Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNotes, Meeting PLANNER 12/21/2010 . . . City of Springfield Development Services Department 225 Fifth Street Springfield, OR 97477 SITE PLAN REVIEW PRE-SUBMITTAL CHECKLIST Project Name: OBO mixed use Pre-Submittal Meeting Date: December 21, 2010 Submittal Deadline (180 days): June 19, 2011 Project Proposal: mixed use (commercial/residential) development Case Number: PRElO-00009 Project Address: 5175 & 5195 Main St Assessors Map and Tax Lot Number(s): 1702333206200; 1702333206300 Zoning: Community Commercial (CC) Overlay District(s): Applicable Refinement Plan: East Main Refinement Plan Designation: Mixed Use Area #3 Metro Plan Designation: Mixed-Use Commercial Associated Applications: tree felling 'pxnrroPE!SpltXNGEXEI!;t)J1t)EMEI.!'Pt!MENt1iultEMXEWl1l1E~l\Il'roro1"'ii"illi~kcrt,,1'ill1.i"'" . . POSITION REVIEW OF NAME PHONE Proiect Planner Land Use Plannina Steve HODkins 726-3649 Transportation Enqineer in Traininq TransDortation Michael Liebler 736-1034 Public Works Civil Enaineer Utilities Clavton Mceachern 736-1036 Public Works Civil Engineer Sanitary & Storm Clayton Mceachern 736-1036 Sewer Deputy Fire Marshal Fire and Life Safety Gilbert Gordon 726-2293 Communitv Services Manaaer Buildina Dave Puent 726-3668 :Aapu:t~N1i~$1Dt;MEJ]PPl\llEN1ii1REMIE Owner I Applicant Nick Boyles OBO Enterprises, LLC 1390 Grosbeak Crt Redmond OR 97756 Applicant's Representative Kristin Taylor TBG Architects 132 E Braadway, Suite 200 Eugene OR 97401 Revised 4/05/10 DRAFT Page 1 of 6 . . TENTATIVE SITE PLAN REVIEW APPLICATION PRE-SUBMITTAL CHECKLIST PLANNING o Application Fees (provide a copy of the test fees) $ 6,515.07 approximate. The amount of impervious surface is the amount stated in the drainage study (1.07 acres). base fee over sf$ base fee tech % tech $ mail total 10,OOOsf $4,222.00 36,609 $1,830.45 $6,052.45 5% $302.62 $160.00 $6,515.07 o Copy of the Site Plan reduced to 8'h"x 11" Complete Incomplete See Planning Note(s) ~ ~ 8 v," x 11" Copy of Site Plan o Copy of the deed and a preliminary title report issued within the past 30 days documenting ownership and listing all encumbrances. If the applicant is not the property owner, written permission from the property owner is required. Complete Incomplete See Planning Note(s) 1 r:';1 lJ1i ~ Deed and Preliminary Title Report o Brief narrative explaining the purpose of the development, the existing use of the property, and any additional information that may have a bearing in determining the action to be taken. The narrative should also include the proposed number of employees and future expansion plans, if known. Complete Incomplete See Planning Note(s) ~ ~." ~"_/ .,"0 Brief Narrative o Site Plan Complete Incomplete See Planning Note(s) I'iAH I!BJ Prepared by an Oregon Licensed Architect, Landscape Architect, or Engineer Proposed buildings: location, dimensions, size (gross floor area applicable to the parking requirement for the proposed use(s)), setbacks from property lines, and distance between buildings Location and height of existing or proposed fences, walls, outdoor equipment, storage, trash receptacles, and signs Location, dimensions, and number of typical, compact, and disabled parking spaces; ~ ~ f!D ~ r;'=I ~ ~ l'iAH.d ~ OBO Pre-submittal Page 2 of 6 . . including aisles, wheel bumpers, directional signs, and striping Dimensions of the development area, as well as area and percentage of the site proposed for buildings, structures, parking and vehicular areas, sidewalks, patios, and other impervious surfaces Observance of solar access requirements as specified in the applicable zoning district On-site loading areas and vehicular and pedestrian circulation Location, type, and number of bicycle parking spaces Area and dimensions of all property to be conveyed, dedicated, or reserved for common open spaces, recreational areas, and other similar public and semi-public uses Location of existing and proposed transit facilities ~ r:"'l t.t:l ~ I'VI ~ ~ ~ r"'I W r"'I 12;8 [3 r:"'l ~ ~ r"'I I:!!I o Phased Development Plan Where applicable, the Site Plan application must include a phasing' plan indicating any proposed phases for development, including the boundaries and sequencing of e.ach phase. Phasing must progress in a sequence promoting street connectivity between the various phases of the development and accommodating other required public, improvements, including but not limited to, sanitary sewer, stormwater