Laserfiche WebLink
129 <br /> <br /> Mr. Butler asked if staff would oppose future lots being <br />serviced by lateral. <br /> <br /> Mr. Swift answered probably not. He described the plans for <br />these properties regarding water and electrical, which were not <br />going to be difficult to serve. This complete area needs a <br />complete review once some good grades and improvements plans are <br />available. <br /> <br /> Ms. Mohr asked why the utilities were not previously stubbed <br />out on Martin to be potentially extended into this block. <br /> <br /> Mr. Swift answered that the utilities were stubbed out but <br />they are very shallow at that point and quite a distance from these <br />properties. <br /> <br /> There was general discussion on the sewer lines in the area <br />and through the surrounding properties. <br /> <br /> Ms. Mohr stated that she had gotten responses from neighbors <br />who were concerned with the lack of parking for City park in the <br />neighborhood. She did not agree with designing an access road <br />deliberately to keep other neighbors to use the park. She would <br />rather see Lot 88 be removed and the two on the sides of it be <br />widened. This would create an access to the park. She had no <br />objection to the project. <br /> <br /> Mr. Butler asked if there was a parking plan for the park. <br /> Mr. Swift answered no. <br /> <br /> Mr. Butler was concerned that the end of the cul-de-saC would <br />not be enough parking for the park. <br /> <br /> Ms. Mohr said that a neighborhood park only needs two or three <br />spaces at a given time. <br /> <br /> Ms. Scribner asked if any equipment would be added to the park <br />and a later time. She also questioned the reasoning for the <br />changes of lots and configurations. <br /> <br /> Mr. Swift responded that this park was combination of the <br />school play field and City park. It will have active play fields <br />used by sport groups and a tot lot area. There is a parking <br />restriction on the eastern side of Martin Avenue. <br /> <br /> Mr. Battleson asked if he could reconfigure the area so that <br />he wouldn't lose Lot 88. There would not be a problem in having <br />the access for Lots 86 and 87 come from behind. Mr. Bartleson <br />responded to Ms. Scribner's question regarding the changes of the <br />number of lots. He stated that the Planning Commission approved <br />two lots but staff believed three would be better planning. <br /> <br />7/7/92 11 <br /> <br /> <br />