PC 051006 - Laserfiche WebLink

Ms. Decker noted that staff typically sent a packet to the School Districts and the County regazding projects that are in close proximity to them in order to obtain feedback. She would determine whether that had been done in this case. Commissioner Olson believed the barrier might mitigate the traffic concems expressed by the residents and inquired about staff's opinion of the possibility of the barrier being reinstalled. Chairperson Arkin noted that staff would have that information when the issue came back as a PUD application. He suggested that the noticing include that discussion. Ms. Decker agreed with Ms. Hazdy's assessment that the barrier was a lazger issue than this application but that traffic-related issues could be brought before City Council. She noted that this information could be brought before the Planning Commission as part of this discussion. Commissioner Peazce appreciated the rural character of the neighborhood and believed that a walkable neighborhood included a sidewalk. She anticipated the Ketell's concerns about the sidewalk on their property and favored the staff alternative of a meandering sidewalk, which was in chazacter with the rural feel of the neighborhood. She wanted to be very sensitive to the concerns of the neighborhood. She did not favor a walkway and would want the houses to face the public walkway for visibility and safety. She believed removing the two lots would keep the project within the low-density definition. She liked the models and appreciated the redesign of the French Country option. She was more interested in unobstmsive traffic-calming measures instead of a stop sign. She would support the speed sign during the day if the neighbors wanted it supported, she would support it, but did not believe it was in keeping with the rural character of the neighborhood. She understood the need to discuss all traffic calming methods, but was unsure whether the barrier fell within the developer's purview. Commissioner Blank requested the minutes of the discussions during the late 1980s and eazly 1990s be made available. He would like more analysis of the underground utility issue and requested that the aerial views be consistent in terms of orientation. He would like to see the sketch views with the names and addresses of the neighbors. He disagreed with Commissioner Pearce's comments about the path and believed it could be done properly through the Selway area; it should be done safely, perhaps with visibility towards Martin Avenue. Commissioner Fox supported staff s recommendations that there should be a sidewalk. She agreed with Commissioner Peazce's comments that from a walkability and safety standpoint, a sidewalk was necessary. She noted that the City Council approved the sidewalk on Cameron Avenue in conjunction with when the bike path on Martin Avenue was approved in 1997. She believed that from a project perspective, Ponderosa had bent over backwazds to be sensitive to the neighbors' concerns. She believed it was time to move forwazd with the project, with wide notification. She noted that most pazents drove (-. their children to school because they were not comfortable having the children walk PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, May 10, 2006 Page I S of 19