pf_03283 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

~ 02/15/01 THU 15:45 FAX 651 490 2150 Debra Bloom February 15,2001 Page 3 SEH I4I 004 '- turning movements from the site to northbound Cleveland A venue would experience LOS E or LOS F at all three intersections. As mentioned in the EA WJ a potential mitigation measure for a poor side street level of service would be the installation of a traftlc signal. As a result of the increased estimated level of traffic, the North Centre Point Drive intersection wouJd easily meet rhe peak hour volumo wart"'cUlt for signal installation. In addition, the Lydia A venue intersection would be very close to meeting that same warrant. This does not mean that consideration should be given to signalizing both intersections. SignaIizing one of the intersections would be expected to attract vehicles from within the site, thereby reducing delays at the remaining two intersections serving the site. If it is determined that a signal installation is desirable, having two intersections meet the warrant provides an opportunity to choose between the two based on other factors. At this time, because of its central location within the development and based on the distances to the adjacent signalized intersections, a signal installation at the Lydi n A venue intersection is preferable to a signal installation at North Centre Pointe Drive. Parking In the December 2000 Request for Amendment letter, it was noted that Veriras' parking requirements (four spaces pe.r 1,000 ft2 of net building area) are Jess than the City standard (five. spaces per 1 ,000 f~). Ve.ritas' claim of reduced parking requirements is consistent for a corporate headquarters facility, which tends to. have fewer employees - and therefore less parking de:mand - than a non- corporate headquarters building of the same size. However. if their estimates are low and they need more parking, it is Veritas and their employees who wi11 suffer as a result, since parking options in the area are limited. Another factor affecting the parking requirement is the possibility of the. function of the Veritas buildings changing over time, from a corporate headquarters to some other, more parking- intensive, function. Conclusions An inde.pendent review of the traffic-related portions of the Centre Pointe Business Park EA W, dated January 4, 2001, and supporting documentation was conducted. Unfortunately, no re~ent traffic study was conducted for the EA W to determine the existing traffic generated by the eight building projects already completed. Such a study would have provided a reliable base condition over which forecasts of traffic generated by the building projects currently under construction or proposed could have been superimposed. Consequently, all traffic estimates - wh~ther for existing or future buildings - were derived from the ITE Trip Generation manua}. ' As a result of our review, it appears that .the number of trips generated to and from this site may have been underestimated, not only in the current EA W but also in previous documentation upon -----