2514 GRAND AVE 2016-01-01 MF Import

To: Ms. Mary Cunningham June 9, 1999 Pnga 3 sufficient to accommodate the parking requirements of the project if each of the tenants required only one parking spaee. Even if this were the case, to believe that the parkinq is sufPicient ;�ould also requir.e one to believe that each tenant will use only the deeiqnated parking spacg, and no altQrnative parkinq; and further requirQ one to believe that the project wvuld not res:;lt in any visitors and/or guests requiring parking. The appellants sugqest that such presumptions are preposterous. Even so, the City must recoqnize that very few families arQ "one vehicle" families. InstQad, a second car, motorcycle, boat or other recreational vehicle wiil only add to the parking dilemma• r:s with thQ impaet imposed by the additional trafPic, the appel].ants submit that the only condition which could be imposed upon t:he project r►hieh would mitigate the negative impact would be to rec:uca the parking raquirements of the projsct by the substantial reduction in the number of units to ba constructed. �.e�«i.,e vor�rowtioII imnacts. The conditions imposed bY the DNS statQ that the proposed pro7oct will have a parks impact of 42 acres. However, �e project will encompass 83� of the total site squara footage, leaving sliqhtly in excass of 500 square feet for the construction of recreationai improvements. it is axiomatic to say that many of t:�e residQnts of the project will have small ehildzen, who wi11 require some plaes to p1aY• sinca it would be impossible to build such an area on site, the DNS proposes, as an alternative, that the applicant mitigate this impact at thQ neiqhborhood park. Thes@ appellants submit that such will do little, if anything, to mitiqate this impact. As a practical mattar, many of the children, in lieu of traveling to the nearest park, will play in the area adjacent to the site. This will mean thQ trespamsinq upon neiqhboring prop�rty at best; and of even grsater concarn is the fact that many of the children will play either on the sidewalk, or at worst, in thQ street. �eQat;ve Safetv ?mnaets. Given the problems created by this project with respect to traffic and parking, the likelihood ot children playinq in the street poBes a significant danger to the children and the persons using the streQt. It should not r�quire tha scene of a child darting from bahind a parked car into an overcrowded streQt to bring to one's attention the prob2ems associated and intertwined betwaen thQ traffic, park�.aq and reczear.ion. Th4 problem is worsened by the thought of a re.;ident, baing frustrated with the failure to find a parking place even close to his rQsidence, may be even less at��e ver e closee t�gthe present with small children either in, Y street. The appellants submit that these negative impscts can only be mitigated throuqh the reduction in the number of units to be built EX�tt�� Z r� �