Share Vivian Estates Phase 2B Trail Removal Exception on FacebookShare Vivian Estates Phase 2B Trail Removal Exception on TwitterShare Vivian Estates Phase 2B Trail Removal Exception on LinkedinEmail Vivian Estates Phase 2B Trail Removal Exception link
This item received a negative recommendation from the Planning Commission.
JDH Development has submitted a 6 lot subdivision located at approximately 2600 North and 600 East. The proposed subdivision meets all of the requirements. However, they are asking for an exception to not put a trail connection from 550 East to 600 East. This trail connection is required when there are not road connections as part of the connectivity requirements. The reason is to make it more direct and convenient for people walking or on bikes to get places.
JDH Development does not want to put it in because of the steep slopes in the area. Their argument is the safety concerns of a steep trail connecting into a busy roadway.
The Planning Commission will provide a recommendation on if the trail should be removed or not. City Council will end up making the decision. It will go to City Council on February 10th.
You can ask a question to staff or leave a comment below.
JDH Development has submitted a 6 lot subdivision located at approximately 2600 North and 600 East. The proposed subdivision meets all of the requirements. However, they are asking for an exception to not put a trail connection from 550 East to 600 East. This trail connection is required when there are not road connections as part of the connectivity requirements. The reason is to make it more direct and convenient for people walking or on bikes to get places.
JDH Development does not want to put it in because of the steep slopes in the area. Their argument is the safety concerns of a steep trail connecting into a busy roadway.
The Planning Commission will provide a recommendation on if the trail should be removed or not. City Council will end up making the decision. It will go to City Council on February 10th.
You can ask a question to staff or leave a comment below.
Provide your official comment to be exported and shared at the Planning Commission Regular Meeting.
Please remember to be civil and respectful to all residents, all commentators, developers and the Commissioners in your comments. All comments will be moderated before they are posted to this site. If anything is offensive it will not be posted here.
State Law requires the full name of all those who give comments. Please include your name with your comment.
This item received a negative recommendation from the Planning Commission.
CLOSED: This discussion has concluded.
It's a shame we have connectivity standards and no reason to have those connections due to them connecting to nothing. In this case without the connection there is no good way to walk anywhere south or east without a large detour. That said there is likely not to be a lot of need for this but if we are actually planning for a future this exception should not be approved. We should be encouraging a more walkable community and once this connection is given away this will lock this problem in for decades. Any pedestrian access to roads is dangerous but forcing more people to make car trips only makes this a bigger problem. We cannot continue to be hostile to pedestrians by giving them less choices and excusing cars and our lack of planning for creating dangerous conditions for them. The connectivity standard should be upheld here, we already created this situation by not connecting these roads, which would have provided the connectivity in and of themselves, we should not compound the problem again.
It's a shame we have connectivity standards and no reason to have those connections due to them connecting to nothing. In this case without the connection there is no good way to walk anywhere south or east without a large detour. That said there is likely not to be a lot of need for this but if we are actually planning for a future this exception should not be approved. We should be encouraging a more walkable community and once this connection is given away this will lock this problem in for decades. Any pedestrian access to roads is dangerous but forcing more people to make car trips only makes this a bigger problem. We cannot continue to be hostile to pedestrians by giving them less choices and excusing cars and our lack of planning for creating dangerous conditions for them. The connectivity standard should be upheld here, we already created this situation by not connecting these roads, which would have provided the connectivity in and of themselves, we should not compound the problem again.