2021-09-06
7-11 with large gas station and drive through coffee shop planned for Polk and W. 7th
Updated September 24, 2021
If you wish to join a dedicated list [“StopPolkGas”] focused on stopping this project, contact Paul Conte and request that he send an invitation, or you can request to join: Find and join a group – Google Groups Help
Read public testimony (overwhelmingly against) here
The housing portion of the project has been withdrawn.
The projects applicant’s planning consultant and representative that they have requested a 60 day “hold” and agree that when they resubmit, there will be a new notice and comment period.
The city has opened up public comment on a proposed 7-11, a large gas station w/a drive thru coffee at Polk and W. 7th at the former Wells Fargo site. This does not include the Woke Coffee Drive thru, which would be directly next door. While proposal does include a few units of housing on the alley, it hardly makes up for the traffic and decrease in usability for the Polk and W. 7th interaction.
While the irony of building such a car-centric project next to and EMX stop, or even adding fossil fuel capacity when the city is trying to reduce natural gas use to reduce carbon, at this point is there is nothing that prohibits this development except for several exceptions on traffic flow the developer is asking for.
If you want to be engaged in fighting this inappropriate gas station development, A neighbor has collected all the relevant documents, which you can download here:
He has also created a Google group to facilitate discussions focused on this issue. To join, please email him directly with your name and, optionally, your address (which will not be shared). If you don’t wish to share your address, He will be in touch with you.
Here is a neighbor’s analysis – you can make public comments by September 16 to to MMcKerrow@eugene-or.gov,
No matter how rational and strong arguments are that this is the wrong development in the wrong place, you must demonstrate that the application does not meet the criterion for one or more of the four adjustments and/or fails to meet the requirements laid out in the attached document.
The coffee drive through is intended to capture traffic coming down W. 7th Ave. to town (work). The location is good for business (not the neighborhood or climate) because it can capture the trade earlier than Dutch Brothers or the Shell station and convenience store further towards town.
So, cars must line up in the lane shared with EmX, just before the station. Any backup here would impede the ten-minute arrival schedule. The code requires an adequate (50 feet) “stacking area” so that customers’ vehicles won’t be waiting on the street. The applicant states “[t]he site plan proposes approximately 35 feet from the back of the sidewalk on W. 7th Avenue to the center of the near on-site drive aisle. It’s not clear whether this is to the coffee kiosk drive-through, which would be to the exit of the drive through or to the turn into parking for the convenience store. In any case, all vehicles exiting the coffee drive through have to cross past the cars entering from the left. The congestion at this bottleneck is likely to cause backup onto W. 7th Ave., again, right in front of arriving EmX busses.
*** CRITICAL INFO ***
I’ve now heard from a number of folks about how unwise this proposal is. That is true, but will not affect approval or denial of the application. The ONLY things that would accomplish that are for the application to fail to meet the approval criteria for the Traffic Impact Analysis OR the following “adjustments”:
REQUIREMENT: 50-foot internal vehicle stacking area required by EC 9.6703 Driveways and Internal Circulation
(3)(a) All driveways shall have a minimum 50-foot internal vehicle stacking area. The internal vehicle stacking area is measured from the back of the sidewalk to centerline of the first internal circulation driveway or parking aisle, and is designed to queue vehicles exiting the development site and to prevent vehicles entering the development site from blocking the flow of traffic on the public street or causing unsafe conflicts with the on-site circulation.
(3)(a) All driveways shall have a minimum 50-foot internal vehicle stacking area. The internal vehicle stacking area is measured from the back of the sidewalk to centerline of the first internal circulation driveway or parking aisle, and is designed to queue vehicles exiting the development site and to prevent vehicles entering the development site from blocking the flow of traffic on the public street or causing unsafe conflicts with the on-site circulation.
APPLICANT STATEMENT: “The site plan proposes approximately 35 feet from the back of the sidewalk on W 7th Avenue to the center of the near on-site drive aisle.”
REQUESTED ADJUSTMENT: EC 9.8030(27) Driveways and Internal Circulation. The driveway requirement of EC 9.6703(3)(a) may be adjusted if the site developer demonstrates with an Alternative Traffic Safety Study that a shorter driveway stacking area will provide safe ingress and egress to the development site, will not negatively impact the efficiency of the public right-of-way, and will not result in a hazard to the bicycle, pedestrian or vehicular traffic using the right-of-way.
REQUIREMENT: Line up or 50-foot offset for access connection standard on Polk Street. EC 7.420(2)(e) Access Connections to Arterial and Major Collector Streets. In addition to the standards set forth in this EC 7.420(1), access connections to arterial and major collector streets shall be located in accordance with the following standards. … Unrestricted access connections shall be aligned with connections across the street or have a minimum 50-foot offset so that opposing turns from the access connection and from a center turn lane can be executed in front of one another.
