Loading...
01/05/2015 - Minutes CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION Meeting Minutes January 5, 2015 CALL TO ORDER President Rogers called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. The meeting was held in the Tigard Civic Center,Town Hall, at 13125 SW Hall Blvd. ROLL CALL Present: President Rogers Vice President Fitzgerald Alt. Commissioner Enloe Commissioner Feeney Commissioner Lieuallen Commissioner Middaugh Alt. Commissioner Mooney Commissioner Muldoon Commissioner Ouellette Commissioner Schmidt Commissioner Smith Absent: None Staff Present: Tom McGuire, Assistant Community Development Director; Gary Pagenstecher, Associate Planner; Doreen Laughlin, Executive Assistant Also Present: Matt Sprague for SFA Design Group Joe Percival, Landscape Architect—Murase Associates COMMUNICATIONS - None CONSIDER MINUTES December 15 Meeting Minutes: President Rogers asked if there were any additions, deletions, or corrections to the December 15th minutes; there being none, Rogers declared the minutes approved as submitted. OPEN PUBLIC HEARING President Rogers opened the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING SW 121St AVENUE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (PDR) 2014-00002; SUBDIVISION (SUB)2014-00005 REQUEST: The applicant requests a four-lot subdivision and planned development review on a one-acre site. Access to the proposed parcels would be from Plantation Terrace. LOCATION: 13825 SW 121 Avenue; Westside of SW 121st Avenue at Plantation Terrace, Page 1 of 8 between the Whistles Walk and Eagle Pointe developments;Washington County Tax Map 2S103CC, Tax Lot 00500. ZONE COMP PLAN DESIGNATION: R-4.5: low-density residential district. The R-4.5 zoning district is designed to accommodate detached single-family homes with or without accessory residential units at a minimum lot size of 7,500 square feet. Duplexes and attached single-family units are permitted conditionally. Some civic and institutional uses are also permitted conditionally. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapter 18.350, 18.390, 18.430, 18.510, 18.705, 18.715, 18.725, 18.745, 18.765, 18.790, 18.795 and 18.810. QUASI-JUDICIAL HEARING STATEMENTS President Rogers read the required statements and procedural items from the quasi-judicial hearing guide. There were no abstentions; there were no challenges of the commissioners for bias or conflict of interest. Ex-parte contacts: None. Site visitations: Commissioners Lieuallen, Muldoon, & Rogers had made site visits. No one wished to challenge the jurisdiction of the commission. STAFF REPORT Associate Planner Gary Pagenstecher introduced himself and went over the staff report. (Staff reports are available in their entirety on-line on the City Website one week in advance of the hearing.) He noted that this application is for a concurrent review for planned development— both a Concept Plan review and approval; and a Detailed Plan review and approval— two separate decisions by the Planning Commission. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission finds that the proposed Planned Development and Subdivision will not adversely affect the health, safety and welfare of the City and meets the approval standards for a Planned Development and Subdivision as outlined in the staff report. Therefore, Staff recommends APPROVAL, subject to the Conditions of Approval. APPLICANTS TESTIMONY Matt Sprague from SFA Design Group distributed written testimony (Exhibit A) from Morgan Holen, the Project Arborist,who was not present due to illness. He noted that their project engineer and landscape architect are present for any questions that may come up relevant to their area of expertise. Matt noted that a Planned Development (PD) on a one acre site is unusual. Normally, they're done on much larger sites. Two reasons - first, there is a PD overlay resulting from historic actions by the council— and this is a "left over" piece of property—making this a bit of an unusual situation. The second reason is that the only access this property has to the public street system is via a private street. There are four lots, three existing homes, on the private street today- and this would add four more. The code requires that having more than six units on a private street requires a Planned Development process. He went on to explain how they had to accommodate the lots as well as the requirements for open space. They have to record some kind of common area and open space for the PD. He said it may not make sense to provide a separate open space that might be neglected, unmaintained, and unused but normally PD's are on much larger areas. In working with the City on this particular plan he said they Page 2 of 8 creatively thought up the concept of providing a common open space easement across the fronts of all of the lots. Within the easement they're looking at taking out the sidewalk that is a curved type sidewalk currently— curving that through a landscaped parkway area on the frontage of all of the lots; putting in some benches and some substantial landscaping to create a nice entry—not just for this project—but for other neighbors as well—who are just a stepping stone to the west. This design can be enjoyed by the public as well as the new owners. It's more attractive pedestrian circulation and the location and design encourages proper maintenance. This is the area that is immediately in front of