2/28/2024 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

for various units related to lot sized or widths. The planning department expressed satisfaction and support for the project, contingent upon any modifications deemed necessary by the reviewing body. Mr. O'Malley highlighted the residential office districts unique aspect, permitting single-family and duplex units with a private residential drive. He recommended a condition for approval: the submission of condominium declarations to ensure residents understand private responsibilities. Mentioning the traffic study, he suggested possibly tabling the matter until results are available. While building and zoning board approval covered lot creation, the development plans' details. including design and regulations, fall within the commission's purview. Mr. Schilens responded. seeking approval contingent on the traffic study and additional survey information. emphasizing the low impact of 14 units on the property. He highlighted the request for planning approval tonight. leaving final engineering for a later stage. Mr. O'Malley clarified that the engineer. not the commission, enforces engineering codes, and if a traffic study is needed, its at the engineers discretion. He advised against conditioning approval based on engineering requirements, as the code already mandates compliance. Expressing uncertainty about the significance of the traffic study. he suggested it may involve details like left turns and lane width, asserting that the proposed development likely generates less traffic than the neighboring condominiums to the north. Mr. Filarski clarified that the applicant needed to submit a trip generation study, not a full traffic study, as it is the initial step in the process. The study determines the member of vehicles in a peak hour, and if it exceeds 100 vehicles, a traffic impact study would be the next step. although it was not expected in this case due to lower vehicle projections. Mr. David opened the floor for public comment. Residents Mr. Palos at 5547 Barton and Ms. Evans at Barton Woods approached the podium. Mr. Palos questioned the location of the private drive and Ms. Evans questioned the notification process. Mr. Peeples stated he walked the property and inquired about clearing plans, tree preservation. and whether the units would have basements or slabs. Mr. Schilens mentioned efforts to save more trees but faced limitations due to storm water detention requirements. The green areas saved were for a walking path. The inability to share a driveway impacted green space preservation. They discussed ownership of the undeveloped property behind. confirming it belonged to the city. Mr. Olivos asked if fencing would be installed for buffering. to which Mr. Schilens stated that trees and vegetation would serve as buffering. Ms. McCaskey inquired about the sizes and locations of the buildings. Mr. Marrie asked about snow removal. and was told there was space for the accumulated, plowed snow. Mr. David made several inquiries regarding the layout and exterior look of the buildings. It was shared that they were going for an eclectic look with five types being built on specific lots. Mr. David also inquired about tree preservation. Mr. Schilens explained their firm also practiced landscape architecture and detailed how they planned to preserve as many trees as possible. There was a question regarding the number of transformers, and it was found they were able to reduce that number to two for the site. There was also questions about the lack of outdoor patio spaces and that the board would have liked to have seen something. Mr. David moved to table 23689-PO10-1 Woodland Grove part one: the proposal of the new housing project: seconded by Mr. Peeples.