2006.02.23 PC Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Planning Commission Minutes — February 23, 2006 Page 6 Brian Galowitz, 4589 Victor Path, Unit #6, proposed a workshop session with the Planning Commission, residents, and developer. Retail would be better, and a single office would generate less traffic than the family units would. Kirk said he had pleaded with the developer to talk since 2004, and CPDC had made it known they were firm in their decision to develop the property. LuAnne Zodke, 4577 Victor Path, Unit #9, said the parking was a huge issue and she was told there would be no construction located near her unit where they considered it to be a swamp, but the trees had been bulldozed. She had been misled by a sales representative. She was told the community center would be larger and it was not handicap accessible on the upper level. She said the development was beautiful but congested. There were also issues with stop signs by the day care. Gloria Hage, 14118 Jardin Avenue, said it was difficult to park at the pool, and the number of townhomes was becoming overwhelming; a little open space would be nice. It was very crowded and congested. Schumann closed the public hearing. Rosenquist asked if they would consider bump -outs to define the parking along the street and suggested working with staff. Hempel said they would. Bump -outs were an option but may not work with the plans; perhaps striping would work. Bailly said she liked the idea of having bump -outs and parking better defined. Traffic and parking was an issue and wondered if the idea of townhomes should be reconsidered for the location. Rosenquist said that if the developer decides to put in commercial, it could be a large multi -use building. The developer had approved plans for commercial development in that area and it could go that direction. Parking needed to be addressed at the Council level and they could not get between the seller and builder. He said he would like to see the application be tabled to allow the developer to work with staff, and he told the audience that something will be built there. Hoffbeck acknowledged there were problems with communication that needed to be resolved. The developers needed to be more open minded to what can be done and would like to see something built that was satisfactory to everyone. She was disappointed by the lack of parking considering the number of homes in the development and did not like the idea of parking on the street because it could be dangerous and cause more congestion. Schumann made motion, Hoffbeck seconded, to table the application until March 23, 2006. All Ayes. Motion carried. Schumann informed the audience that the Commission would reopen the public hearing at that time. The Commission took a short break.