management, water, and electricity. The applicant must indicate which phases apply to the Site Plan application being submitted. Complete Incomplete See Planning Note(s) 3 ~ r:;c;J L1l] Phased Development Plan o Landscape Plan Complete Incomplete ~ ~ See Planning Note(s) r:;c;J ~ Drawn by a Landscape Architect Location and dimensions of landscaping and open space areas to include calculation of landscape coverage Screening in accordance with SDC 4.4-110 Written description, including specifications, of the permanent irrigation system Location and type of street trees List in chart form the proposed types of landscape materials (trees, shrubs, ground. cover). Include in the chart genus, species, common name, quantity, size, spacing and method of planting ~ ~ ~ ~ ~'fC -,,{"t "._~ r:;;J ~ DBD Pre-submittal Page 3 of 6 . . o Architectural Plan Complete Incomplete See Planning Note(s) I2J r:;:1 ~ Exterior elevations of all buildings and structures proposed for the development site, including height Conceptual floor plans jgl ~~ "',,:-: k>,. o On-Site Lighting Plan' Complete Incomplete See Planning Note(s) 51 I2J 4 ~ jgl 4 Location, orientation, and maximum height of exterior light fixtures, both free standing and attached Type and extent of shielding, including cut-off angles and type of illumination, wattage, and luminous area Photometric test. report for each light source ~ jgl 4 Planning Notes: 1. The owner is OBO enterprises, LLC. According to the state business registry, William and Jana Olson are the managers. Nick Boyles signed as the owner. Provide signatures from William and Jana Olson, or written authorization for Nick Boyles to act on their behalf. 2. A tree felling application is required and can be processed concurrently. The fee for 9 trees is $1,373.80 3. The phasing plan can be discussed at the presubmittal meeting. It should address the site plan review for the future commercial uses, and the Public Improvement Project. A site plan is valid for two years, with an option to extend it for an additional year. Refer to SDC 5.17-115. 4. A photometric test and lighting details will not be required if a note is included that all lights will be fully shielded and directed downward. This is especially important since this site has frontage to Main Street and is adjacent to a residential neighborhood. Additional comments not related to the completeness of the application: . What is the plan if the access to main street is not allowed? This could trigger a site plan modification. Options can be discussed at the presubmittal meeting. . $ per base trees (6 to 10) base fee tree total tech fee tech $ mailina total 9 $956.00 $50 $1,156.00 5% $57.80 $160.00 $1.373.80 OBO Pre-submittal Page 4 of 6 . . . ANY REQUIRED ADDITIONAL MATERIALS, APPLICATIO.NS OR PERMITS IT IS THE APPLICANT'S RESPONSIBILITY TO DETERMINE IF ADDITIONAL STANDARDS OR APPLICATIONS APPLY TO THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT. THE APPLICANT SHOULD CONSIDER UTILIZING EITHER THE DEVELOPMENT ISSUES MEETING OR THE PRE- APPLICATION REPORT FOR MORE DETAILED INFORMATION: Applicable Not Applicable EI ~ ~ r;71 J:jiJ F;!':I ~ r;:;l es EI ~ ~ o ~ ~ r;:;l l:8;J ~ EI ~ r;71 o ~ Revised 4{05{10 DRAFT Where a multi-family development is proposed, any additional materials to demonstrate compliance with SDC 3.2-240 Riparian Area Protection Report for properties located within 150 feet of the top of bank of any Water Quality Limited Watercourses (WQLW) or within 100 feet of the top of bank of any direct tributaries of WQLW A Geotechnical Report prepared by an engineer must be submitted concurrently if there are unstable soils and/or a high water table . present. Where the development area is within an overlay district, address the additional standards of the overlay district If five or more trees are proposed to be. removed, a Tree Felling Permit as specified in SDC 5.19-100 A wetland delineation approved by the Oregon Division of State Lands must be submitted concurrently where there is a wetland on the property Any required federal or state permit must be submitted concurrently or evidence the permit application has been submitted for review Where any grading, filling or excavating is proposed with the development, a Land and Drainage Alteration permit must be submitted prior to development Where applicable, any Discretionary Use or Variance as specified in SDC 5.9-100 and 5.21-100 An Annexation application, as specified in SDC 5.7-100, where a development is proposed outside of the city limits but within the City's urban service area and can be serviced by sanitary sewer Page 5of6 . . THIS APPLICATION IS: o COMPLETE FOR PROCESSING ~ INCOMPLETE AND NEEDS MISSING INFORMATION NOTED ABOVE City Planner Date This is not a decision on your application. 