My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Hearings Official Decision
>
OnTrack
>
PDT
>
2017
>
PDT 17-1
>
Hearings Official Decision
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/16/2018 4:02:00 PM
Creation date
5/15/2018 12:02:14 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
PDD_Planning_Development
File Type
PDT
File Year
17
File Sequence Number
1
Application Name
CAPITAL HILL PUD
Document Type
Decision Document
Document_Date
5/15/2018
External View
Yes
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
79
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
EC 9.8320(5): The PUD provides safe and adequate transportation systems <br />through compliance with the following: <br />(c)_[t]he provisions of the Traffic Impact Analysis Review of EC 9.8650 <br />through 9.8680 where applicable. <br />Finding: EC 9.8320(5)(c) requires the evaluation of the proposed transportation system under a <br />Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) when a TIA is applicable to the proposed development. EC <br />9.8650 through 9.8680 require a Traffic Impact Analysis when the anticipated traffic generated <br />by a proposed development meets one of the thresholds established in EC 9.8670, which states <br />Traffic Impact Analysis Review is required when one of the conditions in <br />subsections (1) - (4) of this section exist unless the development is within an area (a) <br />shown on Map 9.8670 Downtown Traffic Impact Analysis Exempt Area, or (b) <br />subject to a prior approved Traffic Impact Analysis and is consistent with the <br />impacts analyzed. <br />(1) The development will generate 100 or more vehicle trips during any peak hour <br />as determined by using the most recent edition of the Institute of <br />Transportation Engineer's Trip Generation. In developments involving a land <br />division, the peak hour trips shall be calculated based on the likely <br />development that will occur on all lots resulting from the land division. <br />(2) The increased traffic resulting from the development will contribute to traffic <br />problems in the area based on current accident rates, traffic volumes or speeds <br />that warrant action under the city's traffic calming program, and identified <br />locations where pedestrian and/or bicyclist safety is a concern by the city that <br />is documented. <br />(3) The city has performed or reviewed traffic engineering analyses that indicate <br />approval of the development will result in levels of service of the roadway <br />system in the vicinity of the development that do not meet adopted level of <br />service standards. <br />(4) For development sites that abut a street in the jurisdiction of Lane County, a <br />Traffic Impact Analysis Review is required if the proposed development will <br />generate or receive traffic by vehicles of heavy weight in their daily operations. <br />For purposes of EC 9.8650 through EC 9.8680, "daily operations" does not include <br />routine services provided to the site by others, such as mail delivery, garbage pickup, <br />or bus service. "Daily operations" does include, but is not limited to, delivery (to or <br />from the site) of materials or products processed or sold by the business occupying <br />the site. For purposes of EC 9.8650 through EC 9.8680, "heavy vehicles" are defined <br />as a single vehicle or vehicle combination greater than 26,000 pounds gross vehicle <br />weight or combined gross vehicle weight respectively. <br />In order to evaluate traffic impacts of the proposed PUD, the applicant prepared a Traffic Safety <br />and Street Connectivity Study. In consultation with Public Works analyses (Public Works <br />referral comments, page 7 and Public Works December 8, 2017 Capital Drive Roadway <br />Review), and in reliance on the applicant's Traffic Safety and Street Connectivity Study, the City <br />planning staff determined that the proposed PUD did not satisfy any of the thresholds for a traffic <br />impact analysis. <br />Hearings Official Decision (PDT 17-1) 48 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.