Laserfiche WebLink
Planning Commission <br />Meeting Minutes <br />June 23, 2022 <br />Page 8 of 14 <br />incorporate housing in their developments where they can. He is also concerned though <br />that this may not be the place for additional housing. <br />Krantz thinks the density is a concern. Adding addition adults to an area will cause <br />traffic to increase. <br />Hoefner says he partly agrees. Put into a different context, he has no issues with this <br />proposal if there were not existing street parking and traffic concerns. He thinks City <br />Council and the Public Works Department should take a closer look at that. He does not <br />think though that this proposal necessarily needs to go back to the drawing board. He <br />does not want to be unfair to this application for issues that are pre-existing. <br />Brauneis says one of those issues such as speeding falls back on enforcement. <br />Howe thinks the problem is not the density, but the traffic flow. He thinks this can be a <br />successful project. He likes that this proposal is on a narrow vacant lot and likes the <br />proposed design. It may walk the line between high -density residential and longtime <br />commercial. Affordable housing is included in this which is very important to the City. <br />Moline agrees with Commissioner Hoefner but also thinks it is appropriate for the <br />applicant to create a new traffic study that takes into consideration the new <br />development. <br />Howe asks if Commissioner Hoefner wants to push this application through the City <br />Council and have them solve some of the concerns or issues that have been discussed. <br />Hoefner says he is unsure if the commission or City Council should address these <br />issues. He wants to make sure that the commission does not go beyond the scope of <br />solving the problem for this application such as solving the traffic problems beyond this <br />development. <br />Brauneis says he is not aware of requiring a traffic study of the entire neighborhood for <br />this scale of a project. He asks if a traffic study from Delo is warranted for an additional <br />18 bedrooms. <br />Krantz says she does not think they need a comprehensive traffic study. A reduction in <br />density would help with the traffic and alleviate the other problems such as the number <br />of dogs and parking. <br />Howe says he is not sure he can approve this because he still does not think it meets <br />the criteria for an SRU. He thinks this development would change the general welfare <br />for the immediate neighborhood in terms of safety and traffic. He also thinks it changes <br />the safety and lifestyle for existing citizens. <br />Zuccaro gives the commissioners an explanation of the City's code structure in regards <br />to this SRU. <br />Ritchie says that the criteria Commissioner Howe is referencing should only be applied <br />to the ground floor retail space. <br />Howe states that the proposal is for the ground floor to be used as residential. <br />Ritchie says that is correct. <br />Howe says in doing so, you increase the density of the project. If all five of those SRU <br />criteria were met, then it would be grounds to change use that space as residential. <br />That is what my train of thought was. <br />Zuccaro thanks Commissioner Howe for the clarification. In that case, it could make <br />sense in regards to his interpretation of the criteria. <br />Hoefner says the traffic additions are marginal compared to what was previously <br />approved. Because of that, he is inclined to recommend this on to City Council but with <br />a condition that the applicant come before City Council with a more robust traffic study. <br />Also, a note to City Council expressing our serious concerns with the existing traffic <br />such as the speeding and the traffic from the middle school. <br />