Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Agenda Packet - 1995-04-17
\7 • y f' t 1 j a 1 " r + r �� 14...""""'"'..'..""44'..."."'"' ty � . \\� , �� n AGEND yDEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMISSONCITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL,380 'A' VENUE ----) CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO "{r. �� 0 °CMOS Monday,April 17,1995 1 7:00 P.M. JY, Z. J- } I. CALL TO ORDER 1 Agenda Book r i t ', II. ROLL CALL " 1 1 ' III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES March 28,1995 ..,, April 3,1995 tI' 4 IVY PUBLIC HEARING 12117-94,a request by Carter Case,JKS Architects, for approval of a 35,300 s, 1 ft. neighborhood retail center. The site is located east-of McVey, north of Phie, tax lots 5600, • portion of 5700, 6200, 6300, 6500, 6600, and portion of 8300 of Tax Map 21E 10CC. Staff Senior I'—_1 continued fro pir' 3, 1995, ' ��, �{a ';. ,I coordinator is Ki .1�,]''d Pishva• ------ • ' (, • DR 3-95/PD 2.95 R 3-95, a request by James D. Zupancic for approval of 21 units of u$in for seniors. An 11 foot variance is also requested to reduce the • ;�, i; ' ;�pecinl use 11t�S` g ' located near Lakeview ° r . ' . northeasterly side yard setback from 21 feet to 10 feet. The site is • r: I ' a ` J and Pilkington,Tax Lot 3100 of Tax Map 21E18AC. Staff coordinator is Elka thlacobi a.i1, Aiociate Planner I ' , l 7, \' " „ d ip J � ' V. GENERAL PLANNING {, .. 1 .''r K . VI. OTHER BUSINESS- Findings,Conclusions and Order. Y.C'yt1',1 y o' $"; VII. ADJOURNMENT 1., M ` '`' The Lake Oswego Development Review Commission welcomes your interest in these agenda items. ` 4 Y \ Feel free to come and go as you please. , 0.,.3 D C Members Staff ,y , Tom Coffee,Assistant City Manager J} • ;,, + ;,�:. Skip Stanaway, Chair • �.�< Martha F. Stitren,Vice Chair Hamid Pishvaie, Senior Planner ti " �' William Horning Elizabeth Jacob, Associate Planner 1 Lawrence Michael R.Wheeler, Associate Planner . I .� MI Magura .: Julie Morales Craig Walkenhor.,t, Assistant Planner •'�: ; , � ; .• Charles Oldham Cindy Phillips, Assistant City Attorney a t as �y.. �',. ; William R. Stone Maris Kennedy,Senior Secretary F N ! `� OF tAKE QS�, V 1a ' . ' , " ''' i.f.i.,,a' t ' i . —DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT '7w M y11'. 1:: tiF MEMORANDUM 4f I. f ' C t jX x k TO: Development Review Commission 4 i'- FROM: Elamid Pishvaie,Senior Planner i SUBJECT: DR 7-94 [Palisade's Market] DATE: April 13,. lS95 ,I A, 'l/ r,,!"4,,}ly A`� �4ra .1*., 4f:i The Development Review Commission has held two public hearings on February 22 and April 3, 1995,to v.`i '1:: consider this application. Prior to the closing of the public testimony period at the April 3, 1995 meeting, x 1 �7..ry X. ,of"4wi Ms.Carol Atherton requested that the hearing be continued for a period of one week so that the citizens can k., , : "`• '.' ' 0 review and submit additional testimony in response to the new evidence that was presented by the applicant during his rebuttal, The Commission granted this request,but limited the additional information to written # ', ,� ,'t,„ • testimony only on the new evidence listed in Exhibit 73. This information consists of a list of arrival and ° departure times labeled"Learning Tree Day Care". The record was held open till 5:00 P.M.,Monday, ; 44 t l'iti jrf•4 April 10, 1995, and the actual hearing was continued to April 17, 1995, The applicant's final rebuttal will < be presented to ti,e Commission at the April 17, 1995,public hearing. Staff has received additional information from the citizens,as follows: r4, v. ; e Exhibit 74 Letter by Carol Atherton,undated ," ,. " ' Exhibit 75 Letter by Peter and Jean Karneus,dated April 9, 1995 Exhibit 76 Letter by Daniel Dowell,dated April 10, 1995 `1 The Commission should note that Exhibits 75 and 76 address issues that are beyond the scope of the limitations imposed by the Commission on new t ;simony, of 3 'w' /h l 1�pmindn_pVininid_pAU127.94f\12,1)OC Ip. : W,., .18(1"A„Avenue • first Office flex i(ty) • Lake('►s%veg&i,Oregon 9701.1 . . Planning t)iv.'mon:(,Ili)(i15 1290 • 1)uil�(in);1)iviann (,011 h3'; 39(1 • VAX OM)6')r(1269 in'I y ni r• y.