res_7322 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

with a less steep grade. There's also a steep driveway right in this location and this obviously isn't going to help it. Our preliminary design, however, shows that that driveway would end up with the same slope it has today. I wish I could say I could help it, but I can't. But I don't propose to hurt it either. We also want to try and help the problem here of having one side of the road higher than the other, by what we call "warping" the curb a little. As you drive down the street, you may not even be able to see it, but we propose to have one curb just a little higher than the other to better be able to fit this into the existing facilities. ,"--" i,_ The State also has a regulation that says anytime you build a facility that's less than 44 feet wide, you can only have parking on one side of the street. If you recall, we were talking of this being 34 feet wide. That means that no parking would be allowed on one side: Our indications are that the mailboxes and fire hydrants are on the north side of the street, at least predominantly - I won't say there's not a single mail- box, but most of the mailboxes are on the north side. We feel its prudent to keep that side open for mail delivery and also keep that side open for fire engine arrival to get at the hy- drants and not find the street all packed with cars because someone is having a party. Therefore, our proposal would be that that would be the side parking would be banned - the north side - so that mail delivery could occur and fire enginess would have access to the hydrants. My own observation of the street is that this probably won't have much impact at all on you, the citizens. You live there and you'll be able to tell me whether I'm right or wrong, but as I've driven that street at varying times I haven't found that many cars parked out on the street, that they couldn't be accommodated by being on one side. I'm not saying it will never occur, but it looks like it would be relatively infrequent that that would be any sort of a problem. As I say, this isn't some- thing that is a whim of ours or we feel it's really a slick idea - it's a regulation. It's one of those things you have to live with if you're going to get the state aid funds. We find the project to be feasible. We "think it is indeed a worthwhile improvement and would be of benefit to the neighbor- hood, to the property involved, and to the City as a whole. The only thing I haven't talked about yet - everything I've talked about to date has been free - the redoing of the yards, redoing of any driveway access, the street, paving, curb and gutter (changed tape) . . . that is large enough that at least poten- tially at some date it might be split into two or even three - no one knows. Rather than build the street, find the owner desires to split the lot in two years or three years or some- thing, and tear the street up to put in the. sewer and water services, the owner has requested - and we certainly agree - that a pair of water and sewer services should be built to accommodate a potential future split, should it ever occur, so we don't have to go and tear the road up again. The owner has requested that 6