CC Min 1997-05-05 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

I I I I II units, and I found there were details that disturbed me greatly enough to go to the trouble of making this appeal. "I am very pleased at this point that Mr. Ward's modifications of the project basically -- uphold all the elements in my appeal. The 24-units with the modifications that he has proposed are basically what I wanted to see changed:. .. the narrowing of the Roosevelt and Upton intersection by the Shell Gas Station, narrowing this down to one lane seemed to me a bad idea... It wasn't our City traffic engineer who came up with this. He looked at it and said it wasn't a good idea, but was forced politically to say it was ok. To me it is not ok. It seems to be based on the mistaken assumption that if we narrow down this intersection we create more traffic congestion and will slow traffic. Well, that may be a modern planning idea that may work in some areas, but I don't think it is needed at this intersection. We went to a lot of trouble five or six years ago to get this intersection changed with a traffic light, further changes here are not needed. It would cost the developer $80,000 to narrow this intersection, which ultimately comes out of the buyer's of these homes. It increases the price." Mr. Vane said, "We have here a win-win on this particular item in my protest. Leave the intersection alone. We save the developer money, we don't upset the neighbors, we don't ruin the access to the Shell Gas Station. I hope that particular item is killed. This narrowing was partially suggested so we could create parking on Roosevelt Avenue, a blocked off access, and make it safe for parking along there. It turns out the City owns the right-of-way for a wider street. We can move the curve out wider making room for parking along Roosevelt. The developer agrees that this can be done and still give us landscaping. This is another thing we can do. We don't disturb the -- traffic lanes on Roosevelt we just create parking by moving the curb out into the right- of-way which belongs to the City, not part of the supermarket property. "The developer has agreed to lower the density down to 24-units. This removes some of my objections to the tightness inside the complex, and also allows us to create some additional parking on Upton Street. This is something else I proposed. It also allows us to put at least two guest parking spaces in each court yard. This lessens the demand on on-street parking. "Therefore the 24-unit proposal by the developer upholds my appeal, and one of the steps to move forward on the 24-unit development is to uphold my appeal. "I am still concerned about parking, on the internal part of this development. There is an effect that happens in an R-l, MD zoning. In a regular R-l zoning we all have to have a parking apron in ITont of our garages, 20 feet deep. Although this is not an official parking place because it is tandem parking to the Planning Department, as we use them in our neighborhoods, we use them as parking places... In this type of planned community we don't have those parking aprons. The garages end up on the communal driveways of each development. Where we have this little bit of extra space we may want to consider requiring more guest parking than just two spaces. Maybe it ---- should be one guest parking per unit. This would allow each home to have one extra parking place that is not on the street. Street parking is in demand here because of the REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTE BOOK NO. 55 MAY5,1997 MINUTES Page No. 295 PAGE 20