On the consent agenda for the city council Tuesday night is a request from the Coves of Charter Oak Homeowners’ Association to have a gate put across a public right-of-way.
The Coves of Charter Oak is a new subdivision (with restrictions) off of Charter Oak road (across from Weaverridge) that backs up to the older Vinton Highlands subdivision off of Big Hollow road. There’s a common road that connects the two subdivisions called Sedley avenue. The city’s subdivision ordinance requires that the “arrangement of streets in new subdivisions or development shall make provisions for the continuance of the existing streets in adjoining areas” (Ord. No. 10455, § 1, 5-29-79). Hence, Sedley is a through street.
Well, the residents of The Coves have “concerns.” Those concerns are unfortunately not specified in the council request, so the public can only speculate. However, it’s The Coves neighborhood association that is not only making the request, but paying to have the gate installed and maintained, so I think it’s safe to say this is not a mutual concern with the homeowners in Vinton Highlands. Also, they’re not wanting to put a gate at the other entrance to this subdivision — the one off of Charter Oak road. And one would have to assume that The Coves residents are not trying to keep themselves out of Vinton Highlands.
So, let’s see, what does that leave? A concern over cut-through traffic from outside either neighborhood? It seems unlikely that anyone would cut through Sedley when either Frostwood Parkway or Big Hollow Road would be faster routes. So I’m going to have to conclude that The Cove residents simply don’t want Vinton Highlands residents driving through their neighborhood.
The only other gates across a public thoroughfare that I can think of are the gates across Mt. Hawley Road at Kellar grade school. I don’t particularly like those gates either, but at least they have a plausible excuse: child safety. Here, that’s not an issue. Here, we’re talking about two residential neighborhoods, and the only differences between them are demographic.
I don’t exactly understand how they can obstruct a public thoroughfare. Sec. 26-11 of Peoria’s municipal code says, “streets, avenues, alleys and sidewalks of the city shall be kept free and clear of all encumbrances and encroachments, and for the use of the public, and shall not be used or occupied in any other way than as provided in this chapter” (Code 1957, § 36-12). The council communication calls this a “revocable right-of-way use permit,” although I don’t know how one applies for such a permit, or where in the municipal code this type of permit is explained. I have found temporary permits for things like block parties, but all such permits require fees to be paid, and there is no fee mentioned in this council communication.
So, the question is this: what are, specifically, this neighborhood’s “concerns”? And why weren’t these “concerns” put down in writing in the council communication? Are the “concerns” over lower-income residents (or minority residents) driving through the upper-income Coves neighborhood? I’m at a loss as to what else it could be; and if that’s the case, I’m at a lost as to why the city would allow it. But perhaps there’s a reasonable explanation.
Gates for the other neighborhoods with “concerns”? Heck, the East bluff would have alot of gates then.
I believe there is a gate going up in the rump-Arbors, along Main st.
Mahkno: you’ve got to be kidding.
It appears that the street would have to be vacated to private use. This means that they will also need to make repairs, plow, etc. Hey they want to pay to do it, let them also be respsonsible for all the upkeep. More tax dollars for other places.
Would have been better NOT to have required that the road be put in place at all (which I don’t think the developer wanted to do but was forced to by the city). Make it a one way in and out and the “concerns” would have been addressed easier, cheaper and without the concerns raised through this approach.
No, Mahkno isn’t kidding. I’ve heard that too. I want to know how police and fire trucks are going to get in.
So these people built an expensive neighborhood RIGHT NEXT to a neighborhood that none of them would live in and now they want a gate. Rules are rules. Maybe they should have done some better homework on this before they built their weaverridge wannabe neighborhood.
The unnamed concern is they don’t want black people going through their neighborhood. They would never say this, but what else could it be? As a white person, this really pisses me off. I hope they get that gate shoved where the sun don’t shine and Vinton Highland residents use moorhing way everyday to get to Charter Oak.
This proposal appears to be a significant policy change and practice — why is it on the consent agenda?
Wrong policy decision in the making — hopefully will be voted down.
