PC 032906 - Laserfiche WebLink

setbacks along Cameron Avenue were increased in response to the neighborhood's concerns. Two of the homes fronting on Cameron Avenue were custom designed to include a side entrance and the garage doors facing the loop road. They had agreed to pre-plot, and all the two-story homes were located away from the perimeters. Two on-street pazking areas along Cameron Avenue were provided at the neighbors' request. The two-story homes were substantially revised to minimize the number of windows looking over the reaz yazd to one bonus room window. She displayed the various home designs and described their major features. In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Fox regarding whether the Principal of the nearby school had been consulted regarding removing the sidewalk, Ms. Hardy replied that she had not conducted those discussions. She noted that the neighbors had favored the "feathering" of density for the Mohr/Maztin area. Joe Fitzgerald, 3752 Trenery Drive, noted that he had sent an e-mail to Marion Pavan following the neighborhood meeting. He and his wife were in support of the development and were impressed by Ponderosa's overall responsiveness in their neighborhood outreach. He added that his home directly abutted the development and believed that the 25-home option was appealing. He believed the home size and density fit well with the neighborhood, as did the azchitecture. Gregory Ketell, 3611 Cameron Avenue, noted that his house would be negatively affected by the sidewalk. He noted that the neighbors, mostly residents of Palmer Drive, /"' were generally in favor of the sidewalk for safety reasons. He noted that an alternative route (Palmer Drive to Head Way, Kamp Drive, Glen Isle Avenue, Newton Way to the school) was 0.71 miles, and was available for the greater safety for their children. He noted that the sidewalk issue had been previously azgued and resolved, and it was decided that it was not a necessary requirement, even when the school was put in. He believed the law stated that bicycles should be ridden on the road, not the sidewalk. He expressed concern that building a sidewalk would result in eight feet of his property being removed, along with five heritage pine trees. He would also lose all of his privacy screening from the neighbors' lot as well as the irrigation on that side of the lot. He was very concerned about the possible use of eminent domain being used to seize his property. In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Fox whether it would be possible to reduce the street width from 28 feet to 24 feet along the section of street to accommodate a sidewalk, Mr. Ketell replied that was already very narrow and the neighbors would not be able to back out or drive through with their boats or motor homes. He noted that they were a rural neighborhood and added that a straight concrete sidewalk would remove that rural character. Mr. Grubstick, City Engineer, noted that the street width could be reduced to from 28 feet to 24 feet and added that there was an additional 2.5 to 3 feet ofright-of--way easement beyond the existing street width. He concurred with Mr. Ketell's opinion that the straight PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Mazch 29, 2006 Page 18 of 25