BY DEBBIE PAGE

The Troutman Planning and Zoning Board on Monday took a step toward giving the town more control in traffic impact analyses (TIAs) conducted for proposed residential and commercial development projects. Community members have voiced their desire for traffic solutions in the Highway 21/Main Street corridor for years.

Troutman has hired Kimley-Horn, an engineering, planning, and design firm, to conduct all traffic impact studies for proposed developments, at the developer’s expense, to create a more consistent process and to have a better picture of the overall traffic impact on the community.

The firm will also help the town on other transportation projects as well on an as-needed basis.

Town Planner Andrew Ventresca said some of the major proposed changes include:

The actual number of trips calculated for a proposed development will now be the determining factor for the need for a TIA as opposed to the use or square footage of the development.

A process is outlined, including discretion from staff and the consultant, to require a TIA even if the threshold is not met based on other factors. Staff can require a transportation technical memorandum (TTM) on small projects that do not meet the TIA threshold.

The developer or applicant will be required to sign off on a document for all improvements agreed upon and consent to pay the fee for the traffic impact study or memorandum. Timing of when the improvements are required will also now be documented.

A fee-in-lieu-of option will be available for situations where a state project is planned but not yet started. These will be approved on a case-by-case basis by the Town Council.

Ventresca said that these proposed changes have also been reviewed and endorsed by the local N.C. Department of Transportation office.

Kimley-Horn traffic engineer Laura Reid and Senior Vice President Steve Blakley gave a short presentation on the changes and explained the proposed new process.

After a plan is presented to the Planning and Zoning Department, the town will notify Kimley-Horn to perform the TIA. The applicant would pay for the traffic study, completed in conjunction with the town, NCDOT, and the applicant, with the final report being presented by Kimley-Horn representatives to the Town Council at the time of the development’s consideration by the council.

Reid said the current TIA threshold would be changed to 1,000 daily trips or 100 peak-hour trips from 7 a.m. to 9 a.m. and 4 p.m. to 6 p.m. in the proposed changes.

Reid said this process would create a more consistent traffic knowledge base that would carry through all projects proposed to the town.

The changes would also create more flexibility in TIA requirements. The town may determine that a TIA, transportation technical memorandum (TTM), or traffic mitigation agreement (TMA) is needed, based on special circumstances associated with the development, even if the gross trips fall below the proposed threshold.

A TMA is a written agreement between the town and developers that traffic mitigations are required in an agreed-upon project time frame, with specific trigger points for mitigations to be completed.

These special circumstances may include considering a location, an intersection or thoroughfare nearby that is at or above capacity, the nature of the development’s use, or other reasons.

Some of these concerns include traffic generated from a non-residential development that could potentially impact adjacent residential neighborhoods, operation problems for current or future years on streets that could significantly be aggravated by traffic generated from the new development, or major or minor thoroughfares near the site that are already experiencing noticeable delays.

Other reasons could be traffic or safety issues that exist at an intersection or street serving the proposed new development, the proposed land use differing significantly from the adopted Comprehensive Land Use Plan for the town, or anticipating that the internal street or access system will not accommodate the expected traffic generation.

Other TIA triggers could be a project that includes a drive-through facility or other uses such as schools that require significant onsite circulation that may have an offsite impact to adjoining roads or intersections. If the amount or character of traffic is significantly different from a proposed TIA or more than 24 months have past since the completion of a previous TIA, the town could require a new study.

The NCDOT could also require a TIA for any proposed project that impacts traffic or roads as well.

Reid said that adding the payment in lieu of option to the UDO, instead of completing required traffic mitigations, would create a pot of money for the town to complete traffic mitigations. Payments might occur if the developer is unable to get the needed right-of-away to complete the required mitigations or if the TIA mitigations would interfere with a funded state road project.

Ventresca said that any payment in lieu arrangement would require Town Council approval and would be considered a last resort by the Planning and Zoning Department because the town would rather get the traffic improvements in place as quickly as possible.

Ventresca also added cost estimates for the payment in lieu option could be adjusted for rising prices and inflation occurring in the estimated completion time frame. Blakely said that the entire project cost, including design, right of way, engineering, construction, and other costs, would be included in the payment in lieu of option.

Another TIA requirement change would be that the TIA study area would consider all intersections within a 1-mile radius as well as the impact on multimodal capacities such as bike and pedestrian trails and greenways.

Board member Karen Van Vliet asked whether TIAs would be required to be conducted during times that schools are in session since they have a significant impact on traffic. Reid said that if a study was needed during the summer, Kimley-Horn could either use data from a TIA conducted within the last year or wait until school starts.

Reid also said that TIA peak times could also be adjusted to reflect local schools’ start and end times.

Ventresca noted that developers know that TIAs must be conducted during the school year and usually get their plans in to avoid the summer months.

Board Chair Randy Farmer asked if the Planning and Zoning Board would also get to see TIA results prior to making recommendations to the Town Council, which Reid said would most likely occur.

Blakley said that the completed study could be presented to the board, even if NCDOT had not completed its review of the TIA, because of its up to two month review process.

Ventrsca added that the board could ask the Town Council to add a UDO requirement the TIA be ready prior to the Planning and Zoning Board meeting to consider the proposed project as well.

Reid also said in response to a question that developers completing projects in close proximity would be required to share cost of traffic mitigations, not just sticking the first one to develop the project with all the mitigation costs.

Blakely said if a developer did not follow through with required TIA mitigations, the town could deny certificates of occupancy for the development until the mitigations are complete.

The board voted 4–0 to approve the changes regarding TIAs. The changes will go on to the Town Council for final consideration on August 8.

OTHER BUSINESS

In other business:

♦ Planning staff requested that a nearly 3-acre parcel located at 524 Autumn Leaf Road be returned to its original zoning designation of suburban residential after being changed to conditional highway business zoning two years ago.

The property owner did not proceed with the commercial project, and the town is exercising its right to revert the parcel back to its original zoning. Ventresca asked the board to recommend this change to the Town Council, which passed unanimously.

♦ The board also approved a planning staff recommendation, at the direction of the Town Council, that the membership of the Design Review Board (DRB) be amended to eliminate the requirement that members must be residents of the town’s planning and zoning jurisdiction.

The DRB must have at least one design professional in its membership, but this position cannot always be filled with applicants from within the town, so the council proposed to eliminate the residential requirement.

The council also asked that a second alternate member be added to the DRB to be consistent with the make-up of both the Planning and Zoning Board and the Board of Adjustment.

Ventresca said DRB members viewed the changes favorably.

The board voted unanimously to recommend these changes to the DRB structure.