| 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. |
|