APPLICANT STATEMENT: “The project proposes spacing of approximately 10 feet from the Cornbread Cafe loading/waste area driveway to the near edge of the alley connection on Polk Street.
REQUESTED ADJUSTMENT: EC 9.8030(28) (28) Public Access Required. The public access requirement of 9.6735(2) may be adjusted if the site developer demonstrates any of the following:
(a) Physical conditions preclude compliance with EC 7.420. Such conditions may include, but are not limited to, topography, trees, existing buildings or other existing development on the subject property or adjacent property.(b) The proposed adjustments to the standards will provide safe ingress and egress to the development site, will not negatively impact the efficiency of the public right-of-way, and will not result in a hazard to the bicycle, pedestrian or vehicular traffic using the right-of-way.(c) The proposed development will not impact one or more of the existing access connections to the development site. Impact to an existing access connection includes, but is not limited to, increasing the number of vehicles, either directly or indirectly, that will utilize an existing access connection for ingress or egress to the development site.(d) Compliance with EC 7.420(1)(c) will result in traffic patterns inconsistent with the character of the property located within a quarter mile radius of the development site or will increase the number of vehicular trips using the street with the lower classification above the typical daily trip range for that street’s classification.
This references 9.6735 Public Access Required.
(1) Except as otherwise provided in this land use code, no building or structure shall be erected or altered except on a lot fronting or abutting on a public street or having access to a public street over a private street or easement of record approved in accordance with provisions contained in this land use code.(2) Access from a public street to a development site shall be located in accordance with EC 7.420 Access Connections – Location. If a development will increase the development site’s peak hour trip generation by less than 50% and will generate less than 20 additional peak hour trips, the development site’s existing access connections are exempt from this standard.(3) The standard at (2) may be adjusted if consistent with the criteria of EC 9.8030(28).
REQUIREMENT: 200-foot Major Arterial access connection spacing on W. 7th Ave. EC 7.420(2)(b) Access connections shall be spaced based on the street classification as set out in the chart below [i.e., 200 feet]. The spacing area shall be measured from the edge of one access connection to the leading edge of another access connection.
APPLICANT STATEMENT: “The site plan will have approximately 93 feet from the proposed driveway on W 7th Avenue to the existing driveway to the Stay Woke parking lot to the west..”
REQUESTED ADJUSTMENT: EC 9.8030(28) See above.
REQUIREMENT: Access within 250-foot influence area on W. 7th Ave. EC 7.420(2)(a)1. Influence areas of controlled intersections shall be based on the street classification as set out in the chart below. [i.e., 250 feet] The influence area for the primary street shall be measured from the centerline of the secondary street; the influence area for the secondary street shall be measured from the centerline of the primary street. If the intersecting streets have the same street classification, both streets are considered primary streets.
APPLICANT STATEMENT: “The proposed access on W 7th Avenue will be approximately 158 feet from the center of the W 7th Avenue/Polk Street intersection to the near edge of the driveway.”
REQUESTED ADJUSTMENT: EC 9.8030(28) See above.
= = = = =
So … as far as the above goes, the applicant has admitted that the application does not meet any of the above 4 requirements. Opponents have to make the case that the application does not meet the criterion for at least one of the adjustments.
The criteria for a Traffic Impact Analysis are laid out at EC 9.8650. Essentially, the application must satisfy the requirements in the attached document.
To oppose TIA approval, you have to review the TIA application and cross-check with the TIA requirements. The sad fact is that any applicant can hire a local traffic engineer who will do an “analysis” that comes out favorably for the proposed development. Generally, a successful fight against a TIA requires hiring a traffic engineer to refute the applicant’s analysis. In a previous land use fight, I had to hire a traffic engineer from Portland, who did a great job destroying the schill that had done the TIA for the applicant. But the Planning Division staff ignored that and approved the application anyway.
Just to repeat: No matter how rational and strong arguments are that this is the wrong development in the wrong place, you must demonstrate that the application does not meet the criterion for one or more of the four adjustments and/or fails to meet the requirements laid out in the attached document.
All of the other arguments should be directed at the City Council and hammer — why in the Hell is staff spending huge amounts of time on upzoning our neighborhood and has ignored for years the need to rezone the edges of the EmX alignment on W. 6th & 7th Aves. to support apartments and local/transit-oriented commercial. The irony screams out: What is a GAS STATION doing immediately next to an EmX station?