+ { «Y, ' r,14 1 t i iw4 "1„".Y.. ., . .. 4 - , .. .... .. • 1 • , ,,R4 ,.. ,.,. .,. ._• 1, .., .� k .I , . • K r } II.'' .t .` 0 Response of Carole Atherton Regarding Additional Evidence ' ' `f Submitted by Mr. Sealy at the Development Review Board ' 5 Hearing on April 3, 1995 , a 11 r At the continuation of the DRB hearing on DR7-94 (Palisades Market Application)the applicant introduced new evidence not previously reviewed by any of the other parties. Because , J,,'` of the complexity of the evidence, I requested a continuance to review it and, if necessary, '; comment on it, {;• r The evidence consisted, in part, of a list of arrival and departure times labeled "Learning Tree ;. Day Care", We have no idea the location or situation of the day care used to develop the list, It -' is not statistically valid to take a numerical "Fnapshot" of a given business on one day and extrapolate it to another, possibly very different, situation on all days. The applicant needs a valid traffic study done by a qualified professional and based upon standard traffic analysis techniques, , One item explicitly not covered by the applicant's small amount of data is the number of trips �r�a, '' which would go to the day care and then the market, and vice versa. Since the applicant is not proposing an internal connection between the day care and the new market, each of these nlrL two-stop trips will travel back out onto McVey and add to congestion there, Also, if the n, ' applicant were to have a right out only second driveway, how would this affect traffic on }` , '•'I neighborhood streets(i.e., trips up Parrish and then south on Pine in order to get going back :4 y4,i south on McVey/Stafford or in order to access the market after leaving the day care)? How ,'�,:,,-i would the City'q requirement for continuous forward movement of vehicles at the day care affect f ti the total numb(' `of parking spots in the day car parking lot, that is, would some of the spots " a'f, closest to the bailding be taken for the forward movement lane? , ro .'' Regarding the applicant's comments that an opportunity for continuous forward movement of vehicles is unnecessary because his particular day care operator has a requirement that all children '�t! r ' will be accompanied into the establishment by an adult, we are skeptical. In a situation where i' ' many small children are present, whether they are accompanied by adults or not, frequent backing Illr Y up in vehicles is not a good idea, Children stray, adults lose their focus, situations can become , `4° strained with many adults trying to get to work in a rush. The requirement of the L.O. Code for continuous forward movement of vehicles seems eminently reasonable. If it is to be abandoned, it must be only after the applicant has presented the proof necessary to get a variance, T r • 1 41995 '...'1• 1,)1° l 1;t%L l t•i IN EGa VI ,,,Haig&LAI,,ulopmcn4 B� . .: . ..ram rw.,�= t,� v gg.7-eYk . . ,.......______ • • .. I �- r / �' a } Y ' Al I•_ j .. r fit` . 8 . ' • k xti ' i 1 1. t1•, 9 1 ,' 1..,. , „„„, A •..' t ' gM : Pe ..+41e'- K. Cetoti, .rneaus APR 3. 0 1995 APR 10 1995 11`1. 'Fe r P lace- CITY UI: LANL. )SVVEGO ' D A-te.. Pre.u i al i°I'15 ')INN.of F'fcl lnln9,?,E elopmere i 1" QVr LChc.e.r'r.s A..60u"r '`t'he„ pro rPSeot r•4•0014-(.-"l ese r' 3o4711.. tieyre 9 � w et..04. Mc-VC. 41l.44. -11wv-C-0 t.d . -Pi IS+ , lode. worry oLbonoNt- "yt-N¢_ c1 d a'r1 t, I 1"c-r Ga.se, '\6�- -JI B g P i L G.. (I4 r GA Q. ova..r Ve-ext- III c A.u s e. a,r1p( l 1 ' I SC.Go►‘o4 1 Wet, e.sae-r a 9r®v ¢ f S ae 4ei V Atli. ¢, a' 47 e✓ r- d W K. �,' ti1.oMti h Bose .g 40l -' Ir. `4� 0.„reoY , Si" r lo tiVV � - O seri ma LI S OC1v�4a"t3 1, ! Cwi"{1•. a ra.bu 1 ea,e".ce S ) or.. MLV e i �t e7l.Ae7 0 u I let's i1 a.S'�'w_C.'f . a r 0 e`F,6 . ,+a Pr 'D1..-�Ge' r"'-r'�`�-"t t.v1 ( �orlr1 p Aor'C, ea.,.4 s. ao.ulei '' Y ,I ►Mort e.,CG1ot.G4N1'S roM CAGo`a,le;. Pu 11'11-. 