CCMIN100284 - Laserfiche WebLink

289 Mr. Ben Tarver, 1144 Arak Court, requested that the establishment of a campaign contribution ordinance be considered at the October 30th meeting, if such meeting is scheduled. Mayor Mercer stated that if Council has a meeting on October 30th, this matter will be considered at that time. PUBLIC HEARINGS Appeal of a decision of the Planning Commission approving conditiona~ use permit to allow the establishment and operation of a subdivision sales office and model home complex in three residential units located at the southeast corner of Springda.le. Avenue and Stonedale Drive. The property is zoned PUD (Planned Unit Development)- High Density Residential District (Contd. Open from 8-14-84 and 9-10-84) Mr. Warnick presented his report (SR 84:509) dated October 2, 1984, regarding traffic concerns relative to this item. Mayor Mercer stated that this public hearing was continued in order to obtain additional traffic information associated with the proposed model home complex, and that any testimony should relate only to traffic. Councilmember Mohr stated that the staff report addressed some but not all of her concerns regarding traffic. She stated that the pedestrian access should be addressed, and also the conventional sidewalks that stop short of the project. She advised that bike lanes are not addressed, and she felt there should be additional paving, as well as prohibition of parking on one side of the street. Councilmember Mohr advised she has had input from some of the residents about where the traffic counters were placed for the traffic review, and whether or not the study addressed weekend traffic and bicylists. Ms. Judy Damerval, 5381 Springdale, stated she had reviewed the staff report. She stated she is not as concerned about peak hour traffic as she is about the amount and kind of traffic and bicylists. She stated there is excessive speeding in this area, and she felt there should be more enforcement in this regard. She stated the driveways in the model homes are very short creating further traffic problems. She requested that another traffic review be conducted after the model home complex has been open for six months and the surrounding units built and sold, to assess the traffic situation at that time. Mr. Mike Perkins, 5371 Brookside, appellant, requested to address Council on an item not related to traffic. He advised that absolutely nothing has been done to date by the developer to repair the roofs and siding, as promised would be done at the Council meetings of August 14th and September lOth. He asked how anyone could pos- sibly trust a developer who makes these promises time after time and does not keep the promises. Mr. Art Schumacher, Stoneson Development Company, stated that traffic and parking problems were considered at the time he determined to place the model home complex at the proposed location, and in his opinion all the concerns had been satisfied. He stated that with regard to the repair of the roofs and siding, he took exception to the comments of Mr. Perkins; the contract for the repair work has been let, and the project is underway. He advised that the contractor is present should Council desire to ask him any questions. Council did not question the contractor. Mr. Art Maryon, President of the Stoneridge Townhouse Homeowners Association, stated he appeared before City Council on August 14th requesting a continuance based on the fact that Stoneson had made a tentative settlement offer in good faith. Sub- sequently there was a meeting of all the homeowners and the settlement was presented to the homeowners, and by a majority they approved the settlement offer. He advised that the Board of Directors signed the agreement with Stoneson, and that a copy had 7. 10/2/84