PC 09/23/1992 - Laserfiche WebLink

Larry Robison, 6493 Amber Lane, stated he has lived there for 9 1/2 years. He said he applauds the development of the property, but is opposed to a change 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 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 intersec on of Amber Lane and Hamilton Way. He was also concerned that if the power lines are m ved rather than putting them underground, that removal of shrubs that the neighbors have pi ted 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 road rather than the proposal to have just a drainage ditch. However, if he and his neigh ors had their way they would much prefer that Amber Lane and Amber Road stay as they ar now. ,~ Lynsley Rollins, 570 Sycamore Road, stated that she does like the pr ~ect; however, she does not favor Amber Lane being opened up. She felt that her neigh ors did not know that Amber Lane was going to possibly be opened or they would have b here to protest. She did not see why it could not stay as it is, but if it had to be widened r emergency access that it should be made as natural and rural in appearance as possible. In regard to the possibility of the power lines being removed and the lines put underg ound, she would prefer that the poles stayed if it meant that Amber Lane would remain as is. She also requested that when this case goes to City Council, that people in the area shou d receive a letter noting that Amber Lane and Amber Road may be widened. She reite ted that people did not know of this possibility. Mark Guenther, 570 Sycamore Road, stated that he is also opposed t Amber Lane going through and referred to a letter that he and his wife had submitted to taff which included his recommendations. He recommended that (1) the City make the mini urn required improvements to Amber Lane to meet the City's standards for emerg ncy access and (2) as the area east of the Sycamore/Amber intersection is developed, provi e 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 w re good and that it would be a good addition to the City. However, he reiterated that he would dedicate some land for easements, but did not feel that he should be asked to pay fo the cost of all the infrastructure to Amber Lane. He did not feel that four lots could af ord to pay what is being asked. He also requested that staff send people a letter regardi g the possible opening of Amber Lane when the application goes to City Council. Commissioner Michelotti again expressed concern about the pad elev tion being brought up to the level of the Rosepointe subdivision. She was concerned that th height of the houses might then go up to 29 ft. or higher. Mr. Lavey further discussed th s with Commissioner Michelotti, noting that this issue was fully discussed at the Design Re iew Board level with a ..- Planning Commission Minutes September 23, 1992 Page 15