Laserfiche WebLink
PiI.~U'GiS <br />Ci_~y Counci.'.l <br />~~ay ?_5, 19P,3 <br />Schri_er 'Che 1?atg~i.neer sCated t:hat iie had mi.xed feelinos about the access quest~ion. <br />Proposat '?'he Eng~ineer statecl that: he i, assumi.ng Chat htr. I~raCtal.one ~a~u1r1 hui].ct <br />(ConC.) single £amil.~ homes on his property and wotild not wanC to be hoolced up <br />to ar~ a~~artment compl.ex. <br />,~tr. Daubiic;y commented thaC ~i_f concept ~xpprova7. :i.s ~rante<l, ~-1r< Schri.er <br />wi.l.~l spencl more money on deCai.led plans. If ~1r. Schri_er's concept is <br />turned down Coni.ght, then dzat ~is an indication that ,~ri appl,i.cat~ion <br />for cezoning would not be grant:ed and Nr. Schri.er *ai.l.l proceed w~i.Ch <br />CI'ie ~oni.n~; ?ie has. ltnde.r Codc~ Mr. Schrler can b~vi.lcl 1.49 apartment <br />units. Mv. I~aubney oo~i_nted out thaC very £e~a devclopers do noC ~oanC <br />to maxi.m.ize Y:he:ir dEVelopmeni;. N(x. Daubney al.so sCaced tl~i7t there <br />~I.s not reason [rom a pixbl~i.c utility or pabl.ic safety sCandpo~inC to <br />deny Mr.. Schrier's development. under the cizrrent zonin~. }lowever, <br />Sc}~irier i.s propos~i.n~; cl~~e stepped-down concept. <br />T4rs. Scalze j~oi.nt~~.>.d out that when she weis comgai~ning, s,he heard Erom <br />the people that. they di.d not want more apartments. ";heref.ore, she was <br />prepared Co vote Eo7r t:he plan ~aitkl 96 ~parement uni.CS vers~.is 1~F9 un~i_ts. <br />Mr. Pahey commenCed that the Cotmci.l. would have to beli_eve that Chere <br />oras no cooro foe a less dense devclo~meent. Pah~ey pointed o!.it th~t i1r. <br />PrlCCalone has requestcd hi.s property ~c:. reconed to T:--?_. <br />^1rs. Sczlze stated that any ayproval sl~oulcl tie in Che possibiliCy of' <br />a rold i.^ Co the ?'ratC<:il_onc prope.xt.y. <br />'fahey suggested that tl~e Engi_neer bc d~i_rected Co lool< ait t:he possibi.li.Cy <br />of this roaid to the P'eaCtal.one [>roperty. <br />`?rs. 6c<alze ,poi.nted out that th:i.s proposal. woi.il.d have to ~o to Che <br />Stat¢. Scalze stated t:l~iat shc oaly c~res Chat tl~ere nri.l.l be 7.ess <br />aparCm~nts and th~t access is ~>rov~ided to the adjacent properC~. <br />Ptr. Daubney poi.nCed out t:hat. :i.t cvould not bF in ths C~.i.ty's hest :i.nteresl <br />to txave a dedicated road as t:he. City ~aoulc be responsi.bl.c f,or Che <br />mai_nten<~ncc oF thE; road. <br />P~[rs. Scalie stat~cl Chac the Engineer s,hou7.d l.ook into Y:he possi_bility <br />of Clr,is roacl. Ir[r.. I)aubne:y sCated tkiat he h<i<t no objecki.on to tP~i.s, <br />bi.it did not. f:eel thaC i_C ~aas (easiblet. <br />h1r. Schr:i.er pointed out t1~at i4r. L'raCt:alone only has about ~t00 f.eet <br />of. propcrty bec(< to the laice. 'Ll~erefore, a cul.-de-sac caould be <br />feas~.i.ble. <br />N(r. Tahey statecl that a vote for £1r. Schrier's propos~al. i.s a votefor <br />160 multiple units as opposed Co 14~9 aparCment uni.CS. Mr. Pahey <br />stated thaC Che nei.ghborhood a~,ill. not bene[i.C at a1.7. from Che proposal. <br />Mrs. Scalze sttited Chat. the issue of o~oner-occupi.c~d dwe.ll.i.ngs i.s a bi.o <br />one. <br />Pa~;e t3- <br />