04/04/2006 Meeting Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Council Minutes of 4/4/06 residential properties, which would include the ability to build there. In other words, once this was rezoned, certain side yard requirements would kick in which would limit development on adjacent residential properties. There was discussion about the increase in potential traffic through Timber Trails as well as Barton Road. Discussion was had concerning the issue of the potential for flooding, bath starmwater and sanitary, because someone brought up the issue they did not believe the sanitary sewer system on Bradley was sufficient to handle these issues. Members of Council questioned the need for the side yard variances separate and apart from this and questioned the drainage system for the site including location of the dry basin near French Creek. Councilman Orlowski brought up the footer drainage system for the structures. A question was presented by Council Member Dailey Jones concerning the proximity of the drive to the nearby Timber Trails access. The committee unanimously recommended to hold the matter in committee and the issue of zoning, particularly the entire area of zoning, as originally brought forward in the city's master plan, be brought forward to a Committee-of-the- Whole meeting to be discussed to get the will of Council as to what direction to proceed. To do otherwise would be to pass judgment an the project while not passing judgment on the zoning. Conformity and direction are needed so as to not put the city in a bad light. No further action on the proposal and no administrative action to comply with the requests of City Engineer Becker will take place until such time as the committee meeting is had and same consensus is reached by City Council. The proposal was held in committee, and the zoning issue was forwarded to the Council President to be presented at aCommittee-of-the-Whole." Planning Director Wenger provided an overview of the project. Following that report, which substantially mirrors the report provided to Council on February 21, he provided to Council a communication received from Mr. John Thomas concerning his opposition to the project. (That communication will be read during Letters and Communications.) Residents in attendance were advised that the notice provisions of the N. O. code were followed for that meeting. They were further advised that individual notice was provided by him to certain individuals given the fact that they had specifically requested it at the meeting in February. This is not required by our code and is not normal procedures and operations-simply was a courtesy. He provided a statement of proceedings. He advised those in attendance that the Architectural Review Board had heard the proposal July 21, 2004 and- September 22, 2004. Planning Commission had addressed the rezoning proposal component of this project on March 23, 2004 and April 27, 2004. The site plan was addressed by the Planning Commission on September 28, 2004, December 14, 21)04, January 25, 2005, June 14, 2005 and August 9, 2005. He noted that the applicant withdrew from scheduled meetings on March 3, 2004, October 12, 2004, October 26, 2004, February 22, 2005, March 8, 2005, April 12, 2005, April 26, 2005 and July 12, 2005. Attorney Bruce Rinker of Mansour, Gavin, Gerlack & Manos addressed the committee. He was recently retained by the developer. Mr. Rinker acknowledged the sensitive nature of the rezoning. But in his opinion, he believed that rezoning of this particular area to single family cluster from limited industry was compatible with the residential character of the neighborhood. Mr. Rinker referenced various pages of the 2005 master plan, including pages 21, 78 through 82 and 81, to demonstrate why he believed this to be an appropriate rezone. The master plan recommended a residential use for what is known as focus area A. It did not recommend' any particular type of residential use. Mr. Rinker further believed that the Council should follow the 7 ~.