_Minutes_February 23, 2022 - Laserfiche WebLink

THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Applicant Bill Bryson gave a presentation to the Commission providing background on the school location, conditional use permit, student body, and proposed new location. Christine Bourg spoke on Item 6 stating they lived across the street from the site and were not in favor of the school proposal due to increased traffic, public safety, parking limitations, and noise impacts. Cheryl McCarthy spoke on Item 6 stating her property was adjacent to the church and expressing concern regarding noise, parking and traffic congestion on First Street. Anurag Jain spoke on Item 6 discussing the parking consideration on the recent Ray Street project and concurring with the previous speakers regarding traffic and parking concerns. Debbie Ayers spoke on Item 6 stating she lived on Second Street; suggesting the Church should have reached out sooner; and indicating opposition to the proposed school location due to traffic, noise, and parking. Mr. Bryson provided a response to the comments from the community stating he understood the concerns and would work with the neighbors. He stated it would be a shame to have to close the school after 24 years. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED Commissioner Brown asked if a longer traffic study would be appropriate. Mr. Tassano stated the three-day study provided adequate information on the area's traffic conditions and parking situation. Commissioner Morgan stated efficient student drop off and pickup would be essential to a successful project and asked the proposed procedures. Mr. Tassano agreed that parents remaining in the vehicle would assist in efficient drop off. Commissioner Morgan asked for more information on the pickup process. Mr. Tassano stated students would likely be outside waiting for their ride and established routing was necessary to avoid backups. He suggested that parents would likely park, walk over to their student, and then walk them back to the car. Commissioner Morgan asked if Mr. Tassano felt the loading zone was big enough. Mr. Tassano stated a larger loading zone was always better, but suggested viewing the process prior to determining if it was necessary. He stated two spots was a good starting point which could be evaluated to determine if more were necessary. Commissioner Nibert asked if there was data regarding traffic and noise impacts. Ms. Clark stated staff concluded that the proposed small, incremental increased activity and impact would not trigger technical noise or traffic studies. Mr. Tassano added that 25 additional vehicles did not trigger a technical traffic study. Commissioner Brown asked about the possibility of queueing during pickup and drop off periods. He discussed his experience with pickup and drop off at school. Mr. Tassano stated there might be times when a car was waiting but it would not be like Meadowlark Dairy. Commissioner Brown Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 of 8 February 23, 2022 e stated she would like to increase residential fees based on square footage or number of bedrooms and that tier pricing was critical. She suggested reconsidering the basis for the low-income housing study, especially for residential. She requested more data on the expenditure of funding and what percentage was directed at adding more housing versus the other programs, because HCD was looking at the number of built units. She stated it was worth exploring a housing overlay zone but the ordinance should align with State law for short term. Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 of 7 February 9, 2022 a business person would be equal with building a unit and paying an IZO. Ms. Clark explained the basis for the inclusionary zoning requirement, and the amount of the low-income housing fee were different and therefore, there was a disjuncture between the two fees (i.e. the in-lieu fee does not cover 100 % of the cost of constructing an affordable unit). Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 of 7 February 9, 2022