Laserfiche WebLink
Planning Commission <br />Meeting Minutes <br />October 11, 2012 <br />Page 5 of 11 <br /> <br />Brauneis asked about the Energy Star components of the development. <br />Kipfer stated they used blown-in insulation, Low-E windows, high efficiency siding, <br />etc. <br />Russell questioned Russ on the housing diversity issue. He asked if planning looks <br />at housing diversity during the PUD process. <br />Russ stated there are 3 stages of review on diversity of housing: comprehensive <br />plan, municipal code, and PUD’s based on GDP’s. The primary form of guiding <br />diversity in housing is the comprehensive plan and the GDP. The diversity should be <br />provided on the GDP. In this instance the GDP discusses only a total number of <br />units and types of units, but it doesn’t breakdown what number of units need to go <br />where. <br />Moline asked if the GDP doesn’t mention about multi-family being on this block then <br />how do we know what goes within this development. <br />Russ stated it is shown on the GDP. <br />Pritchard asked if the fire department is fine with the alley widths of 20 feet. <br />McCartney answered in the affirmative. <br />Public Comment <br />Andrew Christianson, 1349 Snowberry Lane, asked about access points and why <br />there is only one access point to the multi-family development. He was also <br />concerned with the idea this development could include rental units. <br />Michael Menacker, 1827 West Chokecherry Drive, reminded the Planning <br />Commission the original contentious point was when the applicant requested for units <br />above and beyond what was allowed. Now the contentious issue is the applicant is <br />requesting fewer units. Rather than be concerned this is an evolving project we <br />should be pleased the applicant is evolving with the needs of our community. There <br />are other developments providing multi-family developments within our community. <br />Summary Comments and Request from Staff and/or Applicant <br />Michael Markel addressed how the development is a continually developing product. <br />He stated they made a commitment to provide multi-family and believes the <br />development has answered this need. <br /> <br /> In regards to traffic and access the original traffic study addressed these <br />issues. <br /> <br /> The streets have been planned for the number of units and he believes there <br />are an adequate number of access points. <br /> <br /> The HOA issue regarding using garages as storage and parking is a new <br />issue to them. He will have the HOA enforce this issue. <br /> <br /> He believes this development has a nice diversity of units that answers the <br />community needs and demands. <br />Closed Public Hearing – Planning Commission Discussion <br />Brauneis understands the density was a challenge but knows this is a different <br />commission and we are better off with more density. He believes multi-family is a <br /> <br />