Laserfiche WebLink
land use diagram did not provide for additional quasi-public uses. Other <br />issues not specifically addressed. <br /> <br />StaffRecommendation: Given the possible interest by governmental agencies for <br /> acquisitions of significant lands within the project, staff supports <br /> addressing this issue by requiring redesign and establishment of a reserve <br /> for any major public component included in an agency's master plan, with <br /> pro rata reduction in development intensity. Staff also supports requiring <br /> a reduction in development intensity, based on the mid-point of the parcel <br /> range, for any acres above two acres used for public or quasi-public <br /> purposes. <br /> <br />13. Transportation - Streets <br /> <br />Issue: <br /> <br />Streets are too narrow (too wide), round-abouts are unsafe, short court designs <br />are non-neo-traditional, and assurance that project build-out will not cause <br />LOS E conditions is missing. <br /> <br />Proposed Project: Establishes street widths, street mitigations to preserve LOS D as <br /> projected, includes round-abouts, and allows short courts of a "normal" street <br /> design. <br /> <br />Alternatives: <br /> <br />Narrow major connector streets from 46 feet to 36-38 feet (Calthorpe <br />recommendation). <br />Narrow residential collector streets from 36 feet to 30 feet (Calthorpe <br />recommendation). <br />Limit local streets to 30 feet (Calthorpe recommendation; PUD allows 28, <br />30, or 32 feet based on intensity of use). <br />Replace round-abouts with traffic signals/four-way stop signs and/or other <br />appropriate intersection controls. <br />Eliminate short courts as an allowed street type. <br />Monitor compliance with LOS D or better policy by requiring updated <br />traffic studies of "existing + approved + project" scenarios with each PUD <br />development plan or residential development permits (or, alternatively, <br />when 500, 1,000, and/or 1,500 units have been proposed for discretionary <br />approval) and requiring appropriate mitigation as needed, including <br />density reduction if necessary to achieve LOS D conditions. <br />Allow City to review project traffic mitigations if annual traffic <br />monitoring reveals (i) project traffic exceeds projections, or (ii) cumulative <br />traffic resulting from changes in distribution, cut-through traffic volumes, <br />or other changes to projected traffic volumes, unrelated to traffic from new <br />approvals the City may make after approving this project, results in actual <br />or projected LOS E conditions. <br /> <br />Substantive Issues/Alternatives Page 15 June 9, 1999 <br /> <br /> <br />