..140 14:40 9 8 - 2 0 14 3 22 0 11 43 0 . 3 56 20 0 191 0 1 1 1 14:45 5 8 . . 10 1 16 3 . 15 0 9 42 1 2 51 ' 11 0 173 3 2 2 1 4 _ 14;50 1 . 5 0 17 2 16 0 23 52 0 . 2 47 . 11 1 -- 180 2 6 6 - 4 14:55 4 7 1 0 13 3 17 -- 0 24 43 1 1 52 9 0 175. 0 3 2 3 15:00 1 4 .. 2 2_ 9. _ 0 . 20 0 36 _56 1 . . 0 69 -- - --- - 2 3 _ 2 15:05.. 0 2 _.2 . 0 16 0 21 0 27 49 0 0 54 . 28 . 0 __199 . . _4 _ 4_ 3 _ 3 15:10 2 1 2 I 16 - 3 . 24 0 19 38 1 2 61 17 2 186 3 1 4 1 15:15 1 5 0 15 3 13 0 17 40 0 3 74 18 0 190 1 3 2 3 1 15:20 1 2 6 0 20 0 23 1 27 54 2 2 60 13 1 210 2 4 2 4 15:25 0 1 5 1 14 1 16 0 12 44 0 1 66 23 0 183 3 2 1 2 15:30 8 4 7 0 25 1 15 0 16 59 1 1 1 .63 20 0 .220 0 0 0 . 1 15:35 6 11 6 0 24 7 22 0 22 . 44- 0 0 238 1 . _4 66 26 1 . . . 0 1 6 15:40 5 6 4 -0 23 2 14 0 9 43 1 - 0 2 61 22 .0 192 1 1 : .0 . 2 15:45 2_ 4 5 _ 0 _20 _ 1 14 0 10 39 1 0 0 61 24 0 181 0 _ 1 . 0 2 16:50 0 2 4- 6 11 1 21 1 22 35 0 0 1 54 18 0 169 0 0 0 6 15:55 1 3 7 0 15 1 19 0 17 58 0 0 1 77 20 0 219 1 0 1 0 Total Survey 58 88 94 5 384 64 366 3 369 1,021 25 2 42 1,313 401 6 4,225 25 33 29 37 III 15-Minute Interval Summary 2:00 PM to 4:00 PM Interval Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Pedestrians Start SW Hall Blvd SW Hall Blvd SW Durham Rd SW Durham Rd Interval Crosswalk Time L T R Bikes L T R Bikes L T R .Bikes L T ' R Bikes Total North South East West 14:00 5 2 7 0 45 5 25 . 0. _32 102 3 0 6 135. . 34 0 401 . 0 0 0 . 0 14:15 5 9 12 0 51 19 _29 1 22 116 11 1 8 120 44 0_ 446 1 - 0 1 0 14:30 11 13 8 0 34 12 42 0 25 107 2 0 6 142. 47 0 .._ 449 1 4 1 3 14:45 10 19 16 1 46 8 48 0 56 137 2 : 0 5 150 31 1 528 5 11 10 8 15:00 3 . 7 6 3 41 3 . 65 0 82 143 2 0 2 184 61 3 599 9 7 10 6 _ 15:15 2 8 12 1 49 4 52 1 56 138 2 0 6 200 54 1 583 6 9 5 9 15:30 19 21 17 0 72 10 51 0 47 146 2 1 7 190 ' 68 1 650 2 ; 1 1 3 15:45 3 9 ' 16 0 46 3 54 1 49 • 132 1 0 2 192 62 0 569 1 . 1 1 8 , Total Survey 58 88 , 94 . 5 384 64 366 3 369 1,021 25 2 42 1,313. 401 ' 6 4,225 25 33 29 37 Peak Hour Summary 3:00 PM to 4:00 PM Northbound Southbound Eastbound _ Westbound Pedestrians By SW Hall Blvd SW Hall Blvd SW Durham Rd _SW Durham Rd Total _ Crosswalk Approach -In Out ! Total'Bikes l-n-----Out . Total Bikes In I Out TotairliTce-a In Out I taaicetT Tii-rin-Soiiii. East ■West-. _Volume 123 44 167 : 4 450 ' 524 - 974 • 2 800 : 1,015,1,815. 1 1,028 818 ■ 1,846 i 5 2,401 18 18 . 17 : 26 _ %FiV 4.1% 6.2% 4.6% 1.8% 3.7_% PHF 0.54 _-0.85 0.88 _ 0.95 0.92 By Northbound Southbound Eastbound _ Westbound . SW Hall Blvd SW Hall Blvd SW Durham Rd SW Durham Rd Total Movement L ' T R ______Total L T . R Total L . T ' R ,Total L. ■ T 1 R 'Total _Volume 27 • 45 51 123 _ 208 20 - 222 450 234 1 559 , 7 :800 17 766 1 245 1.028_ 2,401 _ -1161-IV 3.7% 2.2% 5.9% 471% 5.3%7 15.0% 6.3% 6.2% 7.7% 3.2%,14.3%4.8% 5.9% 1.4%• 2.9%1:8% 3.7% PHF 0.36 0.54 0.71 0.54 0.72 aso 0.85 0.85 0.71 0.89 0.58 .0.88 0.61 0.96 • 0.85 -0.95 0.92 Rolling Hour Summary 2:00 PM to 4:00 PM Interval Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Pedestrians Start SW Hall Blvd SW Hall Blvd SW Chatham Rd SW Durham Rd Interval Cross Bikes walk Time L I R Bike-- L T R Bikes -I. - T R .Bikes L T R Bikes Total North.South East West 14:00 31 43 43 1 176 44 . 144 1 135 , 462 • 18 1 25 547 156 1 1,824 7 15 .. 12 ._ 11 14:15 29 48 42 4 172 42 184 • 1 185 503 17 -1 21 596 183 4 2.022 16 22 _ 22 17 410 1430 26 47 42 5 170 27 207 1 219 -525 6 0 19 676 193 5_ 2159 21 , 31 . 26 26 14:45 34 55 51 5 - 208 25 . 27I-6-- 1- 241--•--564 8 1 20 724 '-21-4-- 6 2.360 .---- 2 28 26 ' 26- 5 c p O N .- M A .Jt4 ^ PPPq ry r M N E 9 p N,Vfi Vf Of N'�i0 a O11A.^ice f°,�:.m GD'Uf O.tO f°IA a:N N z o N W DJ O el N f°f° 0 O �lO y�gIIR� ' O N N a�th N^^ ° 1^ O C C F f ~^ M ♦ % ''''L:-- N ♦^ H Q 1 -'`' '3 I i p OlO N +• N N s-M ."1, i 4-^ p M T x ^O^^^4.4414-:N<0;01.44,a.-'0;N O O;474-4-O:^N;44, N a Of' OIL II° a F I m Q C 1 ^^ O 0 O N O o O Ni ,O'OI^1 K^100 0 0^i • ^ 0^ O v I K^ cDI^N,N^N m i g• IT ° m ^ j o� 1 a ' 1 M ^H �H O,O,�-�-4-14-!0.4-^N'N N^l',N O 0'0;0'4-O O N N N ,1-^( N.DI°0^a N 3 N 44410 DI H ,J 0:010 0 0 0,0.0^IOI^^0:0'0 0 0•^.0 0 O0•0 0 a J O O^'N■O.H0i0 a C 0,O J^O J MIf'1'a M 0 144.0 C i a NI-I^a NIM!M:N DT 4-a;M M,N!A 40 N N^^aM O N 8 .�O a 01 m O)IN1�ItoIN 1O Il Ala I O N C'A110$• vs I0:0 N �� IF : O! O O 0,0,0'0 O.O:O O O:O'O O O O O C CC O Ol^O 0 i0•-:O N 0 I ^I O .. ^^ i ill- °£ OO i ^ W i H^I ^M^I M M.-'N i^.M M N,O t7 N N I^^'^N N O N Q W 8 H l�f A,fO'A:l°I N a i a d 0 `H m O A 1-'N i N I R I N . 1 ,.. 1 VV f$0 O'J -,alo^^i0'O;O;^o^O,-.444.0 a a'^O o'^ -.o:o N J^N.-'^!A,OC.-•.- N C J 81,1 IJ N^o m I IXQ^'M;M M N'0)'c0 O OIN'M a N A,A^^'OIN M^,N N O ~A M co,C11,!N cola g I �10 1 �sl • I : B I I �. 3' ,K OI OI^O OI OI N;O 0,0^N N N'c0 0 0 O'^.-0 O H O 0 N ?tee—.0,,,,:m:,4101,410 Cj L Os I Q'31 5 i c,co l'I,r. L A o3,I-ooi.- o'A'^o0:0.0^o'01^^0000.0.0,^O 03'F-.-m ^'.-'o^ g co ^ E mm E 1 M II- ^IaIM 7 N N i 1 N N ° o a ° ' I 0 y J^M,-N N^MO OIN.N^O,N^O^'O,^N^IN'^O N 0 J 0 VI M,N M^IaIM S . J^cf (J 01 f0'IM C ca °'' N i0 ! 1 I A I ' E 1 l° ^I° E 1 11 1^ .1 O 11 Cl) N p�!�IO^0'^IO O O�,^^O,OIO^^O O^^^O O N d 1-N0.72:1- 1-1.-�N N I I,010 y I o mlcolcoI ^\lJ1 y p = p I 1 p1- y 1- m0 ∎ I�^I^I^.� 1"'1 "■ Ta �,}� 4 C p.°'.-I.-IO^0!,-.10,0 01,0'^•O O'O;O O•-O■O^.OI�•O O ~ C 2' I ^ O O Ic+l Cll OI I w, J � ,.:• E`1, V •1 7 m, I I y 7 m N N O cD�OI•-•-I Z q R'M O , m S 100.A. W ("1 ,i U > Q s C S1 I I I I ' , 8 cam. i I '— R 0 `S I� i .1. ' II 8o CO t} �g 2N,F oo1oo 00I000a,0,^Oi00^010;000000 c° �O NFOOO,c0,0;^I°I° cp �� S i0 Z A^,_ �� = I I Vf o O 3 F V1;,0 co m•O N z It > RI r1 y U J 0010 O 0;0,010 OiM O O 0'O10 0 0 0'0,0^'OHO O a J O OIOIMIOIOI^IO a U iC IOIV J^I U e ,J M,MIM a o ea b 0 t•0- Z 9 €ofOlO N G11°I°:MI<,O'NIN®10.0 N NIA A°a.d l0 N i �Q iZ IN •S�°'a'�,l°IAIa Ii a.fi LL 1LL ,O f y p°kt:v°elaie•e , /p O $y p o a a oei'ti'l° m Ik t CN ^^ ^I m 0 ^ ^I^ I^ 1�^ =N f as =1V • • • • • Peak Hour Summary " All Traffic Data-') 4111 F75rc•s i::c _ Clay Camay (503)833-2740 SW Hall Blvd & SW Durham Rd 3:00 PM to 4:00 PM Wednesday, February 22,2006 00 = Bike = 2 450 524 222 20 208 IC y SW Durham Rd Peds 18 Bikes 5 R 245 1015 E 766 1028 v IC 17 N .1_ fv � `� E 234 71 (1. ' 0 1111 800 559 4 818 Bikes 1 7 y Peds 18 SW Durham Rd R + 71 27 45 51 44 123 CO Bikes id 4 y Approach PHF HV% Volume EB 0.88 4.6% 800 WB 0.95 1.8% 1,028 NB 0.54 4.1% 123 SB 0.85 6.2% 450 Intersection 0.92 3.7% 2,401 Count Period:2:00 PM to 4:00 PM • • • • ' r A V� o I r e o , V Ti* V •••I NI E 01000.0;000 5 C4" g_ o 0.0 o'o O'000000000I000'0000,0'0 O 1 O o oloo C $, N - Am ' • V O OD 0? • OD . I I =m < i O * O 4 C I,a 0 W ire.N OI d O N OI o Y C O WN Ow N O WO W O W oIW N ON N ON O N O N C c I W n 'a OIIOINN r \ IN r C 01 +IA IOiOIJIw,N'O r C .� +O O N N10imIW W+IV NOI+'W;+'O NI - O Oj0'O r c , , q g3 p J, z N3 i , co o I 1 •:Wz • ro W • � i n` n ID�'S P y (n A UI 1 +Ste_'O (/� V ++N++INN+-1*O O J O+O W N A W"CO W 1 W N 331.4 WIN w 10 0I++O O�+ O O T I• ' t" I I S.� N P S CCR i m JiW'WI m ,O * 1 �p mI 1 'f 4 mIW 'pOj (A�i t Q + �+ ININI m F 3 3 + I ; m g �3 °o pY w � �� n� ^N O VINIO'91 §1,.11731 O) `�,ii g V O tD VIA W W10 N A,i)z J W_.SPIN!-.W V a•10'Vim V'V WIW,+Ip1A1P+O'N'O ilk 6 2 d O ,' • f po��� �� I ; ; ' 3� co e oti I 3 ++,0,0 W + O + O�O+O.O'O:O O 0' + O O O'O O O'+,0 O 0.0'0 o o ale 0'01010 O O.O'O R' IV 1 O !" 3 o{(.x,11 Qyp'pyp(p,J� pp 1(Q.p1 I I 1 I H 'o m fJ I tD IN r O;-(JI r I i I S I p 1W0I1W0I V I,,..,8,R,-00-W++W m A W t0 N v 1�N N N A W N'N{{yy P N N W N I N•+r cV S N W O b A O N W tD't0•A:+�A'tD O A;W.ID O v N y N (/l I I I , O NNI+I+pp�V y yG O"NN_4t. f0 gl r WI+iP1A•W!++W-1•W O V +N W,W N c..,--.1,7,; V'�' IW W NjW V W N'W+ N O C NIJ•AlO V 101 = O W+—S O N N10,W O 10 =C p N N,?..,',3; O m, -1!�C 1 pp� _$ d p. NE I1 S 8 3 N[QJ{Q�+ O�qy� W Vlvlw V p V;v A 2 +O , m O OND.+,m'_O 71•a j OJO co W'V.W 0 V'W m co�.W V N'IOIN N SIT:+A O OHO A;� 3 I I 1RmP) Vb,�O, OR 1 co 4 I CD, T ++�AIW MI 01 et W m W 0 01010,+O;w-+d W .0.0.0.0100 O 010 O 0 0-10 oOINHO-0'+0 g. /� YI Y, YI CL I I y Ni ,W!_ O JI+ / �IN r I is_I A ` N I A IN 1+1 A.W A P r I + VIWW VIVIN N:+ El • PI IOI I AI NI I+ - + -.4.0°m03' WW,WWV+10 'WI+O- PIW wr I . pN I y 1 I + N ; 1 , N W WIW 0 7W '7. -,1-.!-...7::,-;, .N <m + PIPIA pI ( A ' A A W 410 WIWIJ'0 0 V'W1V•I< T A pR F 5Im 51 0 N I1 0/' O y W 1 V.I 'NN i 0 Y • N N VIo 0310 , ,0 P m GOAD,. ,p M I i 4I N 0(0 J,WO, ' ' A.p S W +&��5'N 7 5, t p IT a , Z E. , 4 - p I I - I I : I , 1 ' 1 tor1NO co • , co NIAIAIA Fl '*I P E I (4'1 W OIOI+NI+CIO-IN'++ W O O 0.0 O 0'010+O,+0 O 0.010 CO 000+O+�O w Q,ry� 0 IJ S 6IZ r N aC rl I tD Si N OIWiO OND,01�m t0'W r ......,....„,„-.8,,,..........—...,.,,..T., (p.11{Wp yW 1Qyo pp pg tp ltp. , , ' N I�t� .1� .p t,� t,� i{,� . 1f,�It,�. , :W T p p� W OD�1010D"Ilo O V i p O!m �O A NIO O;A N1N t+,��,p O j O WItO N tO,W,NIO m�,V O W�Im W Nm AIW L ,olo il0 FOB A m N �p (J�(J� 2 {p;„1/� e al y_;l g (� -;N N; 1 1 '2 g I 1 f , ; ; ! ! C 4 HV 3.B% W IVIA z �f W' tt O oh.U tOIN'O W,W p p a gI P O,�,m 0<plot W W.W1m t.�I+w IA,WiNI+o WIW.W 731 a V 't PHF 0,76 "INm 5;"'a O-g� I ' I x lb p1 _ ++I+I I I+ to 01010101+10,01+W N O Oj0'O O 010 O O O!O'O+O.OIO 0.0.01c,0 O,+O NI Z ,„..5: N O 1 1 1 Y ■ 1 1 Y: A N • I I fJ pI AIfNJ o p P N P iAI W'W W A~ A _ i+ ++++'++'N NII�N +1+ NI •I+G 7 , P J N C Yn' T L.1 i �N 6 m OW WItp Vpp��O'A,W J + Q +WI IOO6 +Ww �2e`s I? W WIN1 1fJV V1NONE� W NNV,+JVO,N V.,V, W�WJSi HV 11.7% t 4.1 TLtSS S 4 WI+IW 0+1++A O. 4 NO++,00'+1P O 00'0 w'A V'WV A'+'W WO;AlO O' .A W o a ;}, PHF 0.66 W y2 N VI0 Q V t0 •010 0,+1+W'++C a O t0 O 0.0,0 o 0 0;0 O 0:0-O 0;+I++'WlO+O OlOI+g,O, -n gg i 5 pppa OS O W �T1 �I1 I t d C 1 I I b; WIm mI�W m W W N�+IOIO�AIA 01N �3 W O OiN+O O 010 O O O O N+:+10 A 010 O O+!+.O 0, jC oV Ul W %G Sa 13 M SM1 i Y CO 0 I1 _ „ . 1 ' 111 2 NIW;W W g W a m NIOi0:+;++W.0 CD' W +,0+'0 0'010!0 0 0'0+0 0+i0'+OIN'0+0,010 0. • • • o A 0 M M ■ N N a . p 7._ _ _ -',I•1 N 3, 10 t c o E N &o N!d,n m�!�I^'m'm m d m�,�r n r n,d m u>im d a0 t 3...;.-!.,.1. °m °� 0 w 9 M�^Im 2 N C F ^• C f^.M�N1^,MN^^ F ^0 f ^O i p o'7Im c 1 1 n "'4 >• d ! ! 1 ■ I O) ' d O' O S 0 0I-!M.^;QIN M M!M,�-M d.M',-N us NI^N M:NIN^ '6- 9 d m.�nimlmlm,ln m '-9 A A 5 mIN'm10 N r Z' ` ,H Vf ,10- ■ 1 I 1 I 10-MID O N!MIM�M 1p h 0 ^ c E K 0I^^0 O'N;NI^0.0 0,0 0,^'O 0 M1^10^101^^O n c E cc NON l'1:01MId�^N ; O tA0 a IM:::2 K A m o m na m d j N• F O OiN�-^NIN N MGM�-N OIL N N'^O M .-^ '1-N�d nI m,NI N dIM M ;3 0 M 3~N6 :3~010,1 1IN c-In co Pi N J 010;0 o o:o,.-o 010,0^011,0 0 0 0^0.0,010 0 m J 0 0-. n:O'^i0 m j.�I1� J Nib J 01101010 V C O 1 C I , O O a'N•^^d1n'N N O^.-.-N^..-M^Id:01,0.0 N,-M 1 d O d.^d,M1d mIN'm 3N is M ~ N 1 1 .I. d O�ISC O N;NIm.A- aa'i 1 I a 1 __ I a 1 a p ,!R'010,00.-0:0,00100^.-,.•-00•-!0,0010'00 m c E K 0-'01.1 M1-.0!O m C O YOf C K dS C K K N.NN Vf • 1 m' ' 7 F- 7 O 7 is W 3•~^i^I^o^'010!^.O:^'.O O•^1010 M O,MIN'O 6-!N:^M N Ill°,1-es...- ^^.m1N1m N W°I^M' 3°F-m 2 ffi-I1-m!d'rn o • Li- en' I ' 1 ' I ' , ' ! CO! . . I I Nj0 _ W N,. I6- W I .i ! 1I ! Q ,J o;—,c..-NIAiN1.-,010:.-0 0 0 0 0^�0I0 0 0'0 0 0 m •J^z•M•^lo'^1010 0 S.NI. J O J VIA m N 1l• 13 hi/�/ F—:.-!..,c..m,ufld N'NIa N'O N•MI^M OjM N---MIO N O N�,mIM pal dl mI y O�Im V m tV {jam 1- 1 , I_ O I t7it+flN N • ma'OI O'^10 m m—.0 O OiN O.-01^^^,O,^^O.^.-O N J m � ' Icc^r..^ NNNIN N C 31 O m 31 Ce�' 3mld TIR!Alm N O p • ` /0 03.1-0 1010.0'00:001000000 O 001000'0100 m 031--0-'O 0,n oIoO m = .O= ; 1 3 E m N. .. . m N! 83',3t.-,, N F NIO "' -^1m lm m \ O y •J^1^N .-OiM N NI^O O a'a,O N Oj O;N'. ^•O;N'O N 0 ,J d 0 n1.-N NI al N N C�Ilfp J N'd E J dl''o (13 °' 1 I E 1 !° '�0 E 1 ,.�7 p Cl) N 13 o o o O^!^10,01^L-,ONO'm'd M O'^I d d ;� •o, ! I d E 1 I - I m y `V r I v/ C F j ; I ; ^0^O O:O N p 6-N,MIM^,d NI0 N Z I O N M mlmIO.O 3 A 6- ° - C a F I y I . ° F IN Cl) A C y p m p V/ U C_'. mN ' Q ? ma'0I0j0 O.-0101_.-10ONO,MIMN O:.-lo OO.OIOO > >ml p'O,_'NN'mjo'ol0 O C2 I C2 ��+f a2�'m,^'' E \ O o_• ti = 7mF 7m o OI ' I V 441,, 1c r1 , do zRE=1 I ' i I g1Qf=. ;_I I fa¢ E_ . _ 1;, a a $$_ ' 1• _ ' 1p M CO 1� Of el. o 31F o.o,o'o oiolo,^o'.-0'0 01.-.-o 0,0;^0,-;010,0 m 11)C _�iF_O,O^'^,N O N!o CO o 0 a c%j I-N;d d m `� Jl zrn, N. �l0 c33F d�� 6-Q t N,U� 1 ! O {y 2tn Zm I6- �g ZN w _ 2 �� 1 i i 1 1 =E0 1 `q I > ' 0 ) y •J 00000 X10,01010 0.0 O N 0 a 01010 0 O 0,0 0 d 1) y iJ 0•^0,0,0:-I 010 d = C N O J dIO (F y J.-1‘.110 M L d 41 O Q Z m S1o,� 011 1 ...... .. 1 m 11 01 I ! I. mlomo no.mppmomoln'o 1ppo'nom 2 W momoimlp•^1 m Z i m m mI g4 NM M d•d mN OO,^ N,N MMddVlm Q E i�'n r^ICI^I 1.. y �` Z E o M d 0 c°�d Q �, ELL r E EILL •Q O F C F o,6-,0 0 0!010 o!ojo.o 0 0;0 0 0 010 0'0.0 0;0 0 C 0 F o 0'0 0'0.01010 to A h m 6-'a m m o1a '816-16-16' l ' m I fl O c m F = V) 3 � _^ _� o mN >� >I fig ^ �.. 1- _ .: I x� I I • S Peak Hour Summary • All Traffic Data Clay Carney (503)833-2740 SW Hall Blvd & SW Durham Rd 7:25 AM to 8:25 AM Wednesday, February 22,2006 ta ego Bike = 3 771 291 H 260 126 385 g y y SW Durham Rd Peds 35 Bikes 1 R. 75 702 F 400 559 v ic 84 co for E • 162 X a s a 824 618 4 1078 44 Bikes 4 y Peds 7 SW Durham Rd R 44 71 42 54 75 254 171 m Bikes p 0 y Approach PHF HV% Volume EB 0.87 2.7% 824 WB 0.93 6.6% 559 NB 0.66 11.7% 171 SB 0.76 3.8% 771 Intersection 0.91 4.6% 2,325 Count Period:7:00 AM to 9:00 AM • • • • _ .t.,0I^io 00010 0,010 0,o 0:Qlo 0 o;o'O 0,^'0 0 0, ,o d^0 010 Q'0^I0 CO m e m^QIQIN 3 I 3 ; ! I I. p I I. 0 ID C 5 Y A^I O,0 0 0 0;010 O'0.0 O 0000 o:0,0 0 Ole 0 0 ^ C?t'b O Y A bT W A W A A A-.0.010:0;01,010 ^ rd. _ �p O Cd �p^p'p'p ol- ^ I i . baW 1 ' I b L SL ^o A "g,$ I I , I , , ° g5p� 1 I I I oo $ w I I= O G dOCOI^I000'N'^001^0.00-000.01000000 a aU1N 01010 a a O I N aim NN a t 4) ♦ SC.0 dHd I , 1 I ., - I I 1 o•o!o 0000 M 0!0'000,0'000'000,0, ' 0 %00 AH 1 Z1 ' I •oo o M i o o;M1o,o;oolo M ,Z o _ i M1MiM o I 00 n A� L o c n In Z 9 e!Iw`1QQ,m olmin cAi I,,;s m n OQ,�rn it 8IIQO,m vO1i.u�'0,1'i m i A O M N1 c0:MI IN `E N1 IM I _ IO gI• 0 •H ^ ^1 ^1^--- ^^I^1 -^ m F.8,'.;'/lo a�Qlale o .-1°1°10 o ,_,,- o^',^ O♦ O > y N ♦N ` � C C 1 1 M F ^I'C f ^�C =F��,�� �p 0 I I I I i I q i �N �Z 1 4-N ON = t 10 , , l m 1 I I ml Y oloo 00io OIO OOo;o O,0:o OO,oi^000'00 ^ ,Y 0000:00^,O .- Y^ O*` OO,O^ 6 C11 a alm I I m I ! I I 1 m 1 11'9:1.1 o Im /� I11 L9'0 dHd ` 1 a '� 7 E'K^,M'N Q M'NIN,M NIN M m^co r•-•co Ic Q,mIN co m'Q Irn,N N p K m �i�"°l°.°-i�l� .6112T-F I C�IQ °e IK�1�'� %9'L AH `l o0, %' t �p o I R M O o OIF Op pp C TI.Z.-O pp r40 N N N'�N^fC'N N N'^'0 0 N O O, NW TIO a0 p❑I j_O^O p 0 mill N a id,g3(N(yy NC ; f01�0!0^r^01.00 TIn.Of CO CO CO CO CO 011 OD r 1,-.00^.^ O F t'f n 1D N,n tD t�aD O /-O•N 01 A /-OIO'O O N 3, N N,N N N N I N N 3 3 0. > ^^O N ,J NuOi0 0 Oi010i0 olol0'o 0,0 0 O 010,0 0,010,0^ M .J N'O 0,0IOi0 O^ M C o� J O Ol8 IJ N'O&OIO I 0 0 55 II � I i AIII O Y 0100 0^10 a!o 0,0.0^O,O.O O O.-10 O:O!O O O M m O^o^10.^0,0 M m N O n N O y N1Ni NIN m �' - ' 1 ly.I .. .l m i 1 C e'o:0 0!0 0 0;0 0.0 0'0'0 0 0.- 0 0 0,0 0 0 0 0 0 N a 1 a c 11'� a C 5 K O O O'O N!OI O O N C I D eD I C K N O N C K O'N'N N g 0:A O• ,m Q yy M'M'�p ' O O N'y10 N O aD�Q.-N N'W A A O M a0M•(O, 101 p Q NIN 0 O 2E^ �y 4 NIm1r OI W F r,n:lll N f01 N'n Q N11A b tD N N r n,N.n n 1D;N,Q 10 Q A F O n•n.-r,0 '2 Q A p R F..r M OI A F Q^,Q r I W N N.-,.-^^NIN:^ W N O^ W 3 r cllo W 1 rinlnln 'J N;N1M•-.-'0'.-'n,NI.-o Q O M M.-O,^'N M,M:M Q:^ V J n N N NN,NImIN V W IJ 21011.1 J 0,101t0^ I I I rI I 010 I N mq 'CI •Y 0,010 0 0 0 O•olo o.-0.0 0 o o•o'o o 0 0'0 0 '.Y 0.0 0•^10!01010 ^ ^ 1 Iael^ y^ LL m 1 14 •m I __ m I IF N1.?Io m I^I^ Q'K^1Ni^O^,^110^0:NOM^NiN N N.^:^•^Mi0 O N N ;Q'R'Q N,^IN,NIN1N!N �' 111.1 e C > n11In C > N1M'fD CO a°$ 1 1 OI I 8p Im^ , _16 ig L O o 3.�o o!0 0 0 ,010 0:010 0 0 0,0 0 0.0,0 0 0,0'0 0 0 N1F 0'o 0,0,0,Ololo o 0,g18 0 3,�010 0 0 CO CO I I I I N NI"�' N NI Cp a N1 l f•Ci c)i�\\ O J N�N'O N M N M MIN^N�'tp n Q M,O M Q�N N M J O n nIa'r1WI9 2 8 J 0iN O L k cq CO E a N 'Y 0;010 0 o 0'O,O 0110 0 0 0 0'0 0 010,0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ,0110 o;o'O O!OIO 0 .13 0 Cn U , '. , m O ' e s QIK N101^0-olo•o'Ol0 0:0 0 0I0 O 0;0!0,o;o,o;o,^ a E C >'�M-;0'010'0 o!^ N C >'3 a C > X10 9 > ! ! d \ O E o Q. 1 I o Q F Q ce plp o $Q¢Q1 0 I;' m CA CL t'a r g n 1N I'1 . I i i A M 1O y O =N F 0.0 0 0 O!OIO;O 010.0 0 O�,O^O 0,0 0.0;0 O O N O p O'O OHO^I^1010 N q 3 N C O N E 01^IN N Co �/-ICON C o L , �! c, U _ O Z iD Z z c3)- E H z rnlo z N °l� n +. I I v1 m //4.�• C y ,J 010 O O 01^I p 0.01,-o,^O.O.-N 0'0:010 O O H O^ n ` ,J 0.^01 N,^N Ol^ r Q) I C r J N O I a U. I 11 12 rl , V/ y 1 j I O I \ l_ O rl n ht clinics.)to CL I I ° Orr C �O c �omid id m'iu mso m'Nmmnnnnn A '� I I = O� I c O �/� d 0 _w F ^I^ o'N O n 10„9 7 N O•c'li oQ.7,:Ln Ni G A go'N O'N ,NON Z = rS `DI m ml Pit a Y '� g1.. .. c,r- .. N a Z 1 E o.�.Mlal�^c:Ie rn AC a r e E>LL T E LL Pit $,r q�,a M ` 2 O C 2 9 �O101O^N'NI..,M 0110,0.10 'O^.-N �I ',i�ln i�•n I"r�r O $ itimm,idnri"� O m �2IS m CISS p t2r:j!'Dm v/ �!' iff et 1 1 o O o N F 1 '^ I^ a m 7 Q >I�a j a p O c F .. .► 1 a v a I . I t ^I^I^• • • • = i < :°:� c I , a; c pA= A 'A sr et •mpl IWja' $!< 0 - vvlyvm'm m m�N$ Od E ,,,„ .1v1-1�IVV��rnmmmmrnlm'mmolno,K Od O4 * CD N IN!”i g i 'C ;i T C e,,ii O;N O N S 1 5 y �4 ON'$ OINIO N O NIO N it.,6I$ ',80 N OIN S O v`�(14°' W I I ' t c � � 0 oij 1 • Pc.-I O; j I O ? 3 olo r1 a x g10 g 0 0 ololoioi0'0,0I0 r p` 0 00,0,0 0,0;010 0 010 0 0 0 0!0.0 0;010 0 010 o r' a q �.► I P m �n m j m m ^� CD p g 0 010!0-s a 8 A g 0-+ z O R i t a O ololo'o'oO,O 0- 4 Z C"` ' ' 'N Z C C ^` Q I 0 op,000'obo 00000'0,0100'oolo000;01,*o O , a) Z1 D :1' tl!CD 0 'tom p � {g� 3x 1 1 1 1 g 33 ' . i 1 sg 33 p 0g ;'II I �D 000+A = goAi I04� 5 0 + 0o0;0'0!00-,p.5 G + o0oo'oo.0000,o'o,o oo.o.o'000 001o.-p,D1 G C V�s 'ii (7 1 ! . m 1 1 m a m to $ • C HV color C 81°ff 3 - oI Oi0 o o o+- W p p p p p 0100 p O p p p p o;0 O p!p p p p,0i�-, N IA (�' 3 i l I 3 0 l p I 3 1 I I I ` c GI H 01-.1....1...r jV..r N+5 ; + o'olo;o of+lo.o r + o o 0:0 0 0;0 0 o O 0,0 0 0,01 o 0:0,0 0 0;010 r - O v _`1 NI O O;OIO y 4 PI p' +LR Q O OIO 010:010,0'0-'1j�ca ca 1 C 2 0 O O 0,0 0'01010 0 0,0 O o 010,0 0 0,0,0 o 01010-11*C e I o `5} _ 11 _I ! $ f� ?• 0 0,o o A S5P 010 A N o D Y5p o p,o o!.....'0 o x)l•g o 0,0 olo o 0 o o 0 0 0.0 0 o.o!0,o 0 olo o o'o'o A,n g 3 I I gS EIgd I I I • ma I , ,m � 0 -.,-.1i.-.�! /J g + o'p1o10,p;+poo + o o10 o o O:O'O 0 O o:o o'O OI-•0101010 0 O'OIO G X . ( C bil-+al I I I 1 a �. 1 0 0'010 r Oi0 ri O+ , 1 , 81 i'mSI 0 0,0 1oio:oio.00r 0 00oi000Oo00,00000oo0.0,0o0i0i r, _ N y o _ t 1 -4 y A AIN W;NmIm Us 0-4.0 m +'N+;O+I-'O N W NIO N'W W 0 yT CO P'OIIO M 8i m M m l I P I�,�'miW'N 0 N: ' 110" .1...10 A pto A S; p 3 1 ! I Ig Oj I G a O OIO O,O,O.O O O A 0 0 0 0,010 O O;O.O O O.O 0 0 0 OIO 0:0 0:0 O O'O,0 73,7 a g G L y a m PN'p (m I I 1 A P!N W N m;m N. +.+N+O+,+'O N W N O N W'W1++,m IW,N O N NIN,�.. ? I 1 1 o i Pi pI 1 I ; , : 1 m m 0 0;010 r p o r m V g l + +10'o,0:0.0 0 0 r -• +-o o'0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0 0.010 0 010 0 0 01010 1-1 O ; I N(.� N`` pI , N VIV'NIN-I<S rIW (O dp NIW N'W Im'W,W'O y!o OF ,...,,4,-,,,,+OWN O O N•+:O,P,N•OI+OIN PIm W V,W O- m O m 0 gI . HI , . .I5" . ic : ' °" +J 44 ++I+A N+A g a{ a + 0,0 ■obi+0 0.0 A n o 0 o o o 0;010 o 010 o o,o,-.1o,o;o•o;o o 01010 A!z p p a A a m mIONI W tit Gl V s mIW NIW,v IW,W O�' g W N'+,N+010,0 O N1+•O A N'+I+•04,14',,W VIWIO,. C .0 O•J t 0 + C +I X11 I I I ! G IIj I lI 1 i ti yJ y1 p1 Q� OI -Q� py Q� ! ___ ••�7 I I - 4 G O IN 0..10 4.tc il■ o WIfJ R Q gib+'' Q $Ol Q m 0101 OD N,N,m O°�-, W A W;WiW++'m,0 N N CO O m N A, �'mIV m W fGlNlm A O �' .C. C _ i. _ CC 1 I I m I Q/ 0 8 m 0 V O F s s Peak Hour Summary All Traffic Data •JM 10l01/0 Clay Camey (503)833-2740 SW 79th Ave & SW Durham Rd 4:40 PM to 5:40 PM Wednesday, February 22,2006 w Bike os h56 91 17 0 39 iY SW Durham Rd Peds 0 Bikes 1 R 69 1059 4. 1037 1106 IL 0 `'•Ie 0 Gi G'�t E 4 Y0 IP a s a� • 793 771 4 810 Bikes 2 2 y Peds 2 SW Durham Rd R + 71 5 2 0 m 2 7 Q Bikes 0 3 Approach PHF HV% Volume EB 0.91 2.3% 793 WB 0.94 1.5% 1,106 NB 0.35 0.0% 7 SB 0.61 1.8% 56 Intersection 0.93 1.8% 1,962 Count Period:4:00 PM to 6:00 PM • _ i3 0;010 O Oi0�0 O:N 0,�O 010i0 O 01 !O,O,OAiN O n 0 o o.Pfl.-O;�o N .... 1 r) 1 OIaIN N Of a m S=�O.Oio00;0110 0 0 0 0 0O!000'0,00010100 b•�m00,_0;000i0 o -I� p •eJ d m yS1 � I i I . . • 1 I lu 1 e$ I I � $ T m a o' 1rR o ob o 0'010 0'010.-00000N0•00,-0.00 a a UIrR 0 0 0-!o!N1.lo a 0 -i-IMla ! I 4.) m £9.0 AHd i I 1 4 4 ;Z O'0�00 O,OIOONI00000�001�000000 '0 OON'0. ,�IOl0 V N kC•1101ON %0•0 nH +mss 0 4 I ° _ mm 82 A I w L a .. E V Z�yy10'N M m,O m!"^;m'N m i'n'as m M N01 M AIm,M m p ��{mp N•IAI Of'N1171�I1� 1 I(py1 0 y v C F a,OIN N N NIO N MIM N O.a.a N N a.v1 N A NICO a n O F ty n H 0�-rvIWA cq q . 1 g O 1 1 44.1,1 M,M ,O'O O d �Q 4 ^i^ n O♦ N 2*,.., In +0 O ; I , C I .-I .-I H I.-I.- (NV M 0 1 Ny I ■ I I I OE NI r' a Im01 01000,0,00.—IO1010•-I01000'�00010'00 N1 Y O,O.-i01_1.-l010 co 11 N) A am i.-NININ m 8 cmy c0 9 a, f �Q C ; a:�O co N M N N'� a a�,aM'N)N ; E.Q'17.t7 N m1 m,m Ol m 1 n b lm�, iRmTIAIr,•LL•0 dHd d �"� a F'K.-,.-I•N o.- ,.-� �i g I I LL� ']� R RQ%£•b AH S t1 ! i . . ' 1 A I F e s t'o n m ry 2e� a °i I I I 'po N m eSc o 0'F I�!o'tc'o 21212;3:312'2.V2�i,�!vmi n t$'ra�i�m'm,n' m :0 F rn'm''m,m! )a cmy f mm �0 icy pp LL 071 I I ! 3 N N N N 3 2. a0 I i ~OOIN O 1-^ iA N = 1 ; m{q �Q 1� IGO 0) N 1 ;J 0,01 N.0.,OLIO 0l,-,--0'0 0 0 0:0.0 0 010•_O m J N.-'71,O'O 0,- m N J__,,b Ni I 01 m O I C J n'c01aIM 1OI I I 1 1 I C m : ; , 1 n 1 , m 010.0 O.-'plo 0,0.0 0 0 o o 0'00 o p 0,0 0 m o o ppolo .- 101 ( 3 le- m.-.- 0 0, f • o. I 1 ; a ' aa 1 1 Nno,,.� q 4 1 I O1 OO O O,OI O OI-0 0 0- O O;O;OO O,O,O O a y Ha .K Nn c0 ,-O I ,tO ' p O -Wyo W -§01,11 �,�,� N - W Ol 1'1'4 j p N ! 1 1 ' y 01 1n I ' •J•-1•-•0 N.-1.0 -ININ N M N N,—_N;NIN N'NIO•N N O N O Ic I cm NI*O IJ 1'INIf'1 tO mm mq I ' ` (NV 1I VV fV re ;.0:01000,00,000,0:00000000000 0.0,0,0;0;0,0'0 O ;Y O O OIOIOIOIe 0 O Y_01 I I1�fp I2�1. O OIO O b3 1 �j 'R'.-,01 OCOI O..-Ni-1NI a.-Ne"10,NINMONlON $KN..-c110NIU)I0Ic0 QOOIL 1� QKgl`!O QK^�ml8jN 8 s A { y n 1 r $n I ^I^mlo .. p I I L N 3'1-0,0 0 0 0'010.0;0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0,010 O 0'0 0 0 . G 3.1-0'0-;0:0.010 0 .- 3 1821 1-0 C O 3 1� ..p M to I , i a y 1 f/7 I I f0 Ic p f0, r ° ° ° IJ NIMION.-,0IM'M,MI.-O'ONO;MN.-LMON.-m•-.- O 'J VIIM AID to co Mlm y IS IJN f0 mmlC'1' (uo . N I ao -'^I^ al N ,� d 0 N ' z.- m 010'0 o 0.010 0 op o o o o o o o op 0.0.0 o o o m o 0 0 o,ojolo 0 o I o� 1 ig N2 , 0,0,0,0 //, : N , E g Q,re 0;010 0-.0,0 0—1 o o o.-0.-o o.,o o o o.-O m E ;Q ce 0.-.-0.or.-;01.- m Q i m I 1 _K O Si . I V' Q a'Nldld co , 1 � o E� Bs' l Ex o� ' ; ~ g 00 �� CI) 1•I�' 0 0> 0,010 0 0'0.0.'010 0 0 0,010 0 0,0.0 0 0,0.0 0 0 0 1 000,00.010:0, O ro 3 Y $ E 1 �' U c h Q 2 N I I 10 0 2 N. E 2 N VV M 2 ~p C O E g 1-o I O I O O a tw` t g a . ma , , , Eg I � ;f° W ` I C iJ-I0,000:0;0.-'01o:o 00:0;000,000.0!00- N1 ` ,J.-0.'00,001.- el y cc0 1 J— I J N.-'.jp y � m _ ' ' , I . 2 I ( I �0 = E , p p o p p ( p p p p 0 0 ° , " A N F 711711.4. .1:7_17!iNp cm9 oIa c0 N O O'O_N N'N t0'1 N O:dIN N Z ti R p,t2.°o p,p': t9i1a 1 O Q LL ILL p� I O c E?.1,7.r.2., ....I l.- �I� �� 9 m F.°- °d'��l'"rl1e 't p °0 Ii al 131i[ •S! 0) a O CO C,w ° C O $ v a,v a;^I a N'N V 1 1N N'N to N IA'IN.N V f ' I� V/ 3 N YS N I I , 1°- N /°- 1 f 14 110?-18'4 L • • • •AI(AW�jPIP 3d 3 N' $OI =IC W = W O d (�/� NIN N N A A A P N N 01.N'N,N.N UI'2 4.I.'N(lI'N tJ.P.A IAIA!A-;_d_.PIA A A A'A N w O co C N'OIN'HS �� T3 '3� T13 � C Ayy IO PIW�-.03 �Z �C C (ll'NN",AA.W W�N.IV++�OOfIINPP�WWNN+�ipl.. 3 m ea ODD 5 CD m Im g, Ni0 N,OIN:O,N,O O .Z 01 "� 5 N O.NI,O N,.O:N O Nt o,N'O N O N,O,NN,H N O Nt op H O W `� Q ` y) - ? .. s I n 8ior 805 n 0 0l0°10000'0r a ~ A A 0 0 0,0.0'0,010.0 0 0'0'0 0,'0 010;0,0 ol0 0 o'do r' q C g'• p A tam O `C ? ID N= z, °I N Z I 01°2 011 I I I ' . N= co.r • 1 I . NI Z O 8 g,T 0 0'010�!-ga O 81°y*a o»!�o 0 0101010 o.o 0'0 1'* O� 0 0 0.0,0.60;0'0 0 0 0'0 0 0 010 0 01010 0 0,0'0-�l�o O 40 D 1 (� F p I g ' i gP 3 �g 3 m d r olo i00 A D 5 t� Flo,T�ID 5 0 0�D 0 ° o°jo!o o'o o o)3.j C 0 0 0 0 0 0'00'0 0 0;0'0 0'0 o o o olo'0 0 o!o o I>° C o C ,Y�m i t tD mn O Bi-- ga I �+ mn ; mn 1 p`mn 01 $� � ,■ O'O'O C 'polo j C o 01010 0'O 0 0;O W• o o°0'0.0 0°1°o o'o 0 O 0.0,0 0'010'0 0 0,0 0 0' ►V o 3 g. 3 .2, N � 1 „ C' I 3 I 3 o a I ',of� , NIN++r N+r NIN S N 010,-..!0•-•O O O r y N 0.0'010 O O+;O 0 0'0:0 O O-.10.0.010 O O O O O 1-. y N \ID .1.010,. `-,V m °1O..I O I V f i N C d o o O O10 o O o'O 0 0 0 0 0 O,o'o O!o,0io o oioio-1*m d CZ 3 •, V cn co 81 fI +glfg ° °°o;ol0o°°1' m 3 y ° g 11 S ' 1 , ' $S : 1 15g -I+I+,O z to-p>C Iw OC D - o'o oI+0010.0 XI,.j -- O o.0!0 O 0,0'0 0 0,-'0 0:0'0:0'o,Olo'0 0 0i0 0,'p,�j 3 I i m N m E n im 6 m n • I T w1W ltoi O ° - i I . ' 1 /� ^� w oo +.o o'o o w o o 0010 0.+'0 0 0'+co 0,_o o,o;o�0 0 0100 R.I ; a � I PI °i S I I ' ; ++100r N+r 10+i0 oOOO r + 0010'0.00;0+00;01000:0.000'.010...I.r. I I... . N NI N m1._ - ....0)I : I I , I • ' �1 1g,N fm ° fm No fm I I hm I N ' O m *--4 O m w O p N V IV'0'0 A'Co N+ u, O P w N N W'N N N W N.1.111..../.07 In4N+NjP'N w A P W-I g y C C C W j0 m ° ,.ag ; ; ' +N,NIN A I z z I0 7 B. C a N O:O o,0++0.0 p 3 2 N 0 0.0 0 O o i o,0 0 0 0 0 0 0+I0 0+, 1 g a pa H n X5{1 a .23 2. 0000000 v IJ I. .ln i. 2 In .. _i n a fwOI+.OIIV CI 441 v..2 0 co N.O N,+� 1 N , 1NI+o,A L. P PW 9_I _ O co 0 OIO,O r 810 r �'N j o oIo 010 010,0 0 r' 0 0 0'010 0'0 0 O O 0'0.0 o 0'0 0 00,0'0 0 0'0!a r ff..��NN p N N co , IN {JIV1VjP� M b�_IDM ego» $j VIA'P;Vm WAP-y Om T t rot'-++NIAOO+•A'4NW'W,N!O NO,Ni++N'O'N-1'Om 0 O -• ++I+i+ 81°m m I- ^ A n + oioio:ol+io,o o p•n n + o'o,0 0 0.'oIo 0 0.0.0+0'010 0.0i0 0 0 olo�o p'3 C N i A ' I I 'p n O d■ II)'a 6'1111 °t(�C I A I i , 1 1 I 11 VIn �j �' p0 S Z p yldply,aI V N V V'P AiV 1p'W,P,A V N,•O N;++N'A'O O+,A N A w,NW,N OIN I++N10N ai i C » O + N. I I I _Er! , ..... „,..44:....-, 4- 0 I ' I I ' ti W V'V'V O °N O °NI O i+1+,NI+++O O , -15 A o 5 °I + - 0 NIW�W WIN, ;VIIN a OND PI+IN'C,.NIV.TIV,a N Al.'.; W NiV w N'PIV V V tD'fO OO W,O�iO!A A O�'P'N_a O' 0 3 . , _ 3' 3 t 0 N 0 G., N + N O S C 1 • • • • i Peak Hour Summary • All Traffic Data Clay Camay (503)833-2740 SW 79th Ave & SW Durham Rd 3:00 PM to 4:00 PM Wednesday, February 22,2006 Bike P'• 0 46 58 H 22 0 24 y SW Durham Rd Peds 2 Bikes 2 R 31 919 ( 896 928 v le 1 `'� w• Y7 a a S i 827 798 4 826 Bikes 0 2 y Peds 3 SW Durham Rd R 71 1 0 4 3 5 c Q Bikes 01 a 0 t Cl, Approach PHF HV% Volume EB 0.91 3.7% 827 WB 0.88 2.4% 928 NB 0.63 0.0% 5 SB 0.77 4.3% 46 Intersection 0.92 3.0% 1,806 Count Period:2:00 PM to 4:00 PM • • • • ., , , . . '.....0 s0IO O 0,0,0,0 010 O O•-,-.0 O 0,010 O'O O,-O co , O o Oi0'N,0,OI� M 3 N Ij OIN1NIN• N ,w OI O O O O'O j,-,O OI O O O O'.-N°OI o,0 0;010 0 0 0 R Y'{p 0:o.-,O',M&o i o o O g Y O N •S�w SSA 1010 M• Eta' ' Ili 2 r.0, >a n 5 0,p 0 0�0 0 o i I O°'°I°O O O O O O 0!010 O'O 0,0 O .- a 0,N 0;,-01010 o O'O - n 0 p- a O O m v 4) 1 1+ SZ'O dHd c ,t ' %0'0 nH ooio o0oi01o'�oIo000o'00�01000000' m Zoe�oo�Iob CO 2m o nmNI_ Z 1 1 o IZ Z ! Z C JN -� L" C� E to m'10'm OI 1°'mlo,M ml o;co m OIN.,--.-� N fR I , I 1 1 pOlCp 0 , t o N,O m 10 M 0110 0 m O'm m 0,m M O M O.M M m•�'m0 O) m Z 2 O'N 'MIS 1N °aei- �i�. ftQ n 1f�I� y y F �I� �1�;�.� .- °+ °- m o�.�go'i�a!a'e�� ° o rnlm m o 0.0° o m'A,P3 O♦ 10 Y N 4-0 \ 0 C I I ' M C1- 1 1 M f ..1 F �,N0 /��-' O N T M es? 1° 4-0 0 C Q 1Y a alo O.-01010 OIN10 O,o,0,0 O 010,0'O,OIo,o O M Y o•-'O,N'O'OIOIO M y MI 1E�O I2eI0 y M'M NIN co p 'm i I I , 'm I m OO1°N .3 I• Z C1 N•. .0 ' ' 1 . 1 • L-N1ui C 9�' N O m 9 (� 7 M 1 c 2 M'M O I a.lL'0 dHd ` ; End'N CVO N 0:0,-:,- M,N O N,co— O,O,N O N C E K Vf N.M1MI NIM N N N O °'.eA %9'0 nH .1 0 , ' 1 ' r >O 3 3 Niel r0 d el,(1°')10.0'N 10..0i,v u°i'o,n v a,eiM N d•t•')iN Nl O 'O I-1O mi01NINI'�'CNI $ O;5168 • L-AI�O°1 F 31!�I S S rn; I y I ! 3 N 0 3 N mIN o 3 3 xIvSIr7S uS I rn I 3_ J 0 0 0.-�-0 I 0 0,0 0'0 O N J O N O N 10 0 i 0 m 1 C tp a I I SI I J 01g 2 IJ MIrOIM M r0 0 0'O��0 0'.-�-0 00 C p N , I O lm O,OIO O O.-•10,0.010 O.-o O,o O O10.o O Oro O:O N y 0,_101_10 O,Ojo N Y NI 9�i�im !Y NINI� 1 r 0 . 1 i ' m �°�I�lo m • 'R 0 O,0'o''L-,0.-,0 o n'-. 'o.-•-,-,0 0 0.-o 0 o v E 1 2 c Ion- I c c t m o l c m K a'm'A m 3 to E c 'K O N N O,N;M OIL n ! 4 tI ' ' i , 1 V 9 t1 , i I 1. p tEl mlo, gp l _1°l° 1p?' 1 1 {V 0.H mIm m T m m:0,m mlm't m g m m m m m w w:05.0 n.1 H A 0.1-N m 2,2•,"12 O■.- N :O!J gj_IO ffi O F Alf,Or d O dl NlOp1 N 1 N W 3 N N N N N N N N 7. W 3 0 m W 3 ^jOI p w 3~^•-.i.,.IO O co, '1 'J 01010 0 N1M1.-,0 NHM 0.0_._'N M.-•I.-1�'0 O O O o O J O N M'MI OIr°I�'O O I C fI 1_,M ' �mlml M M 1 ^l l ^A J'I'I'iN 7^6 m 1 I m 1 , I m CemO;OI-00;.-1000,00000000OOOOi0,00 N Y_ ,-0'010'01010 N IY NI I B��I^ Im�y'.-Ipp 1 m I y Im 1°-0Im C C >•K x'.-10 M r0 M M'�-'.-•'N O N O'O N OI.-,O.-.-1N,-.- A c > 'MIn:O nI d C >�q ae N Q ! °Q K ml�Nr 1^ 11p a A 7 Q o m Q K N O ii QIK ei3:4-18 CC •a 1 1 1 $m' i $ml~'gin . _p O_ g I I ._ A, Sr-. AI d o n I n L. 03 00,000000'0'00.000'0000.00'0'000 0 °3'1-0,000.0'0,0;0 0 o31�N1 03�°08 031-0:0.00 co N , I N N - ! - - m N1 m m 0 0 tl1 (0 .- . I ',�'� N ,J A0'm OO,A j N A 1'm"�,0,m N M'Am O m,m -M A ,N OY �N 1-s Fl 1 4*,,, .-0!0„ 1_4.118s I I7-I: � .0. al E cid 00 ', ,A (� Y ojo;o°010 0 0,0IO 0 O o o,o O 0'0,0 O 0.0.0 O O m O,o 010'0:010'0 ° 1Y_O 3 IOIN im 01010,0 U V/ m 1 ■ 1. H q m 1 F.-1010 ppI 7 •LI y° Q A �Q'Q'0,0'0_O 0,0,0 0,0 0 0 0 0_0 010:0 0:0,0,0,0 N E C >D 0.-0:0,-;01010 N C > c >I SIN V >I d 1„! g > d � �Q �' yQ $�, �� �1~ .Ion $°sI- �° ,RI m 111' �' i 3 �j n O F A O Q A '' 1 r Of y p o 3.1-0'0:o O 010io•o•o10 0.0,0:0 0 0 0'0'0,0:0'0 0 0 o p 3'F 0 0•0.olo!oio 0 o 01 Qp 0 3 0°0 0 3 1-010;0 E I O� F0000 (_� �' m� p 2m 1 ' A p zN' E r, zoo- I zo oo E p zy 1 , I t g1,' oa L �0 Z°' 1 ; 1 i 1 ' 0)a' i ;-I- Eeo ! I Hai I i' ! 1 ', �� ' C y J 0:0;000000010 O O 0,010 O O O,O O,Oi00 O O ` ,J O,O 010;0'O OIO 0 V) O C -1048 1 \ J 0,01010 V, S a f ' , 1 I pp , t ?Z . I O ” L1 ! Ipl° 0 I I I• �� p C Q Z t O O OIe-N'f1°V'1°')M dld'NN OiO'0-N'N.M'l-•1°')170";0,1-m 0 C g4 UI O m' N Im Z U 0FI m m A p g 9 E 1:'r:�n f�;i�,i.:-,..:','•:',‘,l':',',m.io dd ao is 2i2 2 m'm m N Q e 3 E$' I r1,e$IM giie _ Y Q �, 9I=•= r g'_ `Q !,)•); �I�i gi e 0 'A O Zp °m Foolo 00.000 0 o,o,O,o 00;0,0.0 oj000 Ap m F 0,00,0:0,01010 lap mn 13,2R a. 0° olaea p V! 3 A ri o vL C c 1 I c m > I >I p O F 010,010 •-►• , Cl. is $ 1 , I C i. , . 0 • i 1 1 �= I N= 0 1 :4„.2 0 ; ' �_ oo��I y Q. g I� El 0,0 010.0.0 0 0 I O W E I 1 S W C * Z W W Od ollwm,m;�Vy-l�yg OW ,°m, °m°m°m°m°m°m°W°oa°m,°W°m�v,00�'oo'000'ooyy,� OW � � A Ii g '3I .c ` ���///111 p' o J,4,. y l.. I:. m O�( I�� N O N16I] .C T Ti �a C NIONiS'N O N S n N ON,O N O•NIO N O N,S tNi110'NO N SiN,O N OIN;S O d �`� O 4 <W T. CCC 3 3 D tl ,A �G I C O I O G ? 11 1 1 0 *. tit W oloiolo r 8 0 r B o 5 p 0 010101010 0,0 o r, �q_ 0 0 0 o'O oio ojo O a 0:0 0 o O;o Objo'o 0 0,0;0.- 0 O p► CD• 1 I I gA o I ZZ o y c0 j 1 _ 4p0 O `C � I _= 0 0100-I n Q i..., 1 o On$ 0 0iolo:o;olo O O..F o O VI 0 o o o,o.o 0 0 0 o o,o•o 0 oojo o o,00 o olo:o-II*0 0 s O 11 > W g 1, P 0 I ' n n$ I-h i� o 3" 4g 3� I I ' •gS tS C a < 3 N 0010l0 A� �_ 30 U o �a 0 01010.00'00 o A� C o o o o o oo,o:oo o o o o ooi000lol000:oo A�,2 a n g� 1 a: n oloiolo g CA B o b I I G o oloiolo 010 0'O a' 0 0 0 0 00 0;0'o 0 0 0.0 0 0'01010 o1010 0 010 0 0' N� 3 N o P 3 G L 3 I � I , N `\ - « 3 o-1-.I-�rl 3 l.-r- l-g N -000.0,-,00,-ll C N 0.0.-0•0 0'0,0 0 0,0,0 0.0,01-o olo�0 0 0,0.0 r- 1 C O v o Q�/'- 0 C I 3 ! 3 Of c O O 010-I O 0-I 2 0 0 0 0;0 0,0'0'0-I,*C 3 O 0.0—.0 0'010 0 O'0 O O 0'O'O 0,o10!o O O 0,0 Vl*2 W V C V I+ 1 V5 I 1 I , , V5 ,� = ii 8 ••0 oioio A 610 iN 0 oioiojo 0 0 0.o A 0 0 0 0.0,0 0 010,0 0 0 0'0 0 0 010 0,0100 0 oio O A i 3 b m • r ' ..I G _II y oi�; IJ N +'01010,01-.O 0 C N O O O'O'O,O O 0.0,O'O 0 001010 O OIO!O XI NI at I I I C C 0 oi�1_ri N1.•ri to IS 5 - oio 0;0;0:0'-.p r - 0 0 010 0 0.0,0 0 010,0 0 0 0100;0.01-•0 0:010 r: I y yy my O N ,Cy O N1P!P H r,M ice 1 I' 8 R N p� V Wi_, N QD N to-1,0 y N W N N N N1NIW N V N,O O PIW N W'O'N O AIWIN-I1C T W M III CM� I j_ :5.g I - Q3 @ 0 0;010 pa 810 A g'e, 0 0 101010.0'0.0 A° a 0 0 0,010 0 0100 0 010 0 0 0,010;010;0;0 0 010 0 A d a R �a {{��{{.��INNNp N�� I I.I ,., ■ OINININ a ,„N 0 4 V1D)coo,to IW'W tD ya N W•N'N N'N!N W N VINO-.'O A'W N'W,0 W 0 AIWIN C' ? 9. lC1Y C , I I G 0 010,0 r 8 0 4 5I 0 oio op'o;o o o r 0 0 0 0 0 0'0!0.0 0 0;0 o o'o Oho 0 010:0 o 010'0 r' yy1 I yy I I ! r ' ; NC c I • I 1 .y N11„11�-I �I 'r Is Et 2f g DIIAIV1V:0 NN.N-i COc N ' 1 ' O, ' , ' I , to N W ,NW ■ O O ■ -iolo o Ay 8 o A S i - 0,10.o o!o'o O A a s _ ....,...-,01.0.,.10.0'0 010 0 0,0 0 0 oiolo A:3 5 .i l h - _ �I� I 'A a . ' I . ' ' aA a n my(y y{y yy n l(Il i(yi+� CfW� 1 DI NIVIV.ID IJNN� gI NN.NNN-.INIW N+W W N N N IW,W:Ol 1W+++IWi+� � � O� O� LO "� t 1 I ' G „.. p 1 O♦ ,..,+: ♦ O ((//1I pp�Ii((JJ�� ill O yy�� ('�I O(� sI ' 0 ! I I I y 5 G .5 O /_ D1I IDI V R D1 W Q QI W a H P i+1-.,.:A'+W p U R N P N,N iP'A W A a!V co N'W DIN W V N coot P+N IDI'co CI a O + .-. CCCC / c I _ I I n 3 4) t r' 0 O N W N W 0 5 E. • Peak Hour Summary All Traffic Data;) EM =•,0,O,a0 .:ernceo i._ , Clay Camey (503)833-2740 SW 79th Ave & SW Durham Rd 7:10 AM to 8:10 AM Wednesday,February 22,2006 Q a) Bike 2 y163 26 51 0 112 g y y SW Durham Rd Peds 5 R 13 Bikes 3 630 F 579 596 ,v tt 4 eI N N �V E `l N 13 71 i a 1154 1135 4 1248 • Bikes 2 6 Peds 1 SW Durham Rd 0 0 1 _ m 10 1 Bikes al a 0 3 Approach PHF HV% Volume EB 0.91 1.9% 1,154 WB 0.90 5.5% 596 NB 0.25 0.0% 1 SB 0.71 0.6% 163 Intersection 0.91 2.9% 1,914 Count Period: 7:00 AM to 9:00 AM • v 3oCD 000OOOOOOOO.-.-CD o 0CD CD CD 0o000.. 00.-w-O N M CO V CO V O tO M 3 m M O to M CO t.N V a to to to o h tO COM 0) m N V M tON tO N �� Nr) 1— CL �j 0 0 y 0 a)000000000 OO OO 0000 OOOO 0 O O O 0000 O 0000000000 w-C.4 w-0OO w-O w-000000000010 gyp, m U C J j,0 0 0 O O O O O O 0 O 0 O O O O O 0 O 0 O 0 O O O O 0 0 O O O O O O O 0 O 0 O o O O 0 O O 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O t_ a 7 co M CO A .0 ma 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000* x 7 0 Q M 0 CO 1-,=c)00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000 3 co M 0 V 7,, m00000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000 as to n 0 A o 0 a) a)0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000g 0 0 Cr-. M O Cl) C O O 0 CO.0 -J N. X?0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000g N Qa a (n a) 6 Q 01 N 0 0 V co - - V A a) a)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 W >> to < C I .O O 0 8 = a in Nc a () QO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 w-0 0 w-0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N O O N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 M M > C re)65 N 2 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 r-.... t+)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0. 0 0 0..V 0 '': (0 N Cl)0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 O O O O 0 0 0 0 CO 0 0 CO O O O O O O O N O N O 0 0 0 0 CD* y t0 7 (.1 m (1) .0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O N O a Al CD M NCO O N w-O O O.-0 0 O.- N O O N V a Q J Z- N •- p5 2 O O O O O O O O O O O O O.-w-0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.-O N M 0 N h O A M T a c0 CO st M w-N tw C7 N a N O CO N O to et t7 be e.)- .- IV �0 --°-` fV fV N M co co H co 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.-O.-N 0.