180-DAY DEADLINE . You have 180 days from the date the application was submitted for Pre-Submittal Review to provide the City with a full application packet. . A full application packet includesthe application form, processing fee and multiple copies. 120-DAY CLOCK . Springfield Development Code Section 5.4-105 and Oregon Revised Statutes 227.178 require the City to take final action on a limited land use decision within 120 days after the application is deemed complete. . The 120-day processing period for this application begins when a full application packet is submitted. A full application packet includes the application form, processing fee and multiple copies. You may choose to include the missing information, or direct the City to proceed without it. . No new information may be submitted after the start of the 120-day period unless it is accompanied with a request for a time extension. The City may extend the 120-day period for a reasonable period of time. The City may also require additional fees if the new information is submitted after the Notification to Surrounding Property Owners is sent out and a second notification is required, or if the new information substantially affects the application proposal and additional review is required. OBO Pre-submittal Page 6 of 6 . . Memorandum City of Springfield Subject: December 20th, 20 I 0 Steve Hopkins - Planning Michael Liebler, E.I.T., Civil Engineer PRE I 0-00009 OBO Enterprises (LLC), Transportation Comments Date": To: From: The Transportation Division has reviewed the materials provided with the subject application. The required [mdings and conditions outlined below are provided for your implementation into the land use decision. General Finding: Approval of this proposal would construct a mixed use development CC retaiIJrestaurant multi-tenant building and a MD multi-unit housing complex. Site Access and Circulation Comments . The Traffic Impact Analysis performed in relatiop to the permit for the Main Street access location is currently under review by the Oregon Department of Transportation. The following [mdings are contingent upon acceptance and issuance of an access permit by ODOT. If an access permit is not granted, additional review by the city will be required. . Existing throat depth for the proposed driveway off Main Street is insufficient Per SDC Table 4.2-3. The minimum required throat depth for a curb return driveway is 60 feet. C:\Documents and Settings\hopk8547\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\ContentOutlook\MNR21XMF\Transportation Comments.docx : . . i HOPKINS Steve From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: GORDON Gilbert Monday, December 13, 2010 7:39 AM HOPKINS Steve GERARD Alan; FECHTEL Melissa RE: PRE10-00009 080 Enterprises mixed use development Pre-Submittal Meeting It shouldn't require a change in the site plan. It will be more expensive due to the additional sprinklering requirements in additional spaces within the apartments that would otherwise not be required with NFPA 13R. It would also probably require larger piping, valves, etc. Gilbert R. Gordon Deputy Fire Marshal Springfield Fire and Life Safety 225 Fifth Street Springfield, OR 97477 Phone: 541-726-2293 E-Mail: ggordon~ci.sDringfield.or.us -----Original Message----- From: HOPKINS Steve Sent: Friday, December 10, 2010 20:45 To: GORDON Gilbert Subject: RE: P~E10-00009 OBO Enterprises mixed use development Pre-Submittal Meeting Thanks Gilbert, what are some of the significant changes under the nfpa13? Will this be expensive or require a change to the site plan? Steve From: GORDON Gilbert Sent: Friday, December 10, 2010 4:37 PM To: HOPKINS Steve Cc: GERARD Alan; FECHTEL Melissa; LAFLEUR Karen Subject: PREle-eeee9 OBO Enterprises mixed use development Pre-Submittal Meeting Steve, I will be on vacation on Tuesday, December 21st and be unable to attend this pre-submittal meeting. Fire Marshal Al Gerard will cover for me. I have attached my pre-submittal comments for this proposed development. Al also said I needed to use my vacation or lose it! Could you or Karen please forward the meeting invite to Al for