|
<br />HICKCOX: Chair?
<br />
<br />GIFFIN: Commissioner.
<br />
<br />HICKCOX: I have a question, Ki. The existing width of the right-of-way is 25 feet. The minimum
<br />width on the roadway to make it two-way would require 16 feet, as you said, right, eight feet per
<br />lane, correct?
<br />
<br />EMLER: Yes, sir.
<br />
<br />HICKCOX: Now, that leaves you nine more feet for shoulders. So I’m sitting here trying to go
<br />back and forth with that, and say, okay, you already have the designated, allotted property, right-of-
<br />way of 25 feet, and if Public Works is looking at it from the perspective of, okay, we can get away
<br />with a minimum eight-foot lane with shoulder improvements, the land is already there to
<br />accommodate that. So my, you know, and I’m looking at this from kind of a humanistic point of
<br />view is that because we have an applicant now and the only applicant that’s come in that I’m aware
<br />of at this juncture, we seem to be saddling that particular applicant with all of the future
<br />improvements in that area, and it doesn’t seem fair to me, you know, excuse me but it really doesn’t
<br />seem fair. And, well, that’s my mana‘o on it. Thank you.
<br />
<br />EMLER: Okay, if I could address that, too. I was trying to be consistent with how much property
<br />we are asking for based on the Subdivision Code standard, but I realized that’s awfully cut and dry,
<br />and so that’s why I brought in the issue of the unique characteristics at this intersection. If it is
<br />determined that it is sufficient to widen it at the south end of the property and narrow it toward the
<br />north end, and this is what the Planning Commission and the Council and the Planning Department
<br />would rather do in this instant, then I would say that that’s a reasonable accommodation that we
<br />could work with in order to even consider future improvements of this roadway. I just didn’t want
<br />it to be that complicated, so that’s why I didn’t propose that.
<br />
<br />GIFFIN: Thank you. The applicant have a comment?
<br />
<br />GOODENOW: Yeah, I just wanted to comment. And again, I think you all saw this earlier and I
<br />kind of highlighted the pavement area, right, it’s all on our half. And I think your comments are
<br />very, you know, much in order. But, you know, we think, I think one-way would be great. But I
<br />would ask that one of the Commissioners move to amend the condition, as we’ve suggested now. It
<br />will go to the Council, during that time, Mr. Emler can look further at, you know, one-way road and
<br />other possibilities and, you know, can always make his comments then. This is what we are asking
<br />for. Thank you.
<br />
<br />GIFFIN: Excuse me. I appreciate your recommendation, but that’s not quite what we are going to
<br />do. There is a person who has signed up to give testimony, and I think that it is proper that we hear
<br />from the public right now. So, Ki, thank you very much. And I appreciate your suggestion, but that
<br />is not what we are going to do.
<br />
<br />GOODENOW: One thing I didn’t want to be misspeaking of others, we do have members of the
<br />family here.
<br />
<br />GIFFIN: Do they want to testify?
<br />16
<br />EXHIBIT A
<br />
<br />
|