-Om-N N. O O N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 OD ae Y_ m i a)O`.2C V p N C V p^op O 5 p 0 SAM? S U M O S�cO v S M a S�o V 8")8V 8'8V g'rp V ill co E8 S S O O O N O O g g M tO O M O O O O N N 1O N g tO OtC h tO CO O D ig O S O B S O 5 b O ^�• CO n Ili 0 All Traffic Data Services, Inc. . Page 2 3209 SE 147th PL #97 Vancouver,WA. 98683 Site Code: 1 PH. 503-833-2740 Shaffer Ln E/O Hall E. EB Start Cars& 2 Axle 2 Axle 3 Axle 4 Axle <5 AxI 5 Axle >6 AxI <6 Axl 6 Axle >6 Axl Not Time Bikes Trailers Long Buses 6 Tire Single Single Double Double Double Multi Multi Multi Classe Total 12 PM 0 9 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 12:15 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 12:30 0 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 12:45 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 O 14 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 13:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13:15 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 13:30 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 13:45 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 O 6 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 14:00 1 3 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 14:15 0 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 14:30 1 21 2 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 29 14:45 1 15 3 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 24 3 43 6 6 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 63 15:00 0 6 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 15:15 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 15:30 1 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 15:45 0 11 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 14 1 22 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 30 16:00 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 16:15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16:30 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 16:45 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 O 4 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 17:00 1 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 17:15 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 17:30 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 17:45 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 18:00 0 13 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 15 18:15 0 2 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 18:30 0 3 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 18:45 0 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 21 8 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 19:00 1 7 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 19:15 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 19:30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 19:45 _ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 8 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 20:00 1 8 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 20:15 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 20:30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20:45 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 10 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 21:00 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 21:15 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 21:30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 21:45 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 22:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 22:15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 22:30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 22:45 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 23:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 23:15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 23:30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 23:45 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 7 149 26 6 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 201 Percent 3.5% 74.1% 12.9% 3.0% 4.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 2.0% Grand 13 394 67 14 13 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 514 Total Percent 2.5% 76.7% 13.0% 2.7% 2.5% 0.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.9% • r m 0000000000000 y- 000000000000 N-O.-000.- w-fh CD a s CD a 51f0 N CO Na Y-N NMN e-a3t.CM a A g 0 hi e3 0 m ~ ^ ^ N o. v m 0) ~O N o o O o 0 0 o O O o o O o 0 0 0 0 o O o o O o 0 O o o O o 0 0 0 o O o 0 0 o O o o.-N_a O o o O o 0 0 0 0 0 O o O 0 o a Z N U C J X:0o000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 I- Q = tto o f0 A a lm000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000m000* CD o 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 as 0 m2 o v Xc>0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 <-0 C^0 0 0 O a) NO000O000o0000000000000000000000o0OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO000oo U ,,.. = 0 U) 4tCD0 �8 Z a a, N ¢ CD O O O o O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O o 0 0 0 0 O 0 o O 0 O 0 0 O O o 0 0 O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 M (n .c > el v 0 0 co IT-.- I M N )0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ae N a) O 0 o � 0 _ Tr U o s- 0 Cl.0 0 Q)CD C5 CD C3 C)CD CD CD 0 C)CD CD CD CD CD 0 CD CD CD CD C)0 CD C)CD CD 0 N-CD c--CD C)CD CD C)CD CD CD CD C3 0 Y-CD CD Y-CD CD CD 0 C)CD C)CD 0 C)C)CD CD CD CD CV ae nib N e O O O O 00 0 00 00000 o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 0 o o o 0 0 0 0 0 00,,.-o N a.-O 0O.-0000 0.-00 0.-CDg • .i NW fV co 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O o O U).-O CD 0 0 0 0 O 0 O O O O N O O O N CO CO 7 CO 7 CO CD O O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o N M N a O 01 CA co O o 0 CO 0 0.-0.-M N 0 O N g e ) Q J N pCt/f� 2 0000000000000 y-.-000000000000000000.- v-CO a CO c7 ,4 Ch�a N a.-.-NM.- 1�^I.CD a 0 SP be N M v N U H 1M` g00000000000000000000000000000000000000000.—.- e)000000000000000c. Y N • m t a) 77 o4.. g c�s'.a o�cgi g`r q�e e�rc�sv} or'o4ie $i°cgia grc�v eQi'c4i4 8'84 8'84 8r84 yN� E o O gg Ng ()C C')M V g a 0 V>N U)U) CD iD tC CO 1i O:N.h g gcOCO g 000 6066 • m �a o 0000 0000 0000 o O 0000 000 0000 o ao f-g o III eAll Traffic Data Services, Inc. . Page 4 3209 SE 147th PL #97 Vancouver, WA. 98683 Site Code: 1 PH. 503-833-2740 Shaffer Ln EJO Hall s WB Start Cars& 2 Axle 2 Axle 3 Axle 4 Axle <5 AxI 5 Axle >6 Axl <6 AxI 6 Axle >6 Axl Not Time Bikes Trailers Long Buses 6 Tire Single Single Double Double Double Multi Multi Multi Classe Total 12 PM 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 12:15 0 6 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 12:30 0 5 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 12:45 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 O 15 3 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 13:00 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 13:15 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 13:30 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 13:45 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 O 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 14:00 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 14:15 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 14:30 0 8 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 14:45 3 25 5 4 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 43 3 35 8 4 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 58 15:00 0 15 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 19 15:15 0 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 15:30 0 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 15:45 0 ' 10 4 0 0 0 _0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 O 31 9 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 44 16:00 0 10 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 16:15 0 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 16:30 0 4 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 16:45 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 17 5 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 23 17:00 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 5 17:15 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 17:30 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 17:45 0 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 O 23 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 25 18:00 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 18:15 0 6 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 18:30 0 2 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 18:45 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 15 3 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 19:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 19:15 0 9 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 19:30 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 19:45 0 2 1 0 0 _ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0_ 0 0 3 O 12 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 20:00 0 6 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 20:15 0 5 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 20:30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20:45 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 O 12 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 21:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 21:15 0 7 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 21:30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 21:45 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 7 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 22:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 22:15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 22:30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 22:45 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 23:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 23:15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 23:30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 23:45 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 3 179 39 8 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 245 Percent 1.2% 73.1% 15.9% 3.3% 5.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.2% Grand 6 329 70 16 19 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 449 Total Percent 1.3% 73.3% 15.6% 3.6% 4.2% 0.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.6% • PS-1145 /14A C:\DKS‘Projects\Tigard ElementarylExisting AM Peak... 2007 AM Alt 1 5/14/2006 Intersection: 1: Durham & Hall Directions Served L TR R LTR L TR Average Queue (ft) 150 609 83 232 50 186 279 314 Link DiStance (ft) 1273 1001 954 3-133- Queuing Penalty(veh) 0 Storage Bik Time(43/0) 0 24 18 0 10 Intersection: 2: Durham & 79th . Directions Served L TR L TR LR LR Maximum Queue(ft) 64 -583 31 275 24 228 .............................................................. Average Queue(ft) • 10 366 4 89 1 102 95th Queue(ft 43 6a9 20 196 1 1 1 75 ................. . ......................................... Link Distance (ft) 550 758 307 621 . ........................................... . . . ....... Queuing Penalty (veh) 30 Storage Blk Time(%) 14 1 Queuing ............................. . ............................................. .................................... Intersection: 9: Durham & Directions Served L TR TR LR Maximum Queue A) Z1 506-................................................................................................................................. ............................................................................. Average Queue (ft) 29 139 17 23 • *....... • • .... • •• • . • .•. ..................................................................... Link Distance (ft) •••100I••• 1001 550 456-- .....• • ••• • ••• .... • • " • Queuing Penalty(veh) Stiwage Bay Dist(ftJ ........................................................................................................................................... ...... Storage Blk Time(%) 0 .. ..... Nework Summary • Durham SimTraffic Report Page 1 OKS Associates • • • • • n,f-iiii, Akikiy Queuing and Blocking Repot. • 2007 Mid Alt 1 5/14/2006 • Intersection: 1: Durham & Hall -:::::12-: ..n:=17:.-- a':'':- .----- S. Directions Served L TR L T R LTR L TR WitaW*4:.44.014:10):MR-:Icari,-2:T4a3.46:;:::450365RAPW.E:431."47.M246 ":"..14:2-ge2g:W.:.: :::::'_:::::::3::::a;:::MA:.:q:;.:!';.:!:::IM.:.::,. .f. Average Queue (ft) 186 265 25 1011 86 122 114 235 .................. .............. 0..*Axiitioft::::itg:fg,';::::q.301:- .E5AU'F.q'.404'21P7IfM.7:::'49&:;:':'::::.f25-Z7A]'452:.:;::54:5Arf7:75:.:c:.:::;OF6gigi::?:.:. :.-,V.q:::::;.:5.:.::: :p.:!:.-p? Link Distance (ft) 1276 si 954 4346 #0012-0110000.4%) --;:tz..6:f:1,:- :::::i5:;::::::::::::::041--NW-:::::::5:;:;W:F:::::ff:aNe'::::::::::u-Vq.:;:=Z:::::::-5-Z2,::;:,:-:,:i .;0.:§:.::i::: :: ::::;;:::::::::',i::::::-.:::::5: Queuing Penalty(veh) 331 Storage 4:001faI4tP.b.:;:;:t 1:;2754:: ::::':!:.-MF:4: 2251Y-':''''': ::::::::::': 450 r.c ;':::::::-::':'': ................................................................................................................................................... Storage Blk Time(1)/0) 4 3 49 0 29 13 Intersection: 2: Durham & 79th Directions Served L TR L TR LR LR M.. #.X.1.6iffligkl.e.00)lagR:55:.*::1:94:ii:-:-6:41Z:!?.::::ai::7:a0::;n1".39M'grAN.7,C4N:';:nMnV,:.::,:;M:4q:KW:::::::::M.-;-:::7...g::::::,...:::.-::::::,:-:::::::sm,m,,_:::a Average Queue (ft) 20 136 2 480 5 34 95itgiowatv::=,::,.:: :-:,,::5:-27,:::::u60-.,-.......401:::4::::::::34::::::::'40:05:5:::;:'..22..!::q.:!::::Yj:75::::: :i::.,: .;:g--.?.;:;f::;::::::::':F.:::':: :!..::•%;:; :::: :]:,::Et::'::::::::3:.:::::::;::::: ::::::::::::: :::::::: Link Distance (ft) 551 758 307 622 ...Offaiit0.1K-riiii01%) :::::';::::::::;:::',::::: :.;;;O:(1.:;g:,.::::,:::,,,,::::p:::................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. Queuing Penalty (veh) 2 0 Ne6k04Y0144.fgtr:::',A441i-aNge.iiF. O.:104::::-:=4g:;g::::tr.:'.:...::aff-1-.'4.:"-:::........................................................................................................................................................ Storage Blk Time(%) 4 27 0. . 14141:weioltikieto.:::::::z,:oisg: ::;,-aig:yoy? 9;A:6:.:-: :::::,,,.::4::y:::-.0:::::-0:.::::::.'.:: ::,::::::,..::-.g.::x:::::,.::R,E:T:!::::::-.--:::::::::.47,.!;R::::::..,ggg::::::2:tgE,:;::::::: 0 Intersection: 9: Durham & Directions Served L T TR LR majdfectifivaffeitelfogg. -;.soz:-,:,-4.55-: ::',6-07::::-:::.;:::: -..6gt.:7::: f.- .::::.,':::. :: ::i:::: t . !E: ::: -0 ,:.,:;:::-::: . Average Queue(ft) 6 7 483 20 0,.. 01. c440:g0ifrKFAinVA62-c=:::P;14;A:::70#1144'2-ArRiNT*i:::a:2::M;M: iiMUR:'fftt:TilirK-:-f:i;N:FRIg.:RA:Wig.;.Z:ii:ERN Link Distance (ft) 999 999 551 448 Mit0;iiiii:41Criiiii, A.%:Ng5";::;5:05;;R:i6F:23.1iM55gag-0::;§.;:;Hi.:::*::!1itO.:NO:i55:ig:::::::::::::::.:::';'.;;MANI;M:Z4N-Q:::::::::: g.-7:::ffkag:.; Queuing Penalty(veh) 217 , .,„ . 0-1:01.4.4. it. :BA ii.W.M13#.4:::45:::Zg4;:*--j20:t2::: ::: ::-A--,4-::::,:,::::::1Z.2;',4:-M.W2.. .:.F.i'.4:40::::::-RP.M.g.:;::4:::::agig-ag-Fi::::;-.Z:::Z:::::M:15.3-::Mg.2, Storage Blk Time(%) Piiikkilitg:00.010igiNg4:iFFIN4W : ?!EN2-3P3E0::;i;:: :-2:-EE•:-:7:Mg:SRZWV:::;: Newark Summary tle****404tireumgoijoketa_:.1.;t:7:y:-F-1, ...:-. n:::::•,.:::;-: 2 :'.5 .:.:: --,:-:-,,,,ili-;-;:f:-:i.!::::,,f5s,,,,,:z.-::::7..-.:-: :.a::,::::::::::::::::-F:::.7.E:: :w:;::::;,4-:;1--,::=.:::: =•4?-ii 0 Durham " SimTraffic Report Page 1 DKS Associates • -t‘ 11/1/1 EV/ j Queuing and Blocking Relk 2007 PM Alt 1 5/14/2006 Intersection: 1: Durham & Hall Directions Served L TR L T R LTR L TR Average Queue(ft) 188 230 16 1011 89 57 187 84 Link Distance (ft) 1273 998 954 4609 Upstream 81k Time (%) ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ Queuing Penalty(veh) 0 398 glPit#40;:ogt ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Storage Bik Time(%) 6 1 42 0 1 Intersection: 2: Durham &79th Directions Served L TR TR LTR LR Maximum•Queue(ft) . .80 522 781 44 ... ......... . Average Queue(ft) 14 145 665 7 47 . .................................................. Link Distance (ft) 554 758 307 621 ........................................................................ ....... ........................................ Queuing Penalty (veh) 1 0 .................. Storage Bik Time (%) 5 36 Intersection: 9: Durham & -13 k—4 eft— #4"7 -47$ • r-4,t1; Directions Served L TR TR LR Maxrmurn Qtietteft 35 155 .: 595 ... T08 ............................. Average Queue (ft) 3 8 532 35 ....................................................................... Link Distance (ft) 998 998 554 672 Queuing Penalty(veh) 264 Storage Bik Time (%) 36 ............................................................................................................................................. ........ Nework Summary 14000ffitkitkikaitetOtt:PeAt1ti):::03 ::;,17.......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Durham SimTraffic Report 4110: Page 1 DKS Associates . • ^ • e - . , • . -.'CADocuments and Settings\mODesktop\temp\neW 2007 AM Alt 1.t - 2007 AM Alt 1 5/12/2006 0 Intersection: 1: Durham & Hall ...-- L-_-.--,., :,..,- ----.• —_-_-__ _______ Directions Served L TR L T R LTR L TR • ai=:171073-51m.tr.:. ;i:sTg§mn::.,m,1.F.1-:-w.:-.yri.s7::::q. :51-_:-,-A Average Queue (ft) 173 964 65 328 65 133 375 2426 ,0_,5:-KM-re-Ci.470.at. .-ziaaf_E-A-anrgarilf A-W.--enfi.a.ZZS.6iM237 I ::5.:;.4.-0j21.12-R4EW..-':WW:I.B..::It.:1-1M5M Link Distance(ft) 1273 996 954 3133 . -,tfpTstte-WBlkiT.ihile'i(:9;A:) fgi:f#49.k;,tt ',.l:•,.Fzalp,::-4r4,F:fiTS :,.::''4:itgi' #•:.-;.-:--28. T. :/tff- .:,.:=45i::'i*:-::'::A•:,:•,:..gi_:=t:a • Queuing Penalty(veh) 0 • . 0 • 0 Vftiowipaypi:e:tikW-7.=.s.---W-47..5-..-ZW : q25-.-W.::::W-a:4 :Tf-soF,,wgittiqi!:45(mE4*-7-- a-lE,. +z :-i-:-:-g:::,-i. ttOragebk Time(%) -6- -46 27 0 ..___.. ...._. - 65 1 R.Wisittrae-raXe17 :76-6',..7.'.;--=_E-2:-:.-ET:±:::2::,•.:MS:t_t-M06.1?,.--4--M-11.,.:442.--04=-1.--t--1-1 .&aTkii.,:---mi:7:5:E.qkgt1Sk.a• Intersection: 2: Durham & 79th . . • • • 15i-a.,111.:-_---.7-- -------= _ ;,--7------------. . Directions Served L TR L TR LR LR .._.. -....___.... _._ wart-cet-o-oweaftY: Ilfgt:::f612=-Wat43.-TE::.29:81S2 .:ii... W1.-7,-;:::Tg444:::-ifl.::.14.-Mq1-,54-41: 1Za-7.:::: :.;'II-tt-'-'- . Average Queue(ft) • 10 362 4 98 0 108 95trt.-xatTeifelfir -!.:.--,—....---,7-,..-- 22---; .:_:-.:-...asia-, .;.-8 .7.T4:::::- ...z,:::-aa::.. ..-..-_-= ::.:1=7-i"-.7..1::! •ir.:1.. ; Link Distance(ft) 542 758 307 621 0.0117:iaji. B.Killitri-05.(PkVi----,- ;71_,-•-ffs-----m-aciw,ifilt: .-,::__--=_._=_---•:77-.-.7-..-:.t-T -LasT,.7--÷-Tit:::.11----z------Ti. i.-r.,._--,-----._- ---y-,------..-=•: :-..:-:•--=-Z-.::::::-;--,:-.;: Queuing Penalty(veh) 36 $.--...3146_Te-4-0..:4041700-_=---.7_=22-7-M5. '2:0-•-:--1=-Lt:77:Zzl.-r-:::::Wiff"-:;----------=7":=----7-;7---------p-,:;;------ ;===-7-7,:.=- I-Z73-•Ea-;:=1:7--;---7.-:,-- -1 Storage Bik Time(%) .i 1 rr ge4thrl-t. s:T1._0"-----0.0," • Intersection: 9: Durham & - Directions Served . -L: TR L TR L TR LR ta6flfirrKcgigraK:ftpWatlr$'06a-_TZ-A.ZaZqgatfEt--:-ttde.,•;.:'"_:.:,4b'o --7-•,-.ACW.4;- i.?--ES:'i4_:4-'F.E -.L4Sii.Eai-g7-i. Average Queue (ft) 24 132 41 19 246 106. 32 95X-9400-0.1V.P---.71 =_:"- --9.Ij-- --09t.:..- ,E-•:-lf.-_;-'.=::g.6•T'-_F:ft.----:--.:---::-a---;ii---.:WA.:713:6---.• TW.A .,::-::• ::::1=------.--ria-.1-a3-; Link Distance(ft) 996 996 542 412 412 450 . kr6-slyzo67,a0--qm. ----,E-- i;R.i--,-:- H;:----=-i-:-z------;-÷L, g:37z-fa::-ass :: :- iiiy::;w?.:'.7gi,::5,6,: :...A:::i::4: -,==: • Queuing Penalty(veh) 0 0 :151..:.:43.7:Mrikr.:-*---'7-1.i..4.'..M-W5..1t1::::1:1F-4--!-Ig5-354.4. .!:.::::A14.::a..ks.;--.-ttt5itg:t.41.1 Storage Bik Time(%) • 0 b .We-Vrkl:a-*dftitW):'*---Lt-;.t-Wigi- ,;iI:.f .':=.T::::42:-..gMk:;g:-W•Vgg.t.r,':::S?:::::.4:;:'4:S:;.-':'_ir .:':::;:.:W:'1.''..Mr'•:-:.i":'4:.'•'- gtn-':;..,-A- Nework Summary • gdtmOVRIVAtiatiOgetra4946t.Ti.-----.. ..:M7 - -T40:Milk.r.M.F..Z5.- -:::.:g. •-::-Z::•••: -.4T..Eit-A-P-17::.M • . . - - . - - 40 Durham • • SimTraffic Report . •• • • Page 1 DKS Associates . . • . . . . . . - C:\Documents and Setting•jd\Desktop\temp\new 2007 AM AI,signalized.sy7 ' 2007 AM Alt 1 — '..",t6 0 PtLi.v.;---D 5/12/2006 Intersection: 1: Durham & Hall . 0 i'v ----------7-:; ,---.: --; .----"' i -----= 4 i tr.--1 --...$ - _____-=, ..t-'-'Z---r__.-- --'-:*.___--7----=-- -- - --.."--411.4 Directions Served L TR L T R LTR L TR 97-284=2-34 ;7.7,51:M::•ASFO.::';'::-;;52:9.-3F.:3:.:•391:Rait65.!,:n.::gi:;:::-:- Z-i47.7-*-;!.:4:5.01 Average Queue(ft) 175 782 69 374 • 76 165 376 -2-396 ;.!.r 9:50M-10:0910#1-71.---;0. 0z7 -13,_7721_41-1 M 318 387.5_•.7-4_-7.4Vm . ..,: .•,5,,,:i.-•-,5-.y.a .1 .._. Link Distance.(ft) 1273 996 954 3133 . gi*f_e_arffite•Jk3fitt_Y04%)*WM: 54'::' ,#-;:,4aW,':Mi,,M3j*I::::,-::7=t-,i4:7a-_=.:1;.: :::a.'..- 2,:-SA6-F47747-‘.??4'ala.T ::::;:ti_44_4:: . . • . . , . . ... Queuing Penalty(veh) 0 . a jaWAtiq. firr*:I. ZW _.'-;:- -;•=4ZO :r---- P:::T:100--?•:$5-9::'..i;I:: .Nr.IM.gc4-g4:.:1.g:--;-÷M-Vt:i= Storage Blk Time(%) 0 33 31 0 57 3 agO-V.Irda;!.0Wit ...n07.. 11±-7--- A--- 7 ::- L.7-f-Rziliit-F4P--------Tz.7:F;;Tfir.T.4L'LM_f==---,=t.::--- -'---.7:-.7..2.=•:. Intersection: 2: Durham & 79th • Directions Served L TR L TR LR LR K-4,-0-..?_gtffranggeker_WftWa.MEMM:8-77 :P:3VgM.E-2-7w0,::::::fH;i-a.-.77--_-=-47*,:-=7;„:,;:::;.,•-•,: : :-..." .:''--s:• -.g4 -_!-._i:T÷:: Average Queue (ft) 14 373 4 118 0 130 OttiMiTetiat.PF-a-P-2- 45 L;M:6 3 S171.-1 L Li2:1=2_:_f::.:F.2-ws::- _-_`---,-,=tiff:::::---.41:2:24.',- T,:,--::.::-:,-,;:.-,7::::;:c,::::,:: ::.- --,...--_f_.--::,:,---.-1-.:-L.:1::: Link Distance (ft) 542 7.88 307 621 Queuing Penalty(veh) 28 Storage Blk Time(%) 16---- 2 • ,..,.,-„.,,,,, 0 - Intersection: 9: Durham & y:rovf= ;---M7::.--7--:-- ..11:1-E.---- -14;;-;i'-'---_V-----__lAya.---__-__ ..--- ;11i:...-==:-_'.0 I:-=,,•1:)--'-------__=.:_--':_==.1,-E-.77:7:-__.--:2_-_77-----': Directions Served L TR L TR L TR LR td-Wibniffilcati di-Mti_M:17-=-7-8-WWW:-::. -4106li:::;;K.25: -5--;-_-•-:-2TA:::'5;?::-.7-7.F-i:94117 -:. Average Queue(ft) 183 522 43 80 59 32 20 • . -- f-r_V','7:. .f--7.84: -.:,==.'-ltir---F---::t:i---"T--4.:,:-T-;--,:a.7.:.-:-__--------- ;::-,1 Link Distance(ft) 996 996 542 412 -4T2- 450 . • ciptealtiiBt-kftWEEM=.`:,7—=,::.:;: _-:_g:':: .-7.4.----f-s:::•;::-7-7 -.: :;2.-;E=:;=::,±:,.:::.gri::::.::4:.: -,4 :-.T.T -.-47-F,:zz.- 5=Z-W4 • Queuing Penalty(veh) .$tiO.T.44:00_Antiff:-.7=-77,77=1:ftSittal:--E- .150 ;..a.f--; ::7•-.- -tr ::.;-:,.f.i .pt:p-y,;:f_F:._027----f.:,._-'4.: .•t.1.itl!:.-.-.ijt.:14 .4-M, :: •,.;.-F,,Z4 Storage Bik Time OM i • 0-66.076111P.Oli-WP.ha :M.:.W,W4i.:1:405i;:-::•:*14:J47i.-Ti73- ...„::':'..'", ....; ., -:.:;•:':.',i:.: 13-: :::!-tit:4:PY:..:,•:: +;±::::7f7.:- --t.S.I=AM . Nework Summary • • • . . . . Durham SimTraffic Report 0 i • Page 1 DKS Associates • • ..• • . . : • . . . -.: • C:kDocuments and Settings4Desktop\temp\new 2007 AM Alt 2.• 2007 AM Alt 2 5/12/2006 ' 0 Intersection: 1: Durham & Hall • Directions Served L TR L T R LTR L TR qkiiitTdnfCtiteWtft)-!.-fZ:=f.-A0lat=29T=Tt:=:F7Zik?=118r#435(r!,gatq.826.5Z..t :.:4 :: -,•:=;t4.:'...;-::. -:;'27 . Average dueue(ft) 152 967 58 325 69 142 124 2418 Atiti7peedifhftp-1.--11.'ffirr;;:=3E11 :;407 ,132:': :::..,141w.1.14.04.mip-5425.4x::* *:?•MI.;*-:;SM:::W•f0 Lin kdisiance (ft) 1278 1610 967 2634 - gij-APARitialiMarAW:4;:::-e::::10.:14::::,-*-li:iffiiikItI::::i ;4-1aMi::=-,•=-'7.-- 46:4-'..4: ::::::AA-7 :::-:::: :::".;!--n;A::: Queuing Penalty(veh) 0 0 $--teifa46143ifthillt_t*Mt415a :-Mt'E;_42.6=A;$*:::11:5(M4-•=-!::::WfM'4-.,==Ei:::;4=7i::4*=-*::,s.:il*:5::M.:ii:g Storage Blk Time(%) 0 41 27 0 58 19 • :qr*rtigiaimWt-iii(f): :Q-i4 =E.-TQ.:;::-:-:.: - ,-:.2r4.3:.:-: M-Ezf..:___'-=2_:fF2,-:•:g.=;r.atr.'4:T.nft 7--- --7.=.7.•.g,7-13=1-: . • • Intersection: 2: Durham & 79th - Directions Served L TR L TR LTR LTR Miii6itiliiraW.(ttifigeRtakl:942f. ':, 0W;1,-405 =7,10Z..:JJt]i; X:4--q7;;-::--g.-::: ;;;•-•: : :f---i---:' ,..L;f:Lta. Average Queue(ft) 13 777 33 117 75 179 0 gttagtelfig-trnilit-7,7tieg0 W41588=I6-623 EE:•ill 392V±a:-33:3n7-5 -4--7---;--- i-eg5:4-sit;';:.zem-,-:;::; :=-.=::::.MI;:;:4: " Link Distance (ft) 1610 758 307 --62 itOgre-,ThiseriE-riiiMmtmi,-a2msNW-------.---- .-- -.::::-, -7---77-:•_=--:.-7-- - ,=----:":44--rii,:- -i :::-::-:- ... -7---:---V577!--- .=, Queuing P-enaily(veh) 9 Storage Bik Time(%) 26 1 lq-04166iFW011 ------74;ZI.— -a•-•-------=;M:CP74Z--=--.7;;--;-:--==47=::,- 4.. .-=•-----''2, --,: ii ::::::M:=1:: Nework Summary Fte-twoif-m-:-W_:crae-aibfe:-6n--.-a-qys-426 _ -.=i:4;.Z::;;:;-=7,:-'; ;:7---•-._._____-:--:..',.-,7:::;:;:.5;:::;::=-- .:;. wz-};------=F--:-ai-_f-;-_= =: :-W_Lza:-, • • - • . . • • . - . 0 Durham SimTraffic Report Page.1 DKS Associates . • • .. - . .. • Queuing and Blocking Rep• • 2007 Mid Alt 1 5/12/2006 Intersection: 1: Durham & Hall • Ill ------- ..._- _____ i.. .„_____ ...,„:,=--_,_„,___„„___„.,___ , ______ , Directions Served L TR L . T R LTR L TR • krasirguiTtag-iy-6-7-40difF611F1'..'",=40E---74666=-744-stf-',"=71120,,,-;- -1,4111::,7-:=21 .i-;'-';:-------- ---,T:icti: 7 -5.1. AverageQueue(ft) itif 295 4 1020 98 52 116 235 ?§#6:90§4§11).7.-ziTT4AM-fl:;1465nPSY64*-11:141ti-i::A0141$2Z-M5tig53.::; :'..-4-,,. ;::::':-4:::"*:.::::I-..M.:I$4 Link uistance (ft) 1274 992- 954 -4346 - 00:0-40-.60110[6**.d:WSIM.7X:4-- i::;I: TAt4.04-;2... ,7 .:i ...:,. ...:, ,. A ...S;;::,:..i_ e.;f:-::::::::::::::_: ;;.....,.74;':::;;:-.;s.,:a.::-4- ,:x44:-,,,:g., .. Queuing I3enalii(veh) 526 . gt006.0'',.13:Eggit(f.-M: 21g.?,:k.,-.:2:;1:4ii.,-y-- 6,--.7;_72;tf:Tf-ff'fR.4-Ts:Mt A0.0:17-4. :::_=-2--- ;:ft_=: :,...44,Vt_71:::,.04::::71.7.7:t,':,==:-. Storage Blk Time(%) 1 5 53 0 30 -6- Qfiegifie!OK(ge120)12-'--•--3t-TE:71-T-1*-4 : :'::::-..-.3.7.74f65 ...7,.Y.n7.1ny.45;,'it.7-tlf_ Z:1F-I---:-_ _-;.-=-L7 :-jf::a-&-. Intersection: 2: Durham & 79th .17.12_VISAtt'f.:)2i,--- --:----:---- - L.1:____ ,.A..4r... –traz.-.—=_.?:..i I t: ------- .,;:_=-7:-=______ -- .:..-, Directions Served L TR L TR LR LR 6-:= ..-Tr86.•:: 5-.T (*.:-;,t:E4,..7:A•z_.--7=-i::::7,7:-zr:"LT=7 ::,.,- -,7:w1-.731:,:t: Average Queue(ft) 21 216 0 748 4 76 8Bar'•:•.T-":T4. 190.5211:•g=-1524=-.17:±J-1.:,:71-:p.11 .:M..7::11. -.,:i.,.-7.•-t:;A;q0,41,g: - Link Distance (ft) 546 758 307 622 4101.reWfaiKEtitt494.)Wf-------t;:-E-i-- !':&:31ZY-:-..::,-:;. :•'-: : :-.:?15-2.FI.,1-_-_-•-t---_,--1:_:.7:::'-',: =3: 21:271'- •••.,--,--2; :.---•=f•-• =F-P:=-91-7 Queuing Penaily(veh) 3 0 Storage Blk Time(%) -7 —5-5- Intersection: 9: Durham & :,:ia',h:,,ir_;ip.tc:---_•-- --.-.----Im-i:.-:'-----:-.-=_i :-:----_.:_ A,:._AE- ,yg .,c-_:= i.;=,-7-...-....---.r-74,:1 i.:."- -'41 t;-:::=.7_ 7:_f_:-47: 7-75:::: :::___L.-_- --:-.-:-.7,-- ----..- Directions Served L TR L TR L TR LR ritatkikaR--4--0i1-M- ----"----724Fif0:- .26:7-IttAll* 26 .11)ME;?•:----:=__m$•,M-5:*.-- •-t:4:4:7_ 1.1-i. Average Queue (ft) . 6 12 .15 568 333 108 47 .0.7..50076167144)-R-.1•:-•t_7:--.114.110f..-- -8-W-6 ,48.9:-.:=1..-- -f------1A370-.._:•---------*N-- 7-1------E4L....±--.7.--.. .-M-.3:!4•2M-irl: Link Distance(ft) 992 992 546 421 421 448 kt_PIWORStigt-ittikW"----:-: . -:--. ":-.KKIY----,f:::-- -4.1•T;;:rq5•Y.--,.5,-.1- 7;'•11W:7;:".k*:=44.7:7-•:" =;.:=4.f-g:A4:4;:::0-A Queuing Penalty(veh) . 392 0 0 ,1•1-64W-Et6-90.11.0-1---::----7-----:-L2::;.- --i -e-.'f-45q!: k-:;---i: :.:] •:f.:-•-:iaZ4i-.":::::: -.2 • .. 7;V=:7;:--,...-L-V.;,==1,V,................:;.4::4 Storage Blk Time(%) . . .i.- 00041*..10.10W---44-7WSE:W;7-''.g: ,1 -11 :E:±-5 :::-4;-i47.7,_,-;-:::i.75,,-T.5,,,: ;--_:--;:.:::g.,---t,,:: :,:: ::.-,f7: :::*„.,.,..-..,a-----: • Nework Summary . • N.60761WAd-Oi0.titiiiii0eifilii0162 -t4.•*•4i: := Ia---04-4t::•j;.-±35-71-Ztali:--;--- 4.00-: :::,;••--.74:-:-I-E.-i--;-af:w.4-zal-i*f.•: ::t-.-44::,.Tf.43:-7-E-,J . . • • . . • Durham SimTraffic Report III Page 1 DKS Associates : • - . • • . . _ r • - - - , . .• Queuing and Blocking Repo. 0 2007 Mid Alt 1 - s',,F.,,,A,-te.j 5/12/2006 110 • Intersection: 1: Durham & Hall mz,egg -5: .Ayat- _-_-_-_--.75'--=- MY . _.:.--..=-,-. :_..,:_.-- ---- ----- Directions Served L TR • L T R LTR L TR _.-M0-01141.5A._ .44.64ft.M4A0:1-E-4: Z87,:: ::Ma64.zzili050A7.11.-7481.4.4EA4C;Z7,7887i _752,.4.17._-;.17a:. _7.:Z..:::;2,-;::. .r.f.:: Average Queue(ft) 196 309 6 1017 89 67 123 386 E_OarikKtY----T-:-.:;7;::. .--.4.2-41 :: 60_61 •414.151:::M30..e. 1:45=-34;a5M:.=.':-.:Z--Z:ti--S:::S..';::.M.:If.:f.f.;.ta--.7:: Link Distance (ft) .1273 992 954 4346 - ujiiitaa---KB- iN.y -A:Ag. .;:,40 .,. .:•:-iti:F4.45:,,,7_,..a--...-y•-•,: 3 .,-.:-.. g.g..,:::::1:::;T:7.71:fl-M.. "'...t7E-rE7_,;:.:.4,:;;;R:F-; :4..Fir].::; " Queuing Penalty(veh) 0 479 010-rALOBbfbikri(f.W:_-14:*275itfiri-2S-77---Z-ii=i2215171:47;_tai5.014:5-5;;±-Z..•= i;:;.:100a -T41: -T!';:rAf?.4-'-,--1-7.;.;;::•-_4=:-%gR40.. Storage Blk time(%) . 2 6 52 0 46 7 giTewg-goil.f6re.011. ::V=;.aA6==_:•:::::.;L-AitEt:::-7- .::"-4:Wif.=Z:::01:1:V-7.----,±7:4:7 :-..,----",: ;:,.. -f5.w.:::'H..; • Intersection: 2: Durham & 79th , - -t,,,,,..Att.1 . -,m'i:.--=,;1 v1.- .,--7---T.-ii4p-7- ..._:........_..___......,-.=_.,--__. _ Directions Served L TR L TR LR LR . N.Watitf_C11076-6.. ttSM.0iMkf;Z . 6::k::. -zi.K"-7SiTTT_-jA4::f 'f::::...:7:.:-':',r_:'.'tt-- ::.:'.:.:.:',.I.'-tt,:_'-_•''X:.;'.;;';..''.-..4t'.-_:-.y4t--- .:.: .:._5-1.i :E Average tFueue(ft) 25 183 b 746 --.- 6 .- . . 0.01(T166-404)rg:=: 1,2,1m-T--f-3..9:.1ra: :::;::: ::;'9364.:N4B. --:ft.87,17Z-7i.t.t.Z:. =sf:-;-1,. ..=7,:='. .:::',72.--i,1;:::.,g2 • Lin k Distance (ft) . 546 i58--- 307 622 •fipl-gltai -a-Tiittlq-%r 64-_-;== =::-.7.:7:.::.•-:7:-;:,-.---22--s-----ff,--='-ff..-:-'27:1.- ------- '•-,-_-?..=fi=f--'-7---7-1--:-'..W.- -:i Queuing-Penalty(veh) 0 0 Storage Blk Time(%) 6 55 • :=101W-tfa_T_WW=-_f_ -..-;74 .1:-M_,--14-1-:-.:2: -.f-r. • -,‘•:: TL.15i=----s=.-----=';'..:=-7-:.=.;•:=5.=.;,21 -7-i-_..:•-5.L---":„.-1 :1-1W: Z: ::-A • Intersection: 9: Durham & • . • t.::,, .......almti,..: ....-.1.7 _17-4,; 71-1_liz,.:._3,-_:,.....___ ,z,_::=_;_ _ ±: .- Directions Served L TR L TR L TR LR --i i—e i l.t)=•-:=---_-:----..:_4 6-F-;.::---,:—a--:.,t:::-Miiiiiiiii- 1;-161. -"--. "--------27"-"="----,-"-+?'"---- - 146- 5 7 2,-5--2, — 3-:' • Average Queue(ft) 33 264 .---14 660 —74 20 12 642•Pl"ffi64.i.:P.544.-7:=7V;--- .46, ---=-2-2:4.:ag,... ..,.'"M- ::::];;::M:7:7.:F. -==.1r-- Link Distance(ft) 992 992 546 421 42-1. 448 ;'i.:7319;-: -.4.7-- :1. -.-- ...7. ---7: •.-:-- --7",_:. .-MR,=--2-.7=T-It.5_,-fa. Queuing Penalty(veh) 3-74 $W054Migtlff.------ ---ft-----+I445 ::: :'-i0-25:.ftl::,..S f;--W:tiSt3g411.0S- :;gAt;W:M;--*---at :Tiff':::1-g5....''-..:4 Storage Blk Time(%) 53 PligNa_4-130*--VWX-V1-. ..W.4=7.• .-.•-• .....:.........::-;-..:...Anii...z,H:: ::-.=-K.Y .-7;:a7faE .".:'M r;'I-:.•:E-=7—n4.--4:=F: -151.:.-:= - Newark Summary - ff- =- - -..j_:=,'.:'-r:Mr...--=-77: ::::i'F-:'. -,.5-.- 7:: ' . . . . . • Durham ' SimTraffic Report - - Page 1 . . DKS Associates . : • : •• • • Queuing and Blocking Rep• • 2007 Mid Alt 2 5/12/2006 Intersection: 1: Durham & Hall " Directions Served L TR L T R LTR:. L TR • 07 4I J514Q Average Queue(ft) 176 278 7 162 96 56 114 Link Distance(ft) 1 273 1604 967 31 Queuing Penalty(veh) 327 Storage BIk Time(%) 2 4 53 0 26 7 Intersection: 2: Durham & 79th • Directions Served L TR L TR LTR LTR . ,...A4.1141[7_11211k:„COU,Ctt:WMf5OZ16.9.7._=Talgs-78 -- - Average Queue(ft) . 27 237 22 723 73 86 • Link Distance (ft) 1 609 758 307 622 Queuing Penalty(veh) Storage Blk Time(%) 10 51 Newark Summary • • • • • • • • • Durham SimTraffic Report Page 1 DKS Associates • • • • • • • . . . 'aueuing and Blocking Report• . • '•2007 PM Alt 1 5/12/2006 0 Intersection: 1: Durham & Hall • •,,•,..• -------7--- ----7"----102.-= '1 '" " .%=,_._-.. 11E71' -:::...' 7—— ----.----- -- -.s.-1---,- ----=. Directions Served L TR. L • T R LTR L TR • .. .-WCW4-ltilik4M:=aalW1.25.6RW2V40-2-:.:::-..F..1:1 m ,--c 49 tp:7-412 Tisi :T-::.E.O.,,fi -:S.:::::4,:ft:i7.02: Average Queue(ft) 262 542 8 1018 89 59 168 128 . • egn:: ::ia.:§4R,,T-24.3:7a÷460&AO4 V:',42-6-V:ZTtifti::::,_,:FIVATL-7':::::W:::::-Et.a'-a-;:;ifMaTWE Link Distance(ft) 1273 992 954 4609 - gligt.e0arneWEC:M.. 0-1.::.*1.7.6Vegt37:*.e'qati'i'. E-':'::4. .,:::.: : ::a::5:i5t.:'E'::- .2 -1& ::.1 : 5::--7:::;: f =0:i=c::: Queuing Penalty(veh) 0 520 ...i.MiNgiliii•4501.110f:MJ-MW.::;:e.M-V401.:-'4:::ilei,ni.t:004:gs.'g&OWgt5.!::', :. :::.:,-;.::: :::•:: :':45.,.:;%. --;1.-: Storage tilk Time(%) 30 i 4-9 0 0 a 0-_-02-#-Ait P. 0*-0?::00A1::-;AW:g4-3-%V•-•;tr;0;=:.:4;f4Itii-4_ .:**5:1M-1,-gr.:OtrisIM:W-Al.;-:'14-P:PlIt:==-2.Ft • Intersection: 2: Durham & 79th • Directions Served L TR TR LTR LR lf,::"aWt:Z:-...:t Average Queue(ft) --1-8---f63.----'7.6-6- - --ii- - iii -.... - ---------: - ---- --- - -- - ---- - -- ---- ; euRTFM --i-li-t-PM4OZEPi9.4))nTrt-A9F:=Ttr:427-4V:-i:::::: ;:- ---;=7:•=----- -75:i:?•?7-t.--7. 77-T:T:]75:-!E":.' -:'--:•?f7. 7:17-: Link Distance (ft) 547 758 i07- .621- ' --- Queuing Penalty(veh) 1 : ---CI . ade--40-13.----gONEVW4-F*1. .Q. :=:-.. - -4.----74-----,-7,- --7--:•i ..-----77-.'. -:••77=-,----:-:77-'---'-'•-i--=--.--- -------- .-r-t4-.-•==T;.;t-:',:;=----WWO. . Storage BIk Tirrie(%) ---- 5 48--------------- - '..- * • Intersection: 9: Durham & Directions Served L TR L TR L TR LR Wdfiftn-WID---,-M3:9"-- firMAZIOT-7--------MIRVE-16 ,_ ::-..=,... :: : Average Queue(ft) 2 0 2 558 175 8 66 ':.e.tig-Otiffgidft.Y,======-11'";:t's-fr------71--t=3: 66C:- F.t.--7-------- -0,-- ----------=---f- T-------- -:-.Aty-i-L--.-____.77 .7.7-t---,-__.------.:::-..=,.:_-F-:_. Link Distance(ft) • 992 992 - 547 424424 672 Queuing Penalty(veh) MoTATOROW.W.M.Z4att4Wgfl_W-F- -W-7.--==--7:-.W4M'':'.. . f.--7-------.--,-,T-i.W.'y71,:4.F---1-: !.:7.:W:=-MP Storage Blk Time(%) -4-6- 014-1.-03.00MittIMP': ::g*-M"..:::M-7:1!.----z1-,.-----------1-.:-•_: .;:a.-;'-. .. .-:=::: ::Z---:_:-,: -. .;-:-:-7-:Z. --.:;:rt-f;. :-.23,- ....:L.7...:;.7,7 :47--,.-4:;-:-4;it...;,=-, • Nework Summary • - • :6-1WPI-IffilassterettrtAarq.lAtlE474==-1:=-4-2Z::=:::••__Zrz_;=-:.;-r-M:1 -__ _: -•::.:1--;.L-_-:-:-.:--4,-.-••?;---q.E4. .-:,•;:, .1-r.,,;,• ::--;:. -:-:Ta•Tf-T.;---.1-_-" • • • • • • • . Durham .- SimTraffic Report - Page 1 DKS Associates • . • . Queuing and Blocking Rep 11, • 2007 PM Alt 1 — c- ..> L cAn...t: 2_.3 5/12/2006 Intersection: 1: Durham & Hall - • 4) v.:77i;•;;rti----. 714i's._:_.--L--2-C--1.- --.i O----=:71.At•-•-----,---ATA.it - -- --t---'Zit '--- --.=----f-4'j:=7------ --:=------ .-.=------- .1_ Directions Served - L TR L T R LTR L TR WidrfleitfrOlf.eAW .1-79.,W:':=713:0E-;',113:5 -178Ena931 Average Queue(ft) 233 325 8 -9-- .6 76 --€6 230 234 g_5tfiRIU'eCftr--- E.X' -L14r36-Iai:.: 51± ..AV:9Th.=; a797-"'":'t=74-'-: 38"-V5Sftdt;fzjt' :':;Ct'::iff';'''VL- -''";'=:"2:::"-27- 4 Link Distance(ft) 1273 992 954 --;4" 0§ :91-0_10-0:671-IskarrrikTaP*4-44fsjif., : z2.43Z---Tvg: 7-4- . -,:iU:ii-TiJiT.---7-----?4 -E-;F2-iq-,4i Queuing Penalty(veh) -6 382 226;-.,i---,;_m 45034 ..:-t--::h:-j,:,--;:T---:---;--_LA---_g.,;&- Storage elk Time(%) 12 2 41 0 8 0 -swevio647..„IisaTz,,-,;:,,,,,,,A4 ....,,,,,,,,:y...-.,,,, ,:zir___:__-_-z.:;-::: :,--7_,;,-;:-_-__-...5::::-,,-::z.:::-;=.;--f.-Q,: ____. _ _. --"'''':1/2-7-..:;:74 7.....,.,:::,------- -=7:-:.;•::--.._,--&.-,Zi::';:4:4—=-;:ii%_ =-"7,----fii.-,--,.'=".."-:.:1777:7-.g.--------:_".::::.. ...."7--=-7-..:: : Intersection: 2: Durham & 79th zi ez..,„3:12- - ----4--:•.-----_-_---,-.---------___,____..--,477.... i .-4.;=__.'..V.v.;, -__,; ----- Directions Served L TR TR LTR LR ....................................................................................................................................................... AverageQueue(ft) 16 198 669. 10 74 if5lifiQuelielft::::RWM::.:=0:5-41Q44'51E-E1069 :175CE::: :::;- =_-Tic_7---Mkg;s:T4--W:i-t.-±=2, - --------::.4Y' ti. Link Distance(ft) 547 758 307 621 Queuing Penalty(veh) 3 0 ••:sii-tog---~,:ii-§•-mr...---------7t-:-_____ B- 1,-- . .._--_:::;----,..,-..7...,:-..---_-_•.5.- ---__;,-4::-.L-- 1,2,•-•,_•:---____-=--__:.--,_=.•,-.7:=-,..---•:--:-:=,-•:-_---_--tf-.:7-:---=-7.7.7.7.-_----=-7._----- _____ _ — --------,--_____.?4,---,,,:.,-----,--_,-,-..2.1---.-1-;,,,,;:-.,--,,-.....----77—T--:.•_-_--,-,:•------1,±----•:r------,.•-•,-,:,.„--,-_-,•-_-::-..--,77,---...„:„.,-.7:- Storage Blk Time(%) 7 39 ; Intersection: 9: Durham & • D i re c t i o ns Served L TR L TR L TR LR Average Queue(ft) 5 94 4 514 19 9 9 9:_AtKitlejre-Aftf-- --=7:-:.