Laserfiche WebLink
Planning Commission <br />Meeting Minutes <br />December 14, 2023 <br />Page 3 of 10 <br />Choi asked about whether there was consideration of including parking on City owned <br />land on the north side of the property. <br />Brackett Hogstad said that it may not be desirable as it was in use. She was not sure if <br />this had been discussed. <br />Choi asked about whether there was consideration of adding further crossing <br />improvements between the trail on the south side and Highway 42. <br />Brackett Hogstad said that there were not specific plans to include upgraded pedestrian <br />crossings, and that this would not be required as part of the application. <br />Zuccaro said that he had found number of EV chargers. <br />Brauneis asked Zuccaro if there were improvements planned to the Highway 42 and <br />Empire Rd intersection as part of the Highway 42 plan. <br />Choi added that he was concerned that there was not protected left turn from southbound <br />Highway 42 onto Empire Rd, and that this could create traffic issues. He asked if the City <br />had evaluated the intersection, and how they would go about doing that. <br />Zuccaro clarified Choi's question about the potential inclusion of a protected left turn lane. <br />He said that he would have to look this up. He added that traffic studies were not typically <br />done on single lot developments. <br />Brackett Hogstad added that there was no request from Public Works to do a traffic <br />study. <br />Zuccaro said that Public Works felt it was minor enough that a traffic study would not be <br />warranted. <br />Zuccaro said that there would be 9 spaces with EV chargers installed, 6 spaces classed <br />as EV ready, and 13 spaces classed as EV capable. <br />Howe asked where the loading dock was located, and whether it could conflict with the <br />neighboring lot. <br />Brackett Hogstad pointed it out. She noted that it would have limited impact on the <br />neighboring facility as it was a decent distance away, with landscaping marking the border <br />between the two. <br />Howe noted it was mainly northwest facing, and that this would help shield it from the <br />adjacent property. <br />Howe asked whether there would be lighting on the new trail from the overflow lot. <br />Brackett Hogstad said that she would have to check. <br />Zuccaro said that staff wanted to be respectful of the buffer and said that it would help <br />preserve a good transition downtown. He noted that changes to the annexation <br />agreement would allow changes to use by right even if the current applicant abandoned <br />their proposal. He added that the language proposed by staff would only change the buffer <br />for this development and not permanently. <br />Krantz asked what expiration date would be for the plat and SRU. <br />Zuccaro said that the annexation agreement and plat would not expire, the SRU would <br />expire after a year if not implemented, and the PUD would expire after 3 years. <br />Krantz clarified whether the changes to the buffer would expire. <br />11 <br />