Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> Table 2A i ant 0 2 umts <br /> ! acre on R-2 zo <br /> 13 Proposed an Apartment ( <br /> Designations but seems to b <br /> 9.5500. <br /> -. ------ <br /> 14 Table 3 The trip distribl. <br /> assumed in the <br /> The analysis re <br /> 20 Table 4 methodology, <br /> movement. <br /> --------- I This study shot <br />I 20 Table 4 <br />I build" and a " <br />! volumes. <br /> <br />Page <br /> <br />Par:agraph <br /> <br />13 <br /> <br />Table 2A <br />Existing <br />Desi gnrttions <br /> <br />13 <br /> <br />Table 2A <br />Proposed <br />Designations <br /> <br />21 <br /> <br />TPR Criteria <br /> <br />'1'\ <br />.1...;;'" <br /> <br />Conclusions <br /> <br />n/a <br /> <br />Appendix F <br /> <br />Comment <br />The eXistmg zoning trips presented in this table do not seem to <br />accurately represent the maximum allowable trip development, <br />pennitted for each existing land-use zone (R-I, C-I, C-2 and PL). <br />According to the Lane land-use code, the PL (Public Land) zoning <br />allows for government offices, but not residentiaL The existing R.l <br />zoned parcel should only alIo\v for 18 single family residences, while <br />the commercially zoned propeliies would seem to allow for a more <br />f <br />intense commercial land-use than Specialty Retail (ITE #814). A i <br />more detailed study of the maximum allowable permitted uses, under I <br />the existin zoning} should be made for_t~is analysis. --;i~ <br />The proposed zoning trips presented in tIus table also do not seem to <br />accurately represent the maXim. um allowable trip development, based <br />on the proposed zoning assumptions. It is unclear how the proposed <br />acreage has been partitioned to assume 26 Apartments, and 100,000 <br />square feet of Shopping Center. A more detailed explanation of how I <br />the rezoned land \vol..tld be partitioned is necessary for a thorough <br />assessment. <br />The study aSStill1es a maximum build-out on the proposed R-2 zoned <br />1 :l f 6 " The Eugene Code allows a maximum of 28 units per <br />ned land, for a total of 37 medillm density units. Also, " <br />ITE #220) is not pem1itted outright on R-2 zoned land, <br />e allowed, foHowing the special provisions under EC <br /> <br />Ition percentages must correspond to trip distributions <br />local agency if-.COQls'~vel demand model. <br />sults for signalized intersections, based on HCM2000 <br />must be for the entire intersection, and nOL for each <br /> <br />___.m________.n_____ I <br />LId contain analyses for a "no-build", "existing zoning <br />proposed zoning build" scenario, given 2007 traffic <br /> <br />Due to significant irregularities with this analysis, the three Division <br />60 criteria assumed as "met" through this analysis will need to be re- <br />eval::lated, based on changes. recommended in this r~view. n__mnm <br />The conclusions drawn from this analysis will most likely need to be <br />, re.~y.~~J.ua~~)_ gi \len Lhe. chan~c:? reco!:lllnended in tlus review. <br />I The sig-naliz~ intersection. a~alysfs deve1Qpe~1 fa.r this stvu~y:. w~s <br />Ii gcne:ated usmg .theoutda~ed OD? r-devel[!pt;'~l software~ SlG. ~A~~, <br />and IS not conSidered rellable. [he assumptlOns contallled m tIns <br />software follow 1995 HCM methodologies, and is not considered <br />acceptable hy ODOT standards. All analysis must foHow BCM2000 <br />3:na1ysis methodologies. _____ <br /> <br />-2- <br />