07/30/2002 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

,'f gets away from the problem in some areas where they have-dueling traffic engineers and there are conflicting reports. It works best to have a single corisultant that you are comfortable with and the developer pays the tab. Mr. Dubelko.indicated there is a provision that requires a study for big box stores but something can be put in and should cover any new development. Mr. Smerigan said that any development over a certain scope ought to inciude a traffic analysis because that is one of the first things you hear about from the residents. The board determined- it should be included. 1V1r. O'Malley mentioned having Mr. Smerigan come back to assist the board. Mr. O'Malley asked if it is contemplated that a proposal would go to the Architectural Review $oard during the 60-day period involved in planning. He wondered if.that would give them enough time and asked if it is at odds with the usual system. Mr. Smerigan said if the preliminary plan is the appropriate place to look at the whole access management issue they ought to add language to that section that says that as part of the preliminary plan-the developer shall deposit sufficient funds for the city to -conduct a traffic study. Mr. O'Malley said the 60 days may not be enough time. He asked if the developer would . have enough time to have a traffic study completed starting from the time the preliminary plan was . submitted. He wondered if they would be able to report back to the Planning Commission in time. Mr. Smerigan said the issue with the 60 days deals with whether Council has to go through a consultant selection process, as . opposed to having someone already in place. Mr. O'Malley suggested having the board petition Council for more time. Mr. Koeth said they have to be sensitive to the developer too. Mr. Smerigan said if the city wants to identify a traffic engineer, that can be done up front. It would be a_ matter of getting a quote from a firm and issuing a purchase order and having the developer make that deposit. It wouldn't necessarily require legislation. Mr. Deichmann indicated they are getting into a consultant selection process and that would having some bearing on it, but in general they cam,begin to pre-qualify consultants. But he wouldn't want to limit it up front to one particular firm. He can see reasons for having at least three firms, which means they are going to get into the selection process. Mr. Dubelko.concurred with Mr. Deichmann. The city can retain a traffic engineer. It would be helpful to have resumes on hand and have some form of rating system. In that way it is_ not a time expense. Mr. Smerigan said if that is added to the process and the clock starts ticking from the time of the application, Mr. O'Malley's point is well taken and they will not get it all accomplished within the 60 day time period. Mr. Smerigan said the traffic study can certainly be done in that time frame. Mr. O'Malley said the developer needs to know about it. Mr. O'Malley asked Mr. Smerigan about the building massing item., He wondered if it can be . viewed as an anti-strip mall provision. :Mr. Smerigan said in essence it could be. . They are trying to break up massing so it is not over-powering to adjacent properties. If you take all the permitted square footage on the site and shoved it all into one structure, if the building mass is enormous, it is certainly not in character with transitioning to that single-family neighborhood. It creates a lot of other issues: He said they are talking about not building a structure that would be of that sort. They want something a little different. Mr. O'Malley asked about separation between buildings. It could look like one big strip mall if they have 3 buildings too close together. Mr..Smerigan said that is getting into the business of the whole development plan. He added the fire chief would have something to say about that kind of set up. He does not want to get into an arbitrary requirement for - building separation: He would rather deal with it as a site review issue. That is where your site plan review authority becomes important. Mr. O'Malley asked about the issue of the forester and his input. They often direct that a tree preservation plan or at least a consultation with the forester be completed. He asked if Mr. Smerigan had seen that in other communities and if he thinks it is appropriate at th'is preliminary stage to have some kind of tree preservation plan mapped out on the front end. Mr. Dubelko indicated there is a provision to cover that. The question is if it applies to mixed use. Mr. O'Malley said it might not be a bad idea to put that into play early on before the footprint is laid down just like the traffic study. Mr. Koeth mentioned the funeral liome.proposal that came before the board. They all agreed to have the forester go in to check on the site. Mr. 8