B-08 (Joe Reynolds) — original pdf

Backup

Joe Reynolds July 14 Planning Commission Meeting Items 6, 7, 8 7113 Burnet Rd Chair and Commissioners, I’m Joe Reynolds; I live on West 49th St. I’m a member of the Allandale Neighborhood Assn. Zoning Committee. I’ve also been very active with the Burnet Rd Corridor Project. I’ve been to two meetings with presentations describing this project and I have reservations and concerns. 1] The height included in the applicant’s proposed land use category is excessive. In the earlier meetings the potential height was disavowed, yet is still included. The height profiles in the staff alternative MF-6-NP are more appropriate. The required height compatibility in the staff land use category is preferred. 2] In the two presentations I attended, the developer indicated that a completely residential development was the goal. I agree with that goal. Commercial uses in similar settings are often unsuccessful. They fail because the customer base within the project is too small to support the business, and ‘outside’ customer access isn’t supported by the development standards. Access from Burnet Rd to commercial use at this site is highly problematical because of the road configuration and commercial use should not be included. 3] For Allandale, traffic is the most troubling aspect of this project. As part of my efforts on the Burnet Corridor Project, I studied this intersection. The Burnet Corridor Project road design has all left-turn exits from property blocked by a median barrier. So, for this proposed development all southbound destinations must be accomplished by first going North. The Burnet Corridor expects this part of Burnet to be worked by 2023. Until the southbound travel is completely blocked, staff has flagged the trouble caused by vehicles queued for the existing Greenlawn traffic signal which is located just at the northern boundary of this property. The presentations, made in the two meeting I attended, asserted that the developer would secure a binding agreement with the shopping complex adjoining just North, for residential traffic to use the parking area of the complex to access the Greenlawn traffic signal. Access to Burnet via the signal would allow southbound traffic turns. That agreement for use of the center is missing. None of the three agenda items associated with this project should be approved absent that traffic light access. I have found no TIA for the proposed project. Analysis of traffic at this location, as part of the Burnet Corridor studies, showed the southbound trips would be diverted into Allandale via a loop extending North on Burnet to Richcreek, West on Richcreek to Daugherty, South on Daugherty to Greenlawn, and then East to the signal. Alternative loops eastbound, at say Pasadena, could come south down Hardy to Cullen and then back to Burnet, but the distances are greater and the streets even more constricted than Daugherty. Residential trip timing is worse than for bars. Absent the agreement guaranteeing the project’s residential traffic access to the Greenlawn traffic signal via the adjacent shopping center land, I ask that all items be rejected.