Agenda - Council - 06/25/1991 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

At this point, several options are available to the City: Pro~:eed with the current submittals, stressing that the City has met their obligations under the '89 approval, and request that MC now follow through on their commitment despite the impacts onTH10. (This may result in denial or approval of less than 205 acres.) Residential peak hour traffic does not necessarily coincide with industrial peak hour traffic. Illustrate the impacts of traffic associated with industrial development evaluating different peak hour flows (commercial vs. residential) regarding peak hour traffic and subsequent actions the City would take to mitigate traffic impacts. Exchange industrial land for residential land. Residential uses generate fewer trips than commercial or industrial uses and probable residential development is farther east and would therefore reduce impacts on TH10. The following highlights the key elements of each option: OPTION #t. BASE CONDITION WITH CURRENT SUBMITTAL CALCULATION OF PEAK HOUR TRIPS City Council 1988 vehicles in the peak hour Projected rural residential peak hour trips MUSA residential peak hour trips (Faye Addn) Commercial/industrial peak hour trips TOTAL: 2,99O 2,990 374 374 20 20 142' 2,231 ** 3,526*** 5,615'** *In the City's calculation, this is the difference in trips if the 205 acres were developed at 20 percent site coverage instead of 15 percent. **In the Council's calculation, all peak hour trips are recorded assuming 35 percent site coverage vs. no development. ***This does not include added residential traffic generated from new development within 1989 MUSA expansion, commercial and industrial currently in MUSA but not yet developed, or currently undeveloped commercial/industrial in the rural area not proposed to be brought into the MUSA at this time. 2