Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Traffic Impact Analysis topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning commission reviews proposed rewrite of traffic-impact rules tied to Ordinance 26-13
Summary
The Mandeville Planning Commission on May 12 reviewed a proposed text amendment to CLURO Article 8.4 (Ordinance 26-13) that would change traffic-impact analysis requirements, including fee timing, level-of-service language and the map source used for functional classifications. Staff sought clearer wording on engineer certification and payment timing; no final vote was recorded.
The Mandeville Planning Commission reviewed a proposed text amendment to CLURO Article 8.4 on May 12 that would revise Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) provisions under Proposed Ordinance 26-13.
Planner Alex Weiner presented the amendment and explained the changes being proposed to when fees will be due and to language addressing level-of-service metrics. Commissioners focused on two practical questions: when applicants must pay required fees, and how the city will define the functional classification of roadways used in traffic analyses.
Fadi Madi of Digital Engineering said the Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development functional map system updates more regularly than the Mandeville Master Street Plan and therefore could provide more current classifications for developers and engineers. "The benefit of the LA DOTD functional map system compared to the Mandeville Master Street Plan is the way the maps get updated," Madi said.
Commissioners also discussed the wording that would require an engineer’s stamp or certification. Several commissioners asked staff to clarify the exact text so that an engineer’s professional certification, and the timing of fee submission, are unambiguous in the ordinance language.
Planning Chairwoman Claire Durio pressed staff on the practical effect of choosing one mapping source over another, citing the need for consistency and predictability for applicants. No public comment was recorded on the item during the meeting.
Next steps: the commission requested specific wording edits and clarifications to ordinance language for a future meeting. No formal vote on the amendment was recorded at this session.
