My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Appeal Testimony Received 10-13-2024 thru 1pm on 01-14-2025
>
OnTrack
>
PDT
>
2024
>
PDT 24-1
>
Appeal Testimony Received 10-13-2024 thru 1pm on 01-14-2025
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/16/2025 12:51:01 PM
Creation date
1/16/2025 12:50:35 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
PDD_Planning_Development
File Type
PDT
File Year
24
File Sequence Number
1
Application Name
BRAEWOOD HILLS 3RD ADDITION
Document Type
Appeal Public Comments Prior to Hearing
Document_Date
1/14/2025
External View
Yes
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
43
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).
View images
View plain text
From:dogs3to1 <br />To:GIOELLO Nick R <br />Subject:FW: Oct 22 h3wring braewood hills 3rd addition <br />Date:Sunday, October 13, 2024 3:06:51 PM <br />[EXTERNAL ] <br />Subject: Comments on October 22nd Appeal Hearing for Braewood Hills Development <br />Dear Nick, <br />I will be out of town for the October 22nd hearing, but I wanted to submit my comments <br />regarding the appeal. <br />I do not see any substantial changes from the initial proposal. The area in question is Zone 5, <br />and it seems clear that a mistake was made by the city in not including tree preservation in the <br />Meadow section. Additionally, the Braewood Hills area has strict CC&Rs, especially <br />regarding tree preservation. It is apparent that this was a clerical error, and tree preservation <br />should be reinstated in Zone 5 before any development is approved. <br />I hope the Planning Commission will not approve this development for the same reasons <br />expressed during the initial submission. Key concerns such as drainage, the park and stream, <br />and tree preservation have not been addressed. For example, the park is a wildlife corridor so <br />fencing should not be allowed on the downside homes. I would also add a concern about <br />pollution for videra, creek, from runoff of this development . <br /> The fire department should also be consulted due to the narrow streets and limited egress, <br />whichever would complicate fire control and endanger the surrounding woods and <br />neighborhoods. As we get warmer the threat of wildfires in the south hills becomes more real. <br />It does not appear that the applicant has made any effort to address the concerns raised in the <br />first meeting. A traffic study should also be conducted, as the developer seems to downplay <br />this issue or believes it should be exempt from review. <br />I would also keep in mind that this development is not for the demographic that needs <br />affordable housing so will do nothing to address those needs. <br />If the city feels the development should move forward, at the very least the number of homes <br />should be cut in half. <br />Finally, Zone 5 and our CCR across the board includes tree preservation, and this should apply <br />here as well. This land would be better served by adding to the existing park. <br />Thank you for considering my comments. <br />Best regards, <br />Deborah killian <br />Appeal Testimony (PDT 24-01 & ST 24-03) - Batch #1 Page 3 of 43
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.