Application Completeness Review - Laserfiche WebLink

@ G:'nac ii 1 he applicant submted a p oposevi "scope` for'Goai 12 aHiC 1 A acl 3n21 ayszs `1 rIOr to SLs Diill}tcls C Lsh Subject a p p u.c cC N C) n s. ..~a.c.V e!S!- "J, t4B- aPp: Ca'n i.0 Ja,..;n-ia Lba~ 1,Y 6 an Change applications prior to determining the appropriate scope of the applicant's traffic study. Staff has now reviewed the subject application, and provides the following input regarding the appropriate traffic impact analysis under Goal 12. Study Area intersections The applicant's proposed study area includes only „the site driveways on Willamette Street and the abutting intersection of Willamette Street and E. 40th Avenue." The applicant's proposed study area is insufficient to analyze the potential impacts of the proposed designation and zone change on the City's existing and planned transportation facilities. In coordination with Public Works staff, we have initially determined that the traffic impact analysis study area for the subject site will need to analyze the following intersections: Intersections to be Analyzed Accident Traffic Jurisdiction Level of Study/Collision Signal Service Diagram Warrant Requirement Required? Analysis Required? Willamette @ Donald/32nd No No City of Eugene LOS D Willamette @ Crest No No City of Eugene LOS D Willamette @ 33rd No No City of Eugene LOS D Willamette @ 39th No No City of Eugene LOS D Willamette @ 40th No No City of Eugene LOS D Donald @ 40th No No City of Eugene j LOS D Study Area Traffic Impact Analysis While, typically, a completeness review does not include substantive direction on how an applicant must conduct a Goal 12 Transportation Planning Rule (TPR) analysis once the applicant has collected the traffic counts for the study area, the applicant has proposed the scope of an analysis (in a memo from Branch Engineering dated 11/19/14) and specifically requests that the City comment on its proposal. In an effort to identify issues with the applicant's proposed analysis, these completeness review comments set forth what staff believe to be the most defensible TPR analysis for the subject - site. Because the November 2014 memorandum contains so many unsupported assumptions and premises, these comments do not step through that memo point by point. Rather, to provide the most assistance to the applicant, these comments simply set out the steps and assumptions that staff believe are necessary to conduct a defensible TPR analysis for this site. To determine whether or not the proposed designation change would significantly affect an existing or planned transportation facility, compare reasonable worst case development scenario for Parks and Open Space (POS) to reasonable worst case development scenario for Low Density Residential (LDR). In making this comparison, since 29.5 acres of the site are currently used as a cemetery and 2