0( 1' ci►•+V a , 410o 1ou1.LA Mc..VG tYCK pv'tC. 41.0440...141 orNoA acGIde•••‘.1 '.15 , r ' r� .,1•' r; r,. -1..o Yy+uc..k p-C 4.. re i (.4 ioG.e.e -rpr, G•r yen,iGMGc, r LOC.. 0 L.% 4 IOC Cie.ud '-V.kat'V a te. v►",.c. w o u 1.{ �4ti.',r.k, a, .I. . a-rotefir• ry trI-e..4 1,90uk01 ,emse..A4 oUr' 19C. t..1ore' haweal 1 0%.•41 aj &11 4r•sti-r a- 5 YV1 i e1 0'1"c s -k-c. dt.r+va,. +o olov4.0104r. 1.. a . r „!,14CppIr1 ? S4 rCc.A. p } wis 1/4 �d , EXHIBIT ' . , , . 0 totu i \ YVI.V et. V1 COO C e -Coe -4-r41-4 iL. G r.o( p Cute1 arr S 75 , , ,• ,,, ,,: ... :,,',, •':,,,,. ,.,•:•(•,II'l, ' ,' , \'"/ ',:,•': ..•'.:',,!i v., 'i•,'' .*...''. :,14''• ' ' : '"," ','" •'; ', •-., -,'i. ', ' .•'• , t•I, • . , • . .; .. , .. • ''• • • .1 \„,,., . • . 1.. J' � Y i t '•\:,''.1, Vd t 1 4 F ' r } rwvre. paV1(;rQ sd pct.v1 s`Ie rk) e3,t1Qt r' .9 e(eli.)�?l gr • , • a , 4 ( ;,. # ti ° ,, ,' 0 fta; ;;.; ®�r h o�o s� 7 o co a.'$' `tea. r'i otl'�• e�•r�,e, ®r• , r:-tin ,• 0 t+r 1i VI 1` r o. P% "4• rr90 bar' �te.rt.rsa s r t,4 jr' ( /W$ �Ve- • Id p_.. 7ti"- a. .,; )L'eV-. t' 'b,� �d'tn 6'1 axe.. t)In-1-+7 M- � If%€,h! ►Ma t,11,--e-* W2 W 1+� bs. ° ��►1 j 017� o�. �a/M-i ht.� k 0 t }t y 4 'r ..l ..J P ,'I r `-II... to n 1 etviy.a,V.c.c./G K r..r 't n+o -the- ?ow t4 i z l r �y�itei tit ���1 "tr. -n,� ta`I t.,+e.r ‘' t t,-J11e,". teiuX�c G.r-e. ot„01�5 n . plea,i r tWC INKGrS COne,e o1/ ` - n t t '' ,: A .- ntiCr f'�C:.� AMoI K•¢.�°`o.''. , '' 0 DUI"' he) V%10 o r k o ovt " r -no 0 CA e rC, i�,e..ot b l v o-ei vo•1 'ir vM q�'�{�+� d ot r' le,, n t c- a o r►d(o rvt t n t y rv%i i 1t' ""‘,:t$ �Y��oa� p(b W n p V. 0r P aG.'"MrS o47ce ,�, 1..90o1e ba n^ cd�, nnor^¢. r eeoert.�{• Use. �. -hor "0.0s seri.c . �, ;„' •' 's ale , :k ti . , 2y..,*.tr- POtt....-11-esith•%4J-4z1 , 7• a . • ' t : 1 • r t ., �' ., ',y ' w '' '' ' .", a �Ix}0 '' 1 • n.' ! i r'+'1,'1!,' 6 `' I .4' '':, r i.''M ':1 , i , A I 4 ,..-: I. 1 .1 1 t ..I' 1 .•, 4.. Y.. w 0 t t I^+ ..-•••,•,, .. . • 6,--cy eic zeior taraii...; , -.,-4 1..4,,.I, ... _ FI 4 . . . go 4 ifc/, Ja.s ,, '°• ` Z1r. � eA 97 374' 7� ..t . .d. 4$ ,4'" aer ci? ' ,► /99 odd°. ao�/ 7 . i) . .n/' 7# r ',c- :, 16'' 454/ 41 i" 3 /!/A r4 7/4P. 4...-,,, x,,1 {+, L+Y//r..'4 •/m i�4+*F. d'�"i'��fl��r'^^'e 26/44r4 4 ,547,W+ f i., �,,, Hi.. Ot 1 i L�#n f , ij/� �y��e �j�.�r f3 ,,��r�}c�..+ �/.���y‘1 �i�j J ,/p"/ (''/� �/per,``/�.• t„f i tif1M^�. .so 4-4... 4 ... --7/44-5.1-1 /.) T /4/4071/40r,revrly 7fE -7215:5•‘;v zre/hAl‘o 7-'04t' .1.: '4' -• Ala. : +i 4 ♦ `� • . -. h d 7�t s i 2'7; Gi.4i W 1.a ,may" Z,•2.e3derv9r 0 7 carele". ..7 An vigay cypiasso). -771) ai9.70.-eitee , ,. } { ,' ! 41-x Zoar. ' //75 I6'7;7-. ' }"r '. 2/ /7 , ‘pAiviA44, ? 5 ?s 8 ?. ,S ett/ /A/ 77� Tielt-a76"s ` /A/ � 6 G 7/ O .nO . ''We mar e /7- / . , ' ,,2 ;r rS r - "/, .1' EXHbBrT I , • :4. 0 ......?... .,_,_' , • .,..., . . 9 D e •4 .I a ti{�i ,+ ' 1 '' a �' 1 . , S� Y +'' t ....4 0 .. a 4'l.e„ - 1Y t ;t al. .' I r, f f.._ i g) 773,40,5 Zoevilre XV - • 1 1 tr1{ 11I d/f� ti I W redk SW/Z "Pi yW , + , L •1,„ ,, 1 0 /,F ,7?AJ6° %r�' , rl Z 41/ 'ivtic . 71,-ieter Afriht �,a�A'& it , 1 .11 2-7 7,,,.„,,,, 7s-dor •/r 2 arc . . S' ` f 1.t417.0.5 7 V 6 /iv i,,,yir--f--ir . telefie. 01-7- , , •; w ....7-4/pire.:30e) , ... ," 2/0/9K, 7/217.5 i. S .", ,7°4643' • ,:.. -. .' . •; getsfry ,.. /2,,„effe„triree;v rfifi 7750( .7).65wic 14-bi-e. 6414411-")‘4'1 ., , :... , .. 034:44svaiet5 '`'itips- 4t) eitir.5).4 .d..5-ireeleiV4 dre..4„20, . 2rere/ie • .. , ..,::,• 4 +'j) �'�!/I^ ! /dui I I'rr►�+ �4.++GG��" �f 1 j M[ 7 .0 . .. fil i Y !", y<;a GAL,.+r .13749i4 , • c r fi'4 t ' '!''tit ui,: ` a } ,l : //'�/1 ,.J fir_- /A/ • • ' , .5' --7''��. 4 r/:1/ "6 t f 7a .S f) ii /'7"/5 ,f, , rit.1 x' t" YA ra Ore/ 7 / Zf r} ,• 4 i �. W.) r i lam S /4 ':. -5- -'. , ' 0 V a J t ! ' r Ti\ ft t,Y r7Q ${Y . 1 1 i ry 1 ,- Ci hippr./ a,),,a. .....izelizzyx../ e.4024,7,-/h . ge /Atetozo i ,.... t1 ""' ` �.,i / ✓ o Zar, , ' r z/ l" v • e cel/ 027:4 47i ,;,4er/5 ref ' \ , m.4 /AI 'WAS' /ale / /AJ 7- : . ,Ae ,4 oN Ø/- rn - 5 2 7 -z�'` 1 'cy " �,,i. t'WL1si 4'12t.44% / �f e . j 2.st,,l1 ,/,�~, �,,t,, ' .may- � < a v J 1 . k r ''.', '. ' /5 /le"( V44; ‘e•0 idr.