Monday, March 23, 2015

Ruby Apartments Project Update 20150323


On March 12, Don MacSparran, of the Oakbrook 4th Addition, reported that he “…spoke with Dave on Monday evening; the City Attorney is reviewing the ruling--once the City staff gets her guidance, they will proceed. I have asked that the fence be removed and the entire tract cleaned-up and maintained to the standards in the municipal code--until the developer either does something with the land or sells it…”

On March 15, Sylvia Allen, of the Oakbrook 4th Addition, reported the need to begin consideration of ways to maintain the property as park/open space, and suggested a way, using the Limited Improvement District provisions of state law, and spelling out the means for doing so.  Ken Karch provided early comments outlining several methods for doing so, and urging early action.

On March 16, Don MacSparran reported that “…as expected, the developer has filed a motion for reconsideration with the superior court today, March 16. I also spoke with City Staff and several council members this evening prior to the city council meeting. The city will have a city code enforcement team check on the 7701 Ruby Dr SW tract and provide the developer with a list of code violations to be fixed, if any. Three cars may soon be towed from the north side of the property…(T)he administrative hearing which is pending a completed arborist report, remains open and ongoing; still awaiting the arborist report…”

On March 18, 2015, Don MacSparran reported the reconsideration hearing is scheduled for April 10, 2015.

On March 19, Nicole Greeson, of the 4th Addition, referenced an article on the status of the Ruby Apartments lawsuit, in the Tacoma News Tribune, at


Recent contributions have also been made by Nancy Dilworth and Ken Karch on the economics of alternative development of Tract E, and on the possible loss of tree protections.

On March 23, 2015, Don MacSparran reported he “…spoke with the City this morning to get an update on the post pre-hearing order and continuance notice dated February 4, 2015 by the City of Lakewood Hearing Examiner. The City is still waiting on an updated arborist report from the developer. Paragraph 4 of the February 4th Order had estimated that receipt of a new arborist report AND review by the City would take less than three weeks total to complete…”

Saturday, March 7, 2015

Ruby Apartments Summary Judgement Handed Down

Attached is a summary by the 4th Addition's President, Eric Greeson, of Judge Crushcoff's Summary Judgement in the Ruby Apartments lawsuit, handed down yesterday, March 6, 2015.  Additional information will follow, but thought the Oakbrook Townhouses blog readers deserved as much information as possible as soon as possible.

***** 


To Oakbrook 4th Addition Homeowners and interested parties,

As put out by your HOA board Friday, the ruling regarding our filing for Summary Judgment was granted. Please see our attorney Dianne Conway’s summary below:

“As you know, Judge Chushcoff granted Oakbrook 4th Addition HOA’s Motion for Summary Judgment yesterday morning.  What this means is he agreed with our argument that the Covenants restrict any development of Tract E to detached, single-family homes of no more than two stories in height, regardless of what the zoning code allowed at the time Ruby 62 Holdings LLC applied for permits.

Ruby 62 Holdings LLC has 10 days to file a motion for reconsideration, which I think is very unlikely,  and 30 days to file an appeal, which its attorney says it will.  If the LLC does file an appeal, there will be a  briefing process followed by oral argument (unless the Court of Appeals decides it doesn’t want oral argument), after which the Court of Appeals will issue a decision three to six months later.  Overall, the process would take one to one-and-a-half years.  In the meantime, Judge Chushcoff’s ruling will stand.  

The judge’s ruling does not affect the permitting process with the City.  It will be up to the LLC whether it continues with that process or not if and when it files an appeal.  I suspect that it will, since if its application expires, it will no longer be vested under the old zoning code, which would make the appeal pointless. Mind you, the LLC’s attorney also indicated that the LLC had some financial problems, so that may influence the LLC’s actions as well.”

We are very pleased with this outcome. Thank you all for your support. Time spent preparing for and attending the Summary Judgment will incur attorney’s fees larger than previous months.  I understand that financial restraints may have discouraged some from contributing to our legal fund, as a large number of homeowners have yet to contribute. However, this issue affects all of Oakbrook and even a small donation has an impact. Please show your support by sustaining our legal fund.

As always, visit our websites’ forum section for any questions you may have.

Thank You,
Eric Greeson
President 4th Addition HOA

Tuesday, February 3, 2015

Oakbrook Townhouses 2015 Annual Meeting Minutes

Attached are the draft minutes of the 2015 Oakbrook Townhouses Annual Members' meeting.


