pf_03283 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Debra Bloom February 15, 2001 Page 3 turning movements from the site to northbound Cleveland Avenue would experience LOS E or LOS F at all three intersections. As mentioned in the EA W, a potential mitigation measure for a poor side street level of service would be the installation of a traffic signal. As a result of the increased estimated level of traffic, the North Centre Point Drive intersection would easily meet the peak hour volume warrant 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. Signalizing 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 Lydia 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 Veritas' parking requirements (four spaces per 1,000 ft2 of net building area) are less than the City standard (five spaces per 1,000 ft2). Veritas' claim ofreduced parking requirements is consistent for a corporate headquarters facility, which tends to have fewer employees - and therefore less parking demand - than a non- corporate headquarters building of the same size. However, if their estimates are low and they need more parking, it is Veri.tas and their employees who will 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 independent 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 recent 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 - whether for existing or future buildings - were derived from the ITE Trip Generation manual. 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