* --: . /77,9'Ai)7:40,11 /A 1/.0 1 4 6"K5, af .•. • If 4.,iiC'Pif F, f , n 1 I ,,,''.y. i,' . 4) 6)):14,1%0(.1 le;)) .' /2)&941 i Z5146e4 f-4 op , A FI 4 /AI 7 ,s ' rW 6a/ 4// -- , .€. � ,,( .', ' <Jf lviC E t,,i !r 3 f - - +� i e› /Z s -., a'4 '' l-f ' p*. pv) jam.. i, , pgiotier tiA*---- -7-,./.- ,41.,,,Z,29,,,tfet, /41-74,-- adi 7,..ks V /4 /2, -'".,sue • f' , 6" -r ' ,/.#Ci ',rJd ,v,,t/ glom' z v ' ' -7M/5 A . . 19 ej*1,-:/?.4- Yg45ife-,0 47-re74-902.. ZA"..*frie,.4ye)S AA) hilt" . .. • , .. ea.5-idt&) (5.0g 'pi/et/6. 5 ..K,5.-/ /Al /WI 1‘67=7:e/g -027/eit7" . . Ø/ ) . k 4 I. , 1 t I ii ,A � 7 $z 1 (.5.41 ,5 " nr ezer' '` ' -- rAZ �/or �� r2 � . . ;rt .. y o + + 11 PAW • 1.14,,$* der -7744,414.42V /hey PA/ere-41e 4000400,14 • t ., 1 A JJ� • ' ito,- • v /YI J {. 1 k { A 4J /y ox4, ,{sue 7 Il.r+"aw % ..z. •9 r ya, 4J.'6�'V' 7 , 4 1.. .1, , ., +f° .. ' ",,f $ ,c4t42 .V� 7i;+�' e "�. y . �J'� Iv alety �� "Vii6/ /17,i7" 2r45' ; r:49.234/1114: 49 . • —rdei /S ei 2-706~/dor, 4 a .5 , ertrrxrar- ; 1, y ). • , 7; -7-.4/215 p,,i4Vref,ifil6" ../4",.."- 3-410e,, 197140Wir. ,•,,,•-•,•••. :1 • ;?r wh' X k ^II l''!''.•' '':.' 0 t ., ..` tefri, I ezre /, ' 77, ,!� �� . ' , �� �, a v a 1a /fi yoy-vhive my 0#,,e --ewe01)3 4-6. 144) 41°.4°. 111/474:M:e /d,S12-04977.6>(1 a.•ti Afoty 10; -71/d-45 -.2frfrrry-x1-5 7100, - 4 0• ,4. , aWe t 0/00e "1r 0—..5.1eo e- y., e.4,4 6.77--,c4771 di . . ,. , r t 4 I ` : Aw A Arzvr 0710ae 7;� 1-5 xo Ile —7 ell,9 F —4 yo� 7 t7l�s" x t ku toe, 1" ,, �.. .... !; 4 t .'cf.. . ',i `" . J 9r. ' 1. r . :, .:i.:'1.,,•:.$.. . —tizi A.J/Z,42 4 A - , 407,,, af4orgie., iik._ t . v,., • J ' ., • .. , • ,. 1 M r,//�I •1 I .�.T1.1,. _, , .'_'•Y ,. S •Ir. _.s/'-I/1-•/.�� _ �... e_.•I4„..•..r_. :':I 7 i ...__. . ..... ..4) . . R/ r s ,e .. Z ,. • , - ..• • a iI"".ls s 10 6t"" /' / !I.. . ��ITS ,��% -�! -._• a_ 4 1' /47 ,I�j(wJr �y.dr4" _ ,.+_._.. i..>_..____.� ..._�_�!:!_'fL.• .ff f,/_- �` "-- ,,,,/�/� ti'/ ,� .,- . - . . . 6) /./ti 77-#.0 nite-Ar2-4.451 -777/- --. 1/.8,14,.)go.... 4.17747.0 1,,..?.....t..,.„,, . -T. . .7.44.7Q...7c1.7...V.--.41.y)9697007- esiti .. . , • i i 45.j"./It"o e. /4 5a)ATI e la 1:4 1,1 Ve°.". 'Z'.. e(o;6 I. 04 ado e . ' ' 019-i i hv ‘,/K -74F-7 irx/ire,r-i,#ii>.?/•-•.a/e ,eer4?,' . ./, ,f,W. . , •-•o/., . , . . • I 0 ... • 'I • • u 'T 1705 Fern Place `t ' Lake Oswegol•Oregon 97034 636-0812 . 4 April 3, 1995 ' . . .. 0 Mr. Hamid Pishvaie . , r , �w Senior Planner °".`' City of Lake Oswego Dept. of Planning & Development I 1` } Reference: DR 7-94 (35,300 sq. ft. Retail Center) Grimm's Property Development Application ' l 1 Dear Mr. Pishvaie: '{ This letter is written in response to the,items to be continued at the Development Review Board meeting to be held on Monday April 3, 1995, i We hove reviewed the revised staff report and would like to thank your staff r.r ', for pr ,,Daring such a complete and accurate report (ref: letter to DR1 dated 3l24/95). Areas that we feel have still not been adequately addressed are listed below: 1' •.- . 0 Traffic volumes are higher than shown and need to be reevaluated c volumes noted in the design report appear to be low. The •:E The traffic projected traffic volumes appear to be low for a facility of this size and do no: accurately reflect the additional volume created by a day-care facility, r ,, Sight Distance at relocated Pine Street needs to take into consideration the steep grade on Stafford Road and the excessive speeds of existing , µ, • traffic Even though the sight distances at the relocated Pine Street appear to be a adequate, the steep grade of Stafford Road and the excessive speeds from the south will cause a major impact to this new four-way intersection. As it le ' now, the residents of Kilkenny wait a long time to get onto Stafford due to the impaired view to the south. With the location of Pine across from Kilkenny, both sides will be waiting for each other and will not be able to enter Stafford r road safely. • sexHinit ' 6. ,d :MI IWSD Wdct'tb ;b,j 0i fa) y .fit • A ' f