PC 121003 - Laserfiche WebLink

Commissioner 1"v'laas disagreed vvith Ch..airpcrson Arkin an.d n.oted that the staff report gave the Commissioners the discretion to bring each phase back to the Commission or go to the staff le-veL Chairperson. .Arkin noted that Phase I brought the project to 80 percent completion and believed that it should allovv betV\1een 50,,000-100,,000 aLll""1u.al attendance. Commissioner Sullivan noted that: he VrVould like more visual detail ror t.he park and did 1""10t VV"aIl.t any f:-urther surprises regarding th..e desigl"1. He VrVould like n""l.ore detail regarding sa"fety issues" tovvers", and otl"1er it.crns that are not il""1 the staff report.. He appreciated IV1r. Kicrstead"'s commit.ment. to cOITl.n'1unity outreach aI."1d l"11eetings", VV"h.ich VrVas a stated request from t.he Comn""lissiorl.. He vvas very COl"1Cerl"1ed about tra1-TIc and did not believe that capacity "V'Vas as big an issue as hovv- traffic il"11pacts residents. He "felt that the traffic report is still inadequate" that. the in.:lormation. vvas not clearly presented" and that build-out traffic should have been considered. He did not believe this project should be approved be-tore the updated traffic model vvas finalized. I-l:e could not see approving a use that had this much traffic ill all area that the City is gettin.g ready to plan and vvhich vvou.ld pre-empt other planning opportunities t.hat vvould benefit the commnnity. He vvas not convinced of the benefit to the commrmity of this use. He no"t.ed that the focus of:-the t:ra:lnc study "V'Vas capacity", vvhich he did not believe "V'Vas as important as the impact those cars vv-ould ha-vc on the neighbors. Commissioner Sulli-va..n read an excerpt :from page 2 o:l-t:he traffic study: ...."V\Ic understand the underlying concern to be assuring the City that 1""1eighborhoods are protected and that unnecessary traffic is not impacting our residents frOl"11 out-oT-tovvn visitors to tl"1e park."" Commissioner SuUi-van noted tl""l.at if that "VVere true", he should be able to easily see hovv mal""l.Y cars VrVould be on the streets. I--Ie believed that should be prol"11inently displayed il""l. a separate chart. and did Tlot: believe that the tra:tIic study adequately ans"V'Vered those qucstiOl""1S. He noted that buildout t:raf:tlc "V'Vas an in""l.portant issue and added tl"1at tl"1e updated traffic model vvoulct be considered in January. He noted that may change many aspects of this project and its impacts on. the n.eighborhood. Commissioner Sullivan agreed vvith the performance of the peer revievv of the noise study becau-se it contain.ed some shortcomings. He noted t.hat the impacts on the neighbors "V'Vere a cru.cial component of this project. He recalled his experience "V'Vith the noise test and vv-as not satisfied tha"t. the noise issue had been mitigated. Commissioner Sullivan noted that the cottonVrVoods '-Vere magnificent trees and vv-ould not like to see them removed. Commissioner Sulli-van noted that Green Building Ordinance vvas not applied to this project because the stmctures vvere less t.han 20,,000 square feet. He did not believe that PLANNING COl'Vll'VlISSION l'Vl1NUTES December 10, 2003 Page 25 '.r.- -r ~~---r