this and the other pre- submittal meeting on the Jasper-Natron Phase 10 development as well? Thanks! Gilbert R. Gordon Deputy Fire Marshal Springfield Fire and Life Safety 225 Fifth Street Springfield, OR 97477 Phone: 541-726-2293 E-Mail: ggordon~ci.sDringfield.or.us<mailto:ggordon~ci.sDringfield.or.us> 1 . . ; 2 , I. .. TENTATIVE SITE PLAN REVIEW APPLICATION PRE-SUBMITTAL CHECKLIST Engineer: Case#: prelO-00009 PUBLIC WORKS ENGINEERING Complete o Site Assessment of Existing Conditions Incomplete See PW Note(s) lBJ Q Q Q lBJ lBJ ~ J.S::2I n/a r::1 ~ n/a lBJ r::1. ~ lBJ Q lBJ Revised 10/25/07 Prepared by an Oregon licensed Landscape Architect or Engineer Vicinity Map The name, location, and dimensions of all existing site features including buildings, curb cuts, trees and impervious surface areas, clearly indicating what is remaining and what is being removed. For existing structures to remain, also indicate present use, size, setbacks from property lines, and distance between buildings The name, location, dimensions, direction of flow and top of bank of all watercourses and required riparian setback that are shown on the Water Quality Limited Watercourse Map on file in the Development Services Department The 100-year floodplain and floodway boundaries on the site, as specified in the latest adopted FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Maps or FEMA approved Letter of Map Amendment or Letter of Map Revision The Time of Travel Zones, as specified in SDC 3.3-200 and delineated on the Wellhead Protection Areas Map on file in the Development Services Department Physical features including, but not limited to trees 5" in diameter or greater when measured 4 V2 feet above the ground, significant clusters of trees and shrubs, riparian areas, wetlands, and rock outcroppings Soil types and water table information as mapped and specified in the Soils Survey of Lane County. A Geotechnical Report prepared by an Engineer must be submitted concurrently if the Soils Survey indicates the proposed development area has unstable soils and/or a high water table I, . . o' Improvement and Public Utilities Plan must be in compliance with the regulations of SDC Sections 5.17-100, 4.1-100, 4.2-100, and 4.3-100 and must include the following information: Complete Incomplete See PW Note(s) I2?l I!],. ,bJ ........ I2?l G f.1'l1 tiL.;jJ. I2?l f.1'l1 ~ I2?l 2 1 o Grading and Paving Plan Complete I2?l I2?l I2?l ~ I2?l ~ ~ Incomplete See PW Note(s) G'.. .;.",~, ~?" Q" "~'.'. ,; <i\i1i I!] ~ w I!] f.1'l1 u::.::J G 3 4 Prepared by an Oregon licensed Civil Engineer Location and width of all existing and proposed easements Location of existing and required power poles, transformers, neighborh()od mailbox units, and similar public facilities Location and size of existing and proposed utilities on and adjacent to the site, including sanitary sewer mains, stormwater management systems, water mains, power, gas, telephone, and cable N. Indicate the proposed connection points Prepared by an Oregon licensed Civil Engineer Planting plan prepared by an Oregon licensed Landscape Architect where plants are proposed as part of the stormwater management system Roof drainage patterns and discharge locations Pervious and impervious area drainage patterns The size and location of stormwater management systems components, including but not limited to: drain lines, catch basins, dry wells and/or detention ponds; stormwater quality measures; and natural drainageways to be retained Existing and proposed spot elevations and contours lines drawn at 1 foot intervals (for land with a slope over 10 percent, the contour lines may be at 5 foot intervals) Amount of proposed cut and fill o Stormwater Management System Study - provide four (4) copies of the study with the completed Storm water Scoping Sheet attached. The plan, calculations, and documentation must be consistent with the Engineering Design Standards and Procedures Manual. Complete ~ Revised 10/25/07 Incomplete ~ ~ See PW Note(s) Scoping Sheet and attached Stormwater Management System Study ~ . . PW Notes: I , 1. no domestic water supply to the east side building along main street '2. provide a 7' public utility easement along main street 3. Shrubs or some other kind of obstruction will need to be provided to shield drivers along mainsteet from vehicles in the drive through lane of the proposed restaurant. 