the new homes. Nobody wants that to look bad compared to what could be in an open space hidden back behind everything. This area is going to have a better maintenance program than any standard open space would have in a situation like this. He went on to address the street side setbacks adjacent to lots 1 & 4. He said they would provide the commission with three opportunities to look at and make a judgment on what kind of setbacks to have on the side-yards. He also addressed the trees on the lot—with recommendations from the arborist. QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMISSIONERS A question was asked whether there is an existing public utility easement parallel to 121st. Matt replied that he didn't recall ever seeing a public utility easement. Public utility easements are generally eight feet and that's the reason they stayed with that number. There was a question about perimeter lots and corner lots. Matt said it is a corner lot and street side-yard. Gary Pagenstecher came up with more explanation about perimeter lots and set- backs. One of the commissioners said he had some concern about tree canopy coverage. Landscape Architect Joe Percival of Murase Associates came up to address those concerns. He noted that the project arborist was very confident that they were actually exceeding canopy coverage both for individual lots and on the overall site. There was a question about the open space area— and whether that property is still the property owner's property and just an easement. Yes, that's correct. The property owner has ownership responsibility for that area. It was noted that a Homeowners Association (HOA) will be created—it's not in existence yet, but will be created. The question was raised as to who will be funding the care of the open space areas in front of the homeowner's homes. It was suggested that CC&R's be drafted to ensure that the space gets cared for. One of the commissioners who had visited the site was concerned about the safety issue with regard to the visual approach and suggested perhaps moving the wall back maybe 15 feet on each side. The project engineer, Brent Fitch from SFA Design, came up to address that. He doesn't believe there's a safety issue and went on to explain why. TESTIMONY IN FAVOR- None Page 3 of 8 TESTIMONY IN OPPOSITION: Ray Barlow— 12322 SW Plantation Terrace, Tigard — is concerned about safety around narrow lot #4. He's concerned about the ingress and egress from that property. He believes there's not adequate stopping time and cited the Oregon Driving handbook that there needs to be at least 170 feet to stop when traveling 40 mph. He also expressed concern that people will park in the hammerhead turnaround. He's concerned that emergency vehicles will not be able to turn around in that area safely. He went on to go over some of the other points he had made in his written testimony (Exhibit B). Mark Jolly 12275 SW Plantation Terrace, Tigard— spoke to open space and traffic. He noted that some of the commissioners said they had "visited the site." He said "When you visit the site—you don't live at the site—you don't spend time at the site —you don't walk through the site. He went on to say that he lives right next to what will be the open space. He said he and his wife are constantly picking up trash from that area. He's concerned about the open space in front of the homes — that it will become trashy— and that the benches will draw many people and cause even more garbage. There's no lighting, no security, no gates. He said they were told by the City of Tigard that it's a private road and the responsibility of the home owners. The Tigard PD doesn't patrol that area. He's concerned about the fact that two to three additional cars per new home will cause parking problems and a lot of traffic. He thanked the commissioners who did take the time to visit the site and said their input will help with the process. REBUTTAL FOR APPLICANT Project Engineer Brent Fitch from SFA spoke to concerns Mr. Barlow had: "In response to the question of the sight distance —measurement is taken differently from just what's clearly visible from the street. The height of the oncoming vehicles is 4.25 feet— the driver's eye at 3.5 feet so even though there's a vertical curve in the street,you see through that curve and you can actually see further. We measured it at 366 feet to the north and 525 feet to the south. The requirement is 350 feet so we exceed the sight distance requirement. Even though that feels uncomfortable to a driver sometimes, because you can't see clearly—you can only see the top of the vehicle coming—you think you have less sight distance than you do. But, there actually is adequate sight distance." Matt Sprague came back up and spoke to the concerns about people parking in the hammerhead turnaround. He said when he did a site visit, someone had parked in that area and that, even with his large truck, he had no trouble turning around. He thinks the homeowners there now should look into who may be parking there —it may be an internal problem. He believes if the homeowners get an active HOA going, it may help. He said he recognizes that there's no onstreet parking. There's no parking signs on the western end of Plantation Terrace — currently there are no "no parking" signs along the front of this parcel. They will be added— there will be no parking on either side of the road. So how do you deal with