Laserfiche WebLink
~INU'C7iS <br />Ci.ty Council. <br />Nov. 6, 19f35 <br />The se.cond alternative would be to p.,et access from the Schri.er property. <br />.tt would cost between $25,000 an<1 :~35,000 .Eor the purchase oE the l.ot. <br />'Phere caoul.d be about $15,000 in assessments againsc the proPerty and <br />woul.d be problems with comrnercial and resi.clential mixe<l lots. <br />The t.hird al.ter.native woul.d be to ~eC <iccess from CounY.y Boacl C, b~it <br />ch~~C would involve the condemnaCion of a IZOUSe and ChE: deveLopers would <br />encL up ~oith excess footage. tA1so, there woulcl t~e a cul-tle-sac over <br />1.,000 feeC l.ong. ['i.nally, tPiere wout.d be abou[ $80,000 in assessments <br />Chat ~aoulci not be ass~:ssabl.e. <br />Mr. F'al~ey asked Wai[e kiis preLerence. Fahey pointecl out th~l from <br />a cosC statndpoint i.t wo~ld be l.ess expensi.v~ to come i.n f:rom Sylvan <br />>tree~, <br />Mr. Wai.te reportecl Chat Dr.< ICrienlce is not interested i.n sellin~ just <br />Che one par.cel that he would necd and Wai.te. cannot afEord Co purchase <br />all the property. ,91.so, Schri.er is not. i.nterested i.n sellin~. 4dai.Ce <br />asl<ed t:he City iahaC they wanted to do. <br />Mr. Fahc:y stated tha[: I~e was not adverse t:o condemn:i.ng a developcr's <br />1ot, but would noC be in Eavor. of condemni.no a resi.dent:ial home. <br />Sca7.ze stated that if access ca~s Chrough Schri.er's pro~erty, t.he <br />CiCy could not a71ow commercial tr~if:ic t:hrough the Schri.er devel.opment. <br />1'4s. Nard~i.n~i pointed out thaat Che Ci.ty Counci.l a1.re~ady i_ndicatect to i~1r. <br />Wr.~:iCe T.hat the Ci.ty caould not he i.nterested in access tk~r.ou~;h Schrier's <br />devel.opment due to the dumping of commerci.al craff`i.c in the Schrier <br />development. <br />P1r. ldai.te stated that iL Che City wants h:i.m t:o access of'f. of Rice Street, <br />he w:i.ll. work on it. ScalzEt pointed out Chat Wa1.te had the options of <br />access f.r.om eiCher Rice Street or County Road C. Fahey commented that: <br />he woul.d noc be in f+svor. of condemni.nf; a homa: on Count:y Road C. <br />Pahey 21so po'inted out that the commercial depth shoul.d be the same on <br />both sides of Iona Lane, Mrs. Scal.ze felt thaC Che commerciaJ. •r.oning <br />should only ,n,o 130 feet baclc f:rom Rice SLreeC, Fahey fclt thaC khi.s <br />oras too narro~v. <br />Mrs. Scalze poi.nted out thaC the homes on Lots 1S and 2 on Lona Lane <br />w~i.1.~1 ^ot: want commere:ial zonting; behind T,hem. Scal.se f.e1t that commercial <br />zonin~; behind these I~omes wi.l1 decrease t:he: value of the homes. <br />~fr.s. icalre did not f.ee1 that only going baclc 130 feet would cause a <br />problem and i:>oi.nted out that Curley's TV and 7':i.erney's are matci.ng a <br />1i.vi.ng on their properties. <br />Pakiey felc t:hat 1.30 Ieet wo~ilcl i.mpact the 1lomes on Lots 7_ and 15 anyway <br /><.~nd felt that comroercial zoni.ng two lots dee~ woulcl be reasonat~le. <br />Page -7- <br />