Laserfiche WebLink
Commissioner Fletcher wished it noted for the record <br />that he is an adjoining property owner and did not know if <br />that would constitute a conflict of interest. <br />Attorney Brandenburg did not feel that it would. He <br />noted that Commissioner Fletcher is legally required to vote <br />and if he wished to abstain, he would have to file a <br />conflict of interest. If a conflict of interest were filed, <br />he could take no part in the discussion or action. <br />Commissioner Fletcher stated that he intended to take <br />part in the discussion and would not abstain from voting. <br />Attorney Rene Van de Voorde came before the Board <br />representing the applicant, Frank DeJoia. He informed the <br />Board that Mr. DeJoia has agreed to reduce density down to <br />14 by making lots.1 -3 and 6 - 8 duplex lots and the <br />remaining two lots single family. $e continued that the <br />proposed subdivision fronts on Estes Street (80th Ave.) <br />which is a non -existing street at this point with no.paved <br />roads nearby, the closest being Roseland Road and 126th St, <br />and Mr. DeJoia has requested permission to put in a marl <br />road on Estes St. from 126th to the NE boundary line of the <br />property; the internal street would be paved to county <br />standards. <br />area. <br />Discussion followed in regard 'to paved roads in the <br />Engineer Jim Davis reported that it is not staff's <br />recommendation to allow a marl street on Estes Street, <br />which, similar to many roads in the Roseland area, was <br />dedicated back in the early 1900's, but never accepted for <br />maintenance by the County. Mr. Davis felt it will create an <br />adverse impact on the Road & Bridge Department if the County <br />accepts another unpaved street. Staff's preference would be <br />to recommend paving Estes from 126th Street to 128th which <br />would create a paved loop between two roads presently <br />maintained by the county but since this would be <br />41 <br />49 <br />