l,, :comprehensive Plan, Section Ii.2.4.a notes that development of tits sites 4 4 ill not exceed the ac-designed road/signalization. The proposed use liviil require an updated design which does not agree with the omprehensIve plan. "Due to the high volume of traffic for the proposed use with the main entrance across from Fern Place, a future signal will be required. This signal will be e il . • ' . sole requirement due to the proposed use of this property. This violates the �•'; intent of the Comprehensive Plan to protect the surrounding neighborhoods ' from impacts of development. The main entrance needs to be at the McVey t •:A�j Southshore intersectioni. . , }, Our letter presented at the last meeting (dated ZVMS) has not been . addressed by the Development Review Board. •l ` Our concerns regarding the protection of the Fern Place residents front the adverse impacts of this proposed development have not been addressed by the ORB. We must ask that each of the issues noted be addressed and resolved prior to any approval being granted. _It was apparent at the ORB meeting of February 6, 1995 that the board members had not fully read nor understood the details presented in the staff ,.: ,A'•, report. If they had, then a continuance wou! never have been granted and °sx,4;4;e, this application would have been denied. It is also clear that the developer has once again refused to address the issues noted by the city staff for this0 ' '•'' continuance. We must demand that this application at be approved until all issues raised by the city staff and the citizens of this city are ,..`• addressed and resolved to the satisfaction of all parties. We would like to thank you for your cooperation and would be happy to •• discuss any item with you at your convenience. A . Sincerely, 0 . ... It Kevin & Bone!Harold 1705 Fern Place ' ► Lake Oswego, Oregon 97034 r 40 , E;IL'd :JNI DZ.') Ndalt't h3 �6, SO eldN i 0 AL. . I : 0 ' • I / • i Il II :1 l • ; • 1 , , 1 1 f , • • 6W , . . ,. ., . epplitiel. Lilapt,..,,fra 0 . . • •,, ., . . , .w, 1,7 . , . . • : . .. . , . . . , c 1 , 1 , , . . . .. . , . . , • i I , t • . 6F.0-r It:).Ki 6 14W i Isil 01 (240.6- . . . . ,--rtioitir:piles-pit-rit-g--.. . . . . . , : . , ... 4 r' _ f r ' y 1 i rl Regarding Additional. '•/ . .: ; Comments of Carole Athertong g t , �, ',' Information Submitted in Connection with DR7-94 (Palisades Market, etc.) ~ THIS DEVELOPMENT WILL BE WITH US FOR MANY YEARS TO COME; ' . YOUR STAFF IS BEING VERY RESPONSIBLE IN WORKING TO ASSURE THAT IT IS A PLUS FOR OUR NEIGHBORHOOD . . I urge you to follow your staffs recommendation and deny DR7-94. The , applicant can always come back with the necessary information when it is available. Accepting information piecemeal, such as at the hearing, and trying }'„ to analyze and deal with it on an ad hoc basis is not likely to make for the soundest decision. • THE APPLICANT'S OUTLINE FOR A DAY CARE OPERATION IN THE OLD MARKET SUGGESTS THAT A PORTION OF THE OLD BUILDING WILL BE •µ `�,J,tv, REMOVED AND THIS MAY RESULT IN THE SITE ONCE AGAIN ' MEETING THE FLOOR AREA RATIO (FAR) REQUIREMENT FOR A NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL SITE, BUT THE APPLICANT HAS SAID HE IS NOT APPLYING TO DO THE DAY CARE CENTER AT THIS TIME. 0 ., UNLESS THE CITY MANDATES THIS REDUCTION IN SIZE OF THE EXISTING BUILDING THE CITY WILL BE PARTICIPATING IN THE ' CREATION OF A NON-CONFORMING USE ON THE OLD BUILDING'S TAX LOT BY ALLOWING A PORTION OF THE LOT FOR THE EXISTING f MARKET TO BE USED AS A RETENTION BASINB �FOR THE NEW ' i • A FACILITY (PLEASE SEE THE ATTACHED ) Regarding the applicant's proposal to use a portion of the existing market structure as a day care center, I just want to clarify one point, If the City • approves the application for the new market and retail construction that is ' now before them, a large section of the parcel the existing market sits on will be separated from the existing market building, As a result, the old market ' will not meet the .2 5 floor area ratio required by Section 45!10.310(2) of the