4. trash enclosures need to be hydraulically isolated, not clear from grading plan if this is the case Additional comments not related to the completeness of the application: . A PIP will be required for construction of the sidewalk and drainage facilities along S 51st PI . An Ldap will be required . A detailed maintenance agreement for the infiltration basins and catch basins will be required . As part of the planting plan for the infiltration basins provide a note stating that all detention basins must be protected from compaction during construction and/or have all compaction due to construction activities removed. . An Systems Development Charge (SDC) Estimate is provided for your information. It is only an estimate and actual charges will be calculated on the building permit application. . Revised 10{25{07 . . OBO site plan options December 20, 2010 The retail spaces require site plan review (SDC 3.2-310). There are our options to meet that requirement: 1. Concurrently with this site plan. 2. Minimum Development Standards 3. type I site modification 4. type II site modification #1 Additional information is required now. Elevations, floor plan, outdoor lighting details, and a specific tenant. Uses must be neighborhood retail and a drive through restaurant. Least flexibility. #2 No additional information is required now. No changes to the footprint or other site plan details. Prior to or concurrently with the building permit application, the specific tenant will be identified with the MDS. Uses must be neighborhood retail and drive through restaurant. #3 No additional information is required now. Minor changes to the footprint and other site plan details allowed (refer to SDC 5.17-145). Uses must be neighborhood retail and drive through restaurant. . #4 No additional information is required now. Significant changes allowed to the footprint,. site plan details, and specific use. Uses can be anything allowed in the CC zone. Most flexibility. L~_~ DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: . . -ore-gon, Theodore R. Kulongoski, Governor Department of Transportation Region 2 Tech Center 455 Airport Road SE Building A Salem, Oregon 97301-5397 Telephone (503) 986-2990 Fax (503) 986-2839 December 8,2010 Damien Gilbert; P.E. Branch Engineering 310 5th Street Springfield, OR 97477 damien@branchengineering.com Q;,-~~~ Region 2 Traffic Analyst File: T15-3 Boyles Property Mixed-Use Development, CHAMPS Application Number 10859 Transportation Impact Analysis Review ODOT Region 2 - District 5 McKenzie Highway - OR 126 (Highway #15) Milepost 5.67 - 5.74 City of Springfield Lane County The purpose of this letter is to provide review comments for the Main Street Mixed Use Site Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) dated October 13, 2010, prepared by Branch Engineering, Inc. This study is part of supplemental documentation required for CHAMPS Approach Permit Application No. 10859. This application is for direct highway access to McKenzie Highway OR 126 (Main Street) in Springfield. The site is bordered by two public streets, 51st Place and 52nd Street, providing alternate access. The original ODOT scope of work for this study, dated December 2009, stated the following: I I , i I i I I I i I , Alternate Access: .....This site contains alternate access via 52nd Street' and 51st Place. Alternate access is another means of accessing the property other than directly tolfrom the State highway. This traffic study must clearly demonstrate how the alternate access is not reasonable in accordance with OAR 734-051-0080 Section 8. This analysis shall be performed with and without the proposed road approach (driveway) to the site so as to demonstrate the alternate access is or is not reasonable. Because there p ~-. . . are two alternate access locations, the analysis shall clearly indicate the distribution of trips to and from the site. Additional mitigation shall be explored at the intersections of 51st Place and 52nd Street, with the McKenzie Highway, if the analysis indicates queuing and/or operational issues, which result from traffic impacts associated with proposed development. For guidance, please contact the Region Access Management Engineer.... Attached are review comments prepared for ODOT under contract with CH2M HILL, for the subject TIA. Please note the Primary Review Comment to do with queuing analysis, cited by CH2M HILL in the attached review: . Validation of the queuing Analysis does not appear to support the need for'a Main Street Access. CH2M HILL was unable to