Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Transportation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council debates transportation impact analysis guidelines, asks staff for more data
Summary
City Engineer Morgan Stroud presented draft Transportation Impact Analysis guidelines (Resolution 26‑04). Council debated the use of a newer ITE land‑use category (2‑60) for recreational/seasonal homes and asked staff to return in about a month with scenarios, data sources and analysis comparing alternatives.
City Engineer Morgan Stroud presented draft Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) guidelines intended to give staff and developers clearer scoping for traffic studies and mitigation.
Stroud described small changes to the draft (updated resolution number, additional flexibility for scoping, inclusion of the city logo) and emphasized the document’s purpose: to provide a framework that recognizes McCall’s atypical traffic patterns (midday and Saturday peaks) and to allow scoping to reflect unique project conditions. “We found that the mid day and the Saturday mid midday is our peak hour,” Stroud said, noting consultants (Kittleson) contributed technical responses.
A central point of debate was the proposed use of ITE land‑use code 2‑60 (recreational/seasonal homes) as an alternative to standard single‑family codes. Several council members and speakers expressed concern that 2‑60 could understate trip generation in McCall’s context (where many units function as short‑term rentals or workforce housing), and asked for more transparency about the underlying trip‑generation data and how the city will select codes during scoping. Council members suggested staff return with scenario comparisons (e.g., applying 2‑10 vs. 2‑60 distributions), documentation of ITE data applicability, and thresholds for when a newer ITE code is appropriate.
Other topics included winter vs. summer counts (staff said July counts were used because summer peaks are higher), multimodal and crash analysis requirements, coordination with Idaho Transportation Department (ITD) for highway impacts, and the city’s ability to require only proportionate impact mitigation.
Council did not adopt Resolution 26‑04 at the meeting. Members generally supported having a TIA guidance document in place but asked staff and consultants to provide additional analysis, scenario tables, and documentation on trip‑generation bases and recommended thresholds. Staff agreed to return with further analysis and a one‑month briefing to address concerns.
What’s next: Staff will produce scenario comparisons, document data sources (including ITE/methodology and any local count series), and return to council with analysis and recommended edits to the guidance.
