CCMIN021081 - Laserfiche WebLink

471 Mrs. Nancy Storch, 3193 Chardonnay Drive, spoke in favor of neighborhood parks, and again requested that Council consider a park or open space in the vicinity of Palomino, Norton, and Tawny. Mr. Larry Barrelson, 675 Hamilton Way, stated he felt Mr. Sehmsdorf was speaking for only a few residents of Rosepointe regarding the development and maintenance of a neighborhood park. Mr. Bartelson stated he did not feel that postponing a decision on this item would benefit the issue. Council discussion ensued regarding the public hearing notice on this item, · stating it was their clear instruction that only the park matter would be discussed, regarding Tract 4372 tentative map. Staff acknowledged that the public hearing notice was in error. Council then determined to hear all public testimony relative to the tentative map for Tract 4372. Mrs. Jessie Robiejo, 6523 Amber Lane, stated this street is proposed to be 32' ~rlde. She stated she felt this will make the street too narrow and dangerous. She asked if "no parking" signs would be placed in front of her house. Mr. Warnick explained that a 32' wide street will allow for "no parking" on one side of the street and two lanes of traffic. Mrs. Robiejo stated she would like a letter from the City assuring her there will not be "no parking" signs on her side of the street, and that there will be enough traffic regulations to make this a safe street. Mr. Don Jackson, 6140 Amber Road, stated he was concerned about the traffic circulation design of the proposed project. He presented pictures of Amber Lane and Amber Road (which is a long driveway and privately o~rned). He stated there is a grave problem with the northeast exit from the Pestann property. He stated the mitigating measures included pavement stripping, signs and speed pumps, which he felt were unacceptable. Mr. Jackson requested that the northeast entrance to this proposed development be eliminated because of the hardship it will cause on home- owners already in this area, and the other two entrances to the project be redesigned. Mr. Tony Stonage, 671 Sycamore Road, stated he was not opposed to the develop- ment but felt it should be reasonable and not cause any adverse impact on the neighborhood. He stated there is already a serious traffic situation at Amber Lane and to increase traffic flow at this location would be a mistake. He advised that Amber Lane is not a thru-street to Sycamore and he felt the tentative map should be redesigned to have no access onto Amber Road. He stated he also had concerns about maintenance, and also emergency use of the road. Mrs. Judy Jackson, 6140Amber Road, presented a letter and map showing the difference between Amber Road and Amber Lane, stating that Amber Lane is inside the City Limits, owned and maintained by the City, and does not lead into Sycamore Road; and that Amber Road is in the County, owned by individuals who pay taxes on it and maintain it, and does lead to Sycamore Road, a major thoroughfare. Mr. Joe Macias, 6248 Amber Lane, stated he did not want any more traffic on this street, and that there was no room for parking. Mr. Ted Fairfield, Civil Engineer representing Ernest Pestana, developer, stated that the problems discussed are being bettered or resolved. He stated that the 32' width of Amber Lane will make it significantly wider than it is now. He advised that signing, striping, and speed pumps will alleviate speeding problems. Mr. Fairfield advised that use of Amber Lane is needed to carry out the loop, acts as a natural peripheral street, and finishes the area without an alley. He stated the area north of Hamilton in Rosepointe will be blocked off more than it is now without this proposed loop circulation. Mr. Fairfield stated that Amber Lane could be as wide as 40', if so designated by the City Engineer. 12. 2/10/81