Laserfiche WebLink
Michael Brick <br />From: <br />Sent: <br />To: <br />tvlichael Bnck <br />�� <br />Thursday, May 12. 2011 10 24 AM <br />Gordon Wdcher <br />Cc: Niels Tygesen, Dongho Chang, Kuk Brooks, Steve Ingalsbe J�m Venturo <br />Subject: RE Haroey plan 'or front house on 4th Ave W <br />Gordon. <br />Pa�c I ��f� � <br />'�U�C�S _ L>C�_ _ <br />After meet�ng c��th thz cemer o( 9325 4th Ave W yesterday I r�ou:" I�ke to rederale lhat Trafiic [ngineenng <br />does not support mor? than one access point to this property It currently operales with a sing,e <br />tunctional dnveway south of the exisling smgi� family residence, and lhis is lhe approxima?e Iocahon that <br />all site access shall oe laken from Per EIv1C 19 34 080 D <br />Access dnveways for parking areas shall be �ocated so as to cause the least possible conflict w�th <br />vehicular and pedesinan tra`i�c on public nghts-of-way The planning duecfor and frallic engineer <br />shail have the authonry to reSUict fhe nurnber, sze and foca6on u/ access dnveu�a}�s to pnvate <br />parking areas <br />The discuss�on yesteroay was centered on developing multdamily housing on lh�s property n �vh�ch. case <br />the single property shall only be permitted one access pomt I( the apphcant wishes lo pursue oroperry <br />subdiwsion a single access point to the sde shall stdl be requued Per EMC �9 34 080 E <br />7he f�aNic engineer may requue �oinl use ol drrve�vays by more than one property <br />The �omt use of the single access point would be a reqwrement (or any lots created fror� this preperty <br />See an email thrcad belov+ `o� some Plann�ng discussion about ihis sde as well <br />b1ic�,�aei <br />From: Niels Tygesen <br />Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2011 5:31 Pht <br />To: S[eve Ingalsbe; Michael Brick <br />Subject: FW: Harvey plan for front house on 9th Ave 1N <br />I was out of the diScuSSion in land use, and I noticed therc was iw onc (rum I'I,�nninY durinn lhc <br />mcetin�; today so all the burden went on Michael, and I kept hearing (rom lhe prcponent Uiat <br />Planning was ok wi[h evrrything and on-hoard, which I disagree with. <br />It the City won't short plat the project, Planning has the MFDG&S to fall back on. Under the <br />standards, i5.o3o Designing for Safety states that compliance with lhe guidelines is reyuired. 1 he <br />guidelines regarding vehicular access state to enhance pedestrian cafety by reducing cunc �uts and <br />driveways. It also grants the City the authority to require revisions to a projed design which does <br />not meet the guidelines and to suggest revisions which will result in a design that meets both code <br />requirements and design guidelines. <br />Gerry� yesterday seemed to be in agreement to reduce the curb cut and to run suggestions by Steve, <br />tio attached are my comments on the proposed development with my quich redrawing, along with <br />my markups on unit number z. There is no takings issue. The proponent will be able to have a much <br />y2 <br />�/12/201 I <br />