Octover 2.7, 1993 > am wilting vo you in regards to tie Ullic.ai vommunity Plan wnich goes to Public Hearing in eariy liovemper. l::.ce the nearing will Lixely rave several hundred residents in attendance I may ::ot g2#t an opportunity to speak or may be intimaated by the larje crowa if 1 ao,so I am supmittinz a written account of what I would Lixe to say. I live and am the owner of property at 2238 Pitt River Road and am part owner of the property at 2232 Pitt River Road witn Mr. and @rs. Tom and Pat Parsons, Some otner residents and myself aiong 22U0 block Pitt River Road have spent several hours explaining to neighbours what we are requesting of Council and have obtainea the suport of over 200 area residents who support the slight extension of RM& (3 level apartment) zoning in the OCP to the south side of Pitt River noad between Shaughnessy St. and Mary Hill xoac. This section of 2200 block Pitt River includes 13 properties ranging in age from 25 to 80 years oid. Directly across the street from us and aiso up behind us on Western Drive are Ri, apartments. we Believe that allowing our section of Pitt River Road to also have apartments one day in the future would ennance the neighbourhood for the majority @ residents. There are several reasons why we think this woul: be a good spot for RMA apartments: 1) Traffic flow along this area is Opproximately 9,000 to 11,000 vehicles per day. Putting apartments here in an area that is not a quiet neighbourhood where very few children play is more appropriake than some of the quiet residential streets such as Hawthorne and welcher where apartments are presentfy being placea, accessibility to main arteries is ver, good as there are traffic Lights at Pitt River Aa. and Shaughnessy and Pitt River and Mary Hili Xoad. The back lane between Pitt River doaa and Lobb ave. provides a buffer zone and an access routs to the main arteries. lr apartments were ever built here there would be approximately a 1U0 foot baffer zone from the rear of the apartments to the rear of the older nouses on Lobb ave.. Someti:.e in the future it is likely Lobb ave. would also be included in multi-fanily development as the homes are mostly over 40 years old. at tne present, time 4 level apartients are being built on Hawtnorne ave. just off Shaughnessy with only lv feet rrom 2 new houses anda across tie the street from newer houses that have no potential for future apart:sent development as the lots are too small. 5) The city wide survey (yellow survey taken last fall by the Planning Dept.) and preser.ted by the Planning Lepartment at a public mmating in July this year showed that 81 percent of city residents supported the slight @xtension of apartment zoning where appropriate. Our survey of area residents demonstrates that this area is one of those areas that the people of Port Coquitlan would support. When over 200 residents within a 3 block (300 meter) radius signed our petition-survey in support we thougnt that was pretty solid evidence to prasent ¢ Council. Of the people directly affected by tne change in the OCP eleven property owners said Yes to the proposal, one said “not at this time", and of one resident no opinion could be obtained as the vacant houses! owner is in a nursing home, That is about 90% suoport. : IT would like Council to please give our request for RMA zoning serious consideration as many hours of effort have gone into this. Thank you for your many hours that have gone into making a city plan for the benefit of all residents of the city. Sincerely, TEM | PAGE} Bog ilwret hoeve Pb} - 0.39 7 S 1L8