Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Local Infrastructure Drainage Traffic topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents tell Planning Commission stormwater and traffic worries as McWood replat is approved
Summary
At the May 15 meeting residents opposed a reconsideration and variance for a McWood (Cottman Heights) replat, citing traffic from nearby apartment construction, inadequate drainage and potential sidewalk and street impacts. The commission approved staff’s recommendation to grant the requested variance and approve the plan with conditions.
The Planning Commission heard public comment May 15 from residents near a proposed replat in the McWood/Cottman Heights area (Item 91) who said local streets, sidewalks and drainage were already stressed by nearby large apartment projects. A resident, identifying herself in the hearing as Amanda Gazzena, said traffic, street closures and ponding on roadways were current problems and questioned whether additional housing should be approved before impacts from the two large apartment complexes under construction are evaluated.
Staff described the proposal as a reconsideration of plat requirements with a variance request to dedicate a reduced right‑of‑way along Macquarie Street (5 feet instead of the ordinance‑required 10 feet), noting the adjacent subdivision had previously dedicated 5 feet and that the request would maintain a consistent alignment and leave space for required sidewalks.
Commission action and staff response After public comment the commission approved staff’s recommendation to grant the requested variance and approve the replat subject to standard CPC 101 form conditions. Staff and commissioners noted that detailed reviews of drainage and traffic impact typically occur at the permitting stage and that Public Works will review stormwater and traffic as the project proceeds to permitting.
Public concerns Resident Amanda G. listed five concerns: increased traffic from nearby large apartment projects; street closures and impeded access during construction; pedestrian safety and sidewalks; the roadway not being designed for current truck and passenger traffic; and existing drainage problems leading to ponding. Staff confirmed those technical reviews (drainage, traffic) are part of later permitting stages and connected the resident with public‑works staff for follow‑up.
Next steps The approved variance and replat will move forward to permitting where Public Works will evaluate drainage and traffic impacts; staff advised residents to follow up with the permitting and public‑works contacts provided during the hearing.