Annual Meeting Minutes
January 20, 2015
Oakbrook Townhouse, Inc.
c/o Northwest Properties Agency, Inc.
9527 Bridgeport Way SW
Lakewood, WA 96499

The Annual Meeting of the Oakbrook Townhouse, Inc was held on Tuesday, January 20, 2015 at the RMG Golf Club, 8102 Zircon Drive SW, Lakewood, WA.
Five proxies were needed for a quorum.  Karch asked board members to call some neighbors and others went door to door and brought back sufficient proxies to meet the quorum requirements.  The meeting was then called to order at 7:46 PM
President Karch welcomed residents in attendance and recognized members of the Board and asked them to introduce themselves.   He introduced Pat and Bill Price from Northwest Properties, Inc.  President Karch asked each resident to introduce themselves.
Rinnan moved to dispense with the reading of the 2014 Annual Meeting minutes, as they had been sent to the membership with the meeting announcement.  Glamba seconded.  Motion carried.
A motion to approve the 2014 Annual Members’ meeting minutes as distributed to the membership was made, seconded, and passed.
Karch presented a proposed Rules of Order to ensure an orderly meeting.  Rinnan moved to adopt the following Rules of Order:
“…I move that the Annual Meeting of the Oakbrook Townhouses, Inc. be guided by the current edition of Roberts’ Rules of Order, except where they conflict with the RCWs governing Oakbrook Townhouses, Inc., the Oakbrook Townhouses, Inc. CC&Rs or Bylaws, or policies adopted by the Board, or where the strict compliance with Roberts’ Rules of Order hamper the orderly conduct of business of Oakbrook Townhouses, Inc., and further, that members who wish to speak must be recognized by the chair, that any motions are to be in writing and given to the Secretary, that any member seeking to be recognized to speak on a motion or to ask questions about any matter coming before the association will be limited to 3 minutes per motion or question until all members who wish to speak on the motion have had a chance to be heard…”
Dilworth seconded the motion.  Motion carried.
State of the Association
President Karch reported on the State of the Association:
“…During 2014, we completed the repainting of the entire complex, on time and within budget, at a cost well below the projected costs for the project in the 2009 Reserve Study.  In addition, some remedial work on dry rot correction and painting which the Board has identified, is being completed on a case by case basis.  The Board has completed a study of moisture content of all building end walls (those most subject to dry rot damage) and found between 5% and 10% of end walls with elevated moisture content, which will help focus our remedial work. 
“…Early in 2014 we discovered a material defect in the roofing material on Building 3.  The installer and roofing material manufacturer stood behind their product and work, and after some negotiation, the Board was able to secure a new roof for the entire building, at minimal cost to the association.  This will put off an expense projected in the 2012 Reserve study of about $70,000 by 7 years.
“…We have also completed the repair and/or replacement of 4 driveways, repaired and/or replaced several rear decks, a number of light fixtures and metal railings, dealt with roof leaks, and carried out gutter and downspout cleaning following storms. Once again we can boast of an overall budget in balance, significant contributions to our reserve account aimed at reducing or eliminating the need for special assessments in the future, and a “clean” audit.
“…We experienced the resignation of Board members Tim McCoy and Mike Bitow, and two of the open Board positions are those.  So we have four positions to fill on our 9-member Board.
“…We completed a customer survey of our full membership in April, seeking information on the issues you felt were most important for the Board to address, and how well we were doing on each.  We got almost a 50% return rate.  To my knowledge this is the first customer prioritization and satisfaction survey even conducted by Oakbrook Townhouses members.  The Board also adopted a set of goals for 2014, based on your priorities, and completed a Board assessment of our performance against those goals in December.  Copies of the customer survey results and Board report card were on the table when you came in.
“…During the past year, we invited members to sign up to receive periodic email updates on issues of interest to the Oakbrook Townhouses membership, and about a dozen emailings have gone out.  A signup form was on the table at the entrance.
“…We also created a blog site, which can be accessed at:
“…The past year saw a proposal to develop a 62 unit three story apartment building on the property between Ruby Drive and Zircon Drive, on the open space formerly occupied by the swimming pool and tennis courts.  We have tried to keep the membership informed of the developments in the minutes, via separate mailings and emailings, and on the blog, and have taken strong positions in opposition to the development, including a joint letter from the three involved HOAs, and testimony at a rezoning hearing.  Several of you have offered comments and testimony on the projects…”
Karch also reported that “…the Board is looking at a number of new initiatives during 2015.  In addition to a keen recognition of the financial constraints we have all operated under during the past few years, carrying out the myriad of normal maintenance activities,  we have been discussing getting an early start on items in the reserve study; refining the priority system for needed work; securing additional feedback from you through a customer survey on what you think are the most important issues facing us, as well as how we are doing in addressing them; setting up a more formal project list; carrying out your highest priority projects; and assessing our performance at the end of the year; refining the process for review of all contracts; and making needed contributions to the reserve account…”
Reserve Study Update
State law requires that all HOAs carry out a Reserve Study, and update it periodically.  The OT Board initiated its first Reserve Study in 2009, with updates in 2011 and 2012.   Karch explained the Reserve Study process and that the Board continues to work on a variety of issues to keep costs down.  The Reserve Study is available to all residents and there was a request form on the back table to request a copy.  The Reserve account has $141,000.  Each year we contribute $30,000 to the Reserve account.  The Reserve Study specialists indicate we are in a good position compared to many other Associations.
Budget for 2015 and Projected Budget for 2016
Karch presented the proposal for the 2015 budget and indicated the projected 2016 budget is included, as required by law.  Copies were sent to all members with the meeting announcement, and were available on the table at the entrance.

