Planning Commission Minutes 2007 04 26

Home Browse Search

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes APRIL 26, 2007 Page 4 of 7 The Commissioners addressed numerous questions during the staff presentation as a matter of clarification. Areas discussed included: . Connectivity to the current downtown area . Difference between TaD and the proposal regarding density . Comprehensive Plan review and its inclusion of the Highway 42 Plan . Off street parking and structure parking Members of the Public: Michael Menaker, 1827 W. Choke Cherry Dr. addressed three areas of concern: 1) the requirement of residential on 2nd floor and above; 2) Parking is under parked for the density that is proposed and 3) the building height will create a density that can not be supported by the market. William Cantrel, 403 Lilac Ct. addressed concerns related to the EP A study. He discussed a possible source of two radioactive isotopes that would need to be cleaned up prior to any development. Jean Morgan, 1130 Spruce St. discussed the following: location of a pedestrian underpass, location of the traffic light, buffer north of Miners Field and a possible cul-de-sac at Spruce and HWY 42. Additional Commission questions of Staff: McAvinew and Lipton discussed with staff the possible location and identity of the radioactive isotopes discussed by Cantrel, the additional environmental studies to be done as the project develops, the permits that would have been required to have been filed with the AEC. Hartman stated she would like more information about the issues addressed by Cantrel. Staff discussed each of the issues addressed by McAvinew, Lipton and Hartman: . The Phase II meeting held on April 24, 2007 conducted by staff and the consulting firm (Walsh) addressed the radioactive isotopes topic with Cantrel and the testing that had been done by the consulting firm. . The additional soil testing that will need to done at the time of development. . A copy of the draft Phase II document can be provided to any interested PC member. Sheets requested a copy. Loo and Pritchard stated they agree with some of Menaker's comments. Wood discussed the three topics that were the basis for Menaker's comments: residential, parking and building height. Loo asked how the Commission would proceed with the review of the documents. Lipton suggested a page by page review of the three documents. Lipton and Sheets questioned what would happen to the Historic Old Town area when this development starts. Staff suggested that the development has the potential to enhance the Historic Old Town as has been seen in other communities such as Piano, TX where redevelopment has taken place. Sheets inquired about a market analysis. Wood stated a market analysis had been completed for Urban Renewal and staff felt it was not necessary to do another analysis because that study included the HWY 42 area.