Laserfiche WebLink
Chuck Mechling explained that any attempt to realign the road and canal east of 70 <br />Avenue would require a complete redesign of the golf course and cause a tremendous loss <br />in the number of residential lots. He further explained how Option #2 had the least impact <br />on all parties and had been agreed to by the residents at the corner of 161 Street and 70 <br />Avenue. He believed that Pointe West has tried to be a good neighbor but it is impossible <br />to get 100% agreement in situations such as this. He hoped the Commissioners appreciated <br />the efforts made and asked them to approve Option #2. <br />MOTION WAS MADE by CommissionerAdams, SECONDED <br />BY Commissioner Stanbridge, to approve the developer's <br />agreement. <br />Under discussion, Commissioner Stanbridge was still intrigued with Option #4 which <br />has the Drainage District involved (which would move the canal to the north). She did not <br />know what the residents thought of it. <br />Mr. Mechling advised that Option 2 was the one the residents felt best about. The <br />residents had asked for the wall and did not want the landscaping buffer he had proposed. <br />He felt the landscaping would be softer and do the job, but went along with what the <br />residents wanted. With respect to Option #4, he stated that the people who would have the <br />canal behind them preferred to have the wall and not the canal. <br />Commissioner Grin believed that staff had done the best they could under the <br />circumstances and Commissioner Tippin had to agree because it was a difficult situation and <br />there was no perfect solution. <br />Commissioner Tippin continued that they have talked for ten years about the need for <br />more east -west arteries and have been advised of the need by the State as well. He believed <br />the arteries were vitally important to the future. <br />Commissioner Stanbridge thought that when everyone has their say, we come out, <br />hopefully, with better projects. <br />The Chairman CALLED THE QUESTION and the motion <br />carried unanimously. <br />JULY 27,1999 <br />DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT IS <br />ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD <br />85 <br />BOOK i` l JPnF "j <br />