Zoning Ordinance for Neighborhood Commercial. The City, if it allows the removal of what appears to be about ,2 acres from Tax Lot 5700 and the - addition of this land to the new development for the runoff retention basin wil '• ,,,,, own Plan and Code, 'This change cannot $ be participating in a violation of its CO � be made without a Variance. r4 1 ' On the accompanying diagram (Developed from Exhibit I for DR7-94) I have u A shown what appears to be the split between the land that will remain with the old ,r,N, • •fa market (shown in yellow) and the land that will become part of the new project (show . • , The applicant is suggesting that he will be removing a portion of the existing building to make room for a play area. This may or may not bring the existing building back down to a size that will meet the .25 FAR, we do not know from the evidence in the record. But the major point I want to make is ' ; ,, that the City cannot proceed to approve the current application that laandates a reduction in size of the lot on which the existing market sits unless the City requires at this time that the existing market building will be reduced in size * to the point where the .25 FAR is met on Tax Lot 5700. The applicant has submitted a preliminary agreement suggesting that the old building will be reduced in size, however, the applicant is in no way bound at this time by his representations regarding that reduction in size. If the City does not mandate a reduction in size of the existing building, an application for a variance from the FAR for Tax Lot 5700 is required as part of the current application. Otherwise, the City is participating in the creation of a non-conforming use on Lot 5700. One DRB member suggested at the earlier hearing that future use of the old market site is irrelevant at this time and the DRB should wait to consider what should be done there until a specific proposal for the old site before • `� is them. The City cannot simply wait until actual development proceeds on Tax A , Lot 5700 and hope to rectify the FAR situation then for several reasons. First, as discussed above, in granting the current application without putting any restrictions on the building size on tax lot 5700 the City would be, in essence, granting a variance for Tax Lot 5700 without going through the variance • procedures. Second, depending on what use is actually proposed at the time Tax Lot 5700 goes forward, the City may have very little control over the situation. If a use • '' that is permitted outright in the neighborhood commercial zone is proposed, the City's jurisdiction may be as limited as simply granting an occupancy permit, which would involve determining only that the site has the proper ` number of parking spots for the use proposed. The issue of a building that is too large for the site may, at that time, be beyond the control of the City. in red), According to Exhibit 1, Tax lot 5700 currently is .7 acres, An acre contains 43560 square feet, Therefore, .7 acr+:8 would contain ,7x43560 sq.ft, or 30492 sq.ft. Assuming that the portion of Tax Lot 5700 taken for the new project is .2 acres (a • ,� conservative estimate from looking at Exhibit 1 and comparing it with the applicant's plan drawings) this would remove 8712 square feet from Tax Lot 5700, 30492 sq,ft, less 8712 square feet equals a remaining site size for the old market lot of 21780 sq. ft. At the required floor area ratio of ,25, this size lot would support a building of only ® 5445 sq, ft. , whereas the existing market building and accessory structures is, I believe, in excess of 9000 sq, feet. . +a . w 1 : . REGARDING TRAFFIC ISSUES, I WAS ALARMED TO HEAR AT THE LAST MEETING THAT SOME MEMBERS OF THE DRB FEEL THE COST OF THE SECOND LIGHT AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE SITE DRIVEWAY ,\. . . : , ,,,,, . ,, .. ii SHOULD BE SHARED BY THE PUBLIC �.1 1 After the close of testimony at the earlier hearing, one member of the DRB seemed to be stating that the cost of the light at the site driveway should be shared by the City. This