1990/02/07 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

115.. nil II February 7,ISSO BL IIS The City's Traffic Engineer stated that an etri in the traffic y Ifl studies did occur in that the mbar P vehicle trips for the Seaway Center project was undercounted. This error was discussed on 88 e4 the FEIS. He.stated that the change in daily trafficvolume 1�. (Prom using the higher number) isnot large enough to Create any significant changes in the impact analysis for the proposed project. In Peet, he does not Peel that the higher traffic volumes k.{1 ould provide a different result than outlined by Entrance. The 1 'j developers are being required to mitigate all transportation system I impacts of which the development is the direct cause. The only 11 areas of the study where the higher Seaway Center traffic volumes would have changed the Entrance results were at locations where It required improvements were only indirectly related to the development m Gthe developer is required to pay his"Pair share'of �. the improvements. The higher volumes would have increased the percentage oT traTPic at an Snters"g::requiring mitigation which not related to the Merrill Creek development end thereby reducing Merrill Creek's "Pais share" percentage. The City's Traffic Engineer statetl that his opinion, the lower traffic volumes d n Seaway Center resulted In a higher contribution for offsite 1 Ig tion by the Merrill Creek proposal. The City recently adopted a traffic mitigation ordinance as an R3 amendment to the City's SEPN Ordinance. The ca ncomitant agreement to the rezone ordinance requires the Applicant to comply with all SOPA policies in effect at time of submittal of future Building 4, Permits. Due to the uncertainty regarding the assumptions in the �.,.. traffic studies, City Council finds that it is necessary to monitor actual traffic impacts generatetlthe development during construction of the project to insure that traffic mitigation r, requirements are directly related to impacts actually generated by 1'i' the development. N condition should be placed in the contract t0 allow the City to require mitigation per the impacts which are actually being generated by the proposal. CONCLUSIONS: N condition was added to the concomitant agreement to require that n approvals for the project be granted for a single phase of the �,.. master plan and proceed a single phase at a time. Neter T5 percent e occupancy of each phase,traffic views far subsequent phases would be conducted to monitor actual traffic against those projected in the Merrill Creek Final EIS. Building permits for subsequent phases would not be granted until trafficimpacts e mitigated in accordance with the revised traffic review. withthe mitigation �I.:'^. measures listed n the Concomitant Agreement to the Rezone I: Ordinance, both theindirect and. indirect impacts of the proposal On off-site traffic would be adequately mitigated. n The project may be requiretl tm provide additional traffic mitigation beae0 upon the traffic stutlies Poi eac p se. wi FINDINGS: On-Site Circulation: The proposal would have apublic street from Merrill Creek Parkway.to Phase 4, the Single Family Plat. Private roadways would be providedthroughput the rest O4 the site. The multiple family phases would have access to the public roadway. The must public roadway s be constructed to City Standards, including curbs, gutters andsidewalks. The Concomitant Agreement includes ' conditions that eliminate parking from backing into the public right-Of-way.