Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Developers and planners debate sight lines, curb radii and stoop encroachments for West Washington townhouse project
Summary
Developers seeking approval for a townhouse project at 210–214 West Washington addressed planning commission conditions and a zoning review that raised sight‑distance and right‑of‑way stoop encroachment questions. Staff and residents discussed potential waivers and minor plan adjustments rather than immediate approval.
A proposed townhouse development at 210–214 West Washington drew extended discussion on June 11 over sight distances from adjacent alleys, curb radii for emergency‑vehicle turns and whether existing stoops encroach into the public right‑of‑way.
The applicant’s engineer showed revised plans that propose two pedestrian‑scale street lights on Washington Street and a reduced curb radius between Patton Alley and Birds Eye Alley after the fire marshal and planning commission requested different treatments. “We are proposing 2 street lights on Washington,” the applicant said while reviewing plan sheets.
Nut graf: Zoning staff raised a sight‑distance concern: the required 15‑foot sight distance from the alley would intersect the project’s proposed front stoop; the applicant is requesting a waiver to reduce the sight‑distance setback to 10 feet (and noted that, because of stair risers, practical clearance may be about 7 feet). Planning commission members pressed for a smaller curb radius to create more green space, while the fire marshal had previously recommended a larger radius to accommodate apparatus turns.
Residents and committee members voiced safety concerns. West Middle Street resident Lisa Kearns said she was “concerned with the sight line” and warned that popping out of the alley is “incredibly dangerous.” Committee members suggested moving the building footprint back several feet to improve sight lines and to allow a small front planting strip or sidewalk; the applicant said some elements of footprint and stoop placement were intended to match existing adjacent properties and that zoning staff had flagged that private structures generally should not be in the road right‑of‑way.
Staff and the applicant agreed the project is close to ready but that one more month of coordination with the zoning officer, solicitor and planning staff would likely produce a cleaner set of review responses; the applicant acknowledged outstanding zoning review comments and agreed to continue revisions. The committee did not vote on final conditional approval and left the application for further review with a July 18 approval window available under the current schedule.
Ending: The committee recommended the applicant work with zoning staff to resolve sight‑distance and right‑of‑way stoop issues and to consider minor plan shifts to reduce safety concerns; a conditional approval will be considered after outstanding technical comments are addressed.
