09-25-85 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MLNU~r~s Oity Council Sept. 25, 19£35 Stenerodeii Mr< Fahey opened the public hearing on the Steneroden proposal for Proposal development of property on Rice Street adjacent to Iona Lane. Agend~ Mr. Rocky Waite appeared before Che Council on the proposal. Waite Item No. 9 explained the proposal< Mr., Waite explained that LoT.s 1 through 10 would be residential. lots and woulct conform to Ci.ty Codes, Lot Ll is proposed as 13-3. There are eio plans Lor a building for. this lot as yet. Mrs. Scalze aslced about the property south of Lot 11< Mr, Waite replied that this property is zonect 8_3> There is an older home on the pr.operty> The house is located in the ~vay for a road to go out to (tice Street. The property is owned Uy Dr. Krinke, who is astcing a large amount of money for it. Ir was poi.nted out that the lots on the south side of the proposed str.eet have both B-3 zoning and R-1.. The first four next to Sylvan Street are I2-1 and the rest 73-3, Mr. Pierce stated that the drainage ditch shown on Che plan is not where it is actually located. Mr. 'dai.te replied that when the road i.s developed, the subject ot storm se~oers wi11 have to be addressed. At this point, the devel.opers are asking for concept approval< Mr. Fahey asked if Mr. Waite would be a~reeable to a restriction on Lot 11 that only an office building could be constructed. The deveLopers stated thaC they were agreeable to this< Mrs. Scalze was concerned with commercial and resi<lential properties shari.ng a street. Scalze pointed out that if the commercial properties were not aLlowed to use the street, they could not be assessed for it, and then the cost of the street becomes too hi.gh. Mr. Prank Gau of Iona Lane pointed out that the Iona Lane property owners were promised a residential bufifer Lor Cheir streeC back in the 1960's and now B-3 zoriing is bein~; consider.ed for adjacent property. Gau stated that he wanted the K-1 zoni.ng to remain. Mr. Fahey stated that he felt the proposal was a workable one> Fahey poi.nted out that the developers could be required Y.o put the residential road in at the same time the office buildinp, would be developed. Fahey staCed that he could not see the property on Rice Street remaining R-1, Fahey f.elt: that the Council must be reasonable with the developers and try Co get the properCy developed in a manner that is fair to everyone. Mr. Ti.m Townsley, owner of LoC 15 on Iona Lane, pointed out that when he pur.chased his property there was residential zoning on all sides. Now under this proposal, he will have commerci.al uses on two sidese Tocansley caanted L-o see the property r.emai.n residential, Pa~;e -la~-