Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1983-04-21 Planning MINSTAFF REPORT MINUTES ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION April 21, 1983 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:35 p.m. by Chairman Lance Pugh at the Ashland Civic Center, Ashland, Oregon. This was a cont- inuation from the April 13, 1983, meeting. Members present were Ethel Hansen, Neil Benson, Don Greene, Tom Owens and Michael Slattery. Also present were Planning Director John Fregonese, Asso- ciate Planner Steve Jannusch and Administrative Secretary Ann Baker. PUBLIC HEARING PA #83 -21 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND SITE REVIEW DAVID KIRKPATRICK PLANNING ACTION #83 -21 is a request for a Conditional Use Permit and Site Review to convert the existing dwelling at 111 Third St. into medical offices. Off street parking would be provided on the west side of the parcel, adjacent to the alley. Comprehensive Plan designation: Multi- Family Residential. Zoning: R -2 (Multi- family residential). Assessor's map 9BA. Tax lot 8800. APPLICANT: David Kirkpatrick, M.D. 1) Jannusch gave the Staff Report noting the conditions of approval as well as the Historic Commission approval of the project. The public hearing was then opened. PUBLIC HEARING 1) Dr. Kirkpatrick spoke on behalf of his application noting that the building would be restored to its original condition on the outside with no external changes. He stated as well that he had no problem with the conditions of approval established by staff. At this point, the public hearing was closed. COMMISSION DISCUSSION AND MOTION 1) Commissioner's Greene and Pugh felt that this was a good addition to the area. 2) After further discussion, Greene moved to approve with Owens APC Minutes 4/21/83, page 1 seconding. The vote was unanimous in favor. PUBLIC HEARING PA #83 -23 MINOR LAND PARTITION GENTRY /SHEFFIELD PLANNING ACTION #83 -23 is a request for a Minor Land Partition on Strawberry Lane south of Westwood, to divide the existing parcel into three separate lots of 5 acres each. Access would be provided via an extension of Westwood St. Comprehensive Plan designation: Low density Residential. Zoning: RR -.5. Assessor's map 8BD. Tax lot 100. APPLICANTS: Gentry /Sheffield STAFF REPORT 1) Fregonese gave the Staff Report noting the Council moratorium on development in the area as well as other staff concerns specifically lack of paved access to the proposal and the lack of sewer facilities. At this point, the public hearing was opened. PUBLIC HEARING 1) Red Gentry, 786 Pompadour Drive, spoke on behalf of his proposal. He stated that the proposal would involve three separate septic systems in lieu of one sewer connect and two septic systems as had been outlined in his application. He stated that he had walked the property with the City Engineer and that the City Engineer had felt that if the access were improved to a County Road Standard D, it could at a later time, be improved to a paved standard established by the City. In discussing the water problems with the Fire Chief, Gentry had informed him that wells would be provided at the site. The Council had felt that 500 gallon storage tanks would be appro- priate for fire protection. The Fire Chief and Gentry had determined though that this standard would not be adequate for protection and that storage facilities of from 5,000 to 7,500 gallons per dwelling would be provided for fire protection. He stated further that he would be amenable to utility assessment for the project if this would be levied as well on those properties from Granite Street up since they would be benefiting from the increased facilities. He stated that there had been other subdivisions approved along Wrights Creek and Westwood without paved access in the past. With the increase in his taxes he felt it would be necessary to divide the lots to more buildable sites. He stated in addition that he would be willing to place covenants on the three parcels stating that no further split- ting could take place until the water issue is solved. 2) Mr. Henry Kneebone spoke in opposition to the proposal. He APC Minutes 4/21/83, page 2 stated that the access road would go through his property. He was concerned that with this kind of development, 15 more Minor Land Partitions could result in the area. He stated for the record that the group had also acquired 37 acres outside the City limits and that this road would provide access to those County parcels. In addition, this would provide an opening for Strawberry Lane and without the proper improvements to Strawberry as well as along Westwood, this would create a negative impact on the surrounding area. He stated that he would not be developing his property now because of the water moratorium. In addition, he noted that septic systems don't work well in the area. In closing, he stated that he would not agree to the street going through his property. 