CityView Portal
| We are sorry but no more comments are being taken for this case |
| Return to CityView Portal |
| Submitted comments will appear below after staff approval. | |
|---|---|
| Dori Marron | 4/3/2008 2:17:50 PM |
| I am very concerned about the safety of my grandchildren and the many other elementary age kids that attend Northwood School as they often ride bicycles and run down the sidewalk to cross Spenard under the bridge to get to the bike trail to get home. Without proper sloping to bring the elevation down to the rest of Spenard and removal of the wall it is just a matter of time before a child is hit by a vehicle and perhaps severely injured. I recommend that as long as these unsafe conditions exist (especially for the children) that no business be permitted to operate from the site. | |
| Ron Eagley | 4/3/2008 1:56:22 PM |
| Why does the site plan not show the retaining wall and the slope of the driveway? All the plan shows is a .5% slope, is the wall coming out and the drive way back down to Spenard Road grade? If not, I do not support this site plan due to the unsafe conditions it will impose on the people walking or riding bikes on the sidewalk in front of the property. If you take the 2.5 foot wall and put a 1.5 shrub planted on top of it your view of the road and sidewalk are impaired as you try to leave the property. This is a large concern of mine. We should not make an unsafe condition when there is no reason too. | |
| Daniel Anderson | 3/30/2008 8:33:08 AM |
| I would agree with Ruth the amount of info is very lacking. And there for I am against re zoning. It was re-done in 2005. Fence has to be required, the way traffic is going to enter Spanard is going to be a danger. The retaining wall going to make a steep drive and when iced up will add to the danger. If they want some thing done why are they only giving out very little info. | |
| Robert Auth | 3/27/2008 10:28:07 PM |
| I live a few blocks south of the subject property and I oppose the proposed site plan. I was the chair of the Spenard Community Council when this property was rezoned from residential to commercial in 2005, and one of the Council's concerns was the impact of commercial development on the six adjacent residential properties. The petitioner intends to operate a car rental business and he has dedicated over 100 parking places for that purpose. Despite repeated questioning, he has yet to disclose what his hours of operation will be or what type of sign he wants to install. So the neighbors may have to put up with 100 cars running 24 hours a day, coupled with a large luminous sign. The only structural "buffer" the petitioner currently has is a chain link fence and the only additional improvement suggested by the Planning Department is the installation of slats in that fence. That is simply insufficient for this type of activity. When the petitioner's next door neighbor (Gwennies Restaurant) expanded their parking lot a few years ago, they were required to install a wooden fence along the property line that bordered on their residential neighbor. Wooden fences are an approved buffer under the Spenard Commercial District Development Strategy Plan. Ironically, the Planning Department itself proposed a wooden fence when the property was rezoned in 2005. The petitioner should therefore be required to install a wooden fence. Finally, the property has not been properly posted as required by AMC 21.15.005. In the first place, the posting is not on the property, but in the right of way (i.e., on the streetlight pole). Secondly, even if it had been properly located, the posting hasn't been up the required 21 days before the hearing. The posting was put up either on March 26 or 27, right after the Council noted the lack of any posting in its written comments, which is less than 21 days from the April 14 public hearing before the Planning and Zoning Commission. Therefore, the hearing should be postponed until the property has been adequately posted. | |