Laserfiche WebLink
'fI"IUT~ ; <br />Sity Counci1 <br />Dec. 11, 1~35 <br />Rutzick ~iould be preservinc~ the valur_ o; their properY,y. The pro~erty is not <br />1'ro~osa1 as valuabl~ to the Iona Lane R2sirlents as it is to P,r. Rui:zick as Rutzic!< <br />(Cont.) ~vould have a commercial b~nefi~C in the prnperT.,y. <br />1=ahey poi~ited out that tn~ ass2ss;nen~Cs ~~io~ald not `>e shared for the <br />,tr^et as th~ street ~rould not henefit Rutzicr. Fahey as!<ed if the <br />neighbors ~z~ere interested in purchr.isinn ~the property for o~en space <br />~:iithout assuranc^ of a roads•ra.y 1:o tlevelop th~se lots. <br />~erqstrom thougYt th~t ~he rasidents would still be interested, but <br />~then felt that th° vali.~e o~F tr~e propert~ o~ould have to be reciuced. <br />Berqs~ro.7i stated 'chat ~h~ pro~erty had no economic re~~~ard for 'cher,~, <br />but by purchasing the property, ~he Iona Lane r^sidents s~rould. jiast b~ <br />preserving ~Y,he value they currently have. <br />F'aViey staLe~i ~that 1ie 'cti~uc~ht at; the 1~?st me~ti nq the Courici 1 hel tl ~ii t~i <br />Iona L1n~ ~that ~th2 resici~n~s iver•e r~asonably satisf~ietl ~ith a 100 foot <br />buf(~r zone. "ergstrorn stated tnac tiie residents vrere never qiven t'ne <br />choice. The only choic~ presented ~,~tas :rhe~ther the buffer zone tivoulc! <br />he 75, 100 or 12Ei f~et. <br />Fahey felt that th~ transit.ional zoninr ~,~Eas not as desirable as ~;he buffer <br />becaus:~ usual1y transitional zones occur ai: rear lot lines. ~ernstrom <br />pointed out that his ontion +`1 ~ioulc? have transitional zoning at re~r <br />1o~t lines. <br />f32rg~~trom also stated that they ~ioul~l lil<e a buf~fer zone in exrhange for <br />upzoning to a f,rans1tion~~1 aone. <br />Fahey feli: t'n~t ths~ property was no~t wi<le enough to nrovide Por a buffer <br />r_one pl us <level onment on the hii nter property. ~ Ir. '3ergstro~n di sagreed. <br />rahey asl<ed if the neighborhoocl has completely r:~jected the icf;~a of a <br />bi.~~Pf~r zon~? 3ergs~trom stated t'na~t a 3~~ Toot 'ni~h apartment building <br />1 DO feet a~;vay from t9iei r property 1 i nes bAroi.il d clrval i,~e Che property. <br />7hcr~ saould be the loss of privac,y, the buffer zone ~,!o~.ild attract '<ids <br />and debree. <br />`D2rgstror.~ stated tFiat th2y ~-!ou1d nr~Fer the stepped-clo!•en zoning apnroach. <br />Berystrorn pointed out t'na~t P1rs. Tinnnons, uaho is a realtor, ~ic?rees that <br />tl~ie aoartment t~ui 1 cPi ng +~aoul d c{eval ue the Iona l an~ pron2rty and ina'<e <br />sale difficult. <br />4'a'ney q~.iestioned if ~there woi.ild be ~~~ore impact ivi~th at>ia¢~~r p~ne or <br />~~!it~ developm2nt i.~p to tona Lane's rear lot lines. eergstrom felt <br />t'nat a.ny c!eveloper ~iotald preserve th~. w.oocied arca ad;jacent to th~ rear <br />lot lines and tnis vrould en,~ance the val!ie o~f ~th~ lots. <br />Fah^y asi:~cl the s~i dth nf the tree 1 i ne on ~he ~,~i nter properl,y. P~1r. <br />f3ergstrom replietl thaC it «as SO ~0 100 fc~i,~;~id~e from ~h~ bac~ o~P ~the <br />Ioria Lane lot lines. <br />°acae -~}- <br />