01/03/2001 Env Bd Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

Planning & Zoning Board December 13, 2000 Page 10 In response to Ms. Lane, Mr. Smyser advised of consideration by the Park Board. Ms. Lane suggested the new concept plan be presented to the Park Board so they can address the open space issue. John Hill, representing Heritage Development, stated they decided to extend the property boundaries to encompass all of the property since a homeowners association was no longer being considered. He stated the lot configuration can be reduced in depth as long as it meets the R -1 depth requirement. Mr. Hill stated they had considered a conservation easement. Chair Schaps stated there will be open space behind the houses and he believes it would be conducive to trails if the lot line boundaries are reduced somewhat. Mr. Hill stated his impression that the extension of the lot lines would not exclude the creation of a trail. With regard to the road connection, Mr. Hill noted that only four lots would be created on one side of the road so it is not financially feasible to construct the 800 foot roadway. He noted that if lots were created on both sides of the ro the wetland would be greatly impacted. Also, he has been unable to reach an u ding with the neighboring property owner to purchase the additional prop to ac odate a road connection. Mr. Hill stated he does not think this exclude struction of a bridge for pedestrian traffic or to dedicate park land. Mr. Rafferty stated that he thinks a p co ' . e s eveloped to correct a single entrance in and out. He noted the new concep es the number of lots and lot sizes but he remains concerned with the lot de • c = e depths have doubled since the previous concept plan. Mr. Rafferty a t ossible to create a road (in and out) on the applicant's property. Mr. Hill stated he has contacted to property owner to the east with two letters and five telephone calls but that person is not interested in selling any portion of his property at this time, however, that option may exist in the future. Mr. Rafferty inquired regarding the impact on the adjoining property owner who has to work with the location of where the road ends. Mr. Powell stated the City would not support having the road dead -end within this project and noted the watermain has to be looped through these lots. He stated that he assumes the easement is contiguous with the Old Birch Street right -of -way. Mr. Hill answered that it is contiguous. Mr. Rafferty suggested that an exit to the east, within this development, would work better or to connect it to Kildeer Drive. Mr. Powell agreed that a connection to Kildeer Drive would work better, however, the applicant does not have control of that property since it is outside of this project.