Donaldson, west of the property. In addition, it appeared to them that the |
|
parcels west of the development incorporated a lot of wetlands. It was his |
|
understanding that any approval for wetlands would require State and City |
|
approval, which would be expensive and difficult to obtain. He stated that |
|
it would add very little, if any, additional land for other houses beyond the |
|
access route. Based on those issues, it appeared to them to be |
|
extremely unlikely that any second ingress/egress route would ever be |
|
developed. The third major objection was with the detention basin by |
|
Grace. It called for the basin to outlet across to the private Grace Ave. |
|
Given that those owners had previously refused to grant ingress and |
|
egress onto Grace, he questioned whether the developer had obtained |
|
approval to allow that ground water to exit onto Grace. He suspected that |
|
the City might have some type of public utility easement with the private |
|
road, and they understood that would not permit private developers to use |
|
Grace for their drainage system. He and the other residents were |
|
requesting that if the Commission was of the opinion that such an |
|
easement or agreement existed, that the City Attorney should review the |
|
easement to determine whether it was suitable or enforceable. The fourth |
|
objection was that the FPP drawing showed a note indicating that “fire |
|
lanes shall be designated by the Fire Department and signs posted on |
|
both sides of the road.” He stated that if some version of the FPP was |
|
approved, the residents of Gunthar’s Run would not object to that type of |
|
signage control within the two streets of the proposed Plat, but if the intent |
|
was to also convert all of McComb into a fire lane with no parking on |
|
either side, it would change the character of the existing subdivision and |
|
be a hardship for the current owners of Gunthar’s Run. Their driveways |
|
were not 100 feet long and on-street parking was required for small family |
|
gatherings and such. They were requesting that no parking zones not be |
|
extended onto their existing portion of McComb. Mr. Kopson concluded |
|
that for those reasons, they believed that the FPP did not reflect a safe or |
|
viable residential development, and they were therefore requesting that |
|
the Recommendation of Approval be denied, and that any future |
|
consideration be postponed until such time as the developer had actually |
|
acquired the initial property. Also, they felt that it should be postponed |
|
until any regulatory approvals providing a second, safe ingress/egress |
|
route were obtained and until all questions regarding the legality of the |
|
detention basin location and its outletting onto the private road was |
|
adequately addressed by the City Attorney. He asked that they be |
|
notified of any future reviews. He pointed out that the letters he submitted |
|
had been signed by eight of the nine property owners in Gunthar’s Run, |
|
and the ninth was expected shortly. He thanked the Commissioners, and |
|
said that he hoped they would take their comments into consideration. |
|