visitors? If you look at the plans you can see that there are going to be a minimum of two car garages — they're going to have two parking spaces in front of the garage — and we've also added an additional parking space on every single lot to help with keeping vehicles off the street. So we've done as much as we possibly can to ensure that we limit potential parking conflicts that can come up on Plantation Terrace - by providing safe parking right in front of the homes themselves rather than out on the street. Page 4 of 8 We're not asking for an exception to allow an easement to address our common open space. The code allows an easement to provide for that common open space. It can either be in a tract or in an easement—it just needs to be recorded on the plat. Matt addressed the concern about garbage on the street. He said it happens in every town; you pick it up. Leaves will fall and will plug storm drainages —we can't rely on the City or the public to do everything. We have to take responsibility and unplug the catch basins. Regarding the concern about space between homes which was mentioned in the staff report; this was regarding the six feet between the homes with the three foot setbacks. Maintenance is the common problem when you have a scenario like that. What will happen on this plat is there will be a three foot maintenance easement on each lot benefiting the opposite lot. So if you have to paint your second story, replace a window—then you have the right to lean a ladder on the other side of the property and maintain your house. That will apply to all of those interior yards. There's nothing we can do about trash in the pedestrian pathway that connects the street to the north. That's not going to change. I don't think having four new homes is going to exacerbate that. I think you're going to have more people with a view on the street. It might help reduce it but I don't think it will ever go away. I don't think it's going to attract an inordinate amount of additional people. The exceptions that were mentioned by Mr. Barlow to the street site set-backs - they will not cause any adverse impacts on adjacent properties. They will not cause any fire, life, or safety issues... not granting them just means the houses will be skinnier. They'll be slightly different than what is west of us on Plantation Terrace because they've got rather square lots —wide and about the same depth; they're very square. We have long narrower lots than they have — so not granting the exceptions will simply cause the houses to be skinnier—which I don't think is going to help anything. QUESTIONS FROM COMMISSIONERS There were some questions about the possibility of an easement being granted regarding the sight line issue— and also whether staff traffic engineers have looked at this. Gary Pagenstecher said that yes, staff traffic engineers had looked at it and are supportive of it. Matt Sprague came back up and said that they've created a safe situation for turning off 121St (inaudible) Plantation Terrace. The City sets a minimum standard of 30 feet—we're above 30 feet. We're at 38 to 45. We're not concerned that we're creating any kind of a safety issue with that turning movement. One thing that we did do is that we could provide an additional 3 feet by adjusting that driveway over to the west slightly—if that would be just a little bit more beneficial. We are exceeding City standards for this access spacing. One of the commissioners said that she would like to see a traffic engineering report. Gary said that the development review expects to look at this again and have the safety proved to them and that Condition 10 speaks to this. Condition 10 reads "Prior to issuance of a PFI permit, the applicant shall provide a preliminary access report which verifies that design of all site Page 5 of 8 driveway and street connections are safe by meeting appropriate standards such as roadway geometric standards and sight distance." There were a few more questions about signage. The applicant will sign "no parking" on Plantation Terrace. They'll place "no parking" signs on that street and that would be reviewed by the engineering review. There was a question as to whether the parking signage would be included on the hammerhead. The answer was "yes, it's already there." No other questions. PUBLIC HEARING — CLOSED DELIBERATION President Rogers reminded the commissioners that they were looking for two motions — one for the Concept Plan and one from the Detailed Plan. Vice President Fitzgerald prefaced her deliberation saying that she would like the plans to have been separated rather than taken together at one hearing. Since it's too late for that, she said that at this point, she would like staff to simply keep that in mind for the future. That said, she would like to see more of the existing trees saved. She agrees that tree #5765 could be saved and would like to see #5765 maintained. President Rogers agreed—he would like the Doug Fir to stay as well. Commissioner Schmidt also agreed that #5765 should be retained— and as far as the concept plan—that's the only issue he has. Regarding the Detailed Plan - he also believes the CC&R's for the new neighborhood should address the maintenance specifically, and the upkeep of the right-of-way and the open space. He thinks they should also include in their CC&R's that there is no parking—even though the street will be signed. It's an additional