Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutA001 - Petition from residents again proposed plan a October 17, 1996 2 21996 Fnr' 6 , PETITION To: C�r f�ffir( Members of the Ames City Council Rt�Es,/p�q From: The Opal Drive Neighborhood Association Subject: Development on land between Emerald and Opal Drives We the undersigned are property owners within 200 feet of the proposed PUD,CDP located at 3308 Emerald. We are against the proposed plan for the following reasons: I. The present plan has twenty-two(22)two-car driveways exiting on Opal Drive. This would create a traffic density problem for the existing home owners on Opal Drive. This plan is not an improvement on the density of traffic experienced by Opal Drive homeowners when the Emerald Park trailer court was in existence. In essence,this plan is replacing 20 or so trailers with 22 double garages and driveways(a net increase in density). 2. The present plan does not allow for adequate snow removal. The proposed driveways on the east side of the development(Opal Drive side)will be placed to closely together to allow for adequate snow removal space, creating dangerous limitations on the line of vision in the winter and leading to illegal snow removal to the west side of Opal Drive(an experience we had repeatedly when the trailer park was in existence). 3. The present plan would make the Opal Drive neighborhood look like an alley. Ask a realtor what sells a house, and they will say, "Location,location,location." Selling a house that is facing a row of garages and driveways would be a challenge and would probably result in diminished return on investment. 4. The present plan will remove the vast majority of trees in the proposed development area. The trees in the area are,for the most part,mature trees of good health. Approximately 40 trees will be removed by this development. Only 3 to 4 trees can be saved. If the driveways are just 6'to 12' apart,the available space for planting trees with the potential for reaching maturity is extremely limited. Further,there is no guarantee,in fact little faith,that owners purchasing the proposed development units will keep and properly maintain the trees planted within a few feet of space needed for parlang their cars. Contrary to suggestions from the developers,there are no reasonable differences between the trees currently existing on the"Emerald"side of the property in comparison to the trees on the"Opal"side. 5. There will be inadequate off-street parking for the planned density. The driveways planned for the Opal Drive side,at 6'to 12'between,will provide inadequate space for on-street parking. For any tenant of the 22 planned units has more that 2 cars,they will need to use the west side of Opal Drive to park. 6. Traffic reports(1992 statistics)suggest traffic density will go beyond tolerable limits for Opal Drive. Discounting the traffic created by the trailer court tenants,the south end of Emerald(connecting to Garden Road)has approximately 100 cars daily,while the north end of Emerald would have similar traffic patterns. Emerald Drive has two exits(south to Garden,north to Jewell). Opal Drive has only one exit(at Jewell). With the proposed development,traffic on Opal will go up by approximately 300 to 350 cars per day(all will have to use the Opal Drive/Jewell Drive intersection);this is considerably more vehicles than Emerald Drive will have with this proposed development(even though Emerald Drive has twice as many outlets). 7. This proposed plan will quadruple the traffic at the intersection of Opal Drive and Jewell Drive. Accidents have already occurred at this intersection(two are on record with the city),and the Prediction for traffic density at this intersection will create a dangerous situation. As the demand for access to Hwy. 69 increases, cars leaving Opal Drive will have to cross Jewell Drive or turn on to this through street. Development plans will increase this traffic and demand for access beyond reasonable safety limits. (Please note that no accidents are on record with the city for the Emerald and Jewell intersection,which would indicate that Emerald Drive does not have more of a traffic problem than Opal Drive has with current densities.) 8. The city's staff admits that this is a less than desirable development plan. From the city staffs report to the City Council,date 10/08/96,"Equally important,stag does not want City Council to conclude that this form of development,where numerous driveways from a rear yard, across the street from the front yards of other properties, should be repeated as a design solution in other parts of the City." In other words,would you like to have this development move in across the street from you? Apparently the city staff wouldn't. The city stag concurs with the members of the Opal Drive Neighborhood Association. 