Laserfiche WebLink
developer or if there is development shown on land they do not own then it could not be approved. <br />Councilman Orlowski questioned traffic reports, wetland studies and sewer reports being <br />submitted. Mr. Lasko said that all proposed reports and studies will be made available upon their <br />submission. Councilman Orlowski said a neighbor of the project contacted him requesting a solid <br />wall of conifer trees along the west side of their property line as well as the rear property line to <br />buffer them from the development. It was also suggested that their driveway would be diverted <br />into the developments driveway which the developer should have to pay for and provide <br />maintenance. He is concerned that the proposal will affect the flow of runoff as the land slopes. <br />Mr. Liggett said the owner has stated he owns all the land. Mr. Lasko asked that a letter be <br />submitted clearly stating they own or have options to own all the parcels within the development. <br />Mr. Gorris asked if the proposal is passed but the developer does not develop the land would the <br />rezoning remain in place or would it revert back to Single Family. Mr. O'Malley said that once <br />rezoned it would remain that zoning regardless if the developer completed the plan or not. Mr. <br />Lasko said that if the current developer did not complete the project a new owner would have to <br />complete the development as approved or receive new approvals. Mr. Gorris felt the prior cluster <br />code gave the planning commission more control. Butternut Ridge Road is 1.6 miles in length <br />and within that there are 8 streets which intersect onto the street and 5 traffic lights. This <br />developer wants to build 29 homes and across the street there is a century home which is in <br />disrepair and includes 5.5 acres of land. They clearly want to sell the lot to a developer which <br />could rezone to cluster and construct an additiona123 homes. Mr. Crabs owns enough land to <br />develop an additiona138 cluster homes. The commission's recommendations will affect the <br />future of the area allowing the proj ect now could end up allowing up to 90 homes. He <br />commended the architect on his cooperation with the commissions' requests. <br />Mr. Martindale said the city was being asked to spot zone one land owner's lot so it can be sold <br />off for profit. He said the project would only benefit the city and schools by new tax revenues. <br />Mr. Lasko said the issue regarding spot zoning was addressed by the planner, as there are no <br />parcels zoned Residential Cluster, which is a status which must be obtained through this review <br />process. The city is going through an extensive and lengthy review to determine if it is <br />appropriate. He further said financial interests are no part of the commission's decision making. <br />Ms. Childs said the manhole which surcharges still has sewage which comes out of the drain into <br />her yard. She does not agree that it will not impact the area. The commission is responsible to <br />protect the residents of the area. She does not believe rezoning to a higher density in a lower <br />density area is protecting the residents. <br />Mr. Lasko reviewed the records they have and the required additional information to compile a <br />report for council and said the matter needed to be tabled. The commission discussed having a <br />workshop to start drafting a report for council once the additional information was obtained. <br />Mr. O'Malley advised that there are time constraints regarding the review process and advised the <br />chair to seek additional review time from the applicant. Mr. Lasko asked if the applicant would <br />provide the city additional time needed to continue the review process. Mr. Liggett said the <br />developer would allow the city the additional time needed. Ms. Wenger believed that the matter <br />should be tabled until all documentation pertaining to the development is provided in accordance