Laserfiche WebLink
452 <br /> <br /> conform to Measure X. <br /> <br /> Mr. Tarver asked staff if both developers had the same <br /> architectural firm. <br /> <br /> Mr. Swift replied that the PUD plan referred to in Measure X <br /> and the building plans later submitted by Mr. Thomas were prepared <br /> by the same architectural firm. <br /> <br /> Ms. Anny Manor, 3983 Fairlands Drive, stated that the building <br /> looked like a prison wall right across her back fence and blocked <br /> the view from her kitchen window and family room. She added that <br /> landscaping would not solve the height problem and that if she <br /> wanted high trees in her back yard, she would have planted them <br /> when she purchased the property. She claimed that she was deceived <br /> into signing the letter agreeing to the landscaping plan and that <br /> she was rescinding that signature. <br /> <br /> Mr. Richard Dobbs, 3616 Portsmouth Court, stated that Mr. <br /> Thomas had indicated that he was not aware of the conditions of <br /> Measure X when he purchased the property from Shell Oil and that he <br /> did not know that the plans he submitted were in violation of the <br /> PUD. He pointed out that Item 1 of the Conditions of Approval <br /> stated that the development must conform substantially with the <br /> plans on file with the Planning Department. He added that Mr. <br /> Thomas clearly made no attempt to conform to this portion of the <br /> PUD, because citizens who requested a copy of these plans from the <br /> Planning Department immediately received it without any problems. <br /> He continued that Mr. Thomas further stated that height was not an <br /> issue in the election; however, as confirmed by the Planning <br /> Director, the conditions clearly stated a maximum height of 21.5 <br /> feet throughout the back of the building. He said that the <br /> Council's decision would not only affect the approval or <br /> disapproval of the height violation but will be an indication of <br /> its belief in upholding the enforcement of PUD conditions. He <br /> mentioned that failure to uphold the conditions of the current PUD <br /> can only be judged in the light of the current lawsuit filed by the <br /> developer that in a developer-citizen conflict, the citizens cannot <br /> hope to win if the developer is able to raise the stakes high <br /> enough. He urged the Council to continue the enforcement of the <br /> conditions of approval under Measure X since these conditions <br /> address the concerns of the affected neighborhood property owners. <br /> <br /> Ms. Mohr stated that in reviewing all the paper work connected <br /> with the issue, it appeared that there was no deliberate intent on <br /> the part of staff, the applicant and the Council to create a <br /> problem. She added that because attention was focused on the <br /> service station, the building was interpreted as a buffer and <br /> auxiliary sound wall to keep the impacts of the service station <br /> away from the neighbors. She commented that should the matter go <br /> <br /> 8-22-90 <br /> - 2 - <br /> <br /> <br />