Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Traffic topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents and councilors press for new traffic analyses and third‑party review after ARC report correction
Summary
Councilors and residents raised concerns about traffic assumptions used in the DRI and ARC materials, asked for updated traffic analysis given other projects were removed from the combined assumptions, and a resident presenter cited AASHTO sight‑distance standards to argue intersections are far below recommended sight distances.
Council members and residents questioned the traffic assumptions in the ARC materials after a printed table showed incorrect totals that staff said had been corrected on the record. One councilor asked whether the city should commission a new traffic study because two other projects that had been included in the cumulative calculations are now on hold; staff and the applicant acknowledged the change and said the DRI/NOD process requires reanalysis when other developments fall out of the cumulative assumptions.
Marcus Frias of Atwell, who participated in the DRI team, told council there is language in the NOD requiring reanalysis when other DRI developments do not carry forward: "There is language that's written directly within the NOD that describes when a development in another DRI does not develop their traffic improvements," he said. Resident Kevin Parker gave a detailed AASHTO‑based presentation and argued sight distances at certain rural intersections are well below AASHTO recommendations, saying the proposed traffic volumes would worsen already substandard conditions and underscored the council’s request for outside technical review.
