PC 03/25/1992 - Laserfiche WebLink

Commissioner Hovingh asked Mr. Hirst if the neighbors have recei ed a copy of the plan for 46 lots. Mr. Hirst replied they have not. Joe Callahan, 5674 Stoneridge Road, also represented the applicati n; he felt that Mr. Hirst had pretty well covered everything. He mainly wanted to relate th up-grading of Happy Valley Road which is addressed in the conditions. He supported e condition, but notes that it does require the removal of the trestle bridge at the abandoned P ific Railway and at least one of the abutments. Having been out a number of times in the ly morning, he said he was amazed at the traffic conditions at the SunoUArlington inter 'on and was surprised there are not more serious accidents at that location. Because of e neighbors' concerns regarding this situation, they have proposed that the developer con truct the signalization and provide medians on both the north and south side. He did not thi that the proposed project would warrant a signal light, but felt that the safety conditions at e intersection already warranted a signal light. Hence, they have agreed to install sign zation. Chairman Mahern questioned Mr. Callahan as to whether the cree , when it will be re- directed, will be an open creek. Mr. Callahan said it would be n; when it gets to the street there will be a culvert crossing. They will also hire a ri preservationist to restore the creek, using native grasses, etc. Commissioner Michelotti discussed with Mr. Callahan the maxim m square footage of a house. He explained that the maximum square footage of a house will be a 3.33 FAR, actually throughout the project. Commissioner McGuirk questioned Mr. Callahan as to the type 0 retaining walls the project would have. Mr. Callahan indicated this has not yet been decid , but they intend to meet again with the neighbors to get their input. At this point Chairman Mahern asked any of the public who were in support of the project to step forward. Out of about 100 people, no one was in support. Melanie MacGregor, 6546 Arlington Drive, spoke in opposition the project as a committee member of the Rosepointe neighborhood. She said their consensu is obvious in the petition included in the packet, which amounts to 93 percent of the neigh rhood in Rosepointe. She thanked staff, Mr. Hirst, and Mr. Callahan for working with the eighbors, even if they are in opposition to the project. She presented a brief slide show sho ing the timeline of the project. She noted that on March 16 and March 23 the neighbor met with the developer, who is trying to work with the neighborhood. She said they hav many concerns, but will only address the major ones. The major problems are the matter f traffic, density of the housing which they feel does not relate well to the rural neighbor ood, and the soundwalls required by the project because of its proximity to the freeway. e committee feels that the project is being rushed through; that given more time, the neigh rhood and the developers Minutes Planning Commission March 25, 1992 Page is