My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2006.02.23 PC Minutes
Hugo
>
Community Development
>
Planning & Zoning
>
Planning Commission
>
Planning Minutes
>
2006 PC Minutes
>
2006.02.23 PC Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/2/2015 2:24:55 PM
Creation date
2/20/2015 11:38:42 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Commissions
Meeting Date
2/23/2006
Document Type
Minutes
Commission Name
Planning
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
8
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Planning Commission Minutes — February 23, 2006 <br />Page 6 <br />Brian Galowitz, 4589 Victor Path, Unit #6, proposed a workshop session with the Planning <br />Commission, residents, and developer. Retail would be better, and a single office would generate less <br />traffic than the family units would. <br />Kirk said he had pleaded with the developer to talk since 2004, and CPDC had made it known they <br />were firm in their decision to develop the property. <br />LuAnne Zodke, 4577 Victor Path, Unit #9, said the parking was a huge issue and she was told there <br />would be no construction located near her unit where they considered it to be a swamp, but the trees <br />had been bulldozed. She had been misled by a sales representative. She was told the community <br />center would be larger and it was not handicap accessible on the upper level. She said the <br />development was beautiful but congested. There were also issues with stop signs by the day care. <br />Gloria Hage, 14118 Jardin Avenue, said it was difficult to park at the pool, and the number of <br />townhomes was becoming overwhelming; a little open space would be nice. It was very crowded and <br />congested. <br />Schumann closed the public hearing. <br />Rosenquist asked if they would consider bump -outs to define the parking along the street and <br />suggested working with staff. <br />Hempel said they would. Bump -outs were an option but may not work with the plans; perhaps striping <br />would work. <br />Bailly said she liked the idea of having bump -outs and parking better defined. Traffic and parking was <br />an issue and wondered if the idea of townhomes should be reconsidered for the location. <br />Rosenquist said that if the developer decides to put in commercial, it could be a large multi -use <br />building. The developer had approved plans for commercial development in that area and it could go <br />that direction. Parking needed to be addressed at the Council level and they could not get between the <br />seller and builder. He said he would like to see the application be tabled to allow the developer to <br />work with staff, and he told the audience that something will be built there. <br />Hoffbeck acknowledged there were problems with communication that needed to be resolved. The <br />developers needed to be more open minded to what can be done and would like to see something built <br />that was satisfactory to everyone. She was disappointed by the lack of parking considering the number <br />of homes in the development and did not like the idea of parking on the street because it could be <br />dangerous and cause more congestion. <br />Schumann made motion, Hoffbeck seconded, to table the application until March 23, 2006. <br />All Ayes. Motion carried. <br />Schumann informed the audience that the Commission would reopen the public hearing at that time. <br />The Commission took a short break. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.