My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
7-28-15 Trautman Public Comment (06)
>
OnTrack
>
PDT
>
2013
>
PDT 13-1
>
7-28-15 Trautman Public Comment (06)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/27/2017 4:32:34 PM
Creation date
7/28/2015 2:42:48 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
PDD_Planning_Development
File Type
PDT
File Year
13
File Sequence Number
1
Application Name
OAKLEIGH COHOUSING
Document Type
Public Comments
Document_Date
7/28/2015
External View
Yes
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
300
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Download electronic document
View images
View plain text
PH-45 Recd 9/9/13 <br />My name is Rich Dambrov and I have owned my home at 119 Oakleigh Lane for over 8 years. I would <br />like to voice my concerns to the Oakleigh Meadow Co-Housing (OMC) development as currently <br />proposed. <br />The original scope of the project was much smaller than the current proposals. Though I was not <br />excited about a new development on our quiet, dead-end street, 1 was attracted to and interested in the <br />co-housing idea. I had accepted that landowners could develop the "meadow" someday and felt that <br />the original plan for a much smaller co=housing development would be a better case scenario. When <br />the project scope and size began to increase, I became much more concerned. <br />I feel that this scale of a project will have a huge impact on the local neighborhood. We are <br />characterized as a quiet dead-end street that receives little traffic. A development such as this will likely <br />cause traffic to, at the very least, double. The fact that the amount of units exceeds the current number <br />of houses on Oakleigh Lane brings in safety concerns and raises the question as to potential further <br />developments to compensate (such as widening the street, sidewalks, and lighting) for it. After we <br />heard of the increase of units, my wife contacted OMC about these concerns and was told that they did <br />not have answers and that these were decisions that the city would need to make. The OMC application <br />suggests that the residents will take advantage of public transit and bicycle paths, but can't rely on these <br />suggestions when planning for potential traffic increases. Personally, I commute by bicycle regularly, <br />however I, as the residents of OMC am not bound to this choice and can choose to commute by car as <br />needed or desired. <br />We recently received a mailing from the city detailing the project and providing the public with an <br />opportunity to voice our concerns. I, as many of my neighbors, feel that this is an important issue that <br />will not just affect us. It will become a further precedent for how land in the River Road community is <br />used and developed. I do not oppose development; however, we need to limit the impact that <br />developments have on current livability. I also do not oppose the people who are affiliated with OMC. <br />consider those affiliated who are currently neighbors to be friends and others whom I met seem to be <br />good people. The issue, rather, involves land use. A scaled-back Oakleigh Meadow Co-Housing Project <br />could perhaps provide an example for development that can co-exist with, and perhaps enhance, our <br />neighborhood's unique qualities. <br />Please consider re-evaluating this project in light ofthe large impact that it, as currently proposed, will <br />have on our community. <br />Thank you, <br />Rich Dambrov <br />1303 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.