2011-09-07_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, September 7, 2011 Page 8 various models developed, based on PM Peak Trips from various developments, 345 determining how network trips were determined and how traffic was distributed through 346 the development and immediate area surrounding it. 347 Member Boguszewski noted that these models and use of the word “probably” were 348 based on the Institute of Traffic Engineers using historical data with some science 349 involved in those calculations. 350 City Engineer Bloom confirmed that the models were indeed based on standard traffic 351 modeling and assumptions, with trips per square foot, and determining other uses and 352 how and where traffic was being generated and distributed throughout the area, as well 353 as determining how many different improvements a particular development touches. 354 Line 114, Timing 355 Member Boguszewski questioned how the effective date of this ordinance and the 356 seventeen (17) identified improvements would remain relevant six (6) years from now if 357 the numbers generating the predicted trips changed substantially and how the table of 358 network trips would be adapted over time as changes occur. 359 City Engineer Bloom advised that, at this time seventeen (17) improvements were 360 identified, and there were no others anticipated. Ms. Bloom noted that Iona had been 361 added as part of the Metropolitan Transit Park and Ride development; however, she 362 advised that an annual review was done to ensure the model remained relevant. 363 Member Boguszewski opined that this language enabled developers, but did not hold 364 them accountable for old or outdated studies. 365 City Engineer Bloom advised that the models in the allocation study were based on the 366 AUAR, and additional changes were not anticipated, as the uses weren’t changing. Ms. 367 Bloom noted that, as individual development proposals came forward, a hard and 368 thorough examination of all uses and their compatibility was done as part of the AUAR 369 review; with any related mitigation efforts for the AUAR identified at that time. Ms. Bloom 370 noted that, from a staff perspective and with a total of $24 million in improvements, 371 enforcement was a necessity and part of staff’s charge from previous City Council 372 directive and formal action. 373 Member Boguszewski advised that his concerns were not with methodology or 374 application, just with fixed outcomes versus reality. 375 City Engineer Bloom responded that roadways within the Twin Lakes Redevelopment 376 District and intersections as identified all impacted the overall area. 377 Section E – Chart 378 Chair Boerigter sought clarification on the static numbers based on previous uses, and 379 how their basis from historical numbers could be proved correct, rather than forcing an 380 appeal process to prove them incorrect. 381 City Engineer Bloom advised that existing uses were evaluated; along with PM Peak 382 Hour trips based on ITE standards, and determined to be fair after significant discussion 383 and as those uses were abandoned on some of the sites. Ms. Bloom advised that the 384 proposed ordinance had been developed taking that into consideration and she didn’t 385 anticipate those base numbers changing. Ms. Bloom noted that, once the ordinance was 386 in place, revisions could be made through a Public Hearing process only. 387 Chair Boerigter questioned how new developments assumed above the anticipated uses 388 would participate in the overall cost, or if it was a static number versus a future number. 389 City Engineer Bloom responded that it was the nature of the AUAR that residential 390 development in some areas would generate less traffic than some commercial uses; and 391 if future development didn’t exceed the base line numbers, a developer may not have any 392 costs in the allocation. 393 Member Wozniak questioned why there was no “#11” on the table. 394