Laserfiche WebLink
10 <br /> <br /> Mr. Roush explained that when the grading plans are reviewed <br /> and once the lots are graded by the developer, staff makes sure <br /> they do drain the way the improvement plans read. Once the <br /> properties are landscaped, sometimes the grading gets changed. <br /> This would then become a private civil dispute and is something <br /> that would not involve the City. <br /> <br /> Ms. Scribner understood that the outstanding issues were the <br /> rural atmosphere, the width of the road, and the drainage problem. <br /> She was opposed to putting sidewalks on both sides of the road <br /> because the rural character is important. The drainage seemed to <br /> be resolved and she felt that the street issue could be resolved at <br /> the final map stage. <br /> <br /> Ms. Mohr stated that there were many hours of discussion about <br /> preserving Trenery Drive and the neighbors expressed no desire to <br /> having their street connect to anything. <br /> <br /> Mr. Swift stated that staff had no objection if one of the <br /> property owners wanted to add asphalt in front of their property to <br /> better their parking as long as it did not interfere with the <br /> drainage pattern. <br /> <br /> Ms. Mohr assumed that the trees were being replanted in this <br /> area. She felt that the need for sidewalks on both sides of the <br /> street is minimal; even to have them on one side would be more than <br /> necessary. The character of the area would be completely changed <br /> if the road was widened and trees were removed. <br /> <br /> Mr. Pico felt that the PUD condition regarding the street <br /> design plan was not accomplished. He believed that this item <br /> should be continued to give the neighbors additional time to <br /> resolve the street issues. He preferred the street be widened to <br /> City standards with sidewalks on both sides of the street. Mr. <br /> Pico was concerned with the street being too narrow and parking <br /> only on one side and was concerned about bicycle and pedestrian <br /> safety. <br /> <br /> Mayor Tarver asked if this project would be approved if the <br /> there were a 2-2 vote. <br /> <br /> Mr. Roush answered yes. <br /> <br /> Ms. Mohr requested clarification of the street size. <br /> <br /> Mr. Swift stated that the 44 foot width is the section that <br /> has the sidewalk on one side; the right-of-way is 34 feet. Trenery <br /> Drive is the one that has no sidewalk, 20 feet of travel lane and <br /> 8' shoulders. <br /> <br /> Mr. Pico clarified that he felt that the interior streets <br /> should be widened, not Trenery Drive. <br /> <br /> 1/5/93 10 <br /> <br /> <br />