PC 10/13/1993 - Laserfiche WebLink

Mr. Summers replied that the proposed development would not hav~ a homeowners association or written CC&R's. He further indicated that the project streets would be public streets with parking on both sides, there would be space for parking I two cars in the garages. and two cars can be parked on each driveway apron. The intent of I'nearby. was within the subdivision. Jeff Green, 2204 Oakland Avenue, described to the Commission tha~ his property faces Rheem Drive at the opening of the proposed project street. He is cQncerned that the increased traffic, with its associated noise and car lights, will impac~ his home and lifestyle. Mr. Green voiced his annoyance at a prior development's zone rulilljg that changed the alignment of Oakland Avenue. It is now impossible for the street to continue on a normal street alignment. He feels this should never have been approved. ije also believes that in the developer's effort to maximize the number of units in the project, the street is laid out as proposed, not in a better alignment with Oakland Avenue. Mr. Green is unhappy that he will have an increased traffic pattern ilong his side yard. He would like to discuss fencing options, but feels a fence is not the petfect solution and would rather have seen a different street alignment. Mr. Green stated that it had been suggested to him that he face the ,nside of his existing nine year old fence to block out the light. He feels this would look bad,iand he is unsure the , fence would hold the added weight of the material. He also feels th;it if a new fence is constructed, the entire fence line running along his property as welllas his neighbor's property would have to be changed. He then stated that he would ,*ant his backyard fence to be the same as that on his side yard fence. In response to Commissioner Mahern, Mr. Green stated he has a wci>od 5-1/2 foot tall exterior faced 1 x 4 fence. He performed a test with his own vehicle where the street is proposed, and light is visible through his fence. He further stated hb does not want a nine foot soundwall along his house, though he does want something sub$tantial to minimize the impact of the additional traffic noise and light. Chairman McGuirk again ascertained from the applicant that he waqted the same style of fence along his property as well as his neighbor's property. Mr. G~een agreed adding that his backyard fence would then be architecturally different and want~ his backyard fence to be modified as well. Chairman McGuirk inquired of the applicant what had been discuss4d with him concerning additional landscaping. Mr. Green indicated that denser shrubbery jrnd more trees that would provide more shielding. However, he does not want to disturb his ~vergreen pear trees. In response to Commissioner Mahern, Mr. Green advised there is li8 feet from his house and the street. The fence is setback 15 feet from the street and his side !yard is 13 feet wide. During rebuttal, Mr. Summers stated he would be happy to work with Mr. Green to replace Mr. Green's and Mr. Stalling's sideyard fences along Rheem Drive!as well as work with the homeowners association to avoid any problems. Regarding landscaping, Mr. Summers is Planning Commission Minutes Page 7 October 13, 1993