second light which the applicant's expert says will be ' needed about the year 2010 (but the need for which he says should be •' ;, monitored as early as 2000, less than five years away) would be absolutely I unnecessaryif it were not for the applicant's development. It is true that ` r � .. ambient traffic not related to the development will be passing the site, but there would be no need for this traffic control device at this location if it were not for the development. '. The Grimm's Corner Neighborhood Commercial provisions of the old Comprehensive Plan have been incorporated Grimm's in le Zoning Code by Corner Neighborhoodreference (Zoning Code Section 48,10,315 (5)). The Commercial Zone provisions of the old Plan in turn refer to the Definitions Section of the Commercial Land Use Policies of the old Plan for a discussion of I ' what is meant by the requirement for Grimms Corner that "all developm.ent...will be required,..to pay a pro rata share of street improvements..."(See specific policy 7 under Grimms Corner Neighborhood Commercial Policies, page 107 of the old Plan). The Definition Section (on ,410 . . «. page 96) states that "pro rata share" means: "A share assessed proportionately, in accord with the responsibility for a r created need. For example, costs of a signalized intersection necessitated because a parcel of land is rezoned to a more intense use, will be assessed to property owners in accord with the responsibility for the need and the benefits • received. The fact that the public travels through the intersection will not _ necessarily guarantee that the public pay a pro rata share_unless the public has need for the improvement, even without the increase in activity being directly served:"(Emphasis supplied). With respect to the second proposed light (the one at the site entry), this is the exact situation we have. The public has absolutely no need for this second light if it were not for the development '• being proposed, therefore, the public's pro rata share of the cost of the second : light is zero. I • . 40 .. , • , . , • ' . ^ y ' • a '.�i . •,r • • • aM f ma 1 OF -rnx 1-or S?Ot] flElAlek, gETAINCP WPT74 0I.e) /1•�,g/?ker :� • 1''' "Ni. — Po xi-100 0 F 74& LO-r 570'0 TtoE.,1 Nek DE VvT D "-rb N gw •P2o0'gc'•r- t 1 G.. ,' •. tT20 v 110$ t, /I431 ;1 I' 1 tiSA 11 1 t + T ` '• 2000 [! ;1500 �1 1400 .i -`�.. 2100 1110 4 Ia1 I 1 1131 '1 1 11'/' _ "14' 11214 a { 1 '1� i 5112 r, _'�=''r A•,� 1 1ef?0 17 116 �I5 �4•• 113 r 1 �t a , '� I r , ..' 1 �. 1 s n al, ti -1 , • r. oi�.�.' o' a `'ry ».'.► _'.4 • CAR 1 , SHORE• ; �'e j®L....V YJ. ,� yn�'S� ''ST. • i' r• .�y„!►jti.�.. ��.Ar,(... „l rr at.ar Pr �.r,• '.,`.� 4 i 4'90U •' /5100 t 1 5fj?0�, • y r y 1 , sr pa A • = "a „re 5200 1 ry t. l , ( V �® 1. ,, 0 ITtO ,. a 4. ti••r Ld. `fJk .•a'ri.. ,.•r' 11 • ' r 2 ' t~ r ' ''' 5900 L W V. �4j s 4+ / O.SOAc.• // ...e-Ortal.O...".Y..4. ....• ......s; I r • 12T0 N • • t• �, S 3 rre ,+er�.tI�• �l s I • 1!/A - SPRUCE. a• II .1. ,h• . dM«rrFlwl,M'a' : '`Jy .200 -000 ••-�. o\ `ST• - :EE. ',,. J11 �' �A00 ' 6 • 0.1 • I. eonspas L. •• et 0 'noo,ise :; +.• l ' 3 • I r, . .% ; ••1 . - � 4.• r'. W '• � ti c - • ' .. •••, r + • 2 61171 ?•Ilk to ' `t••/ .S;1 -.. "% • 9 :iazoAc• C. t d r • . rn ;.. '•.. , 021A r._ a ., t t 4600 • ' t 1111 r. t.. ! •r ..•'i,a' • u.' ere' �, +v 7 16 15 .114 ,.5;i1 : II ,, use1,2N ' .A, r• 1, ` - (YiCtt+V.► U 1 ,, l s l w 1 _ .. 11 d llbp•' L • Y ` '• ST. HEMLOCK TREET �. si • � • • • 1T11 `t i . 4'. 2 -t• 3 ^•71 '_ 5f ',6' '•e1 • 9 .;• t!•� • • •r: } 6 , • ') 1a 1/10 u�` - I 1 -.•6,er40 '. !lilt 1 ! Atr 1{ G -.rl „. 1...//9 ,.... .•, ;-_,_•!, 1 I ,,.::. • .','Lli , • • ' 18r. 1i7 ti. 116, 115,,. 114,I I. 3'�12,,. III N 110„ I L• r.ite: - STREET • ,.� .. : . �, �r ! PINE • a •� 4k4) , „ r FXHIBOY 0 s - n It.r „ 21 „ •1 r. 4 r. 5' ,. 6 r. 7•!• .4 ©I .. 9 ,...•. 11 . 7100 I 720b 317300 74001 ��0 7600 I aZOo "— 11t10 r Iliad i �1111 ! 