=----1-7----E---.:-1•75:::: -.2F.7.--‘77 :'-1.:-:.7.- --____-.3--- --_-::::::-.-7...-50: 2"--_-_-=-_,_---L-4_3"----- -;43:._:7___-:±—;---7. -:--_-_=-::_±-_;=--;:-..--------=-ff,:::;--4 Link Distance(ft) 992 992 547 —424 424 672 Queuing Penalty(veh) 286 ggdEra3T-4Pra-iftM: :.::- = r3-:=-'1.A : ::',Xii-- ' F-y:;'7.:5--7,-Ft':,'.'5:--7-4 .-. .'='--Y:::.7;',]:''*----7:':*-2..t-::=--: Storage Blk Time(%) 39 . Or*IE.1-6=_Retial40iii: ,- :.i::.-T---;-::_-- ....:... .--.-Z-42;::"... ."..- :ti:::..1::::::-,: :-=.=1:.-ki.*::i.:;??_L-Jr:::_..:.:: :::::.-:::.31;.:: ;:,:;::::Z_;:*---_.--7-ii-::-...i-i...7 :-.3 Nework Summary • • gtitw.bitkyedS: tiffrairrcsR,-er-fajwasW---- -iyF-=-,-:,::: :ij, ,f7W-:.i-F-i.-- 7fd_::-4,-Tf;:.,-'.:• _;;x:'z':-:g1_-i::..i _t5:t:,,-::: .;---a----._-----=.:L•:]----z- : • .• Durham SimTraffic Report 0 : Page 1 • DKS Associates . Queuing and.Blocking Report S 2007 PM Alt 2 5/12/2006 • Intersection: . : Durham & Hall e - —5° -j-=1- - _ -.. = - • Directions Served L TR L T R • LTR _ L TR K xi iiiigQp iNfl 3T2 -1:29.8 := .:, 2 :.>_1:fi6 18 .. .. _-- 4- _: :.�_._._ _..__... ....._: Average Queue(ft) 288 979 8 1631 88 61 117 247 90,th_Q e fl = ,1689.-:-60°=_1fiS -___CIV t0-9_; _f4.-,_,_;.:415i_ — ::__........ ._._...... _.. - Link Distance (ft) 1273 1610 967 6259 Queuing Penalty(veh) 0 376 S i a-e_Bay1D st= . -.=275:':-- :_:�.=� 2-2 `=.` _ tti..=_ i_ 100+ ^ ::: = : - =-_- Storage BIk Time(%) 50 3 49 0 31 11 ktwil- RaEft eh}_ 269:—= -- 1i474.9___: _0 _ - _ —:... .:..,—.... . Intersection: 2: Durham & 79th • °1 9 ' _3 w __- _ ,3 e^pi _""p �=e= ' - - _' Directions Served L TR L _TR LTR LTR Maxus uitt_=a u ;ft: -_�_ ::__92 ===13 2:_ _L_°. :::sue : _= _�= __ `__ `=;:. Average Queue(ft) 22 171 3 760 49 96 95t i u.e ...—_;— 1:- 1.9=45M8.96 121:.3.::x:2-36: :—^2=^_f..=:._ f -__:__;= : - Link Distance (ft) 1610 758 307 622 l pstre_a�81 lc�maw ._. .__.... ..-_. ..-__4.8.�..��;=y.=-="=-���- -- - ---=- -_._ Queuing Penalty(veh) 0 -fora fi a`.ti isi":tf<-=- st:E• _= :- =._== =_= :::; = __; .:_-_==- .• :_Zl- Storage BIk Time(%) 5 46 110 r.. Nework Summary Networ-.IrwicfeF-ueWrenal -c9:4�7 ---___._-: .-.. :: ;:::.-.�-�:__-��_�. -_- - — -- -- • • • Durham - SimTraffic Report Page 1 DKS Associates - , 2_0 I s- A- CADocuments and Settinglitaa\Desktop\temp\new 2015 AM Ali . y7 2015 AM Alt 1 5/12/2006 Intersection: 1: Durham & Hall III Directions Served L T TR L T T R L T R L T ' gra-AFtfurwayeit&-ffty---- 63-----=------,f901,7z,-7*8-t-wit268f012 :4052--- 1,T4L- 91-51'4--=--VIr=-296:14z--2-14E309 _.:_,....,..:__,;_..,_ . .= , --,----,...t R-'*•",1=-':',--,-:','-=7-:. --'--:,-.. .-.. -.2.2-7.71':-.F.,.i=4T.---...-7:75.r.-:=:'.'..-_ .-."•!-..':'--...-..:'-...'.':'-7-7=_.::,' -Average Queue(ft) 79 113 112 252 913 784 35 874 921 540 127 3564 .§.§01141.7:017.0) --ziaail-743:-i-F=A7-.5.: 262-Ell.--161a,E;.:421-6474::-3.217g-m:04-.-41.2-M-::-E=7,10I341I Link Distance (ft) 1261 1261 964 964 942 942 3586 gfgefani5BAKIA.WtF :::lgRAt:::- .:ir;-5j4 : ;i„ 9F:$4-7.--W.12-Tf: !'2Ftg6n3.0iZfgi;-t;-fq"Fq't:---; E': ': Ef-6. Queuing Penalty(veh) 43 49 0 0 0 0 *7-04-o-VOW4patI4-- -4763,4z.. ::-.=:z: . aw:y:ri -,: ,--7.T. ,',410 ,4. -R- 7*--. 4-r-.7-2gol-- .0-0gf.ftli. Storage Blk Time(%) • • 88 0 1 0 77 11 Intersection: 1: Durham & Hall .. ....:....-____-__ -_-,----_—_,_-,----..,—.— -,._— ------------- - _ Directions Served R -19.1461W01:kiii-teVAWS-167-2-01-Wi :_Za-T=-M-77-4VgiFigW: ::, 1a-S-It'44t="U4'40§.&:1 Average Queue(ft) 47 0:;!"-WUr,F4-1=V±-7g4.7-- 11=4,- 7. : :: : :::":"*R71i;::'777:fi Link Distance (ft) 3586 Queuing Penalty(veh) 0 StpiWgerIBEVIESteg-142:: -.Wi:77-7.4-4 .--- ., --:-::-.:::::-=-7-..-:; -fil-:47--±-=-=t7-*'15-1-7.r&;:-.." -"----- -:.F-L:T2t7=:--,•:::-,---1-,Z;1 Storage ER Time(%) *i **:'-s4-7--'7-----:=-:=L=- : -:-:-g:::::=F-N-1 40 Intersection: 2: Durham & 79th Directions Served L T TR L T TR LR LR .. pf-Ajciditinglif—epOtrZtaik.7:322E-110-ka-- ATBW, -----295 -2.9.-ZSI-2 - 4---=:.1,"*L-ff: Str.::--W44-K1 Average Queue (ft) 9 77 66 3 110 85 f 141 ir-: t:DEE--",--305 -5--75.M=1=1 :-.;-'4; Link Distance(ft) 563 563 758 758 295 609 tiltilifigiliigMniteW-4.::: -.2-12---,W:: :"4:,',.- -f...i,'..Z.:::----:=7--;f4=-4-:;-=';:c"-----:5:-:,fg ::::.::•:, -1: 5==jA'r.t-MtiM1,1 Queuing Penalty(veh) .:SW6,b-4.4-i-FAATOP.-:,-*-H4-1( rf'= Pb :------- - 9F,1:-::--7.---=_. Storage BM Time(%) 1 8 Durham SimTraffic Report 110 Page 1 DKS Associates • CADocuments and Settings\g• esktop\temp\new 2015 AM Alt 1.0 2015 AM Alt 1 5/12/2006 Intersection: 9: Durham & E--ei=YAV.4Z9VA7A,S.1. Directions Served L T TR L T TR L TR LR MI ififft:WrAB ,q:331t4;: 73175.'e.: ;:.:58359tlf::::::-44:9345128:..:: :::";.'::;!_M-t:*_V-.:tf4-rF: Average Queue(ft) 1 2 2 72 2e7 242 249 188 36 Link Distance (ft) 964 964 964 563 883 418 416 888 Queuing Penalty(veh) 48 27 0 0 Storage BR Time(%) 0 44 • Nework Summary • • • • • Durham SimTraffic Report Page 2 DKS Associates . . C:\Documents and Setting,aa\Desktop\tempinew 2015 AM AltOsignalized.sy7 - 2015 AM Alt 1 — t",- r.. 1•-. i -%., •.s,...re Pr 5/12/2006 Intersection: 1: Durham & Hall - • . Directions Served L T TR L T T R L T R L T M.6)Iffigifit—P-0_0:AU-t.142:44- 01128-a--Za--ZMIT4rWL6'1---:14-.4RM.-6118 Average dUeue(ft) 111 177 187 250 853 765 59 162 438 43 122 3586 5_6ffi--:7,0110.110WIT.-:=1W=1- W:-.512-141129-64541244:5 _66Z.:__::_=.-=-21204gr.':".;:.:1-74-87=310 Link Distance(ft) 1261 1261 964 964 442 942 942 3586 - • 71-,:y;;:,. ..,:-p-Li::,53 -;26:2tt:,::-24-Y37..".. -714Hi-:41.- -'47-:-S32:::L.----715iti.2-7 -.. :.—z•__-'7=::::44.8-13 Queuing Penalty(veh) 218 108 0 sgitawaamr-stAfty ,--...,-,-,_7-47.5:-_:::::„. ..2::::.:.:.t..7-1_1.-a .:T=-7.-,-----_-.22& .---F-=:-_-=-7.7.2..:7:- ..::15-cp:i2; ;;:: :-.---------7-;j-,----;::,,::-.-5f;--.-:::f? moi .-7-___., .--:- -- --.---,.,-.,, -,-.-:-.:--,,,-..,.,,,.,.. -- -----:. ...:,,.----t.6 ,-. =-:,.,77.-,...--:, --:-.:-1—;::::: :':7-1.7., :;.---.,,, --=------'?•Store 6ik Time(%) 1 83 1 10 0 66 26 itiTtellitigieetiew1Vet*- ,_,___ „„ :,„:,..,.. ...„_______,,..„______::-.;..,.--; :.;:. „:;.:-_:-.7;-..:;..-.:.,.7.7.,:_..7...._=,7-,,.._7,-„-..-T-.2.,::.-72..i,-:•-.5-;f:-.:4 _:,2-F--7.--'1'-:7,=.7,-:':: =-'-',..,---=--ir -7.." -L='-'=----l'-'.77='-=:, Intersection: 1: Durham & Hall --_, iaL..t'...t.,c-iiar-. —.=-.---7----=_-_ -- —.-------L-L_ .....,......,-.., .- Directions Served R Nitootilwamigifty, -.7.717. 2--g:Ep:i. .3. f:::L:17--- ----_,_.-----.-7z-T,',-:::::a:-.7. -. :Z_:,:i-kt.L-::::,•.--;.::::..iz".-7-=-...-.73:1 '=;77-:-;7...:-::-::: :--",'..:a--.-------fa'- -A ........,..._. _._. _„ ...._,.. .-,.,..,--.-,.-..,.-. -- ..--,-:=,:::-....- i-:-.;:.-.,,r,:f:.::.,:,-,--F.:-:-,.---.-.7,.-•-1-....,,,y;f. -.7-F.--::;:n,;.;--..,,,,-,,.::;-:";,:,-,,,,,,,,,t4=41:=2... 7:2,---7;v_r7-7-=.71=--.--=---:- --:-.-.,-, Average Queue(ft) 3483 Roffii:cliFe.wftr-..z.l---z:_:=41.47t: :;a-,-,3-arf,, --,-:,---i.s..:,,.-1,,,L4:-.Z-4,FiiEir--;:i";.t:":1- :;i." -:::#'1.:324.:::t',-;--7" ---":';':?:'1=--- -"--15Z ---1:1=----=:__- - "'-":7=7 . ':. 4.-4...:=..^:'- '--7-.?-. 7- .-=4'E. ::::f:-=4:"=:L=-- -"ZW'R::;"P":.'":" Link Distance(ft) 3586 _ Queuing Penalty(veh) 0 --.z:-L----:-±_,_-:;.--f-.:.,: , -_7_ .. .-_-_-;-_-_-______,: -..7_----.---:_-_,-,-_,;:________...-- ,:_;.7--: Storage Blk Time(%) ='-=‘:7-4:::---. :,-;-14-.:.;f,--.;-.;__--:-=_-_-. ::-_-... ..--__-_,-,:-..,,-..., II/ Intersection: 2: Durham & 79th ,,....„ - Directions Served L •T TR L T TR LR LR m-twaotak-tdae. zocit_--Efgt::.:-::;,:,a5-.rts..-----:18e4-4-tz..--gb2;---;t;fi5::Av::-f:-E:---s-:-o-a+i_=g_-:--..g-a-:,-Ei:7---7- -- -::i :; ::iie-- -f-f-= Average Queue(ft) 10 54 56 4 181 148 1 240 gst MiTe1WW:-.-7,--- --;.-----= .--- -.26=If--3 -_-:---Af-.2e7 .8-----7- -5 -461-7;-:"--a:- .4--7_,..=;•:.=±----====ft-'1 :";------'-=-,1:------;------'-::----= Link Distance (ft) 563 563 758 295 609 ;.-:=7. -=:Z7,--:::::t-r :: Queuing_Penalty(veh) 0 0 0 00tilttif.. . i - Mi.i:i.U7-4-*-7. Storage Blk Time(%) 0- 17 I Durham SimTraffic Report III • Page 1 DKS Associates • y C:\Documents and Settings1g esktop\temp\new 2015 AM Alt 1 -- jnalized.sy7 Pp 2015 AM Alt 1 — 5 n...t:-z.e 5/12/2006 • intersection: 9: Durham & _— Directions Served L T TR L T TR L TR LR ggi0 =Queue=.. _3::= 4==—>47:: __.::-=:4 < - __ • -_=�_. .r!l:t:. - .._- -;-: :_: �:-,_. : .:--:--., _��):-_::.::-� :-._T��,_=fir_.-6- ,-6L-4<:-- 4�0_..;t32_ ��3:�=-:�—=._-: :-_�. Average Queue(ft) 1 8 14 65 294 279 234 25 49 _.=SWeu�;.(�).-:_-->mr _1_0_ �._32=.—�4 ;64 ;.��68T. 6.x7 :_4.92 ^ 1�.8-;:_:-_�3�:_:-.:_ .:.-_._;__:.:=..._.-.:_;�., Link Distance (ft) 964 964 964 563 563 416 416 588 - Llpsit-roam=BlkTu�Te.. /o.- ..._-- •:-_-- .: :- .-.--_26 -:=: 18$�::.-°�0__-.::= 1.._=-:::-_--:-._-:•—_-_:_: :.::.::-: _ Queuing Penalty(veh) 82 73 0 0 Sto.r - ,- Qist::f -- .. . C:\Documents and Settingillaa\Desktop\temp\new 2015 AM Al•y7 2,14AM Alt 2 5/12/2006 IfritIrsection: 1: Durham & Hall 411 Directions Served L T TR L T T R L T R L L 769 Average Queue(ft) • 132• 245 241 216 250 188 46 217 476 83 233 264 07:81k0ii.601(fty --:.*.5-4,1. -.324.9aaa-7?...V.iiii36.k:,:AWMftiff8!-t-Z, :i.-4-e,45:E-SW;:.":.:4;:51.:*Mt404.T---;:at-44.:-kw::::,:;,-t429.2•Link Distance(ft) 1255 1255 1 662 1592 -95-5 955 -665 • sp150-e-wEiikgrweremw__I----.----t :',7;. .-- :.=.:7-,.=: :3-_- • ..,: .7:7.,::H---::::: :..;;.f2.:--7:tf*t:4 -:--77,2=:-1,:it:'4...a. :_::: :::,----E.'s1::•::',--.7.-;--70. --:- .-1- :=E--1:',==.=_ ::1•77 't:-1 Queuing Penalty(veh) 0 Siti510:1130010. 2.151---1,474:: ;, 3511 Storage Blk Time(%) 0 6 24 1 6 0 1 2 Z7411:6 Intersection: 1: Durham & Hall .. -: .......-- ----;;_-_____---------. . Directions Served T R roxEtifijialimaao_ip_wo-kwz-9-4-*iia :i,:,;:,,,;:: ::::ii.,1---;±, :-.-.:;,-747- Et::: _;-,y&_,.-- -:--;__---:---..w::7=0- -__-: : Average Queue (ft) 405 .-1.-1 Link Distance (ft) 4217 girateThirii5t105.-WAPP --ffIMT.5.-iaaNC -1:41- -± -4--;4Y-tiii--71-.. r2 ;: :-=WaAtiN Queuing Penalty(veh) m,,z--•*4 Storage Blk Time(%) 19 0 Qtfairt-W-Nrf611%-ty-zell) --;63:-170: ---T=W-f .--L-'-fi- . a:f' -'70t 0 Intersection: 2: Durham & 79th Directions Served L T TR L T TR LTR LTR ___.. lyaiiitirrtittgletlia= 5.92i:=1....m:745346-ft,. .:J4.1 .7 -.. ----4-=.1q0:3=:2--.MAP31= 30:0- 7--a,:tati---It-17.-Aai-g.E4 Average Queue(It) 194 210 25 79 52 60 155 -i.:_=-::::.---- -----i=i.-4- Link Distance(ft) 1592. 1592 758 758 295 610 tigiltieeiftaIriiitiVe -----ZWW-L -1 .-1:-.0:: --1,---- ---'2.-,16;7-----:-="--=T;;;Z=.::: :77: 7==;V:WE Queuing Penalty(veh) ..-_=-:; _7. -:-,7a.1!!,T.:;Ap: -i;j::7;7-- -7.-=;:f.*.E7-4::-=*-4 :4g'.:,:".: :-7.. --ZZ Storage Blk Time(%) 8 0 ,0*----010-igovirtere:sw:=fp7=-;:-Fo-i=7.774:c (Y. .-E__t 4.:F..,.= t t.E_-_, ,ms':-MM4g2.4LE::-111 .dit • Newark Summary . Effiti-WWWWEGEre-piri§-ReWt. , :•::::ii, -.:•::.,,::::: ::;i:.:V=4;M:Migt.:.*--7:45 -;i-.1.- 1: r-.7-_?.., 3,..7-',7.7 - 11--'• . , Durham SimTraffic Report III Page 1 DKS Associates . . - : • 2o1S d Queuing and Blocking Repo NW Durham 2015 Mid Alt 1 2015 Mid Alt 1 • Intersection: 1: Durham & Hall _ — - - - =�= J — � ---3: —ear_ �<_��.__� -- =�i- Directions Served L T TR L T T R • L T R L T M zirFitirr-: Qtfeue.fit=_r:==263:==-22 X1:9:7 3 226.6::- a = 1-a1=1 r_-: _:L 7.y-_;: _;: . -- -_ - 1.. �:._-..___.. 18��_9-Z-D=_: 7�-:_=9G4-_�1�4��_M3�'7 Average Queue(ft) 133 93 93 252 956 957 129 832 901 562 126 4170 95tWQue cte = =:YZ _ : :.::=. :._ ;., - = _7 -==-__ ::,�.:�>:__-_(-_—:>-:. �t$ —_.153 _'F 8 -259_ .: :F —"..':-7-'t� T-_.223::'-7 ,2-7:.4q:''1;1.3( :1Zlt__ . __=_Tf?72 Link Distance(ft) 1262 1262 983 983 942 942 942 60.15 OblOilarir.0lk_Tu:16..04:,-=�-:-.:;:._—_-:_: -_- T_ ;59- -.-2c.,: :: _;;:_-:.-= __ :0 ,.=_1 ;-: ...:_;: :_,::__;:21 Queuing Penalty(veh) 427 148 0 0 0 0 S--t w be: - = _ :._ :_ _ _- - ; -: -.x,_1 _-: _ ;— -=_ Queuing and Blocking Re. Durham 2015 Mid Alt 1 2015 Mid Alt 1 Intersection: 9: Durham & g 4:4 Directions Served L T TR L T TR L TR LR • q.15AFTIV*44:64artOVA:VW--W4g-V*-4*-:ItZ Average Queue(ft) 10 0 0 41 397 395. 200 67 20 Link Distance(if) 983- 983 983 543 543 -421 —421 -- 667 Queuing Penalty(veh) 183 155 0 0 Storage Bik Time(%) 0 61 440146:-AR101-0-702: Nework Summary 5/12/2006 SimTraffic Report Page 2 DKS Associates Queuing and Blocking Repo• • Durham 2015 Mid Alt '1 s 2015 Mid Alt 1 • Intersection: 1: Durham & Hall ftlew-, Directions Served L T TR L I T R L T R L T WilrfOR. Average Queue(ft) 163 143 148 246 923 929 136 99 340 27 '124 4471 -----; 4W-V-2370:1M3ZAXEKZ12..W;412VINg4-4-7-2m0717W5Attis:-a$:3Fa7.1W101 Link Distance (ft) 1262 1262 983 983 942 942 942 6015 upttreat - 4i Queuing Penalty(veh) 298 2213•Storage Bik Time(%) 76 9 41 7 • 69 16 Intersection: 1: Durham & Hall 746,-• -- .:-------- .111MM111111=1111 _ -. Directions Served Mft 5946 :- Average Queue(ft) 3179 Link Distance (ft) 6015 Queuing Penalty(veh) Storage Bik Time(%) • Intersection: 2: Durham & 79th ===9 Directions Served L T TR L T TR LR LR Average Queue(ft) 30 31 32 2 460 456 5 116 Link Distance(ft) 543 543 758 758 295 609 Queuing Penalty(veh) 0 0 : Storage Bik Time(%) 0 39 • • • • ill 5/12/2006 SimTraffic Report • Page 1 DKS Associates • •, Queuing and Blocking Rep• Durham 2015 Mid Alt 1 — 51 AnG-Vaed 2015 Mid Alt 1 Intersection: 9: Durham & Directions Served L T TR L T TR L TR LR Average Queue(ft) 9 83 72 36 460 464 37 16 IOW 35 4 --- o7 Link Distance (ft) 983 983 -6-6 6-43 543 421 421 667 Queuing Penalty iveh) 229 230 Storage Bik Time(%) 56 Nework Summary . : : ,=• : 110 • • • 5/12/2006 SimTraffic Report • Page 2 DKS Associates • • • • Y . Queuing and Blocking Report• 0 Durham 2015 Mid Alt 2 2015 Mid Alt 2 0 Intersection: 1: Durham & Hall 17,,T.i.,..7-.....:-,,,-.:-- Directions Served L T TR L T T R L T R L T WitrnynCtfietieltY5: 242: 202ESII:75 :26SP::A6Z8*-16:674-7-48CWfig_ai.M9:61g: 9741.1E:-E1744.alF4216: Average Queue(ft) 124 102 90 246 116 1306 161 857 617 533 fi6 SiS7 DTEMEt-eqeiffWx-i-U-f-42VkTsE-Wa-k-Af6V_' :21.00-2.PM2CMWA;MA:2ei42:K:::Pff4O, 6:M- Link Distance(ft) 1262 1262 1597 1597 954 954 954 4250 - :01-------- --- - - - - .- —.•-=,..e==■-:4_, :_7;::,::,:,-1-:;':'27,7—,=,------' ''--------‘,.1,4.1: 1•2::: ..-:.'7"-- . ri-_,2-3:2i. ::::,:t.;- 1,1,tg2:,?. :istRAWBgeirlig9.40 -EA .I.g==.-14-,i;T:7-,--7- L20 :,,_L-7F 9.,:-::: :::,:--., ,52. -Queuing Penalty(veh) 226 119 0 0 0 0 :Stir-'--:A--ejeiag.Toili,tVr4.-W.VMS-MfW*V;-=E:t:,:=Tffag;l7Z-.Z:N-. i5c;;;:;zim.;WZ_ . .---.1.1oO4:-X-1: 1 Storage Blk Time(%) 0 86 1 16 3 74 -Ia. Intersection: 1: Durham & Hall iv F,Tii-,.L.--121'"7-ff = - ..::--:---'—=--,--i----- -- ---&-7-- --- ,..=',,- ---- ___-„,..„,.. ........_ ---- Directions Served R garriirm719-tiebei(fttz-E,Y:24:26T-i- k :& :.E;:;.--t--i,:=:: : :-,-: :--Z--:....-:7,:::: :::::=.i.-.: i.-4.--,k--:---- 77T;i:,---Z;-ii:-.Z_--;,-1'..:11-.:::;E -14E-:: Average Queue (ft) -1646 79:4KCI:674-riettan.:=:-,:..E:547.-atz4=:_: ::,,,E .:':.::: :.,,:E..71-7,- :-:..-.2:- .:::::m: :'.L:::ai....E..i;:_ a_:=--.i,: -.:a:-:•::::: :i.:ii: :--.2:_':.Z-tl.1 - Link Distance (ft) 4250 Queuing Penalty(veh) 0 gfera—feWaffiff_ Z. --•--:__ZIF: ,..-- 7.: -.-,::: ----',..4... -22-------=:-.775:2--.:7-. -:a!!;,,-:.:I-i'ira.-: ::::-: —._---=--7:.::7-.4.7-1-_-7:...:2-_--:.1,..1_.-71t.a:---..-''.:---70=7-7:',--"__-- -S-torage BIk Time(%)- :40 140_111:LatrY_Mti),f---- -:;-==-77.----7=-a7.-_::-_,7=4,=Z--- -..,-7.----,----- --Ti.i17li:i.:--- -F.--77:-. 7.-7;-::= -----;:i.- -,--- -M-t---=-1 0 Intersection: 2: Durham & 79th Directions Served L T TR L T TR LTR LTR 1::, rifitWICWIP.,:nt.:0118=7-12"W.----474M7.7-8C1_ 4_,6:113.WW=R252:Mii Average Queue (ft) 29 64 62 26 447 438 55 71 tAtWiiiiiii-41 -6- itiitf---.-- litCE7-1;ti.i28W66:-WillrOg$41•17.2. --5,,A2-6-7.- --7----77-T,---L .t.M:t.-=--------:: Link Distance(ft) 1597 1597 758 758 95 610 tipristiailem-060414 - --=;:==.-.7-1.a.--F-7,:.,::.z----=z.,v.--„::::-. -Tz-Z::4::: ::.., :==.igi;:i--z---;:-.;_—_,- -.7:, ,=.4-;;z.-:-.--------_-;:„._ :;f: Queuing Penalty(veh) 0 o- Wit 7Aoomnr:::: :at-m-ima-:'fl.:?.::f2.F 5=- 14.E=3,f,T=:- -TYaT. Storage BIk Time(%) 0 1 42 th.--alitarel-107 -----744rTaMO:M;W:74 : 403W----:! -Z4:r::7:::::.5i.: Nework Summary . . 0 5/12/2006 SimTraffic Report . . Page 1 DKS Associates • .. 20 \ p m•Queuing and Blocking Re. IV Durham 2015 PM Alt 1 • 2015 PM Alt 1 Intersection: 1: Durham & Hall III -,.. Directions Served L T TR L T . T R L T R L T 4..V018RVOZ)=A-- 54;g1003•;:stliW.:1:4111.0-_: ~4W.W=158912-52R. 413.W014 Average Queue(ft) 249 346 264 201 907 903 144 138 367 38 121 3503 :9!.T1-1-_.9,47:00Leoff--si-:.: 43:oz-4,::74n-qs-tzt.w .opiti-a4:220:.:=Sf20_9=-3Q:441:-=2a-TM603.7:.:,.„:2474%00o a Link Distance (ft) 1262 1262 99-1 991 942 942 942 4277 OffirraMitilli6i*Vici--P,i-:;:--1-.2.-a-.. :?:V.:1-**WO:=---z---;-..-:---.-:-2.--;;.--::-.4.-.....;--,423c . .i.: 2--g-o,=_-...-.::::-:,-..----..i-:-.47, 401:f,.., 14..:,,.F-s:.f. :FT2:.;;._ :::s:. ..-,v-its Queuing Penalty(veh) 174 185 0 • =-5-•:2• $..tc='WV1g4.SZ.Prdt-V•WW-. -Z5W.:S*=:M:225-t N.X-V-?:•:.F-:-Z. -55c.0...f-ti7:=. :;.:;-:::..-jk: ittrow:•,-T„:.71:ki: Storage Blk Time(%) 41 0 10 49 54 3 56 28 ga-arlfra:60.-giUte . •:;:.---TZ---F4W;a:f87.- 07;1:r4r3 :=4-1-s.:,:=1- -;1:8.-DMZ..916. Intersection: 1: Durham & Hall Directions Served R EV%--i--Rrkllr*:rMft.:). =.-429;P-Et :S-, . _ , ;fi-3:-Mf2.M3::':;: ;:AT-M•.:Zig_H-AL;* Average QueUe (ft) 2891 ,:.-:.----•-• ----------------=::.-f-a-2zi -,,,,,,,-.-7-----n.:••••-.:_:.::.-77.-:...-::,-,..:•.7...-..n_rs-;:-.:.:7_,:4,711-=-==.-----,-.7-- ----::::::::-..-.7-_-.,.. •:•_-_-_-_-7 1=-7-:-77,-...,%"7-= Link Distance (ft) 4277 ___:tj13g.qRfABIE-TirTt-W(-W.4-2-3.Z4- ----=-- :,- -i.i' :-.-'5•rr;'zj-- 7..-=H---._,J-,:_:L--- --.2-.---r-- --•-._-_=;,:-, :, ,.::;.=-------.=---,,f:• _.-s.:---z--_,._-:a Queuing Penalty(veh) 0 . - Storage Blk Time(%) letirer14.13-elAW-Nefi -- --3=------:' ::•+•;.fi±:_.---.-:--- -_:- -----:---a-Z-,.617-t-7. 7_:_-3--:-. .25 .-7.:. -__;74-,-;ifa-,V44:7-,---.---_:-...-_,...,-ki__•-•; ::,-2- _ • Intersection: 2: Durham & 79th `5.:11'°';-=• =i-=-Nt.'---7'--------;~-;,----..----;•,- .1: -%:=-F'----------7=0-,W?-----.---E---;77:-..- --'=-7FP-Ar-- ,- WWF--:-.:.-;."--;-=--r,;.-1:2-----77-------77- ;. .:_,-1-5-•,-_-.7--------_,,—,---,.-7_-_-_------=_, Directions Served 1 T TR T TR LTR LR 19-14krietilOAT93-tk.,-- --:_=.2---19:-.2.--_:-:--_,-_-4.-17.5- -------:-----:a6 -C6._-5-'=-i.. .146Ti- ---,:4-611Ft.3:34: -1--IIII-.61---_—_ .1,--.-•,-7-:=7:: ::a.,---7---7-•--Hef==-7 .y..E:aZ . Average Queue (ft) 22 48 43 141 123 8 56 535 Link Distance(ft) 535 535 758 758 295 610 Al::::gf-Xi:-'_r .-i:.=Z-F7-7:--17--:r,:37: :::E.--=.i.Z;.':tr-= _-_=-':-t--::4AE:::V,:: _.... _ _ Queuing Penalty(veh) 0 6 $1000-434301.401=-7--, M:1 :-c,-. 5 .Y::'--- ......................................... ....................... Storage Blk Time(%) 1 4 PAN ialg#64119-WW-.4=MAI:0 --Ii .:f-.,--.j-•7.ZOW.t..-,7,::',.•.7,,:i'.::Z2_,4 :•..]4.iY4.;. :;•::---:L.:k., :i ,-. -:::;V::.•-.; :•-..Xi'll.:.17 • • - - • • • • 5/12/2006 SimTraffic Report III • Page 1 DKS Associates . . • • Queuing and Blocking Repo• • Durham 2015 PM Alt 1 2015 PM Alt 1 • Intersection: 9: Durham & Directions Served L L T TR L TR LR ath8 523 - 62 Average Queue(ft) 3 3 235 230 38 7 16 .95471-1- Link Distance(ft) 991 535 535 417 417 858 Queuing Penalty(veh) 46 Storage Bik Time(%) 20 Newark Summary • 5/12/2006 SimTraffic Report Page 2 DKS Associates . • Queuing and Blocking Rep. • 2015 PM Alt 1 - c; s4,t.'-z.c.i 2015 PM Alt 1 Intersection: 1: Durham & Hall 0 Directions Served L T TR L T T R L T R L T gqxlattgaca011elft/W47429-6algaW0,51Z§V.Eir.4-4105/0109MA8X-g--14,79:67603:WZ174- 43(§ Average dueue(ft) 180 157 158 214 875 873 128 124 370 29 118 3832 9.5ttillaietre,-14M.- 292:=1-f282.59 -T-29. 22AM1M5Ti:g239W3:6:7-W6:035K-7-'4140:v4T15514a5224 Linkdistance(ft) 1262 1262 991 991 942 942 942 4277 -0-AttikketifialVe--,POWW: :: :,.F.-----i-1-.--. ,-V.;=2:W126W5,...16g,i,:_ :, 64.1--- . iS-t. ..::::::*.51 Queuing Penalty(veh) 197 -203 0 $Vlrage-W4fPrsllftj,I , Nit::::Ea:_-- 1:1-Z5'-- giL'-7_7-Ei:'gt*gi1:5 ::::::-7,-T__,_r--,-,i:_: ';.':.=4.ifioa--*ffi'ys3_-.: Storage Bik Time(%) 5 b--- • 17 42 52 3 57 25 CaVOUROM.07701-7--M -WO=-7---nn:ar.'--NrOsti:=ZZOV-41.:ffal:g-1 . ;:f:=.:_=i7::WA:9-70a':::0 Intersection: 1: Durham & Hall ..._____. ---..7-- "---- -____ -- ...--,-,-...=7-r,...z.:-.._-- - ____7 _ : __., ---=-..=-:-.. ----"--= . Directions Served R WgiMunfiQVe-ifeittI-1944T3et_: :..::=77; _. . .. _. . . .:: __ _ .:;;-,,:,...gt: Average Queue (ft) 3416 00161-C1_407_0W-SM::A5498-..?k-5,--M:Xt,=,- -_.;_:::.:A=. =--2 .,.:÷1Z•:-_:.-L-':a,V.T.-4 , V.,.WItai Link Distance (ft) -4277 li.W.,efairralk--kitiiiMlf:::737 '714.,:=:: ::,.:.7_,,--__;,==',;',.17-_5c41;:=::: ::::4: :_i_.-- -,4-::--,:--L-- T2 Queuing Penalty(veh) 0 Storage BIk Time(%) '0.--acira----n-EL.a.a.------,,,.-----a.,—,Ryt---_ ----------.....,_------,--_-_------------, 7Z --',Ve""" =::::::::=',-F-"'"- --B---=-7.77:::::::::::=;-!.7------ --.:- ---,----17-, ::.:::::-;_cla:7.7 -:;:,---._::::,:_.=." -.:.."--.:,.----;:E.-... .=7,..7r...1.7.-;": Intersection:.2: Durham & 79th Directions Served L T TR T TR LTR LR Average Queue (ft) 22 28 28 254 242 -- 14 72 _.-9-5-tig-iriai-RWZ---..".f7-7-:±-fW-÷1-6_7-e-7L--7---t-E ------7686-a-E•-;.---:-.----7-4239 -ft- LI__--- --- :f..-M±L_----V. _;--2-1 Link Distance(ft) 535 535 758 758 295 610 . 4:0tia_em;tB.tk-ftta.eit.WZ--:.'z*W:g:-=-.=---L"--- :-_-46-- -?::_t-gk: :-:..=-i.r----------_-z---.—_:,-wt-lf:.:-.,-----z:-5 .f.,_.-.-a...-...- -ww. Queuing Penalty(veh) 0 0 Of..40.18.011:WOW:M: .-:7--i- :=---=----'.',IMIt;;:- ---:- -,T.i .:::::;Miiil::::::;77-7,-_ ::.--- -_,__-:_t::-...;;; Storage BR Time(%) 0 14 - Met . ,, ==- 5/12/2006 5/12/2006 Sim Traffic Report 0 i Page 1 DKS Associates . • Queuing and Blocking Repo• • 2015 PM Alt 1 5, 41.,..„,L-zad 2015 PMAIt1 • intersection: 9: Durham & Directions Served L T TR L T TR L TR LR • Average Queue (ft) 3-43 38 4 307 302 15 5 11 glito.Afflitt4g=gpfr:4:-N-051;!_m_ra41-7i-,:zwAnr-00.141-523-4f.A5-s---g-t- ra Link Distance(ft) 991 991 991 535 535 417 417 858 -1*Itte.erit. 01.1441- Queuing Penalty(veh) 110 100 Storage Blk Time(%) 27 Nework Summary -5/12/2006 SimTraffic Report Page 2 DKS Associates . . . Queuing and Blocking RAP • Durham 2015 PM Alt 2 2015 PM Alt 2 Intersection: 1: Durham & Hall . II Directions Served L T TR L• T T R L T R • L T 10-WIT—u-AWIW-Iltilln-fir-77-===.;2---gEeFZIPW2-001 :7-1)4 .02W--ZggPfygif-4.-eavg Average Queue(ft) 135 94 lii 2. .i... -1 i.ii. 16§.6.-.-..{.46... 755—..-14-8 - 46 . 1-26i6.6.6 p:R-WegIgn=:-==.14rt=t97:513156W42-5P41:8!86M.890.11%487,:4 i-41-0E---a3.67t4A13.5iT.4V31V--±36.2-7 Link*Diitance(ft) 1262 1262 1597 1597 954 954 954 3163 1-4.0:00g-EMPEWPWFMantr -WW-4-a41*-----=-7-744:7W-W41-SW-W50.•Queuing Penalti(veh) 130 d4 6 6 o .O. 0-i@iclaVY*IMME--='="--742-1-5.7t=— ::::: :-=2-25;:=7'6 0-- -',.F.,i-- 1:5iiii,?il.T.::- --E-:- :E,::.1.----_:-:i-411:004 Storage BR Time(To) 2 0 8a 5 86 15. atiV.1799-sT:6-60.MeliM7-,=47:=0.---1- - .5 :40 --=.11:11-Z-4T.67E743-2 ::;:,*---7=-,i:M::+;:,=-i:::.=:Z:2. Intersection: 1: Durham & Hall ___ Directions Served R ,t(11-4700F6-1QWeVqtftlilfg::: $ 47-----Mr1:k:: . .;'.:.=%!;;i:-,,'-.7a.:: -74----Wa Average Queue(ft) 2784 VITLrde-aftyi=7-=.393.77, ;_:--3-_-4AT: =Z-1-:FiTi.fy,F._.:ff--".1 ,-,,it; ::-_-:_Ft_.a.z: -.-t:f_=:: :::::_,.. .-3.1m-, ::::=.401; Link DIstance(ft) 3163 Queuing Penalty(veh) 0 .SrCir-W-tra.-Ms_---"MT :-F -7-7-----:-;•. ..4-.F. -'.:L=77-YZ:2!. -:::i17. ----------,w:.:.--'7:.- 1-7.--i-.47--.:7.=------=---.44!-.177:772- .:.E-7-----4----=.,n Storage Bik Time(%) . addl. ifig*Orralfri:_getilf:MST:- .:--E=7:--=-= 'i,-;,:••.i---_ ----_;-,-_.i:'__:--:. - z=2„---------Ei.:7:7;_- - 77---..:___-7::-_., ..;--2 Intersection: 2: Durham & 79th ,;f:(,Ti-,-;D:,.:-.,.--..7,ETtf.L.----- L-_-__-_-__2..--..r,,,w.,..,74,-.a .-1-f-:_r_.-=1--z;.=---.-.22-vir---___:_____--,,,,,,41,-..----.7------,Aipitre--_-,---.-----.----•----_._:-r•,.01-r.--=.-r-;_:_r =.__.-- f----.L-T--:-._,-.-----:.-=:;. -=1-iz :--.._ Directions Served L T TR L T TR LTR LTR Average Queue (ft) 21 42 42 6 275 259- 26 66 :07,. ..0.4..0*(ft)E—n--------- 6SENti11-1: 10:15:1--7=LE75.0W4f4'.6-k-.---=-2- 12W,..74--II-i-- -L-T---...-------i_T--f:- --Z:LT-----:::: ::. Link Distance(ft) 1597 1597 758 758 295 610 Queuing Penalty(veh) 0 0 MoE;44§t*VWAtt-YZ-Ma-g3r3-M- :::i0_M--f=;if:;;:---=:f:---=z-=-::-:: ::t:%:.----':F-L-:f:_7-----_T--,i-,:.:';-T-.:H , l:::K-±:V:a-:.:4:-4.gLZ:Z: Storage ESIk Time(%) - 0 -14:K ., 1:. .e,.:.- --.7-7 ±:::;:&_ ,'•:::::,-.; :-,:=L--.7-::::MI:OTT2.-.3': Nework Summary • NftalLafialgrAttiti.Uttallnetd5a,- ..=.4: ::::-:.-7•=sZ-1-4:--:.---, -Fil --.,----..i.r.:: ::.w.;:gq::•e; :: -,--.---.1;.7** :_wg • . • 5/12/2006 SimTraffic Report 411 * Page 1 DKS Associates . . Gi NSA) 404 Pe t .. 4CM Signalized Intersecti&apacity Analysis • 2: Durham &79th DKS Associates • Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT BR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR W Lane Configurations li 1 1 t 4 4 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frpb,ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 0.99 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.86 0.96 Fit Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.97 Satd.Flow(prot) 1768 1861 1703 1785 1802 1722 Flt Permitted 0.38 1.00 0.06 1.00 1.00 0.79 Satd.Flow(perm) 661 1861 105 1785 1602 1415 Volume(vph) 13 1135 6 4 579 13 0 0 1 112 0 51 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 Adj. Flow(vph) 14 1247 7 4 838 14 0 0 1 123 0 50 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 17 0 Lane Group Flow(vph) 14 1254 0 4 649 0 0 0 0 0 162 0 Confl.Peds. (#/hr) 5 1 1 5 2 2 2 2 Heavy Vehicles(%) 2% 2% 2% 6% 6% 6% 0% 0% 0% 1% 1% 1% Turn Type pm+pt pm+pt Perm Perm Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 8 4 Permitted Phases 2 6 8 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 68.2 67.6 68.0 67.5 • 12.9 12.9 Effective Green, g (s) 68.2 68.1 68.0 68.0 12.9 12.9 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.73 0.73 0.73 0.73 0.14 0.14 • Clearance Time(s) 3.5 4.5 3.5 4.5 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 1.0 4.3 1.0 4.3 2.5 1.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 486 1363 77 1305 222 196 v/s Ratio Prot c0.00 c0.67 0.36 0.00 v/s Ratio Perm 0.02 0.04 c0.11 v/c Ratio 0.03 0.92 0.05 0.50 0.00 0.83 Uniform Delay, dl 5.3 10.2 3.5 5.3 34.5 39.0 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,d2 0.0 10.4 0.1 0.5 0.0 22.8 Delay(s) 5.3 20.6 3.8 5.8 34.5 61.7 Level of Service A C A A C E Approach Delay(s) 20.4 5.7 34.5 61.7 Approach LOS C A C E Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 19.4 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.86 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 93.0 Sum of lost time (s) 8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 82.8% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Durham Synchro 6 Report 2007 AM Alt 1 Page 2 • .--HCM Signalized lntersection•pacity Analysis 0 1: Durham & Hall DKS Associates • Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 1 yi 1 4 r • Ti Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.90 0.98 1.00 0.98 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.94 1.00 0.90 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.99 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow(prot) 1752 1822 1687 1776 1351 1552 1736 1607 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.99 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 1752 1822 1687 1776 1351 1552 1736 1607 Volume(vph) 162 618 44 84 400 75 42 54 75 385 126 260 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 Adj. Flow(vph) 178 879 48 .92 440 82 48 59 82 423 138 286 RTOR Reduction (vph) - . '0 3 0 _ 0 0 52 0 31 0 0 83 0 Lane Group P$Q 7 24=_ ......:0_2- ::92. 440<_:::_-.3fl ___ a_ 156 -.. 0;` 423 341 0 ern#i. Peds. (#/hr) 7 35 5 f ., >S, 5 Heavy Vehicles(%) 3% 3% 3% 7% 7% 7% 12% 12% 12% 4% -4% -4%. -T-iwn.Tape Prot Prot- -Perm Split -Split ' _r__: _. Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 8 8 4 4 -- `. Permitted Phases 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 10.8 36.3 5.0 30.5 30.5 9.0 21.5 21.5 Ettecttve Green, g(s) 10.8 36.8 5.0 31.0 31.0 9.0 22.0 22.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.12 0.41 0.06 0.35 0.35 0.10 0.25 0.25 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.5 4.5 4.0 4.5 4.5 ,.,. Vehicle Extension (s) 1.0 2.5 1.0 2.5 2.5 2.2 1.0 1.0 Lap rr C�p'(vph) 213 755 95 820 472 157 430 398 c0_10 c0.40 0.05 0.25 c0.10 c0.24 0.21 vls Ratio Perm 0.02 v%c Ratio 0.84 0.96 0.97 0.71 0.06 0.99 0'.98 0.86, °�``' -1Jniform Delay,4t 1 38.1 -25.3 41.8 -25:0-492-- -- _-.:a39.9 33 2 31.9 1 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 22.8 22.9 80.7 3.5 0.0 68.8 -3&6 15.9 Delay (s) 60.9 48.2 122.5 28:S- •1-9: 1083._: 72.0_ 47.8 Level of Service E D F C B F E D Approach Delay(s) 50.7 41.3 108.7 59.9 , Approach LOS D D F E ;. Intersection Summary HCM Average ContrQJ Delay__ _ 55.7 HCM Level of Service E likkilEltaSklerysitotrikagt4i4oratio QIS Sum of lost time(s) 12.0 h Intersection Capacity Utilization 87,1% -_..JCLL.Level.ef yce E _4 -c-f'etiod in 15 - e,. I Durham Synchro 6 Report 2007 AM Alt 1 Page 1 • -HCM Unsignalized Interse•n Capacity Analysis • 9: Durham & DKS Associates J -. N r ♦- k. 4, t , \* 4, d • Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SST SBR Lane Configurations 1 t 1 Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Volume (veh/h) 2 1115 0 0 586 0 0 0 0 11 0 14 Peak Hour Factor 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Hourly flow rate (vph) 2 1149 0 0 604 0 0 0 0 11 0 14 Pedestrians 14 12 12 14 Lane Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 0.0 12.0 Walking Speed (ftls) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Percent Blockage 1 1 0 1 Right turn flare(veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) 1065 606 pX, platoon unblocked 0.89 0.68 0.73 0.73 0.68 0.73 0.73 0.89 vC, conflicting volume 618 1161 1798 1784 1173 1784 1784 632 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 573 1239 1879 1859 1257 1859 1859 589 tC, single (s) 4.1 4.1 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 8.2 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 p0 queue free % 100 100 100 100 100 72 100 97 cM capacity(veh/h) 893 385 38 53 141 40 53 448 III Direction, Lane# EB 1 EB 2 WB 1 WB 2 SB 1 Volume Total 2 1149 0 604 28 Volume Left 2 0 0 0 11 Volume Right 0 0 0 0 14 cSH 893 1700 1700 1700 82 Volume to Capacity 0.00 0.68 0.00 0.36 0.32 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 0 0 30 Control Delay (s) 9.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 68.1 Lane LOS A F Approach Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 88.1 Approach LOS F Intersection Summary Average Delay 1.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 72.4% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 Durham Synchro 6 Report 2007 AM Alt 1 Page 3 III k-ssflai AVidiar PeAL HCM Signalized Intersectionipacity Analysis III 1: Durham & Hall DKS Associates f -. C 4 L 4\ t t ' 4 d 411 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 1 f, 1 + rf 4 11 T Ideal Row(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.93 0.97 1.00 0.92 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.94 1.00 0.86 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.99 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow(prot) 1719 1804 1770 1863 1474 1648 1703 1418 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.99 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 1719 1804 1770 1863 1474 1648 1703 1418 Volume(vph) 234 559 7 17 766 245 27 45 51 208 20 222 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj.Flow(vph) 254 608 8 18 833 266 29 49 55 228 22 241 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 76 0 25 0 0 203 0 Lane Group Flow(vph) 254 616 0 18 833 190 0 108 0 226 60 0 Conti. Peas.(It/hr) 18 18 26 17 17 26 Heavy Vehicles(%) 5% 5% 5% 2% 2% 2% 4% 4% 4% 6% 6% 6% Turn Type Prot Prot Perm Split Split Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 8 8 4 4 Permitted Phases 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 15.0 58.6 1.9 45.5 45.5 7.0 15.1 15.1 Effective Green, g (s) 15.0 59.1 1.9 46.0 46.0 7.0 15.6 15.6 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.15 0.59 0.02 0.46 0.46 0.07 0.16 0.16 Clearance Time(s) 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.5 4.5 4.0 4.5 4.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 1.0 2.5 1.0 2.5 2.5 2.2 1.0 1.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 259 1070 34 860 681 116 267 222 v/s Ratio Prot c0.15 0.34 0.01 c0.45 c0.07 c0.13 0.04 v/s Ratio Perm 0.13 v/c Ratio 0.98 0.58 0.53 0.97 0.28 0.93 0.85 0.27 Uniform Delay,d1 42.2 12.5 48.4 26.1 16.6 46.1 40.8 37.0 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,d2 50.2 0.6 8.7 23.0 0.2 61.5 20.4 0.2 Delay(s) 92.4 13.1 55.1 49.1 16.7 107.5 81.3 37.2 Level of Service F B E D B F E D Approach Delay(s) 36.3 41.5 107.5 48.3 Approach LOS D D F D Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 44.4 HCM Level of Service D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.94 Actuated Cycle Length(s) 99.6 Sum of lost time(s) 16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 93.7% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Durham Synchro 6 Report • 2007 Mid Alt 1 Page 1 " HCM Signalized intersectiSapacity Analysis • 2: Durham & 79th DKS Associates f --• ‘ 41- k 41 t t \* l' 4/ 0 Movement ESL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 1 T., I f► 4 4 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Fit 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 0.89 0.94 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.99 0.97 Satd. Flow(prot) 1736 1826 1769 1852 1676 1644 Flt Permitted 0.21 1.00 0.28 1.00 0.96 0.83 Satd. Flow(perm) 388 1826 528 1852 1617 1407 Volume (vph) 27 798 2 1 896 31 1 0 4 24 0 22 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow(vph) 29 867 2 1 974 34 1 0 4 28 0 24 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 4 0 0 23 0 Lane Group Flow(vph) 29 869 0 1 1007 0 0 1 0 0 27 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 2 3 3 2 3 3 Heavy Vehicles(%) 4% 4% 4% 2% 2% 2% 0% 0% 0% 4% 4% 4% Turn Type pm+pt pm+pt Perm Perm Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 8 4 Permitted Phases 2 6 8 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 67.1 65.8 65.7 65.1 4.9 4.9 Effective Green, g (s) 67.1 66.3 65.7 65.6 4.9 4.9 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.81 0.80 0.79 0.79 0.06 0.06 11111 Clearance Time (s) 3.5 4.5 3.5 4.5 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 1.0 4.3 1.0 4.3 2.5 1.