10/08/2025 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Objected to altering historic-district rules; suggested using former school sites; questioned affordability/starter-home options and transparency of timeline; cited construction disruption and broader traffic; asked about building heights and public posting of materials. • Ed Wiles—25746 Butternut Ridge Rd. Warned costs would fall on residents (values,taxes,possible road rebuild); questioned reliance on TIF;raised stormwater/overflow risks and whether acreage supports 45 units; described daily traffic difficulties; urged more planning. • Yvette Bovard—25976 Butternut Ridge Rd. Bought for historic, single-family character; opposed 45-unit density as changing district's atmosphere; supported south-side sidewalk but noted crossing difficulty; argued allowing one large sale/variance is unfair and sets precedent;urged stopping the project here. • • Tony Sapienza—25760 Butternut Ridge Rd. Said residents weren't adequately notified; cited prior shelved plan to widen Butternut and drainage issues; opposed development on Butternut as eroding historic character;. predicted further developments,rezoning unfairness vs.Landmarks rules,worsening traffic and views. • Linda Clark—25795 Butternut Ridge Rd. Moved for historic character;reported growing difficulty exiting driveway and feared added driveway opposite would create crash risk; felt earlier public exercises didn't make Butternut impacts clear; suggested a signal would be needed. • Margaret Corrigan—5930 Decker Rd. Said two-lane Butternut already serves schools/park and is unsafe;noted planned crosswalk; cited existing flooding and inadequate infrastructure;warned tree loss; opposed rezoning and cluster homes in historic area. • Mary Ellen Heman—132 Greenway South Ward 4 councilmember; said she has long opposed Butternut developments and a prior south-side proposal was quashed;felt excluded from meetings; argued this plan doesn't meet long-standing resident criteria; asked for further debate and additional amendments. • Steve Clark—25795 Butternut Ridge Rd. Said turnout shows widespread concern;many were unaware; asserted project doesn't fit the historic district; asked commission to weigh residents' points. Commission members sought several clarifications during discussion. They first confirmed that the property was privately owned and not city-owned, and that any proposed development would be subject to the same Landmarks Commission review and historic district requirements as other Butternut Ridge properties. Questions about traffic followed,with members asking for the results of the initial traffic assessment.The engineer reported an estimated increase of about 26-30 vehicle trips during peak hours—approximately seven entering and nineteen exiting in the morning, and nineteen entering and eleven exiting in the evening. Several members expressed skepticism that the number was that low, citing worsening congestion and water issues in the area. Further clarification was requested on stormwater management. The city engineer explained that, at the preliminary stage, only the general basin location and drainage concept were required, and 3