3) Gentry read an easement agreement that Kneebone had signed indicating that Kneebone had agreed to allow access across his property. 4) Fregonese began to read a letter presented by Jere Hudson to the planning staff. At this point, Mr. Hudson was recognized in the audience and testified that he, in fact, was supportive of the proposal. He felt that access to Strawberry Lane should be restricted, but that three lots on 15 acres is a reasonable and modest request. 5) Chris Hald spoke on behalf of 20 acres that he and his father own in the area. He stated that it was not their intention to develop this acreage now and would only be doing this at a later date after paved access is provided. He felt that all the people affected by improvements to the road should pay for its improvement. At this point, the public hearing was closed. COMMISSION DISCUSSION AND MOTION 1) Pugh asked Fregonese if the staff's position had changed due to the testimony received. Fregonese stated that in terms of fire protection, the staff had not received anything in writing from the Fire Chief. Staff's main concerns would be allowing development utilizing wells and septic tanks and creating access to three new lots on poorly maintained roads. He stated staff's main concern as setting a precedent. He was concerned about future development by partitioning of these three parcels. He stated, however, that he felt the applicant had done the best job possible in developing this proposal and noted that the staff's decision to recommend denial was not an easy one. 2) Owens asked about the moratorium established by the Council. Fregonese stated that this was mainly on water hookups in the area. He felt that approval of the proposal would create a demand on the water system. APC Minutes 4/21/83, page 3 3) Fregonese postulated that perhaps the Commission should be treating this like a County partition, using County standards. He stated that this should involve some specific policy changes and should not be done on an ad hoc basis. He noted that the County standards would be from 5 to 20 acres. 4) Benson stated that he felt concerned about the access relative to the effect on air quality. He thought that proper City streets should be developed for the area. 5) Fregonese stated that a water assessment district would not be possible with the moratorium in this area and without the water, people cannot do anything with their land. He stated that solving these water problems for the whole northwest portion of the City the cost would be astronomical. 6) Fregonese then noted that a minimum lot size in the area is 1/2 acre which would mean that this 15 acre parcel could be divided into 1/2 acre parcels as far as the zoning is concerned. 7) Greene stated that the problem has been primarily caused by the down zoning of the area. Higher densities would have allowed a larger subdivision and a comprehensive development plan for services. 8) After further discussion, Owens moved to deny the proposal with Benson seconding. The vote was unanimous. PUBLIC HEARING PA #83 -24 PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF PUD GIAMBRONE PLANNING ACTION #83 -24 is a request for preliminary approval of an 18 -unit PUD on approximately 5.5 acres, located on Pinecrest Terrace NW of Starlight Place. The proposal consists of 15 single family residences and 3 attached units to be constructed in 3 phases. Comp- rehensive Plan designation: Single- Family Residential. Zoning: R- 1:10 (Single- Family Residential). Assessor's map 15BD. Tax lot 7400. APPLICANT: Dave Giambrone STAFF REPORT 1) Jannusch gave the Staff Report expressing the concerns staff felt relative to the proposal. He concluded by stating that staff was generally supportive of the proposal, but would request additional conditions as a part of this review. These conditions involved access to phases 2 and 3 and the cutting of trees in the area. At this point, the public hearing was opened. APC Minutes 4/21/83, page 4 PUBLIC HEARING 1) John Chmelir, 615 Thornton Way, spoke on behalf of the applica- tion. He stated that in fact, there were ten parking spaces proposed on the site plan. He then went into the discussion of the Staff Report, noting that relative to condition #1, the applicants would request endorsement by the Planning Commission for the Bancrofting Plan of the improvements along Pinecrest and this to be in the owner- ship of four individuals. Secondly, he referred to condition #6 in that the building envelopes may be modified and that those presented are conceptual purposes only. Fregonese stated that the master plan could be changed for up to 10% deviation from the preliminary plan in terms of the building locations. This to be presented at the time of the final