The Voting Process
Karch opened up the voting process.  He explained that there will be three items to vote on:
1.    The 2015 proposed budget is the same as 2014.  Monthly assessments will continue to be $330.00 a month.
2.    It was moved, seconded, and approved to nominate three Board candidates as indicated on the proxy (Hamann, Karch, and Pearcy), plus write-in resident Sandra Charlton.  Karch asked for any other nominations from the floor.  There were none and the nominations were closed.  There are four candidates.
3.    Change to bylaws.  This change will allow emails to serve as a proxy with a follow up telephone call. The proposed wording change to the Bylaws is as follows:
“…Amend Section 5, Article X of the Oakbrook Townhouses, Inc. By-laws to read as follows (existing wording in italics; proposed addition is underlined):
SECTION 5. Proxies. At all meetings of members, each member may vote in person or by proxy. All proxies shall be in writing and filed with the Secretary. Proxies submitted to the Board or its agent(s) by email shall be accepted, provided the proxy holder confirms the emailed proxy transmission. Every proxy shall be revocable and shall automatically cease upon conveyance by the member of his/her Lot…”
A break was called while the votes were counted.  Rinnan, Dilworth, and a member from the audience counted the votes, and certified the results.  
Karch reported the 2015 Board members election results as follows:
Hamann – 28            Karch – 28                 Pearcy – 27               Charlton - 6

Karch declared all four were elected to serve on the Board. Karch welcomed the elected Board members and indicated a Board meeting would be held immediately following the Annual Meeting to elect officers for 2015.
Karch announced the 2015 Budget vote results as follows:
Yes – 34                    No - 1

Karch declared the proposed 2015 Budget approved.

Karch announced the bylaws change to allow proxy votes via email results as follows:
Yes – 26                    No - 4

Karch declared the proposed Bylaws change approved.

Karch introduced Pat Price from Northwest Properties.  Price presented information about the importance of having adequate insurance coverage.  She encouraged all residents to review their insurance coverage with their agent to determine whether their coverage is adequate.  The insurance agent needs to know if you have upgraded floors, counter tops and also flood insurance is important if a water problem occurs within the unit, as some of these are not covered in many homeowners’ policies. 
Karch asked if there was any further old business to discuss or new business.  Hearing none he thanked all the residents for attending.
Adjournment
It was moved, seconded and approved to adjourn the 2015 Annual Member’s meeting.
Karch adjourned the meeting at 9:10 PM. 
Note:  Following the Annual Members’ meeting, the new Board convened to elect officers for 2015.  The following officers were elected.  President Ken Karch; Vice President Al Glamba; Secretary Sue Bailey; and Treasurer Mike McDonald.
Approved,

__________________________________________
Ken Karch, PE, Board President

Thursday, January 22, 2015

Oakbrook Townhouses 2015 Annual Meeting


The 2015 Annual Members' meeting of Oakbrook Townhouses, Inc. was held on January 20, 2015.

Regrettably, we did not have a quorum at the scheduled starting time of 7 pm on January 20, 2015.  Members present agreed to make efforts to secure a quorum, and reconvened about 7:45 pm.  The result was we secured a quorum and proceeded with the meeting.  


The Oakbrook Townhouses 2015 budget proposal passed 34 to 1. Monthly charges will remain at $330.

The bylaws change permitting acceptance of emailed proxies passed 26 to 4.

