Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council discusses Bradbury Park PUD amendment; no vote as developer and planner work on draft agreement
Summary
City Council held an extended discussion of a proposed Planned Unit Development (PUD) amendment for Bradbury Park. The developer has revised the plan from 82 units to 59 units and proposes paying higher impact rates; the council did not take formal action and asked for a draft PUD agreement with utility and easement language before voting.
Flat Rock City Council discussed a proposed amendment to the Bradbury Park Planned Unit Development (PUD) but took no final vote, leaving formal approval for a later meeting after the developer provides a draft PUD agreement for review.
The council heard from Benjamin Henry, an attorney representing the Bradbury Park master association, who said the association has filed objections to the initial application and has submitted a FOIA request for related documents. City planning staff and the developer described revisions intended to address Planning Commission recommendations.
City planning staff noted the original proposal called for 82 units; the developer’s revised plan reduces that to 59 units and proposes to “compensate for the reduced density by agreeing to pay 142% of existing rates” to offset the theoretical loss in units. The planner and developer described the change as a response to Planning Commission feedback about corner lots and density.
Council members and residents raised several substantive concerns the city said should be addressed in the written PUD agreement or during final site-plan review. Those concerns included: whether closing or converting alleys would impede access to utilities (gas shutoffs, emergency access), how fence permits would be handled in easement areas, and whether engineering review of utility access and easement legal descriptions will be completed before final approvals. Council members asked that utilities and the city engineer verify that necessary access will remain available when alleys are vacated or converted.
Developers’ representatives — including Joan King (director of development/realtor) and architect/engineer John Musich — said they have attempted to respond to the Planning Commission’s conditions and are willing to work with the master association and the city to adjust the plan. Several speakers urged that a draft PUD agreement explicitly address easements, fence permits, and utility access.
City staff described the next steps under the city’s ordinance: substantial PUD amendments follow the same process as the original PUD. After the Planning Commission’s recommendation the amendment goes to council as an ordinance; final detailed site-plan approval will be handled by the Planning Commission. Because the city has not yet received the final draft PUD agreement, councilmembers agreed not to vote on the amendment at this meeting and asked staff to place the draft on the next agenda once it’s available.
The discussion closed with mutual commitments to exchange the draft PUD agreement and to include explicit language about easements and utility access; councilmembers said they want any utilities-related approvals or objections documented before a final vote.
Ending: The council left the item open and directed staff and the developer to supply a draft PUD agreement and supporting engineering/utility reviews for council and Planning Commission review before formal action.