plan submittal. Chmelir continued by addressing condition #8 and siting parking standards from the Ordinance. He felt that an additional 8 on- street spaces would require greater cuts and fills, that more trees would be cut and that the condition is basically unreasonable. He felt that this proposal complies already with the requirement for on- street parking. He continued by addressing the solar access waiver and the zero lotline requests, noting that these meet the requests from the neighbors to build as far away from the existing houses to the south as possible. He requested that building to the south lotlines could be approved for lots #6, 9, 12, 13 and 14, noting that these lots were to have garages constructed on these south lot lines, thus not requiring openings adjacent to the pro- perty. He then stated agreement to the proposal that the applicant grade Pinecrest to the west asking that this would be a one -time shot or whether maintenance would be required by the applicant. Fregonese stated that the applicant would be required to grade and widen and apply a granite surface to this road only once. Chmelir then stated that the application should include the Carvers as well as Giambrone. Staff had no problem with changing the application to read as such. 2) Mr. Gary Axon, 1465 Pinecrest Terrace spoke in opposition to the proposal. He stated that the creation of these smaller lots would be creating an island in the 10,000 sq.ft. lot sizes that surround the proposal. He addressed the problem of access to the parcel. He stated that one of the guidelines of the ordinance was that such developments should promote the general health and safety of the surrounding area. He further noted that he did not see anything presented in the proposal that addressed the maintenance and further operation of a common area. He questioned how the development standards proposed by the applicant in terms of the R -1P zoning conformed with the actual PUD ordinance. He felt that the jamming of 11 units in this small area would be injurious to the neighborhood. He went on by stating that the Performance Standards is merely an option and that its intent is to minimize the impact on the neighborhood. He then presented some photos taken of Pinecrest Terrace in April. He felt that the outline presented by the applicant were merely conclusions and not facts presented. He did not see how street improvements proposed by the applicant would APC Minutes 4/21/83, page 5 benefit the City as a whole. He stated that the application did not identify the proposed time schedule. He felt that a statement regarding placement of the proposal on over 2 acres was ambiguous. He said that the engineering challenges as stated by the applicant is an understatement. He felt that the developer had made his own problems regarding setback requests by trying to cram in 11 units. He said that the area has had some serious water pressure problems in the past. He wondered how many more additions would be noted referring to adding the name of another applicant to the proposal. He then said that under Project Impact, that a potential impact is an understatement as well. He felt that the access out of the proposal to the west should be paved and stated that the developer failed to provide adequate information for the PUD to conform to the requirements of the ordinance. 3) Scott Groshong, 1506 Pinecrest Terrace, expressed his concerns relative to increased traffic up Walker and along Pinecrest. He expressed concern about children crossing the streets and increaed speeds caused by grades in the area. He then addressed the problem of water pressure, stating that he understood that the bond was passed to provide ample service for existing developments but not undeveloped areas. 4) Fregonese clarified this by stating that the bond issue would not cover areas outside the City limits, but in the Urban Growth Bound- ary, that is would provide service for all properties within the City limits. He stated further, that the water system is planned for fire protection on a critical day. 5) Mr. Howard Dreiszus, 1460 Woodland Dr., spoke in opposition to the proposal. He had lived there for 18 years and that it was a nice neighborhood and all the structures there had been built to required setbacks. He said this project is not in conformance. He said there are going to be some problems created with a 20 foot street espec- ially when cars are parked along the street. He said the applicant is requesting so many variances, he did not feel this kind of devel- opment should be allowed in the neighborhood. 