09-26-01 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

rv[INU~r>Js CITY COUNCIl., S~PTEM,BER 2G, 2001 land would accrue through the vacation would become a part of this development proposal. Montanari reported that he has 4.3 acres of land, the development meets density requirements, and would also include two park areas and a walking path from the senior building to Rice Street to access transit services. Montanari felt the proposal was a nice fit for the area and pointed out that the land has sat idle for some time. Montanari felt it may be some tune before anyone proposes a townhome development on this site. Montanari pointed out that the wetlands on the property need to be cleaned up and maintained, which he would do. LaValle stated that he was concerned about increased traffic on Park Street from the ln'oposed development. Montanari felt the traffic generated fora 44- unit senior apartment proposal would be comparable to a 22-unit townhome development that is the density that would be permitted for this size property. LaValle stated that he thought the townhome concept approved by the Council last year was an 8-unit development. Fahey pointed out that an offee development would be consistent with the zoning of the property. Fahey stated that he had a strong objection to additional apartments in the City noting the high percentage of apartments that currently exist. Fahey felt that if senior housing is developed, the City should be involved, and the development should be located in areas where services are available. Fahey noted that the City reviewed this site last year and agreed to a concept for townhome development. Fahey did not support spot zoning to allow for additional apartment development in the City. He felt, however, that the townhome concept previously reviewed would be an appropriate transitional use for the area. Scalze pointed out t1re single-family development along Park Street and agreed that townhomes would be a good transitional use. Scalze felt the senior apartments proposed was too high a density for this area. Montour noted that Montanari has identified a need for senior housing in the City, and suggested that such a use might work on this property. Montour stated that his concern was that the proposal looks like au apartment building. He suggested that while the intention may be for senior apartments, there was no guarantee that these units would remain designated for seniors in the years to come. Montom~ suggested that he might support the proposal if there were architectural changes to the building and a way to guarantee that the emits would remain senior housing.