Two Board members were relected and two new Board members were elected for the first time.  They are:

Ken Karch and Jim Pearcy releected
David Hamann and Sandra Charlton newly elected

Karch, Pearcy, and Hamann will serve three-year terms, and Charlton will serve a one-year term.

At the Board meeting immediately following the Annual Meeting, all four current officers were re-elected to their current offices.  They are: Ken Karch, President; Al Glamba, Vice-President; Sue Bailey, Secretary; and Mike McDonald, Treasurer. 

Lois Agrelius Passes Away


Lois Agrelius, former Board member, Secretary, and Secretary/Treasurer of Oakbrook Townhouses, Inc. passed away recently.

Following is Lois’ obituary, as published in the Tacoma News Tribune January 22, 2015:

“…Lois Mae Agrelius Lois was born on October 22, 1927 in Tacoma, Washington to Benjamin and Vivian McLorinan. She passed away at her home surrounded by family at the age of 87 on January 15, 2015, in Alta Loma California. Lois was preceded in death by (brother) Eugene, (sister) Elaine, (husband) Edwin Agrelius. Lois is survived by (daughter) Cathy L Brown, (son-in-law) Dennis Brown, (son) Jason S. Agrelius, (daughter-in-law) Sara Agrelius, (granddaughter) Felicia M. Agrelius. She was a devoted wife, loving mother and grandmother who will be deeply missed. Graveside services will be held at Mountain View Memorial Park, 4100 Steilacoom Blvd. S.W., Tacoma WA 98499, Sunday, January 25, at 12:30pm. Celebration of life will proceed after services at Stonegate Pizza 5419 South Tacoma Way, Tacoma, WA 98409. In lieu of flowers donate to any cancer charity…”

Thursday, January 15, 2015

Ruby Apartments Project Update 20150115

Don Macsparran has provided the following update on the Ruby Apartments proposal:

Folks,

I spoke with the City (Dave Bugher) this morning--NO date has been set yet for the hearing for the Design Review Appeal filed by the HOA on January 2nd. They expect a response soon from the hearing examiner. (cold and flu season)

Also:


  1. An arborist (I think that's what he is) was on the Ruby site yesterday afternoon surveying and marking trees in relation to the survey markers putin the ground last week to mark the perimeter of the proposed buildings, etc.
  2. The contractor's (JR Sampson) license still shows as suspended by L and I as his insurance expired on 1/1/15.
  3. Lawsuit update posted with Superior Court: on 1/13/15 (Tuesday) CONFIRMATION OF JOINDER OF PARTIES, CLAIMS AND DEFENSES; which in legal terms means the lawsuit has passed the preliminary stages, with issues clearly laid out, with one side asserting the truth of each point, and the other side asserting the falsity; as well as identifying all identified parties.

Thanks,

Don


Wednesday, December 31, 2014

Ruby Apartments Project Update 20141231

Attached is a note I sent to Oakbrook Townhouses Board members and others on December 31, 2014, summarizing meetings on December 20 and 26, 2014.

Greetings, OT Board Members & OT Issue Followers,
 
On December 20 I sent you my summary of the December 20 meeting of several representatives of the HOAs interested in the Ruby Apartments project.
 
Since then, Don Macsparran has added additional materials discussed at that meeting, and provided the attached summary. 
 
In addition, Don and Nancy met December 26 with the City staff (Don's summary of that meeting is also attached), and the City has revoked the Tree Removal Permit as not complying with the mitigation requirements of the City. 
 
An appeal of the Community Design Review decision (the subject of the December 20 HOA meeting) by the City is also being considered.  That appeal will cost $450, and should address the issues raised in my and Don's attached meeting notes.  Members who wish to pledge or make contributions to the legal costs are encouraged to contact me or Nancy Dilworth.
 
Ken Karch, PE

***** 
Ruby Apartments Community Design Review Meeting Results (Final)

Location: Scott Drysdale's Home

Date: December 20, 2014

Time: 3:00 - 5:00 PM

Attendees: Eric Greeson, Nicole Greeson, Scott Drysdale, Stan Sherwood, Scott Shields, Don MacSparran, Nancy Dilworth, Ken Karch

This meeting was held to review the completed Ruby Drive Apartments' Community Design provided by the City of Lakewood Community Development Department. The purpose of this review was to determine if there is a basis for an appeal of the Community Design as approved by the City.

The following items were identified as possibly NOT meeting City of Lakewood code requirements, and/or NOT complying with the Mitigated Determination of Non-Significance (MDNS) required mitigation measures, and/or having an adverse impact on the surrounding community.