1111 4 1+./ �• i1110 1 Da • 777 `,` fu`�1110 � % ; , 1 Z 13 I I if 7500 fI `, �/�� r, 8100 1 1 60001 790p 71000 r 71tn1 7r,0, I ,: ' �y �l i - • April 3, 1995 0 ,-`' 4 , CUT THRU TRAFFIC ON PINE a. The realignment of the intersection of Pine with McVey is required by the Comprehensive Plan. The alignment of Pine opposite Kilkenny is dictated by good traffic design. We have provided reports from two traffic engineers indicating that cut-thru traffic will not be a problem. Continued expressions of"concern" about cut-thru traffic are without , any factual foundation. DAY CARE CENTER Out Door Play Area Staff apparently misread our plans. The outdoor play area shown is approximately 4125 sq, ft. not 3500 sq. ft, as indicated by staff. 4,° Staff failed to cite the entire code section relating to the required size of outdoor play area 0 „ ' . for 110 children, Code section LOC 48,22,575 provides that when outdoor play is scheduled at different times, the play area size may be reduced by one half(or in this instance reduced to 4,125 sq. ft.,just as we have shown.) On-site Driveway Staff indicated that LODS 19,020(I)(j) requires a continuance forward flow of passenger vehicles for loadingand unloadingchildren, • I1 ,' ... The proposed day care operator does not, however, allow children to be "dropped off," ', All parents must park their cars, escort their children in where a receptionist allows them entry through a double locked door and signs the children in. For obvious security • •r reasons a drop off driveway is inappropriate. We will ask for variance to this code requirement. Staff has suggested, as an alternative, that we provide a second egress at the f , north end of the parking lot(right out only) We would accept that alternative, d RIGHT OF WAY/SOUTHSHORE - MCVEY INTERSECTION M The existingR,O.W ,O.W will l allow for the expansion of McVey to four lanes plus a bike path z on one side of McVey across from the BP Station, Existing R.O.W. does not allow for a w second bike path for the short distance fronting the BP Station. We can do what is it • i • • r e 1a reasonable to solve this long standing public traffic problem, and we can pay our fair r share. We cannot do what is unreasonable, and we cannot pay an unfair share. ADDITIONAL SIDEWALKS ALONG PINE We already advised staff following the last hearing, and prior to their latest staff report, that we would provide the sidewalks. CONNECTING DRIVEWAY'BETWEEN MARKET AND DAY CARE. As we have discussed, at great length, such a drive is impractical and unsafe, And if it is a condition of approval, the project cannot be built, DAY CARE PARKING REQUIREMENT Staff has suggested that the number of spaces shown will be inadequate for 110 students. However, city code requires one parking space for each 400 sq, ft, We are providing . more parking than the code requires, • • t f q. Jv • • • �. • • • s yam,' _ - A v 't i ✓ P ,, :�0, r •' ti LEARNING TREE DAY CARE a t.- 1 0 ", I:, • ,,\Ii • ACTUAL LOGGED TRIP TIMES - A.M. (1/10) 1 72 Trips (1 children each) — 72 children F'- 44 children 22 Trips(2 children eacl,l = ' .�-• t 1 Trip (3 children each = 3 children 95 trips total 119 total children ` ACTUAL.NUMBER OF A.M. TRIPS FOR THE FIVE MINUTE PERIOD BEGINNING: 8:55 2 6:25 3 9:00 1 6:30 3 9:05 3 j 0 ' ± 6:35 1 9:10 1 6:40 3 9:15 2 ' • •',„y 9:20 0 ,` 6:45 0 6:50 2 9:25 1 ~ 6:55 3 9:30 0 K•, 7:00 2 9:35 0 •'II 7:05 3 9:40 0 7:10 1 9:45 0 7:15 4 9:50 1 7:20 4 9:55 0 7:25 4 10:00 1 10:05 0 7:35 1 7:30 3 10:10 0 7:40 5 7:45 0 10:20 0 ` Y 7:50 3 10:25 3 .. 7:55 3 10:30 0 °r! 8:00 0 10:35 1 8:05 3 10:40 2 . ". 8:10 6 10:45 0 8:15 2 - 8:20 4 8:25 2 12:15 1 , 8:30 4 8:35 1 Total 95 Trips 8:40 2 8:45 240 • -. .. 8:50 2 • • AI . : • ' , 0 ACTUAL NUMBER OF P.M. TRIPS a ; FOR THE FIVE MINUTE PERIOD BEGINNING: ' t� r 1:20 1 4:45 4:50 7 ' 1:25 4:55 3 "" 1:30 1:35 5:00 5 5:05 1:45 5:10 5 1:50 5:15 4 1:55 2 5:20 5 2:00 1 5:25 3 - • 2:05 1 5:30 74 " 2:10 5:35 2:15 5:40 2:2 0 5:4 5 3 5:50 4 •2:25 ' 2:30 5:55 4 2:35 6:00 9 i . 2:40 6:05 2 1, : 2:45 • y. , 2:50 Total 95 Trips 2:55 2 3:00 3:05 1 3:10 2 3:15 3:20 �. 3:25 3:30 ., 3:35 1 3:40 1 • 3:45 ae 3:50 2 3:55 4:00 3 4:05 2 4:10 3 4:15 4:20 1 F . 4:25 i. 4:30 2 4:35 I . • 4:40 4 • .