6) Mr. Helen Rossboro, 805 Walker St., stated that the development is not compatible with the area and traffic hazards exist for the children who live in the area. 7) Chmelir spoke in rebuttal. He stated that the maintenance of common areas would be taken care of as a part of the Homeowner's Association and such assessements were standard practice. He then stated that the Performance Standards option is theirs to apply under the provisions of the City ordinance. He said that these standards require that the development be equal to or greater than subdivision standards and not existing neighborhoods. He felt that they had been sensitive to the surrounding area and topography. He then noted that over 2 acres means for the entire project. He continued by stating APC Minutes 4/21/83, page 6 that the road proposed as an extension of Pinecrest Terrace is in bad repair now because it is only a waterline maintenance road. This project would make it a street. He felt that his application of the Performance Standards could allow 25 units be built on this area, but that the applicant was only asking for 18. 8) Fregonese explained the burden of proof required by the ordinance. He noted that this meant that a development is an outright permitted use and that the ordinance encourages Performance Standards in lieu of typical subdivisions. He noted further that this proposal will be providing 15,500 sq.ft. per unit in terms of the average area. 9) Pugh asked for a clarification on policies relative to common area density bonuses allowable, stating that it was his understanding that common areas should typically include recreational uses. Fregonese stated that Performance Standards allow for housing ranging from the cluster units to standard subdivisions. Large open spaces would typically require more clustered housing. Today's market demands indicate that individual housing is a more popular method. Referring to this specific development, he felt that for the utilization of the paths and the existing ditch, the applicant is using it to the best advantage. 10) Axon spoke after the public hearing had ended, stating that he disagreed with the logic by the Planning Director that 15,500 sq.ft. averages exist at the site. Fregonese explained again the method- ology utilized in the application of the Performance Standards stat- ing that this is mandated by ordinance as well as by the Comprehen- sive Plan. 11) Hansen questioned the reasons for the varying road widths, specifically narrowing the road from 24' to 20'. Fregonese stated that it was staff's belief that the 24' wide road would serve the lots and that beyond the access to these lots, a 20' wide road would be appropriate. He stated in addition, that "no parking" signs should be installed along the 20' wide access at the expense of the developer. 12) Benson asked for a clarification about where the location of the trail was along the ditch. Fregonese clarified this for him. In addition, Benson asked that consideration be given to the cutting of trees greater than 6" in girth for fire prevention purposes. 13) Greene questioned item #6 relating to the building envelope. He understood that the ordinance allows for a 10% variance of that area to be used for placement of the structure. In addition, he felt that the maximum slopes allowable for streets should be from 12 to 15. Fregonese stated that in the Cooper project, for instance, runs of 100' were up to 25 Fregonese then stated that it would be appropriate to limit the slopes for the two accesses proposed off this APC Minutes 4/21/83, page 7 development in phases 2 and 3 to be 20% or less. Greene then asked for a clarification of LID. Fregonese stated that the applicant would be asking the Council to Bancroft the payment of the improvements to the right -of -way. Under the Bancrofting system, the City would sell the bonds for the improvement and place a lien on the property whereby the developer would make two payments yearly and the interest would be lowered. The benefits to the City would be derived from the improvement of the road along Pinecrest since it designated on the City's master plan for collectors and arterials. 14) Greene then discussed the open space provided by the applicant and the bonus points he is requesting, stating that he did not feel that the bonus points were warranted in that the openspaces were not improved. In addition, he did not feel that bonus points should be awarded for minimal site disturbance since much of the roadways proposed were perpendicular to the contours. He also felt that bonus points could not be granted for good design characteristics when no designs were presented for the structures. Fregonese replied that the design criteria stated on page #5 of the applicants findings would be included in their CC &R's and listed conditions to be imposed on construction of new units relative to exterior finish standards. Referring back to minimal disturbance, Greene still did not feel comfortable with awarding these points. Fregonese stated that he felt that the proposal was as good as could be expected for this site. 15) Slattery asked whether the homes would be single or two story. Fregonese stated that they could be multi -story up to 35'. Fregonese continued by noting that multi -story units could help overcome the problems of the slopes and would not require removal of additional trees. 