Laserfiche WebLink
Commissioner Fox questioned if seniors living in the Ironwood Apartments would be <br />allowed to use the facilities in the complex. Mr. Otto replied that the facility is proposed <br />for only those within the development and that the seniors in the apartments have use <br />of the cabana and pool facilities in their existing development. <br />Commissioner Fox referred to pedestrian access and noted that there are no sidewalks <br />planned for the roads that end in cul-de-sacs. She inquired why staff supported this. <br />Mr. Otto replied that the sidewalks are not located throughout the development and that <br />they extend for only a portion in the cul-de-sac areas and disappear at the. He noted <br />that if residents wanted to walk, the thought was that there would be some portion of <br />sidewalk, but given it was at an end of a cul-de-sac, staff did not believe this would put <br />them at risk. <br />Commissioner Fox noted that the original project had 300 homes when it was <br />referended, and with the 110 units, it would go up to 301 homes. Mr. Otto said the <br />original project had 363 approved units. This development would add 110 more to it. <br />He stated that the PUD approval for the original Ironwood development indicated the <br />density for the site as Medium Density Residential, which could be between two to eight <br />units per acre; the proposed project would be at 4.8 units per acre. <br />Chair Blank referred to the Emergency Vehicle Access (EVA), stating the main access <br />is through Reimers Drive. He noted that there is an EVA on Sandstone Court and <br />requested confirmation that the EVA on Court F is for internal use only. He questioned <br />the purpose of the EVA off of the Operations Service Center (OSC). Mr. Otto replied <br />that before the Ironwood project was developed, the OSC originally had an EVA <br />connection along its western side. He explained that as part of its approval, Ponderosa <br />Homes was required to provide a different connection along the north to the future <br />Reimers Drive extension. He noted that even if Reimers Drive is not extended, the <br />developer is still obligated to provide an EVA connection for the City along the northern <br />part of the OSC. <br />Chair Blank referred to the Negative Declaration and Land Use Planning item and staffs <br />determination that gating the project would not divide it from the community. He <br />referred to Item B, the conflict with the applicable land use plan including but not limited <br />to the General Plan, and noted that it appears to be in conflict and did not understand <br />how this would have no impact if the General Plan discourages gated communities. <br />Mr. Otto clarified that the language used in the General Plan is "discourages" and does <br />not actually prohibit gated communities. He added that there is some flexibility for a <br />gated community to be approved. <br />Commissioner Narum questioned the requirement by the City for the streets to be 36 <br />feet wide, as the streets in the development next door are only 28 feet wide. She also <br />questioned why there were not sidewalks throughout the development, as the <br />community would be active and felt there would be some sort of trade-off for adding <br />sidewalks and reducing street widths. She stated that she felt this also tied to storm <br />water runoff and being green. <br />EXCERPTS: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, July 9, 2008 Page 3 of 20 <br />