It didn’t stop the city from social engineering Russell street. Remember the blockages that were put in?
Vonster — I don’t like those blockages either, but they were put in to eliminate cut-through traffic, not for social engineering. I don’t believe there’s any demographic difference between the two sides of those medians.
The thing that gets me about this request is that the neighbors’ “concerns” are never explained — that’s a red flag. When they put up the gates on Mt. Hawley, there was concern for child safety. When they put up the speed humps on Prospect, the neighbors were concerned about speeding and cut-through traffic. In just about any case I can think of, the reasons for it were clearly explained. Not so here. Just a vague statement of “neighborhood concerns.” What are they? They’re pertinent to whether this request should be granted — unless, as someone suggested, they want to have the city vacate Mooring Way and maintain it themselves; then they can have a gated community. But the city shouldn’t be blocking public streets unless there’s a good reason for it.
Eyebrows objects to gates and gated communities in words that she’s too polite to use on CJ’s blog. I think they’re elitist in the ugliest possible way.
“So, let’s see, what does that leave? A concern over cut-through traffic from outside either neighborhood?”
Speed bumps. Excessive stop signs. Aggressive ticketing. Even cutting off one of the outlet streets to make the cut-through impossible. Plenty of neighborhoods deal with it without gates!
Bet they get it.
Ditto to what Eyebrows said.
There are myriad other options to a concern about cut-through traffic.
A gate! Only if they also gate the entrance off Charter Oaks too! Snobby creeps.
I’ll compare this to the much-needed speed bumps on Prospect.
I used to live on the other end of Prospect, across from Glen Oak Park, where the speed bumps were really needed.
I drove up Prospect to Knoxville for seven years before the speed bumps were put in and never once saw an accident.
Must have been a coincidence.
The Cove developer was on the news this morning saying he wanted the gate for benefit of the Vinton neighborhood (since they complained about the Cove.) How generous of him.
They want the gate so they don’t have to listen to loud stereos that shake their windows at 3:00 in the morning. Its also a security issue, the Vinton Highlands, is deteriorating at high speed. (look at the statistics of crime before you start crying …to me, or telling me how great a neighborhood it is)
Whats wrong with gates to protect the subdivision, every other suburb of Chicago has them, and thats what entices the buyers. People learned the hard way with Lynhurst Sub, and they do not want to make the same mistake.
Funny they have a homeowners assoc and no homeowners.
Vonster: When you read the letter to Councilman Spears from Mike Stauffer, the developer …
“The existing Weaver Ridge and Vinton Highlands neighborhood associations and the future residents of the Coves will be well-served with reduced traffic and safer intersections because of this action.”
As far as I have been able to determine, the traffic that was a problem was the construction trucks delivering materials to the Coves stirring up a lot of dust during the construction phase. The construction drivers were repeatedly instructed to take the main entrance into the Coves and did not, hence the pile of pea gravel and the barricade to modify the construction drivers inappropriate behavior.
Brett Rumpel and twenty-three other signatures were received by the city in opposition to the Sedley connection being joined from the Vinton Highlands side to the Coves side prior to the annexation agreement being finalized.
Nevertheless, staff recommended that the connection be put through, and the developer agreed and the city council approved that in the deal.
Several questions:
(1) What is the COP official policy about connections from one subdivision to another? Is is arbitrary (as in do the applicant have enough political clout to not have to make the connection)or is there a consistent standard policy that connections have to be made for all applicants?
(2) How can putting a keyed gate across a public right of way only require a no fee permit process and no public hearing?
(3) How was it decided that this agenda item was non-controversial, thereby putting it on the consent agenda, when in my opinion is a substantial policy setting action?
(4) Are there additional subdivisions in similar situations as the Coves and Vinton Highlands that would result in additional keyed gate applications for other public right of ways?
(5) Vonster, point well taken, as of 7/2/07 at the COP Neighborhood Association Site, there is no neighborhood association listed for the Coves (please refer to the quote from the developer’s letter, Weaver Ridge, Vinton Highlands and furuter residents of the Coves were mentioned.)