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 325 1453 416 1458 95 83 v/s Ratio Prot c0.00 0.48 0.00 c0.54 v/s Ratio Perm 0.07 0.00 0.00 c0.02 v/c Ratio 0.09 0.60 0.00 0.69 0.01 0.33 Uniform Delay, d1 3.9 3.3 2.6 4.1 36.9 37.6 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,d2 0.0 0.8 0.0 1.6 0.0 0.9 Delay(s) 4.0 4.2 2.6 5.7 37.0 38.5 Level of Service A A A A D D Approach Delay (s) 4.2 5.7 37.0 38.5 Approach LOS A A D D Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 5.9 HCM Level of Service A HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.66 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 83.3 Sum of lost time(s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 62.7% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period(min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Durham Synchro 6 Report 2007 Mid Alt 1 Page 2 • • HCM Unsignalized lntersectic apacity Analysis I 9: Durham & DKS Associates t r 1 4/ • Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Volume(veh/h) 11 824 0 0 881 5 0 0 0 2 0 • 4 Peak Hour Factor 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.98 0.98 Hourly flow rate(vph) 11 858 0 0 918 5 0 0 0 2 0 4 Pedestrians 7 4 Lane Width (ft) 0.0 12.0 Walking Speed (ft/s) 4.0 4.0 Percent Blockage 0 0 Right turn flare(veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) 1062 609 pX, platoon unblocked 0.66 0.82 0.75 0.75 0.82 0.75 0.75 0.66 vC, conflicting volume 927 865 1813 1815 865 1806 1813 924 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 889 836 1729 1732 836 1719 1729 885 tC, single (s) 4.1 4.1 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 8.2 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 p0 queue free % 98 100 100 100 100 96 100 98 cM capacity(veh/h) 506 663 51 65 304 52 65 228 • Direction, Lane# EB 1 EB 2 WB 1 SB 1 Volume Total 11 858 923 6 Volume Left 11 0 0 2 Volume Right 0 0 5 4 cSH 506 1700 1700 107 Volume to Capacity 0.02 0.50 0.54 0.06 Queue Length 95th(ft) 2 0 0 5 Control Delay (s) 12.3 0.0 0.0 40.7 Lane LOS • B E Approach Delay(s) 0.2 0.0 40.7 Approach LOS E Intersection Summary Average Delay 0.2 Intersection Capacity Utilization 56.7% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period(min) 15 • Durham Synchro 6 Report 2007 Mid Alt 1 Page 3 ItYt` QM P tc- HCM Signalized Intersection COacity Analysis • 1: Durham & Hall DKS Associates t c 4-- k- 4\ t P \ d •Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations li t, 11 + r 4, 1 to Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.96 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.95 1.00 0.86 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.99 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow(prot) 1770 1860 1787 1881 1524 1747 1770 1535 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.99 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 1860 1787 1881 1524 1747 1770 1535 Volume (vph) 221 516 5 12 846 256 16 29 28 229 15 185 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Adj. Flow (vph) 248 573 6 13 940 284 18 32 31 254 17 206 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 66 0 20 0 0 174 0 Lane Group Flow(vph) 246 579 0 13 940 218 0 61 0 254 49 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 9 9 9 Heavy Vehicles (%) 2% 2% 2% 1% 1% 1% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% Turn Type Prot Prot Perm Split Split Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 8 8 4 4 Permitted Phases 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 15.1 70.6 1.2 56.7 56.7 4.7 16.6 16.6 Effective Green, g (s) 15.1 71.1 1.2 57.2 57.2 4.7 17.1 17.1 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.14 0.65 0.01 0.52 0.52 0.04 0.16 0.16 learance Time (s) 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.5 4.5 4.0 4.5 4.5 ehicle Extension (s) 1.0 2.5 1.0 2.5 2.5 2.2 1.0 1.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 243 1201 19 977 792 75 275 238 v/s Ratio Prot c0.14 0.31 0.01 c0.50 c0.03 c0.14 0.03 v/s Ratio Perm 0.14 v/c Ratio 1.01 0.48 0.68 0.96 0.28 0.81 0.92 0.21 Uniform Delay,dl 47.5 10.0 54.3 25.4 14.8 52.3 45.9 40.6 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,d2 60.9 0.2 58.7 20.1 0.1 45.0 34.0 0.2 Delay (s) 108.4 10.2 112.9 45.5 15.0 97.3 79.9 40.7 Level of Service F B F D B F E D Approach Delay (s) 39.5 39.2 97.3 61.6 Approach LOS D D F E Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 45.2 HCM Level of Service D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.96 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 110.1 Sum of lost time (s) 16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 86.1% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period(min) 15 c Critical Lane Group • 0rham Synchro 6 Report 07 PM Alt 1 Page 1 • HCM Signalized Intersectic apacity Analysis • 2: Durham & 79th DKS Associates f -10 z c ♦- 4\ 1 P N. 1 d • Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations ' T, 1 t 4 4 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Fcpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.96 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.97 0.97 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1862 1845 1822 1711 Flt Permitted 0.13 1.00 1.00 0.88 0.79 Satd. Flow(perm) 234 1862 1845 1660 1395 Volume(vph) 20 771 2 0 1037 69 5 2 0 39 0 17 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Adj. Flow(vph) 22 829 2 0 1115 74 5 2 0 42 0 18 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 17 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 22 831 0 0 1188 0 0 7 0 0 43 0 Conti. Peds. (#/hr) 2 2 4 4 Heavy Vehicles (%) 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 0% 0% 0% 2% 2% 2% Turn Type pm+pt pm+pt Perm Perm Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 8 4 Permitted Phases 2 6 8 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 80.2 80.2 75.4 7.8 7.8 Effective Green, g (s) 80.7 80.7 75.9 7.8 7.8 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.84 0.84 0.79 0.08 0.08 III Clearance Time (s) 3.5 4.5 4.5 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 1.0 4.3 4.3 2.5 1.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 208 1557 1451 134 113 v/s Ratio Prot 0.00 c0.45 c0.64 v/s Ratio Perm 0.09 0.00 c0.03 v/c Ratio 0.11 0.53 0.82 0.05 0.38 Uniform Delay,dl 10.0 2.3 6.2 40.9 42.1 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.1 0.5 4.0 0.1 0.8 Delay (s) 10.1 2.8 10.2 41.1 42.9 Level of Service B A B D D Approach Delay (s) 3.0 10.2 41.1 42.9 Approach LOS A B D D Intersection Summary . HCM Average Control Delay 8.3 HCM Level of Service A HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.79 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 96.5 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 70.6% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Durham Synchro 6 Report • 2007 PM Alt 1 Page 2 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: Durham & Hall DKS Associates III -4 --. *-- 4- 4-- 4\ r p \* 4, 4/ Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 1 1-, + r 4 t Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 . 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.88 0.99 1.00 0.97 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.94 1.00 0.89 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.99 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow(prot) 1752 1829 1687 1776 1333 1554 1736 1583 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.99 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 1752 1829 1687 1776 1333 1554 1736 1583 Volume (vph) 169 665 32 63 447 118 38 50 69 499 95 273 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 Adj. Flow(vph) 186 731 35 69 491 130 42 55 76 548 104 300 RTOR Reduction (vph) • 0 2 0 0 0 60 0 25 0 0 87 0 Lane Group Flow(vph) 186 764 0 69 491 70 0 148 0 548 317 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 7 35 5 8 8 5 Heavy Vehicles (%) 3% 3% 3% 7% 7% 7% 12% 12% 12% 4% 4% 4% Turn Type Prot Prot Perm Split Split Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 8 8 4 4 Permitted Phases 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 13.5 41.7 5.6 33.8 33.8 11.5 25.5 25.5 Effective Green, g (s) 13.5 42.2 5.6 34.3 34.3 11.5 26.0 26.0 0Actuated g/C Ratio 0.13 0.42 0.06 0.34 0.34 0.11 0.26 0.26 Clearance Time(s) 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.5 4.5 4.0 4.5 4.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 1.0 2.5 1.0 2.5 2.5 2.2 1.0 1.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 233 •762 93 601 451 176 446 406 v/s Ratio Prot c0.11 c0.42 0.04 0.28 c0.10 c0.32 0.20 v/s Ratio Perm 0.05 v/c Ratio 0.80 1.00 0.74 0.82 0.15 0.84 1.23 0.78 Uniform Delay,dl 42.6 29.6 47.1 30.6 23.4 44.0 37.6 35.0 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 16.1 33.3 24.0 8.2 0.1 28.1 121.3 8.7 Delay(s) 58.7 62.9 71.1 38.9 23.5 72.1 159.0 43.7 Level of Service E E E D C E F D •Approach Delay(s) 62.1 39.2 72.1 110.1 Approach LOS E D E F • Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 73.5 HCM Level of Service E HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 1.05 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 101.3 Sum of lost time(s) . 16.0 • Intersection Capacity Utilization 91.7% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group "'Durham Synchro 6 Report 2007 AM Alt 1 Page 1 HCM Signalized IntersectioSY Analysis Anal sis 0 2: Durham & 79th DKS Associates t c 4- k" 4\ t , `► 1 4/ • Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 1 k li ' 4, 4 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 0.99 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.86 0.96 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.97 Satd. Flow(prot) 1768 1861 1703 1783 1603 1723 Fit Permitted 0.32 1.00 0.07 1.00 1.00 0.79 Satd. Flow(perm) 594 1861 118 1783 1603 1415 Volume (vph) 17 1162 6 4 592 17 0 0 1 133 0 60 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 Adj. Flow(vph) 19 1277 7 4 651 19 0 0 1 146 0 66 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 15 0 Lane Group Flow(vph) 19 1284 0 4 669 0 0 0 0 0 197 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 5 1 1 5 2 2 2 2 Heavy Vehicles(%) 2% 2% 2% 6% 6% 6% 0% 0% 0% 1% 1% 1% Turn Type pm-4-pt pm+pt Perm Perm Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 8 4 Permitted Phases 2 6 8 4 Actuated Green,'G (s) 62.6 61.0 60.8 60.1 15.2 15.2 Effective Green, g (s) 62.6 61.5 60.8 60.6 15.2 15.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.70 0.69 0.68 0.68 0.17 0.17 11111 Clearance Time(s) 3.5 4.5 3.5 4.5 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 1.0 4.3 1.0 4.3 2.5 1.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 433 1287 84 1215 274 242 v/s Ratio Prot c0.00 c0.69 0.00 0.38 0.00 v/s Ratio Perm 0.03 0.03 c0.14 v/c Ratio 0.04 1.00 0.05 0.55 0.00 0.81 Uniform Delay, dl 5.0 13.6 25.1 7.2 30.6 35.5 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,d2 0.0 24.4 0.1 0.7 0.0 17.7 Delay(s) 5.0 38.0 25.2 8.0 30.6 53.2 Level of Service A D C A C D Approach Delay(s) 37.5 8.1 30.6 53.2 Approach LOS D - A C D Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 30.0 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.91 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 88.9 Sum of lost time (s) 8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 86.0% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group • Durham Synchro 6 Report 110 2007 AM Alt 1 Page 2 HCM Unsignalized Intersectionfapacity Analysis 9: Durham & DKS Associates 0 , -• " , c ' 4s` 4\ t P \* '/' 4/ Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 1 t ) 1, 'I 10 4' Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Volume (veh/h) 2 1106 125 62 537 0 69 0 54 11 0 14 Peak Hour Factor 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Hourly flow rate (vph) 2 1140 129 64 554 0 71 0 56 11 0 14 Pedestrians 14 12 12 14 Lane Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Walking Speed (ft/s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Percent Blockage 1 1 1 1 Right turn flare(veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) 1065 606 pX, platoon unblocked 0.90 0.65 0.70 0.70 0.65 0.70 0.70 0.90 vC,conflicting volume 568 1281 1931 1916 1229 1907 1981 582 • vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol • vCu, unblocked vol 520 1434 2124 2103 1353 2090 2195 536 tC, single(s) 4.1 4.1 . 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 tC, 2 stage(s) tF (s) 2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 p0 queue free% 100 79 0 100 53 2 100 97 ScM capacity(veh/h) 941 307 20 28 117 12 25 483 Direction, Lane# EB 1 EB 2 WB 1 WB 2 NB 1 NB 2 SB 1 Volume Total 2 1269 64 554 71 56 26 Volume Left 2 0 64 0 71 0 11 Volume Right 0 129 0 0 0 56 14 cSH 941 1700 307 1700 . 20 117 25 Volume to Capacity 0.00 0.75 0.21 . 0.33 3.53 0.47 1.01 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 19 0 Err 53 78 Control Delay(s) 8.8 0.0 19.8 0.0 Err 60.6 403.3 Lane LOS A C F F F Approach Delay(s) 0.0 2.0 • 5635.8 403.3 Approach LOS F F Intersection Summary Average Delay 355.8 Intersection Capacity Utilization 83.2% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15 Surham Synchro 6 Report 2007 AM Alt 1 Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersectiolapacity Analysis • 1: Durham & Hall DKS Associates 0 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 'I j, >I 4' r 4 1 t Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.87 0.98 1.00 0.97 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.94 1.00 0.89 . Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.99 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow(prot) 1752 1829 1687 1776 1315 1553 1736 1581 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.99 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 1752 1829 1687 1776 1315 1553 1736 1581 Volume (vph) 169 665 32 63 447 118 38 50 69 499 95 273 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 Adj. Flow(vph) 186 731 35 69 491 130 42 55 76 548 104 300 RTOR Reduction(vph) 0 2 0 0 0 56 0 25 0 0 89 0 Lane Group Flow(vph) 186 764 0 69 491 74 0 148 0 548 315 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 7 35 5 8 8 5 Heavy Vehicles (%) 3% 3% 3% 7% 7% 7% 12% 12% 12% 4% 4% 4% Turn Type Prot Prot Perm Split Split Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 8 8 4 4 Permitted Phases 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 14.9 52.2 6.1 43.4 43.4 11.9 26.8 26.8 Effective Green, g (s) 14.9 52.7 6.1 43.9 43.9 11.9 27.3 27.3 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.13 0.46 0.05 0.39 0.39 0.10 0.24 0.24 • Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.5 4.5 4.0 4.5 4.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 1.0 .2.5 1.0 2.5 2.5 2.2 1.0 1.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 229 846 90 684 506 162 416 379 v/s Ratio Prot c0.11 c0.42 0.04 0.28 c0.10 c0.32 0.20 v/s Ratio Perm 0.06 v/c Ratio 0.81 0.90 0.77 0.72 0.15 0.91 1.32 0.83 Uniform Delay,dl 48.2 28.3 53.2 29.8 22.8 50.5 43.4 41.2 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 0.93 . 0.94 1.05 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 18.4 14.8 27.8 6.1 0.6 45.6 158.9 13.7 Delay(s) 66.6 43.2 77.5 34.0 24.7 96.1 202.3 54.9 Level of Service E D E C C F F D Approach Delay(s) 47.7 36.6 96.1 139.7 Approach LOS D D F F Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 79.6 HCM Level of Service E HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.99 • Actuated Cycle Length (s) 114.0 Sum of lost time(s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 91.7% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min) 15 .c Critical Lane Group • Durham Synchro 6 Report • 2007 AM Alt 1 5y...CZ.ed Page 1 • HCM Signalized Intersection CCacity Analysis • 2: Durham & 79th DKS Associates • -)A -• ..‘$, c 1.-- 4`'" 4\ t /* \* 1 4/ Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations iii T, li 't, 4, 4, Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 0.99 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Fri 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.86 0.96 FIt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.97 Satd. Flow(prat) 1768 1861 1703 1783 1600 1720 FIt Permitted 0.34 1.00 0.05 1.00 1.00 0.79 Satd. Flow(perm) 633 1861 85 1783 1600 1413 Volume (vph) 17 1162 6 4 592 17 0 0 1 133 0 60 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 Adj. Flow(vph) 19 1277 7 4 651 19 0 0 1 146 0 66 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 14 0 Lane Group Flow(vph) 19 1284 0 4 669 0 0 0 0 0 198 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 5 1 1 5 2 • 2 2 2 Heavy Vehicles(%) 2%. 2% 2% 6% 6% 6% 0% 0% 0% 1% 1% 1% Turn Type pm+pt pm+pt Perm Perm Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 8 4 Permitted Phases 2 6 8 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 85.6 84.3 84.2 83.6 17.1 17.1 Effective Green, g (s) 85.6 84.8 84.2 84.1 17.1 17.1 "'Actuated g/C Ratio 0.75 0.74 0.74 0.74 0.15 0.15 Clearance Time(s) 3.5 4.5 3.5 4.5 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 1.0 4.3 1.0 4.3 2.5 1.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 483 1384 64 1315 240 212 v/s Ratio Prot c0.00 c0.69 0.00 0.38 0.00 v/s Ratio Perm 0.03 • 0.05 c0.14 v/c Ratio 0.04 0.93 . 0.06 0.51 0.00 0.93 Uniform Delay,dl 4.5 12.1 24.3 6.3 41.2 47.9 Progression Factor 0.24 0.20 . 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.0 8.1 0.1 1.4 0.0 42.5 Delay(s) 1.1 10.5 24.5 7.7 41.2 90.4 Level of Service A B C A D .F Approach Delay(s) 10.3 7.8 41.2 90.4 Approach LOS B A D F Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 17.3 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.89 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 114.0 Sum of lost time(s) 8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 86.0% ICU Level of Service .E Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Durham Synchro 6 Report • 2007 AM Alt 1 --S;c.,e.Cz c-1 Page 2 • • HCM Signalized Intersectio•apacity Analysis 9: Durham & DKS Associates -"4 -• Nt C +- k- 4\ t t \* `r • Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations ) t 'fi t' li t3 4 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.96 Flpb, ped/bikes 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 Frt 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.92 Fit Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.98 Satd. Flow(prot) 1789 1826 1805 1845 1805 1615 1624 Flt Permitted 0.45 1.00 0.07 1.00 0.74 1.00 0.87 Satd. Flow(perm) 839 1826 138 1845 1408 1615 1444 Volume(vph) 2 1106 125 62 537 0 69 0 54 11 0 14 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow (vph) 2 1140 129 64 554 0 71 0 56 11 0 14 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 51 0 0 13 0 Lane Group Flow(vph) 2 1266 0 64 554 0 71 5 0 0 12 0 Confl. Peds. (#!hr) 14 12 12 14 Heavy Vehicles (%) 0% 2% 0% 0% 3% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Turn Type pm+pt pm+pt Perm Perm Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 2 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 88.4 87.6 96.2 91.5 9.7 9.7 9.7 Effective Green, g (s) 88.4 87.6 96.2 91.5 9.7 9.7 9.7 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.78 0.77 0.84 0.80 0.09 0.09 0.09 III Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 657 1403 185 1481 120 137 123 v/s Ratio Prot 0.00 c0.69 c0.01 0.30 0.00 v/s Ratio Perm 0.00 0.28 c0.05 0.01 v/c Ratio 0.00 0.90 0.35 0.37 0.59 0.03 0.10 Uniform Delay, dl 2.9 10.0 21.8 3.2 50.2 47.9 48.1 Progression Factor 1.11 1.09 1.53 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,d2 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.6 7.6 0.1 0.4 Delay(s) 3.2 11.9 . 34.3 3.3 57.8 48.0 48.5 Level of Service A B C A E D D Approach Delay(s) 11.9 6.5 53.5 48.5 Approach LOS B A D D Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 13.3 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.88 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 114.0 Sum of lost time(s) 16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 83.2% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group • • Durham Synchro 6 Report 0 : 2007 AM Alt 1 --5 i y. ... •.1c ) Page 3 • S • HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: Durham & Hall DKS Associates • f - C 4- k- 4\ t / `► 4, d Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 11 t+ • 1 1' rr 4 ) 1 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 • 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.88 0.98 1.00 0.97 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.94 1.00 0.89 Fit Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.99 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow(prot) 1752 1829 1687 1776 1333 1539 1736 1583 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.99 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 1752 1829 1687 1776 1333 1539 1736 1583 Volume(vph) 169 665 32 63 447 93 38 50 69 463 95 273 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 Adj. Flow(vph) 186 731 35 69 491 102 42 55 76 509 104 300 RTOR Reduction(vph) 0 2 0 0 0 47 0 25 0 0 87 0 Lane Group Flow(vph) 186 764 0 69 491 55 0 148 0 509 317 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 7 35 5 8 8 5 Heavy Vehicles (%) 3% 3% 3% 7% 7% 7% 12% 12% 12% 4% 4% 4% Turn Type Prot Prot Perm Split Split Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 8 8 4 4 Permitted Phases 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 13.5 41.7 5.7 33.9 33.9 11.6 25.5 25.5 Effective Green, g (s) 13.5 42.2 5.7 34.4 34.4 11.6 26.0 26.0 "'Actuated g/C Ratio 0.13 0.42 0.06 0.34 0.34 0.11 0.26 0.26 Clearance Time(s) 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.5 4.5 4.0 4.5 4.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 1.0 2.5 1.0 2.5 2.5 2.2 1.0 1.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 233 760 95 602 452 176 445 405 v/s Ratio Prot c0.11 c0.42 0.04 0.28 c0.10 c0.29 0.20 v/s Ratio Perm 0.04 v/c Ratio 0.80 1.01 0.73 0.82 0.12 0.84 1.14 0.78 Uniform Delay,dl 42.7 29.6 47.1 30.7 23.1 44.1 37.8 35.1 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 16.1 34.0 20.7 8.2 0.1 28.1 88.3 8.8 Delay(s) 58.8 63.7 67.8 38.8 23.2 72.2 126.0 43.9 Level of Service E E E D C E F D Approach Delay(s) 62.7 39.4 72.2 89.7 Approach LOS E D E F Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 66.7 HCM Level of Service E HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 1.03 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 101.5 Sum of lost time(s) 16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 89.7% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group "'Durham Synchro 6 Report 2007 AM Alt 2 Page 1 • • • .. . . . HCM Signalized Intersectio.apacity Analysis 2: Durham & 79th DKS Associates --. � c4- k- 4\ t P \I" i d 0 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations ii 1 1 1 4 4 . Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 0.99 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.94 0.97 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.98 0.97 Satd. Flow(prot) 1768 1837 1703 1782 1737 1764 Flt Permitted 0.35 1.00 0.06 1.00 0.81 0.72 Satd. Flow(perm) 654 1837 115 1782 1437 1300 Volume(vph) 16 1109 95 43 535 17 44 26 54 133 59 55 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 Adj. Flow(vph) 18 1219 104 47 588 19 48 29 59 146 65 60 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 24 . 0 0 9 0 Lane Group Flow(vph) 18 1321 0 47 606 0 0 112 0 0 262 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 5 1 1 5 2 2 2 2 Heavy Vehicles (%) 2% 2% 2% 6% 6% 6% 0% 0% 0% 1% 1% 1% Turn Type pm+pt pm+pt Perm Perm Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 8 4 Permitted Phases 2 6 8 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 62.4 60.8 64.6 61.9 20.0 20.0 Effective Green, g (s) 62.4 61.3 64.6 62.4 20.0 20.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.65 0.64 0.68 0.65 0.21 0.21 III Clearance Time (s) 3.5 4.5 3.5 4.5 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 1.0 4.3 1.0 4.3 2.5 1.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 440 1179 114 1164 301 272 v/s Ratio Prot 0.00 c0.72 c0.01 0.34 v/s Ratio Perm 0.03 0.27 0.08 c0.20 v/c Ratio 0.04 1.12 0.41 0.52 0.37 0.96 Uniform Delay,di 6.5 17.1 25.5 8.7 32.4 37.4 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.0 65.8 0.9 0.6 0.6 44.2 Delay(s) 6.5 82.9 26.4 9.3 32.9 81.6 Level of Service A F C A C F Approach Delay(s) 81.9 10.6 32.9 81.6 Approach LOS F B C F Intersection Summa HCM Average Control Delay 59.7 HCM Level of Service E HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 1.06 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 95.5 Sum of lost time(s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 91.3% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Durham Synchro 6 Report 41) 2007 AM Alt 2 Page 2 HCM Signalized Intersection Cacity Analysis 2: Durham & 79th DKS Associates III f --. c 4- k- 4\ t /* \* 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 1 + 11 1 1, 4, 4, Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.99 0.99 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.94 0.97 Fit Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.98 0.97 Satd. Flow(prot) 1767 1863 1547 1703 1782 1736 1763 Flt Permitted 0.36 1.00 1.00 0.05 1.00 0.81 0.70 Satd. Flow(perm) 668 1863 1547 98 1782 1429 1276 Volume(vph) 16 1109 95 43 535 17 44 26 54 133 59 55 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 Adj. Flow(vph) 18 1219 104 47 588 19 48 29 59 146 65 60 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 31 0 1 0 0 25 ; 0 0 10 0 Lane Group Flow(vph) 18 1219 73 47 606 0 0 111 0 0 261 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 5 1 1 5 2 2 2 2 Heavy Vehicles (%) 2% 2% 2% 6% 6% 6% 0% 0% 0% 1% 1% 1% Turn Type pm+pt Perm pm+pt Perm Perm Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 8 4 Permitted Phases 2 2 6 8 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 73.0 71.8 71.8 75.2 72.9 22.1 22.1 Effective Green, g (s) 73.0 72.3 72.3 75.2 73.4 22.1 22.1 "'Actuated g/C Ratio 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.70 0.68 0.20 0.20 Clearance Time (s) 3.5 4.5 4.5 3.5 4.5 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 1.0 4.3 4.3 1.0 4.3 2.5 1.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 458 1245 1034 95 1209 292 261 v/s Ratio Prot 0.00 c0.65 c0.01 0.34 v/s Ratio Perm 0.03 0.05 0.34 0.08 c0.20 v/c Ratio 0.04 0.98 0.07 0.49 0.50 0.38 1.00 Uniform Delay,dl 6.5 17.2 6.3 29.6 8.5 37.2 43.0 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.0 20.5 0.0 1.5 0.5 0.6 56.1 Delay(s) 6.5 37.7 6.3 31.0 9.0 37.8 99.2 Level of Service A D A C A D F Approach Delay(s) 34.9 10.6 37.8 99.2 Approach LOS C B D F Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 35.7 HCM Level of Service D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.98 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 108.2 Sum of lost time(s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 85.6% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group •urham Synchro 6 Report 2007 AM Alt 2 Page 1 • HCM Signalized Intersectioltapacity Analysis vir 1: Durham & Hall DKS Associates f c 4\ t P `► 1 4/ • Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations li T. ) et r 4). 1 t Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.93 0.96 1.00 0.91 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.94 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.99 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow(prot) 1719 1808 1770 1863 1470 1646 1703 1392 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.99 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 1719 1808 1770 1863 1470 1646 1703 1392 Volume(vph) 248 583 2 6 813 285 17 31 34 252 7 236 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow(vph) 270 634 2 7 884 310 18 34 37 274 8 257 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 68 0 23 0 0 210 0 Lane Group Flow(vph) 270 636 0 7 884 242 0 66 0 274 55 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 18 18 26 17 17 26 Heavy Vehicles (%) 5% 5% 5% 2% 2% 2% 4% 4% 4% 6% 6% 6% Turn Type Prot Prot Perm Split Split Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 8 8 4 4 Permitted Phases 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 17.6 61.2 0.9 44.5 44.5 7.1 18.6 18.6 Effective Green, g (s) 17.6 61.7 0.9 45.0 45.0 7.1 19.1 19.1 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.17 0.59 0.01 0.43 0.43 0.07 0.18 0.18 III Clearance Time(s) 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.5 4.5 4.0 4.5 4.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 1.0 2.5 1.0 2.5 2.5 2.2 1.0 1.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 289 1064 15 800 631 112 310 254 v/s Ratio Prot c0.16 0.35 0.00 c0.47 c0.04 c0.16 0.04 v/s Ratio Perm 0.16 v/c Ratio 0.93 0.60 0.47 1.10 0.38 0.59 0.88 0.22 Uniform Delay, dl 43.0 13.7 51.7 29.9 20.4 47.4 41.8 36.5 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 35.3 0.8 8.1 64.6 0.3 5.5 23.8 0.2 Delay(s) 78.3 14.4 59.8 94.5 20.7 53.0 65.6 36.6 Level of Service E B E F C D E D Approach Delay(s) 33.5 75.2 53.0 51.3 Approach LOS C E D D Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 56.0 HCM Level of Service E HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.98 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 104.8 Sum of lost time (s) 16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 87.2% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Durham Syncfiro 6 Report 111 2007 Mid Alt 1 Page 1 • HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis • 2: Durham & 79th DKS Associates III f -. c ♦- 4\ t , \ d Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 1 to 'I 1 4+ 4+ Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 • 0.89 0.93 Fit Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.99 0.98 Satd. Flow(prot) 1736 1826 1769 1848 1676 1642 Flt Permitted 0.18 1.00 0.28 1.00 0.97 0.84 Satd. Flow(perm) 322 1826 513 1848 1639 1408 Volume(vph) 39 817 2 1 918 45 1 0 4 37 0 35 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow(vph). 42 888 2 1 998 49 1 0 4 40 0 38 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 4 0 0 34 0 Lane Group Flow(vph) 42 890 0 1 1046 0 0 1 0 0 44 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 2 3 3 2 3 3 Heavy Vehicles (%) 4% 4% 4% 2% 2% 2% 0% 0% 0% 4% 4% 4% Turn Type pm+pt pm+pt Perm Perm Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 8 4 Permitted Phases 2 6 8 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 78.6 75.4 73.6 72.9 7.6 7.6 Effective Green,g(s) 78.6 75.9 73.6 73.4 7.6 7.6 ctuated g/C Ratio 0.82 0.79 0.77 0.77 0.08 0.08 Clearance Time (s) 3.5 4.5 3.5 4.5 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 1.0 4.3 1.0 4.3 2.5 1.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 304 1448 397 1417 130 112 v/s Ratio Prot c0.00 0.49 0.00 c0.57 v/s Ratio Perm 0.11 0.00 0.00 c0.03 v/c Ratio 0.14 0.61 0.00 0.74 0.01 0.39 Uniform Delay,dl 6.5 4.0 3.4 6.0 40.6 41.9 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.1 1.0 0.0 2.3 0.0 0.8 Delay(s) 6.6 5.0 3.4 8.3 40.6 42.7 Level of Service A A A A D D Approach Delay(s) 5.0 8.3 40.6 42.7 Approach LOS A A D D Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 8.2 HCM Level of Service A HCM Volume to Capacity ratio. 0.72 Actuated Cycle Length(s) 95.7 Sum of lost time(s) 16.0 • Intersection Capacity Utilization 67.6% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group fikurham Synchro 6 Report 2007 Mid Alt 1 Page 2 • HCM Unsignalized Intersect Capacity Anal P tY sis Y 9: Durham & DKS Associates ""‘ -4` Ni c 4-- k"" 4\ t , \* I 0 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations /I T. 'I I 1, 44 Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Volume(veh/h) 11 818 40 25 1046 5 42 0 29 2 0 4 Peak Hour Factor 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 . 0.96 Hourly flow rate(vph) 11 852 42 26 1090 5 44 0 30 2 0 4 Pedestrians 7 4 Lane Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 Walking Speed (ft/s) 4.0 4.0 Percent Blockage 1 0 Right turn flare(veh) , Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) 1062 609 pX, platoon unblocked 0.49 0.80 0.59 0.59 0.80 0.59 0.59 0.49 vC, conflicting volume 1099 901 2049 2054 880 2053 2072 1096 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 1201 876 2261 2270 850 2270 2301 1195 tC, single (s) 4.1 4.1 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 tC, 2 stage(s) tF (s) 2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 p0 queue free% 96 96 0 100 90 85 100 96 cM capacity(veh/h) 289 619 16 22 289 14 21 113 gra Direction, Lane# EB 1 EB 2 WB 1 WB 2 NB 1 NB 2 SB 1 Volume Total 11 894 26 1095 44 30 6 Volume Left 11 0 26 0 44 0 2 Volume Right 0 42 0 5 0 30 4 cSH 289 1700 619 1700 16 289 34 Volume to Capacity 0.04 0.53 0.04 0.64 2.81 0.10 0.18 Queue Length 95th (ft) 3 0 3 0 154 9 14 Control Delay(s) 18.0 0.0 11.1 0.0 1320.8 18.9 132.3 Lane LOS C B F C F Approach Delay(s) 0.2 0.3 789.1 132.3 Approach LOS F F Intersection Summary Average Delay 28.3 Intersection Capacity Utilization 67.8% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period(min) 15 Durham Synchro 6 Report 41) 2007 Mid Alt 1 Page 1 • HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: Durham & Hall DKS Associates t -. 'N f k- "'\ t P `► , d • Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations P I 1 1 r 4, 1 1 Ideal Flow(vphpl) • 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.92 0.96 1.00 0.90 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.94 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.99 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow(prot) 1719 1808 1770 1863 1463 1647 1703 1382 Fit Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.99 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 1719 1808 1770 1863 1463 1647 1703 1382 Volume (vph) 248 583 2 6 813 285 17 31 34 252 7 236 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow(vph) 270 634 2 7 884 310 18 34 37 274 8 257 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 69 0 23 0 0 209 0 Lane Group Flow(vph) 270 636 0 7 884 241 0 66 0 274 56 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 18 18 26 17 17 26 Heavy Vehicles (%) 5% 5% 5% 2% 2% 2% 4% 4% 4% 6% 6% 6% Turn Type Prot Prot Perm Split Split Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 8 8 4 4 Permitted Phases 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 20.2 67.6 1.0 48.4 48.4 7.8 20.6 20.6 Effective Green, g(s) 20.2 68.1 1.0 48.9 48.9 7.8 21.1 21.1 *Actuated g/C Ratio 0.18 0.60 0.01 0.43 0.43 0.07 0.19 0.19 Clearance Time(s) 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.5 4.5 4.0 4.5 4.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 1.0 2.5 1.0 2.5 2.5 2.2 1.0 1.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 305 1080 16 799 628 113 315 256 v/s Ratio Prot c0.16 0.35 0.00 c0.47 c0.04 c0.16 0.04 v/s Ratio Perm 0.17 v/c Ratio 0.89 0.59 0.44 1.11 0.38 0.58 0.87 0.22 Uniform Delay,dl 45.8 14.3 56.2 32.6 22.3 51.5 45.1 39.4 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.20 0.91 0.80 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 24.3 2.4 5.2 61.7 1.4 5.4 21.0 0.2 Delay(s) 70.0 16.6 72.7 91.3 19.1 56.9 66.1 39.6 Level of Service E B E F B E E D Approach Delay(s) 32.5 72.5 56.9 53.1 Approach LOS C E E. D Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 54.9 HCM Level of Service D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.97 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 114.0 Sum of lost time(s) 16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 87.2% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group •urharn Synchro 6 Report • 2007 Mid Alt 1 Page 1 • • HCM Signalized Intersectioa acit Analysis 9 P Y Y 2: Durham & 79th DKS Associates 1. 44-- 4%* 4\ t P \* 4/ • Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations '1. I ) $ 4 4+ Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 • 1.00 0.99 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 0.89 0.93 Fit Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.99 0.98 Satd. Flow(prot) 1736 1826 1769 1847 1676 1640 Flt Permitted 0.20 1.00 0.29 1.00 0.97 0.84 Satd. Flow(perm) 364 1826 534 1847 1637 1407 Volume(vph) 39 817 2 1 918 45 1 0 4 37 0 35 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow(vph) 42 888 2 1 998 49 1 0 4 40 0 38 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 4 0 0 34 0 Lane Group Flow(vph) 42 890 0 1 1046 0 0 1 0 0 44 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 2 3 3 2 3 3 Heavy Vehicles (%) 4% 4% 4% 2% 2% 2% 0% 0% 0% 4% 4% 4% Turn Type pm+pt pm+pt Perm Perm Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 8 4 Permitted Phases 2 6 8 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 96.6 93.7 92.0 91.4 7.7 7.7 Effective Green, g (s) 96.6 94.2 92.0 91.9 7.7 7.7 • Actuated g/C Ratio 0.85 0.83 0.81 0.81 0.07 0.07 Clearance Time(s) 3.5 4.5 3.5 4.5 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 1.0 4.3 1.0 4.3 2.5 1.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 337 1509 432 1489 111 95 v/s Ratio Prot c0.00 0.49 0.00 c0.57 v/s Ratio Perm 0.10 0.00 0.00 c0.03 v/c Ratio 0.12 0.59 0.00 0.70 0.01 0.47 • Uniform Delay,dl 5.4 3.4 2.9 4.9 49.6 51.2 Progression Factor 1.09 0.76 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay;d2 0.1 1.4 0.0 2.8 0.0 1.3 Delay(s) 5.9 4.0 2.9 7.7 49.6 52.5 Level of Service A A A A D 0 Approach Delay(s). 