City Council Minutes 1993 01 19 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Davidson: Phare: Davidson: we see a need, because of trying to keep the street scape as clean as possible. We would anticipate assigning no parking on that area, if the project's approved. If we did that, would we do it before people started buying the houses? I don't want someone to buy a house and then all of a sudden find out they can't park on the street in front. We've definitely have learned it is best to do it in advance of the project. We'd probably would have to post it all the way from Hoover into the existing parking and on the other side, at least as far. I have to echo a lot of the comments Rob made. I didn't quite understand what was going here. In fact, I called a member of the Planning Commission and we talked three different times about how this got to be what it is. It has a lot of problems with it, but anything else I imagined in there wasn't as good as this. I'm not too sure that we're not ~faced with the choice of lesser of evils. For instance, a number of houses facing Pine Street with driveways coming off of Pine Street isn't a very good idea, even worse than this proposal. It's unfortunate the way the development right next to it was done that it left this little piece here. We're back correcting problems held over from prior Planning Commissions and Councils. I'm not wildly in favor of this, but I would vote for it, providing the no parking signs are in before construction starts and providing the entry signage you have indicating the alley states the vehicle size, etc., and would also indicate that it is a private alley, so that future owners would not assume that was the City's maintenance responsibility. I have found that we have various private streets and when the original owner moves in, they understand it's a private street, and, then the second owner buys it and they are never 39