HomeMy WebLinkAboutApplicant Response to Public CommentBERG-JOHANSEN Erik
From: Jon Lauch <jon@tokateecm.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2017 11:30 AM
To: BERG-JOHANSEN Erik
Cc: FLOCK Gabriel; Michael Coughlin; Gregory Brokaw; Kelly Sandow
Subject: Comment from Amazon Corner LLC re: TIA 16-7 & ARA 16-17
Attachments: Adjustment Review and TIA Comments 1-10-2016.pdf
Erik:
Please find attached our comment regarding the above. Please confirm your receipt.
Thanks, Jon
January 10, 2017
Erik Berg-Johansen, Associate Planner Sent Via Email to:
City of Eugene, Planning Division erik.berg@ci.eugene.or.us
99 West 10t" Avenue
Eugene, OR 97401
Subject: Developer Comment re: Amazon Corner mixed-use development, Traffic Impact
Analysis (TIA) 16-7 & Adjustment Review Application (ARA) 16-17
Erik:
We are in receipt of and have reviewed much of the public comment received to date regarding
the above-referenced TIA and ARA for the proposed Amazon Corner mixed-use development,
located at the intersection of East 3211 Avenue and South Hilyard Street. We submit the
following comments in order to share our perspective on the project and in response to the
general categories of public comment submitted by community members. This is not intended
as a direct response to any singular or specific comment submitted by the general public.
Despite much of the seemingly negative comment which seems to have a no-growth undertone,
we are encouraged by the amount of positive comment submitted in favor of the project. We
believe this to be a bit unusual for development projects in Eugene and take it as a favorable
sign that the project has aspects that can be embraced by the community as a whole. We
believe in the project. We believe we have the right timing, the right location, the right scale,
and the right mix of use for the project to be successful and to contribute to the vibrancy of the
local area. We have considered a number of alternative development schemes from drive-ups
and a car wash, to a strip mall, to a high-rise retirement center. We sincerely believe that the
proposed mixed-use project offers the best compromise for the location and balance of net-
positives versus net negatives for the local neighborhood and larger community.
The project is the proverbial "in-fill" project, promoted through the Envision Eugene planning
initiative. It is located along a significant transportation corridor that offers a variety of
alternative transportation modes. The location is proximate to a wide variety of employment
destinations and recreational opportunities. It does not displace wetlands or other valued natural
resources that are treasured by the community. It is not on the edge or beyond the Urban
Growth Boundary. The project serves the perceived need for additional retail and dining venues
in the area and provides additional residential capacity for projected growth in area. The
location seems ideal for this type of project.
We have categorized the concerns expressed into the following general areas and will attempt
to generally address each of them: traffic concerns, pedestrian & bicycle safety, parking, and
building height.
Traffic Concerns:
The bulk of comments express concern that the TIA as submitted is inadequate from various
perspectives and/or does not cast a wide enough net; that further and broader study should be
required.
We are not traffic engineers, nor do we purport to understand the science, standards, or data
behind the analysis. Therefore, we rely on experts for that - City Transportation Planners who
establish the requirements, Professional Traffic Engineers who collect and analyze the data,
and national organizations who establish the standards by which such analysis is to be
conducted in order to produce results by which decision-makers can make informed decisions.
To the best of our knowledge and ability we have fulfilled every standard and requirement set
forth for this project and every similar development in our community. It seems many
commentators take issue with TINs in general and how they are performed. These may all be
valid points and, if so, then one should focus such effort on changing the system by which traffic
is studied and analyzed, and the requirements set forth by public agencies that are applied to
development projects. Under the current system, it is unreasonable to expect that expanding
the study area would produce a different result from a traffic analysis perspective.
To put things into perspective, the City of Eugene 2013 Traffic Flow Map indicates a daily
average of 23,300 vehicle trips along Hilyard Street between 30th and 33rd Avenues. One can
imagine that the current number is higher, four years later. However, using the 2013 numbers,
the projected number of daily trips from the proposed development (990) along this same
section represents roughly a four percent increase in daily traffic. According to our Traffic
Engineer, this section of Hilyard (the primary route of travel for the development) has capacity
for 31,000 average daily trips, indicating a growth capacity of 33 percent from the 2013 number.
This project would contribute roughly three percent of that total if/when the roadway reaches
capacity.
Since the project location is highly conducive to access via alternative transportation modes,
coupled with our efforts to reinforce and encourage these, the vehicular impact described above
is expected to be minimized.
Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety:
Regarding pedestrian safety and the existing condition of unsafe pedestrian and bicycle
crossing across Hilyard, we engaged in discussion with Public Works Transportation Planning
very early in our planning process and we specifically identified this as an issue. Because this
has been identified as a current issue, and will potentially worsen with the proposed
development, we intend to continue discussions with the City to determine where and how a
protected crossing can appropriately be incorporated into the project.
Parking:
We believe that adequate parking is essential if the proposed mixed-use project is to be
successful and have thoughtfully considered this issue. We currently intend to provide the
required minimum parking spaces without taking advantage of allowable reductions offered as a
right of development. Further, we are building in future flexibility to add parking capacity in the
underground (residential) parking garage by providing space that will accommodate the future
addition of car "stackers". Lastly, we are paying particular attention to reinforcing alternative
modes of transportation by including specific accommodations to encourage these alternatives.
Buildin_q Height / Scale of Protect:
This project is not eligible for Multi-Unit Property Tax Exemption (MUPTE) and is entirely
privately financed without any public funding sources or grants. In order to secure private
financing, the project has to demonstrate viability by meeting specific standards such as Debt
Service Coverage Ratio and various other financial-related metrics. Our team has determined,
without question, that the project needs to be of a certain critical mass in order to meet the
minimum thresholds for these various metrics. This drives the overall height of the building to
what is currently proposed. We have considered eliminating the corner plaza space and
reducing surface parking in order to enlarge the building footprint to decrease the height, but
these measures would seriously compromise the project in other ways and are not enough to be
able to reduce the overall building height, As mentioned earlier, a number of alternative
development schemes have been considered - some lower and some higher - but those uses
seem less compatible for the location than the proposed project.
Sincerely,
Jonathan P. Lauch
Michael P. Coughlin