SR 06:182 - Laserfiche WebLink

Edward Reedy, 2101 Palmer Drive, described his experience with his lot and had been concerned about Ponderosa's plans since the beginning. His back door is 17 feet from the new fence line; he currently has a 20-acre view from his back yard. Ponderosa had negotiated moving the fence back by ten feet, to which he agreed. He believed the children needed some kind of passage for their safety. Pam Jetter, 3618 Cameron A venue, agreed with making the street curvilinear, such as suggested by Kelly Cousins, and would like to see the traffic speed reduced. Mark Lauer, 3618 Trenery Drive, noted that he had grown up in this area and would prefer that it stayed as an open space, although he realized that was not reasonable. He believed that the Ponderosa project was a good one and that the V-shaped street plan was the best choice. He would prefer lower density but believed the current number of homes was reasonable. He would prefer that the Mohr School traffic go to the front of the school as was originally designed. Gary Schwaegerle, 3710 Trenery Drive, inquired about the amount of street parking for this project. Chairperson Arkin noted that was not yet determined. Mr. SchwaegerJe supported the sidewalk concept and would like the impacts on the two neighbors mitigated. He noted that he has not received any notices for these meetings and would like to be noticed. Robert Fulton, 1375 Briones Court, agreed that traffic could be calmed but implored the Commission not to use the round circles that were on Kamp Drive. He noted that their bioswales were not particularly successful right now and would not like that to be included in this project. He liked the project and noted that he lived in a Ponderosa home. Commissioner Fox inquired whether a sidewalk could be placed near the corner of Cameron Avenue and Martin Avenue without seizing any land from the adjoining neighbors, Mr. Ketell and Mr. Leuthauser. Ms. Hardy replied that was one design solution Ponderosa presented to the neighbors which may also calm the traffic. In discussion with the neighbors, they did not prefer narrowing the street at that location due to concerns over maneuverability. A discussion on the nature of Trenery Drive ensued. Commissioner Roberts inquired about the liability with respect to Trenery Drive, Ms. Harryman replied that she had not actively examined this issue. In general, the liability for a private street would fall upon those who owned the private street. She noted that could change and that the City could be opened up to liability if traffic were to be diverted or other steps taken to reduce the private nature of the road. Mr. Grubstick noted that with this private street, there were no existing easements that allowed public use of that road. As far as the City is concerned, Trenery Drive was not a street that could be used for public purposes. EXCERPT: PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES, March 29, 2006 Page 4 01'6