Laserfiche WebLink
This special permit is subject to the following <br />conditions: <br /> <br /> 1. Administrative approval of a final site plan revised <br />in accordance with all City Code requirements, including: <br /> <br /> (a) Install fencing along southern lot line from <br />house to garage for screening purposes. <br />(b) Submission of proof of the joint access <br />agreement with the property owner to the east across the <br />alley. <br /> (c) Soil erosion/sediment control measures shown <br />on the plan. <br /> (d) Indication of necessary building modifications <br />as required by the State Licensing Agency, <br /> <br /> 2. Operator will provide 24-hour on-site supervision <br />for residents. <br /> <br />RESOLUTION: STATEMENT RE: ROUTE 29 NORTH <br /> <br /> Mr. Hendrix stated that a draft letter proposed to be <br />signed by the City, County and University and a statement <br />regarding Route 29 North were before Council for their <br />consideration. <br /> <br /> Mr. Vandever stated that he believed that the State <br />will reach a decision which will address problems with <br />through traffic, but he was concerned that the base case <br />improvements in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement <br />would ultimately fail and the impact of this failure could be <br />highly destructive to the City. Mr. Vandever stated that he <br />felt a compromise position would be for the County to <br />designate a western corridor which would only be built should <br />the other improvements fail. Mr. Vandever noted that the <br />County has resisted any western bypass because of concerns <br />about damaging the watershed even though major roads and <br />subdivisions have been approved by the County in the <br />watershed. Mr. Vandever moved the resolution regarding Route <br />29 North. <br /> <br />Ms. Waters seconded the motion. <br /> <br /> Ms. Slaughter stated that since 90% of the traffic on <br />Route 29 is local then the solutions should be local. Ms. <br />Slaughter stated that she had environmental concerns about <br />road building being the solution and would not favor <br />reservation of land for a western corridor at this time <br />because of the importance of preserving the watershed. <br /> <br /> Mro Toscano stated that reaching a consensus with the <br />County regarding the Route 29 North issue has not been <br />possible and he felt the needs of both the watershed and <br />transportation must be balanced. Mr. Toscano stated that he <br />shared concerns about the watershed, but argued that the <br />overloading of Meadowcreek Parkway would be a circumstance <br />which would cause him to support a western corridor. <br /> <br /> Rev. Edwards stated that he would support a balanced <br />road network as well as designating land'for a western <br />corridor as reflected in the proposed resolution. <br /> <br /> Ms. Waters stated that she did not believe that the base <br />case in the DEIS will be adequate to solve the problem and, <br />if a western corridor is not reserved,~there will be pressure <br />to intensify use of existing roads. <br /> <br /> Mr. Toscano recommended that the resolution be amended <br />to include language that more clearly delineates that neither <br />McIntire Road nor Ridge Street will be widened, that signage <br />be erected to prohibit trucks on Meadowcreek Parkway, and <br />that land would be designated for a western corridor which <br />would have the least destructive impact. The above <br /> <br /> <br />