Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCorrespondence PWE 1/7/2010 (2) . .. . MEMORANDUM City of Springfield DATE: January 7, 2010 TO: Andy Limbird, Planner II FROM: Jon Driscoll, Transportation Engineer in Training SUBJECT: ZON2009-00027 Springfield Utility Board Drive-up Kiosk Development Issues Meeting Public Works Transportation Comments The Transportat'ion Division has reviewed the subject application for the possible development of the property at 250 "A" Street. The discussing will surround installing a new drive~up kiosk at the main office where existing drive-through and customer payment drop-box is currently located. 1. SUB believes there will be no measureable impact on circulation patterns on "A" Street. Does the city agree or have concerns? o The Transportation Section does have concerns, The present arrangement has two one way lanes, nine feet each, which run along the south side of the development. The reduction of the lane widths to eightJeet each, as proposed would cause congestion and impede traffic circulation causing traffic to back up onto A Street. . The reasoning behind our concern can be seen when you examine the following: · The standard width of AASHTO's (American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials) passenger car is sevenfeet, allowingfor only one foot on each side of the vehicle to stay in the lane, . The City's standards for parking drive aisles (24 feet for two lanes), and . The City's standards for parking stalls (nine feet wide for standard parking). 2. Does the city have any concerns about the canopy structure or location that SUB has not addressed? . The Engineering Land Development Section will respond to this, 3. Does the City have any concerns about pedestrian safety that' SUB has not addressed? . No, the Transportation Section has no pedestrian safety concerns. 4. Does the city have any concerns about lighting and/or visibility that SUB has not addressed? . The Planning Department will respond to this question. Note: As is stated in your Development Issues Application: The Development Issues Meeting is not a land use decision and does not confer any development rights, establish any conditions, or bind the applicant or the City to any course of action. The meeting conveys the status of known development opportunities and constraints. The status may change over time as development conditions or standards change. 14 J. Dat,,~ r~eceived: / ~/6 Planner: AL / . . . 5.. Is there any additional information SUB needs to provide as the process moves forward? . Upon examination in a site visit, it appears that there is room to take out nearly two feet of the sidewalk just north of the lanes in question for the westerly 25+/- from the building overhang. lfthis was done, and the curb on the south side of the lanes was left in place except for a bulb-out just for the kiosks, the traffic may be able to flow as smoothly as it does today. Questions for SUB . How much overhang over the curb does the new kiosk have? . . Note: As is stated in your Development Issues Application: The Development Issues Meeting is n~t a land use decision and does not confer any development rights, establish any conditions, or bind the applicant or the City to any course afaction. The meeting conveys the status of known development opportunities and constraints. The status may change over time as development conditions or standards change. 'Ch. ,.,i "'<':'"""II<:ld: /~ ~/t1 Planner: AL