CCMIN010593 - Laserfiche WebLink

9 A1 Wiemken, Trenery Drive, stated he was not opposed to this project, but felt that there were some problems that still needed to be worked out. (A map was given to Council). He stated that he did not get notice of the Planning Commission public hearing. He met with staff this afternoon and solved the drainage problem. He asked that Council take no action this evening and wait 40 days. This would enable the neighbors to meet with staff and the developer to work out the street problem. Mr. Wiemken referred to Ordinance 1553, and stated that the applicant did not submit a street plan showing the construction of Trenery Drive and its impacts. He was in favor of asphalt shoulders and asphalt parking areas rather than gravel. He believed that this area is not rural anymore and cited the loss of trees, due to disease. Mr. Wiemken indicated there was no mention of gravel shoulders in the ordinances approving other development in the area. He asked the City Attorney to clarify the tentative map and final map process and who can appeal a decision of Council. Mr. Roush indicated that after the Planning Commission approves a tentative map, Council can appeal the decision. The final map will come back before Council and so long as it conforms to the tentative map it will be approved. In rebuttal, Mr. Hirst respected the many hours that Mr. Wiemken has spent in trying to keep this area rural. He explained that when the project was started there were 5 parcels. The only parcel that was not included in the ownership today was the house that was built by Mr. Corley. Mr. Tong had acquired that house and had sold it. Good planning made no sense to exclude that lot which is in the middle of the project. He was sure that the notices were mailed out on time and to each property owner. He cannot control when Mr. Wiemken retrieves mail from his post office box. He was not willing to continue this for 40 days nor would he recommend to his clients to make street improvements in order to increase the property values of a few property owners. Ms. Mohr referred to the map that was given to Council by Mr. Wiemken which showed the drainage of the lots on Palmer Drive draining onto the County property. She believed that those lots should have been properly graded to drain to the street. If this was not happening then they must be in violation of the PUD. She asked if this was the case. Mr. Swift stated the Shea Homes project drains onto Mr. Lehman's property. Those properties were designed and graded to drain to Palmer Drive as is the requirement of the UBC and the engineering improvements. He was not sure about the condition of those yards after sale. Ms. Mohr asked if properties could be cited if they were graded improperly. 1/5/93 9