4.1 7.7 49.6 52.5 Approach LOS A A D D Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 7.9 HCM Level of Service A HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.70 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 114.0 Sum of lost time(s) 16.0 • Intersection Capacity Utilization 67.6% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Durham Synchro 6 Report 411 2007 Mid Alt 1 -Sr. �I Page 2 • S � d i HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis • 9: Durham & DKS Associates III t -- c 4 4\ t ,► \ 1 . 4/ Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations ' to 'I t+ 1 t 4. Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 .4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 • 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.91 Fit Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.98 Satd. Flow(prot) 1805 1797 1805 1843 1805 1615 1701 Flt Permitted 0.19 1.00 0.27 1.00 0.75 1.00 0.92 Satd. Flow(perm) 367 1797 506 1843 1432 1615 1589 Volume(vph) 11 818 40 25 1046 5 42 0 29 2 0 4 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Adj. Flow(vph) 11 852 42 26 1090 5 44 0 30 2 0 4 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 28 0 0 -4 0 Lane Group Flow(vph) 11 893 0 26 1095 0 44 2 0 0 2 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 4 7 7 4 Heavy Vehicles (%) 0% 5% 0% 0% 3% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% • Turn Type pm+pt pm+pt Perm Perm Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 2 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 93.3 92.1 95.3 93.1 7.7 7.7 7.7 Effective Green, g (s) 93.3 92.1 95.3 93.1 7.7 7.7 7.7 ctuated g/C Ratio 0.82 0.81 0.84 0.82 0.07 0.07 0.07 Clearance Time(s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 315 1452 448 1505 97 109 107 v/s Ratio Prot 0.00 0.50 c0.00 c0.59 0.00 v/s Ratio Perm 0.03 0.05 c0.03 0.00 v/c Ratio 0.03 0.62 0.06 0.73 0.45 0.02 0.02 Uniform Delay, d1 5.3 4.2 3.1 4.7 51.1 49.6 49.6 Progression Factor 1.42 1.50 0.24 0.14 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.0 1.5 0.0 2.4 3.3 0.1 0.1 Delay(s) 7.5 7.8 0.8 3.1 54.5 49.7 49.7 Level of Service A A A A D D D Approach Delay(s) 7.7 3.0 52.5 49.7 Approach LOS A A D D Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 6.9 HCM Level of Service A HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.67 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 114.0 Sum of lost time (s) 8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 67.8% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group gurham Synchro 6 Report 2007 Mid Alt 1 Page 3 Si Sn�(•Zc d _, 4 HCM Signalized Intersection"Capacity Analysis 1: Durham & Hall DKS Associates " c ♦- 4\ t p `• 4 ./ 411 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 11 I li + If 4 1 1 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.93 0.94 1.00 0.91 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 '0.94 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.99 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow(prot) 1719 1808 1770 1863 1471 1606 1703 1393 Fit Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.99 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 1719 1808 1770 1863 1471 1606 1703 1393 Volume(vph) 248 583 2 6 813 270 17 31 34 241 7 236 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow(vph) 270 634 2 7 884 293 18 34 37 262 8 257 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 65 0 23 0 0 212 0 Lane Group Flow(vph) 270 636 0 7 884 228 0 66 0 262 53 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 18 18 26 17 17 26 Heavy Vehicles (%) 5% 5% 5% 2% 2% 2% 4% 4% 4% 6% 6% 6% Turn Type Prot Prot Perm Split Split Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 8 8 4 4 Permitted Phases 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 17.6 61.2 0.9 .44.5 44.5 7.1 17.8 17.8 Effective Green, g(s) 17.6 61.7 0.9 45.0 45.0 7.1 18.3 18.3 II) Actuated g/C Ratio 0.17 0.59 0.01 0.43 0.43 0.07 0.18 0.18 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.5 4.5 4.0 4.5 4.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 1.0 2.5 1.0 2.5 2.5 2.2 1.0 1.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 291 1073 15 806 636 110 300 245 v/s Ratio Prot c0.16 0.35 0.00 c0.47 c0.04 c0.15 0.04 v/s Ratio Perm 0.16 v/c Ratio 0.93 0.59 0.47 1.10 0.36 0.60 0.87 0.22 Uniform Delay,dl 42.6 13.3 51.3 29.5 19.8 47.1 41.7 36.7 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 33.5 0.7 8.1 61.5 0.3 6.3 22.7 0.2 Delay(s) 76.1 14.0 59.4 91.0 20.1 53.3 64.4 36.9 Level of Service E B E F C D E D Approach Delay(s) 32.5 73.2 53.3 50.6 Approach LOS C E D D Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 54.5 HCM Level of Service D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.98 Actuated Cycle Length(s) 104.0 Sum of lost time(s) 16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization . 86.6% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Durham Synchro 6 Report • . • 2007 Mid Alt 2 Page 1. , • • HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: Durham & 79th DKS Associates • cl - 4\ tp \, Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 11 t li T 4 4+ Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes . 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 0.94 0.95 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.98 0.98 Satd. Flow(prot) 1736 1815 1769 1847 1755 1682 Flt Permitted 0.18 1.00 0.25 1.00 0.81 0.83 Satd. Flow(perm) 323 1815 473 1847 1455 1420 Volume (vph) 38 789 31 18 894 45 28 16 32 37 19 34 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow(vph) 41 858 34 20 972 49 30 17 35 40 21 37 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 26 0 0 22 0 Lane Group Flow(vph) 41 891 0 20 1020 0 0 56 0 0 76 0 • Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 2 3 3 2 3 3 Heavy Vehicles(%) 4% 4% 4% 2% 2% 2% 0% 0% 0% 4% 4% 4% Turn Type pm+pt pm+pt Perm Perm Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 8 4 Permitted Phases 2 6 8 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 69.3 66.5 66.7 65.2 8.3 8.3 *Effective Green,g(s) 69.3 67.0 66.7 65.7 8.3 8.3. Actuated g/C Ratio 0.78 0.76 0.76 0.74 0.09 0.09 Clearance Time(s) 3.5 4.5 3.5 4.5 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 1.0 4.3 1.0 4.3 2.5 1.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 290 1377 372 1374 137 133 v/s Ratio Prot c0.00 0.49 0.00 c0.55 v/s Ratio Perm 0.11 0.04 0.04 c0.05 v/c Ratio 0.14 0.65 0.05 0.74 0.41 0.57 Uniform Delay,dl 6.5 5.0 4.1 6.5 37.7 38.3 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,d2 0.1 1.3 0.0 2.4 1.4 3.7 Delay(s) 6.6 6.3 4.1 8.9 39.1 42.0 Level of Service A A A A D D Approach Delay(s) 6.3 8.8 39.1 42.0 Approach LOS A A D D Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 10.4 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.71 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 88.3 Sum of lost time(s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 64.3% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Durham Synchro 6 Report 2007 Mid Alt 2 Page 2 • . 2_oo Pi) HCM Signalized Intersectioapacity Analysis 1: Durham & Hall DKS Associates f C 4-- k- 4\ t fi \* 1 d • Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 1 1 + 1 4+ 'i 1 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.95 1.00 0.85 Fit Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.99 0.95- 1.00 Satd. Flow(prot) 1770 1861 1787 1881 1523 1748 1770 1517 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.99 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 1770 1861 1787 1881 1523 1748 1770 1517 Volume (vph) 237 532 3 6 878 283 16 30 28 248 8 298 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Adj. Flow(vph) 263 591 3 7 976 314 18 33 31 276 9 331 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 56 0 19 0 0 271 0 Lane Group Flow(vph) 263 594 0 7 976 258 0 63 0 276 69 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 9 9 9 Heavy Vehicles (%) 2% 2% 2% 1% 1% 1% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% Turn Type Prot Prot Perm Split Split Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 8 8 4 4 Permitted Phases 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 14.2 67.4 0.9 54.1 54.1 7.4 19.8 19.8 Effective Green, g(s) 14.2 67.9 0.9 54.6 54.6 7.4 20.3 20.3 •Actuated g/C'Ratio 0.13 0.60 0.01 0.49 0.49 0.07 0.18 0.18 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.5 4.5 4.0 4.5 4.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 1.0 2.5 1.0 2.5 2.5 2.2 1.0 1.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 223 1123 14 913 739 115 319 274 v/s Ratio Prot c0.15 0.32 0.00 c0.52 c0.04 c0.16 0.05 v/s Ratio Perm 0.17 v/c Ratio 1.18 0.53 0.50 1.07 0.35 0.55 0.87 0.25 Uniform Delay, dl 49.2 13.0 55.6 28.9 17.9 50.9 44.8 39.6 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 117.3 0.3 9.9 50.0 0.2 3.7 20.3 0.2 Delay(s) 166.4 13.3 65.4 79.0 18.1 54.7 65.1 39.7 Level of Service F B E E B D E D Approach Delay(s) 60.3 64.2 54.7 51.1 Approach LOS E E D D Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 59.9 HCM Level of Service E HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 1.00 Actuated Cycle Length(s) 112.5 Sum of lost time(s) 16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 89.7% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Durham Report • Durh Synchro 6 Re _ Y p 2007 PM Alt 1 Page 1 I HCM Signalized Intersection C!acity Analysis 2: Durham & 79th DKS Associates 0 � � I1- k' 4\ t , \* i' 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 •Total Lost time(s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.96 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.97 0.97 Satd. Flow(prot) 1770 1862 1840 1822 1709 Flt Permitted 0.11 1.00 1.00 0.87 0.79 Satd. Flow(perm) 196 1862 1840 1646 1395 Volume (vph) 28 790 2 0 1063 94 5 2 0 51 0 22 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Adj. Flow(vph) 30 849 2 0 1143 101 5 2 0 55 0 24 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 13 0 • Lane Group Flow(vph) 30 851 0 0 1243 0 0 7 0 0 66 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 2 2 4 4 Heavy Vehicles (%) 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 0% 0% 0% 2% 2% 2% Turn Type pm+pt pm+pt Perm Perm Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 8 4 Permitted Phases 2 6 8 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 96.4 96.4 89.6 8.7 8.7 Effective Green, g(s) 96.9 96.9 90.1 8.7 8.7 � ctuated g/C Ratio 0.85 0.85 0.79 0.08 0.08 Clearance Time(s) 3.5 4.5 4.5 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension(s) 1.0 4.3 4.3 2.5 1.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 206 1588 1459 126 107 v/s Ratio Prot 0.00 c0.46 c0.68 v/s Ratio Perm 0.12 0.00 c0.05 v/c Ratio 0.15 0.54 0.85 0.06 0.62 Uniform Delay, dl 14.3 2.3 7.5 48.6 50.8 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.1 0.5 5.3 0.1 7.2 Delay(s) 14.4 2.8 12.8 48.8 58.1 Level of Service B A B D E Approach Delay(s) 3.2 12.8 48.8 58.1 Approach LOS A B D E Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 10.7 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.83 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 113.6 Sum of lost time(s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 74.4% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Durham Synchro 6 Report 2007 PM Alt 1 Page 2 • • • HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 9: Durham & DKS Associates }` C t • 1 4 • Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations , "j 3, 4, Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Volume(veh/h) 6 792 10 6 1141 10 16 0 9 5 0 5 Peak Hour Factor 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 Hourly flow rate(vph) 6 800 10 6 1153 10 16 0 9 5 0 5 Pedestrians 8 Lane Width (ft) 12.0 Walking Speed (ft/s) 4.0 Percent Blockage 1 Right turn flare(veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) 1061 611 pX, platoon unblocked 0.26 0.86 0.33 0.33 0.86 0.33 0.33 0.26 vC, conflicting volume 1171 810 1987 2000 805 1999 2000 1166 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 1654 779 3351 3390 773 3387 3390 1635 tC, single (s) 4.3 4.1 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 tC,2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.4 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 p0 queue free% 93 99 0 100 97 0 100 85 cM capacity(veh/h) 91 728 1 2 346 1 2 33 • Direction, Lane# EB 1 EB 2 WB 1 WB 2 NB 1 NB 2 SB 1 Volume Total 6 810 6 1163 16 9 10 Volume Left 6 0 6 0 16 0 5 Volume Right 0 10 0 10 0 9 5 cSH 91 1700 728 1700 1 346 3 Volume to Capacity 0.07 0.48 0.01 0.68 13.11 0.03 3.97 Queue Length 95th (ft) 5 0 1 0 Err 2 Err Control Delay(s) 47.3 0.0 10.0 0.0 Err 15.7 Err Lane LOS E A F C F Approach Delay(s) 0.4 0.1 6405.0 Err Approach LOS Intersection Summary Average Delay 130.2 Intersection Capacity Utilization 72.4% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 Durham Synchro 6 Report • 2007 PM Alt 1 Page 1 • • • • • • • HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: Durham & Hall DKS Associates . f --. c k- 4\ t p l- 4/ Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 1 1.0 ) + r 4 ' 1+ Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frpb,ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.95 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.99 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow(prot) 1770 1861 1787 1881 1515 1748 1770 1510 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.99 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 1770 1861. 1787 1881 1515 1748 1770. 1510 Volume(vph) 237 532 3 6 878 283 16 30 28 .248 8 298 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Adj. Flow(vph) 263 591 3 7 976 314 18 33 31 276 9 331 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 62 0 ' 16 0 0 246 0 Lane Group Flow(vph) 263 594 0 7 976 252 0 66 0 276 94 0 Confl. Peds. (#Ihr) 9 9 9 Heavy Vehicles (%) 2% 2% 2% 1% 1% 1% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% Turn Type Prot Prot Perm Split Split Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 8 8 4 4 Permitted Phases 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 19.2 86.8 1.2 68.8 68.8 6.1 20.9 20.9 SEffective Green, g(s) 19.2 87.3 1.2 69.3 69.3 6.1 21.4 21.4 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.15 0.66 0.01 0.52 0.52 0.05 0.16 0.16 Clearance Time(s) 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.5 4.5 4.0 4.5 4.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 1.0 2.5 1.0 2.5 2.5 2.2 1.0 1.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 257 1231 16 988 795 81 287 245 v/s Ratio Prot c0.15 0.32 0.00 c0.52 c0.04 c0.16 0.06 v/s Ratio Perm 0.17 v/c Ratio 1.02 0.48 0.44 0.99 0.32 0.81 0.96 0.38 Uniform Delay,dl 56.4 11.1 65.1 30.9 17.9 62.4 54.9 49.4 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.19 0.83 0.53 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,d2 62.3 1.4 5.4 22.7 0.8 42.6 42.3 0.4 Delay(s) 118.7 12.5 83.0 48.4 10.2 104.9 97.2 49.8 Level of Service F B F D B F F D Approach Delay(s) 45.1 39.4 104.9 71.0 Approach LOS D D F E Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 49.8 HCM Level of Service D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.98 . Actuated Cycle Length (s) 132.0 Sum of lost time(s) 16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 89.7% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Durham Synchro 6 Report 2007 PM Alt 1 $ Ao■ ( .zel Page 1 • HCM Signalized Intersection•Capacity Analysis • 2: Durham & 79th DKS Associates }' -. � C k- 4\ t P `. i d 0 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations I I I I, 4, 4, Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.96 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.97 0.97 Satd. Flow(prot) 1770 1862 1840 1820 1708 Flt Permitted 0.13 1.00 1.00 0.86 0.79 Satd. Flow(perm) 241 1862 1840 1621 1394 Volume (vph) 28 790 2 0 1063 94 5 2 0 51 0 22 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Adj. Flow(vph) 30 849 2 0 1143 101 5 2 0 55 0 24 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 13 0 Lane Group Flow(vph) 30 851 0 0 1243 0 0 7 0 0 66 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 2 2 4 4 Heavy Vehicles (%) 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 0% 0% 0% 2% 2% 2% Turn Type pm+pt pm+pt Perm Perm Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 8 4 Permitted Phases 2 6 8 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 114.3 114.3 108.4 9.2 9.2 Effective Green, g(s) 114.8 114.8 108.9 9.2 9.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.87 0.87 0.82 0.07 0.07 • Clearance Time (s) 3.5 4.5 4.5 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 1.0 4.3 4.3 2.5 1.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 232 1619 1518 113 97 v/s Ratio Prot 0.00 c0.46 c0.68 v/s Ratio Perm 0.11 0.00 c0.05 v/c Ratio 0.13 0.53 0.82 0.06 0.68 Uniform Delay, dl 12.0 2.1 6.2 57.4 60.0 Progression Factor 1.26 0.52 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.1 1.1 5.0 0.2 14.5 Delay(s) 15.2 2.2 11.3 57.5 74.4 Level of Service B A B E E Approach Delay(s) 2.6 11.3 57.5 74.4 Approach LOS A B E . E Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 10.2 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.81 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 132.0 Sum of lost time(s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 74.4% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Durham Synchro 6 Report III 2007 PM Alt 1 - --,.- et l_ j Page 2 • HCM Signalized Intersection C'ci tY Analysis sis • P 9: Durham & DKS Associates III --4 --. . , te- 4- k' 4\ t P \* 1 4/ Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 1 1.0 1 t / 1 44 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 __ Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flpb,ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.93 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.98 Satd. Flow(prot) 1543 1842 1805 1860 1805 1615 1729 Flt Permitted 0.19 1.00 0.33 1.00 0.83 1.00 0.84 Satd. Flow(perm) 313 1842 621 1860 1583 1615 1484 Volume(vph) 6 792 10 6 1141 10 16 0 9 5 0 5 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 Adj. Flow(vph) 6 800 10 6 1153 10 16 0 9 5 0 5 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 5 0 Lane Group Flow(vph) 6 810 0 6 1163 0 16 0 0 0 5 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 8 8 Heavy Vehicles (%) 17% 3% 0% 0% 2% 0% 0% * 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Turn Type pm+pt pm+pt Perm Perm Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 2 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 115.3 114.1 115.1 114.0 4.8 4.8 4.8 Effective Green, g (s) 115.3 114.1 115.1 114.0 4.8 4.8 4.8 ctuated g/C Ratio 0.87 0.86 0.87 0.86 0.04 0.04 0.04 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) . 285 1592 551 1606 58 59 54 v/s Ratio Prot c0.00 0.44 0.00 c0.63 0.00 v/s Ratio Perm 0.02 0.01 c0.01 0.00 v/c Ratio 0.02 0.51 0.01 0.72 0.28 0.01 0.10 Uniform Delay,'d l 4.3 2.2 1.5 3.3 61.9 61.3 61.5 Progression Factor 1.33 0.98 0.20 0.05 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.0 0.9 0.0 1.7 2.6 0.0 0.8 Delay(s) 5.7 3.0 0.3 1.9 64.5 61.3 62.3 Level of Service A A A A E E E Approach Delay(s) 3.0 1.9 63.4 62.3 Approach LOS A A E E Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 3.4. HCM Level of Service A HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.70 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 132.0 Sum of lost time(s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 72.4% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group ourham Synchro 6 Report 2007 PM Alt 1 - s r"„I:z cd Page 3 • • HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: Durham & Hall DKS Associates Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations / 't• ¶ + r a;, 1 t Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 • Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.95 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.99 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow(prot) 1770 1861 1787 1881 1523 1748 1770 1517 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.99 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 1770 1861 1787 1881 1523 1748 1770 1517 Volume(vph) 237 532 3 6 878 277 16 30 28 245 8 298 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Adj. Flow(vph) 263 591. 3 7 976 308 18 33 31 272 9 331 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 55 0 19 0 0 272 .: 0 Lane Group Flow(vph) 263 594 0 7 976 253 0 63 0 272 68 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 9 9 9 Heavy Vehicles(%) 2% 2% 2% 1% 1% 1% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% Turn Type Prot Prot Perm Split Split Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 8 8 4 4 Permitted Phases 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 14.2 67.4 0.9 54.1 54.1 7.4 19.6 19.6 Effective Green, g (s) 14.2 67.9 0.9 54.6 54.6 7.4 20.1 20.1 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.13 0.60 0.01 0.49 0.49 0.07 0.18 0.18 411 Clearance Time(s) 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.5 4.5 4.0 4.5 4.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 1.0 2.5 1.0 2.5 2.5 2.2 1.0 1.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 224 1125 14 915 740 115 317 272 v/s Ratio Prot c0.15 0.32 0.00 c0.52 c0.04 c0.15 0.04 v/s Ratio Perm 0.17 v/c Ratio 1.17 0.53 0.50 1.07 0.34 0.55 0.86 0.25 Uniform Delay, dl 49.1. 12.9 55.5 28.8 17.8 50.8 44.7 39.6 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 115.2 0.3 9.9 49.2 0.2 3.7 19.3 0.2 Delay(s) 164.3 13.2 65.3 . 78.0 18.0 54.6 64.0 39.8 Level of Service F B E E B D E D Approach Delay(s) 59.6 63.6 54.6 50.5 Approach LOS E E D D Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 59.3 HCM Level of Service E HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 1.00 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 112.3 Sum of lost time(s) 16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 89.6% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Durham Synchro 6 Report ill 2007 PM Alt 2 Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection CCacity Analysis • 2: Durham & 79th DKS Associates • f -► Ni se- 4-- t 4\ I , \► 1 4/ Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBt- NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 1 7, 1 1 4, 4 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 0.96 0.96 Fit Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.98 0.97 Satd. Flow(prot) 1770 1859 1769 1840 1778 1718 Flt Permitted 0.11 1.00 0.30 1.00 0.85 0.85 Satd. Flow(perm) 203 1859 557 1840 1555 1506 Volume (vph) 28 781 9 4 1057 94 15 8 9 51 5 22 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Adj. Flow(vph) 30 840 10 4 1137 101 16 9 10 55 5 24 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 9 0 0 12 0 Lane Group Flow(vph) 30 850 0 4 1237 0 0 26 0 0 72 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 2 2 4 4 Heavy Vehicles (%) 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 0% 0% 0% 2% 2% 2% Turn Type pm+pt pm+pt Perm Perm Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 8 4 Permitted Phases 2 6 8 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 95.0 91.8 90.0 89.3 8.9 8.9 Effective Green,g (s) 95.0 92.3 90.0 89.8 8.9 8.9 ctuated g/C Ratio 0.84 0.81 0.79 0.79 0.08 0.08 Clearance Time(s) 3.5 4.5 3.5 4.5 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 1.0 4.3 1.0 4.3 2.5 1.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 207 1513 444 1457 122 118 v/s Ratio Prot c0.00 0.46 0.00 c0.67 v/s Ratio Perm 0.12 0.01 0.02 c0.05 v/c Ratio 0.14 0.56 0.01 0.85 0.21 0.61 Uniform Delay, dl 13.6 3.6 3.1 7.5 49.0 50.6 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.1 0.6 0.0 5.1 0.6 6.4 Delay(s) 13.7 4.3 3.1 12.6 49.6 57.0 Level of Service B A A B D E Approach Delay(s) 4.6 12.6 49.6 57.0 Approach LOS A B D E Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 11.7 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.84 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 113.4 Sum of lost time(s) 16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 75.6% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group • .eurham Synchro 6 Report 2007 PM Alt 2 Page 2 0 2 01 S. P M • HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: Durham & Hall DKS Associates Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations ►1 fi+ 1 ?? r >i t r 1 1' r Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.93 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.99 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 • Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow(prot) 1752 3439 1687 3374 1411 1612 1696 1415 1736 1827 1532 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 1752 3439 1687 3374 1411 1612 1696 1415 1736 1827 1532 Volume (vph) 144 529 60 286 440 111 136 496 54 589 404 304 Peak-hour factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj. Flow(vph) 144 529 60 286 440 111 136 496 54 589 404 304 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 9 0 0 0 74 0 0 34 0 0 114 Lane Group Flow(vph) 144 580 0 286 440 37 136 496 20 589 404 190 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 7 35 5 8 8 5 Heavy Vehicles (%) 3% 3% 3% 7% 7% 7% 12% 12% 12% 4% 4% 4% Turn Type Prot Prot pm+ov Prot Perm Prot pm+ov Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 7 3 8 7 4 5 Permitted Phases 6 8 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 9.7 19.0 8.3 17.6 25.9 8.7 26.7 26.7 8.3 25.8 35.5 Effective Green, g(s) 9.7 19.5 8.3 18.1 26.4 8.7 26.7 26.7 8.3 26.3 36.0 • Actuated g/C Ratio 0.12 0.25 0.11 0.23 0.34 0.11 0.34 0.34 0.11 0.33 0.46 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.5 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 1.0 2.5 1.0 2.5 1.0 1.0 2.2 2.2 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 216 851 178 775 544 178 575 479 183 610 778 v/s Ratio Prot 0.08 c0.17 c0.17 0.13 0.01 0.08 c0.29 c0.34 0.22 0.03 v/s Ratio Perm 0.02 0.01 0.09 v/c Ratio 0.67 0.68 1.61 0.57. 0.07 0.76 0.86 0.04 3.22 0.66 0.24 Uniform Delay,dl 33.0 26.8 35.2 26.9 17.8 34.1 24.3 17.5 35.2 22.5 13.1 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1:00 Incremental Delay, d2 5.9 2.1 297.6 0.8 0.0 15.9 12.4 0.0 1012.4 2.1 0.1 Delay(s) 38.9 28.9 332.9 27.7 17.9 50.0 36.7 17.5 1047.7 24.6 13.1 Level of Service D C F C B D D B F C B Approach Delay(s) 30.9 130.6 37.8 486.5 Approach LOS C F D F Intersection Summary . HCM Average Control Delay 222.0 HCM Level of Service F HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 1.08 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 78.8 Sum of lost time(s) 8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 104.5% ICU Level of Service G Analysis Period (min) 15 . c Critical Lane Group Durham Synchro 6 Report III 2015 AM Alt 1 Page 1 I ti ( i• • 1 t 1j z� J fe„4-6 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: Durham & Hall DKS Associates III t -♦ -. ,` ♦- t 4\ t p \* j 4 . Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR 6.,,,NBT NBR SBT SBR Lane Configurations 1 tt ) +t r " + r + I Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.93 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.98 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Fit Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1752 3438 1687 3374 1406 3127 1696 1413 3367 1827 1529 Fit Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 1752 3438 1687 3374 1406 3127 1696 1413 3367 1827 1529 Volume (vph) 144 529 60 286 440 111 136 496 54 589 404 304 Peak-hour factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj. Flow (vph) 144 529 60 286 440 111 136 496 54 589 404 304 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 9 0 0 0 63 0 0 38 0 0 42 Lane Group Flow(vph) 144 580 0 286 440 48 136 496 16 589 404 262 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 7 35 5 8 8 5 Heavy Vehicles (%) 3% 3% 3% 7% 7% 7% 12% 12% 12% 4% 4% 4% Turn Type Prot Prot pm+ov Prot Perm Prot pm+ov Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 7 3 8 7 4 5 Permitted Phases 6 8 4 Actuated Green,G (s) 11.1 19.3 17.0 25.2 42.2 7.4 29.0 29.0 17.0 38.1 49.2 *Effective Green, g (s) 11.1 19.8 17.0 25.7 42.7 7.4 29.0 29.0 17.0 38.6 49.7 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.11 0.20 0.17 0.26 0.43 0.07 0.29 0.29 0.17 0.39 0.50 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.5 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 1.0 2.5 1.0 2.5 1.0 1.0 2.2 2.2 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 197 689 290 878 665 234 498 415 579 714 831 v/s Ratio Prot 0.08 c0.17 c0.17 0.13 0.01 0.04 c0.29 c0.17 0.22 0.04 v/s Ratio Perm 0.02 0.01 0.14 v/c Ratio 0.73 0.84 0.99 0.50 0.07 0.58 1.00 0.04 1.02 0.57 0.32 Uniform Delay,dl 42.4 38.0 40.8 31.1 16.4 44.2 34.8 24.9 40.9 23.5 14.5 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 11.3 9.0 48.5 0.3 0.0 2.4 39.0 0.0 41.8 0.6 0.1 Delay(s) 53.8 47.0 89.3 31.4 16.5 46.6 73.8 25.0 82.7 24.2 14.6 Level of Service D D F C B D E C F C B Approach Delay(s) 48.4 49.2 64.6 48.5 Approach LOS D D E D Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 51.7 HCM Level of Service D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.96 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 98.8 Sum of lost time (s) 16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 88.7% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group aurham Synchro 6 Report Yn P 2015 AM Alt 1 Page 1 . HCM Signalized IntersectioSapacity Analysis • 2: Durham & 79th DKS Associates f •-• 'N' C .4-' 4k' 4\ t , \* 4' 4/ 0 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations li ft ) ft+ 4 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 '1.00 0.86 0.96 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 . 1.00 0.97 Satd. Flow(prot) 1769 3535 1703 3390 1621 1733 Flt Permitted 0.32 1.00 0.20 1.00 1.00 0.79 Satd. Flow(perm) 591 3535 359 3390 1621 1423 Volume (vph) 20 1068 8 5 758 20 0 0 1 158 0 71 Peak-hour factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj. Flow (vph) 20 1068 8 5 758 20 0 0 1 158 0 71 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 14 0 Lane Group Flow(vph) 20 1076 0 5 776 0 0 0 0 0 215 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 5 1 1 5 2 2 2 2 Heavy Vehicles (%) 2% 2% 2% 6% 6% 6% 0% 0% 0% 1% 1% 1% Turn Type pm+pt pm+pt Perm Perm Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 8 4 Permitted Phases 2 6 8 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 29.8 29.2 29.8 29.2 12.6 12.6 Effective Green, g(s) 29.8 29.7 29.8 29.7 12.6 12.6 III Actuated g/C Ratio 0.55 0.55 . 0.55 0.55 0.23 0.23 Clearance Time (s) 3.5 4.5 3.5 4.5 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 1.0 4.3 1.0 4.3 2.5 1.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 326 1930 199 1851 375 330 v/s Ratio Prot c0.00 c0.30 0.00 0.23 0.00 v/s Ratio Perm 0.03 0.01 c0.15 v/c Ratio 0.06 0.56 0.03 0.42 0.00 0.65 Uniform Delay, dl 6.8 8.1 6.1 7.3 16.1 18.9 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 • 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.2 0.0 3.5 Delay(s) 6.8 8.5 6.1 7.5 16.1 22.4 Level of Service A A A A B C Approach Delay(s) 8.5 7.5 16.1 22.4 Approach LOS . A A B C Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 9.7 HCM Level of Service A HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.58 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 54.4 Sum of lost time(s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 56.3% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) . 15 c Critical Lane Group Durham Synchro 6 Report III 2015 AMAIt1 Page 2 HCM Unsignalized Intersectionnapacity Analysis 9: Durham & DKS Associates • Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations '1 11) ) ft) ) 1 4 Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Volume(veh/h) 2 1045 125 62 746 0 69 0 54 11 0 14 Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly flow rate (vph) 2 1045 125 62 746 0 69 0 54 11 0 14 Pedestrians 12 14 Lane Width(ft) 12.0 12.0 Walking Speed (ft/s) 4.0 4.0 Percent Blockage 1 1 Right turn flare(veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) 1046 626 pX,platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 760 1182 1634 2008 597 1464 2070 387 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol - vCu, unblocked vol 760 1182 1634 2008 597 1464 2070 387 tC, single(s) 4.1 4.1 7.5 6.5 6.9 7.5 6.5 6.9 tC,2 stage (s) tF(s) 2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 p0 queue free % 100 90 0 100 88 85 100 98 • cM capacity(veh/h) 851 592 60 52 447 72 48 610 Direction, Lane# EB 1 EB 2 EB 3 WB 1 WB 2 WB 3 NB 1 NB 2 SB 1 Volume Total 2 697 473 62 497 249 69 54 25 Volume Left 2 0 0 62 0 0 69 0 11 Volume Right 0 0 125 0 0 0 0 54 14 cSH 851 1700 1700 592 1700 1700 60 447, 142 Volume to Capacity 0.00 0.41 0.28 0.10 0.29 0.15 1.16 0.12 0.18 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 0 9 0 0 143 10 15 Control Delay(s) 9.2 0.0 0.0 11.8 0.0 0.0 282.0 14.2 35.8 Lane LOS A B F B E Approach Delay(s) 0.0 0.9 164.4 35.8 Approach LOS F E • Intersection Summary Average Delay 10.3 Intersection Capacity Utilization 54.6% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period(min) 15 0urham Synchro 6 Report 015 AM Alt 1 Page 1 HCM Signalized IntersectioCapacity Analysis • 1: Durham & Hall DKS Associates " ---► . ' f 4- k% 4\ t P \. i d • Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 1 44) vi tt r ' + r vi t. r Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 . 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.93 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.98 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Fit Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow(prot) 1752 3436 1687 3374 1404 1612 1696 1414 1736 1827 1526 Fit Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 1752 3436 1687 3374 1404 1612 1696 1414 1736 1827 1526 Volume(vph) 144 529 60 286 440 111 136 496 54 589 404 304 Peak-hour factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj. Flow(vph) 144 529 60 286 440 111 136 496 54 589 404 304 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 9 0 0 0 61 0 0 35 0 0 99 Lane Group Flow(vph) 144 580 0 286 440 50 136 496 19 589 404 205 Conti. Peds. (#/hr) 7 35 5 8 8 5 Heavy Vehicles (%) 3% 3% 3% 7% 7% 7% 12% 12% 12% 4% 4% 4% Turn Type Prot Prot pm+ov Prot Perm Prot pm+ov Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 7 3 8 7 4 5 Permitted Phases 6 8 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 13.2 32.9 8.0 27.7 54.7 13.5 37.6 37.6 27.0 50.6 63.8 Effective Green, g (s) 13.2 33.4 8.0 28.2 55.2 13.5 37.6 37.6 27.0 51.1 64.3 • Actuated g/C Ratio 0.11 0.27 0.07 0.23 0.45 0.11 0.31 0.31 0.22 0.42 0.53 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.5 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 1.0 2.5 1.0 2.5 1.0 1.0 2.2 2.2 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 190 941 111 780 681 178 523 436 384 765 854 v/s Ratio Prot c0.08 c0.17 c0.17 0.13 0.02 0.08 c0.29 c0.34 0.22 0.03 v/s Ratio Perm 0.02 0.01 0.11 v/c Ratio 0.76 0.62 2.58 0.56 0.07 0.76 0.95 0.04 1.53 0.53 0.24 Uniform Delay, dl 52.8 38.7 57.0 41.5 18.9 52.7 41.3 29.6 47.5 26.5 15.6 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 0.97 0.97 1.42 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 14.2 3.0 734.5 2.9 0.0 15.9 26.5 0.0 253.0 0.3 0.1 Delay(s) 67.0 41.7 790.0 43.1 26.8 68.6 67.7 29.6 300.5 26.8 15.7 Level of Service E D F DC E E C F CB Approach Delay(s) 46.7 296.2 64.9 148.5 Approach LOS D F E F Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 146.1 HCM Level of Service F HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 1.09 Actuated Cycle Length(s) 122.0 Sum of lost time(s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 104.5% ICU Level of Service G Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Durham Synchro 6 Report III 2015 AM Alt 1 .