My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Staff Open Record Memo
>
OnTrack
>
TIA
>
2016
>
TIA 16-7
>
Staff Open Record Memo
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/26/2017 12:33:50 PM
Creation date
3/9/2017 9:42:18 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
PDD_Planning_Development
File Type
TIA
File Year
16
File Sequence Number
7
Application Name
Amazon Corner
Document Type
Public Comments submitted after hearings official hearing
Document_Date
3/8/2017
External View
Yes
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
5
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
accommodating vehicle traffic. If a street is operating at LOS F, it would hard to argue that the <br />street is successfully accommodating traffic. The City of Eugene has adopted LOS D as an <br />acceptable level of traffic - therefore, staff believes that this adopted level of mobility is a good <br />measure of traffic accommodation in context of the TIA purpose statement. If a street or <br />intersection in Eugene is operating at LOS A, B, C or D, staff believes the facility is successfully <br />accommodating traffic impacts. <br />Further, the transportation system abutting and serving the subject development site is <br />complete for all modes of transportation, and the applicant has demonstrated that the system's <br />capacity can safely accommodate traffic to and from the site, and can also accommodate <br />regional mobility. As discussed above, the applicant also demonstrated that mobility (the <br />approved traffic performance standard) will not be degraded below the adopted minimum of <br />LOS D. <br />An analysis of "traffic accommodation" also requires examination of the transportation facilities <br />already in place. City streets are designed to adopted standards, and these standards ensure <br />that streets create a safe and efficient transportation system to accommodate all users. This <br />includes the capacity to serve and accommodate proposed land uses that are consistent with <br />the existing zoning (in this case C-2 zoning). East 31St Avenue and East 32nd Avenue are local <br />streets that were designed and built in conformance with City standards. Hilyard Street was <br />also designed to City urban arterial standards with the exception of bike lanes (however the <br />Amazon bike path is located directly across Hilyard Street, and the Alder Street bike route is <br />located directly to the east). Based on these facts, the existing streets serving the site are <br />already designed to accommodate vehicle traffic in this urban area. <br />Pedestrian Crossing <br />As part of the Planning Director's approval of the TIA application, a condition of approval was <br />included that will require the developer to construct a new pedestrian crossing across Hilyard <br />Street. The condition is as follows: <br />• The applicant shall construct an enhanced mid-block pedestrian crossing on Hilyard Street <br />between the intersections of East 31st and East 32nd Avenues. The enhanced crossing <br />shall include a Rectangular Rapid Flash Beacon (RRFB), median refuge, striping, signage, <br />street lighting, access ramps and sidewalk to create a direct and continuous connection 8 <br />feet in width from the existing Amazon Path to the existing sidewalk fronting the <br />development site. Improvements shall be in conformance with City of Eugene Privately <br />Engineered Public Improvement (PEPI) standards, to be provided prior to the issuance of <br />any occupancy permit for the proposed development. <br />Public Works staff confirm that the pedestrian crossing would be constructed just north of the <br />sheltered bus stop that exists adjacent to the subject property (see staff's conceptual detail <br />included as Attachment A to this memo). The appellant states concerns regarding the location <br />of a future pedestrian crossing, and believes that the crossing might not function properly. <br />2 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.