HomeMy WebLinkAbout516 DEINES COURT, EXTRA OCCUPANCY RENTAL HOUSE - PDP - PDP120005 - REPORTS - CORRESPONDENCE-HEARING (31)Page 1 of 3
Seth Lorson
From:
Jane Roark ganierae2000@yahoo.com]
Sent:
Monday, May 14, 2012 2:15 PM
To:
Seth Lorson
Subject: Fw: Proposed Extra Occupancy House 516 Deines Ct.
Hello Seth,
I noticed that my message of April 10 (see below) to Joe Olson, and forwarded to you on April
12 (see below), was not included in the documents to be presented to Mr. Lopez. I request that
you please include them (as well as this message) because they address an issue that is NOT
mitigated in the Management Plan submitted by Ms. Cook and her attorneys. The issue is
outlined in my first paragraph, and I quote:
"Deines Ct. is a very small cul-de-sac that cannot easily handle the increased traffic of 5
extra vehicles (and most likely, numerous visitors). Because of the exceptional length of
this "no outlet" cul-de-sac and narrowness of the street due to significant on -street parking by
current residents, 5 extra vehicles will cause severe congestion and unsafe conditions
for children, pets, and property as the boarders of 516 Deines Ct. continually drive to the
end of the street, turn around and come back up the street to park."
In the Management Plan, Ms. Cook addresses parking concerns, but not the increase in traffic
and resulting congestion. Congestion is unavoidable and certain considering the physical
constraints of Deines Ct. It is not "mitigatable" (if that is a word) and that is most likely why it
was not addressed in the Management Plan. My position is that this alone should be basis enough
for non -approval of her development proposal. I
I would also like to provide my reflections on this issue as a whole. I urge Ms. Cook to consider
a compromise on the use of this dwelling. The neighborhood has compromised and does not
object to a Tamily rental' or even one limited to 'three unrelated individuals'. On the other hand, I
see no willingness to compromise from Ms. Cook. In fact, she seems determined to 'have it her
way.' Bluntly put, this is not very nice! This has provoked a negative reaction to Ms. Cook from
the entire neighborhood. It is possible the negativity will even extend to her renters. I am
positive it will result in numerous and unrelenting complaints to her and city officials.
Realistically, several neighbors will most likely have her on'speed dial'. If I were in her position,
I would be asking myself if the extra rental income will be worth the headache. Even if Ms.
Cook believes she has 'ticked all the boxes' and legally can do something, it doesn't mean she
should and it doesn't mean it should be allowed. Reasonable people should be able to
compromise and agree on a solution that will allow Ms. Cook to earn a fair return on her
investment and at the same time be relatively compatible with the neighborhood.
Again, I implore you to fairly include my previous message of April 10 in the documents
provided to Mr. Lopez, as well as my message of today if possible.
Sincerely,
Jane Roark
529 Deines Ct.
482-5288
janierae2000@yahoo.com
---- Forwarded Message ----
63
5/14/2012