1. The Tree Retention Plan (TRP) does not sufficiently address the survival of the 74 trees identified to be retained, of which 71 were identified as 'significant'. Specifically, it does not appear that either the root structure or the existing canopies of the trees were fully considered. There is not a tree canopy, critical root zone, or drip line analysis included in the Community Design. Item E(3) of the MDNS required mitigation measures requires that an arborist report include "an analysis of existing trees close to the proposed pavement and buildings, with recommendations for removal or retention based on the ability of the trees to survive the proposed construction (page 15)". Construction plans should have been provided with the TRP, allowing proper analysis for tree survival planning.

2. The Community Design cannot be analyzed for potential geotechnic hazards related to the nearby landslide hazard area as there is no evidence that a supplemental geotechnical report was completed as required by item J of the MDNS required mitigation measures (page 16). Receipt and analysis of this report by the City is critical given recent slide activity and the potential for construction activity to impact town homes along Zircon DR SW on the north side of the apartments along Chambers Creek.

3. The Community Design DOES NOT indicate if site soils have been tested for contaminants in the required open space areas. Item K of the MDNS required mitigation measures requires "a report of the tested soils shall be submitted to the City of Lakewood and DOE prior to the commencement of any building construction (page 16)". As the developer must comply with DOE requirements resulting from such testing, the Community Design should include required design measures.

4. Storm water discharge during and after construction is not addressed as required by item L of the MDNS required mitigation measures. Of particular concern to adjacent (Zircon DR SW) property owners is the slope of the property from East to West; 244 feet elevation on the East side, gradually decreasing to 240 feet elevation on the West side. This slope leads directly to the previous slide area less than 300 feet from the property on the North side of Zircon DR SW. With an increase in the impervious coverage from 39,885 SF to 75,742 SF (62.1% of the total lot), thorough analysis and design is appropriate. The required mitigation measures require the developer to apply for a construction storm water permit (NPDES) and State Waste Discharge General Permit for storm water discharges associated with construction with the Department of Ecology as more than one acre of soil surface area will be disturbed by construction activities.

5. The Design Review Site Plan shows a "solid cedar fence on the East boundary" of the property. Erecting such a fence is not consistent with the existing Oakbrook community design. Although some individual single-family homes may have some fencing, the predominant design is NO perimeter fencing. Such fencing also acts as a barrier to the free ranging of wildlife along the Chambers Creek watershed.

6. The three-story design of the Ruby Apartments is inconsistent with the community design for the Oakbrook 4th Addition. The Ruby Apartments' property falls entirely within the Oakbrook 4th Addition, which was designed and built starting in the mid-1960's as single-family homes with a maximum height of two stories. No residential structures within the Oakbrook 4th Addition exceed two stories. Sixty-five townhomes adjacent to the Ruby Apartments' property are two story homes. Also adjacent (but outside the Oakbrook 4th Addition) to the East side of the Ruby Apartments are the Oakbrook Country Club Condominiums. Several of the buildings within this condominium complex are three stories, yet the Eastward downward slope of the property is used to mask the added height. The revised Traffic Impact Analysis prepared by Heath and Associates, Inc., received by the City of Lakewood on August 26, 2014, does not address the impact of the additional traffic on the surrounding roadway system which will result from the project design emptying all traffic onto Ruby DR SW.

7. The two parking lot exits empty directly on to Ruby DR SW, with one exit just several car lengths from one of two exits from the RMG Golf Course and Oakhouse Restaurant. Directing all traffic onto Ruby DR SW overlooks the impact of the additional traffic onto a secondary residential street. Zircon DR SW is a primary residential road in Oakbrook with a 25 mph speed limit, double yellow center-line striping, and traffic calming islands at Turquoise DR SW and Phillips Road SW. Ruby DR SW and the two feeder roads (Turquoise DR SW and Citrine Lane SW) have sharp turns that make through traffic problematic and dangerous. Both Ruby DR SW and Turquoise DR SW have posted 15 mph speed limits. Turquoise DR SW has two golf course player crossings.

8. The proposed parking of 105 stalls does exceed the City of Lakewood minimum parking of 1.5 stalls per unit (62 units X 1.5 = 93), but that is less than the established standard for the entire Oakbrook community of over 2,000 homes. Every home in Oakbrook has parking for at least two vehicles. Even with a standard of two or more spaces per residential unit, illegal on-street parking or on public right-away is a problem in the immediate vicinity of this project BEFORE construction. Up to 50 vehicles each day are parked on the public right-away on both sides of Zircon DR SW just 300 to 500 feet from the proposed apartments. Up to ten cars are parked daily along the North side of Ruby DR SW just East of the proposed apartments, creating not only hazardous driving (and parking) but at times making large emergency vehicle through access challenging. The proposed apartments includes a club house, which will naturally attract events (parties, etc.) without any additional on-site parking.

