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. |
|