16) Owens felt that the project was a good one. He noted that the developer was not amenable to some of the staff's conditions and also felt that since they were extremely technical, he did not feel qualified to mediate. He suggested that a continuation of review of the project be proposed to the next regular meeting to allow the developer and the staff time to resolve some of the controversies. 17) Slattery stated that he felt uncomfortable with the design of the road and the designs proposed for the subsequent homes. Fregonese stated that the subdivision would be developed and that the homes would be built to suit. Slattery then stated that he understood that the homes would have to blend in with the adjacent area. Fregonese reiterated that the CC &R's would regulate the siting requirements and that the zoning ordinance would monitor the height. 18) Benson felt that the open spce bonus points requested were appropriate in that the applicant addressed the maintenance of much of the area in its natural state. He felt that in this section of town, that the wild land with the walking paths in the common area APC Minutes 4/21/83, page 8 would be much more appropriate than developing little recreational sites. 19) Pugh recapped the options that the Planning Commission had; one to postpone the project, to deny it, to approve it based on the staff's recommendations, or to approve it with amended conditions. 20) Greene felt that nothing could be gained by delaying review of the project. Owens was still concerned about the conflict between the staff and the developer in terms of conditions to be required. 21) Pugh asked Fregonese whether he felt comfortable with working with the developer and working out some of the problems. Fregonese stated that some problems could be worked out but some required review by the Planning Commission. He then elaborated stating that he felt that allowing one space for every two units would be a mistake. Citing previous developments, he felt as this is going to be a high income area, the homeowners would have more vehicles possibly more individuals visiting, thus creating an impact on the surrounding area if they had to park on the streets. 22) Chmelir then stated he would be willing to split the difference in the parking requirements. 23) Hansen asked how the Planning Commission would go about exemp- ting the Solar Access. Would it be necessary to write out in detail which untis would be exempted. 24) Pugh then stated that solar collectors could go on the garage proposed on those lots noted by the applicant. Fregonese then stated that the code would exempt lots in phases 2 and 3, but that all the lots in phase 1 should still comply with the solar ordinance. 25) After further discussion, Greene moved to approve the proposal with the staff recommendations and amended conditions. The amended conditions were as follows: a) #16, that proposed access to phases 2 and 3 shall require an engineered grading and paving detail for review and approval by the City's Public Works and Planning Departments and that no roads to these phases shall be greater than 20% in slope. b) #17, that no trees over 6" in diameter shall be cut as a part of this development unless necessary for dwelling construction, road construction, solar access purposes or for fire prevention purposes. c) Amendment to #6 shall read, for within 10% of that indicated on the preliminary plan to be submitted at the time of final approval. d) Amendment to #9 shall state that a minimum side yard setbacks of 6' be maintained for new construction on south lotlines except for lots 12, 13 and 14. In addition, the applicant would be required to place "No Parking" APC Minutes 4/21/83, page 9 signs along those roads which are 20' or less in width, except for those areas designated as parking zones. Benson seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous to approve the proposal. 