HomeMy WebLinkAboutPermit System Development Code Charge 1997-9-16
.':,. :' ,. !~'i. :.,I.....I~:.,': ..d....il i~,.~:<_~\...J~9-=I~U,,;1 1,lll.I-rW. ;, "f'\.~
CITY OF SpAGFI EL~~~~~r:S A DE~vE:LoIENT' .cHi~~2':~77oij~' " .
WORKSHEET
,NAME OR COMPANY:
RON I"
OIL.
(0.
, LOCATION:
Bo'o
MAII./51:
DEVELOPMENT TYPE: ' .
5cZ,::(),t r::. . ~TAn 0",'
BUILDING SIZE: . 10\&,"7
LOT SIll' 17. '3 7-/
so. Ft.
f'f~i"'" r-l,..,,,,l. S j ~ PLAN
1. STORM ORA I NJ'.GE i3 "D, ,/157 ~f
pAve:: rz. 6fj7 ,
f'...tZa' ;~l:' t.z.j '3(5(:
IMPERVIOUS SO. FT. j'7.lq<t-
i
X $0.226 PER SO.
FT. $' ~BBS 8.1.
/
2. <;ANTTARY SEwER-CITY,
,NO, OF PFU'S "7
(See Reverse Side)
,x $46.86 PER PFU
$
3'2.8 oS.
'*
,
3. TRANSPORTATION
( S~E. 2f-AI'='~ '- STt-' 0 '). VATE C) . '1 / i 0 1-17 'G,'~)' ,
. fC,.1 II z=t..S;;;';...i !. f\ ~::;;..:CII\-rCS itoiC.
. I .. I
NO OF UNITS X TRIP RATE' X cost PER TRIP
0.'3/ ;~ 6 lI~r
x is. 71c/~,c:p X $472.49
$ ie., '/61
Ii:.
-
,
x
X $472,49
$
X
'.
X $472.49
$
4. SANITARY SFWFR-MWMC '
\if\";>' '.
'NO. OF FEU'S I:) X . 3'1 ~, PER ~ + $10 MWMCI ADM FEE $ -Zb 77!s
. '
MWMC CREDIT IF APPLICABLE (SEE REVERSE)
$
:ZZ '3 ~
TOTAl-MWMC SOC
$
~)a;..,
SUBTOTAL (ADD HEMS 1. 2,3 & 4) .
\ . '
$ ?- '2-, 7'f -f f;/> ,
5, ADMINISTRATIVE FFFS
,
BASE CHARGE (SUBTOTAL ABOVE) X .05
$
2.4 .
j~7-
I -
. -:.
~1/1$1fC' P q:z. f'
172Ijf'f/c. SjZJO~ .VI\'RO 9/'0 </1oate: q fiG/<n
SOC Coordinator
/
l"lC'(
TOTAl SOC $ 23; 68'z
. rl^,. unc. 'UIIIII \"''''''L.\'''ULJ-\..w.UI~ i ~1J~S::~,~IT!~!;{,Of New F.i~.".(.es'~C!!.nlt\~~..!W'~~t(~';'~fiXt!Jt::'Rr11i~'\i~t;"j
(NOTE: For remodels. calculate,only ~ additional fixtures) " '".'" : ,..':~<:,(;t~~:;c:;:'''::; ....'.; ,:~~...." .' "
_NUMBER"OF' "., , I ~UNITrcr<j: FIXTURE
FIXTURE TYPE NEW,FIXTURES' ,EOUIVAlENT: UNITS'
Bathtub................................................:....................: .
Drinking. Fountain.................".:,............ ..........'..., ..... '
Floor Drain. .................................... .:.. ........ .:..............
Interceptors For Grease/Oil/Solids/Erc:.....~.......... '
Interceptors 'For Sand/Auto WashiEtc........:..........
laundry Tub/Clotheswasher............................ ...:...
Clotheswastier, 3 Or More.....................................
Mobile Home Park Trap (1 Per Trailer)..................
Receptor For Refrigerator/Water 'Station/Etc...,....
Receptor For Commercial Sink/Dishwasher/Etc...
Shower, Single Stall.............. ..,:.,...,..........................
Shower, Gang... .:................. .'.,.....,........., ................:
Sink: Bar: CommerCial. Residential' Kitchen....:........':..........
Urinal, Sta.II/Wall..............:......... ..:... .............. .:. .,........
W~sh Basin/Lavatory, Single..................................
Toilet. Public Installation...................................,.....
Toilet. Private................... ..:.:...............................
Miscellaneous:
2
1
2
3
6
2
6
'. 6
1
3
2
i/Head
2
2
I l' I
, \ 6 &;
.4
TOTAL FIXTURE UNITS
=
7
CREDIT CALCULATION TABLE:
calculate credits separates,
'I' " An:::ed
Based on assessed value. If improvements occurred after annexation da~e in table.
