Agenda - 08-21-1990 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

29 appropriate to drop the proposed "100 trips during the AM or PM peak -hour of highway traffic" and stay with the standard of 800 trips per day. 5. It appears that the County could require the developer to pay for not only transportation system improvements Within and adjacent to the property but for off - site improvements as well. Such improvements would benefit adjacent property owners and existing residents, and alternative approaches for addressing this equity issue should be considered. While off -site improvements can be required, a measured approach must be taken in deciding if improvements are essential for public safety purposes, if they are proportional to the project impact, and if they are achievable. A better way to meet the "proportionally test" and address equity issues through pursuing a system of impact fees or taxes. On -site and adjacent impacts could then be dealt with directly by the applicant, and major improvement costs could be distributed equitably to the larger population. 6. A standardized approach for projecting traffic impacts of future development in the "study" area should be developed and included in the ordinance. The Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) conducted a study to investigate methodologies for traffic impact assessment. The Committee formed by ITE prepared a guide for the preparation of traffic impact analyses - "Guidelines for Transportation Impact Assessment of Proposed New Development" - which would be useful to applicants. The Committee did conclude, however, that it would be impractical to develop a detailed procedural manual for the performance of all traffic impact analyses. Every proposed development is unique in its relationship to the adjacent transportation system, each requiring different details of analyses. 7. The general exemption under Section 13.3 of the existing ordinance should be maintained rather than deleted. The exemption as proposed excludes any project for which a TIS has already been prepared, proposes no change in use, and creates no new traffic or access points. Such an exemption seems overly restrictive. For example, if a building occupied by an office (16 trips /1000 sq.ft. /day) changed to a clinic (23 trips /1000 sq.ft. /day), a TIS would be required for change of use and increased traffic. It would seem more appropriate to retain the current exemption and place the burden of proof on the applicant. In most instances, the applicant would almost have to prepare a complete TIS to clearly demonstrate that the project would not result in needed transportation improvements. S. It appears that a TIS would be required for each separate area proposed by the EDC for pre - zoning for economic development purposes. The cost for such studies has not been included in the EDC budget for FY 1991. The Planning Department has assisted the EDC in developing methods for analyzing the fiscal impact of development. The Planning Department could provide the same assistance in evaluating traffic impacts associated with specific pre - zoning proposals. The cost for such work is already covered by the Planning Department budget.