Don volunteered to follow-up with the City of Lakewood on Monday, December 22nd, to clarify the appeal process and gather any additional available information on the eight items above. A decision on filing an appeal will be made once the City's notification letter is received and additional information reviewed.

/s/ Don Macsparran

***** 


Ruby Apartments Community Design Review Meeting with Lakewood City Staff

December 26, 2014

Nancy Dilworth and I met with Lakewood staff (Beth Jorgenson/Economic Development and Kent/Public Works) Friday morning to review/research those areas of the Ruby Apartments' Design Review which may support a formal appeal to change. We discussed each of the items identified during the joint meeting held at Scott Drysdale's home on December 20. Our findings follow in the same sequence as the report from the December 20 meeting.

1. The Tree Retention Plan (TRP) does not sufficiently address the survival of the 74 trees identified to be retained: We confirmed our earlier concerns that the project design does not adequately plan for the survival of the 74 trees to be retained. The City agrees and is revoking the developer's tree removal permit until he complies with item E of the MDNS (page 15). This should be the first item appealed, with both tree survival and the potential for trees on the site to become hazardous to surrounding structures on and off the site.

2. The Community Design cannot be analyzed for potential geotechnic hazards related to the nearby landslide hazard area as there is no evidence that a supplemental geotechnical report was completed as required by item J of the MDNS required mitigation measures (page 16): A supplemental geotechnical report was completed, received by the City, and reviewed. Recommend this item not be appealed. To do so would require an independent engineering analysis which would be costly and time consuming; while there is no available evidence that a hazardous condition exists.

3. The Community Design DOES NOT indicate if site soils have been tested for contaminants in the required open space areas: Recommend this item not be appealed at this time, but we should be prepared to appeal the Site Development Permit when it is issued. No testing has been completed/reported to the City. The law requires the contractor to protect his workers, prevent storm water runoff, dispose properly of contaminated soils (including the asphalt from the tennis courts), and control dust and soils from leaving the site.

4. Storm water discharge during and after construction is not addressed as required by item L of the MDNS required mitigation measures: Recommend this item not be appealed at this time, but we should be prepared to appeal the Site Development Permit when it is issued. Although included in initial site planning documents, the City does not require the State issued construction storm water permit (NPDES) until the Site Development application process. At that time we should review this closely. To appeal this successfully may require an independent engineering review.

5. The Design Review Site Plan shows a "solid cedar fence on the East boundary" of the property: Recommend this item not be appealed. Nothing within the current City code
will prevent the cedar fence from installation on the East side of the development. Suggest this item be appealed directly to the developer by the Oakbrook Country Club Condominiums if appropriate.

6. The three-story design of the Ruby Apartments is inconsistent with the community design for the Oakbrook 4th Addition: Given the complexity of this issue, and the current three-story buildings in the adjacent Oakbrook Country Club Condominiums and the Bluffs, recommend this item not be appealed.

7. The two parking lot exits empty directly on to Ruby DR SW: Recommend this item not be appealed. The current design/plan is consistent with best practices and City recommendations for traffic flow and development access to street systems.

8. The proposed parking of 105 stalls does exceed the City of Lakewood minimum parking of 1.5 stalls per unit (62 units X 1.5 = 93), but that is less than the established standard for the entire Oakbrook community of over 2,000 homes: Recommend this item not be appealed. Although less than the community standard for parking, the planned parking is greater than the City requirement.

Additional items discussed:

1. On-site collection capacity for recycles may be insufficient. Recommend this item be appealed. The City will discuss this with Lemay Refuse and provide more information to us within the next few days. The trash and recycle designated collection area on the West side of the property does not appear to be sufficiently accessible to the disposal trucks.

2. Erosion of the 45 degree sloped berm does not appear to be addressed in the landscaping plan. Recommend this item not be appealed. The City will require appropriate materials to control/prevent erosion.

We are waiting for additional information and follow-up from the City on:

1. Trash/recycle capacity and disposal vehicle accessibility.

2. Compliance with requirements for storm water runoff design, planning, and permits.

3. A complete arborist report with planning for retained tree survival.


/s/ Don Macsparran