SR 06:159 - Laserfiche WebLink

Page I of I Marion Pavan From: Ed Nowak [iofhawk99@comcast.net] Monday, March 27, 2006 8:18 AM Marion Pavan Sent: To: Cc: rlloyd485@aol.com; roncote@comcast.net Subject: Hatsushi Development Plan )ear Marion; I{e live at 862 Montevino Drive _ lot 32. Our backyard is immediately adjacent to lots 12 and 13 of the proposed Hatsushi Development project. We attended the Planning Committee neeting on January 11, 2006 concerning the project. We heard the public testimony but had to leave before the committee discussion. luring the public testimony, Mr. Hughes, speaking for the Hatsushi family. commented that construction traffic on Montevino should not be problem since construction traffic from the leratlis project has been allowed. We are not aware of any construction vehicles from the Beratlis project using Montevino. However the traffic abatement islands at Vineyard and A:ontevino and Crestablance and Montevino make it difficult for large construction vehicles to negotiate the turns. In addition, residents frequently park on the street near these islands urther narrowing the access. As such we believe that construction traffic should not be allowed to use Montevino. luring the discussion on the phasing of the project, Mr. Hughes indicated that they wanted to use the Emergence Vehicle Access for construction traffic and temporary access for the home wners of lots ]0 through 13. Temporary was defined as up to eight years. That hardly seems temporary. The reason given was that the access road on the other side of the development light not be ready and that the planned road from Vineyard would be delayed because of leases to the Nursery and Landscaping businesses on Vineyard. The Hatsushi family owns the land 18t the Nursery and the Landscape business occupy and negotiated the leases. We do not believe it is a valid argument to now say that they must have access to public land and the EVA ecause leases stop them from putting in the road from Vineyard. This was poor planning on their part and it is not reasonable to expect the City and the neighborhood to be penalized. ince lots 10 through 13 are intended for Hatsushi family members, it does not seem unreasonable that the existing Hatsushi driveway be used for temporary access. This driveway is urrently used for accessing the property to load and unload cattle. hle concern that was not addressed at the meeting was the location and routing of utilities for the project. Generally utilities follow the road. If lots 10 through 13 are developed before the lad from Vineyard is completed, where will the utilities come from? The closest access appears to be Montevino. This would suggest major construction on Montevino and the public land djacent to the Lloyd residence. Is there a plan for how the utilities will access lots 10 through 131 Ve are not against the proposed Hatsushi development. We realize that construction will be dusty and noisy and are prepared to endure it. However we believe that every effort should be lade to reduce the impact of construction on the existing neighborhood. Therefore we would request that the Planning Commission make the following, conditions of approval for this roject- . Limit construction access to Vineyard . Limit the proposed EVA to Emergency Vehicles only . Limit Hatsushi lots 12 and 13 to single story homes with a maximum height of 10 feet above the grade of our property . The City landscape and maintain the area around the EVA ;est Regards, .dward & Sharon Nowak ~/2] /2006