My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
09-14-2016 Workshop Packet
>
City Council Packets
>
2010-2019
>
2016
>
09-14-2016 Workshop Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/23/2019 10:28:19 AM
Creation date
9/23/2016 5:18:14 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
16
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
would have traffic volume equal to a 12 lot subdivision. (13 lots were discussed at the <br />last neighborhood meeting or 29 townhomes.) He went on to state that a typical assisted <br />living project is sized between 36 and 48 units.) Lastly, he stated that from a site impact <br />standpoint, the assisted living project will likely have the least impact to the site in terms <br />of grading and tree disturbance given that it would only need about 1/3 of the site to be <br />built out. He noted that a single family or townhome development would likely disturb <br />the entire site to accommodate grading for streets, utilities, and house pads. <br /> <br />After considerable discussion among the seven residents present, the key statements were <br />as follows: <br /> <br /> Some of those present favored the assisted living project due to the potential for <br />less impact to the site. <br /> Assisted living should be limited to one story in height to help it fit in with the <br />neighborhood. <br /> Some opposed assisted living, stating it would depreciate property values, <br />generate too much traffic, be too intense of a development for the neighborhood, <br />and would be out of character for the neighborhood. <br /> Some opposition to the road off of Banker’s Drive to Twin Lake Boulevard was <br />received. It was felt single family drives could access Twin Lake Boulevard and <br />the road was not that busy. <br /> One resident felt the site should be left “as is”. We do not need to develop every <br />parcel in the City. <br /> Townhomes were the least preferred option at tonight’s meeting due to it being <br />out of character with the neighborhood and too intense of a project. <br /> The City should wait until the housing market improves if we want to maximize <br />the value of the site. <br /> <br />The City Administrator stated tonight’s comments would be presented to the City <br />Council. He could not say when they would move forward with an RFP due to the <br />currently soft market. He did say that the Council might choose to go ahead with all <br />three options and see what developers present. He noted that the City would have <br />extensive public input into this process that would include an open house or hearings to <br />review the proposals, hearings on rezoning, if necessary, and hearings on platting. <br /> <br />The City Administrator thanked the residents for their attendance and comments.
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.