Laserfiche WebLink
location when considering the rezoning and should also incorporate the report previously <br />coinpiled and submitted to Council. <br />Mr. Liggett said he was present to address rezoning the property for the developer, Ron <br />DeLorenzo. The commissions previously approved their development plan and he is before the <br />commission to discuss rezoning. The cluster developinent they propose meets and exceeds the <br />master plan requirements for such a cluster development. The land is along Butternut Ridge <br />Road and sits behind existing homes along the street and is approximately 10 acres which runs <br />along the east side of Springvale Golf Course. They proposed to construct 29 units in lieu of <br />more than 40 allowed by code. They would like the cominission's approval to continue the <br />process so they can proceed with the development. <br />Mr. Lasko said those present have had an opportunity to obtain and review the commission's <br />report to Council. He reviewed portions of the report relating to the master plan and discussion <br />of rezoning, as well as the Landmarks Commission's findings. He reminded those present that <br />the issue at hand was the rezoning, not the specifics of the development proposal. <br />Councilman Orlowski asked what evidence was submitted by the developer to show site control. <br />Ms. Wenger advised that site control had been demonstrated for all but the Scheef property. The <br />applicant is aware this information must be submitted and that no final action would be talcen by <br />Council until all documents were properly submitted. However the commission was still within <br />their right to review the request to rezone the property without a letter froin the property owner. <br />Mr. Orlowslci further aslced if the City owned any of the land shown in the development area. <br />Mr. Bohlmann said when Springvale Golf Course was sold to the city there were two parcels <br />questioned. His recollection is the city did not purchase the two parcels rather they remained <br />owned by Biddulph Inc. Mr. McKay felt the rezoning should not be addressed until all issues <br />had been resolved. <br />Mr. O'Malley said the question was not germane to the commission's review of the ordinance. <br />However it may be prudent to require the lot consolidation be approved prior to rezoning or <br />receiving final development approval, which would put to rest any questions of ownership or <br />authority. The commission should also request deed restrictions limiting the number of units. <br />Mr. Gorris said as a prior commission member appreciated the taslc before the commission. <br />Nevertheless if the letters from land owners were conditions of approval then the matter should <br />be tabled until such documents are received. He disagreed with the commissions report which <br />suggest the area is a good transition from higher intensity uses to single family homes. <br />Mr. Lasko questioned if the commission members wished to table the ordinance or proceed. Ms. <br />Wenger said if the commission tabled the ordinance they would need to petition council to <br />extend their review period as their thirty day window would expire prior to their next meeting. <br />Mr. O'Malley said after thirty days city code requires council to assume the commission's <br />recommendation is favorable. Mr. O'Malley said the issues brought up are matters for Council <br />and the administration, not the commission. Mrs. Meredith said the commission's approval was <br />contingent upon ownership being proven, if the applicant does not provide the proof the proposal <br />could not receive final approval. Mr. Laslco said the commission would condition their