replicate the results of the queuing analysis presented in the TIA. A separate queuing analysis conducted by CH2M HILL is in the attached review comment letter. Please respond to the CH2M HILL Primary Review Comment as to why the results presented in the TIA cannot be replicated. In addition please address the other review comments in CH2M review letter attached. If you have any questions regarding these comments, please contact Gerry Juster, ODOT Region 2 Development Review Coordinator, at 503-986-2732 or bye-mail at gerard.p .juster@odot.state.or.us Cc w/ attach: David Knitowski, PE, ODOT Jeff Lange, ODOT John Downing, ODOT Gerry Juster, ODOT Julie Kentosh, ODOT Steve Wilson, PE, ODOT Steve Hopkins, City of Springfield ~-' . . TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM CH2MHII_L Springfield Main Street Mixed Use Site: Traffic Impact Study Review PREPARED FOR: Geny Juster, ODOT Region 2 Development Review Coordinator PREPARED BY: CH2M HILL DATE: December 1, 2010 Under Oregon Department of Transportation (OOOT) Price Agreement #25950, Work Order #8, OOOT Region 2 has engaged CH2M HILL to provide assistance with development review. Through this work order, OOOT Region 2 engaged CH2M HILL to review the Main Street Mixed Use Site Traffic Impact Study in Springfield, Oregon, submitted to ODOT by Branch . Engineering, Inc. in October 2010. This memorandum uses the following documents: . ODOT Develop'llel1t Review Guidelilles (2005) . OOOT Anolysis Procedures Monuol (2006) . 2003 Q,'egonl-lighwoy Design Manual . Institute of Transportation Engineer's (ITE) Trip Generatioll, 8tl1 Edilioll (2008) . ITE's Trip Generation l-lnndl}()o/(, 2nd Edition (2004) This memorandum is divided into two sections: (1) Primary Review Comment; and (2) Other Review Comments. The queuing analysis validation is provided as Attachment A. Primary Review Comment Validation of the queuing analysis does 1I0t appear to support the need for a Maill Street access. CH2M HILL used the applicant's Synchro and SimTraffic files to attempt to replicate the results of the traffic impact study's queuing analysis. Without making any modifications to the applicant's files, no su bstantial queuing issues were observed. After five runs of the 20n and 2016 Build networks without a Main Street driveway, no significant queue buildups were observed on 51st Place or 52nd Street at Main Street. The 95th percentile queue lengths reported in the traffic impact study (TIS) at these locations could not be replicated for any of the five runs. CH2M HILL recognizes that SimTraffic will not produce the same results for each run, but the large differences between CH2M HILL and the TIS analyses in queue lengths seem to be umeasonable. A separate queuing analysis was conducted by CH2M HILL using recommended ODOT parameters (see Attachment A). This analysis also concluded that queues would not be as severe as the TIS queuing analysis. Adequate storage is available for vehicles leaving the site at ~' . . SPRINGFIELD rJAIN STREET MIXED USE SITE' TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY REVIEW the intersections of Main Street/51st Place and Main Street/52nd Street without a Main Street driveway access if the approaches to Main Street are modified from a s]oared leftjrighHurn lane to separate left- and right-turn lanes. This assumes queue storage is provided back to the site access points. Other Review Comments The comments in Table 1 are related to the data and technical analysis presented in the TIS. TABLE 1 Data and Technical Analysis Comments . I TIS Page I Topic I 3 Comment Truck Turning Analysis I The TIS states: "".Main Street access should be looked at closely during I the site review process to confirm that delivery trucks and emergency vehicles are accommodated". The. turning template figure provided is marked as preliminary design and ; not for construction. From the figure, it appears that when a single"unit ; truck enters the site, it is not able to complete a right turn off of Main Street : without traveling over both the parking end curb and the center island. The , front left tire of the design vehicle is shown inside the boundary of the ; island. Assuming the island is raised (and not just painted), the design i vehicle cannot be accommodated. The analysis also assumes that trucks I will only be entering from eastbound Main Street. The TIS does not I provide documentation to explain why delivery trucks are not anticipated to I arrive from the westbound direction, which would require trucks to access , the site from either 52'" Street or 51" Place. 