CC_Minutes_2014_0303 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday,March 3, 2014 Page 17 Mr. Hartman had previously expressed concerns in allowing enough room to get emergency vehicles through; opining that a setback of 13 — 15' from the property line would be ideal. However, if more space was not available, and with assur- ances that a privacy fence would be installed and no parking on that side of the al- ley, Mr. Hartman opined that he could be satisfied. Mr. Hartman expressed his ongoing concern with off-street parking in the project site; however, he recog- nized that Mr. Buelow had continued working with him on various issues and concerns, and expressed his appreciation for the accommodations made for him to-date. Rich Lueder,794 Lovell Avenue Mr. Lueder expressed his concern with current traffic and projected increased traffic on Lovell Avenue; and referenced verbal assurances received at the last HRA meeting that traffic on Lovell would be part of the overall evaluation pro- cess. In his personal review and correspondence with City officials, Mr. Lueder noted that his interpretation was that any additional traffic studies beyond that would be the responsibility of the community. While understanding the process, Mr. Lueder asked for clarification on whether he or the neighbors with 51% sup- port from the neighbors, needed to pursue that study, or if they would be simply doubling the efforts. Mr. Lueder questioned if the study was already done; and whether those results would ultimately be taken to the citizens or neighborhood to address parking and traffic on that street; and whether the process would lead to costs being borne by the neighborhood versus a city assessment by engineers. If the response was that the cost and study was the responsibility of the neighbors, Mr. Lueder opined that he would then have problems. If the study only indicated a turn lane on Lovell without recommendations for other options as well, Mr. Lueder asked for clarification on that the traffic study would entail and ultimate potential results of that study. At the request of Mayor Roe, City Manager Trudgeon responded that the required traffic study as part of the development process, both a pre- and post-analysis, was typically borne by the developer unless the City chose to do so, which was not common practice. Mr. Trudgeon reported that any indicated modifications would need to be factored into the development. Mr. Trudgeon, in response to his understanding of Mr. Lueder's question, was related to additional neighborhood requests for a dead-end street or cul-de-sac, which would be considered neighbor- hood-initiated and affect a larger area than just the development itself and require a larger and more intense study, even though it would have some repetition of da- ta,but based on impacts to a larger area. Mr. Lueder questioned if a turn lane was the best option versus a dead-end or something between those two options, and the greatest engineering improvement available. Mayor Roe clarified that the developer's engineering study would deal with turn- ing movements, intersection geometries, and traffic flow; and proposed traffic