-5 ` Page 1 "711- Zed • • HCM Signalized Intersection C!acity Analysis 2: Durham & 79th DKS Associates • i' - • ♦ f-- 4 " 4\ t P \► 1 I Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 'I f4, 'I 410 4 4 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 • Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 .1.00 0.86 0.96 Fit Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.97 Satd. Flow(prot) 1767 3535 1703 3389 1617 1729 Flt Permitted 0.33 1.00 0.24 1.00 1.00 0.79 Satd. Flow(perm) . 615 3535 422 3389 1617 1420 Volume(vph) 20 1068 8 5 758 20 .0 0 1 158 0 71 Peak-hour factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj. Flow(vph) 20 1068 8 5 758 20 0 0 1 158 0 71 RTOR Reduction(vph) 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 17 0 Lane Group Flow(vph) 20 1076 0 5 777 0 0 0 0 0 212 0 Conti. Peds. (#/hr) 5 1 1 5 2 2 2 2 Heavy Vehicles (%) 2% 2% 2% 6% 6% 6% 0% 0% 0% 1% 1% 1% Turn Type pm+pt pm+pt Perm Perm Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 8 4 Permitted Phases 2 6 8 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 90.5 88.9 88.9 88.1 20.3 20.3 Effective Green, g (s) 90.5 89.4 88.9 88.6 20.3 20.3 ctuated g/C Ratio 0.74 0.73 0.73 0.73 0.17 0.17 Clearance Time (s) 3.5 4.5 3.5 4.5 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 1.0 4.3 1.0 4.3 2.5 1.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 467 2590 311 2461 269 236 v/s Ratio Prot c0.00 c0.30 0.00 0.23 0.00 v/s Ratio Perm 0.03 0.01 c0.15 v/c Ratio 0.04 0.42 0.02 0.32 0.00 0.90 Uniform Delay,d1 4.3 6.3 4.9 5.9 42.4 49.9 Progression Factor 0.10 0.07 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.3 0.0 32.1 Delay(s) 0.4 0.9 4.9 6.3 42.4 81.9 Level of Service A A A A D F Approach Delay(s) 0.9 6.3 42.4 81.9 Approach LOS A A D F Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 11.7 HCM Level of Service . B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.49 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 122.0 Sum of lost time(s) 8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 56.3% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Durham Synchro 6 Report 2015 AM Alt 1 f,`.?n.-.('fie J Page 2 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis • 9: Durham & DKS Associates -► C ~ k- 41 t P \* i 4/ III Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 1 II+ '1 ?. I II to 4+ Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Fipb,ped/bikes 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.92 Fit Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.98 Satd. Flow(prot) 1794 3466 1803 3505 1805 1615 1719 Flt Permitted 0.37 1.00 0.21 1.00 0.74 1.00 0.87 Satd. Flow(perm) 696 3466 395 3505 1408 1615 1526 Volume(vph) 2 1045 125 62 746 0 69 0 54 11 0 14 Peak-hour factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj. Flow(vph) 2 1045 125 62 746 0 69 0 54 11 0 14 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 4 0 0 0 . 0 0 50 0 0 13 0 Lane Group Flow(vph) 2 1166 0 62 746 0 69 4 0 0 12 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 14 12 12 14 Heavy Vehicles (%) 0% 2% 0% 0% 3% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Turn Type pm+pt pm+pt Perm Perm Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 2 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 96.3 95.2 104.3 99.2 9.7 9.7 9.7 Effective Green, g (s) 96.3 95.2 104.3 99.2 9.7 9.7 9.7 411 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.79 0.78 0.85 0.81 0.08 0.08 0.08 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 559 2705 397 2850 112 128 121 v/s Ratio Prot 0.00 c0.34 c0.01 0.21 0.00 v/s Ratio Perm 0.00 0.13 c0.05 0.01 v/c Ratio 0.00 0.43 0.16 0.26 0.62 0.03 0.10 Uniform Delay, dl 2.7 4.4 2.2 2.7 54.3 51.8 52.1 Progression Factor 0.05 0.06 1.38 0.89 1.00 1.00 1.00 incremental Delay, d2 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.2 9.7 0.1 0.4 Delay(s) 0.1 0.3 3.3 2.6 64.0 51.9 52.5 Level of Service A A A A E D • D Approach Delay(s) 0.3 2.7 58.7 52.5 • Approach LOS A A E D Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 5.2 . HCM Level of Service A HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.44 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 122.0 Sum of lost time(s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 54.6% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 • c Critical Lane Group Durham Synchro 6 Report III 2015 AM Alt 1 ,s-:7,‘,. \,-7 e d Page 3 • HCM Signalized Intersection C acity Analysis 1: Durham & Hall DKS Associates • t -. C '- k* 4\ t P `► 1 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 11 ft+ 1 tt r vi t ? vivi + r Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.92 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.98 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow(prot) 1752 3437 1687 3374 1392 1612 1696 1414 3367 1827 1527 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 1752 3437 1687 3374 1392 1612 1696 1414 3367 1827 1527 Volume(vph) 144 529 60 286 440 86 136 496 54 553 404 304 Peak-hour factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj. Flow(vph) 144 529 60 286 440 86 136 496 54 553 404 304 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 7 0 0 0 48 : 0 0 35 0 0 67 Lane Group Flow(vph) 144 582 0 286 440 38 136 496 19 553 404 237 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 7 35 5 8 8 5 Heavy Vehicles (%) 3% 3% 3% 7% 7% 7% 12% 12% 12% 4% 4% 4% - Turn Type Prot Prot pm+ov Prot Perm Prot pm+ov Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 7 3 8 7 4 5 Permitted Phases 6 8 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 12.8 22.3 20.7 30.2 50.7 12.1 35.5 35.5 20.5 43.4 56.2 Effective Green, g (s) 12.8 22.8 20.7 30.7 51.2 12.1 35.5 35.5 20.5 43.9 56.7 ctuated g/C Ratio 0.11 0.20 0.18 0.27 0.44 0.10 0.31 0.31 0.18 0.38 0.49 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.5 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 1.0 2.5 1.0 2.5 3.0 1.0 2.2 2.2 3.0 1.0 1.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 194 678 302 897 665 169 521 435 598 694 803 v/s Ratio Prot 0.08 c0.17 c0.17 0.13 0.01 0.08 c0.29 c0.16 0.22 0.03. v/s Ratio Perm 0.02 0.01 0.12 v/c Ratio 0.74 0.86 0.95 0.49 0.06 0.80 0.95 0.04 0.92 0.58 0.29 Uniform Delay, dl 49.8 44.8 46.9 35.8 18.4 50.5 39.2 28.1 46.7 28.5 17.5 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 12.5 10.4 37.1 0.3 0.0 22.4 27.5 0.0 20.2 0.8 0.1 Delay(s) 62.3 55.1 . 84.0 36.1 18.4 72.9 66.7 28.1 66.9 29.3 17.6 Level of Service E E F 0 B E E C E C B Approach Delay(s) 56.5 51.1 64.9 43.0 Approach LOS E D E D Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 52.0 HCM Level of Service D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.92 Actuated Cycle Length(s) 115.5 Sum of lost time(s) 16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 87.7% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15 . c Critical Lane Group 0urham Synchro 6 Report 15 AM Alt 2 Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: Durham & 79th DKS Associates t -• � c •-- 4%-- 4\ t P `► i 4/ 0 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 1 411, I ?r. A 4 ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.94 0.97 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.98 0.97 Satd. Flow(prot) 1768 3486 1703 3389 1746 1765 Flt Permitted 0.34 1.00 0.14 1.00 0.86 0.78 Satd. Flow(perm) 634 3486 252 3389 1520 1418 Volume(vph) 19 1015 97 44 701 20 44 26 54 158 59 66 Peak-hour factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj. Flow(vph) 19 1015 97 44 701 20 44 26 54 158 59 66 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 7 0 0 2 0 0 20 0 0 8 0 Lane Group Flow(vph) 19 1105 0 44 719 0 0 104 0 0 275 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 5 1 1 5 2 2 2 2 Heavy Vehicles (%) 2% 2% 2% 6% 6% 6% 0% 0% 0% 1% 1% 1% Turn Type pm+pt pm+pt Perm Perm Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 8 4 Permitted Phases 2 6 8 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 30.5 29.8 34.1 31.6 20.6 20.6 Effective Green, g (s) 30.5 30.3 34.1 32.1 20.6 20.6 • Actuated g/C Ratio 0.47 0.47 0.53 0.49 0.32 0.32 Clearance Time (s) 3.5 4.5 3.5 4.5 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 1.0 4.3 1.0 4.3 2.5 1.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 301 1628 177 1676 482 450 v/s Ratio Prot 0.00 c0.32 c0.01 0.21 v/s Ratio Perm 0.03 0.12 0.07 c0.19 v/c Ratio 0.06 0.68 0.25 0.43 0.21 0.61 Uniform Delay, dl 10.1 13.5 9.3 10.5 16.2 18.8 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.0 1.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 1.7 Delay(s) 10.1 14.8 9.6 10.8 16.4 20.5 Level of Service B B A B B C Approach Delay(s) 14.7 10.7 16.4 20.5 Approach LOS B B B C Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 14.2 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.69 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 64.9 Sum of lost time(s) 16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 65.8% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Durham Synchro 6 Report III 215 AMAIt2 Page2 2_0 1 s Hip itk.kid zoir • HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: Durham & Hall DKS Associates 0 --'' -■ C ' k.- 4\ t , \v, 1 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations I +I) >i t a t rr 1 + rr l l t e r Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.96 1.00. 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.96 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow(prot) 1719 3389 1770 3539 1525 1736 1827 1503 1703 1792 1468 Fit Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 1719 3389 1770 3539 1525 1736 1827 1503 1703 1792 1468 Volume(vph) 209 479 34 243 841 367 122 439 56 319 301 261 Peak-hour factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj. Flow(vph) 209 479 34 243 841 367 122 439 56 319 301 261 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 6 0 0 0 51 0 0 42 0 0 79 Lane Group Flow(vph) 209 507 0 243 841 316 122 439 14 319 301 182 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 18 18 26 17 17 26 Heavy Vehicles (%) 5% 5% 5% 2% 2% 2% 4% 4% 4% 6% 6% 6% Turn Type Prot Prot pm+ov Prot Perm Prot pm+ov Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 7 3 8 7 4 5 Permitted Phases 6 8 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 11.0 21.1 . 13.0 23.1 40.1 9.4 22.0 22.0 17.0 29.1 40.1 Effective Green, g (s) 11.0 21.6 13.0 23.6 40.6 9.4 22.0 22.0 17.0 29.6 40.6 �ctuated g/C Ratio 0.12 0.24 , 0.15 0.26 0.45 0.10 0.25 0.25 0.19 0.33 0.45 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.5 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 1.0 2.5 1.0 2.5 1.0 1.0 2.2 2.2 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 211 817 257 932 759 182 449 369 323 592 731 v/s Ratio Prot 0.12 0.15 c0.14 c0.24 0.08 0.07 c0.24 c0.19 0.17 0.03 v/s Ratio Perm 0.13 0.01 0.09 v/c Ratio 0.99 0.62 0.95 0.90 0.42 0.67 0.98 0.04 0.99 0.51 0.25 Uniform Delay,dl 39.2 30.3 37.9 31.9 16.5 38.6 33.6 25.7 36.2 24.1 15.1 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 59.0 1.3 40.7 11.8 0.1 7.4 36.2 0.0 46.2 0.3 0.1 Delay(s) 98.3 31.6 78.7 43.7 16.6 46.0 69.8 25.8 82.4 24.4 15.2 Level of Service F C E D B D EC F C B Approach Delay(s) 50.9 42.7 61.1 42.6 Approach LOS D D E D Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 47.4 HCM Level of Service D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.92 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 89.6 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 88.9% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period(min) 15 . • c Critical Lane Group Surham Synchro 6 Report • 2015 Mid Alt 1 Page 1 • HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: Durham & 79th DKS Associates f -. - ‘ ♦- k- 4\ t / i 1 • Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 1 11+ 1 ?i 4 4 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 0.89 0.94 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.99 0.97 Satd. Flow(prot) 1736 3469 1768 3517 1671 1652 Flt Permitted 0.14 1.00 0.35 1.00 0.97 0.83 Satd. Flow(perm) 263 3469 648 3517 1631 1414 Volume(vph) 45 800 3 1 1387 52 1 0 5 42 0 39 Peak-hour factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj. Flow(vph) 45 800 3 1 1387 52 1 0 5 42 0 39 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 5 0 0 33 0 Lane Group Flow(vph) 45 803 0 1 1438 0 0 1 0 0 48 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 2 3 3 2 3 3 Heavy Vehicles (%) 4% 4% 4% 2% 2% 2% 0% 0% 0% 4% 4% 4% Turn Type pm+pt pm+pt Perm Perm Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 8 4 Permitted Phases 2 6 8 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 58.1 55.8 54.7 54.1 6.3 6.3 Effective Green, g (s) 58.1 56.3 54.7 54.6 6.3 6.3 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.78 0.75 0.73 0.73 0.08 0.08 ID Clearance Time (s) 3.5 4.5 3.5 4.5 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 1.0 4.3 1.0 4.3 2.5 1.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 240 2615 476 2571 138 119 v/s Ratio Prot c0.00 0.23 0.00 c0.41 v/s Ratio Perm 0.14 0.00 0.00 c0.03 v/c Ratio 0.19 0.31 0.00 0.56 0.01 0.40 Uniform Delay, dl 3.1 2.9 2.7 4.6 31.3 32.4 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1 MO 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.8 Delay(s) 3.2 3.1 2.7 4.9 31.4 33.2 Level of Service A A A A C C Approach Delay(s) 3.1 4.9 31.4 33.2 Approach LOS A A C C Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 5.3 HCM Level of Service A HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.57 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 74.7 Sum of lost time (s) 16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 58.5% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period(min) 15 c Critical Lane Group • Durham Synchro 6 Report III 2015 Mid Alt 1 Page2 • HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 9: Durham & DKS Associates f c 4-- • k- 4\ t 4/ Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations " ?T +1.) t 4 Sign Control Free Free Stop . Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Volume(veh/h) 11 803 40 25 1393 5 42 0 29 2 0 4 Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly flow rate (vph) 11 803 40 25 1393 5 42 0 29 2 0 4 Pedestrians 7 4 Lane Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 Walking Speed(ft/s) 4.0 4.0 Percent Blockage 1 0 Right turn flare(veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) 1065 606 pX, platoon unblocked 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 vC, conflicting volume 1402 850 1602 2304 428 1902 2322 703 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 1274 850 1517 2369 428 1881 2390 425 tC, single(s) 4.1 4.1 7.5 6.5 6.9 7.5 6.5 6.9 tC, 2 stage(s) tF (s) 2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 p0 queue free% 98 97 35 100 95 94 100 99 OM capacity(veh/h) 453 792 64 27 577 33 26 479 Direction, Lane# EB 1 EB 2 EB 3 WB 1 WB 2 WB 3 NB 1 NB 2 SB 1 Volume Total 11 535 308 25 929 469 42 29 6 Volume Left 11 0 0 25 0 0 42 0 2 Volume Right 0 0 40 0 0 5 0 29 4 cSH 453 1700 1700 792 1700 1700 64 577 87 Volume to Capacity 0.02 0.31 0.18 0.03 0.55 0.28 0.65 0.05 0.07 Queue Length 95th (ft) 2 0 0 2 0 0 70 4 5 Control Delay(s) 13.1 0.0 0.0 9.7 0.0 0.0 132.8 11.6 49.4 Lane LOS B A F B E Approach Delay(s) 0.2 0.2 83.3 49.4 Approach LOS F E Intersection Summary Average Delay 2.8 Intersection Capacity Utilization 51.2% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period(min) 15 aurham Synchro 6 Report 2015 Mid Alt 1 Page 1 • HCM Signalized Intersecti.apacity Analysis • 1: Durham & Hall DKS Associates f -. f 4-- ,- 4\ t t \* 1 • Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 1 ft 1 ft r 1 4, r 11 4 r Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.94 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.96 Fipb, ped/bikes 1.00 .1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt. 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 FIt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow(prot) 1719 3386 1770 3539 1492 1736 1827 1507 1703 1792 1456 FIt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 1719 3386 1770 3539 1492 1736 1827 1507 1703 1792 1456 Volume (vph) 209 479 34 243 841 367 122 439 56 319 301 261 Peak-hour factor,PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj. Flow(vph) 209 479 34 243 841 367 122 439 56 319 301 261 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 4 0 0 0 91 0 0 40 0 0 77 Lane Group Flow(vph) 209 509 0 243 841 276 122 439 16 319 301 184 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 18 18 26 17 17 26 Heavy Vehicles (%) 5% 5% 5% 2% 2% 2% 4% 4% 4% 6% 6% 6% Turn Type Prot Prot pm+ov Prot Perm Prot pm+ov Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 7 3 8 7 4 5 Permitted Phases 6 8 4 Actuated Green,G (s) 17.1 44.9 10.8 38.6 53.7 11.7 34.7 34.7 15.1 37.6 54.7 Effective Green,g(s) 17.1 45.4 10.8 39.1 54.2 11.7 34.7 34.7 15.1 38.1 55.2 • Actuated g/C Ratio 0.14 0.37 0.09 0.32 0.44 0.10 0.28 0.28 0.12 0.31 0.45 Clearance Time(s) 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.5 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 1.0 2.5 1.0 2.5 1.0 1.0 2.2 2.2 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 241 1260 157 1134 712 166 520 429 211 560 707 v/s Ratio Prot c0.12 0.15 c0.14 c0.24 0.05 0.07 c0.24 c0.19 c0.17 0.04 v/s Ratio Perm 0.14 0.01 0.09 v/c Ratio 0.87 0.40 1.55 0.74 0.39 0.73 0.84 0.04 1.51 0.54 0.26 Uniform Delay, dl 51.3 28.3 55.6 36.9 22.8 53.6 41.1 31.6 53.4 34.7 20.7 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.14 0.85 0.64 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 25.6 1.0 273.0 4.0 0.1 13.5 11.6 0.0 253.2 0.5 0.1 Delay(s) 76.9 29.3 336.5 35.5 14.7 67.1 52.7 31.6 306.7 35.2 20.8 Level of Service E C F D B E D C F D C Approach Delay(s) 43.1 80.6 53.6 129.2 Approach LOS D F D F Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 80.4 HCM Level of Service F HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.98 Actuated Cycle Length(s) 122.0 Sum of lost time(s) 20.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 88.9% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Durham Synchro 6 Report • 2015 Mid Alt 1 - 5 l;5n...t.2e) Page 1 • • HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: Durham & 79th DKS Associates • -IP' -N fr. 4- 4N" 4\ t tab \* i d Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 'j 4'3, 1 ft) 4 4 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 0.89 0.94 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.99 0.97 Satd. Flow(prot) 1735 3469 1768 3517 1671 1651 Flt Permitted 0.16 1.00 0.35 1.00 0.97 0.83 Satd. Flow(perm) 290 3469 648 3517 1630 1412 Volume (vph) 45 800 3 1 1387 52 1 0 5 42 0 39 Peak-hour factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj. Flow(vph) 45 800 3 1 1387 52 1 0 5 42 0 39 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 5 0 0 32 0 Lane Group Flow(vph) 45 803 0 1 1438 0 0 1 0 0 49 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 2 3 3 2 3 3 Heavy Vehicles (%) 4% 4% 4% 2% 2% 2% 0% 0% . 0% 4% 4% 4% Turn Type pm+pt pm+pt Perm Perm Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 8 4 Permitted Phases 2 6 8 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 104.2 101.4 100.0 99.3 7.9 7.9 �Effective Green, g (s) 104.2 101.9 100.0 99.8 7.9 7.9 ctuated g/C Ratio 0.85 0.84 0.82 0.82 0.06 0.06 Clearance Time(s) 3.5 4.5 3.5 4.5 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 1.0 4.3 1.0 4.3 2.5 1.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 275 2897 533 2877 106 91 v/s Ratio Prot c0.00 0.23 0.00 c0.41 v/s Ratio Perm 0.14 0.00 0.00 c0.03 v/c Ratio 0.16 0.28 0.00 0.50 0.01 0.54 Uniform Delay, dl 2.3 2.2 2.0 3.4 53.4 55.3 Progression Factor 1.38 0.30 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.6 0.0 3.5 Delay(s) 3.3 0.9 2.0 4.0 53.4 58.8 Level of Service A A A A D E Approach Delay(s) 1.0 4.0 53.4 58.8 Approach LOS A A D E • Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 4.9 HCM Level of Service A HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.51 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 122.0 Sum of lost time(s) 16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 58.5% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period(min) 15 c Critical Lane Group aurham Synchro 6 Report Yn P 2015 MidAltl -- c-rs .�tiZed Page 2 HCM Signalized Intersecticapacity Analysis 9: Durham & DKS Associates f --• -%* (- I- *4 ' 4\ t t \** 1 0 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 1 t) 'I 11, 1 T. 4 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flpb,ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.91 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.98 Satd. Flow(prot) 1805 3414 1801 3503 1805 1615 1701 Flt Permitted 0.17 1.00 0.32 1.00 0.75 1.00 0.92 Satd. Flow(perm) 331 3414 608 3503 1432 1615 1588 Volume(vph) 11 803 40 25 1393 5 42 0 29 2 0 4 Peak-hour factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj. Flow(vph) 11 803 40 25 1393 5 42 0 29 2 0 4 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 27 0 0 4 0 Lane Group Flow(vph) 11 842 0 25 1398 0 42 2 0 0 2 0 Conti. Peds. (#/hr) 4 7 7 4 Heavy Vehicles (%) 0% 5% 0% 0% 3% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Turn Type pm+pt pm+pt Perm Perm Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 2 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 6 Actuated Green,G (s) 101.2 100.1 103.4 101.2 7.7 7.7 7.7 Effective Green,g(s) 101.2 100.1 103.4 101.2 7.7 7.7 7.7 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.83 0.82 0.85 0.83 0.06 0.06 0.06 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension(s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 288 2801 537 2906 90 102 100 v/s Ratio Prot 0.00 0.25 c0.00 c0.40 0.00 v/s Ratio Perm 0.03 0.04 c0.03 0.00 v/c Ratio 0.04 0.30 0.05 0.48 0.47 0.02 0.02 Uniform Delay, dl 2.1 2.6 1.5 3.0 55.2 53.6 53.6 Progression Factor 0.58 0.65 0.39 0.82 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.5 3.8 0.1 0.1 Delay(s) 1.3 1.9 0.6 2.9 59.0 53.7 53.7 Level of Service A A A A E D D Approach Delay(s) 1.8 2.9 56.8 53.7 Approach LOS A A E 0 Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 4.3 HCM Level of Service A HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.46 Actuated Cycle Length(s) 122.0 Sum of lost time(s) 8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 51.2% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period(min) 15 c Critical Lane Group • Durham Synchro 6 Report 110 2015 Mid Alt 1 - 5,���t;z e i Page 3 • • HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: Durham & Hall DKS Associates III -#4 --. Ni, c 4-- 4%-- 4\ t , \* 4/ Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations '1 fet• 1 ft r 1 4 r 4 r Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.97 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Fit Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow(prot) 1719 3390 1770 .3539 1508 1736 1827 1504 1703 1792 1477 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 1719 3390 1770 3539 1508 1736 1827 1504 1703 1792 1477 Volume (vph) 209 479 34 243 841 352 122 439 56 308 301 261 Peak-hour factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj. Flow(vph) 209 479 34 243 841 352 122 439 56 308 301 261 RTOR Reduction(vph) 0 4 0 0 0 97 0 0 42 0 0 83 Lane Group Flow(vph) 209 509 0 243 841 255 122 439 14 308 301 178 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 18 18 26 17 17 26 Heavy Vehicles(%) 5% 5% 5% 2% 2% 2% 4% 4% 4% 6% 6% 6% Turn Type Prot Prot pm+ov Prot Perm Prot pm+ov Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 7 3 8 7 4 5 Permitted Phases 6 8 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 13.5 31.2 8.7 26.4 35.1 8.3 22.2 22.2 8.7 22.1 35.6 �Effective Green, g(s) 13.5 31.7 8.7 26.9 35.6 8.3 22.2 22.2 8.7 22.6 36.1 ctuated g/C Ratio 0.15 0.36 0.10 0.31 0.41 0.10 0.25 0.25 0.10 0.26 0.41 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.5 4.0 Vehicle Extension(s) 1.0 2.5 1.0 2.5 1.0 1.0 2.2 2.2 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 266 1231 176 1090 684 165 465 382 170 464 678 v/s Ratio Prot c0.12 0.15 c0.14 c0.24 0.04 0.07 c0.24 c0.18 0.17 0.04 v/s Ratio Perm 0.13 0.01 0.08 v/c Ratio 0.79 0.41 1.38 0.77 0.37 0.74 0.94 0.04 1.81 0.65 0.26 Uniform Delay,dl 35.5 20.8 39.3 27.4 18.1 38.4 31.9 24.5 39.3 28.8 16.8 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 13.1 0.2 202.7 3.3 0.1 13.8 27.8 0.0 387.6 2.3 0.1 Delay(s) 48.6 21.0 242.0 30.7 18.2 52.3 59.8 24.5 426.9 31.2 16.9 Level of Service D C F C BD EC F CB Approach Delay(s) 29.0 63.4 55.1 167.0 Approach LOS C E E F Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 79.9 HCM Level of Service E HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 1.01 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 87.3 Sum of lost time(s) 16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 88.3% ICU Level of Service . E Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group aurham Synchro 6 Report 2015 Mid Alt 2 Page 1 • • , , HCM Signalized Intersect,Capacity Analysis 2: Durham & 79th DKS Associates f i 1" ti I* P \* 1 • Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations ) t' ii +I+ 4 4+ Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s). 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 .0.95 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 0.94 0.95 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.98 0.98 Satd. Flow(prot) 1736 3447 1768 3517 1756 1686 Flt Permitted 0.15 1.00 0.35 1.00 0.85 0.88 Satd. Flow(perm) 267 3447 644 3517 1523 1509 Volume(vph) 44 772 32 18 1363 52 28 16 33 42 19 38 Peak-hour factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj. Flow(vph) 44 772 32 18 1363 52 28 16 33 42 19 38 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 26 0 0 22 0 Lane Group Flow(vph) 44 802 0 18 1414 0 0 51 0 0 77 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 2 3 3 2 3 3 Heavy Vehicles (%) 4% 4% 4% 2% 2% 2% 0% 0% 0% 4% 4% 4% Turn Type pm+pt pm+pt Perm Perm Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 8 4 Permitted Phases 2 6 8 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 53.7 51.5 50.7 50.0 6.6 6.6 Effective Green, g (s) 53.7 52.0 50.7 50.5 6.6 6.6 1111 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.76 0.73 0.72 0.71 0.09 0.09 Clearance Time (s) 3.5 4.5 3.5 4.5 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 1.0 4.3 1.0 4.3 2.5 1.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 238 2532 464 2509 142 141 v/s Ratio Prot c0.00 0.23 0.00 c0.40 v/s Ratio Perm 0.14 0.03 0.03 c0.05 v/c Ratio 0.18 0.32 0.04 0.56 0.36 0.55 Uniform Delay,dl 3.3 3.3 2.9 4.9 30.1 30.7 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.4 1.1 2.3 Delay(s) 3.4 3.4 2.9 5.3 31.2 33.0 Level of Service A A A A C C Approach Delay(s) 3.4 5.2 31.2 33.0 Approach LOS A A C C Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 6.5 HCM Level of Service A HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.55 Actuated Cycle Length(s) 70.8 Sum of lost time(s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 54.6% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min). 15 c Critical Lane Group Durham Synchro 6 Report • 2015 Mid Alt 2 Page 2 •ZUIc Ph HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis • 1: Durham & Hall - DKS Associates III t -. `N c k. 4\ t P \. 1 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations li 11, r 1 t r 1 + r Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Fit Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow(prot) 1770 3484 1787 3574 1554 1770 1863 1583 1770 1863 1549 Fit Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 1770 3484 1787 3574 1554 1770 1863 1583 1770 1863 1549 Volume(vph) 199 442 51 241 923 384 115 427 46 349 341 333 Peak-hour factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj. Flow(vph) 199 442 51 241 923 384 115 427 46 349 341 333 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 7 0 0 0 61 0 0 35 0 0 61 Lane Group Flow(vph) 199 486 0 241 923 323 115 427 11 349 341 272 Confi. Peds. (#/hr) 9 9 9 Heavy Vehicles(%) 2% 2% 2% 1% 1% 1% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% Turn Type Prot Prot pm+ov Prot Perm Prot pm+ov Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 7 3 8 7 4 5 Permitted Phases 6 8 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 13.8 28.3 18.0 32.5 56.2 10.6 28.5 28.5 23.7 41.1 54.9 Effective Green, g (s) 13.8 28.8 18.0 33.0 56.7 10.6 28.5 28.5 23.7 41.6 55.4 IIIIctuated g/C Ratio 0.12 0.25 0.16 0.29 0.49 0.09 0.25 0.25 0.21 0.36 0.48 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.5 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 1.0 2.5 1.0 2.5 1.0 1.0 2.2 2.2 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 212 873 280 1026 820 163 462 392 365 674 800 v/s Ratio Prot 0.11 0.14 c0.13 c0.26 0.08 0.06 c0.23 c0.20 0.18 0.04 v/s Ratio Perm 0.13 0.01 0.13 v/c Ratio 0.94 0.56 0.86 0.90 0.39 0.71 0.92 0.03 0.96 0.51 0.34 Uniform Delay, dl 50.2 37.5 47.3 39.4 18.3 50.7 42.2 32.8 45.1 28.7 18.5 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,d2 43.9 0.6 22.0 10.5 0.1 10.8 24.0 0.0 35.2 0.2 0.1 Delay(s) 94.0 38.2 69.3 49.9 18.5 61.5 66.2 32.8 80.3 28.9 18.6 Level of Service F D E D B E E C F C B Approach Delay(s) 54.2 45.1 62.7 43.1 Approach LOS D D E D Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 48.9 HCM Level of Service D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.90 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 115.0 Sum of lost time(s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 91.7% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period(min) 15 c Critical Lane Group orham Synchro 6 Report 2015 PM Alt 1 Page 1 HCM Signalized IntersectiolCapacity Analysis • 2: Durham & 79th DKS Associates IA --• C4 4\ t \* 4 4/ • Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 'I >I +1+ 4+ 4+ Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 4.0 4.0 . 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.96 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.97 0.97 Satd. Flow(prot) 1770 3537 3503 1833 1717 Flt Permitted 0.11 1.00 1.00 0.89 0.79 Satd. Flow(perm) 201 3537 3503 1686 1398 Volume(vph) 32 804 3 0 1498 109 6 3 0 60 0 26 Peak-hour factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj. Flow(vph) 32 804 3 0 1498 109 6 3 0 60 0 26 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 13 0 Lane Group Flow(vph) 32 807 0 0 1604 0 0 9 0 0 73 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 2 2 4 4 Heavy Vehicles (%) 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 0% 0% 0% 2% 2% 2% Turn Type pm+pt pm+pt Perm Perm Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 8 4 Permitted Phases 2 6 8 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 64.5 64.5 58.8 8.1 8.1 Effective Green, g(s) 65.0 65.0 59.3 8.1 8.1 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.80 0.80 0.73 0.10 0.10 III Clearance Time(s) 3.5 4.5 4.5 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 1.0 4.3 4.3 2.5 1.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 194 2835 2561 168 140 v/s Ratio Prot 0.00 c0.23 c0.46 v/s Ratio Perm 0.13 0.01 c0.05 v/c Ratio 0.16 0.28 0.63 0.05 0.52 Uniform Delay,d1 4.2 2.1 5.4 33.0 34.7 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.1 0.1 0.6 0.1 1.6 Delay(s) 4.4 2.2 6.0 33.1 36.3 Level of Service A A A C D Approach Delay(s) 2.2 6.0 33.1 36.3 Approach LOS A A C D Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 5.9 HCM Level of Service A HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.61 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 81.1 Sum of lost time(s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 58.6% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Durham Synchro 6 Report 111 2015 PM Alt 1 Page 2 • • • HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis • 9: Durham & DKS Associates -► c 4- < 4\ T f• \* l 4 Movement EBL EBT • EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations ' ft ) ft0 1 . t, 4 Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Volume(veh/h) 6 821 10 6 1522 10 16 0 9 5 0 5 Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly flow rate (vph) 6 821 10 6 1522 10 16 0 9 5 0 5 Pedestrians 8 Lane Width (ft) 12.0 Walking Speed (ft/s) 4.0 Percent Blockage 1 Right turn flare(veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) 1073 598 pX, platoon unblocked 0.76 0.98 0.77 0.77 0.98 0.77 0.77 0.76 vC,conflicting volume 1540 831 1616 2390 416 1978 2390 774 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2,stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 1395 • 813 1440 2448 391 1912 2448 388 tC,single(s) 4.4 4.1 7.5 6.5 6.9 7.5 6.5 6.9 tC, 2 stage(s) tF (s) 2.4 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 p0 queue free % 98 99 77 100 99 84 100 99 ScM capacity(veh/h) 314 810 70 23 604 31 23 466 Direction, Lane# EB 1 EB 2 EB 3 WB 1 WB 2 WB 3 NB 1 NB 2 SB 1 Volume Total 6 547 284 6 1015 517 16 9 10 Volume Left 6 0 0 6 0 0 16 0 5 Volume Right 0 0 10 0 0 10 0 9 5 cSH 314 1700 1700 810 1700 1700 70 604 58 Volume to Capacity 0.02 0.32 0.17 0.01 0.60 0.30 0.23 0.01 0.17 Queue Length 95th (ft) 1 0 0 1 0 0 20 1 14 Control Delay(s) 16.7 0.0 0.0 9.5 0.0 0.0 70.5 11.0 79.6 Lane LOS C A F B F Approach Delay(s) 0.1 0.0 49.1 79.6 Approach LOS E F Intersection Summary Average Delay 0.9 Intersection Capacity Utilization 54.2% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period(min) 15 4 Synchro 6 Report 2015 PM Alt 1 Page 1 • • HCM Signalized Intersectior'fCapacity Analysis 1: Durham & Hall DKS Associates C 4*- t 4\ t / ' l' d • Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations ii ft) ) f4 r ) 1' r vi 1 r Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1:00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow(prot) 1770 3484 1787 3574 1549 1770 1863 1583 1770 1863 1546 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 1770 3484 1787 3574 1549 1770 1863 1583 1770 1863 1546 Volume(vph) 199 442 51 241 923 384 115 427 46 349 341 333 Peak-hour factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj. Flow(vph) 199 442 51 241 923 384 115 427 46 349 341 333 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 6 0 0 0 57 0 0 33 0 0 64 Lane Group Flow(vph) 199 487 0 241 923 327 115 427 13 349 341 269 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 9 9 9 Heavy Vehicles (%) 2% 2% 2% 1% 1% 1% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% Turn Type Prot Prot pm+ov Prot Perm Prot pm+ov Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 7 3 8 7 4 5 Permitted Phases 6 8 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 15.7 36.5 19.9 40.7 68.0 11.8 31.8 31.8 27.3 46.8 62.5 Effective Green, g (s) 15.7 37.0 19.9 41.2 68.5 11.8 31.8 31.8 27.3 47.3 63.0 • Actuated g/C Ratio 0.12 0.28 0.15 0.31 0.52 0.09 0.24 0.24 0.21 0.36 0.48 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.5 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 1.0 2.5 1.0 2.5 1.0 1.0 2.2 2.2 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 211 977 269 1116 851 158 449 381 366 668 785 v/s Ratio Prot 0.11 0.14 c0.13 c0.26 0.08 0.06 c0.23 c0.20 0.18 0.04 v/s Ratio Perm 0.13 0.01 0.13 v/c Ratio 0.94 0.50 0.90 0.83 0.38 0.73 0.95 0.04 0.95 0.51 0.34 Uniform Delay, dl 57.7 39.7 55.0 42.1 19.1 58.5 49.3 38.4 51.7 33.3 21.6 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 0.92 0.91 1.15 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 45.5 1.8 26.5 6.4 0.1 13.2 30.1 0.0 34.6 0.3 0.1 Delay(s) 103.2 41.5 77.1 44.7 22.1 71.7 79.4 38.4 86.3 33.5 21.7 Level of Service F D ED CE ED F C C Approach Delay(s) 59.3 44.1 74.7 47.7 Approach LOS E D E D Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 52.5 HCM Level of Service D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.89 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 132.0 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 91.7% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period(min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Synchro 6 Report Y P 2015 PM Alt 1 -- 5 r5"...I.