Laserfiche WebLink
t4SNU'f'E;S <br />~ City Counci.l. <br />Plov. u, 7.9F35 <br />I)r. I,L;rienlce felt that the ofFice bui.l.dfng i.n the front of the Steneroden <br />property ancl Che mini.-warehousi.ne i.n the baclc roas Che most l.ogical <br />way to develop t:he property. <br />Mr. WaiCe pointed out. tl'~at there would be a 25 foot buffet' in Che back <br />of CYie mini-,tora~e and thi.s area woul.d be t:reed and have plant:ings. <br />p1r. Piercc eisked L1o~a much chan~e ther.e Giould be in the gracle. Mr. SdaiCe <br />repl.ied thaC he di.ct not lmo~o aC Ch~is poi.nt.. P'ahey ,uggestect that the <br />Counci.l cooutd worry abouC thsC when they had something on paper. 'Lhe <br />Ci_cy Engi.neer ~aould also be loolcin~ at [he drai.nage of the area. <br />Pahey cornmented that i.t appeared to be the concensus of tl~ie Coime7.'1. thaC <br />Mr> ~dai.te should consider development of.' thc: Steneroden property wi.th <br />the ofEice bui.7.ding i.n th~ f.ront and mini-storage in Y,he baclc. <br />Waite suggested that the ol.`Eice building be thr.~ee si:ories h:igh ~ai.tt~ <br />4,000 square feet on each Pl.ooc. Nardi.ni asked ~al~at Icind of depth <br />woutd be needed :in the rezonin; Co accommodaCe t:hi.s size buildi.ng. <br />Mr, Wa:i.te thou~hC that 270 f.eet of d¢pth would be needed ~nd pointecl <br />out thaC. this would be tne shoiCest commerci.al property on Rice Street. <br />ilr. 'Cownsl.ey i.ndi.cated that he cvoul.cl be opposed co tl~ii.s. <br />The Ylannec poi.rited out Chat e.in ofF.:ice buildi.ng is onl.y occupieci fr.om <br />8 A.it. uriti.l. 5 P.M. during wee4c days. <br />Mrs. Scalz~_ felt that a three-story oLfice bui.ld~.ing was Coo roucli. 1~ahey <br />i.ndi.c~ted that he would go along wi.th a sCory and a hal.f.. Pahey Eelt <br />that the buildi.ng shoul.d be compat:ible wit:h t.he neighbochoocl. <br />Wai.te sCated that he w~s lootcing for some ~uidance from thc Counci_1.. <br />Pahe}z felt that tiie concept loolwd ~;ood. <br />P4r< Townsley felt thaC the wor.st kind oE res:idcntial c9evelopmenC caoul.c( <br />be better than an ofli.ce buildin; in hi.s bact< yar.d. <br />Mr. Coll.ov<i f.elt th2C the bul.lding sl~~ould be as far. forward as possible <br />and the parl<ing should be :i.n the badc oF the bui.lding, <br />Scal.ze a~reed that the buildi.np, should 6e compatible wi.th the nei~hborhood, <br />Mr, 't3lesener Le].t thaC any parlcin~, should be al.on~ Ricc Street and the <br />bu:i_l.di.ng shoul.d be towar.ds Che bacl< of the lot. <br />Kr. I?attey su~;gested that Mr. idai.te draw up some alter~~atives. <br />24r. Fahey stated Chat he was not opposed to rezoni_n; the 12ice: StreeC <br />property co commercial C-or a depth oF two lots. Mrs. Scalze C:e:Lt that <br />there should be a compromise i.n this area. <br />It ca~s poinC.ed out. thaC there would be Wi.nter propezty a greater depth <br />t:han two lots thaC would st-111 remain R-1 under I~ahcy's suggestion. <br />Pa~;e -9- <br />