2011-08-03_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, August 03, 2011 Page 5 development plan, and questioned how and when the base line numbers would then be 198 reformulated. 199 City Attorney Bartholdi advised that the base line formula outlined in the proposed 200 ordinance was based on the infrastructure in place when the AUAR was completed in 201 2007; based on what could have been developed at that time given the existing 202 infrastructure. 203 Member Wozniak asked if the base line numbers in the ordinance were based on 2006 204 land uses; to which City Planner Paschke responded affirmatively. Member Wozniak 205 questioned if, with new zoning in place, that land use was different now; and whether that 206 would affect base line figures. 207 City Planner Paschke noted the distinction between how the land was guided versus how 208 it was currently operating; with the AUAR predicated on the land use at that point and 209 how it functioned, with that being different than how the land use is guided for Community 210 Mixed Use Zoning. Mr. Paschke advised that base line numbers would not be impacted. 211 As Chair Boerigter noted that the AUAR was created in 2008, City Attorney Bartholdi 212 noted that the numbers for the AUAR were generated in 2006 and 2007, and finalized in 213 2008, all based on the uses in place at that time, and how traffic volumes would fill up the 214 system at that time. 215 Member Boguszewski, as an example, noted that Parcel 1.a (Block 1.a) had base line 216 network trips currently set at 98, while the adjacent Block 13 was set at 691 trips; and 217 questioned the rationale for such a significant difference between the two when they were 218 adjacent blocks. 219 City Attorney Bartholdi advised that base line network trips were based on land use and 220 the total square footage that could be built in that land use area; as well as network trips 221 that would originate from that lot and where they would evolve throughout the system; 222 and ultimately formulated on how many improvements that trip would travel through in 223 that improvement area, equaling the network trip calculation. Mr. Bartholdi noted that the 224 location of particular parcels in the overall system was included as part of that calculation; 225 and suggested that the City’s Engineering Department could better address the 226 calculations and rationale. 227 In recognizing the appeal process included as part of the proposed ordinance, Member 228 Boguszewski questioned if, based on his experience, the City Attorney anticipated a 229 significant number of appeals; and if so, whether it should be more productively dealt with 230 upfront to allow adjustments versus the Planning Commission recommending to the City 231 Council the ordinance as currently drafted, and letting the chips fall where they may. 232 City Attorney Bartholdi advised that some disagreement was anticipated and expected; 233 however, he noted that this was generated from various studies and reviews, the AUAR, 234 and what improvements were required, and based on modeling and Institute of 235 Engineering Manual standards. Mr. Bartholdi opined that the mechanism recommended 236 was good; however he recognized that the studies were based on assumptions, they 237 would serve as good starting point and base mechanism as developers come forward, 238 with adjustments made as updated traffic studies were done with each development for 239 comparison with the original assumptions. Mr. Bartholdi advised that where the updated 240 traffic studies for specific development projects deviated from the original study, a 241 corresponding adjustment in allocation cost would be made. 242 Member Boguszewski sought clarification on the 180 day window starting upon approval 243 and whether owners needed to deal with that now. 244 With City Attorney Bartholdi’s concurrence, Chair Boerigter advised that the process 245 would not adjust the base line numbers detailed in the proposed ordinance. City Attorney 246 Bartholdi clarified that base line numbers in the ordinance were determined by assumed 247 total network trips for each development, not base network trips when the development 248 came forward. 249