Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-22-21 Public Comment - E. Wood - WildlandsFrom:Ted Wood To:Sarah Rosenberg; Agenda Subject:Application 21326 Wildlands Date:Monday, November 22, 2021 10:32:36 AM Attachments:Wildlands comment Edward Wood.docx CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or openattachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Ms. Rosenberg et al: Please consider and accept for the record the attached comments regarding the proposed Wildlandsdevelopment, Application 21326. Thank you. Sincerely Edward Wood 11/22/21 Dear Ms. Rosenberg: Please accept the following comments regarding the proposed Wildlands project, Application 21326. General statement: I am a close neighbor to the proposed project, living approximately 1 block away at 506 East Cottonwood St. and have been a resident there for over 10 years. While we value the diverse neighborhood and enjoy some of the newer amenities available such as Wild Crumb and Finks, I am concerned that a project of this magnitude will result in a significant increase in congestion to the detriment of the neighborhood and in fact to Wild Crumb and Finks also. I believe as currently envisioned the project massively understates the demand that will exist for parking and does not address at all potential impact on traffic flow in the immediate vicinity. Currently Wallace Avenue is barely functioning as a two-way street during times of peak parking and hours for all of the existing businesses. I believe this expansion will result in enough congestion and inadequate parking that may over time deter potential customers. Currently our privately-owned (with public use easement) alley behind the 500 block of East Cottonwood is barely usable at times due to parked cars patronizing the nearby businesses. Cars parked along North Wallace avenue encroach into the alley opening and make turning in and out difficult and hinder visibility significantly. It would probably be impossible for a fire engine, for example, to turn into the alley from that side during peak hours. It can also be challenging for the city garbage and recycling trucks to make that turn. (Luckily the west entrance to the alley is seldom impaired.) I realize that specific factual concerns may be the only reason that this application could be rejected or delayed. Therefore, I wish to point out that there are significant errors and discrepancies in the parking requirements section of the submitted documents. I do not believe this application can be approved while these basic errors exist and should not be approved until these errors are corrected and the ramifications of these errors are addressed. Furthermore, the numbers provided regarding parking vary from place to place and are different on the project narrative (70 required), Parking Analysis (56 required) and application cover sheet (39 provided). This is confusing and misleading. The primary error is a simple mistake calculating the number of required spaces. The table on the Parking Analysis G-010 is incorrect: the total of places required is 66 not 56 as shown. Without other changes, this means the project fails to supply at least 10 required parking places. However, this error also affects other parts of the parking calculations such as allowable reductions. Without taking time to dig in to this minutia, suffice it to say this application should be rejected until the parking section is corrected. One other note on parking is that 3 parking places along Wallace Avenue are used to supply part of the required spots. However, these SAME 3 places are also taken as a reduction to arrive at the required number of places. This obviously double counts those three places, and I am not sure if this is a valid use of that reduction. There has also been discussion of parking provided at the current Bronkens site, but I am not sure if that is temporary during construction or permanent to facilitate the project. In any case I am skeptical of the feasibility of shared parking. For example, some of the other projects in the neighborhood offered shared parking. Treeline Coffee was approved with only 3 parking places based on sharing parking with SAV home technology, but soon afterward SAV posted all their parking spots as private. I do not believe shared parking will work to reduce congestion and should not be allowed as part of the required calculations. Please consider that the current building is about 13,000 sq ft and has about 33 parking spots available. This Wildlands proposal is to QUADRUPLE the size of the building (52,000 sq ft)with about the same or slightly FEWER parking spots available, many of which are likely to be in long-term use by the many new residents thus unavailable to patrons of the proposed building. The parking situation for the businesses is likely to be very poor, and the resulting congestion of the neighborhood could be very detrimental to the quality of life in the area. I understand the rules regarding parking requirements, which if applied correctly, could result in a relatively low number of REQUIRED spots. Regardless of its legality this still seems like a very bad idea. One final note is that the project indicates it IS NOT in the Northeast Urban Renewal District, but to the best of my knowledge that location IS IN the NEURD. I am not sure what if any impact this has on the application, but this error should be corrected. Thank you for considering my point of view and these statements. Yours truly, Edward Wood 506 East Cottonwood St.