-zed Page 1 • • • HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: Durham & 79th DKS Associates • --► 'v ' k- t t ' It 4 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations "j V+ 'I +t. 4 4 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.96 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.97 0.97 Satd. Flow(prot) 1770 3537 3503 1831 1716 Flt Permitted 0.13 1.00 1.00 0.87 0.79 Satd. Flow(perm) 234 3537 3503 1647 1397 Volume (vph) 32 804 3 0 1498 109 6 3 0 60 0 26 Peak-hour factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj. Flow(vph) 32 804 3 0 1498 109 6 3 0 60 0 26 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 13 0 Lane Group Flow(vph) 32 807 0 0 1605 0 0 9 0 0 73 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 2 2 4 4 Heavy Vehicles(%) 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 0% 0% 0% 2% 2% 2% Turn Type pm+pt pm+pt Perm Perm Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 8 4 Permitted Phases 2 6 8 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 112.9 112.9 107.2 10.6 10.6 *Effective Green, g(s) 113.4 113.4 107.7 10.6 10.6 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.86 0.86 0.82 0.08 0.08 Clearance Time(s) 3.5 4.5 4.5 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 1.0 4.3 4.3 2.5 1.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 221 3039 2858 132 112 v/s Ratio Prot 0.00 c0.23 c0.46 v/s Ratio Perm 0.12 0.01 c0.05 v/c Ratio 0.14 0.27 0.56 0.07 0.65 Uniform Delay, dl 3.3 1.7 4.1 56.1 58.9 Progression Factor 2.00 0.06 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,d2 0.1 0.2 0.8 0.2 9.9 Delay(s) 6.7 0.3 4.9 56.3 68.9 Level of Service A A A E E Approach Delay(s) 0.6 4.9 56.3 68.9 Approach LOS A A E E Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 5.8 HCM Level of Service A HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.57 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 132.0 Sum of lost time(s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 58.6% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group IIISynchro 6 Report 2015 PM Alt 1 - 5d.0..1'tc J Page 2 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis • 9: Durham & DKS Associates C k 4\ t ,' `► 1 4' 0 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 1 11, 11 11> 1 to 44 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.93 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.98 Satd. Flow(prot) 1542 3500 1805 3535 1805 1615 1729 Flt Permitted 0.15 1.00 0.33 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.84 Satd. Flow(perm) 248 3500 634 3535 1617 1615 1484 Volume(vph) 6 821 10 6 1522 10 16 0 9 5 0 5 Peak-hour factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj. Flow(vph) 6 821 10 6 1522 10 16 0 9 5 0 5 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 5 0 Lane Group Flow(vph) 6 831 0 6 1532 0 16 0 0 0 5 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 8 8 Heavy Vehicles (%) 17% 3% 0% 0% 2% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Turn Type pm+pt pm+pt Perm Perm Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 2 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 115.3 114.2 115.3 114.2 4.7 4.7 4.7 Effective Green, g (s) 115.3 114.2 115.3 114.2 4.7 4.7 4.7 11111 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.04 0.04 0.04 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension(s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 227 3028 564 3058 58 58 53 v/s Ratio Prot c0.00 0.24 0.00 c0.43 0.00 v/s Ratio Perm 0.02 0.01 c0.01 0.00 v/c Ratio 0.03 0.27 0.01 0.50 0.28 0.01 0.10 Uniform Delay, dl 1.5 1.6 1.1 2.1 62.0 61.4 61.6 Progression Factor 0.19 0.95 0.33 0.17 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.5 2.6 0.0 0.8 Delay(s) 0.3 1.7 0.4 0.9 64.6 61.4 62.4 Level of Service A A A A E E E Approach Delay(s) 1.7 0.8 63.4 62.4 Approach LOS A A E E Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 2.0 HCM Level of Service A HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.49 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 132.0 Sum of lost time(s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 54.2% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Synchro 6 Report III 2015 PM Alt 1 - 5(5nal:zeci Page 3 • • HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: Durham & Hall DKS Associates III -'' -* c 4 t 4\ t P b j r Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 1 f l 11 ++ ? ii 1 r. ii + r Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.96 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow(prot) 1770 3484 1787 3574 1540 1770 1863 1583 1770 1863 1559 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 1770 3484 1787 3574 1540 1770 1863 1583 1770 1863 1559 Volume (vph) 199 442 51 241 923 378 115 427 46 346 341 333 Peak-hour factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj. Flow(vph) 199 442 51 241 923 378 115 427 46 346 341 333 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 8 0 0 0 110 0 0 33 0 0 52 Lane Group Flow(vph) 199 485 0 241 923 268 115 427 13 346 341 281 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 9 9 9 Heavy Vehicles (%) 2% 2% 2% 1% 1% 1% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% •2% Turn Type Prot Prot pm+ov Prot Perm Prot pm+ov Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 7 3 8 7 4 5 Permitted Phases 6 8 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 14.4 35.0 8.5 29.1 33.3 7.7 26.2 26.2 4.2 22.2 36.6 OEffective Green, g(s) 14.4 35.5 8.5 29.6 33.8 7.7 26.2 26.2 4.2 22.7 37.1 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.16 0.39 0.09 0.33 0.37 0.09 0.29 0.29 0.05 0.25 0.41 Clearance Time(s) 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.5 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 1.0 2.5 1.0 2.5 3.0 1.0 2.2 2.2 3.0 1.0 1.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 282 1368 168 1170 644 151 540 459 82 468 709 v/s Ratio Prot c0.11 0.14 c0.13 c0.26 0.02 0.06 c0.23 c0.20 0.18 0.06 v/s Ratio Perm 0.15 0.01 0.12 v/c Ratio 0.71 0.35 1.43 0.79 0.42 0.76 0.79 0.03 4.22 0.73 0.40 Uniform Delay,dl 36.0 19.4 41.0 27.6 21.0 40.5 29.6 23.0 43.1 31.0 18.8 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 6.4 0.1 226.1 3.5 0.4 18.2 7.4 0.0 1477.0 4.8 0.1 Delay(s) 42.4 19.5 267.1 31.0 21.4 58.7 36.9 23.0 1520.1 35.8 18.9 Level of Service D B F C C E D C F D B Approach Delay(s) 26.1 65.6 40.1 533.8 Approach LOS C E D F Intersection Summary • HCM Average Control Delay 178.9 HCM Level of Service F HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 1.04 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 90.4 Sum of lost time (s) 16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 91.5% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group likurham S chro 6 Report • Yn P 2015 PM Alt 2 Page 1 • HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis • 2: Durham & 79th DKS Associates t ,c IN t / `► ./ III Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 1 ?i 1 41, 4, 4+ Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 0.96 0.96 Fit Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.98 - 0.97 Satd. Flow(prot) 1770 3532 1769 3503 1786 1725 Flt Permitted 0.12 1.00 0.34 1.00. 0.87 0.78 Satd. Flow(perm) 214 3532 642 3503 1585 1391 Volume(vph) 32 795 10 4 1492 109 16 9 9 60 5 26 Peak-hour factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj. Flow(vph) 32 795 10 4 1492 109 16 9 9 60 5 26 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 , 0 3 0 0 8 0 0 12 0 Lane Group Flow(vph) 32 805 0 4 1598 0 0 26 0 0 79 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 2 2 4 4 Heavy Vehicles (%) 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 0% 0% 0% 2% 2% 2% Turn Type pm+pt pm+pt Perm Perm Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 8 4 Permitted Phases 2 6 8 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 62.0 59.9 59.0 58.4 7.4 7.4 Effective Green, g (s) 62.0 60.4 59.0 58.9 7.4 7.4 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.78 0.76 0.74 0.74 0.09 0.09 III Clearance Time (s) 3.5 4.5 3.5 4.5 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 1.0 4.3 1.0 4.3 2.5 1.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 197 2670 475 2582 147 129 v/s Ratio Prot c0.00 0.23 0.00 c0.46 v/s Ratio Perm 0.12 0.01 0.02 c0.06 v/c Ratio 0.16 0.30 0.01 0.62 0.18 0.61 Uniform Delay,dl 3.8 3.1 2.7 5.1 33.4 34.9 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.6 0.4 6.0 Delay(s) 4.0 3.2 2.7 5.6 33.9 40.8 Level of Service A A A A C D Approach Delay(s) 3.2 5.6 33.9 40.8 Approach LOS A A C D Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 6.5 HCM Level of Service A HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.61 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 79.9 Sum of lost time(s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 60.0% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Durham Synchro 6 Report IIII 2015 PM Alt 2 Page 2 i • I I W R G D E S I G N I N C. • July 16, 2007 Gary Pagenstacher City of Tigard - Planning Department 13125 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard, OR 97223 • RE: Impact Study— Durham Elementary School Access Relocation •.. .••• WW1 Dear Gary, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES WRG Design has prepared an analysis of the impact the proposed development will have upon public facilities and services. As discussed in this letter, the proposed development will have little if any impact on the public facilities and services in the area. The improvements and dedications proposed are roughly proportional to the impact that the development will have upon the area. LAND The Durham Elementary School is located at 8048 SW Shaffer Lane. The existing access is located PLANNING at the west property line on SW Shaffer Lane. The proposed development includes the relocation of the access drive from its current location on the western property line, to the northeast portion of the site that will align with SW 79th Avenue at its intersection with SW Durham Road. The total site area is 13.5 acres and includes 4 parcels. 4 Transportation CIVIL No new daily trips will be produced due to the proposed access relocation. The current trips produced ENGINEERING , by the school facility will be relocated from SW Shaffer lane to the intersection of SW Durham Road and SW 79`h Avenue. These trips will be easily absorbed by the traffic volumes occurring on SW Durham Road and SW 79th Avenue. Please refer to the Durham Elementary School Site Access Alternatives Evaluation in Exhibit F of the Durham Elementary School Access Major I Modification/Conditional Use Review Application for more information regarding traffic issues. A minimal impact to the surrounding transportation system will be produced. LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE Bicycle and pedestrian traffic will be unaffected. The dedication of additional right-of-way along SW Durham Road, in addition to the construction of the right turn lane will provide the future width necessary for bike lanes and sidewalks. Currently, SW Durham Road is a three-lane arterial with sidewalks and bike lanes on both sides of the street. The building expansion will not alter bicycle and pedestrian circulation. No impact to bicycle and pedestrian transportation will occur. LAND Drainage SURVEY I The pro osed access is being constructed over an existing pervious surface in the northeast portion of the site. There will be 27,022.8 square feet of additional impervious area created. The run-off from this new access area will be treated to Clean Water Services standards prior to discharge into Fanno Creek in the southeast portion of the site. Please refer to the site plan in Exhibit A and the Storm Water Analysis Memo in Exhibit E of the Durham Elementary School Access Major Modification/Conditional Use Review Application for detailed information. No drainage impacts will be { produced. Park 5415 SW Westgate Dr. The site is not adjacent to park land, nor are additional area residents produced due to the access Suite 100 relocation project proposed, therefore their will be no measurable park impact. eland.OR 7221 PH 503/419-2500 FX 503/419-2600 www.wrgd.com S • Water The access relocation will not impact the water system. The water capacity necessary for the operation of the school facility is currently available. No additional water demands will be created as part of the proposed development. Sewer The sewer system already exists and sufficiently handles the current demand. No additional sewer capacity is necessary. No changes to the current sewer system are proposed. No sewer impacts will occur due to the access relocation proposed. Noise The access relocation will impact the noise in the area a limited amount. Primarily, noise generated by automobile and bus traffic will be relocated. There will be no increase in the amount of daily trips produced by the school facility due to the proposed improvements, only a change in the ingress and egress location on site. This noise relocation will be easily absorbed by the traffic noise already occurring around the site.,. There will be additional noise generated during the construction process, which is estimated to last for 2 months. There will be additional vehicles delivering materials to the site and additional construction equipment necessary to complete the project. Minimal noise impacts will occur due to the access drive relocation proposed. Sincerely, WRG Design, Inc. //7 # Michael Bell, Planner • W R G D E S I G N I N C. W R I D E S I G N 1 N C. III June 27, 2007 RE: Durham Elementary School Neighborhood Meeting Dear Neighbors, •11 OW DEVELOPMENT You are invited to attend a neighborhood meeting with representatives from the SERVICES Durham Elementary School Development Team to discuss a proposed access relocation for the existing school, located at 8048 SW Shaffer Lane (Taxlots: 2S113B000300, 2S113BA00401, 2S113BA00500, and 2S113BA00200 will be affected). We are proposing a City of Tigard, Conditional Use/Major Modification. The access relocation will provide ingress and egress from the intersection of LAND PLANNING SW Durham Road and SW 79th Avenue. The development team is providing this notice to all property owners within 500 feet of the property to ensure that all project neighbors who are interested in the proposal have an opportunity to view ' 41 project plans and discuss the proposal before the City's review process begins. Yrit Project representatives from the development team will be on hand at the 0 CIVIL meeting to answer specific questions you may have regarding the project. The G,NEERING neighborhood meeting will take place as follows: C111 Tuesday, July 17, 2007 5:30 -7:00 PM �'� Durham Elementary School LANDSCAPE 8048 SW Shaffer Lane ARCHITECTURE Tigard, Oregon 97224 � We hope to see you at the meeting and look forward to discussing the proposal `I with you in greater detail then. Please notice this will be an informational meeting LAND on preliminary plans. These plans may be altered prior to the submittal of the SURVEY application to the city. Sincerely, WRG Design, Inc. PAIIRMili 5415SW Westgate Dr. Michael Bell, Planner Suite 100 Portland,OR 4197221 PFi 503/419-2500 FX 503/419-2600 www.wrgd.com I • 1 CITY of '\RD '� ' =I GEOGRAPHIC INFO'•ATION SYSTEM i 411V---Z--';LANGTREE ST `_� ,- � .MEET ���1����1 t , a T ( AREA NOTIFIED 1 . irAmmi . Mii r .N-----' I — __) J 6 iii co•'—w aafli0000200 lik.A I , I i I Q °J° o i : NTURE LN ¢ v 1/III illtito.CHI I LL LL pAT LN mum :�L'� !l!I FOR: Michael Bell p t�_,,ST ,. .!! .~ wso-ii. #1. Fsco w t m �° m 1 440 �� RE: 2S113BA; a t 300/500/40 1/200 lr , mwy" .1, * a y �,� CAROL ANN Cr 2eII. 'zi 2 X°00101 N. IQ Q ft. . ."1,2 m.r.�i iiihrjiii'whk.a K.iiWwi �JSyLti .,I ,o I C� �,... TT:::1∎ '7M 90 <dt!,�� �i∎ . ""'ti,4 ` iii_ 2at120000000 DURHAM RD : N,� , 0� 0 N. r r I ! i Property owner information \ \\\\ \ l :anaseoosoo is valid for 3 months from � t\� \ t0000+ o the date printed on this map. \ . ■\ 2E11 SiL <Z P 28113ss00400 O0R ti ‘a ill) _ 1 X3e000800 :. aes00100 g41 4) Q,PQ '5.-, ° "24 tS 25113000000 N • 60600100 0 200 400 600 Feet V=439 feet 2a1130000200 1111 v TIGARD . 4%1 • III should be verified with the Development Services Division 13125 SW Hall Blvd — se_:.'111'111111* Tigard. 39 9171 All 1 • �� /ww 639.4171 http:!/vivwv.ci,tigard.or.u s nmmltnity IIPVPInnmant Plot date:Jun 19,2007;C:\magic\MAGIC03.APR • S NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING INFORMATION As part of the development review process for most land use applications,the City of Tigard requires that developers hold a neighborhood meeting to notify and discuss with property owners in the area, their proposed development. Below are some frequently asked questions TiGARD:; about the neighborhood meeting process. WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF THIS NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING? The purpose of the meeting is to allow the prospective developer to share with you what they are planning to do. This is your opportunity to become informed of their proposed development and to let them know what issues or concerns you have in regard to their proposal. WHAT HAPPENS AFTER THE NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING? After the neighborhood meeting, the prospective developer finalizes their submittal package (often taking into account citizen concerns) and submits an application to the City. Sometimes it takes a while before the developer's application is ready to submit, so there could be several months between the neighborhood meeting and the submittal of an application. Once an application is submitted to the City, Staff reviews it for completeness. Once an application has been deemed complete, the formal application review begins. It takes approximately 6-8 weeks from the time the application is accepted for a decision to be made. Many types of applications require a public hearing at which tizens are given the opportunity to provide comments or concerns. Property owners within 500 feet will be i e tified after a complete application is submitted. They will be provided an opportunity to comment. Any appeals are decided based on the provisions of applicable laws and the development code. WHAT IF THE PROPOSAL PRESEN I'ED AT THE NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING IS NOT WHAT IS ACTUALLY SUBMT I ED? Applicants are not required to submit exactly what was presented at the neighborhood meeting if it generally follows the type of development proposed. This provides for the opportunity to address the neighborhood issues and address other changes necessitated by the development or staff. If the project is significantly different,a new neighborhood meeting would be required as determined by staff. HOW DO I KNOW WHAT ISSUES ARE VALID? A decision is reviewed based on compliance with the Tigard Development Code. Review the city's development code to familiarieyourself with what is permitted and what may not be permitted. A copy of the development code is available for viewing at the Tigard City Library, on the City's web site at www.ci.tigard.or.us, or a copy may be purchased at the Community Development Services counter. You may also contact city planning staff and ask what the standards are for a specific issue. Be prepared, however, that you may not LIKE all the standards,but at least you know what they are. If a development meets the code standards, it can proceed. For your assistance, attached is a list compiled of helpful questions to ask that may assist you in determining your position on a particular proposal. • Page 3 • • • QUESTIONS TO ASK OF TYPICAL NEIGHBORHOOD CONCERNS, TO MAIE SURE YOUR CONCERNS ARE • CONSIDERED `,! The following is a list of questions intended to aid you in formulating your own questions for T 1 GARD proposed development in your area. Feel free to ask more or alter the questions to address your own unique concerns and interests. PROCESS I What applications are you (the developer) applying for? When do you expect to submit the application(s) so that neighbors can review it? What changes or additions are expected prior to submittal? / Will the decision on the application be made by City Staff, Hearings Officer,Planning Commission or City Council? How long is the process? (timing) / At what point in the process are citizens given notice and the opportunity to provide input? / Has a pre-application conference been held with City of Tigard staff? • Have any preliminary requirements been addressed or have any critical issues been identified? . • What city planner did you speak with regarding this project? (This person is generally the planner assigned to the land use case and the one to contact for additional information). STREETS Will there be a traffic study done? What is the preliminary traffic impacts anticipated as a.result of the • development and how do you propose to mitigate the impacts if necessary? ► What street improvements (including sidewalks) are proposed? What connections to existing streets are • .proposed? ► Are streets proposed to be public or private? What are the proposed street and sidewalk widths? ► What are the emergency access requirements and what is proposed to meet those requirements? ZONING AND DENSITY ► What is the current zoning? What uses are allowed under this zoning? / Will there be a re-zone requested by the developer? If yes, to what zone? / How many units are proposed for the development and what is the minimum and maximum number of units allowed in the zone? DRAINAGE AND WATER QUALITY / What is your erosion control and drainage plan? What is the natural slope of the property? What are the grading plans? I Is there a water quality facility planned within the development and where will it be located? Who will own and maintain the facility? TREES AND LANDSCAPING / What are the tree removal plans and what is proposed to mitigate for trees removed? What are the landscaping plans? What buffering or fencing is required and/or proposed? ADDITIONAL INFORMATION / How do I request more information or a follow-up meeting from/with the applicant? • is\curpin\masters\neighborhood meetings\neighborhood meeting information_questions.doc Page 4 AFFIL VIT OF MAILING/PO ING NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING NOTICE 4111tORTANT NOTICE: THE APPLICANT IS REQUIRED TO MAIL THE QTY OF TIGARD A COPY OF NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING NOTICE THAT PERTAINS TO THIS AFFIDAVIT AT THE SAME TIME PROPERTY OWNERS ARE MAILED NOTICE,TO THE ADDRESS BELOW: City of Tigard Planning Division 13125 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard,OR 97223.8189 IN ADDITION,THE APPLICANT SHALL SUBMIT THIS AFFIDAVIT&COPIES OF ALL NOTICES AT THE TIME OF APPLICATION. LIN II n r I,, n I, G b� ,being duly sworn,depose and say that on the 2 ' 1 day of_ 'etikl ` t'e- , 2001,I caused to have mailed to each of the persons on the ttached list,a notice of a meeting to discuss a proposed development at (or near) 2,S t l2l3UDb 30(2.S 1 138A-0W-01 2S 1 c.3 R dOs� ZS 1 I ?6,4 00 2�,a copy of which notice so mailed is attached hereto and made apart of hereof. I further state that said notices were enclosed in envelopes plainly addressed to said persons and were deposited on the date indicated above in the United States Post Office located at J , with postage prepaid thereon. occur; Ili I 1 Signature (In the presence ' a Notary Public) FSTING: / Cii Bax 4 y 01 ,do affirm that I am(represent)the party initiating interest in a proposed land use application affecting'the land locate.¢at(state the approximate ocation(s)IF no address(s)and all tax lot(s)currently registered) SIy�ISI b1131�(SU'O ZS 1 I3 F3 AQbca- Z S 1133' b 26a ,and on the _ day of ,20°2 personally post notice indicating that the site may be proposed for a AGC t.4S I 18Y\ land use application,and the time, date and place of a neighborhood meeting to discuss the proposal. The sign w a s posted at 25 113Mb3t,b '2-5 1 1.5 1 1 1 3 1:4 I ZS l 13&11 S O ZS 113 *ID 24 6 (state location you posted notice on property) Signature (In the presence .•a Notary Public) (THIS SECTION FOR A STATE OF OREGON,NOTARY PUBLIC TO COMPLETE/NOTARIZE) STATE OF ) County of ) ss. Subscribed and sworn/affirmed before me on the 2 day of -„ a\\ ,20 04 . KAP CRIPPN `.:” NOTARY PU6UC-0OREGON • MYCOMMISSIONIp AIRES NO 409383 2010 N AR PUBLIC REGON Commission Expires: c\air*\masters\neighborhood meetings\affidavit of mailing•po:ring neighborhood meeingdoc Page 5 • W R G • :. i • D E S I G N I N C. i July 18, 2007 City of Tigard Planning Division 13125 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard, OR 97223 RE: TSD6701-Durham Elementary School Access-Neighborhood Meeting Documentation a a:: Dear City of Tigard, NOVO 112.2.11 DEVELOPMENT This letter documents the discussion at the neighborhood meeting held for the Durham Elementary SERVICES School Access project at the Durham Elementary School on July 17, 2007 between 5:30PM and 7:00PM. The meeting was attended by 10 people, as documented by the sign-up sheet attached to ---- - • this letter. Question/Comment: Response: LAND What impact will this project have on the Traffic issues will be determined by the final traffic PLANNING traffic on SW Durham Road. study, which was not available at the time of the meeting. Issues brought to the development teams attention will be passed along to the Traffic Engineer. How many cars per day does the school The school operations will not change, therefore no anticipate? new trips will be created by this project. The same EVIL number of vehicles that currently visit the school are ENGINEERING anticipated to use the new access. We speculated that • approximately 6 busses access the site both in the ._— • morning and afternoon for child transport to and from the school. The number of trips can not be exactly • determined without the finalized traffic study. LANDSCAPE What is the future impact when/if Future plans for the Durham Center are impossible to ARCHITECTURE Durham Center Expands? predict at this point in time. If an expansion is proposed, neighbors and other concerned citizens will be involved in the public part of the development process. 44) Is there any potential safety issues with All precautions will be taken to ensure separation of the children walking to school and the uses between the school and the office building, LAND proximity of the office building parking especially when children are concerned. The SURVEY lot? pedestrian circulation is provided on the north side of the proposed access drive to discourage any pedestrians, including children from walking into the • office parking lot. What is the next step in the public The next step in the development process will be the process and will the public be able to formal submittal of the Major Modification Application. contact the City? At that point the entire breadth of materials submitted will be public record. Anyone may contact the City at any time and inquire about proposed development 5415 SW Westgate Dr. projects. quite 100 likad.OR 221 Concerns that the access to the office Every possible traffic and circulation mitigation building will be blocked were expressed. technique will be employed in order to ensure full PH 503/419-2500 access to the neighboring office building. We welcome FX 503/419-2600 w w.wrgd.com • • • any suggestions and ideas as to how we can make the proposed access relocation work the most efficiently for all the parties affected. Concerns with traffic for the school The configuration and signage proposed have been driving around the office building. designed to deter any school traffic from entering the neighboring office building parking area. We welcome any suggestions and ideas as to how we can make the proposed access relocation work the most efficiently for all the parties affected. Will there be a fence to protect the The fencing plan has not been finalized at this point in children and prevent playground balls time. These concerns will be considered. from entering the access drive? Current west-bound traffic back-ups at This type of traffic issue is difficult to address. The the.SW Durham Road/SW 79th Avenue traffic study will most likely not consider the side streets traffic signal leads to vehicular traffic north of SW Durham Road. This concern will be attempting to bypass the light by using brought to the attention of the Traffic Engineer. SW 76th Avenue and SW Alder Street. Neighbor worried that more traffic at the signal may lead to more cut-through traffic. What were the other access drive Many options were considered in the preliminary stages alignment options considered by the of design for the proposed access drive. All but two district? options were eliminated due to various code violation including access and intersection spacing, histori structures, and potential traffic queuing issues. The two best alternatives will be completely analyzed within the final traffic study. Preliminary results from the traffic engineer have been acted on and the proposed access drive location presented today expresses those preliminary results. Follow-up: Subsequent to the neighborhood meeting the development team took into consideration the questions and comments discussed at the neighborhood meeting. The access, circulation, and signage proposed to mitigate the use of the neighboring office parking lot is reflected in the plan set submitted in the Major Modification Application package. The traffic study was finalized the day of the neighborhood meeting and reflects that access management along SW Durham Road will be improved by decreasing the amount of access points along the school property. It was also discovered that the traffic queuing problems along SW Durham Road are forecasted to continue in the future, with or without the proposed access relocation. The complete traffic study is included as an Exhibit within the Major Modification Application package. Sincerely, WRft'! resign, Inc. z.P Michael Bell, lanner Cc: Kelly Hossaini, Miller Nash LLP • Rob Saxton, Tigard-Tualatin School District 23J Tony Roos, WRG Design W ' G°3 G D E S I G N I N C. • • • NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING SIGN UP SHEET July 17, 2007 Name Address: Street, Zip Phone Number E-Mail Address - 0+-0 Y l✓lie, N i t r e/ /7 7,i*V©d 9 c L r w o&I r7/cI o 5731, 201-is- 13-12-1 cki Te 2355 ju a— ` \. 97? 5-6-5-1/ - c�u)o Ttagi \-t7 Het i:5 5'z. Ro[J2ri.c . /w,(5"- S' n 0 Cry/c Cf 9722 // 55'3 -7GS-8-2A70 411 67 l2dv,05 7 560 7z 2 C 2 3 0 6yn °m-2q Sv3 (OW ' \ i &C)Qk;1)LA \C,A('JO 1X) rt U an i z k4 o-brl l' 14 C r ., l s 5w 414:6\ i- _ 912 2 ( -131 - (ZS5 • Durham Elementary School Access Relocation Tigard, Oregon c?ogE2t azarz,t) arid cA.loci• • JTEE and±anctseallE 2or-steLti.n9 eSe¢viee • MEMORANDUM TO: Tony Roos WRG Design, Inc. FROM: Robert Mazany,ASCA r4(7,3,—/-7 Registered Consulting Arborist#133 DATE: October 22, 2007 RE: Durham Elementary Access Project#TSD 670100 We have completed our review of the entire Durham Elementary School site to identify and document all trees with diameters larger than twelve inches as requested. We have prepared a tree inventory and mitigation table to reflect our findings as required by the City of Tigard.The trees have been number tagged continuing from those previously marked in our October 8, 2007 report. Green flagging has been attached to each tree identified and measured to the nearest one-tenth of an inch at four feet above the ground as required by the City of Tigard. The attached Tree Survey notes each tree by specie, • m diameter and condition/comment where appropriate.The location of each tree number has been also noted on the aerial photograph provided by WRG Design as accurately as possible. Please contact me if you have any questions or when I may be of further assistance on this project. Attachment: Tree Survey/Mitigation Table • _.(P.O. Box 7305, IREaJEZtoiz, COT E9012. 97075 ' 503-533-7o6q • • Tree Survey Prepared by: Robert Mazany and Associates • This survey documents all trees with diameters larger than 12 inches including those noted on the October 8, 2007 report.All trees inspected have been identified in the field with number tags and green flagging. Trees noted with an asterisk(*)are scheduled for removal. Tree No. Specie Diameter Condition/Comment 001* Giant Sequoia 32.3" Good. Remove for construction. 003 Sitka spruce 25.8" Fair. Co-dominant stem at 50 feet with some stress evident from previous construction fill and tree well location. Lower branch pruning will be required for sidewalk and travel lane clearance. Due to the proximity of additional construction impact removal should be considered. 005* Pine sp. 13.4"/22.5" @ 2' Fair. Weak stem union at 2 feet with included 28.2" @ 1' bark. Some failure potential. Remove for construction. 006* Atlas cedar 17.5" Good. Remove for construction. 008* Atlas cedar 18.2" Good. Remove for construction. 010 Atlas cedar 16.3" Good. Retain/Protect. • 011* Western red cedar 17.9" Fair. Remove for construction. 012* Western red cedar 16.0"/11.0" Fair. Double stem at 2 feet. Remove for 23.5"@ 1' construction. 013* Western red cedar 7.0"/12.5" Fair. Double stem at 2 feet. Remove for 17.0"@ 1' construction. 014* Western red cedar 15.7" Fair. Remove for construction. 015* Western red cedar 12.4" Fair. East of 014. Remove for construction. 018* Western red cedar 15.6"/8.0" Fair. Double stem at ground. Remove for 21.6" @ ground construction. 019* Western red cedar 19.2" Fair. Remove for construction. NOTE: The following trees are within the school property but not close to or within the proposed construction impact area. 020 Ponderosa pine 31.6" Fair. Needs safety pruning for deadwood • removal 1 inch in diameter and larger for branches over the entry walk. . • Tree Survey—Durham Elementary Access—October 22, 2007 Page Two • Tree No. Specie Diameter Condition/Comment 021 Douglas fir 36.3" Fair. Rupture on north trunk at 10 feet. 022 Douglas fir 60.2" Fair. 023 Douglas fir 22.6" Fair. 024 Fassen's black maple 18.1" Fair. 025 Red maple 18.1" Fair. Weak stem union at 8 feet with some risk/failure potential. Properly prune stub left from 6 inch branch removal for building clearance. 026 Atlas cedar 14.6" Fair. 027 Pine sp. 14.8" @ 3' Fair. Triple stem at 5 feet. 028 Pine sp. 17.2" Fair. 029 Pine sp. 16.5" Fair. Weak stem union at 5 feet. 030 Pine sp. 14.4" Fair. • 031 Pine sp. 13.4" Fair. 032 Douglas fir 25.1" Fair. Weak stem union at 40 feet. 033 Douglas fir 15.9" Fair. 034 Douglas fir 17.9" Fair. Weak stem union at 30 feet. 035 Douglas fir 20.3" Fair. 036 Douglas fir 20.1" Fair. 037 Douglas fir 24.9" Fair. 038 Douglas fir 18.5" Fair. 039 Douglas fir 25.2" Fair. 040 Douglas fir 22.9" Fair. 041 Douglas fir 19.4" Fair. •042 Red alder 9.7"/11.1"/7.8" Fair. Multi-stem at ground. (Est. 25.0") • I Tree Survey—Durham Elementary Access—October 22, 2007 Page Three Tree No. Specie Diameter Condition/Comment • 043 Red alder 8.0"/9.2"/7.4" Fair. Multi-stem at ground. (Est. 20.0") 044 Western red cedar 18.4" Fair. Twisted stems from ground to 6 feet with a weak stem union. 