Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Residential Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Neighbors challenge 64‑lot Reserve at Sullivan PUD; commission recommends denial
Summary
Residents raised traffic, flooding and safety concerns at a public hearing for a 64‑lot preliminary planned-unit development (PUD) on the south end of Ravenwood Drive; the planning commission recommended denial after public comment and commissioner review.
The planning commission on Tuesday recommended denial of a preliminary planned-unit development named the Reserve at Sullivan (PD2501D), a proposal for 64 single-family lots south of Ridgetide Avenue and the southern end of Ravenwood Drive.
Neighbors turned out in force and voiced objections at a lengthy public hearing focused on traffic, flooding, drainage capacity and safety. Boston Weimer, a nearby resident, told the commission, "The math on this with 64 lots would be assuming they have at least 2 cars each would add an extra 128 cars to our neighborhood," and said high-school cut-through traffic already strains the neighborhood.
Applicant Jeff Diamond of Quality Engineering and Surveying described the project as concentrated on the northern portion of a 31.14-acre tract and said the design preserved a substantial area as green space and detention, adding that a detailed drainage impact study and traffic study would be required at the next stage. Diamond said the conceptual packet contained a preliminary traffic estimate and that a net-density calculator the city uses could support up to 108 lots for that site, but the applicant was proposing only 64 lots.
Commissioners cited safety, existing neighborhood traffic patterns and questions about sewer capacity and conveyance-zone impacts when discussing the project. Several commissioners said that, despite the preliminary nature of the plan, they could not support the current layout without a second access or clearer assurances about drainage and emergency access. After discussion, the commission voted and recorded a recommendation for denial.
Commissioners and staff emphasized that preliminary approval is not a construction authorization: final approval would require detailed drainage analysis, traffic mitigation recommendations and demonstration of sewer capacity, and those studies would be executed and reviewed before permits could be issued.
The applicant and neighbors discussed potential mitigations, including a temporary construction entrance, conservation easements for the southern portion of the property, and routing construction traffic to avoid imposed burdens on the existing subdivision. The commission recommended denial at the preliminary stage; the matter will be placed on the record for city council consideration in July as part of the regular review process.