(late per $ i ,000
. Assessed'Value
Year
Annexed
Rate per $1.000
Assessed Value
1979,or before
1980
1981
,1982
1983'
.. 1984
L~c~::: ·
Credit for Parcel or Land Only If Applicable
,
$3.97
3.89
3.83
3.70
3.55
, 3.39 '
3.20
2.91
.I
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991'
1992
1993
1994
1995,
1996
$2.56
,2.17
1.73
,1.31'
0.92 '
0.74
'0.61
0.45'
0.31
0.17
zn'jl)
I .
JI
Improvement (if after anne?<ation date) ,
;>, 'J].. X $ .,-e,. 'ti~
(Rate X Assessed Value)
X $
. (Rate X Assess'ed Value)
=
=
CREDIT TOTAL
=. $
(.,.-
.,
'Z23
I
'I RUNOFF COEFFICIENTS FOR 'STORM DRAINAGE
(For Estimating Purposes Only)
" ,
\
nesidential...:......:........:...:...O.4
Commerical..............:.....:...., 0.9
Industrial............................ 05
Governmental...........::......... 0.5
J
IMPERVIOUS AREA =' TOTAL LOT SIZE X RUNOFF COEFFICIENT
.,
J
(
~~11/1997 14:33
5032.9 .
(
,
~
'H 'n. "- ~ '
[-Z~ Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
~ Transportation PlannlnglTrafflc Engineering
810 SW Aldor, Suite 700 . Portland OR 97205
Talephlll'le: (503) 228-5230
~ Fl:l.~: (Z031273.a Hi9
E-mail: infoOkinelson.eofTI
__.... r-.np;!lwww.lo.inels..n..oml
-
THIS IS PAGE ONE OF A 4- PAGE
TRANSMISSION
='. OF
- .' ,
M "lSo.:.A M., <or"" ( P!e....<;:. l"''''f~
t:::>^ reec.'v:".,~"",JJ
KITTELSON AN~SOC
PAGE 01
,- .". . -1- - - .
DATE j I 4c.;'ej q -:r
v
PF\OJECTNAME ~......... -c-- _
::;.. ~,.,
;r"".~:);(~t.~l'j~
2,=1(,z
p~OJECT .
~, '"~'--:..It=1,t:'1''.il"i1m;tiIU.Il.h'Ii(''IIr~'''''''''''
NAME
-,-....."
C:-l... n{'
He ..Alli<...{..""
.'"'>::>r: r>,.(e.U
, ...J
FAX NUM6ER
.5''+ I .I 72~- 3i: 8i
~:'II"". ,
IN CASE OF INCOMPLETE TRANSMISSION PLEASE CALL OUR CONFIRMATION NUMBER: (503) 228-5230
~bc.
,<=.- Ko,", ~5
0: {
jllJ:oli)"~lr' .,.,'"
. II \I "..:11
Or~ Lf~II<=, ( -L-> -r=((o~
oj I .
..r~..,~ <<,--1 a.-r.a-A M~
-...J
c:.c
1"- I"'c?c t C c, ... P... ..Ie>......
:)-tj I l:r (J '"+ - 2 468
,
,
1../. q
(<....,:-f(,.~...-t Mf"'<.c~...e.,:;/-)
,.----
..--eon- ~i!-.Cj<.-c.5.o"""""'"
FROM;
NOTICE: This communica.tlon may be privileg8d Of comaln a client confidence. It is a pflvate me::lsaga TO Ihe perSOn named
aCove, DD NOT PERMIT ACCESS BY ANY OTHER PERSON. If tne intended recipient is not currontly or ..pected at tho
ioca.tion where this message ......as received. please lalepnone us immediately 61 ma conflrmiuion numblitf aOOlle, and mail all
pag&s of Ihis transmission to us al1he adc3ress abo\ls.
'/Iron, '::oll'~ 10' O'O').CI 'l"lInll';ler . '1"0110"," (O"y 10 /'0I1l.... Iii.,
~"'~OP...I", 'J;!
U~11/1~97 14:33
50327.9
KITTELSON AN~SOC
PAGE 02
{
I(
KITTELSON & ASSOCIATES, INC.
TRANSPORTATION PLANNING/TRAFFIC ENGINEERING
610 S,W, ALDER, SUITE 700 . PORTLAND. OP< 97205 . ($03) :228.S230 . FA.;x, (:503) 272.8169
September 10, 1997
Project #: 2762
Mr. Troy McAllister
Senior Engineer
City of Springfield
22 5 hfth Street
Springtield, OR 97477
BE: Ron's Oil Transportation SDC - Development Project # 97-04-087
Dt:ar Mr. McAllister:
On behalf of our client, Mr. Ron La Franchi, we are submitting this letter-report on a proposed ga~
station to be located at 800 Main in the City ofSpringtield. After discussions with the Cit;. Tra.ffic
Engjneer, we have prepared this independent review of the trip generation cbaracteristics of the sile
and respectfully submit that a reduction in the transportation element of tbe fee would be
appropriate. We calculate tbe revised SDC for transportation to be $11,541.99 or $18,467,18.
depending on whether or not credits are given for the previous gas station on the site, resepecrively.
