From: Dennis Branch
Re: Sanchez property
Date: 12/07/04

Dear Sena members,

Congratulations on having such an informative newsletter for your association. I carefully read the article by Dan Baker on the Sanchez property development, and appreciate the time that it took him to prepare it. Many of the items included in the newsletter were not discussed at our meeting but may have been discussed in detail at earlier meetings. I would like to add to the information he provided and clarify some matters.

To begin, let me say that I would be more than happy to discuss the project or meet with members of the area and look forward to doing so. Please keep in mind that I am a separate entity from the Jay Parks group with whom you met before, and that I am just beginning to gather together a project team and to consider ideas on the project. For me, the project is in its initial stages, though I know that many of you have been discussing it for some time.

As a beginning step, I met with a few of the immediate neighbors. Though not a[n abutting] neighbor, Dan Baker did come to the second of these meetings and discussed his point of view on the project, as did the various adjoining property owners. Their comments, though they did not always agree with each other, were very helpful to me.

At that meeting, I was asked whether or not I would hold a second ENN meeting. Though the City Code is not clear about whether or not this is required, I am happy and intend to do so. Presently I am trying to coordinate a meeting time with the schedules of City staff and a meeting room. Of course, you will be provided the date, location, and time of the meeting.

Regarding Dan’s information in the newsletter, we are proposing 19 lots with 2 affordable lots for a total of 21 lots. The overall density will average one unit per acre, the current zoning. In response to neighborhood concerns about the interior circulation, I had prepared FOUR alternatives for a street that connected the east and west streets while using the design to limit cut-through traffic. It is important to note that comments on the design’s varied, with some of the adjoining neighbors stating that they preferred the connection street system to the one in which traffic was not allowed to drive through the project. Others, including Dan, continued to have concerns about this system. I can see the merits of both points of view, but must also carefully consider the City Traffic Engineer and City Fire Marshall’s requirements and their concerns about safety and access for emergency vehicles.

In regard to a trail system, I am very interested in a trail system serving as a buffer on the south side of the property and stated my commitment to that at the meeting. I am open to considering cross-lot easements for access to this trail, though I must weigh this against the safety and property values of the future property owners in the subdivision. The adjoining property owners attending the meeting also seemed to have different view of this matter.

I also stated my commitment to covenants for the future property owners in order to protect the new neighborhood as well as the existing. As you might expect, because of the cost of the land and improvements, and therefore the final cost of the homes covenants are very important to maintain the appearance of the neighborhood. They will also prohibit intrusive uses and activities, while allowing the property owners to have the same property rights as other persons in the neighborhood. I have not drafted the covenants at this time, and am certainly willing to listen to suggestions from other neighborhoods on the provisions and effectiveness of their own covenants.

I appreciated Dan’s suggestions on traffic and other items. Some of these items were discussed by the adjoining property owners, while others were not expressed as concerns by them. They may have been discussed at the larger ENN meeting held last fall by Jay Parks. I am looking forward to discussing concerns about construction noise, detailed water conservation alternatives, and some of the details on architectural style. Concerns were expressed about drainage by the adjoining neighbors. I share this concern and am planning to work with the engineers at the City, the engineer on my project team, and the affected persons in the neighborhood on this matter. At the meeting I also stated about my commitment to having underground utilities.

In conclusion, I am looking forward to working with the adjoining property owners and other members of the neighborhood to ensure that this development is compatible with and has a positive impact on the surrounding area, both visually and on property values. At the same time, I must address issues and concerns of the many City staff persons who will review this project, which will include grading and drainage, traffic, landscaping, affordable housing, and utilities and other infrastructure. At the same time, I wish to guarantee future property owners of the subdivision that they have the same rights and privileges as the persons in the surrounding area.

As I stated above, I am just beginning the development process, and am not planning to make an application to the City until after I hear from the neighbors. Because of this, I have not yet prepared any detailed engineering plans or documents to show at any of the meetings.

If any individual or group have any questions or comments, please call Dennis Branch at 505-946-3015, or fax me at 505-946-3001, or e-mail me at dbranch@realty-3000.com.