05/23/2006 (3) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

transportation issue in the County would be solved. He also thought it was not wise to have all the vacant lots on the system. Mr. Kim continued recommending reconciliation of COs with traffic count data, and collecting traffic counts once per year during the peak season, which is generally consistent with other counties. IRC should permit traffic counts be a maximum of one-year old from the time that the methodology for a traffic study is approved, enter traffic counts into the database on a yearly basis, and allow traffic studies to utilize whatever traffic counts were considered current at the time that the methodology was approved. He indicated that turn lanes for driveways could be required even in the event that the minimum peak hours turning movement volumes may not be achieved. IRC should amend the Code to indicate that the need for additional vehicle stacking for residential gated communities is required and will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Also, IRC should amend the code to indicate that the required stacking for individual gated communities will be measured to the first point of service and not the location of the gate arm. The Chairman called for a recess at 3:23 p.m., and he reconvened the meeting at 3:31 p.m., with all members present. 5. DISCUSSION OF DRAFT REPORT Mr. Kim, in response to Mr. Christopher’s questions, related the intent of his recommendation that the concurrency database should include a project when (a) the traffic study is approved and deemed correct, and (b) when a development order is issued. If they do not pay impact fees within 6 months, then they should lose all their vesting and go back to the beginning of the process. He proposed that for concurrency management to be issued it should be accounted for in the database. When a development order is issued, IRC may want to put a MAY 23, 2006 6 JOINT WORKSHOP P&Z/BCC