The reasons for the revised calculation are:
1. A large percentage of trips are "pass-by" trips that would have little or no impacl on t\;e
roadway system in Springfield since they would be there already,
2, If a trip-credit for the old gas station with threc (3) pumps were given, an additional
reduction would be appropriate.
Background
The procedure set out by the City of Springfield to calculate a transportation system deveJopl.oeut
charge (SDC) is: multiply the nwnber of trips impacting the road system during the p.m, peak hour
by a standard charge of$472.49 per trip. Using the information provided by the City, a trip rate of
15.76 would be used and the SDC would be $59,517,54.
As an altemative, the City's ordinance also has a provision thaI aliows for outside infonnation 10
he used and for studies to be conducted by a qual ified traftic engineer, The,e sources may he
obtained from either national databases (specifically the Institute ofT ransportation Engineer's [ITE]
Trip Generation Manual) or from actual studies conducted by an independent traffic cOllsultanl.
This report reflects an independent evaluation of the trip mal(ing characteristics of the si,te and is
approached at two /eve Is:
FILE NAME: 1I:\PR01FILEI2762\REPORT\LETREP01.WPD
,
'0't.l'l1i1~97 14:33
50327.9
KITTELSON AN~SOC
PAGE 03
I'
Mr. Troy McAliisl6i
Se:fJu:moef 10. 7997
Projecr: 2762
PlJr;e: 2
I. Pass-by Trips -- It is widely recognized in the tratlic engineering profession that ITE trip
generation rates renect only the number of vehicles that arC likely to use a driveway. They
are not good predictors of how much new traffic would be added to the transportation
system. Many drivers visiting a gas station happen to be driving down the road for another
reason; they stop at the gas station only because it was on their route. Many of these trips
would be passing the gas station even if they did not need to till their tanks. As such, a count
of the number of people entering the gas station is not a good indication of how many trips
are being added to the system when a new station is built.
2. Trip Credits - Since a gas station (with three pumps) previously occupied this siTe, it can
also be fairly argued that the new gas station should receive credit t'1r trips that were
previously generated by the old gas station. The rationale is Ihat the new gas station has
eliminated the trips of the previous use from the system.
Trip Generation
ITE has published over the years a series of updated "manna Is" on trip genemlion, The TTE Trip
GeneraTion manual is a compilation of empirical trip generation studies conducted tltroughout NOtlh
America. The individual studies measured trips entering and exiting a development (such as a gas
station) at its driveways. 1l1is puhlication has become '111 accepted Donn for eSli!Ilating trips of new
development, including gas stations. The February 1995 update to Trip Generation presents a trip
rate of 15.76 p,m. peak hour trips per fueling position (ITE Land Use 844), which is the same rate ~
as that published by the City. This rate results in 126 trips during the p,m. peak hour for a gas '1\
station with eight (8) refueling positions.
A regression analysis was conducted in this publication and Ihe reportc'd R-squared value was 0.53, ..;f
indicating the linear fit is relatively poor. This is not a surprise since the nWllber of fueling positions
provided at a gas station is probably more of an indication of the operator's estimate of demand
rather th:m being an attraction in-itself. (Moreo"er, the linear spread of 6 10 12 pumps is rdativ.::!)'
small and and data is highly grouped. This will tend to force down the correlation coefficient
cornp~red to land USeS with a much wider range of independent variahle and less bunching of data,)
A much better correlation coet1icient (R-squared = 0.74) can be realized when the pm peak hour *
Iraffic volume on the adjacent street is used as !he predictor of trips. In other words, the data'
supports the obvious: locating a gas station on a busy street is more likely to attract patrons than
providing more fueling positions.
If a count of odjacent street traffic were conducted, there would be grounds to berrer predict trip
generarion. {(The volume of The adjacent street traffic were low, a lower rrip generarion predicrio/'J
would be warranted If rhe traffic/low on Main StreeT is less Than 2.500 vehicles pel' houl', the
predicted trip rate would be lower than 126 rrips per hour,
-'
An acknowledged weakness of !his approach is that measuring the number of cars that enter and exit
a driveway is not a good measure of new trips on the roadway. In recognition of this weakness, lTE
has published updates which document a limited number of "pass-by" trip studies. This is addressed
in the next section,
K/r[~/:JOf1 & A.HOCIi1laS. Inc.