5 Table 1 shows a posted speed of 40 miles per hour (mph) on Main Street. , This contradicts page 3 of the TIS, which states that the Access . Management Spacing Standards used assumed 45 mph on Main Street. , The TIS states that intersection crashes were not calculated for the segments. When a corridor analysis is being conducted that breaks a section of roadway into corresponding intersections and segments, it is ; reasonable to assign crashes in the corridor to either an intersection or a i segment. However, since the TIS did not calculate intersection crash rates i for all intersections located within the study segment, the Main Street ; crashes within the segment (coded intersection related or not) should all : have been included in the segment crash rate calculation. The TIS crash , analysis removed crashes that can result in a skewed analysis. ! The TIS states that crashes have been a problem on Main Street within : the study area, but ODOT is working to improve safety. One mitigation . cited to improve safety is access management. This is inconsistent with . the TIS conclusion and request to provide a new driveway on Main Street : to the site. 10 ; Existing Traffic; The TIS states that the "".AM and PM peak hours generally occur . Volumes _ between 4:30 PM and 5:30 PM, respectively, in the area of analysis." There is no documentation in the TIS to support this statement. 8 8 Table 1 Segment Crash Rates Crash Mitigations 2 . . SPRINGFIELD MAIN STREET MIXED USE SITE: TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY REVIEW TABLE 1 Data and Technical Analysis Comments TIS Page: Topic I 11 Comment Heavy Vehicles 17 Site Traffic and Distribution , Although the traffic counts included heavy vehicle volumes, the TIS i analysis adjusted the volumes to a design heavy vehicle percentage using , ODOT TRANSGIS and highway reports. Because heavy vehicle counts ! were collected, percentages should be calculated using this data. The TIS states that the existing counts show a 60/40 distribution of eastbound and westbound vehicles, respectiveiy. However, Figure 8 shows an 80/20 distribution. 27 Queuing In Table 6 of the TIS, eastbound and westbound queues on Main Street are reported for the uncontrolled through movements. How were these queues calculated when the movements do not stop? For example, under the 'Build Condition with No Main Street Access' the 95'h percentile EBTR queue is 250 feet, and the WBT queue is 300 feet. These movements are not controlled by a signal or stop-sign. How would a 300 feet queue be generated? 31 Trip Generation The TIS mentions 42 percent of trips generated would be pass-by trips, but there is no documentation or reference in the Appendix to support this percentage: Traffic Simulation The peak hour factors (PHF) used in the SynchrolSimTraffic files do not appear to match those provided based on the counts in Appendix E of the TIS. The PHF's used in the 2011 Synchro files appear to be the default value (0.92), while the calculated PHFs range between 0.56 and 0.94. The PHF's used in the 2016 Synchro files are all 0.95, which does not follow APM. Traffic Simulation Traffic Models ODOT requires that the right-turn speeds within the simulation settings of the SimTraffic files be changed to 15 mph. The TIS analysis used the default value of 9 mph. The ODOT scope of work specified that the mitigated scenario should model separate right- and left-turn lanes on 51" Place and 52'd Street. The TIS analyzed separate turn-lanes on 51" Place, but not on 52" Street. :;r.o . . SPRINGFIELD MAIN STREET MIXED USE SITE: TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY REVIEW Attachment A: Queuing Analysis Results . The SimTr8lfic queuing results provided in the TIS were compared to the SimTraffic queuing results calculated by CH2M HILL. Table 2 shows the results of these analyses. The following summarizes the changes that were made to the applicant's files to complete the analysis. . 2011 Build (No Direct Access to Main Street) - The right-turn speeds were increased to 15 mph to match ODOT analysis specifications. The 52"<1 Street approach was analyzed as two turn lanes (right-turn and ieft- turn) pel' ODOT request. (The TIS analyzed the approach to 52"" Street as a shared left/right lane.) . 2011 Build (Right-In, Right-Out Driveway on Main Street) The right-turn speeds were increased to 15 mph to match ODOT analysis specifications. . 