Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Transportation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
City staff outlines how traffic reviews and studies determine when developers must pay for detailed analyses
Summary
City assistant engineer Alisa Thomas briefed the Planning Board on the difference between initial traffic reviews and full traffic studies, de minimis thresholds, study scopes, and how proffers and future land‑use considerations affect trip‑generation calculations.
Assistant City Engineer Alisa Thomas presented an overview of the city’s traffic review and transportation concurrency process to the Planning Board, answering members’ questions and previewing a zoning text amendment to clarify technical procedures.
Thomas said an initial traffic review is a staff‑level, high‑level check performed for all site plans, rezones and future‑land‑use changes to determine whether a full traffic study is required. “A traffic review is required for all site plans, rezones, and future land use changes. It’s a high level check performed by staff,” she said.
If the initial review finds the project is not de minimis, the applicant must pay for a traffic study prepared by one of the city’s pool of consultants; the study can be limited to site access or expand to off‑site impacts depending on the project. Thomas explained the off‑site de minimis determination compares net new trips to 1% of the adjacent thoroughfare’s service capacity and that discontinued uses receive 50% credit in off‑site calculations.
Board members asked whether accumulation of many de minimis projects is captured in the code; Thomas said the code does not aggregate de minimis determinations over time and that staff has seen traffic reviews and studies grow in number in recent years. She also explained the city uses the ITE trip generation manual and coordinates with the MPO and FDOT when consultants build study areas and future traffic models.
Thomas said not every traffic study leads to required improvements; some studies find no mitigation is necessary, others identify access management or intersection work. She urged board members to look at project net‑new trips and recommended stipulations in study recommendations, which are incorporated into plan revisions and permitting when needed.
The board received Thomas’s briefing as preparatory background for a forthcoming zoning text amendment that will update the technical details of how traffic reviews and studies are handled.
