HomeMy WebLinkAboutEmail from Donna Ellis Olt
RECEIVED
From: Donna
Sent: Tuesday, May 6, 2025 9:41 AM f'nP1wltxTynF'AIFt OPPAI T
To: Planning Commission Public Comments
Subject: Agenda item 2 Conditional use permit/tentative tract map 4615 ECR
Planning Commission,
I am an adjacent residential property owner to the proposed project. I support infill development in principle.
On page 7 of the agenda packet are listed the "Concession or Waiver" requests.
I am the actual neighbor impacted by two of the four requests.The parking lot request of a 5 ft setback vs a 10 ft
setback. I have no problem with that waiver as long as the retaining wall and fencing installed work to protect my privacy
with their height and design. Despite current zoning, the previous use of that lot was a single family residence and the
impact of lighting, noise, and privacy limited to one family, not 16 families. I expect that the City will protect my rights as
well as those of the developer as decisions are made in those respects.
The waiver request for an increase in retaining wall height is a total no brainer, it's an absolute necessity that a properly
engineered retaining wall be installed.The owner already undermined the fences and stability of we three neighboring
lots with their illegal and excessive grading a few years ago.
The waiver refers to an increase in height of"retaining walls along the rear of the site and along the driveway". I don't
think that is sufficient. I would expect that increase in retaining walls along/fence height to include the retaining wall on
the north between my property and the parking lot to be extended in height to accommodate the slope and to provide
me privacy, noise reduction, and reduced light intrusion from vehicles and the residences. As far as I'm concerned that is
an absolute necessity and without that I would not be in support of that density. Biggest barrier feasible between myself
and them as far as I'm concerned.
The concession asking for an exemption from the street tree requirements seems logical if the concession is countered
by the builder providing trees elsewhere in the community in a city park. Whatever they would be required at 4615 ECR
that they wish to be exempted from should be provided to the community elsewhere for citizen enjoyment.
Page 5 regarding the trash bins being "located internal to the building and will be shared". I presume and expect that this
means a communal dumpster shared by all because 16 x 2 trash and recycle containers dragged down that slope to block
the sidewalk before, during, and after trash day would be ridiculous. If that's not referencing dumpsters then it should be
changed to a sufficient quantity of dumpsters or pick ups to accommodate that density.
Mail delivery. I presume that the developer would be required to install wherever the USPS deems appropriate a
centralized set of locking mailboxes and not a string of individual mailboxes alongside ECR, as that would be an
unacceptable eyesore to be avoided.
The rooftop balcony with lighting. I see the need for that shared space but the developments CC&Rs need to cap the
time those light automatically shut off and the time the noise ends on behalf of we neighboring residences.The light
intrusion from Integrity Motors which beams an excessive, code violating amount of light directly onto Hermosilla is
already egregious, we don't need to add to that problem when it can be averted with proper foresight.
I'm presuming that some type of rain gutter system will be tied directly into the sewer system diverting the run off as
that lot has already had code enforcement issues after the illegal grading disruption.That water is required to be
handled by that lot and not shunted over to any adjoining properties.
1
16 units are a lot and if I had my way they would be required to have 4 not 2 low income units but I don't get to make up
rules from the ether and I do support infill especially on ECR.That driveway sizing means nothing to me but the current
entry only accommodates one car I'm presuming that at the proposed 20'that is sufficient to accommodate entry and
exit concurrently and if it's not it would need to be widened.
Donna Ellis
ATTENTION:
This email originated from outside the City's network. Use caution when opening links and attachments.
2