HomeMy WebLinkAboutMASON STREET NORTH - MAJOR AMENDMENT - 4-97B - CORRESPONDENCE - (16)Steve Olt -Wonderland Hills - Lee Martine ark Page
From:
Craig Foreman
To:
Ingrid Decker, Marty Heffernan
Date:
Thu, Aug 16, 2001 1:08 PM
Subject:
Wonderland Hills - Lee Martinez Park
Hi: Just some notes from the meeting today
Those in attendance were John F., Steve Olt, myself from the City
Jay Hardee from the DDA, Lucia
Developers: Jim, John, Corky, and Mickie
Main topics were:
1. Parking: The decision was to find 40 stalls and identify as open for the public on the development site.
This would meet our agreement requirement. John F. pointed out that since we did not specifically ask for
the public stalls to be those nearest the park, we would have to accept 40 on the site.
2. The City will need to have an easement on the property showing the 40 public stalls. John F. said the
easement must be permanent, since the parking easement we gave up was permanent.
Lucia also wondered about long term maintenance and repairs of the public stalls. It was noted that the
stalls are joint use for commercial and residential users related to the development and the public. This
could be an interesting point to correctly write into an agreement.
There will be no cost sharing of the new parking lot being designed by Park Planning and Development
east of the drive off Cherry Street. Jim indicated they may still need to help fund this lot if the impact of
their water quality pond is not offset with other park gains. This item can be considered as the plan
develops.
Steve made two good points: First, Build A has very limited parking to meet residential demand. This is
one reason the developer keeps showing a parking lot on the park, but near their development. How the
parking is laid out on the site may cause some head scratching during the City review process. Since
some people may have limited parking near their residence and additional parking farther away.
The developer indicated they would like to reduce the 50' street setback from the streets for parking lots
due to the tight site. Steve went through a brief discussion about this item. This requirement may be very
difficult to obtain a variance due to the 50' being set for safety reasons. Without this variance, the
development would be short of parking. If this is the case, the development may bring renewed interest in
parking on the park. Just a heads up in this item.
Craig
CC: Jeff lakey, Steve Olt