My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Appeal Materials
>
OnTrack
>
TIA
>
2016
>
TIA 16-7
>
Appeal Materials
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/26/2017 12:12:43 PM
Creation date
2/8/2017 10:38:05 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
PDD_Planning_Development
File Type
TIA
File Year
16
File Sequence Number
7
Application Name
Amazon Corner
Document Type
Appeal Materials
Document_Date
2/8/2017
External View
Yes
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
8
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
standards for the TIA established in Administrative Rule Sections - <br />.86 -F(4.1) an (5). <br />4) Failure to properly evaluate the contribution to AM peak traffic of trip <br />generation from the 14,000 square feet of proposed commercial <br />development. Applicant has claimed only "specialty retail" will locate at <br />this development, whereas a wide range of commercial uses are possible. <br />Applicant has made the arbitrary claim that this development will add zero <br />trips to the AM peak without any factual evidence, as required in <br />Administrative Rule Section -9.8650-(6). <br />5) Failure to adequately evaluate the impacts of southbound trips from the <br />proposed development, as well as the impacts of westbound and <br />eastbound trips. Trips are merely allocated to the north and south <br />directions on Hilyard and are not allocated to the east or west. Allocated <br />trips are not evaluated in terms or their impacts on the next immediate <br />intersection. A more-rigorous trip allocation should reasonably be <br />required under Administrative Rule Section R-9.8650-F(7) and -(8). <br />6) Failure to adequately consider the spillover of traffic onto neighborhood <br />residential streets that would result from this proposed development <br />under increased traffic conditions, as required in Eugene Code 9.8650 and <br />Administrative Rule Section -9.8650-F(7) and F(8). <br />7) Failure to address the obvious conflict between increased southbound left <br />turns from Hilyard onto E 32nd and increased westbound left turns from E <br />32nd onto Hilyard that would occur under developed conditions, as noted <br />in testimony from Friends of Eugene. The TIA has noted that current <br />problems exist making left turns from 32nd onto Hilyard. This is the only <br />route identified in the TIA for southbound trips from the proposed <br />development. Therefore, this is a critical movement that must be analyzed <br />in sufficient detail to establish safety and efficacy. Applicable rules include <br />Eugene Code 9.8650 and Administrative Rule Sections -9.8650- <br />F(8.1), -F(9), and -(10). <br />Fodor & Associates - Page 2 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.