045 Western red cedar 23.1" Fair. 046 Western red cedar 17.7"/11.3" Fair. Double stem at 2 feet. 24.8" @ ground 047 Western red cedar 20.1" Fair. 048 Western red cedar 16.9" Fair. 049 Western red cedar 17.8" Fair. 050 Western red cedar 16.2" Fair. 051 Western red cedar 18.3" Fair. 052 Western red cedar 15.1" Fair. • 053 Western red cedar 15.1"/12.8" Fair. Double stem at 2 feet. 20.7" @ 1' Mitigation Table Total Diameter Inches On Site 990.0" Total Diameter Inches Retained 766.5" Total Diameter Inches Removed 223.5" Diameter Inch Removal Percentage 22.6% Diameter Inch Retained Percentage 77.4% • • • • Tree & Plant Preservation/Protection PART 1 —GENERAL 1.01 DESCRIPTION: A. General requirements: Preservation, protection, and trimming of existing trees and shrubs, and other vegetation indicated to remain. B. Definitions: 1. Registered Consulting Arborist(RCA): A Consulting Arborist registered with the American Society of Consulting Arborists(ASCA). 2. Project Consulting Arborist(PCA): A Registered Consulting Arborist engaged to be a member of the project team. III 3. Certified Arborist: Certified by the International Society of Arboriculture(ISA). 1.02 PROJECT CONDITIONS: A. Make every effort to protect all trees, shrubs, ground cover and other vegetation existing on the Project site with the exception of that indicated to be removed. B. Meet local jurisdiction requirements for protection of existing trees and vegetation. C. Provide temporary fencing, barricades and guards as required to protect trees and other plants which are to remain from all damage. Erect prior to commencement of clearing and demolition work and remove only after all work potentially injurious to trees and other plants is complete. Fence shall be placed as far from trees as is IIIIpractical, but in no instance closer than one foot behind required construction limits. • I Fence should be semi-permanent six-foot chain link fence on steel posts placed no • further than ten feet apart,kept taut and in place throughout the duration of construction or as authorized by the PCA.. Four foot visibility plastic fence may be used, if acceptable to the local jurisdiction, on steel posts six feet apart. D. Protect all trees from stockpiling,material storage, vehicle parking and driving within the tree drip line or tree protection fence area. E. Protect all plant growth including root systems of trees and plants from: 1. Dumping of refuse. 2. Chemically injurious materials and liquids. 3. Noxious materials in solution caused by run-off and spillage during mixing and placement of construction materials,and drainage from stored materials. 4. Continual puddling of running water. • F. Restrict vehicular and foot traffic to prevent compaction of soil over root systems. PART 2—PRODUCTS 2.01 —MATERIALS: A. As indicated and required elsewhere in the Specification Section, and as may be recommended by the PCA. • • • • PART 3—EXECUTION 3.01 —GENERAL: A. Protect root systems of existing trees, shrubs and ground covers from damage due to noxious materials in solution caused by run-off and spillage during mixing and placement of construction materials,and drainage from stored materials. B. Protect root systems from flooding,erosion,excessive wetting and drying resulting from de-watering and other operations. C. Protect all existing plant material to remain against unnecessary cutting, breaking and skinning of roots and branches, skinning or bruising of bark. D. Do not allow fires under and adjacent to trees or other plants which are to remain. • E. The PCA should direct removal of branches from trees and large shrubs, which are s, to remain, if required to clear new construction and where indicated; and to direct tree root pruning and relocation work. F. Where directed by the PCA, extend pruning operations to restore natural shape of entire tree. G. Cut branches and roots with sharp pruning instruments. Do not break, chop or muti late. H. Water trees and other vegetation, which are to remain, as necessary to maintain their health during the course of the work. Maintain a water schedule and document. • • • 3.02—EXCAVATION AROUND TREES: • A. Excavate within root zone of trees only where indicated and acceptable to the PCA. B. Excavate around tree roots within tree root zone only under the direction of the PCA. C. Where trenching for utilities is required within root zones,tunnel under and around roots by hand digging. Do not cut main lateral support roots. Cut smaller roots that interfere with installation of new work; use sharp pruning tools. D. Where excavating for new construction is required within root zones of trees, hand excavate to minimize damage to root systems. Use narrow tine spading forks and comb soil to expose roots. Relocate roots in backfill areas whenever possible. If large, main lateral roots are encountered, expose beyond excavation limits as required to bend and relocate without breaking. • E. If encountered immediately adjacent to location of new construction and relocation is not practical, cut roots approximately 6 inches back from new construction. F. Do not allow exposed roots to dry out before permanent backfill is placed; provide temporary earth cover,pack with wet peat moss or 4 layers of wet untreated burlap and temporarily support and protect from damage until permanently relocated and covered with backfill. Water puddle backfill to eliminate voids and air pockets. G. All pruning shall be performed to ANSI A-300 pruning standards by Oregon state registered tree care firms employing Certified Arborists. Other therapeutic care work shall be performed to Tree Care Industry Standards. • • • • 3.03—GRADING AND FILLING AROUND TREES: A. Maintain existing grade within root zones of trees unless otherwise indicated or acceptable to the PCA. B. Lowering Grades: Where existing grade is above new finish grade shown around trees, under direction of PCA, carefully hand excavate within root zones to new grade. Cut roots exposed by excavation to approximately 3 inches below elevation of new finish grade. C. Raising Grades: Permitted only as acceptable to the PCA. 3.04—REPAIR AND REMOVAL OF TREES: A. The PCA should direct tree repair work. Engage a Certified Arborist, acceptable to the PCA,to perform tree repair work. Repair trees damaged by construction operations in a manner acceptable to the PCA. Make repairs promptly after damage occurs to prevent progressive deterioration of damaged trees. B. Remove dead and damaged trees that are determined by the PCA to be incapable of restoration to normal growth pattern. 3.05 —REPAIR AND REPLACEMENT OF SHRUBS: A. Repair shrubs, and other vegetation damaged by construction operations in a manner acceptable to the PCA. Make repairs promptly after damage occurs to prevent progressive deterioration of damaged plants. B. Remove and replace dead and damaged plants that are determined by the PCA incapable of restoration to normal growth pattern. • III • 1. Provide new shrubs of same size and specie as those replaced or as • otherwise acceptable to the PCA and Landscape Architect. 2. Plant and maintain as acceptable to the PCA and Landscape Architect. 3.06—HARDSCAPE INSTALLATION WITHIN THE PROTECTION ZONES: A. Electrical conduit and irrigation main lines should be run under walkways, within stone or concrete subbase,and should not cut into native soil within the Tree Protection Zone(within the drip line). Drip irrigation shall be installed within the Tree Protection Zone. Lateral electrical lines to individual lights, should be installed as close to the soil surface as possible with short runs from the main conduit. B. Electrical fixtures, housing, and irrigation valves must be installed with care to avoid cutting roots. Digging must be minimal with excess dirt removed from the tree preservation area. Do not cut roots greater than 1" in diameter without the • approval of the PCA. Roots greater than 1" in diameter exposed during excavation should be cut squarely at the edge of the excavation with a sharp saw or appropriate pruning tool. C. Install walkways as close to grade as possible to minimize excavation into the soil where large roots and areas of high root density exist. Backfill with loose dirt to the minimum depth necessary to achieve a natural look. Mulch if appropriate, as directed by the PCA. 3.07—COMPENSATION TO OWNER FOR TREES: A. Contractor shall pay the Owner the value of existing trees to remain that died or were damaged and required removal because of the Contractor's failure to provide adequate protection and maintenance. • S • • B. Value of existing trees will be determined by the PCA in accordance with the evaluation formula set forth in"The Council of Tree and Landscape Evaluation Guide for Plant Appraisal,"ninth edition,2000. C. Any wound or damage to a preserved tree constitutes partial injury. These include, but are not limited to: Any cambian tissue damage. Unauthorized cutting, breaking or removing tree branches. Unauthorized cutting or damaging protected root zones. Soil compaction. Toxic run-off into tree preservation area. D. Partial injury will be calculated by percentage of the total value of the damaged tree. • E. The loss value penalty will include cost to the Owner for loss appraisal by the PCA Pe h' PP Y plus the cost for necessary damage repair. PART 4—PRE-CONSTRUCTION TREE CARE 4.01 —PRUNING AND STRUCTURAL SUPPORT: A. All trees designated to be retained within the project limits shall be pruned to ANSI A-300 Pruning standards with selective low limb removal, as directed and approved by the PCA, where required for construction clearance. B. Structural support(cabling) may be required on specific trees as identified by the PCA to Tree Care Industry Standards. 111 • • C. All therapeutic care recommended should be directed, inspected, and approved by • the PCA. PART 5—POST-CONSTRUCTION TREE CARE 5.01 —FERTILIZATION/AERATION: A. Aeration as determined by the PCA may be required in areas where construction compaction has occurred. B. Deep root liquid injection fertilizing of all trees retained within the project limits may be required following the completion of construction toTree Care Industry Standards. The timing of this fertilizing will be determined by the PCA. Prepared by: Robert III be Mazany, ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #133 Robert Mazany and Associates PO Box 1305 Beaverton, OR 97075 (503) 533-1064 • . . . • „ _,„ ._ , f-A.• .4-,1--,..,.-. - ,,:-..,i,' .. .,,. •,,,, , ' , -..'''''', '..;•,'" '. ''`'.0.,.'' ' ''''''''''.--,,-4,4a ' -'-'4.7.777.77 t."‘14,'";*4...'`'''' ' s''',-*Iiii- •;; ,t's,l"lk•''.',1,2.7.7,1 .:' '.....t.'''•' '''-4'.- ''' ''? -4',', 4', .•'1,'"''.'":•;'''.1- 4.'A ' t....,;fflX ."....!!.",,,,•14 it t,t,.,.,1...,,, ,.., ;:::: ,,,o,..,:.• <--,_ , .. ,.„ '.•...,,,,:.4..t.."- .0';',1 -',. " ,.' '.:' ,,,,'' • .,, •'. RS•.:..,„,‘;',' ...",,,?,,,,.;. ,rf, ?,1.•;.."„i /7".-2"-,,,,:,,,'-'7;f1":7',' ,_'..,..,,ei"v. . `47!.. .-1,',''t4i. :••■.,,$,.,,V.4 ••-* • 4., ‘..,••, .•,. fr,'.,0*7';',,- '. ''''. .•''Iii"-.. . ,d!-/:,'el '',' 4,4 .s, oP'cF.. ,L,,,,;. 1,,? . ; :,e,, .'"".1.' .''' ,1 ,.''is - ' 1-; f',.' it / ''.. .,.-''' ', ,, . • ' 'i.,;". -='.4,'''',174'‘,.1'0, ' ,-- :".' .."/ ,/' It 'f1. ' Tr-'''' / ;4 3 ....._. ., •,.,i,.., . . ....•:„..- ••,,...:.. . t, .-, ,.,. . :.,..41:41,41,, ,, .•;,„,,,,v,.. ,,•,,,., . •...••,-.. ... ;.. .-1,..1 rreik., *,,:;,,.:-!'",,t.‘..,. t..',,.?,;':. ,. .i..104.2 4.,..;.''-2•;t,:'12., ',Rill"'. ., + "'• i..• .,. ,.,^.';I*** 1.P4*;' 4'` .: ''', ••,.,,,,„,, ,. , !t. 4,,. ;i'*';'4.,.... ------""-. ..--,,..,',..' -L...,,,,,..'''''',".1,'".';‘ ,4,'4,84r,,,'i • ,1?;.-,..,. ..i't.'• •-A ',., .4..;',1-1 L" -' ''"."-.i'`,74i-.,,;,.' -•'' ',;, ,.:r ..,-;' .,.,,,.. )1r.A.t4;""'''.714747:f.'.. ..... ' '.' • "I"•-:tc.-":"..,,..,',. il -I. : : ,/,,,,. ,: , ....) ::.,,,::,,,,!,, - -r, - ,. - I ,%-.1‘..,.-L, - ..i 4 '-.1,';,-,i',':'',,k'4,,, .„. ,344`1,, `'..4.,,, 21... • • 411' '4 ''''''.4,;..t.. .,"*,;*;Z't.' . •' '7,`'',, ...s '.1',.). .A- -----•:‘ -.I ".•:''''' '\.Jt-1,':.-•;'iVfe.,0 ,'',.•?'",r, ',,'-'•-,.. :... ; ' '• ' - ,t, / 76:' 'it ''','. • '•'.13:.4t,' ";,:4 .... '''' 72''',', ''''''t...'' ..1.,".•.•.'1'1 k„,,,,!.13-,,A 4.,t.,4;:'4‘,,',.,,-4"34,. f.f..,'-': e .. . ......[‘: _ ,.„, ,, , ,,, „: • :. •,• , ,• ,• ,.•...,.., ,, ,, •,,,,,,,,,.„,„.,., . .,,. . 2 - , „ ., .. •, . ,.. . ,...., t 7--tni :•--,..,.. ....i*...riik ,„ . .3,,• 4. . Ir. . .*, ,, . stIA'''•-? '?* / .. . , . _,...— • , '.v•'•''', I' ' ' 4;:77"7"'-7. 1.):-.- :, ,I1111 :?'• 915*Y°....•,.. "*" 4110 .,-L....';..w.ti‘ t:'`.,,',...."--L.. . ' '..-.-LL:' . . ..--..c.t::;.., Is 41, •, '.., if '. I. '7•::‘A't ''''?l'.''.•'''. 1 V':•4'.'0,) :• '''., ii0;'le.:Te,r;.' .'4'1) ''?)-t --'' ..gf, .4 , ',., , • ,;i1-.., . ••4,''' '. 1 f ' Pf I r ' • k.:V•• i r , -.LL . , - ) L.),... ...,--—,,....,,,444,. ii..s,... ...4',,,Z.11. ',.,4 i"CY"'',4•:•'‘::•,. ' • * . .•• (.`' h ' ' * ,„ -.• ,-.4L--,,.....q1.• 0:.!"•. •'''''','"' ''''':' '' ' l' ' . ''‘..jY4411 7;,,,,„1.,':::!:=?:.'14,;:,,: .t'... -.';',•'::i-' .k...:::;,t,,,--t-.4,.'...k1:3..,:.,*..,..'••••,'"ip', ' ,,.. ..,,, , '1.-.'•:;. . -....,: '-',„,,1 ‘,-.... 1,''' ' i ril ,' ',,i,, ' .. ,..: :..• , :i; : ' IL.: ' - i. , .. , '-','''-1 ''•,'1:1,,,,i5::: ,,,,4,: .4.7;•1;,,t:',:3,ir.4„._. ,,,7t,,,, , . 4,-, .„27,",..,:i..,„:".,'.,:',,, '„1 ...,... ,,,,,,..,,,,L .7.::.:71:_2,1::\v,,I.;'01, ...;..,.„::,.,."'...-4,..,;.i.s!.,i17.,..,,,::*,,p'•,..._:..,.:',, ,7,..,: ::-.„.,,,,,,:,-.4,,,,,,,,,,,,,1 . ,_ _. _ „,,;„,-.3., ,..,,4, ,..4....t,. „•:r...,..,t,, , ,,L•,,,7t.,. .,,,,,,,,4„,,,,, ,, ,. ,.1r it.e..,..,.4,,,,,,,.. , e.,-..•-;,+,. -, ,': ....-;,,,,,,,,,. , .4‘..-: .,- ,.'-''.'AP .1 '1 -40 1 . )• n..... .„, . . 1 • IP '''''i.:4 I 'II I''''' .4''i- '' ;''''' '': —Th.—- ' ' .:'.-' ',,,. ,..'4.,„„,4,.', :. 7, .....:::. ... • 4'':LT?'7....,• ' -• ..;'''''' '2,,- .s' . '''''°‘'...7',1', :,..r 1.".*:44::'1.• '''''' ' '.• -•ii*, *** ; 4 ..4-11-,k-3,.; 3.- ,L 1J:..4 :'.-.!._ I I;, . ,,,,:r*t..4,4 .1.4.■,.,,,,,..,t,'„.,-.61'54', 0. •10.. 11,,14 "':''' ... "0. . :r''" , ‘,4-.. .'..'„.1." ,,,E, - ,..„.V • .' .'' ."'- " •-. ..,j :,......"-_-.. ....,.......,, •,,,,,. ,.IT .,_i. I)) •''' '1-'4'',4"' '''.''''sw`-'..z.Viiiii',i',' '2.'4 .. .'.* f,,,,L;- , , .41-......'' '''...',..:*d'ef,', ..' ,, ,.., .. , Ir-----:,'-1-'-'----1,,, •••,' ' Ot ' , L , , , .ts,..,. . .••• ..:;• r4:.'%'■..1,,v •■•■ ..•■'' *"'''P,4, `..-t.-'s)r;..-. StA ,,,•'. .,: •:,t....• „ ,,I , '' f'''''''...* -Ark 1 W RUIZ M '', 11 I ,' I ' ,...• ;$1.,, : ,44.Al _ . . 2 I. ,.., ,,....-fkr''`V,:,, .::,tk....•` , , .•2:••, .,-S.,„4r:4, r,. . a, ,. . . A . . , • - .,,--.'„,-n),.F.otr, ,...”, '''," 4.,,. .; ,..„. ,..„.4t,,,,,,,„ , ;•, . _Ii1 .‘ .„, ::: ,. .:,:,FFerp,......-„, ..... ' , '..,....111 -2*1.';''''Ii'lki"''0.'.`4.. ..:,S ,.... ,, .. .,,.r' " .•-,' ,*,-..;e4:74441N111:4,4 ..,. .44s, .,, i . i'-".zi ''!... .......' . ' ,.,,,,,4..,,,;_,,L,;:c,;.1, ' , .'''',`-' &: .. - ,.. . ... • •• , ,•,,,, , ,. ., ...; ...,,...- , , ., ,. .' .."',,'..,. -.,71 :.,_ 4'. '4/ :•'' :",i,...''' t,'i ,.0p.N.,A.,,,,,i',0:4\'.** V,i,•..` 1-,,,;'"'. '..4-.. ••• , ..-' 4,51 4.4- - 4*V :.st ,•.'•.. :',;,• rr ,,•;`,4; ,, ..'"."... - 4 ''''' ''I 1, ‘1 ' ' -‘ . - .44%Cii=1;•t21%,•1114,..allirar;.......- .•'act L,. ..• ;4,., . ' .•1.,- - 4/ i.,. ., .1t1-.. ,.....'..-0* -A.: ,. . --4'.., ......, -,..‘,1 . ,L-,, -..,- ---- ..,, 7:'' ,......... ..., -.....;,.-.:,..-"-" . . .,L. -L-',, r,.',' ,-'..f.r, ,.'--74.7,,k7---r34, '', '-'',' .1.,-;,-, ..--;:r-': ,.,1',441/4. ,..,,,,,oc,•.. '--: :,.,..--..#?if.., ...... ..,-,..- , . -, , . - -, 4' ,, ,, . , , ' ,,,4,,,,,,t,,,,, 0,,,,,: ‘1,,,,...,,,,,.:.„/„.„......,.,..„,:ii,,,..„,_ • ,:-, -,. :‘,',4•,..:..-..:2t-.•.,..„ , .....,,,...,„; ,4u,. •v., -•fp, • . ..,-. %.;.r. 1 .... . .. ... ,. ..-•-. '. , . • • ‘.••;-•7.‘ v2 N.&'''' ,',L:','.-.,' 1,2,-,'-'-','''.'',,- '''-7-7-- ,., -,--N:,,Li . . ... 0•:' -4-ii......, -,..??,.,-.• . . . . --,..--,--Q L,-,-c ........,...4..,,L--.- .......'„ „-,. .-,..-4.-.,,- ,'- - ....-. ..t., ''.■•• r 4,,.• .,.•I•• • '10.I ,j,'' I I; , , . • . , , • ' .• • ‘., • .• • •• '' '''' '":'7,'77 '444.'‘•''a',,"' •431 4'•' ''' -'4., 70,14-''%,,,,Z,,,, ',l4‘, r- • -,. ,, - .*,,,, . .,.." , I ' .,, • " ''' .": ' r'• A'Ar'si;.4",Wr•., •: .''-', "': 4.•''."' '..2,,-P.•'•,'r-•,..•sr-.'-';..t), • -,-..,.."•.ow r`,r..,:,:''41;44... .1(1.' '14 • 7' ' ' ': • .: ' : ' , 77•;',. 7,:,::,,,•' ,4' •.‘',,, ,.• 1st', • .'7,‘1 7'4',t•4)7,14••''''' ' 't."''' ''•\- ''' ' -,,,'i'W•••";,%0 ..4"'•At. 4 !..':',.'...,',.... :.'' ''' •- 's ik:4 ' . . 'I' 1 'k . " . ' ***1.-s*'* 'ite";77 ''' •, •,.' ' ' *!':';el' , ''.I i , 111 . • . . •-•. • 4 '. Y? '4,",'4,,,.1,L.'''.'""...'... .*,• ''.'„:,,•,',,,,,, ',,,i••■-.` 'ti'''1 ''•"'''"' , ' •,'' ' ' ,•':'' .,•.',, • '..•i .,: .i., .Z,..,• , - - - 21, ,.. :1 2 . ,- • ielt:':::',,,.'•-•.,4,,,,," ••-1.- .•,. ,1/4 ,,,,- ' ., ., ‘-: - •-••. .. , I * 0 ,t . .. , • ..„. • .L2,.A.:,,.: ,.,,:.4-,-.*::,c•ssi,s,,t:..,-..,,,,,,,,,,,,,, .,,, ,. 41,s $ " 4 ' T•''',,‘.•,•' •-:,'00. 4.• '-'41, ,-,a. '1,7',' •••:,,■'41•J',,-.71.,:i4.:-'''',.1 4,1i..';'.'„';',.. ,t '• '' ' ''.‘ T ,'•"J.:: s* ;': ..-' : • ., ,,,,,,,, 1, ,, ,., ,.,,•,-,:„ ..,.- ,i• ''-‘•:' ,::,.',, - .. 41,`,..,i, ..,:-2/ ,,,, ..,... . ......„ - .. ,.•,.. . •' ,,t : ''''t• :•••,,,,,,:"..Y•t:,• i4.•-•'•.t,,,• .,..,.:t ., . .a,...,......:...i:•.:`,,,-.,,\-. -,. -,-,,,...,`-4= ,.,..k 441,14' :',.''''.'441P1:47 '4. '''''' 1- ‘-‘ ' *.''''i'il , , , ,N,. „, - ,.,, ‘'‘i•-• ' •''' '''' '..,,.•,•'•;t;3$•;,;•• ,"1. •ta.„. ''''"-:'•,•4 ''4,..s,t,f.-,,,V17' ''.'' >,. ,•L'z'' ..,;',I''', ':-. .. , ., ..., „. ., •.. -•,...,• - •- ,.. . .- .'..,., ‘.: . . '!- -i . t:, . ,,-,,,• • -- : -.,-,-.,.,,,,,,..., ,-,,,,,,, ., -:„..: : ,-,4,.;,-„-.:,p.,:i1,":4••"1:q''. ,..•. . ,,, ',.1,0414 4, 10 ''• ,,,•" ' ., 0'"qtf '5'4' ri 1 ' 4)).' ' , •; '''-'' ., ,I „ .,. ,..•- , - ..• ,',,-, ,.,„; rrt•-' .',,e,' , / ,.• . • ,— •', ,s. '.' 01 , . . .. ,, t. . **' _ _ . . . . . . '"' q.. .*■1 ' ' 0 -‘,,c,-,,- ;-.•.4.t..-, -...j :' i „ ., .. . . . -t'S,..." *,-. '.."', .;:,i4.447,,,,tahipip r.41 '1'. • u . ,. ' II , :- ''''- `"' .: . '• ' &: ' ''',..'. .'•4.-: .2., '.:'"Yit '''''''' ' -:• . .' t ''A"•, '.t`h: t,.''', .,,, i '• „" .-S ,.., ,",:;:- i• ,f4 -- •'r •1,-.-. ••• 4 r„,„*1 , ! i.' ' •'...,e 4..,. A. l,r. „"i - , , 4,\"* , • •,t,",. ,.,....2-' ' r:'' , .. ' '',..`”, .. ......k:,.. . .". , ... .. : ;;A., . ' YP,;.,..,;',":,,,,A;.,. r . ..1,-''' ;„*,`,, , . , '..1116f .. . . ''' ., , . . I' . .. •'"*'"`: ;•-Nr.,";'‘'•'•',",•'. 2. :!-,' • '■ ..'..,;:'-•4..t,",,,s"t•i*:':::10 'AIP`, f • L'"N-•4.' i'i' .' ' .tttt !,tt• . .•.'14,,"T.'•'''''''' 1°‘ ,. i ,',0 ‘• P.' -- 'L 'L..T.- -..',.!'. `L L.. .,..-,-,,L, •'.4..- ,-- -.-',- -L.f.4":!" 4. :4^:•.:*•4r'. 5::: '''. .'' .,,.•, c 1't.: j , '. : At', 4 .)., 4 -.... •. - , : -, ,gr 4,1;6.."•,,,V,'„' ,. .:* ... , , ,..„.:.„,...;. ^. .•,;'4's ,..,i.v3,..,2, ,10 -,, •0•'..• '7 ' - • -,••• .• • „,e.', e° r , 1 .s Q „, .`"".k, ' • r r ' I " ' _,..-1,1...,.'I. .,--- .; : ,. ..- ,;-..-. t\-..,...._.,,,... .. ..,-.,:., ,,--r-,, 1-,..i-,7,,-.,-,;•,,,,t...,-.:3', • ' . .'''.. . 1 —. • .'... . ki,*. '-''',','' ? „ - 't ..: .s,agol!..• . ......' ,,,i, ?:,:".:. •'.',/, -'” - .,,-,..:',', . '-'- -.,-;.,r: 0', , '', ''' '';,.,,.."1-4,,,,'4..,J;;;,2,`4,-...,,,,s-." ,.. .i.";,". ,,-`, . " :,. ' ''-',, . ,4 .. ,.t: ;„;... o .:, ' N-: • fr..' ..:‘,....i., ,,t. ,,,..,•:(,. .,•,,,....:„1„.,,,.:-,i1,-.•, .-.-..%_.%......tt,,p..:::, ,,,. ",•1',i.:e14,trii,ittr!'-''.1'1. r r''''.; ',",•.':.- °• ..p,„7,„. -.. .. . „ , :‘, , .„.4.t,,..::.•, . i . , •: ,,„ Pk_____,--....:.., ,,,.. , i..,1 . 4, . '..•: ..; .-.'..„',ani Mt-4;4104'i',.i,f -Ili11J.g ,'.1 .‘;='2410'''`-';';';.*,.',' -''',., ' ' ..-- ° .1, -. ' ' -,;'• ' 7'''' **I.'. . .',.''.'"• , ' t ' . ., I.'•••`:.''' :' ?-1' ''-'.,”...,- ''''•;,•'/ •' ' ,,,,•..;t"Wh",1,-,i''':'-'r",. ••,• '',./. t.g...•.-;:-..'... . rL,f,,,, .-.•.;:,....,„, '„. , • ; ,. ', .',■.—- • •'.."-,' t , ;. •,„,,.,;;:,,, , i i r: . %.41 ••• .ocze ‘•..,,„7:7,,,,, ,‘,_,..-,;-' ' ,i--.7.''. -...4; , ,.., .. r ' "'''''',f'.4::,'.,'-w<h-r-",-'-'',;,''.-',,, :•!,,,,','-',..': ''''.'";,4,P''',;f7 T,'''''.,.'''.',.tt •„.-... '4, '' .._ .-,'...',2,.:,,,,ii k , , ', .,...'S.-" - ,,'';',:',-!-r' 1.1. •..,,r,•,.7: ,1's ,• 0 ,,`...1; , 6, •-, ‘. IN,.'.`1)•apt,'" ,, 0'.- •J'1,i, •.' ' 'RD ''' ;%.1•'•' '. S'.4', ''.1i: ....4.,",,'71,11.• ' ',li..'or,.' •.;,,,.'',f,,,,,,,L..••itfi•-,,,,,,, '.',",,,1 .,. .'. , , .. ;Ie.,.,,J i ,,• .., e•,,,7,,..;, ' '.. • - ; .:=2"i... ,,,,,1., ..,., , . ,44',• ,' ,4)1,-e•-it ,..,•,,„ •,A,,,k, •,,,,,,,f40...,:„:c.,,,,...- s.„....,,,,•:•,,,,,,. , , . .•-o. -...• •s: et, .A....,.,,,,,,,r•-„„ ,,,,,,-.....-..--„,„:-,,,,:,,,..,:-.,,,, .- •••••,41/4,. , •• o (-5 , .10,-1 .t,....,..,••.,•.-,• .,,,, TE, •. •. .,...:,..,...,_,,..s,,.,,,-,• ..-•• .-...,,e•.. s f„.....r.,,. -,. . 4,4-4,, •••,„..,,,,!;,, ,,...,z...,,. •,,,,,,,,,.f :4„,,;,,,,;. ..5...=7,-,,, ., , .- ., - •, . A■44., ''',:Vi 'Ir, . •14 ',;'• ..,,•,,,";*::',•:-.4.E4490, '2. '.t'4.: „ ?.-','A'' ';' 77' ,,05• ,•''''''.'.1..■#:..",'.'..,:',4 i• t„ • • ? ,.,L, .':FI''":1 ''','....!,",-';;;/:, ,:l.-•:•',t,, :, t,'„,0;..",..,' 0 0,. 4' ,,...•..‘ , , , li„•I.I ....'",:j. .4) . • 2* '''''' . ‘• ' 7 '''''•-.T:CP : '"•''' " .," ' '-•:'''• •••'/.. ' ‘' ,.4•, ,lit'.,..)5:-•‘i'l, ...4',i':''''&'i'' ' -•‘, , :7",,,,.•,,F1 • •,•.. .„ .4 ."1...... .,,,,.., '':'!'•' ■'• 4 e.,-,,, ' '5 • 1, ' r, . 0 •: '.• •:...;•:r) ,;;; „::'„4,,44 .,,,:".'0'"1''. ' - .1' ./A, ,„4?.:r.:' lill"*".- 4 .'". ,.' *. :• '' -• • '--- : '011i •*';';''. 'i ill. ', 1,'. a. • •* .../ ..,?.•`i f t, •f% • :• .'' - ,, '..• '..:; "• .:-''''''. • . -.:., "!44,4. ' •7". 47, •'2., :. .-4 ., ' * .. * , • . .' '.•4,;* 'e '' '-' 4'4- Cir4M-•;474'.,:,.-.;,....,.',..' -'..; '; ' 4,* - 44d...44**0 ......4*. • . ..'C.1. ., , 1, ,:. ;;-;,''''• -,,r4;!,6 ,,Pfi'•,'''''1';'''",:s"‘..**-e'if•.4.?,,,..4., . '.,4..,,k ,-.-„Ai/ ",,,O* 'r.,g.. . .,.., • '...'‘,•,1•,...,•.3''A• • \1;.s I ..,•. ...••'. :,..,•tii• • t•' -' ''4....,,i4e-- ' ; . . S': ' '.1 ...'''''''''' `,,„';L...;".7.' •;*'''' ,•,...''''''.t'w.,;,,,.ktkri„:,.14,.',.4.:,14",1;:4,-• *,..t..,.;''."' "• ...."*',,T.' .4.4.1•', '''.,,' ' r 1 ,...:q ‘' .2' I; •,..''...1; ■ ''-'-'-''' • .- ".4"1'......, '-' * * ' * , ,, ...1 '.77. .- ... ,/,:,; J .I."," !iig.k.''''-';',.:',1e. -...-.".1",„4-re-c,-,''''' ',..:•--, •., -•'..*,'''-"„'''.. r J.; . 1 . 1,4., %writ, .....„A...., .........i7,1 "..: ;,,•,-„1- ,;t:it ,'...n,:, c4.,. '--' r....,,,,,,',Lt., 7:71-,,,,,,,.41' ,, ,c,•,441. . ';',,,. ..-it,,,,,410... ..., t'...,,, , ,. , 14 ',' ''''' • I 41-'. .1 F ' 41':';'4 '''.t: 4 , -...t - .• . r..-1_ 1.:,, , v.. :,..,•,,, , ,, ..• • -.. ,, :•-41:-• ,..•,..,,.,„..;:..:,..,.. , -. . . 11-:.,.. , i ..,0„...•:, , ... i ; ;., ,..,. . , . .. .. ,,, , ... , , ,.. . . . , „ .. • ,-,• ,i_ - - . - . -- --- . ., . ,,.•:+4.. :.; -,. .'1. •- •- .z..- .. •• ...,,. ,•... . r.c4 ,4,,, ,•- •;--•.•4•4• ,. , — . ., _ „Ito:. •T' '}i. I.... •C‘ :'mi-. ' : 5.1 's" • • .. ' . , : ,7],.,': ' ,..;'t ' . ''' "",..,. . .;,,,Z!:..:',,,::',,.''.....;;,1,t,:44g- ;';',F'.fl'''44.'-; -::.*:-'471,...4,:.,t- -.:''''''''' • ' II ' ';'\....''' ill 1 , 1 .. .0011.4.. . '11,.._. er''• .r`'.--"lit,:". rrtnif#4. 7.--,-, iiir 1-1r.t'''''`;-::. *i'7.,"4.071:v"""•.1.,'.,',!....4..;,.41: .Z`N,,:2;,•':''''.4:-4.•'"If =e,"11 • 0,,-*',44.,......4.4:. -12 .-7-404r; . 4.. i• ‘f..7.t.*:•4•:;•, ;:t."'!..i; .,, :::,-,.,•,,. .'7 P• • '..TO! : :.:,..,4,,TR.T,tit.„){,::Ai,T. '',":,t,,f4„:":Ta*. .L T.,4::,'2•' . ' , • f--.! . ,i' -,.,...:.:„. .:-..:.--,,L:•.,..: -.-'. .- :-4.-::-,;",','.,,,.••r,,,,,,.. .rt,,,,,„,,,ii.- •.:•,,k;.-;,,,, ,. . „,,,,',", ,• --)H.,.. -`'''''.-- ' ' ," "",2'TF- , ell. ' .."'4., '': •fig .,.." Ttti 't:, .t',' At '4 1,,1 ",.• it,* '`• ‘;".':4. ''.'. .1! I ' 1'1 ' . _ ' '** N . .):,-;'':-. ':,• ,.. . ., -,• ,- ,.:,,,••,. .. ..i,,e,', , ,, .,4‘. . - .,„,,,,,,,..,:,Ni...•-, , ,.. .".'. ...'t '-. .,,!. ,'. , — , . .. . ..',':,!., ' '' ? i.2 " ."‘ "--. 1 ....4"4,40.":4':‘, . 4 .•y..-,-.,,,",if,‘.4..,,,A.i., ..."'" :'''.-4,,;.,,,-.,,,,„„,, '. .'' ''-)- -.. . • . ,,J. . . , • .--,0..,,4ttis,...4.,%1 ,;...'r, - R-: ,,-,---7-•, , .,--,,: •:•li,,,, 2-•-'•-••,', ..;,,,,,,•-:,-,,'Fit,., . /.., „ ..,,,,,.-2- 1 ii,,,,t- '- •-.-,,,-10,..t&A,...v*. -,...4,,,''','''''''''',.,i3.,'ri,. . ,. ..‘,. ::, '.: '- ,.":. ' .'''' ' '''.'' '''' ''7';1 ; ..t. ■t• „ ' ii;'''s '• '4•• ''..'. ' , l''‘.. .•,•'''. ''' ' .,'•" '.i.!''''• ' ,'• ,'. ,,, ,*4; .•,.-,y, ,•.: -.;;;::;:,41,....-!:- .,i,.•!,..L. -,n;;...,..__. '. .'....,-i.... ...•-:,..,........s....*;, *01F„tkn..•-.2-,-„,: -.„..,:',3,:•‘,-:--, „ji-,; -,t-- ,i-:,-it.''.' : ' ?Nt:•,:„., , 4,,,,...t..,40...-„-.1•,•,-).*:,,,..-4,t'•-:)••• ''':":"'"'"r.•', '•:. .,';'":•.‘....,.....,•`.•': "..: :;,:' .. ";".iSf• '.•,:. • '1.,..i..' '.z 171,4? .'7I '' ''.' 11.t''''';'''' . '' - ',. '..''''''':.'''''.‘.', ..11t*4..• -.I.:.;;-'`,*'; ..1,,41:71' '''\-'''• •"'''-"-'4' ---; ' .'*•..,',,,,.'',...,.."'3 •..,`".."<''''-'.-" -.' L 4, •', '74;'-: ..'",:'. '.';',:;.,;.;•;. ',., ,".,,.1 P',, - '.'",':., : ,.,) '' , ... . . . *. ..4• *it4.' ,..1!..,'''44 i3:'.',"'.".''7,';',I%. ::•4-‘, , 4 ..---'; .4 ' 5' 'e•••••:, ' . ' , ,' . i'': !••• 'i .4,.., •'.',. ''' 4.,-4,-, , ,-- .-,.•,. .tf.-.,17.0 - ."0",...,'•t;',.4,'.. ',4'',r'' - . i•-,,, , ',T. i'• ' 1-A 0‘0•4,i,,44.t'' > ,... „. , 11111: 4 ' -'.,..,, •,;,:i,.,.. ,..,,2 ,„,' „,,..;..••••;,t1Ilis;I -.,--,.. „ ,. .,,;:,,,A„...,-,i,.1,.. .,,,,x. •,, !!A ..-..m.').,...:,.. . ,.-4-,;,,,,,,, , .;. .;--.. , ..,-;1'., ,...!.', ',.',, ' . . ..,-,.., ...w. , ‘...,,,,:,:i.A,,-.• . ,. -.• -=, .: -,....... ..N--, '' ',z'A.1'.,44, '..":,'', .-... .i•fi•''.•'*trifi ‘`..".;''''',,.., -•'-1 .%.'" fl' ... . . :,rti .. , . ','... • : , i • . .'?, J ,:•,,, ‘,,L.,, ...,:,,,,_'.;-•:;.'":- ' , :• ,,"',:.,4,,t,,, ;;,„,',./.,.-,,•' -,..,, 4 ...,:, :...,:j,,,,., ,..?, .,,,, sk!'...■ ..2._ ,.....---L.c.-. ,.., IC '4 .\ , t. ;,.....57.... '...,,o„.,...:74‘..::'''.--'"':'7'•'*:,''k' ''N11.4':;.'-'''`';. ', :: ''''.* ' ';!..i,-; ..' '..n.4''''''.4•*': %*.":.-,*.) '''''''''''i '71----7-'-- -., ...•.• ,-":4 > ' i,,, .2i-,..,41...''.._ ,:-..,„' . ; •!'' : -'• . ••-''''- H ' :, I;' N.t, ,itt;,,*;.."e•-:,--,;. .„ ,- ...- ,z•!'"-..--.....-...-,'",-- 'At'''',. - -..a) ,--.,'..••''48, ,.`t.. ,.. :,.7,,...,:...* ':'4...,,>r, '..." ,. • . . , ,/ 4, •2 ;';'''"- . "*... :---"'1.-" *. ' 's 7:'''' ''.''''' ', 1.-.`'::*'.* -'''.• *v.1.1,•41‘ 4,,..•-,;(*•--tt,• affr.,':- .- :••- ' L., - . •••••,„,,, ,,, i-,:,,,..1. / --r:. ''', ; ti,,',",N;',,,;,, • -, ''"'' ''' ... ;;.''' ..;,, -'-'1,..„1",,,,,;„',,,,,_': • : '.....,, ......,..--414,-, , ,,,J',.::,./:: ,,,,,!:,,;;-,‘"?' .A..',,,,,,... 0,411.%),,,.:,...t w .' • ..'''f*".k. ' 71 ";'•••1 ' ‘-71•k$''': '' ''-''''' ` ' .rc''''' ' , ,,N:',:', i:•:,:f ''.,,. •.•• ,• *NC. !..„,,,,,,.„,,,,, ..„ r ,,,,,,,t,,,, litt,,a,,,,,,.,,,,,,i,,,..- 11•Thte". '1 " • '' ''' • . ' 4,,,..1•7t4 ' :•':= ' 'T ,'*,1'v"s' r. '•*,t''tt''''.",.. q 4'. '3'0'..1%',•••.'1,M.4W"'.;;,..;■•,,k,4,-'s '''''n " it :. 44 ' e A ti..,-11 ."4,",•;t ,e.„ ,4,, '4 ?,_.,f T'ttt.',.•..t,4,44,•7,,,i,,„44,..,-;,;,,••-,'..,;:,,,:':,,•;:.'..1".•1",1,-..•;:,',.=:.t:".:;*.".,;r.-;,..",,,..?.•:': -,••,4"0", ' .•;;"i" '•• , 'F''''' ', .4.1*,...-`'. , ,4•47444.44A, , I - •+•44...,, .4. 44. . '' ' ; . , ,,,,,,,,,.. ;•-.,-;..• .••• 1,;.1,,,- . • ..; r ;1...,.. •. ;1,-. it„0,%";;;:',, ,.... ,,,,,„,....., ....-i.-:.,;,,fr,,,,,,,;,,,,,t_miv.... ., • •.,„,...r:',., .•-• -..4,4a-•,,,„*,A., _51,..T.•.. ,,,,1".:.;.:7,*.4.....„` ,,,,::'•.•--•".;.'„'. ,-., .,' .0, ...-t,,f..•:. '24,, ,'f''' , , „ i .0 , i ,,■..,...... .....41,, '4%ot • .-,..':•-. .,,,*,t.,,T,,..:1:i ::,,,i• •,,. N,,,t, ‘..=. -4,‘„,...•,•*;„,1,-,,,,,,,„,,t,,,,,,,,,,itt,,,,„,,.„,„....N . ....;-: ..-. . .,t.'.•' -.: :'„ ....:•;:iti:‘• -t: , k 2 t' ,,,- •' ;'.. --,T.,,zt.4?:x".;4"4, 1.,,i.:1 ' '--'1.,,-;.'''''''.4.,•;"‘.2.4i...:`,;''1,,It''''''..4.7-‘7'. ,: .r4,,,,":5,t4.::.','".* '' 4g-'.` ' ' '..:- '• , : . '' . ' r- • : .) ,,; li. 11:-k-,!•- ..':i's - .. .".:4k,i.; ' :z'''',4-' ''4,, ,,■"'",,'!,i ''.P. . '-: -. .•,, ' ; • • ., -,;, , ,,",i . - ' . . . • ' ' . 1 `,. •.' l' k't‘ **,1" , , ::., . 'i. •; ,,, „ 1,:,,,,,,,,,,,, r. .. ,-.:-....... .0..,,,t1...........'...:,.. ,;..1%,,.:4 , .: . .'•:.-:„.., ,.....-,,,,,' .... . .. 1.... r l' r ,•04V , „' V '•• '' ., .. • '. .. , ,. , . .,:.'••• ''1F1'r.V,..?,\..„' '.•-••4••4•';13/4.,,,":• ` ,•.,,,',. i., ,;51e'r4„. ..--;', .-. -;,:.,,, „ ....,, , :L., — ■ . ' .' . ,,4,.. '.,.,.,..„...*4 4 - ' :7: '..- - 4., . ..' .1" .2. -,.. ,,,,,r.,, 'i'.."$.'.."r,'4; ,'"4' .4..`' '''''''4`L ' .' ' I " ,1: r' ' , • .'24/;!",, .. ..•:' • • '. - ," • . •'' 'It4t... • ;,,'''';:'k '" '''..f-2•,°:".:.1.2,•:,,,,,4f4...4.4..'.l''',,..,'.`,:'r-:',..i.4.:,n.,:.;', .: ' ',''' ',-'1 , • '''"". ,',xm ;.',,.,, "7 „ .,.t "3-:.:7,',,Se.:,',i,t, ',A , ..,..., .;.".1.. ".,. E...,, -:'- .,441Kimfai--.--i -,- , . ,•,,,--v.--.1 . -t.L.ft..;: ,.... ,./...-'4,- ,r,'.- - ti iitmAti_Li. '41.1).11111raillif .'' •i''...,i.... ' . ..'''"."4.-,..4„. !!'''''''. - -i...-, ..f,r..i,..-'• • -' ,'- '. :.",,ffAj 1, . ' ',....1 e...4,;: .1-„, ,,' ,-'' E , - P,• „•,•-; • .. ,„.,..„.•,,,,,,...6,-es,'.,...:,„••,,,,,.4- ‘i*,..s-J*4.4„,-.,:-•-e.r • - .i.,.. • :•--.---.':, -!•,,,,,- '•• ' ,, -•',:-.,,,-..• •,,,,,,,;•••,\.1 '-,,,,..•*,,t,4'-7 . , ,• . 1- . 1= ,.22 , . ••,,,,, ,, • „,,,,ii„itt... 7,,......- - :i.;,:,..-. ..,,,,.*It'" •,..',,,,,,,44 .,,:.,,, „.:. , ,:. , ,,. .. 3,..,--,_. ,. . .,, ... { • ka,A '''..' i .'''..,:. 'ii...‘,''4.t.Z,,,!It.?!.':k.,',t; •), . . 1 2 • '' 1 f'• • ':':'.' .' ' ‘4,S '',..'''':. ":,'",:'- ''.'I'S' ,> ,'6A1W4 1;4r'''*::*''' ' '":i'''''' ' ' _. . i'e :. ' ,e,'',‘., '''''''..Y`,■11k' .-....4-,,, --.....: ..--•= .. ,,, - ....' -,-.-...- ', ' -..': - .----;‘. •:,-,. ' ..:!-.— '1' -- -. ' .L . ' - ' 44110100.14.44 ilk,kAZ, --.1. - ,..v.4y2..,i, ', . ,..',.-.:•,*1.7 ,,i. It*'±' ' ,'„ . '. .. ,.„ : '' i!. '''''. ','' .-V;4'''' ''''7',4:-'''', :''. -.,' • 'i'''; l'i' ''' '''''l'' '"'‘,",;'''''''',',4'•"*...','.%."64fM: : . ■!tilA,,, 1 ''',.,-' . '''''; '* ' • .-''-. ,‘ ''4,,t4141044,04','''":'''' '''' ,,,,4144/4a/L ' --j . - . ''''" :' v:. -,"1-: . ':- :...) . ': •,- . ,-'. . ,.,.‘ ,,:-., *-;, .„..;, f*.•.. .„. * ,'.:ii.::. •,7,,,, ,.'.-,.;.;', ..'2;:,..0..*:::.1,2. ,,*4-,ii!7' .............. . -- — ' 0 •.s..z-L.- ,,Air P '• ''' .. .:'...•',,7 tl,,,• ' '• , • :t. • ,'''''4, 7 •''-. '1','"•l ‘'''''''',Sillf.4",, 04-••'‘ , ,,.,,,.. , g, '' 1. 7r," ',,,t, ,W, ',:.'• '. ' ':::'-4,''' ,''''*,.., ,..1..'..`, '4,V1111,,, '',:r ''1"- ,... •,•,,,,4*,•.'',: , 1 1 .' ''''':, •,7' .'''' •• .141 - .", . , ,' ",r?',,,.'.,. • - -- ', ' '.• .7: --.. .; :.,•'?• ‘'. :•,'"...-- • ,•:,. ., ' . '' ,;, ---,..4•,<,-,"47:7 ', :- :. 2--'','„,;;; ;'''r: ' , ' , ; i14-‘': ,,•;i7, '- -- ' ' ..„•.- ,,.„ , -...1„,7%.„:.,: :.. -:, . • ' f`. ''' •.‘ 4.‘'.4•,..i,.-...y,i...,.. .,...,...'. . '. ..',,-,-.! •;,.-7-, . ,,.. ...,,,,,.. ,.;r...:1 • , ",..' , •. , ' r•". 1;i',"!,t,,, ' .* •.,1*,•;,'. ,,.. ,..,' , „„„,.. .,.. . __III, , • 0 0 .. I • • U �1 I > DEMOLITION GENERAL NOTES Z o a . IpI I < 1. CONTRACTOR SHALL REMOVE ALL TREES(MARKED). SHRUBS. `a - RUBBISH, AND MAN-MADE STRUCTURES INCLUDING, BUT NOT - '� 8 • LIMITED T0. CONCRETE SLABS. WALLS. VAULTS. FOOTINGS. z �! ASPHALTIC PAVED SURFACES, GRAVELED AREAS. SHEDS OR OTHER .. LL �•. i1 FREE-STANDING BUILDINGS(CONSTRUCTED OF WOOD, CONCRETE. g METAL,ETC.)BUILDINGS FOUNDATIONS, FENCES. RAILING. 8 , ,rMACHINERY. EiC. WITHIN THE CLEARING LIMITS. THE ITEMS LISTED m Y f ABOVE SHALL BE DISPOSED OF OFF-SITE IT SHALL BE THE Od. z y--\ROW SLINE (!I \ CONTRACTOR'S RESPONSIBILITY TO CONFIRM THE NUMBER OF - - STRUCTURES TO BE REMOVED. (9 O Q v• - % % % -+ I- I , . 2. ALL BURIED STRUCTURES (LE. TANKS, LEACH LINES, DRAIN TILE. - g (` 10). • I _ � X - AND PIPES)NOT DESIGNATED TO REMAIN ON THE SITE. SHALL BE o, "11 REMOVED ANC THE RESULTING EXCAVATIONS SHALL BE PROPERLY m N F-- � '�_ 0 I BACKFIILED AND COMPACTED PRIOR TO ANY GRADING OR FILLING °� PROPOSED f I "\.' - OPERATIONS. THIS INCLUDES STUMPS AND ROOTBALLS OF TREES 3 STRIPING �� I TO BE REMOVED FROM THE SITE. w vii 8 qq 20+00 21+00 35.0 }, ALL UNSUITABLE MATERIAL (SOIL k VEGETATION) REMOVED DURING m 3 - -_ - 1 - I •- _ ___ u _ N dddd DURHAM STA: 24+50 THE CLEARING AND GRUBBING OPERATIONS SHALL BE REMOVED BY 0 g I- _ -1 . I - THE CONTRACTOR AND DISPOSED OF OFF-SITE IN A SUITABLE DRIVEWAY TO • -- -- -- - �- - �-1 24+00 . = ACCESS STA: 1+ 0 LOCATION APPROVED BY THE ENGINEER AND THE CITY OF • F 5 0 _ _ 1 BE CLOSED _ - - - _= _. _ b • a O 4.- _-R200 _ 45.0 38.0 + SAWCU - }- - .._. - a. //''� _ 2 0' I T ° 25+00 PORTLAND. (� SW DURHAM RD --jli1 '' �i� 25 ENGINEER/OWNER SHALL PROVIDE THE CONTRACTOR WITH A C+) --)• q r C_°m R45.0' LOCATION TO PLACE AND COMPACT EXCESS SUITABLE MATERIAL. CI) N 6�0 �0 BG^: �!::a 0 o O�G �0 0; 0 `'8' F R20.0' - - - - _ - �- - �� n - THE LOCATION SHALL BE STRIPPED AND REMOVED OF ALL ORGANIC ° _ _�� Fl1 22.08' 70' - MATERIAL PRIOR TO PLACEMENT OF EXCESS SUITABLE MATERIAL. rPV _ EXISTING_ _ � ._ _ L� CI T.O- .Fa ROW LINE \ I N 1- 5. TREES NOT DESIGNATED TO BE REMOVED SHALL BE PROTECTED AT -•y - ..�I� �e�1v - 1 _ I ALL TIMES. U U '0 -5. .--�-g- U• 3 - EXISTING I `1'«-. RELOCATED ■O`I `60�- ___ __ v �3.0' I ROW r+. . R35.0• L NEW CO LEGEND• i.. R3.0' SAWCUT NEW ,,--- Ra5.4 SIGNAL - Q /. I' I STRIPE (N.\ SIGNAL SAWCUT ... • -• . • - EXISTING 1'CONTOUR•S �� � PROPOSED T I �J O 7.0' __ - ---- - EXISTING 5 CONTOUR CE J - I I, (� _ -4: :7.• ►V�))��i, - TREE REMOVAL < O 113.76' "87"5 i' .' �0 // ^ry'j t�� / IL•}) � - TREE PROTECTION w _ _///'' y , �l�V fff/// -. I <` I M R15.0' ,4�/ �rQi< / . ...- NOTES L� U "T,,'"t-3;� / R5.0' THE UNDERGROUND UTILITIES SHOWN HAVE BEEN LOCATED FROM FIELD SURVEY C cn • • v,=�'T' / INFORMATION AND FIELD LINE LOCATES. THE SURVEYOR MAKES NO GUARANTEE THAT , 6.5' R5.0 , / -Q O THE UNDERGROUND UTILITIES SHOWN COMPRISE ALL SUCH UTILITIES IN THE AREA < 1 I 1 Z • '•art:�r1A;?5.;. j: ! _ �t EITHER IN SERVICE OR ABANDONED. THE SURVEYOR FURTHER DOES NOT WARRANT LLJ •• {,�--x•' R5.0' ' '=--Zr THAT THE UNDERGROUND UTILITIES SHOWN ARE IN THE EXACT LOCATION INDICATED J Z :r',d,�^. ';` SAWCUT. E II���, .0' ALTHOUGH HE DOES CERTIFY THAT THEY ARE LOCATED AS ACCURATELY AS POSSIBLE Q .V1.7. ,4 _ _ _ _� -._ 18.0' .5+�/ �1--5.0'_ _ I I � FROM INFORMATION AVAILABLE. THE SURVEYOR HAS NOT PHYSICALLY LOCATED THE W J 0 R150' �'� -, NEW CURB UNDERGROUND UTILITIES. 11 0 L 42.14 __..d R15.D / ' ..... SAWCUT H i'. 1" w V-i� � EXISTING UNDERGROUND UTILITIES SHOWN FOR ----- --- - - -- 4.,„,,,,,),' REFERENCE ONLY. CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY ,^ yI 6'71 / WORKTI NOTIFYD ENGINEER NFPCONF UCTCEX STS.CINC V! 1 Q 0 A 11 �- R45.0• 17.3 32.0' "�"' .56 5 N. RD / 1 x / UJ D Q OCC srarJ. . . T �% `� x 1B.Jr y� �- 0 �'I $5. � ::;B R5.0 . �' ,-�/�� R450' /' t!: (t 3.0 JJ �/28.0�3E t ' V�- .0' . 5+�R},p' PARKING(19) 28.0' r• 0� > 18.0' • � '�S AN�A•0 "-'r'• /`T\ 4/ CHILD PROTECION II 51 0' R5.0'`, x.0..99 28.0' 40.0' .0 FENCE ./_,-1 - 0 • R73.6 3�` -J ; - . �. _ ' 1/� • 40.0' `0 PLAYGROUND SUBMITTED UNDER 0\ ?.•Z k . ^_ 40..'.' 111 PERMIT @ MMD2007-00019 `Z-'�A AI .4.i b�.0%�.I1�.@�. 6� V O a r 0� •,A92" ♦ �P" r' MAZE GATE MAZE CATS _ �1 i i�♦!: v / 40.0' �* (TYPICAL N TAMP `' I 5%110.. _._-..__. _ ) (ttPICAL) _ I o ° MAZE GATE ,,'..r r _ _ .j"' ` - 1 SAWCUT /1-' ''''',--SAWCUT ;:- $7"r'''•�. •� -- (TYPICAL) / y+, 7'". I °CC ADA _. _� $_ _ a :.c: I 20.0'■ d y�'" .!"h - _I_ 1 P RAMP I MAZE GATE v: DRNEWAY �� N (• / - = 1 GP le (TYPICAL)r iii PROPOSED a;'J ,`- },,T-)j1� r - - VJ 8 \ FIRE yr.' ( l'� IT ♦ Z _-- I HYDRANT F 4' if-;, .(� I � '�~. , " I-� O \S��RaD PRO!1,. • 20.0' I� •i<i __ - U - I - - - - - -`_ - -- -- - --' WATER QUALITY 60'... I i GATE •i SWALE /� ` I t Sri ; - _- _ _- X CC I\D"EGON I I �;' [ EXISTING_/ -_ O ��T • `-- - SOCCER FIELD x 6 ANY M" '4! -^'f'I i.n. _ I i x �` EXPIRES: 12-31-08 �o ' _ - • x , o DATE 106/22/07 V 1 J fir/ i 7 DRAWN I RER �A° -_ _ _ I 1 L DE9r�JED I REA P _ _ 1 OREGON UTILITY SCALE: /'=io' I CHECKED IAJr�1 S j �,_ - x =- PROJECT• I TSO870100 /Q ��'� I NOTIFICATION CENTER 3O 's 0 30 W SHEET TTrIE • I I 1.800.332.2344 , TREE SITE PLAN •(IT� �w\ x I I 7�C , O\C5 - SHEET FJIJMB'cR bin �w I I Repose °J 0 EX N4/ l o-0 V 03 OF 6 SHEETS 6�0