26) Fregonese noted that it should be put into the record that all the roads in the development were going to be public and thus should be improved to public road standards. PUBLIC HEARING PA #83 -22 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, SITE REVIEW AND ORDINANCE VARIANCE ROD /SUSAN REID PLANNING ACTION #83 -22 is a request for a Conditional Use Permit and Site Review for conversion of the existing guest cottage adjacent to the single family residence at 171 Granite St. into a single -unit travelers accommodation. An Ordinance Variance is also requested for provision of 2 paved off- street parking spaces in lieu of 3 as required by Ordinance. Comprehensive Plan designation: Multi family Residential. Zoning: R -2 (Multi- Family Residential). Assessor's map 8AD. Tax lot 7900 APPLICANTS: Rod /Susan Reid STAFF REPORT 1) Jannusch gave the Staff Report adding that conditions #11 should be attached to the approval to read that parking available directly off Granite Street should provide one parking stall specifically designated for the traveler's accommodation during the time of operation. At this point, the public hearing was opened. PUBLIC HEARING 1) Rod Reid, 171 Granite Street, spoke on behalf of his application. He stated that his house used to be occupied as a fourplex. It has subsequently become a single family dwelling. The cottage in question had been used off and -on as a monthly and a nightly rental. This request would involve a daily rental of the cottage during the summar months to rent on a monthly basis during the schoold year to a college student. He felt that the impact relative to automobiles would be lessened for the area and that the cottage may only be rented on weekends. 2) Benson asked where the applicant intended to park off of Granite Street. Reid stated that there was a garage directly adjacent to the street that would be used by the individuals staying in the cottage. APC Minutes 4/21/83, page 10 COMMISSION DISCUSSION AND MOTION 1) Greene asked whether there had ever been variances requested for the paving requirements involving other traveler's accommodations. Fregonese stated that no, there had not been variances for traveler's accommodations for parking. But in the Historic District, other uses had been granted a variance. 2) After further discussion, Owens moved to approve the proposal with the amended condition with Hansen seconding the motion and the vote was unanimous in favor. PUBLIC HEARING PA #83 -29 PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF PUD B G PROPERTIES PLANNING ACTION #82 -29 is a request for preliminary approval of Oak Knoll Meadows, an 108 unit PUD on approximately 39.5 acres located south of the Oak Knoll Dr. street stub. The project is proposed in phases with the first 17 lots to be developed during the summer of 1983. Comprehensive Plan designation: Single- family residential. Zoning: R -1:10P (Single- family residential). Assessor's map 13B, 13C, 14AD. Tax lot #'s: 2300, 2400, 6200. APPLICANTS: B G Properties STAFF REPORT 1) Fregonese presented the Staff Report. He noted the site plan, the street standards plan and the freeway noise chart presented by the applicant. He noted to the Commission that the City would be requesting a waiver from potential lawsuits from future owners due to the development's location in the approach pattern to the airport. This to ensure that no future could sue the City for noise problems from planes entering and leaving the airport. He also felt that conditions #7 and #8 should be deleted and in their place a condition placed as follows: a) That an acoustical engineering report be included in the final plan and that a 10 to 15 dba reduction be achieved in the residential areas by sound mitigation measures b) That the applicants sign in favor of future street improve- ments to Crowson Road. A letter from Eleanor Bradley was read into the records. At this point, the public hearing was opened. PUBLIC HEARING 1) Otto Frohnmeyer, 1656 Spring Creek, Medford, spoke on behalf of the application. He gave a brief history as to the development of APC Minutes 4/21/83, page 11 this proposal. He then introduced Lyle Stewart. 2) Mr. Stewart stated that most of the problems noted in the original Staff Report have been worked out in his estimation. He stated that he was aware of the sound problems inherent in building a project adjacent to the freeway. He said he believes strongly in the Performance Standards option and stated that the lots have been designed to look inward away from the freeway. In addition, relating to Mrs. Bradley's letter, he stated that the development will include private playground areas. He said his primary goals in developing the project would be to have as little grading as possible and to eliminate as few trees as possible. He also cited berms and a noise mitigation wall to be placed adjacent to the freeway to provide a solution to the noise problems. He noted further that, as a state highway was creating a problem with noise at this site, that he would probably be quarrelling with the state for compensation when these noise mitigation measures are taken. He stated further that if the freeway were built today, it would be by different standards. He continued by noting that most of the noise created by vehicles along the freeway is generated from the tires and a wall 2'8" high at the freeway should take care of the problem. He stated, however, that he would not like to get locked into