measure to be sure the homeowners are aware. CONCEPT PLAN MOTION Commissioner Muldoon made the following motion: "I move for approval of the concept Plan in application PDR2014-00002 and adoption of the Findings and Conditions of Approval again, restricted to the Concept Plan and the Staff Report and based on the testimony heard tonight. Commissioner Schmidt seconded the motion. A vote was taken: MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. DELIBERATION ON DETAILED PLAN Commissioner Lieuallen noted that the entire reason for the hammerhead section and the no parking on the street is in relation to emergency vehicles. He asked that Alternate Commissioner Mooney,who works for TVF&R, speak to that. Commissioner Mooney said the hammerhead is there so emergency vehicles can pull in and mitigate the emergency—and then, instead of having to drive all the way back down 121St, they can back into the hammerhead and Page 6 of 8 then turn around. Commissioner Lieuallen asked whether someone parking in that hammerhead area can be cited. Commissioner Mooney said that, because this is a private street, an HOA would have the authority to have those cars towed. It's not something either the police or the fire department can cite. Deliberation continued and included discussion of HOA's, traffic, garbage, tree preservation, open space —and the possibility of taking the park benches out (which would provide less chance for extra trash). There was conversation regarding the 15 foot set-back on lot 4 and the applicant's offer to move lot 4's driveway back three feet. MOTION ON DETAILED PLAN Commissioner Muldoon made the following motion: "I move for approval of application PDR2014-00002 Detailed Plan, and the adoption of the Findings and Conditions of Approval contained in the Staff Report and based on the testimony heard tonight with the following exceptions: the driveway in Lot 4 would be moved three feet further from 121st; tree 5765 would be preserved, and Condition 6 language in the CCR's would be strengthened to ensure adequate trash removal, maintenance, lighting, and absence of parking in open spaces. President Rogers interjected for clarification, "So to be sure we capture the spirit of what we're doing here —that's in support of the staff findings and staff conditions as well as the conditions you cited— correct? Commissioner Muldoon concurred. Commissioner Schmidt seconded the motion. A verbal vote was taken. DETAILED PLAN MOTION PASSED 8-1 Commissioner Lieuallen cast the opposing vote. SHORT RECESS OFFICER ELECTIONS Commissioner Muldoon nominated Commissioner Rogers to continue as president, seconded by Commissioner Fitzgerald. Commissioner Rogers accepted the nomination. No other nominations. A motion was made, a vote was taken, and the motion unanimously passed. Commissioner Schmidt nominated Commissioner Fitzgerald to return as Vice President. President Rogers seconded the nomination. No other nominations. The motion was voted on and unanimously passed. Page 7 of 8 President Rogers and Vice President Fitzgerald will serve two more years. [Per the Planning Commission bylaws, officer elections take place every odd year; the next election will take place in 2017.] OTHER BUSINESS — Vice President Fitzgerald stated that her preference would be to have detailed and concept plans looked at separately. There was some discussion that sometimes it's not a problem for them to be done together and that perhaps staff could confer with the commission and decide together whether or not it would be best to bring them to separate hearings. The recent A+O detailed and concept plans were brought up as a case in point. Commissioner Fitzgerald and some of the other commissioners believe those two plans would have best been taken separately. Assistant CD Director,Tom McGuire, came up to clarify that the code allows for the applicant to make that decision. Fitzgerald said they could always take one plan and then continue the other one to another hearing. There was some discussion about that and it was decided that they didn't want to make a hard and fast rule that they would automatically continue a hearing anytime there are two plans to look at. They decided they would make that decision during deliberations and that if they felt they needed more time and wanted to continue the hearing to a later date—they'd decide that case by case. There was conversation about how all the commissioners,including the alternate commissioners should always feel free to speak up —particularly in their areas of expertise. ADJOURNMENT President adjourned the meeting at 9:30 p.m. Doreen Laughlin,Planning Co ssion Secretary "/ ------: \ A. ' AGipeen`t Jason Rogers Page 8 of 8 E ,b- A 971.409.9354 Morgan Nolen 3 Monroe Parkway,Suite P 220 Lake Oswego,Oregon 97035 — N—Aff OCIATEJLLC Consulting Arborists and Urban Forest Management morgan.holen@comcast.net DATE: January 5, 2015 TO: Matt Sprague (SFA Design Group) FROM: Morgan Holen, Project Arborist RE: SW 121st Avenue Urban Forestry Plan—Supplemental Arborist Recommendations M HA1432 This memorandum provides supplemental arborist recommendations in regard to the September 9, 2014 Urban Forestry Plan for the four lot subdivision project at 13825 SW 121st Avenue in Tigard, and specifically addresses tree preservation conditions of approval discussed in the City's staff report to the Planning Commission (PDR2014-00002). Staff notes that: "As shown