| Mr. Gilbert informed commissioners that he did meet with the neighbors a couple |
|
| weeks ago as suggested at the October 27, 1998 meeting. There was a very good |
|
| representation with 70 to 80 residents of Easthampton No. 1 and Regency Park |
|
| Condominiums present. Residents of Easthampton No. 1 Subdivision were strongly |
|
| opposed to a road connection, but it was not an issue with Regency Park residents. |
|
| Aesthetics and proximity are bigger issues with Regency Park residents. Although the |
|
| ordinance does not require a landscaped screen between two adjacent residential |
|
| developments, Mr. Gilbert has agreed to plant 85 trees between the two properties as |
|
| a screen, with the exact locations to be determined at a later date. They have included |
|
| in the preliminary plat an open space area between Lots 104 and 109, probably the |
|
| best area to plant the 85 trees without disturbing any property at Regency Park. That |
|
| number of trees would far exceed the ordinance requirement. The trees would be |
|
| clustered in strategic areas. Mr. Gilbert believed the screening would benefit both |
|
| developments in the long run. Other than that, there has not been much change to the |
|
| plat except for the open space area. Some lot lines have been shifted in order to |
|
| accomplish that. They have also delineated exactly the excepted parcel abutting |
|
| Hamlin Road so there will be no questions in the future. The remainder of the frontage |
|
| on Hamlin Road will be included in the open space area to be forever preserved. |
|
| The homeowners association will maintain ownership of the open space area; they will |
|
| not be able to sell the open space area and it will not be able to be developed. Mr. |
|
| Staran confirmed that there is no mechanism for developing dedicated open space |
|
| areas. Mr. Gilbert indicated that they have looked at every feasible layout for the |
|
| subject site. The proposed plan is the product of all those concerns. Environmentally |
|
| the proposed plan is the best; the density is not excessive; 50 percent of the area is |
|
| open space or wetland. Mr. Gilbert explained that they did explore and discarded an |
|
| alternative suggested at the previous meeting of a crossing through the wetlands for |
|
| use by emergency vehicles but not as an everyday access. Such a road would have to |
|
| be accessible 365 days a year, would need to be plowed in winter, and would have to |
|
| be built to city standards; plus, it would be separating the wetlands again and would |
|
| not be good environmentally. |
|
| Mr. Rizzardi concurred with Mr. Gilbert regarding the emergency access road. In |
|
| order to be a usable emergency access road the vegetation would have to be cleared, |
|
| and the Fire Department would want a plowed access location. It would preclude the |
|
| ability to save the wetlands. Other than that, the proposed plan is generally the same |
|
| plan that was presented in concept at the previous meeting on October 27, 1998. |
|
| Mr. Gilbert has pointed out the slight differences. The plat is using the same type of |
|
| storm water detention, and the utilities are generally in the same location. The |
|
| recommended conditions of approval have been revised in the memo dated |
|
| November 23, 1998 to reflect the slight differences in the subject plat. |
|
