04/27/2004 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

department address that issue for the board. 3. Should Planning Commission look at zoning a broader area rather then just this parcel as there will be industry on either sides of this parcel if rezoned. Currently the Master Plan is addressing the west end of the City and will be addressing some of these issues but at this time it is too early to make a recommendation to broaden rezoning beyond this parcel at this point in time. Mr. O'Malley advised that they do not believe that the request is spot zoning. The Master Plan has anticipated this type of zoning and current the land use in the area is residential although is it zoned industrial. The issue of how the commission will address this can be handled in two different manors; Planning Commission can address the issue as rezoning alone under 1127.00 or can address the request as a single family cluster development under chapter 1136.00, which allows the board to request full scale engineering plans not just preliminary plans as being presented. Ms. Wenger advised that a favorable recommendation to rezone the parcel in question would not result in the rezoning of the land until the development plans received final approval. Therefore, a favorable recommendation to rezone the parcel will not accrue until the final proposal plans are approved by Planning Commission and Council both. The applicant's intent to find out if Council is open to the rezoning prior to submitting the investment in detailed plans. Mr. Urbanick reviewed that they would build two styles of homes a ranch and a colonial style. They would like Planning Commission to recommend approval to Council and move them forward to BZD to receive council's recommendations. Once they know the city is open to the rezoning the owner will move forward with detailed plans. Mr. Durbin reviewed that sidewalks are required on both sides of the street, the maximum length of a cul-de-sac for this area is 500-feet this plan looks to be more. Plans show two phases and if only phase one is developed the hammer head turnaround will be required during the first phase. He further reviewed that the plan shows aboveground retention which is not allowed by the City that would require a variance. A bridge or culvert would be required over the county ditch as well as a 50-foot wide ditch easement in accordance to the EPA. As there is open water a fence will be required. Mr. Koeth indicated that there is currently traffic issues at Barton & Bradley the Planning Commission will require the developer to conduct a traffic study. The developer will also need to look a multiple visitor parking areas not just one. The board suggested having green space or Community Park like area. The following residents were present: Mr. Bohlmann from Barton Woods, Mr. & Mrs. Bacik, Barton Woods, Ms. Boyle Barton Woods Secretary, Ms. Shariton. Residents had the following concerns; 1. Owners of Barton Woods would like to receive individual notification not just president and secretary. Planning Commission advised that if the secretary provided the contact information for each owner the clerk would give notice to each owner when proposal returns. 2. Residents are concerned about the effect the proposal will have on the existing traffic problems which currently exist. They would like to see the developer include a traffic light at Barton & Bradley and maybe widening the intersection. 3. Residents would like to see Planning Commission to review the plan first under chapter 1136.00 instead of 1127.00. The residents would like to see detailed plans before any recommendations are made. 4. Residents questioned the creak, wetlands and the City compost which abuts the parcel. They questioned what type of development could be constructed with issues such as ongoing odors and infestation of insect. 5. Residents would like to make sure proper buffering is provided for the existing homeowners, they would like to see at least a 30-foot buffer. 6. Residents are concerned about existing sewer problems and were the development would tie into. 7. Residents requested that the applicant keep their vehicles/trucks off their private drives 5