Agenda - 02-21-2012 - 7a - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

DRAFT 55 Michael Harvey: Yes. It is one of the conditions. Specifically number 12. DOT has provided you an indication that 56 they could approve the proposed new driveway access onto Mt. Sinai Road subject to the listed conditions. 57 58 Lisa Stuckey: They do not look to me to be insurmountable. 59 60 Michael Harvey: My opinion would be no. 61 62 Tony Whitaker: I am the planning and engineering consultant for the project. I will address the DOT question first. 63 There were three conditions DOT stated and we believe we can comply with all of those. We are working with DOT 64 to clarify number one but I have every confidence that will not be a problem. Mr. Haroey correctly noted that it 65 essentially moves the ball field 30 feet and in some parts more like 50 feet from the property line as compared to the 66 previous design. It moves the parking lot an additional 50 feet from the property line which was 50 now to 100. After 67 the public hearing, we had a surveyor stakeout the home plate and the left field comer of the ball field for reference 68 and we looked at it with Mr. and Mrs. Prior and their realtor and we made sure everyone understood the physical 69 conditions. We left it for the Priors to get back to us as to their preference and they did that and suggested we move 70 the ball field a little further from the property line if we can. They actually suggested getting the infield further from 71 the properry line because they perceive that is where most of the activity is and to add a berm, which is what we 72 suggested earlier with screening vegetation on the berm. You may notice a trail which does meander onto their 73 property. They said it would be nice to relocate that part that encroaches and get it back onto the school property. 74 We presented that back to the Priors. They emailed me asking for a meeting yesterday and they asked us in view of 75 this plan, isn't there somewhere else you can put this ball field on this property. We walked them through the 76 reasoning why we cannot do that and they accepted that. They asked if we could move the parking to another 77 location and we said given the purpose of the parking, it is hard to imagine a location that would make sense so they 78 agreed. They said, at the end, that we are not completely satisfied but we think you have done everything you can 79 do to meet our conditions so they agreed to allow this to move forward and they are not here this evening and do not 80 have a representative this evening. They know about this meeting tonight and they stated they are willing to let this 81 move ahead with some concem but understanding we need to move ahead. 82 83 Alan Campbell: How big is their parcel? 84 85 Tony Whitaker: Just under 10 acres. 86 87 Mark Marcoplos: Where is their house in relation to the field? 88 89 Tony Whitaker: There is no house on the property. It is an investment property for them. They stated yesterday 90 they have no intention of building on the property. They bought several lots in that development for investment. 91 They have sold one of them and they have two left and this is one of those. 92 93 Mark Marcoplos: How many lots could they subdivide that into? 94 95 Tony Whitaker: I think the covenants prohibit subdivision. 96 97 Mark Marcoplos: If that is the case, it would be still under one under with 10 acres and that owner could take into 98 account the moderate effects of a ball field without lights or amplification and locate their house accordingly. 99 100 Tony Whitaker: We have asked them to anticipate where the house site might be. They have identified two house 101 sites for that property and both are far away. 102 103 Alan Campbell: Would the entry to their property be off that road or is there another road? 104 105 Tony Whitaker: Yes; off the road to the west. 106 107 Brian Crawford: That leaves us to make specific recommendations to the BOCC. 108 27 2