01/16/2018 (2) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mr. Boling said currently, the idea was when the applicant/engineer came out of the pre -app, there was direction; the engineer knew of trouble spots. He continued staff's suggestion was to have a staff -coordination meeting before TRC to iron out any conflicts and to provide solid comments at the TRC meeting. Mr. Chuck Mechling, District 5 Representative voiced his support for staff to have the extra time period before the TRC meeting; however, questioned when the applicant and the engineer would know how to proceed with development. He shared his thought with a residential concept, at the resubmittal time, the applicant would have the Traffic Study to know how many lots were allowable. Chairperson Robinson asked Mr. Rich Szpyrka, Public Works Director, with the understanding the Traffic Study could determine changes in driveway egress, etc., and would there be general direction from Public Works as to whether a Traffic Study was required at the formal submission? Mr. Szpyrka said it depended upon the level of information he was provided to make that decision. For him to make a decision, he would require the detailed information from the developer; however, that decision would be arbitrary and staff tried to stay away from arbitrary. He surmised perhaps the Code needed to be changed to require a traffic study before the post TRC resubmittal. Chairperson Robinson asked Mr. Blum when he thought the Traffic Study should be completed, before the TRC meeting, or before resubmittal. Mr. Blum responded his opinion was to have the Traffic Study before resubmittal. Mr. Wes Mills, District 3 Representative agreed the Traffic Study should be required at the post TRC resubmittal because the Traffic Study would need to match the revised site plans. Mr. Joe Schulke, Schulke Bittle and Stoddard shared his thought the formal traffic study should be able to wait for a resubmittal of the site plan; however, the Code required a traffic study methodology meeting prior to conducting the Traffic Study. He suggested requiring the methodology meeting prior to the formal TRC meeting submittal, providing staff and the applicant information going into the TRC meeting, so when staff held their coordination meeting, both parties had the same information. Chairperson Robinson inquired whether the pre -app and the Traffic Study methodology could be done at the same meeting. Mr. Paladin responded the pre -app and Traffic Study covered different items. Mr. John McCoy, Community Development Chief Planner stated he thought a civil engineer designing the project, whether it was a small subdivision, or a regional mall, would know whether a traffic engineer was needed to attend the pre -app based upon the project. Mr. Mechling surmised the concept would be at the resubmittal, to have the full Traffic Study, making a change to the current Code. He also understood having the 4 C:\Users\sjohnson\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\lNetCache\Content.Outlook\SEU7ML71 \1 1.8.17 DRPP Minutes.doc 62