9. There are other possibilities for developing this property. The contractors admitted(at the City Council meeting dated 10/08/96)that this property could be developed in other ways. They didn't like the alternatives they considered(probably due to construction costs or perhaps potential unit selling prices),so they submitted this particular development plan. Costs to the contractors and/or the current owners should not be appropriate considerations for the City Council. The best development plan for the area, considering the needs and the preferences of the property owners within 200'of the proposed development area,are the most important considerations. This development may be quick and easy to build,but does not optimize the use of the land,the quiet neighborhood ambiance of current structures,nor satisfy the preferences of property owners in the immediate area. Signature: Name&Address: r Mike Powelson, 3310-3312 Opal Drive B. J. Reed, 3316 Opal Drive Brian&Barb Espeland, 3324 Opal Drive Diane&Gale Love,3332 Opal Drive Dale&Patricia Gigstad,Lot#6 on Opal Drive Lawrence Roden, 314 Patricia(Lot#3 on Opal Dr.) 14 a Ir OR10 �_..� October 17, 1996 PETITION 4f To: Members of the Ames City Council From: The Opal Drive Neighborhood Association Subject: Development on land between Emerald and Opal Drives We the undersigned are property owners within 200 feet of the proposed PUD,CDP located at 3308 Emerald. We are against the proposed PUD, CDP and we suggest that an alternative plan be considered, including(not exclusively)any of the following: 1. The development area,without this PUD and CDP, could support eight units(16 homes). Decreasing the proposed density would allow the developers to build homes with the proposed exterior designs,with adequate yard space and a more aesthetically pleasing appearance. The current plan does not allow for much green space. In fact,swings and toys will have to be in the front yards because none of the units will have backyards. A revised plan,with less density,would correct this problem. 2. The development with 11 units(22 homes) could be improved and acceptable. Alternating the cast/west orientation of the middle four units(indicated as"B"units on the development plan)would decrease the number of driveways accessing Opal Drive by four. These four driveways would access Emerald Drive,alleviating some of the traffic density concerns for property owners on Opal Drive. The cars utilizing Emerald Drive would enter the street in the center of the block between the Jewell Drive intersection and Garden Road intersection,which would facilitate using either exit,rather than encouraging overuse of one intersection. Further,these cars would not interfere with the planned development on the west side of Emerald Drive. This alteration of orientation would save the same amount of trees, could in fact help the developers save more trees. This alteration would not reduce the yard space nor create safety hazards for children playing in the front yards(if appropriate landscaping separates the yards from the driveways; see attachments). This alteration would not,necessarily, change the planned"undulating"walkways,which could be developed on both sides of the development. Si nature: Name&Address: Mike Powelson, 3310-3312 Opal Drive x). B.J.Reed, 3316 Opal Drive Brian&Barb Espeland, 3324 Opal Drive Diane&Gale Love, 3332 Opal Drive Dale&Patricia Gigstad,Lot#6 on Opal Drive -11ZLawrence Roden, 314 Patricia(Lot#3 on Opal Dr.) Dale Z" ' �S'Ny h sr &6072v, I<S' 3yl�i •n era�c ,�; October 17, 1996 PETITION To: Members of the Ames City Council From: The Opal Drive Neighborhood Association Subject: Development on land between Emerald and Opal Drives We the undersigned are property owners within 200 feet of the proposed PUD,CDP located at 3308 Emerald. We are against the proposed PUD, CDP and we suggest that an alternative plan be considered, including(not exclusively)any of the following: 1. The development area,without this PUD and CDP, could support eight units(16 homes). Decreasing the proposed density would allow the developers to build homes with the proposed exterior designs,with adequate yard space and a more aesthetically pleasing appearance. The current plan does not allow for much green space. In fact, swings and toys will have to be in the front yards because none of the units will have backyards. A revised plan,with less density,would correct this problem. 2. The development with 11 units(22 homes) could be improved and acceptable. Alternating the east/west orientation of the middle four units(indicated as`B"units on the development plan)would decrease the number of driveways accessing Opal Drive by four. These four driveways would access Emerald Drive, alleviating some of the traffic density concerns for property owners on Opal Drive. The cars utilizing Emerald Drive would enter the street in the center of the block between the Jewell Drive intersection and Garden Road intersection,which would facilitate using either exit,rather than encouraging overuse of one intersection. Further,these cars would not interfere with the planned development on the west side of Emerald Drive. This alteration of orientation would save the same amount of trees, could in fact help the developers save more trees. This alteration would not reduce the yard space nor create safety hazards for children playing in the front yards(if appropriate landscaping separates the yards from the driveways; see attachments). This alteration would not,necessarily, change the planned"undulating"walkways,which could be developed on both sides of the development. Signature: Name&Address: Mike Powelson, 3310-3312 Opal Drive B. J. Reed, 3316 Opal Drive Brian&Barb Espeland, 3324 Opal Drive Diane&Gale Love, 3332 Opal Drive Dale&Patricia Gigstad, Lot#6 on Opal Drive Lawrence Roden, 314 Patricia(Lot#3 on Opal Dr.) G2 S�ic���an Any k �S � 33a`I— 3301e OPAL D"41V4 October 17, 1996 PETITION To: Members of the Ames City Council i?ow.