01/16/2018 (2) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

methodology meeting would assist the applicant and his professional (an engineer or architect) in obtaining preliminary information allowing discussion with staff in a knowledgeable fashion. He commented it would rely upon the applicant to understand the magnitude of issues. Mr. Paladin concurred a rough outline of the traffic due diligence period as far as concurrency, trips, appropriate intersections, etc., would provide a status of the plan. Chairperson Robinson said if the Code was changed to resubmittal time, there would be nothing to preclude the applicant from providing the Traffic Study early, at the TRC meeting, as a part of the due diligence. She agreed the engineer should have a good concept of whether or not the Traffic Study would "sink the ship" before doing the project. Mr. McCoy, said the methodology meeting with the Traffic Division would provide where and what the "skeletons" were, prior to refining project site plan design. Mr. McCoy stated in support of Mr. Schulke's idea of the initial submittal of the Traffic Study moved to the resubmittal of the formal Traffic Impact Statement, the developer would want the verification of the methodology meeting prior to the TRC meeting submittal. He continued this would allow Traffic Division to have an idea of what to expect, methodology -wise, because approaching the approval stage, the Traffic Division was required to sign off on the Traffic Study and approve the site plan, closing the gap and getting to the end result quicker. Mr. Szpyrka summarized there would be the pre -app conference to ensure the developer could do what they wish to do, then there would be a methodology meeting with the Traffic Division, having the information of what the developer thought could be accomplished, then the TRC meeting, allowing the comments to go back to the developer, then the full-blown Traffic Study with the resubmittal. Mr. Greg Burke, Member at Large representative shared he thought it was a good idea for staff to see the project upfront in the planning stage and to ensure good understanding by inviting staff to be partners in the design of the project, which would save time. ON MOTION BY Mr. Paladin, SECONDED BY Mr. Mechling, to shift the time frame where the Traffic Report was required to resubmittal. UNDER DISCUSSION, Mr. Burke inquired about a timeline for the approval of the Traffic Study; depending upon the consultant providing the correct information. Mr. Szpyrka informed the committee, according to the current Code, the Public Works Director has 15 days in which to get the Traffic Study reviewed and back to the developer, and that time frame runs concurrently with the TRC, so when the TRC plan 5 C:\Users\sjohnson\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\SEU7ML71\11.8.17 DRPP Minutes.doc 63