Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPolice Dept Comments Tara Green From: Brad Hawkins-Clark Sent: Thursday, November 10, 20054:26 PM To: Sharon Smith; Tara Green Subject: FW: Request for PD Comment - FPM..oS-OO1 Clerk's Office, Please include this e-mail in CC packets for S, Springs No.2, File FPM-O5-001, for the 11/15/05 hearing. Thanks, Brad H-C. From: Bob Stowe Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2005 4: 10 PM To: Brad Hawkins-Clark; Bill Musser Cc: Anna Canning Subject: RE: Request for PD Comment - FPM-05-001 Brad, I went out a looked at the pathway and I have an issue with a six foot solid fence on either side. Since NMID won't allow a fence on the east side of the pathway, then there isn't much choice but to place it on the west side of the pathway. However, I believe from a public safety view, that it should be open visibility because the most "natural surveillance" opportunities will come from the parking lots and businesses of the complex. \ I also looked at the possiblity of lights from cars in the commercial complex shining into the yards and back windows of the houses in Running Brook Estates, and it appears that there would be very little if any intrusion. The complex looks to be about 4' lower than the houses. If a low visibilty fence must be constructed, I would prefer a four foot fence with the top two feet open visibility, I hope this helps. Bob From: Brad Hawkins-Clark Sent: Wednesday, November 09, 2005 3:54 PM To: Bill Musser; Bob Stowe Cc: Anna Canning Subject: ReQuest for PO Comment - FPM-05-001 Bill and Bob, Michener Investments has an application on the City Council agenda next Tuesday, 11/15, to modify Southern Springs No.2 final plat. Currently, they are required to construct a 6-foot vinyl fence on the inside edge (east) ofthe Ten Mile Creek public pathway. This woukt allow visibiUty to the pathway from within the commercial project. They are now proposing to put the fence on the outside edge (west) of the pathway. This would not allow visibility from within the project but would allow visibility from Running Brook Estates homes on the east side of the creek. In either location, visibility is pretty good from Overland, looking south down the pathway. NMID is prohibiting the fence on the east side ofthe pathway - Would one of you and/or an officer be able to take a look at the pathway ørs already installed) and comment on this issue? I believe the hearing will come down to a question of public safety on the pathway and whether or not a solid fence 11/10/2005 on one side or the other will present a greater hinderance to surveillance. I understand from David Koga, representing Michener, that one of your officers, Geoff Rowe, attended the neighborhood meeting and said he thought public safety would be more compromised with the fence on the east side than the west side of the pathway. I would appreciate your thoughts. Brad Hawkins-Clark 11/10/2005