My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Planning Commission Agenda and Packet 2025 02 13
PORTAL
>
BOARDS COMMISSIONS COMMITTEES RECORDS (20.000)
>
PLANNING COMMISSION
>
2025 Planning Commission Agendas Packets Minutes
>
Planning Commission Agenda and Packet 2025 02 13
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/19/2025 11:49:48 AM
Creation date
2/19/2025 10:50:47 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Meeting Date
2/13/2025
Doc Type
Boards Commissions Committees Records
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
109
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
Planning Commission <br />Meeting Minutes <br />October 10, 2024 <br />Page6of8 <br />Kari McDowell Schroeder, non-resident, conducted the applicant's traffic study. She <br />said that the restricted connection option was viable. She explained the findings of the <br />study, and noted that Griffith Street was covered in the most recent study. <br />Moline asked whether there was a point at which a grid street network becomes small <br />enough that it is no longer useful. <br />Schroeder said yes, as eventually the intersections could become too frequent such that <br />they would begin to impede the flow of traffic. It also depended on pedestrian walkshed. <br />Moline asked whether the constricted access to this site could become problematic for a <br />gridded street network. <br />Schroeder said that the site would effectively act as one block due to the surrounding <br />constraints like Highway 42 and the BNSF tracks. <br />Bangs asked if they had enough info from past traffic studies to extrapolate the traffic <br />produced by eliminating the Front Street connection. <br />Schroeder said that she did not know. <br />Bangs asked to confirm that the applicant would require a new traffic study to examine <br />this option <br />Schroeder said yes. <br />Hunt asked whether bollards could be used for to allow for emergency vehicle and bike <br />only access. <br />Schroeder said yes, and noted that there was the possibility of using retractable bollards. <br />Baskett asked if staff had given thought to possible street design regarding traffic <br />calming. <br />Fowlkes noted that the City had implemented traffic calming devices like speed humps <br />that could also be implemented on Front Street. He added that the City was planning <br />upgrades to the Highway 42 corridor that would aid in increasing vehicle capacity in the <br />area around the development. <br />There was an extended discussion about how traffic from the development could impact <br />Highway 42, and how the Front Street connection would play into this. There was also <br />further discussion about the scope of the traffic study, what kinds of trips were covered, <br />and what future traffic movements and access points could look like, particularly with <br />regard to left turns from Front Street onto South Boulder Road. <br />Zuccaro suggested that the Commission continue the item as it appeared they were <br />interested in seeing an updated traffic study before voting on the proposal. <br />Moline said that he felt this was a really important issue, and that it would be incumbent <br />on the Commission to review this study before they voted. <br />Moline asked about the applicant's plans for vegetation, and whether they planned to <br />retain any of the existing trees. He also asked for the applicant's views on the open space <br />dedication. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.