Jamestown Crossing (I and II) seeks approval for 172 lots on Hwy 930

The meeting agenda for Wednesday’s Planning Commission includes two items submitted by the same developer, Dantin Bruce Development, LLC (which also gets to have its once denied Oak Grove Townhouses RECONSIDERED), both named Jamestown Crossing.  Separate filings were done for the development(s) which lie on either side of Hwy 930 as it winds its way north toward the east-west flowing Hwy 42.  The subject property is surrounded by acreage where rampant development has already overburdened critical infrastructure in recent years…and there are several subdivisions in the pipeline ahead of Jamestown Crossing.

Just north of the proposed subdivisions is Ironwood where houses are being built, not far to the east at Hwy 929 are Brookstone and Reese Lane where shovels will be turning the earth soon enough.  Both of the latter were initially denied by Ascension’s Planning Commission only to garner ultimate approval; Brookstone via the defunct three-member Planning Commission Appeals Board, Reese Lane was approved when the Parish Council ordered the commission to reconsider.

The additional cars driven by the future residents of Ironwood, and Brookstone, and Reese Lane, etc. were not included in Jamestown Crossings’ requisite Traffic Impact Study (TIS); future widening of Hwy 42 was factored in by the traffic engineer, Brandon Perrilloux of Urban Systems, Inc. who concluded:

No improvements at studied intersections are recommended to offset additional cars generated by this project.  The future analysis accounts for current proposed La 42 improvements.

Perrilloux is also the traffic engineer employed by Dantin Bruce for Oak Grove Townhouses…

92 (lots) + 230 (parking spots)=56 peak hour trips? Oak Grove Townhouses denied by Commission

The 4-2 vote denying Oak Grove Townhouses was based, in large part, on the commission’s disbelief of Perilloux’s TIS conclusions.  His company was hired by former parish president, Tommy Martinez, in 2015 to review Ascension’s Traffic Impact Policy.  The final product was delivered in April of 2016 only to be buried without ever seeing the light of day…

2016 Traffic Impact Policy review buried by Matassa Administration

until recently that is.

Urban Systems pocketed $42,000 for its trouble and stands to earn another $25,000 after last month’s Council Transportation Committee tasked the company with updating its work product.  Strange since Transportation’s chairman, Councilman Aaron Lawler had this to offer about the company’s initial effort…

Facebook can be a dangerous tool in the right (or wrong) hands

Useless document?

Lawler’s assessment of Urban Systems’ work product is much the same as those Planning Commissioners who denied Oak Grove Townhouses.  Why, given its performance, is Ascension paying the company another $25,000?  But that is a question for another day.

And not tomorrow when Jamestown Crossing(s) are slated for consideration.

Filing One is sited in the northeast corner of the intersection at Hwy 930 and Parker Road in Councilman Benny Johnson’s District 11.  Filing Two is located on “the west side of Hwy 930” at “the Hwy 930/Parker Road intersection.”  Wednesday’s meeting packet places Filing Two in District 11 as well, though our Council District map puts it in Lawler’s District 7.

Urban Systems’ TIS, for what it’s worth, includes “Traffic Counts” from August 22, 2017 when 171 “peak hour trips” were counted.  That rises to Threshold 2 according to Ascension’s “worthless” Traffic Impact Policy.

NOTE:  No Traffic Study is required, merely a statement in Threshold Levels “0” and “1” when less than 75 peak hour trips are generated.

Threshold 2 (between 75-400 peak hours trips, requires a “Limited Traffic Impact Study” and over 400 peak hour trips rises to Threshold 3 (Comprehensive Traffic Impact Study).  Threshold 2 requires e-h below while Threshold 3 mandates they all be performed.

e. Recommendations for any roadway and/or intersection improvements to maintain or improve the existing Level-of-Service;
f. Provide vehicle accident data in proximity to site (if available);
g. Analysis of the roadway capacity (existing and/or proposed) on all roadway links abutting the proposed development site and identify necessary roadway and/or intersection improvements to maintain the existing Level-of-Service;
h. An analysis of the nearest major intersection (typically signalized) in each direction from the major site driveway.                                                                                                                             i. The new traffic generated for the proposed development would be distributed onto the existing transportation network within an area defined by the Engineer Review Agency. Analysis of each roadway link and intersection link within this area for both existing and proposed conditions;
j. Identification of any deficiencies determined by this analysis and resolve such deficiencies.