2016 Build (No Direct Access to Main Street) The right-turn speeds were increased to 15 mph to match ODOT analysis specifications. The 52"<1 Street approach was analyzed as two turn lanes (right-turn and Jeft- turn) pel' ODOT request. (The TIS analyzed the approach to 52"<1 Street as a shared left/,'ight lane.) . ,,,." . "''' ~w "'5 '"w wOC ,,~ ee ~~ 2f- ,- u w<< '"0- f';;; wu :i?:U:: "' 0 0 0 0 '" "' '" 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ;j~ r- '" 0 '" 0 N '" ~ ~ N ~ ~ N r- ~ Z Z Z Z g~ '" u: ':1 " "- "' '" C ~ ~ 0 on "' '" <i 0 on ~ ~ 0 Z 0 .... '" Z ~ N "- N ~ "- Z Z '" ;; N -0 co ro ~ C; N I w .v, >, ro co <i '" co .'5 '" " a ~ co '" Nt! W'" --,0- ~~ "' N "' "- o "' N o on on "- ~ o "' N ~ z '" "- ~ z '" N o '" o '" "' "- o "' N o o N o o '" o o ~ o o '" o o N o C> N '" N ~ z "' r- ~ z o o ~ '" ... c '" '" N + o o '" + o '" '" N o ~ + o o on + o '" '" + o on '" + o o N N o no ;::: ro w no ;::: ro w f- ro ;: ..J ro ;: no ro z --' ro ;: f- ro ;: ..J ro z Q) ~ " '" &0: co .iij :;; 1ii 'a3 'ai ~ ~ 1.i5<n co .iij :;; 1ii . ~ '" ~ N on N ~ ~ z o on r ~ z '" N ~ ~ z ~ z on ... N o N o ~ no ::J ro z --' ro z " 'i'l on ~ z '" N ~ z '" N ~ z ~ z '" r- ~ z N o + "" '" ~ no en z '" ;::: ro w ro~ !i " ~g! U5~ .5 Q.l ro.".::: :;;(1) . '" "- on "- ~ z ~ z :% z no co z '" "' . " . " C" g iii 'E "' . 0, u c ~ ~ "- . "' " "' ~ 0> C" -' if) -' i= r " :2 c N . J: -' Ij -' . I ;; :2 " NO" J: "- . .c 0 @ '0 g> ai.9 ~ ~ ! 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ Q) ~ m ~ ~ .9 u ro 6- Q'l ~ IV III Q) ..... lii I'll 15 :jg 3: ill .c ~ :a Ll ~ fj > c ~ .n ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0. 5 ~ E Q) g- 1Il c) ii.i ro Ql -g iil '5 (V 0 Q) ro Ul C E !;l $ 2 5 . ~ . ~ '5 ~ $2 c ~ .s <,: g. ~ cr.!1 "0 lV"5 Qj :5 III 11 (]) ~ ::J m e (.) J: '5 ~ ,S N Q) ~ I :c Q) 0 .~ ~ -g 0.. al ~ ~ -g ~ '5 ~ ~ z % :a II .g ~ $ '0 "0 in Z CD D:l . '0 z ~ 0> . o <;; . :0 .!Jl .iij > . " '" . u x . B .. E 'd . " o "- ~ ~ . o . " . " C" ~ "E . ~ . Co "' ;;; 0> o "' 0, c ~ . " . " C" -' -' 'i: :2 N J: Ij 0> & ~ " . :;; " ." c o u . ~ o c .9 ~ o ~ E <"4 ri ..r lri <.0 . , j. ) I '-' . . Business Registry Business Name Search New S~earch Business Entity Data 12-09-2010 14:22 Registry Nbr Entitv Entity ,Jurisdiction. Registry Date Next Renewal Renewal Tvp.e StabJs Date Due? 651346-87 DLLC ACT OREGON 09-04-1998 09-04-2011 Entity Name OBO ENTERPRISES, LLC Foreign Name New S.earc.h Associated Names Type PPB PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS Addr 1 1390 GROSBEAK CT Addr 2 CSZ REDMOND lOR 197756 1 I Country IUNITED STATES OF AMERICA Please click here {or f!eneral information about re istered af(ents and service ofT-rocess. Type AGT REGISTERED AGENT Start Date 09-14- Resign Date 1999 Name WILLIAM ID IOLSON I I Addr 1 1390 GROSBEAK CT Addr 2 CSZ REDMOND lOR 197756 I I Country IUNITED STATES OF AMERICA Type MGDtuANAGER I 1 Resign Date 1 Name . WILLIAM ID IOLSON . I 1 Addr 1 1390 GROSBEAK CT Addr 2 CSZ REDMOND lOR 197756 I I Country IUNITED STATES OF AMERICA Type Name Addr 1 Addr 2 CSZ G NAGER ANA 1390 GROSBEAK CT OLSON Resign Date ITED STATES OF AMERICA New Search ame IS ory Business Entity Name Name Name Start Date End Date TVDe Status OBO ENTERPRISES, LLC EN CUR 09-04-1998 N H" t . , . . . . i. I .' Please read before ordering CaRies. S H't New ~earch ummary IS ory Image Action Transaction Effective Status Name! Agent Dissolved By Date Date Date' ChanQe 08-30- i\NNUAL REPORT 08-30-2010 08-29- SYS 2010 PAYMENT 2010 08-24- i\NNUAL REPORT 08-24-2009 08-21- SYS 2009 PAYMENT 2009 06-08- CHANGE OF MAILING 06-08-2009 FI 2009 ADDRESS 06-08- CHANGE OF REGISTERED 06-08-2009 FI 2009 AGENT/ADDRESS 08-12- i\NNUAL REPORT 08-12-2008 08-10- SYS 2008 PAYMENT 2008 08-10- i\NNUAL REPORT 08-10-2007 08-08- SYS 2007 PAYMENT 2007 12-28- I\MENDMENT TO 12-28-2006 FI 2006 i\NNuAL REPORT 08-29- I\NNuAL REPORT 08-29-2006 SYS 2006 PAYMENT 08-18- ANNUAL REPORT 08-18-2005 SYS 2005 PAYMENT 08-30- I\NN UAL REPORT 08-30-2004 SYS 2004 PAYMENT 09-02- I\NNuAL REPORT 09-02-2003 SYS 2003 PAYMENT 08-27- I\NNuAL REPORT 08-27-2002 SYS 2002 PAYMENT 08-28- i\NNuAL REPORT 08-28-2001 SYS 2001 PAYMENT 09-08- STRAIGHT RENEWAL 08-28-2000 FI 2000 09-14- CHANGED RENEWAL 09-14-1999 FI 1999 09-14- ~GENT/AUTH REP 09-14-1999 F1 1999 CHNG 09-07- STRAIGHT RENEWAL 08-30-1999 FI 1999 09-04- NEW FILING 09-04-1998 FI 1998 @ 2010 Oregon Secretary of State. All Rights Reserved.