Laserfiche WebLink
10. That the developer be allowed to waive sidewalks in all <br />of the subdivision except for one side of Arlington. <br />11. That rolled curbs be used throughout the development." <br />Chairperson Wilson asked if the first request was made because 8 feet <br />is owned by others. Mr. Fairfield stated ownership is pending as a <br />result of an error in probate. <br />Mr. Warnick stated he objects to rolled curbs because regular curbing <br />helps drainage, keeps cars from going on lawns, provides a better service <br />to sweep against and he further stated that from a practical standpoint <br />it is not that hard to make curb cuts for driveways. <br />Mr. Fairfield stated he would also like Condition No. 24 modified <br />to read "That street lighting for traffic safety purposes be provided <br />by the developer. The type, number and location of the electroliers <br />shall be wood poles, the type to be determined by the City Engineer." <br />He further suggested that the word "government" be inserted between <br />"outside" and "agencies" in Condition No. 17. <br />He addressed the parks situation. He stated that the two lots proposed <br />as park were done as part of an obligation of the applicant to the <br />Rosepointe residents. He stated the applicant and homeowners. met <br />and agree that lots should be donated as opposed to an in lieu fee <br />but that it doesn't make much difference to Mr. Pestana which way <br />it goes. Commissioner Getty asked if the parks would be maintained <br />by the homeowners or the City. Mr. Fairfield stated they would be <br />public parks and maintained by the City. <br />Chairperson Wilson then spoke to the 40 inch Oak tree on Arlington Drive. <br />Mr. Fairfield stated they will do whatever staff wants. <br />Dick Jackson, 6140 Amber Lane, addressed the Commission with traffic <br />concerns stating that a substantial amount of Amber Lane is privately <br />owned and maintained and asked for the traffic to be diverted. Mr. <br />Warnick stated that the City doesn't have the right to close off a <br />private road. Mr. Jackson asked if there was any means to encourage <br />traffic to take another route, i.e., island signs, etc. Mr. Warnick <br />stated that signs, striping, etc. could be used but a barricade could <br />not be installed. <br />Tony Stonage, 671 Sycamore Road, addressed the Commission with a <br />question concerning 40 ft. curb-to-curb section opposed to the 32 ft. <br />as requested by Mr. Fairfield. He said when you have substandard <br />sections people frequently cut through shrubbery, etc. to get to <br />their destination. Mr. Fairfield said that ownership of Amber Lane <br />is cloudy. He said Amber, south, did belong to Pestana and there <br />was a mistake made in probate concerning this ownership and it is in <br />the process of being resolved and that development cannot be done <br />until this ownership is cleared up. Mr. Fairfield said they would <br />discourage traffic by encouraging signing and striping and that if <br />they can't have 32 ft. of paving they can't develop those lots that <br />face Amber Lane. <br />-3- <br />