any heights or widths at this time as his intention is to retain a licensed acoustical engineer to determine what requirements will be necessary to mitigate the noise transfer such that standards of 50 dba average during the daylight hours and 45 dba at night would not be exceeded. He stated that it is not yet known who will do the building of the 1450' sound barrier or who would be paying for it. He said it would be installed. He continued by noting that the 108 lots being proposed at this time were fewer than the 132 units allowed by the prior agreement with the City regarding water provisions. The developers will be running a 12" water line down Mistletoe and Crowson Road and it has been deter- mined that the City will reimburse the developer for 4" of that 12" line but not for the installation of that line. He explained how the applicants had traded properties for the golf parking with the City. Relative to parking requirements, he stated that each lot would have a double car garage plus two stalls in the driveway plus some addi- tional bays adjacent to the street. He continued by noting that the lots were small for individual maintenance but can be of benefit for the overall development as the openspace would be cleaned up and trails installed before the project is turned over to the homeowner's association. In addition, he stated that there were to be sidewalks on Oak Knoll Drive. He then stated that the divider strip accessing onto Crowson Road had been taken out at the request of the Fire Chief. 3) Relative to the question of the airport approach zone, Fregonese felt that this condition should be made a part of the standard agreement in the sale of the properties and should go with the land. Stewart stated he was not sure that this could be put in the covenants legally. Fregonese felt that this problem could be worked APC Minutes 4/21/83, page 12 out. 4) Lewis Falonzi, 671 Oak Knoll Dr., stated concern about the traf- fic generation down Oak Knoll Drive. He stated that the additional traffic would be creating a tremendous burden on everybody. 5) Bob Milts, 979 Oak Knoll Dr., asked whether there would be any buffering made available between his lot and the subdivision. In addition, he questioned the water availability. He stated further, that the Benson annexation of the 16.7 acres on the opposite side of the freeway already is using up much of the promised water antici- pated and that the number of units intended to be built throughout this area of the City should be limited. He then suggested that a disclaimer be placed on the final plat relative to the noise gener- ated by the airport, suggesting that this may be a method of allevia- ting the problem legally. He stated in summary that he felt that this was a good subdivision. 6) Fred Forney,.330 Crowson Road, expressed concern about the exiting off of Oak Knoll Drive into Crowson Road, stating that the exit lane would be right in line with his driveway casting lights into his dining and living room windows. He stated that he and his neighbors would request that the access be moved 60' to the west or that a hedge be installed on his side of the street to ensure their privacy. 7) Mr. John Collum, 376 Crowson Road, stated that Crowson Road is very dangerous. High speed is generated off the road and with the pedestrian traffic that exists, he felt that a pedestrian path should be installed for walkers' and joggers' safety. 8) Karen Skog, 252 Crowson Road, is concerned relative to the traffic and felt that a speed limit should be placed on Crowson Road. She felt that this development would change the neighborhood and requested access to City sewer for suffering through this development. 9) Jim Waddell, 733 Twin Pines Circle, expressed his concern about the traffic safety along Twin Pines. 10) Mr. Hollis Kieff, 687 Oak Knoll, expressed concern about the traffic impact on Oak Knoll Drive. He said that everyone driving up and down Oak Knoll takes the center line as they drive around the wide sweeping curve. He said it is a completely blind corner. In addition, he stated that Twin Pines Circle is substandard. He believes that traffic impact should be studied at greater detail. At this point, the public hearing was closed. APC Minutes 4/21/83, page 13 COMMISSION DISCCUSSION AND MOTION 1) Greene asked Fregonese what his thoughts were on the carrying capacity of Oak Knoll and Twin Pines Circle. Fregonese stated that though he hd not done a detailed analysis of the problem, he knew that the width was adequate for 2,000 vehicle trips per day. He felt that it would be difficult to mitigate this traffic problem as plans to extend Oak Knoll Drive through had been part of the long term plan since Oak Knoll was installed. He stated, however, that East Main and Oak Knoll intersections needed some improvement and this could be accomplished by realigning East Main Street. He felt that Oak Knoll and Twin Pines would be a prime spot for placement of police cars with radar and felt that signalization along the Oak Knoll, East Main intersection would pose a problem for more rearend collisions. In addition, East Main is a County road at this place, while 66 is a state highway. 