in the Preliminary Grading Plan (Sheet 5),the existing topography in the area proposed for the open space tract on proposed Lot 3, appears to be preserved such that trees #5763 (38" DBH spruce),#5764 (26" DBH cedar), and#5765 (44" DBH fir) could be preserved.These trees characterize the approach to the Stepping Stone Estates subdivision and would benefit the open space by providing shade and interest" (pages 5 and 10). As noted in the tree inventory,tree 5763 has dead branches and is infested with Cooley spruce gall adelgid.This insect generally does not cause trees to die, but heavy infestations (such as this one)will result in branch death and distorted growth.This tree received a rating of 1 for condition because it has substantial twig and branch dieback and is obviously infested, and a rating of 2 for preservation because it is not likely to be impacted by the proposed development and may persist in a state of progressive decline for many years. Nevertheless,tree 5763 has low aesthetic value and is not a significant amenity that will be sustainable in the long-term. Also as noted in the tree inventory,tree 5764 has cumulative structural defects, including an old broken top and multiple off-center leaders with decay in the juncture.This tree received a rating of 2 for condition because of average vigor and canopy density, little deadwood, and decay present only at the old wound, and a rating of 1 for preservation because the structural defects present an increased risk potential.As the decay advances,the new leaders are likely to become increasingly hazardous to the sidewalk and street.While it may be feasible to retain this tree in the short-term, it cannot be expected to remain a long-term site amenity. Trees with condition and/or preservation ratings less than 2 are not eligible for credit towards the effective tree canopy cover and are generally recommended for removal so that they may be replaced with new trees that can become long-term site amenities.Although construction does not necessitate removal of trees 5763 and 5764, neither tree is suitable for preservation with site development and both trees continue to be recommended for removal because of condition and structural defects. On the other hand, tree 5765 is a large Douglas-fir with no major defects.This tree received a rating of 3 for both condition and preservation.Tree 5765 was originally recommended for removal for the purposes of driveway construction and grading;adequate protection did not seem feasible. However, preservation of this tree is possible if excavation beneath the dripline area can be avoided. Recommendations for tree protection include: SW 1215t Avenue—Supplemental Arborist Recommendations January 5, 2014 Page 2 of 2 • Remove the stumps of nearby trees 5764 and 5766 by stump grinding in order to avoid unnecessary underground impacts to the likely interconnected roots of tree 5765. • Following adjacent tree removal, minor pruning may be needed at tree 5765 in order to remove dead and defective branches for safety.The need for pruning should be evaluated by the project arborist following site clearing. Pruning should be performed by a Qualified Tree Service. • Install tree protection fencing in a 30-foot radius around tree 5765 to capture the tree's dripline. The protection fencing should not be moved or removed except under the direction of the project arborist. Any work that is necessary within the tree protection zone should be performed under the guidance of the project arborist. • Excavation should be avoided within the tree protection zone and a modified profile is recommended to build the driveway up from the existing grade beneath the dripline (figure 1). This profile includes removal of the uppermost organic matter from the ground surface under arborist supervision, placing a layer of permeable geotextile fabric on the ground surface, topping the fabric with clean crushed rock to the desired depth, and finishing with concrete or asphalt surfacing. If needed, a shallower layer of concrete that is reinforced with rebar could be used to help limit the change in grade and to provide added strength against future damage to the driveway caused by tree roots. i }# it t ki l 6 119 t SUrfaCln• di i ldl3i 11 II 3' f li Yi clean crushed rock 2 + no fines •eotextile fabric- •ermeable to air and water native soil-remove litter la er•no excavation within root area • Figure l.Sample profile for areas within Critical Root Zones.Depth of rock is dependent on grading Technique based on best management practices If excavation cannot be avoided beneath the entire dripline area,the project arborist should evaluate the extent of proposed impacts based on an alternative site plan and provide additional recommendations for tree protection as needed;some excavation limited to less than half of the dripline area may be allowable. However, avoiding excavation altogether and using the recommended profile will allow for the driveway to be built within close proximity to the tree while still providing sufficient tree protection. If tree 5765 will be preserved,the effective canopy cover analysis and the tree preservation and removal site plans will need to be updated. Thank you for choosing Morgan Holen &Associates, LLC,to provide consulting arborist services for the four lot subdivision at SW 121st Avenue in Tigard. Please contact us if you have questions or need any additional