PC 07/13/88 - Laserfiche WebLink

Commissioner Tarver agreed with Commissioner Hovingh. He felt that it was one thing to say the interchange was under construction, but quite another for it to be completed. He did not wish for it to be like the Hopyard location which went on and on. Commissioner Berger said she would like to see an actual development plan. She thought it looked fairly creative as it is, but expressed concern about the concrete wall effect. She shared the concern about traffic. She said she could support a motion if it were conditioned to completion of the interchange or at least on line progess of the interchange completion and that appropriate permits were applied for. She shared the concerns about the water supply and asked that the applicant work with staff and the adjacent property owner to solve that problem and also regarding the security measures. Commissioner Hovingh said he opposed the application; he felt the project should be at least 50' further back than as planned. He appreciated staff`s regarding the use of natural flora in the landscaping. He felt the Stoneridge interchange should be completed before project construction began; he was concerned about left hand turns from the parking area of the project; concerned about the concrete retaining walls and about the "[7" lot line behind the building. Commissioner Mahern commended the architect and developer regarding the landscaping and thought the model shown was creative. However, she shared the concerns of the adjacent property owners regarding their water supply, privacy, and the possible devaluing of their property. Her major concern regards traffic on Dublin Canyon Road which she felt was terrible. At this time she could not support the application. Chairman Hoyt thought close to the road. traffic, and concluded as it is. A motion was made Commissioner Berger dei above. the He that by eying building was much too high and too Nos concerned about the "D" lot line, he could not support the application Commissioner Hovingh, seconded by Case PUD-88-9 for the reasons listed F_70LL_CALL_VOTE AYES: Commissioners Chairman Hoyt NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner ABSTAIN: None Resolution No. PC-88-84 PUD-88-9 as motioned. Berger, Hovingh, Mahern, Tarver, and Michelotti was entered and adopted denying Case The applicant was advised that he has 15 days in which to appeal the decision to City Council. Page 1~