Planning Commission Minutes 2022 06 23

Home Browse Search

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes June 23, 2022 Page 4 of 14 that it is a growing attraction and a unique offering compared to an open landscaped area. Moline mentions the public comments on parking issues. Do you do an analysis in preparation for developing this that would address those concerns and ensure that there will be adequate parking? Murphy says we do our own analysis to understand how these units are typically leased. We believe that residents will have adequate onsite parking. Onsite parking is solely for resident guests as well as overflow for the retail parking. The onsite parking meets all the code criteria. Howe asks if they have had any discussions with the neighboring companies about the amount of traffic and traffic flow. Murphy says yes, they have. He does not want to comment directly on that except their understanding of that roadway. The intention was to make a connection with the adjacent property based on the plat of the neighboring property to the east. However, that configuration does not align with the access point of Highway 42. We still believe that connection should still take place although we do not want to design it to meet with outlot one and not connect to Highway 42. The most viable solution is for us to design our connection point to align seamlessly with Highway 42, and then the application for the neighboring property needs to be re -platted to match the actual access point of Highway 42. In respects to the private agreement negotiated, that is what it ensures. Howe asks if he would be interested in having a public right of way dedication condition. Murphy says no, they would not. Howe mentions that when there is a lot of concrete, it provides a lot of heat generation. He asks if they know the percentage or portion of hardscape versus park/landscape. Murphy says he does not know that percentage. We are planning to install carports that will help reduce the heat generation. He does not know the ratio of hard scape versus park/landscape though. Howe asks if they would be open to changing the pickleball use to something different. Murphy says he thinks they can be more flexible in the use for the amenity areas pending what the request would be from planning. Howe asks if the pickleball court is for private or public use. Murphy says it is intended for only the residents. Public Comment: Krantz points out that the commission received 25 letters from the public. The overall consensus were concerns about change in density, traffic, parking, and the open space area. Other miscellaneous concerns that were brought up consist of the following: Maintenance of the Cannon St park, buildings are too tall, difficulty navigating the intersection of Griffith St and Cannon St, problems with pedestrian traffic, issue with dogs, drainage, and an issue with carports not having solar panels on them. One letter asked the commission to approve the proposal as is. Michael McClure, 1082 Griffith St McClure lives on Griffith St. He speaks on the density waiver. He reminds the commissioner that the comprehensive plan allows 25 residents per acre and the Highway 42 plan allows up to 30. The current density is 29.5. The applicant is pushing the density to the max and exceeding the limit. Please consider not allowing higher density. The Caledonia St cut through seems like it needs to be tackled now. Having the cut through existing with this proposal is in the best interest of the residents instead of