information. Thank you, Morgan Nolen&Associates, LLC Morgan!Nolen,Owner ISA Certified Arborist, PN-6145A ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified Forest Biologist RECEVED NOV 2 0 ?014 Ray and Nancy Barlow CITY TIGDa 12322 SW Plantation Terrace PLANNING/EN( INEER1NG Tigard, OR 97223 November 17, 2014 Gary Pagenstecher City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, Oregon 97223 RE: Case ID: PDR2014-00002/SDR2014-00005 Dear Mr. Pagenstecher: We have the following comments regarding the proposed neighborhood referenced above and outlined in your letter to us dated November 3, 2014(copy attached for your reference). We believe the subdivision of the current single lot identified in the above referenced case into a four lot subdivision is inconsistent with the current design and zoning of Plantation Terrace and would significantly derogate the Plantation Terrace neighborhood for the following reasons. 1. Safety—The driveway on proposed lot number four is too close to 121st Avenue and will cause a safety issue. Lot four appears to be about 40 to 45 feet from 121st Avenue. Approximately 160 feet north of Plantation Terrace on 12e Avenue there is a crest in the road. Drivers driving southbound on 121st Avenue cannot see a stopped car at Plantation Terrace until they crest the hill 170 feet prior to Plantation Terrace. According to the Oregon Driver Manual it takes a car traveling at 40 miles per hour on average 170 feet to stop. I referenced 40 miles per hour from manual as the speed limit on 121st Avenue is 35 miles per hour and 40 was the closest reference in the manual. Low visibility, wet roads, higher speeds, and heavy loads can cause significantly longer stopping distances. A car coming out of the driveway of lot four at a typical 45 degree angle onto Plantation Terrace would require cars attempting to turn onto Plantation Terrace from 121st Avenue to stop in traffic on 121st to wait for the car coming out of lot four to cross to the north side of Plantation Terrace. A car stopped on the southbound lane of 121st waiting to enter Plantation Terrace is not visible to approaching southbound traffic until approximately 150 feet prior to Plantation Terrace due to the crest/hill on 121st Avenue approximately 170 feet north of Plantation Terrace. Based on my years of living on Plantation Terrace, I believe it is a virtual certainty that there will be collision on 121st Avenue if cars are forced to stop and wait for traffic to clear from the driveway on lot four. Given that the driveway on lot four is already planned at the western most edge of the property, there appears to be no satisfactory solution to this safety issue. I believe lot four should not be permitted due to the safety hazard it presents. 2. Safety—Access to Plantation Terrace by emergency vehicles would be significantly impacted by the proposed four lot subdivision. Plantation Terrace is a narrow private street with no parking on either side of the street. There is a spur in Plantation Terrace just west of the proposed 1 subdivision. This spur can be seen in the vicinity map attached to your letter dated November 3, 2014. This spur is necessary for large vehicles such as fire trucks, ambulances, utility trucks, UPS delivery trucks, Pride Disposal trucks and others to be able to turn around and leave the neighborhood. Although parking is not allowed on the street people often park on the street and in the spur. This prevents service trucks from being able to turn around and leave the property. If vehicles park on the street, access to the homes at the west end of Plantation Terrace will be shut off for all vehicles other than small passenger cars. The addition of a four lot subdivision would greatly restrict access to the west end of Plantation Terrace by emergency services vehicles and service trucks. 3. Plantation Terrace was not designed for the density that would result if the current lot is divided into four. Subdividing the existing lot into four lots is inconsistent with the current neighborhood design which currently includes four homes with lot widths facing the street from 105 to over 200 feet. The proposed lots appear to be approximately 50 feet wide. The Plantation Terrace neighborhood is a very small neighborhood and I believe the proposed increased density is inconsistent with the current lots and would reduce the value of current homes. 4. Plantation Terrace is not designed to handle the additional traffic that will result by dividing the current lot into four lots. Plantation Terrace is a narrow road with no parking on either side. Although no parking is allowed,this does not stop people from parking on the street. When people park their cars on the street,traffic is restricted to only one lane and only one car can travel on Plantation Terrace at a time. The addition of a four lot subdivision would compound this problem. This is even more of a problem for the current homeowners at the west end of Plantation Terrace away from its intersection with 121St street. There is only one way in and out of Plantation Terrace as it is a dead end street. The new four lot subdivision lies between 121St and the existing homes, and additional traffic and cars parked on the street would make it difficult at times for the current homeowners to access their homes. Plantation Terrace is not designed to handle a new four home subdivision. Best regards, jr Ray Barlow Nancy Barlow 2