Jim Blair, Dennis Scruggs, Stacey Wilson, Byron Newman, Omar Wyman,
Sandra Vicksta, Sarah Markham, Dr. Cristy Fisher, Steve Parrish, Randy
Howarth, Dan Bloom, Nancy Murray, Scott Heises, Debbie Gluke, Brooke
Dobbins, Steven Glendenning, Barbara Vinchattle, Lara Moehenpah, Eric
Federic, Eddie Lawrence, Aimee Ferris, Holly Lawrence, Laura Wilkey,
Tim O’Brien, David Clay, Taylor Stanecheck, Kathy Kane, Al Peterson,
Dana Duggan, Todd Borg, Benjamin Ekberg, Esther Lee, Mr. Konakanchi,
Vicki Capron, Dan Pulsgrove, Katherine Gayle, and Stacey Celly.
Applicant Rebuttal
Mark Painter, the attorney for the developer, provided a rebuttal,
acknowledging the respect, concern, and compassion the developer has
shown for the neighborhood throughout the process. He highlighted the
additional meetings held to address various concerns raised by the
community. In responding to public comments, Mr. Painter clarified that the
developer is not dismissive or unmindful of those concerns. However, he
asserted that many of the comments, while legitimate in certain contexts,
may not be directly relevant to the land use decisions under consideration
by the commission. Mr. Painter emphasized that the criteria for these
decisions are based on the city's code and are not broad policy matters for
other entities. Mr. Painter mentioned having received comments and
referrals from the school district indicating their ability to handle the
proposed development without being overcapacity, reinforcing the
communication between the project team and relevant stakeholders. He
emphasized that the city staff had communicated with relevant agencies,
such as the school district, and they were comfortable with the
development. Mr. Painter defended the legitimacy of the developer's traffic
studies and argued that the emergency evacuation concerns raised were
hypothetical and not addressed by the city's code. Mr. Painter pointed out
that denying the application might result in someone else applying for a
project with even more traffic, as the current proposal reduces traffic in the
area. He highlighted the appropriateness of the location, citing the city's
determination that multifamily housing is suitable in the designated area.
Regarding covenants, Mr. Painter clarified that they are private matters,
and the modifications made were within the scope of those covenants. He
addressed concerns about schools, traffic, and parking, stating that the
school district had no objections, traffic would be reduced, and additional
parking spaces were added to address neighborhood concerns. Mr.
Painter also responded to comments about the impact on parks, property
values, and the suitability of the location for affordable housing. He urged
the commission to consider the words of David Clay, suggesting that some
objections might be rooted in prejudice or discrimination.
Additional comments from Commissioners
Commissioner Rickett inquired if there was a master plan for this area and
if a copy of it could be shared. He inquired about the transition from a
