Laserfiche WebLink
Planning Commission <br />Meeting Minutes <br />June 23, 2022 <br />Page 6 of 14 <br />Bernhardt says he is looking forward to something being developed on this property. <br />He is a pickleball player but does not think it is the best use for that space; it should be <br />green space. He mentions that he is concerned that people will cut through Leonard, <br />Maria, and Johnson Lane to get to Griffith St. It may create a safety issue for existing <br />homeowners. He asks for the commission to see what the traffic is like when school is <br />in session and not do a traffic study in the summer months. <br />Rita Zamora, 1082 Griffith St <br />Zamora says the traffic data is from 2015 and says traffic is now drastically different. <br />She works from home and hopes that the character will not be changed from this <br />development. She hopes that if there is a park, it would not be behind the commercial <br />space. She is opposed to this proposal and would like more green space. <br />Michael Deborski, 601 Pine St <br />Deborski speaks on the previous proposal and how much he enjoyed that design. He is <br />not in favor of this current proposal. He is concerned about the drainage plan. He is in <br />support of the Caledonia St cut through. <br />Zuccaro mentions that Mr. Deborski has a written letter that needs to be entered into <br />the record. <br />Ritchie mentions that Addendum 1 also needs to be entered into the record. <br />Hoefner moves and Krantz seconds a motion to add these two additional public <br />comments mentioned above into the record. Motions passes unanimously by a voice <br />vote. <br />Closing Statement by Applicant: <br />Murphy says that in regards to the traffic, we tried to address that by using a traffic <br />engineer and accomplishing the traffic letter as has been mentioned earlier. The other <br />consideration that has been brought up is the deviation from the original plan. We have <br />reviewed the original plan and the difference between the bedroom count is <br />approximately 18 bedrooms. We are open to making the necessary changes such as <br />the pickle ball court with staff and the commission. <br />Closing Statement by Staff. <br />Ritchie mentions that the 2015 date is correct from the traffic study in the staff report. <br />The Delo project was developed and approved in 2015, which is why that study is from <br />that year. <br />Hoefner asks if she can confirm that we do have a new traffic study from this year. <br />Ritchie says that is correct. The applicant's traffic engineer created a new trip <br />generation report that is for 2022. It does not do a comparison of the previous <br />development and this current one. <br />Moline asks if the current traffic letter did consider the existing situation. <br />Ritchie says it is a study of anticipated trips that would be generated from this proposed <br />development. <br />Zuccaro explains what a typical traffic study would entail. <br />Moline mentions that it is standard practice for an applicant to supply the traffic study <br />and then the Public Works Department will review the study and make comments or <br />address any concerns if necessary. Did Public Works have any concerns in regards to <br />