pf08-008 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

� ➢ This analysis does not consider any specific consequences to not just the overall traffic flow but the dangerous conditions that these cars might produce. This property includes a city pedestrian/bike path that these 750 car trips would need to cross. Also, this property is very close to a trafFc light and making turns into the busy intersection may prove very difficult. Area res�ents, familiar with the difficult of turning onto Lexington, know how quickly this property's entrance onto three lanes of traffic could become an "accident hot-spot". No analysis whatsoever has been given to any of these concerns. ➢ This analysis also fails to consider in any way the impact to Autumn Street, including the impact of actual traffic behavior. In fact, drivers may be tempted to access the property from the west by driving down Autumn Street and parking on Autumn Street. The City staff has not given one moment of consideration on the record to the impact that such uses would have on a residential street. Further, no analysis has been given of the possible beneficial limits that could be found in: 1) parking restrictions on the first 150 feet along Autumn Street from Lexington, 2) traffic calming measures at the entrance to Autumn Street from Lexington, and 3) signage restricting traffic on Autumn Street to "no thoroughfare" or "local access only". Given the availability in a B-1 B zone of having a take-out window, consideration should be given to how Autumn Street would be affected if a future owner of the property opted to locate that window on the south or east faces of the building. Landscaping may help to defray such unintended use, but that has not been discussed in any way. ➢ In line with the above discussion, it is necessary that the City also consider the change in time/day of traffic as a result of the Rezoning. As a B-1 property, with an emphasis on professional uses (non-retail), traffic is largely confined to the regular business day, with peaks at the start and end of normal business hours. Such considerations were at play a few years ago in the decision to allow development of the large professional building across the street, rather than the alternative use of a gas station/convenience store. Area residents are least likely to be in the street on weekdays at this time, but a change in business use may negatively impact the enjoyment of Autumn Street at new times, including weekends. Any minimally acceptable traffic analysis must consider how a B- 1 B property could affect the traffic situation at times when the residential street is most likely to be at use by children and walkers, such as weekends and evenings. ➢ Further, in the Planning Document, the City suggested that the redevelopment of 1901 Lexington would be better conducted in conjunction with the property immediately to the north. The reasons for that admission are readily understood: the traffic flow pattern could be significantly enhanced by a development that allowed access onto Roselawn and Lexington simultaneously, since it is likely to be difficult to turn out of this property onto Lexington (with consequences for Autumn Street in a variety of ways). A reasonable examination of this proposal should have included an analysis (on the record and thus subject to criticism) of whether a substantially more suitable proposal for use should militate against this partial proposal. The foundation of a sound decision by the City Council must include some element of alternatives and long-range planning. � "