CCMIN101795 - Laserfiche WebLink

Mr. Swift clarified that the plan did not intend to show Rose Avenue becoming the main road turning through the Thompson property and running along the top of the creek. William Hughes, 1530 Rose Lane, represents his family and Gloria and Nina Sharp from 1520 Rose Lane. They object to the development going in because of lot size and density. This area is zoned for minimum 10,000 square foot lots and in this plan only one lot meets this requirement. As planned in this application, lots//12 and//13 are surrounded by fencing. This is not consistent with the open country effect that this area was supposed to maintain. He would support a development that included a cul-de-sac which permits the lot sizes to be a 10,000 square foot minimum and decrease the floor area ratios to be more consistent with PUD-90-12. The Davidson property should be limited to three lots as recommended by the Planning Commission. At the end of the cul-de-sac a through lane should be included which would provide access with a twenty foot wide sidewalk on the creek side which could be used by bikers, joggers and strollers as well as by Zone 7 vehicles access. Ernest Jones, 1725 Rose Avenue, stated that he was not in support of this project. He felt these houses would be put on too small of lots and that they were placed identically to each other and it took away the country feel. He objected to the driveway for Lots 12 and 13. The house on Lot 11 faces Rose Avenue with 20 feet of fence. Mr. Jones did not believe the eighteen foot setback reflected a rural character. He urged Council to deny this project. David C. Jones, 1605 Rose Avenue, stated that he had been a member of the General Plan Land Use Sub-Committee and was surprised it did not address the Rose Avenue extension. He became aware of the PUD for this project and called the Planning Department. After he examined the tentative map, he felt it had little chance of approval since it entailed almost the same dimensions and limitations as the previous PUD (Davidson) which failed because they did not follow past City and staff directions for this area. (He then recited his problems due to the lights at the Fairground driving range.) Mr. Jones then referred to conversations with Jack Dove regarding Mr. Dove's discussions with the Fair Board concerning the extension of Rose to Valley. He related his belief that the extension of Rose to Valley would do no one any good and explained that the Fair Board has opposed crossing its property with a public road. It controls the emergency vehicle access (EVA) and sewer/water easements to Valley Avenue. Raising the number of houses and not removing the Rose Avenue extension from the General Plan will cause the Fair Board to ask for higher costs of amenities to benefit the Fairgrounds or simply deny an easement for the sewer/water connections. Until Rose is dropped from the General Plan, he did not believe there would be an EVA or sewer/water easement which is practical and affordable. Ed Campbell contacted Mr. Jones regarding the above problem with the lights and during that conversation he talked about the Rose Avenue question. On the Lynden PUD, Mr. Jones recommended to staff that by removing lots//9 and #13 the applicant would be conforming to the PUD guidelines for R-10,000, save more trees, give sidewalks and parking on the north side of lots//5 and//6, but would have to find different house 10/17/95 -24-