2) Benson asked whethr Fregonese had seen any plans to widen or improve Crowson Road. Fregonese had not. 3) Hansen asked whether staff was satisfied with the applicant's intent to berm and wall the property adjacent to the freeway. Fregonese stated that as long as it were made a condition of approval for the acoustical engineer, the staff would be satisfied. 4) Slattery expressed concern about the water availability and Fregonese stated that the applicant's intent was to construct only 17 lots utilizing the existing water line after which time they would be required to install the 12" line down Crowson Road. 5) Slattery then stated that he was concerned about the lights into Mr. Forney's house coming off of the extension of Oak Knoll. He asked Stewart whether it would be possible to move this exit road. Stewart stated that this location had been chosen since it provided the best area for sight clearance up and down Crowson Road. He noted that there will probably be other streets dumping onto Crowson Road as the area develops. It was determined that the house was 150' back from Crowson Road. Stewart stated that the median strip along the entrance from Crowson Road would help to mitigate the lights shining into Mr. Forney's house but that the Fire Chief had requested that they be removed. 6) Benson then asked Stewart whether the playground would, in fact, be installed and Stewart said that they would. 7) Pugh suggested that the trees be allowed in the median unless deemed a major problem. Fregonese noted that the initial concern by the Fire Department was in terms of the turning radius required coming off of Crowson Road into the development as the road widths noted on the preliminary plan were to be only 6" for each lane. Fregonese then stated that condition #5 should be changed to read: APC Minutes 4/21/83, page 14 That the applicant revise the median strip at the entry of Crowson Road for adequate fire apparatus maneuverability at the entry. 8) Slattery then asked whether a speed limit could be applied to Crowson Road. Fregonese stated that speed limits are typically controlled by the Traffic Safety Commission and that Crowson Road is a County road. 9) Benson asked whether is would be appropriate for the Planning Commission to advance a recommendation to the County to reduce the speed. Fregonese stated that it would be more successful for the affected neighbors on Crowson Road to make the request directly. In terms of speed limits along Oak Knoll Dr., it might be more approp- riate for staff to send a memo to the Traffic Safety Commission recommending posting of Oak Knoll and Twin Pines Circle with speed limit signs. 10) Hansen asked if the City Attorney should be involved in writing the noise requirements waiver relative to the airport overlay zone. Fregonese stated that this could be worked out at the final plat approval. 11) Greene asked whether sidewalks would be placed on the loop street on the eastern portion of the development. Stewart stated that walkways would be provided in the rear of the dwellings. 12) After further discussion, Greene moved to approve the proposal with the amended nine conditions. Slattery seconded the motion. Pugh asked whether the playground would be installed to which Greene stated that this could be taken care of in the final plan. The vote was unanimous in favor. 13) The Commission then requested that a memo be sent to the Traffic Safety Commission to post Oak Knoll and Twin Pines Circle with speed signs. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was then adjourned at 11:20 p.m. John Fregonese, Executive Secretary APC Minutes 4/21/83, page 15 PH 83.2/ YES NO A Hansen Benson Pugh ;Ci Hansen Wator Benson Apenes Helms Hansen Warr Benson Pugh Alston Greene Owens TOT Greene Owens st/r /tiU`' ieg -a 9 YES NO Pugh 111001ft j y Owens Greene TOT G/ PH YES NO P Owens Greene Pugh 9 Benson Wa+" Hansen s TOT PH Owens Greene ...rt04772 Pugh Benson Warr Hansen iMMMes TOT PH Owens Greene Helms Pugh Benson Warr Hansen Alston Apenes /PLANNING COMMISSION VUIING RECORD TOT YES NO PH YES NO PH Pugh V Greene Owens ipemes sY V Hansen W rat°- Benson TOT 40 Pugh Greene Owens JamAmot- ansen Benson Warr TOT Pugh Alston Greene Owens Apenes Helms Hansen Warr Benson TOT 4 /2/ "t3 YES NO PH 424LLYES NO Benson t/ YES NO PH Wamir w'/ Hansen S Owens Greene Pugh TOT Benson Warr Hansen Alston Apenes Owens Greene Pugh Helms TOT YES NO PH YES NO PH YES NO Benson Warr Hansen Alston Apenes Owens Greene Helms Pugh TOT YES NO