09/08/1980 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

be required and that they have a written commitment from the neighborhood group, Mr. Haws asked what would happen if neither the property owner nor the neigh- borhood groups maintain the area, Mr. Berman stated that they do not anticipate e a problem as the shrubs are low-maintenance ground cover. Mr. Haws asked whether the trees would block drivers' views. Mr, Berman responded that they would not. Nathan Duke, Public Works, stated that the City Code calls for certain visual specifications and the trees would be no lower than seven feet when mature, Mr. Haws asked if the area would still look better ten years from now if no one took care of it. Mr. Berman responded that it would. Mr, Haws asked if it was correct that the City would not have to provide maintenance. Mr, Berman res- ponded that that was correct. Mr, Haws cautioned that it could be a problem. Mr. Berman stated that this is an innovation and an attempt to work with the neighborhood group. The issue could be readdressed if it became a problem, Mr. Hamel asked why this particular 125-foot stretch of the street was going to be used. Mr, Berman responded that a transition area is necessary for drivers to see that there is a narrowing of the street, and the site cannot be shifted to another location without additional cost because of the slope of the street and drainage problems. Mr, Hamel asked if this area was chosen to slow down traffic because it is in front of the vacant lots. Mr, Berman responded that it was not. Mr. Hamel stated that he agreed with Mr. Haws regarding maintenance, The average homeowner moves after seven years. He hesitates to close a street because of a few people's desires. Mr, Berman noted that it would not be closing the street. Mr. Hamel corrected his statement to indicate that it would be narrowing the street, but said he still has reservations. e Ms. Schue asked where the people would walk. Mr, Berman stated that it would be within the project area and there would be more area to walk with the narrowing project. Ms. Schue stated that there would be no sidewalk installed so this does not change the situation from what it is now. Mr. Berman indicated agreement and stated that sidewalks could later be installed. Ms, Schue asked if the landscaping will be left when sidewalks are installed. Mr. Berman responded that it would be. Mr. Haws asked if this would impose a danger for bicyclists. Mr. Berman stated that it would not and that bicyclists would have more room with the project than if cars were parked there. Mayor Keller asked if half of these spots would be on one person's property and half on another. Mr. Berman responded that that was not the case, but that there would be parking across the street from Mrs. Henning's property. Ms, Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Lieuallen, to deny the appeal. , Mr. Lieuallen noted that removal of parking is only a minimal detriment and traffic will become an increasing problem in this neighborhood. Roll call vote; motion carried 5:1, with Mr. Hamel voting no. e 9/8/80--9