+ c <br />y <br />t <br />1 1 4 <br />r t, u ~ <br />igeno, 0»gon 97101 <br />h <br />Ph7on~ 6 Far'_ <br />I <br />rfot2~cuu.ng.eorn <br />i <br />Yr', i. s <br />y <br />~~p o:i; uon Eagreee.rrrg <br />rr~r~o 1)osfga <br />R <br />Trip G.ncraHen' - <br />IGealti'Managwn.nt 't <br />r ~ <br />rafrio Counts; <br />R ru user <br />YK [ <br />ti r, r <br />N t n~ <br />♦(1TK <br />W, <br />~ <br />Engineering LLC <br />August 27, 2015 <br />Planning Commissioners <br />c/o Gabe Flock, Planner <br />125 E: 8th Avenue, 2nd Floor <br />Eugene, OW97401 <br />RE: Oakleigh Meadow P.U.D. Co-housing Development <br />I am writing this letter in response to the traffic issues raised by Mr. Simon Trautman <br />concerning the safety of Oakleigh Lane and in accordance with the open-record sequence <br />specified at the Eugene Planning Commission meeting on Monday, August 17, 2015. <br />This letter is a supplement to my Street Connectivity Study dated August 6, 2013, and <br />my comments from September17, 2013, and October 15, 2013. Please accept this letter <br />and include the same in the reeord of these proceedings. <br />Oakleigh Lane is a. dead-end local street that runs approximately 1000 feet`east:from the <br />centerline of River Road. It is one of four consecutive streets that terminate at City <br />parkland on. the west bank of the Willamette River. The street has an oil-mat surface of <br />approximately 20-feet in width', with no curbs and with intermittent gravel'shoulders <br />along both sides of the street that permits parking in some areas. As is common.with <br />other low-volume residential streets in Eugene, Oakleigh Lane allows unsegregated <br />vehicular, pedestrian and bicycle access. <br />1. Impacts are Not Hazards <br />Comments submitted to the Planning.Commission confuse traffic impacts with traffic <br />hazards. No-one disputes that the Oakleigh Meadow Co Housing development will have <br />traffic impacts. The development will generate some addittonabtrips on Oakleigh Lane. <br />However, additional;tnpsFdo not-mean an increased=hzard;Tlie,0akleigh Meadow <br />development includes 28 dwelling)units. The Ninth Edition ofythe;Institute of <br />Transportation,Trip Generation Maziual classifies'this:type of~development'as a <br />"residential.condotmmum/townhouse a"TheAtaffc trapacts from the proposal would be <br />it V <br />k <br />just 168 average daily trips'' ~4 V. <br />As a-low-volume residentialistreet; Oakleio' Lane can safelyiaccommodate;between 250 . <br />and 750 average daily taps {Combining Siff c Go&Oakletgh Meadow with '"the 21 <br />existing single-family homes on OakleighrLane„tuchtare equ vt alenl`to 210 daily trips ;r <br />the total would be 378 daily,,trips, well within.the.range'fof.V low 11 '1 " voltne:ies dential <br />street. <br />City Public Works comments do not identify any traffic hazardaonkOakletghnlyane. Staff <br />references to traffic impacts under its dedication findings rthe" alfsti etded~ication, <br />and 13' foot wide public accessway on the OMC prop erty frontage are commbn. . <br />constitutional findings in support of the dedication. Since the PUD`is the last opportwuty~ <br />for the City to obtain right-of-way from the OMC properly, public works §ta I'looked to <br />the projected traffic impacts from the PUD to establish.the rough proporrionali, of the Y V <br />property taken and the traffic impacts.? <br />• <br />• <br />243 <br />