My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
06/18/2018 Meeting Minutes
DOcument-Host
>
Mayfield Village
>
Meeting Minutes
>
2018
>
06/18/2018 Meeting Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/22/2019 11:00:23 AM
Creation date
3/22/2019 6:33:24 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Legislation-Meeting Minutes
Document Type
Meeting Minutes
Date
6/18/2018
Year
2018
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
34
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br /> <br /> <br />Minutes of the Regular. Meetiiig of Council <br />Monday, June 18, 2018 <br />Page 17 OLD,SUSINESS-;: ; <br />• Third Readiniz of O.rdinance No. 2018-17; entitled, "An Ordinance revising the zone <br />map of Nlayfield Village so as to amend the use classifcation of 6.93 acres of land arid <br />known as Permaiient Parcel Numbers 831-10-019, 831=10-007 and 831-10-006 from its <br />current classification of U-1 single family residential district to planned residential <br />. development district." Introduced by Mayor Bodnar and Council as a Whole. (Law <br />Department) (Eirst Reading- 3-19-18; Second Reading 4-16-18) Mrs. Mills, seconded by Mr. Williains, made a motion to enact Ordinance No. 2018-17. <br />Council President Saponaro asked; discussion? As we alluded to earlier, I would like to <br />hear 'from Department Heads that have concerns regarding the reclassification of this <br />property. We cari start with Mr. Cappello with flooding and water being tlie big issue: Mr. <br />1Vletzung, I know that you deal with that as well so you are certainly welcome to chime in <br />and are encouraged to. Mr: Cappello stated, regarding flooding, at this point we are just putting in for rezoning. If <br />this was a single-family residential. or planned development, they have to meet the Code. <br />There's a stormwater management. code which requires the developer to provide. <br />stormwater detention: It's actually a very strict ordinance. . You are limited to the one-year <br />pre-developed storin discharge for. wliat they call a critical storm. In this case.; it is <br />factored froTri a grass area lawn to a multi-family home. It would be a higher standard so <br />there will actually be a less discharge amount which would be less than what.it currently is: . <br />The amount of water would increase obviously from the fact that it's an.impervious area, <br />but they have.to meet that requirement. If there's any ripariari setbacks which I arri not <br />sure there is based on the maps we have, but wetlands, those things have to be addressed <br />during the development part, the.design part, and we would have to review those also and <br />they would. have to. design around those if they were in fact there. The ordinances are set. <br />up to, again, . address those issues at the time of deveiopment no matter what the <br />development is. If it's. residential single-family, multi-family or commercial/iridustrial. <br />Council President Saponaro asked, the _fact that there's going to be potentially 26 or at least <br />12, what's. your concern from a water and flooding standpoint? <br />Mr. Cappello repTied; again, they liave to ineet their criteria af Code. wliich is fairly. strict. <br />Again; it will all be looked at at the time the development comes . in. Once we get all the <br />data, we can look at it and see. what ends up happening after pre/post type situations. At : <br />this point I am riot concerned. I have to see what happens. Again, if they come iri with a <br />single=family residential, we have to be coneerned.also that they would be addressing it <br />with the detention requirenrent: Oiie other thing about -populafion, I think the one thing, <br />this is roughly. 6 acres. I think SOM Court was around the same size. Tlie last time I heard <br />there were about 50 residents, roughly two per uiiit on average. We are roughly 3500. To <br />get to city status would be 1500 more residents which would require a significant amount <br />of acreage which I doi1't see iiecessarily. I am not saying that can never 1lappen Uut I don't
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.