18 ATTACHMENTS - Laserfiche WebLink

"We the undersigned hereby request the Planning Commission to adhere to the City's current General Plan, which was in place when all of us bought our property, and not rezone the approximately 1.2 acre site at 4198 Stanley Boulevard from Medium to High Density. We respect the right of the property owner to develop his property and make a profit on his investigation. We ask that the City, the property owner, and the builder take into consideration the quality of life of current residents, many of whom have lived on Stanley over 10 to 20 years, as well as the new development homebuyers. "In an effort to consider our as well as our new neighbors' quality of life, we ask that the project setbacks be a minimum of 15 feet from existing property lines and that as many trees as possible be retained for the sake of wildlife habitat, as well as privacy and their native beauty." Ms. Adams noted that at this time, they have had the good fortune of being able to see as far as to the ridge from their property. She noted that that ability contributed to their own quality of life. She hoped that whatever decision was made for the new homebuyers, the current residents should be given equal consideration and that some of the trees should be retained for privacy and for the habitat they provide. She hoped that when the location of the new homes is determined, they will consider the potential blockage of views for the existing homes and move them slightly to avoid that blockage. She noted that they requested that the density not be changed from Medium to High Density Residential and inquired whether staff had asked for the increase to High Density Residential. Chair Blank noted that the public hearing was intended for members of the public to make statements, and that the questions by the Commission would occur later. At Chair Blank's request, Ms. Adams pointed out the location of her property on the overhead screen, bordering Lots 8, 9, 10, and 11. She noted that "Windowology" was located on the west side and did not believe they cared about setbacks as much as the residents of her townhome community because that side of the property did not have any windows. Don Adams pointed out the location of their property on the overhead screen and agreed with his wife's request to adhere to the current zoning and not allow a higher density. He noted that there would be parking, traffic, and other issues to contend with if a higher density were to be approved. He noted that there were 36 units in their complex, with 18 guest parking spots and two -car garages. He noted that even if the use of the garage were conditioned to not allow storage, in reality, the garage was their domain and they can do what they want with it. He noted that it was very difficult to obtain compliance even though it was spelled out in the CC &R's. He noted that their CC &R's have the same no- storage provision and that some owners do not comply. He noted that parking would be an issue and that people would have to move parked cars to allow neighbors to back out of their garages. He stated that he believed that it would be very difficult logistically and that eight homes would be an appropriate number of homes. He added that there may be noise issues as well and that this development would be too close to their complex. He noted that if the developers were to aim for maximum profit, then they would want a larger number of units or go three stories up. However, he stated that he believed that quality of life was very important. EXCERPTS: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, May 21, 2008 Page 7 of 17