Porrfand. Oregon
0'~11!1997 14:33
5032.9
KITTELSON AN~SOC
PAGE 04
"
,
.'
__. Mr. rmy McA.llisrer
\ Sr:urernoer 10. 1997
\
Pass-by Trips and Diverted Linked-Trips
\
!-jere is an example of a pass-by trip: a driver stops at a gas station on his way home from work and
the gas station is located on a street that he usually drives on while traveling home. In this case, the
stop at the gas station would be counted in the driveway trip-ends generation; but his trip is clearly
not a new trip on the road since the driver would be there regardless. In the Fcbmat)' 1995 update
to Trip Generation Wlder the detinitions for pass-by trips it states "... when/orecasted trip,; based
on the trip generation rates or equations are distributed to the adjacent streets. some reduction is
made to account for those trips already there...". This is consistent with standard traffic engineering
practice, System Development Charge ordinances in some cities account for this by providing lower
trip rates or reduction factors to account for pass-by trips, Our understanding is that the Cit)' of
Springfield allows independent consultants to bring these factors ~s documented in ITE inio lhe
equation. It is also irnportanI to recognize that there must be a r:ltion:ll nexus linking th~ impacts
of a project and the fees charged for roadway improvements.
Projer.r: 2"162
POgr!: 3
-,
A diverted linked-trip is like a pass-by trip except that some diversion t1:om the nonnal driving route
takes place. Tn this case, the impact of the trip is limited to the length of roadway where the
div~rsion takes place. An exwnple of this would be a 'driver who normally drives on an adjacent
~r1crial but diverts for a Sh0l1 distance to a perpendicular arterial to retl"el. A case can be made that
a portion of this trip should be discounted as well.
The following table shows data from the February 1995 Update to the: 5th Edition of Trip
Ge/lualio/lulong with a suggested teduction factor to apply to gas station pass-by trips The
rednction tactor was calculated by assuming (conservatively) thaI no more than half the trip-length
would be on the diverted route. Thus, the reduction factor was calculated as:
(I OO-((Diverted-Linked x 0.50)+(Pass-by))11 00
Table 1
PM Peak Hour Trip Factor
PERCENT OF TOTAL TRIPS Reduction
Study No, Primary Diverted Linked Pass-by Factor
1 11 49 40 0,36
2 20 27 53 0.34
3 6 33 61 0,23
4 23 15 62 0.31
5 11 31 58 0,27 f-
6 10 52 38 0.36
Average 13.5 34.5 52 \" O.3~h
,
,
The resulting average factor of 0,31 would be appropriate.
Kirr~/s"n 8. A.i$Ociine$. Inc.
POfrl.nd. Oregon
f,
.\.{lli1997
,: .
14:33
5032.9
KITTELSON AN4IIkSOC
PAGE 05
M,. Tru'y McAlli5u:r
Sr:prt:rnIJl'::r 10. 1997
Projecl.' 2762
P3ge: 4-
Consideration of Previous Land Uses
Since the site was previously occupied by a three-pump gas station, it may be argued that some
credit should be given for the trips that are being displaced by the new development. The
appropriate reduction would be based on the observation that the number of pumps increased from
Ihree to eight.
Revised Calculation of Transportation SDC
The resulting reduction factor was 0.31 for pass-by trips. Thus, it would be appropriate to reduce
the trip generation estimate by that amount. The revised SDC calculation. without consideration of
ctedits for existing trips, would be:
SDC = $472.49 x (15.76 trips per fueling station) x (8 fueling stations) x 0.31
= $18,467.18
When the credit for existing trips is considered, the reduction would be:
SDC = $18,467.18 x 5/8
= Sl1,541.99
Summary
The Springtield SDC ordinance provides the opportunity for independent evaluation of the trip
generation of a site. Springfield's guidelines [or conducting trame impact studies allows for the use
of !IE sources. ITE documents the results of six studies for pass-by and diverted linked-trips for
gas stations. Using this in[om1ation, a standard traffic study prepared by an experienced traffic
engineer would typically reduce the trip generation of a gas station when considering the impacts
on adjacent roads, This approach was taken here to derive an appropriate reduction factor for the
trip generation of the proposed gas station, Finally, if credits are given for previous uses on the site,
a further reduction in the SDC for transportation would be appropriate.
Please feel free to call me if you have any questions or comments on this suhmittal. Thank you for
your attention in reviewing Ihis request.
v cry Iml y yours,
KITTELSON & ASSOCfA TES
~/Jc~-
G, Scott Ferguson
S~nior Associate
cc: Masood Mirsa (plcHse copy on receiving end.)
Ron La Franchi, Owner
Frederick J. Carleton, Attorney at Law
KicrG!SOrl & A!.sociares., Inc,
Porrl;md. ofQgori
~j