`�, From: The Opal Drive Neighborhood Association41/ Subject: Development on land between Emerald and Opal Drives iQ�9 We the undersigned are property owners within 200 feet of the proposed PUD,CDP located at 3308 Emerald. We are against the proposed PUD,CDP and we suggest that an alternative plan be considered, including(not exclusively)any of the following: 1. The development area,without this PUD and CDP,could support eight units(16 homes). Decreasing the proposed density would allow the developers to build homes with the proposed exterior designs,with adequate yard space and a more aesthetically pleasing appearance. The current plan does not allow for much green space. In fact, swings and toys will have to be in the front yards because none of the units will have backyards. A revised plan,with less density,would correct this problem. 2. The development with 11 units(22 homes)could be improved and acceptable. Alternating the cast/west orientation of the middle four units(indicated as"B"units on the development plan)would decrease the number of driveways accessing Opal Drive by four. These four driveways would access Emerald Drive, alleviating some of the traffic density concerns for property owners on Opal Drive. The cars utilizing Emerald Drive would enter the street in the center of the block between the Jewell Drive intersection and Garden Road intersection,which would facilitate using either exit,rather than encouraging overuse of one intersection. Further,these cars would not interfere with the planned development on the west side of Emerald Drive. This alteration of orientation would save the same amount of trees, could in fact help the developers save more trees. This alteration would not reduce the yard space nor create safety hazards for children playing in the front yards(if appropriate landscaping separates the yards from the driveways; see attachments). This alteration would not,necessarily, change the planned`undulating"walkways,which could be developed on both sides of the development. Si nature: Name&Address: ` - Mike Powelson, 3310-3312 Opal Drive o B.J.Reed, 3316 Opal Drive Brian&Barb Espeland, 3324 Opal Drive ? Diane&Gale Love, 3332 Opal Drive Dale&Patricia Gigstad,Lot#6 on Opal Drive r i Lawrence Roden, 314 Patricia(Lot#3 on Opal Dr.) Dales � 3als-Nye,sr &oVro, lks ��� �•��-aid , - 4,�t- 04 on *41 Si atu `� Name&Address: zroAnn October 17, 1996 PETITION To: Members of the Ames City Council From: The Opal Drive Neighborhood Association Subject: Development on land between Emerald and Opal Drives We the undersigned are property owners within 200 feet of the proposed PUD,CDP located at 3308 Emerald. We are against the proposed PUD,CDP and we suggest that an alternative plan be considered, including(not exclusively)any of the following: 1. The development area,without this PUD and CDP,could support eight units(16 homes). Decreasing the proposed density would allow the developers to build homes with the proposed exterior designs,with adequate yard space and a more aesthetically pleasing appearance. The current Plan does not allow for much green space. In fact, swings and toys will have to be in the front yards because none of the units will have backyards. A revised plan,with less density,would correct this problem. 2. The development with 11 units(22 homes)could be improved and acceptable. Alternating the east/west orientation of the middle four units(indicated as`B"units on the development plan)would decrease the number of driveways accessing Opal Drive by four. These four driveways would access Emerald Drive,alleviating some of the traffic density concerns for property owners on Opal Drive. The cars utilizing Emerald Drive would enter the street in the center of the block between the Jewell Drive intersection and Garden Road intersection,which would facilitate using either exit,rather than encouraging overuse of one intersection. Further,these cars would not interfere with the Planned development on the west side of Emerald Drive. This alteration of orientation would save the same amount of trees, could in fact help the developers save more trees. This alteration would not reduce the yard space nor create safety hazards for children playing in the front yards(if appropriate landscaping separates the yards from the driveways; see attachments). This alteration would not,necessarily, change the planned`undulating"walkways,which could be developed on both sides of the development. Signature• Name&Address• Mike Powelson,3310-3312 Opal Drive B.J. Reed, 3316 Opal Drive Brian&Barb Espeland, 3324 Opal Drive Diane&Gale Love, 3332 Opal Drive Dale&Patricia Gigstad, Lot#6 on Opal Drive Lawrence Roden,314 Patricia(Lot#3 on Opal Dr.) WIPC)e s } �