Laserfiche WebLink
r~rNUTEs <br />City Council <br />Nov. 13, 19II5 <br />Rutzick/ <br />Cardinal <br />Proposal <br />(Cont.) <br />Fahey was willing to reduce the number of parking spaces in order to <br />make room for the cliab house. <br />Mrs. Scalze asked if any of the apartment buildings were being designated <br />for senior citizens. Rutzick replied that they H~ere not. <br />Fahey asked how much of the Winter property was involved in the proposal. <br />Mr. Sherman Rutzick replied that the l~inters will retain 262 feet depth off <br />Rice Street and they will buy the rest. <br />Mr. Blesener reported that he received a couple of calls this week. <br />One was from a property owner on Iona Lane ~,vho felt that they could <br />accept the proposal, but was worried about the effect on Lot 15. <br />Blesener also received a call from the owner of Lot 15 who was worried <br />aboiat having commercial property behind her. <br />Fahey stated that concern was expressed to him that the northern Iona <br />Lane properties would not have the benefit of the 100 foot buffer zone <br />that the southern properties would have. Fahey stated that he saw no <br />good reason to rezone the blinter property in the front as it is existing <br />R-1 property and should. remain as such. <br />Mr. Fahey also reported that the iJinters have indicated that they would <br />like to keep 400 feet of depth off Rice Street. Fahey asked the ldinters <br />if they had any objection to retaining 262 feet of property along Rice <br />Street and leaving the zoning R-1. Mrs. ldinters asked if they would be <br />able to get their property zoned commercial as far back as the Boat & <br />Motor P9art property. <br />Fahey stated that if the Winters property was combined, the City would <br />probably require the same buffer zone as they are requiring of P1r. <br />Rutzick. Fahey felt that the only realistic solution for the property <br />would to leave it R-1 for now and when the property would be developed <br />it should be combined and developed as a single piece of property. <br />Fahey stated that his original concern was that the back piece of <br />property would be landlocked and undevelopable due to the Rutzick <br />development. <br />Mr. Blesener pointed out that the minimum width for a commercial piece <br />of property is 100 feet and, therefore, the two parcels ~aould have to <br />be combined to be developable. <br />Mrs. 4linters indicated that they would like to retain their property <br />back to the depth of the Boat and Motor Mart and they were agreeable <br />to keeping the property R-1. <br />Fahey indicated to the Winters that they would have no assurance from <br />the Council that the property would be rezoned commercial. Blesener <br />indicated that he wouldn't vote to rezone the property commercial <br />with a depth of 400 feet. <br />Page -6- <br />