PC 09/23/1992 - Laserfiche WebLink

Larry Robison, 6493 Amber Lane, stated he has lived there for 9 11 years. He said he applauds the development of the property, but is opposed to a chang of Amber lane. He noted that Amber Lane is a public road, whereas Amber Road is a p 'vate drive. He was opposed to making Amber Lane a through-street because of the incr sed traffic that would use it in getting to Sycamore Road. However, if it is deemed neces to improve Amber Lane, he recommended that three stop signs be placed at the inter tion of Amber Lane and Hamilton Way. He was also concerned that if the power lines are oved rather than putting them underground, that removal of shrubs that the neighbors have p anted to hide the poles would be gone. He also recommended that if Amber Lane is chang that it go down to Carriage Gardens and that the gutters match on both sides of the ro ,rather than the proposal to have just a drainage ditch. However, if he and his neig hors had their way they would much prefer that Amber Lane and Amber Road stay as they e now. ~ Lynsley Rollins, 570 Sycamore Road, stated that she does like the oject; however, she does not favor Amber Lane being opened up. She felt that her neig bors did not know that Amber Lane was going to possibly be opened or they would have b n here to protest. She did not see why it could not stay as it is, but if it had to be widen for emergency access that it should be made as natural and rural in appearance as possibl . In regard to the possibility of the power lines being removed and the lines put under round, she would prefer that the poles stayed if it meant that Amber Lane would remain as i. She also requested that when this case goes to City Council, that people in the area sh uld receive a letter noting that Amber Lane and Amber Road may be widened. She rei rated that people did not know of this possibility. Mark Guenther, 570 Sycamore Road, stated that he is also opposed to Amber Lane going through and referred to a letter that he and his wife had submitted t staff which included his recommendations. He recommended that (1) the City make the mi imum required improvements to Amber Lane to meet the City's standards for erne ency access and (2) as the area east of the Sycamore/Amber intersection is developed, pro ide an indirect connection from Sycamore Road to the suburbs to the south. Mr. Lavey returned to the podium. He stated that he felt the plans were good and that it would be a good addition to the City. However, he reiterated that e would dedicate some land for easements, but did not feel that he should be asked to payor the cost of all the infrastructure to Amber Lane. He did not feel that four lots could fford to pay what is being asked. He also requested that staff send people a letter regar ing the possible opening of Amber Lane when the application goes to City Council. Commissioner Michelotti again expressed concern about the pad el vation being brought up to the level of the Rosepointe subdivision. She was concerned that the height of the houses might then go up to 29 ft. or higher. Mr. Lavey further discussed this with Commissioner Michelotti, noting that this issue was fully discussed at the Design eview Board level with a ~ Planning Commission Minutes September 23, 1992 Page 15