CCP 11282022 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

RCA Attachment E wĻŭǒƌğƩtƌğƓƓźƓŭ/ƚƒƒźƭƭźƚƓaĻĻƷźƓŭ aźƓǒƷĻƭΑĻķƓĻƭķğǤͲbƚǝĻƒĬĻƩЋͲЋЉЋЋ tğŭĻА th 276 that the sixty-day timeline for the CityÓs action expires December 9 and there would 277 not be time to get the traffic study done and through the to the City Council in time. 278 The timeline would have to be extended with the developerÓs approval. 279 280 Member Pribyl thought another issue with a new traffic study is there is still a lot of 281 construction in the area so she imagined it would be awhile before a new traffic study 282 would be an accurate reflection on the area. 283 284 Chair Kimble indicated she would like to hear from the applicant on this to see if 285 there is any impact on the project before a vote. 286 287 Mr. Josh McKinney, Measure Crew, consultant for the applicant, explained the 288 difference between eighty-six units and seventy-two units is absolutely massive on a 289 project of this scale. He noted seventy-two units is not something that they could 290 feasibly construct and are really seeking eighty-six to make the project work on a site 291 that is this tight of two acres. Regarding traffic, the previous study, as noted in the 292 City EngineerÓs report had stated that it studied two hundred fifty-unit options and 293 this proposed project is approximately a third of the total units of that two hundred 294 fifty-unit option. If things are up and down or in flux, ultimately he felt they would 295 be well within the current traffic study in terms of the amount of trips generated from 296 this site. He noted there will be significant buffering for headlights along the parking 297 lot and more screening can be done if needed. 298 299 Chair Kimball thanked Mr. McKinney for the information. She noted she was willing 300 to trust staffÓs judgement on the traffic and if the engineers did not think a new study 301 was warranted she personally would trust their judgement on that. 302 303 Mr. McKinney explained what they are asking per the CUP request is not zero units 304 or eighty-six it is an increase of fifty-six to eighty-six. He noted regarding a traffic 305 study would thirty new units necessitate a new traffic study. He indicated he would 306 struggle to see it creating enough of a difference when they are already talking about 307 a significant reduction in units compared to the previous study. 308 309 Mr. Gottschalk explained from a development standpoint, a development like this 310 increases the tax base significantly and more money will be coming into the City 311 could help offset some of those costs. In speaking about the parking being a critical 312 point in a project like this and to maximize the site to pay for the units, they also look 313 at this from an amenity standpoint as well. They have taken great care within the site 314 plan, as far as the exterior amenities go as well as with some of the interior amenities, 315 which is not a part of the conditional use. There are a lot of good high valued market 316 rate amenities that are a part of this project such as a club room, community room and 317 a fourth-floor terrace and upper floor community room to encourage community 318 gathering. 319 320 The Commission discussed with staff the conditional use requirements in the staff 321 report. 322 Page 6 of 13