Mr. Gilbert felt that the Planning Commission could act on Alternate B tonight, as the |
|
message from the prior meeting was that he was to return with alternative plans which |
|
did not impact the wetlands and kept the fill to a minimum. The applicant would |
|
appreciate taking action on this plan tonight. The new plan accomplishes this, as there |
|
is almost no fill on the lots within the proposed subdivision. The fill is in the street |
|
right-of-way. There is no road crossing proposed on the new plan, which maintains |
|
the integrity of the wetlands as one large uninterrupted area. The applicant met with |
|
City staff, Dr. Jaworski, the wetland consultant, and his own consultant and engineer, |
|
and feels this plan, based on the environmental and wetland issues, is far superior than |
|
anything submitted in the past. Mr. Gilbert displayed two large sketches on foam |
|
board of Alternatives A and B for the audience and Board. He explained that the |
|
excepted parcel in the northeast portion of the development would be considered a |
|
conservation easement or an open space owned by the subdivision association. The |
|
wetland fill in Alternate B is 25% less than the previous plan, and the wetland impact is |
|
1/3 of an acre less than Alternate A. Mr. Chris Guthrie explained the differences |
|
between Alternate A & B. On the original plan, Norcross Drive comes out to Hamlin |
|
Road. The problem with this plan was the amount of wetland impacted. Alternate B |
|
decreases the total wetland impact from .913 to .679 by eliminating the road crossing. |
|
The State had originally permitted the cul-de-sac. |
|