Laserfiche WebLink
RCA Attachment E <br />wĻŭǒƌğƩtƌğƓƓźƓŭ/ƚƒƒźƭƭźƚƓaĻĻƷźƓŭ <br />aźƓǒƷĻƭΑ‘ĻķƓĻƭķğǤͲbƚǝĻƒĬĻƩЋͲЋЉЋЋ <br />tğŭĻЏ <br />229 Ms. Lloyd addressed the 2016 traffic study and indicated it was determined this to be <br />230 an adequate traffic study. He reviewed some of the questions the residents brought <br />231 up regarding zoning of the previous senior housing building, landscaping, parking, <br />232 and traffic. <br />233 <br />234 Commission Deliberation <br />235 <br />236 Member Schaffhausen wondered with the density bonus, the City is really working <br />237 with trying to provide what the density bonus is as far as what it means from a <br />238 residential perspective, would be helpful and what would preclude the Commission <br />239 from saying this is something the City should do. <br />240 <br />241 Mr. Lloyd explained the main achievement of this density bonus is that it reduces the <br />242 amount of surface parking and open lots and will help manage the amount of storm <br />243 water that is being generated on the site, at least from the flat areas and will also help <br />244 to reduce the radiant heat that comes from the sun warming up an asphalt parking lot. <br />245 He thought as much as anything it promotes a more efficient use of a given amount of <br />246 land by having the parking stalls underneath the building rather than on the surface. <br />247 He indicated as staff has reviewed this there is nothing that would preclude this <br />248 development from being built. <br />249 <br />250 Member Schaffhausen left the meeting at 7:35 p.m. <br />251 <br />252 Member McGehee thought that even though this is a lovely building it does not mean <br />253 that she agrees with the density of it. She thought the traffic was terrible along with <br />254 the intersection in the area. She also noted there were not any solar or electric <br />255 charging stations incorporated into the design or any environmental items. She <br />256 indicated she was not willing to support the additional units based on the <br />257 documentation in the packet. <br />258 <br />259 MOTION <br />260 Member McGehee moved, seconded by Member Kruzel, to recommend to the <br />261 City Council approval of the increased residential density with the added <br />262 condition that the development be limited to a total of 72 units, based on the Fire <br />263 Departments findings. <br />264 <br />265 Chair Kimble explained in regard to covered stations and electric charging stations in <br />266 the proposed development, the City does not have those incentives in place yet and is <br />267 pretty hard for a developer to respond to something this City does not have. <br />268 <br />269 Member Kruzel asked if there was a possibility to get another traffic study done <br />270 before a decision was made. She wondered what the expiration was of a traffic study. <br />271 <br />272 Mr. Lloyd was not sure if there is an expiration date for a traffic study. He thought it <br />273 had to do with the conditions and how the surrounding conditions have changed and <br />274 what is being proposed. One of the challenges he is seeing with having a new traffic <br />275 study done so it is available for the Planning Commission before action is taken is <br />Page 5 of 13 <br /> <br />