A spokesman for the island’s small Cave Avenue neighborhood said that he expects its residents to ask the city to do more than the Planning Department is demanding out of the applicants of a proposed multifamily subdivision.

“I can’t speak for everyone,” said Dave Ward, president of the neighborhood association. “But I would expect we will demand that they put in a real sidewalk not just a gravel path as the city is suggesting. The city seems to be more interest in accommodating the applicant than the neighborhood.”

The neighborhood was expected to meet Thursday and has until Dec. 29 to respond to the city’s re-sponse to a remand to the planning department made by Hearing Examiner Margaret Klockars nearly two months ago.

John and Alice Tawresey are seeking city approval of a residential development located off the dead-end road, which is located between State Route 305 to the west, and Winslow Way East and the Winslow Ravine to the north. The R-8 zoned project consists of a proposed eight lots and 20 multi-family units, with each lot containing between two and four units.

Currently, about 20 single-family residents live along Cave Avenue or just off of it in cul-de-sacs; a five-unit condominium building is located at the south end of the road, nearest Winslow Way.

During a public hearing held on Oct. 1 by city Klockars, several residents of the neighborhood voiced opposition to the project.

After extending the response time allowed by interested parties, Klockars remanded the application back to the city on Oct. 28.

The hearing examiner’s remand asked for responses from the city regarding three issues:

• A more thorough analysis of the recommendation to approve the geologically hazardous buffer on the east side of the Winslow Ravine to a 40 percent slope from 80 feet to 25 feet by expanding on the determination that no reasonable alternative exists;

• A determination that a traffic study supplied by the applicant indicated that the intersection of Cave Avenue and Winslow Way would not be adversely impacted during PM peak hours by the proposed development;

• A request that the city engineer address whether the additional vehicular traffic along Cave Avenue from the proposed subdivision would increase the hazard to pedestrian travel.

The city’s response was to extend the short 5-foot-wide sidewalk on the southwest end of the road by about 150 feet to the start of a trail along the west side of the proposed division. It also suggested placing a 3-foot-wide gravel path on the east side of the road.

“People will still end up using the road, which will have double the use with the new development,” Ward said. “It’s not save now. For example, there’s a wheel-chair bound woman who uses the street and the gravel path won’t work for her. It’s not good enough.”

Regarding the ravine buffer, the city’s Planning Department stood behind its original report that the buffer reduction for the development was allowable under the city’s code.

The city also asked that a new traffic study be done by the applicant’s consultant because the previous study was based on information that was several years old.