03/22/1966 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

March 22, 1966 - Page 2 Councilman Foltz addressed the P?apping Commission relative to the Petition offered the Design and Platting Com- niittee of Cauncil of May of '65, requestiqg ?ha? Mitchell Drive be dead-opded. This Petitipn by Mitchel? ?qye residents was made in the belief that their street would pat be a througb street with the comingof Great Northern Boulevard and the fact that, it it was, it w vuld create a traffic hazard for the 90 some chiidren under the age of si.x or seven. At that time, it was shelved by the Committee be- cause of certain transactions in the offing zelative to land acquisition, zoning, et cetera. Once again this situation has become active, and the Council.ma.n, through the requests of Mi.i;chell Drive residents, rtcommended that Mitchell Drive again be dead-ended and that either Lamont or Linda dri.ve be designated as the throughmstxeet, This recominendation was made because Mitchell Drive residents, upon the purchase of their homes, were not made aware that this would be the case, and that the new purchasers of homes on Linda, and Lamont will be aware of this and, therefore, would either accept oY reject the choice of buying property on these streetso Mitchell Drive residents were not afforded this choice and thus feel jusfified in their Petition. (c) Columbia Lands Noso 1& 3(Revisions) , Subse.quently, this tyi.ng in with the above subject, Mr. Esgar requested that this be brought fonward on the agenda first. Mr. Esgar stated that the proposals to make Randall, Linda and Lamont dead-ends have been studied. The plans were turned down at the time they were brought to the Commission because - theI% did not meet the r;:quirem_ents of the platting ordinances or the zoning ordinances in that the lots were too narrow at the building line by only a small Lraction, and that the cul- de-sacs that were proposed were not Uig enough in diameter and that they are asking f_or variances on the setback l.ines are the rear of the Iots, at the front of the Iots on part oF them, and also on side yards on someo Mr. Esgar stated thar at the t3.me these plans were brought for- war.d and rejected, the Planning Commission offered a proposal on how they could meet the zoning code. Aithough the feelings of the residents are understood, irom a plaruri.ng point of view, there is no real objection to Mitchell's extending a11 the way through