Laserfiche WebLink
Commissioner Berger asked if the units would be owner-occupied as <br />originally planned. Mr. Matteson said this is still their plan. <br />Mr. Swift clarified that the first sale of units would be to <br />owner-occupied persons, but that there is a condition which <br />allows the developers to rent the units should they not sell. <br />Chairperson Michelotti is concerned that the traffic issues have <br />not been completely addressed, stating that hopefully all <br />interchanges will take care of her concerns. Mr. Matteson stated <br />that the Stoneridge interchange will probably be 50$ completed at <br />the time sales of the project will begin. <br />Jim Guthrie, AIA, reviewed the architectural features of the <br />project. Commissioner Hovingh asked the purpose of the two <br />offices and reception room in the recreation building. Mr. <br />Guthrie indicated that this was conceptual only. Commissioner <br />Hovingh and Mr. Guthrie discussed the amenities of the project. <br />Commissioner Hovingh and Mr. Guthrie discussed the possibility of <br />having a soundwall on the project. Mr. Guthrie said it was not <br />anticipated that a soundwall would be installed. Staff reported <br />that as a condition of project approval is to provide a <br />soundwall. <br />The public hearing was closed. <br />Commissioner Berger felt that the changes proposed would create a <br />much nicer project than that previously approved. She liked the <br />wooden bridge effect and stated it is also nice to have three <br />bedroom units. The rustic effect is also nice to have. She did, <br />however, express concerns with traffic and discussed the issue of <br />housing affordability. She feels the only reason the project was <br />approved in the first place is because it offered affordable <br />units. Commissioner Berger supported the project and didn't want <br />to see a condition relating to price control but would like a <br />condition strongly supported maintenance of low/median income <br />concept. <br />Commissioner Tarver said he didn't like the original PUD, but <br />felt this proposal to be an improvement. He expressed concerns <br />with possible lack of parks, schools and the traffic impacts <br />because of this project. He is not convinced that the Stoneridge <br />interchange will take care of the traffic concerns. He felt a <br />condition should be added to this proposal to set aside a <br />percentage of the units for median income persons even if the <br />applicant wouldn't like such a condition. <br />-19- <br />